O'Keefe Wants Advice on Exploration, Financial Management
Aviation Week & Space Technology
11/08/2004, page 23
Edited by David Bond
Free Advice
With human exploration of the Moon and Mars still on the national agenda after President Bush's election victory, NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe is looking for some help on how to accomplish it. The day after the election he announced formation of an "Exploration Systems Advisory Committee" of outside experts that, like the broader NASA Advisory Council, will give second opinions on NASA's plans to build the rockets and spacecraft needed for the push beyond low-Earth orbit. NASA headquarters also issued a request for information on "capability roadmaps" to guide its planning. And O'Keefe is setting up an outside "Financial Audit Committee" to advise him on financial management.
Global warming is slowly changing the Earth equilibrium. Physical systems that are perturbed in their equilibrium can suddenly fall into another, completely different, equilibrium, for example a new ice era. Imagine a scenario where it becomes impossible to inhabit Earth anymore: wouldn't t he best thing we could possibly do to invest everything we can into space exploration?
And, to go further in the same hypothesis, the only known way humans could eventually reach other planets with reasonable resources and within reasonable time is nuclear technology. The targets we have in our solar system (the Moon, Mars, Jupiter or Saturnus moons) don't seem to have a friendly environment to offer. If Earth-like planets are discovered around Alpha Centauri, it would be temptating to emigrate there, but the one-way travel would take in mimimum five generations...
Forgive me, but your "catastroph scenario" seems like a bit of a non-sequitor to "Moon and Mars still on"
You might possibly entice some World-ender types with your question, "wouldn't the best thing we could possibly do to invest everything we can into space exploration?" but most other folks have grown tired of the endless series of doomsday scenarios which never come to pass....
Besides, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that you couldn't move anything close to a significant fraction of the Earth's population to another celestial body -- no matter how inviting its environment might be (or not).
The most we can possibly hope to do along the lines of space exploration related to saving human kind (or more likely a small fraction thereof), is detection and deflection (if the need arises) of near-earth asteroids on a collision course. But it seems to me that this should be a separate program from basic science exploration -- and separate from precursor missions to eventual colonisation -- of the Solar System. It should be more along the lines of ballistic missile defense. Much of the technology is related anyway, and some of the threat scenarios in fact involve small NEO impacts being mistaken for a nuke attack, triggering a catastrophic (locally) missile exchange.... This is the type of thing that is both practical and affordable, hence more likely to be supported by policy makers.
I am not talking about saving the Earth population. A tiny fraction of it surviving somewhere else than on Earth could increase considerably the chances for human kind to survive.
Human space exploration has no other motivation than offering an opportunity for science and technology to develop, with ultimate applications on Earth. Why not grant it a more heroic objective?
I agree with Philipum; Moon and Mars still on in spite of war.
Some people fail to view the drag on the 'collective spirit' if our societies' purpose is solely war making. It's not the ultimate responsibility of any organization to provide the access into space as much as it's the individual citizens responsibility they have a desire to continue deep space exploration and commercialization of solar system and beyond. Don't look for reasons there's plenty of pro & con to go around.
Look to educating your public on the need to reach for a higher raison d' etre (reason of being) .
I'm all for exploration and development. But I'm more for American dominance of the high frontier. The U.S. has a lot invested in space, and I think it's prudent for the U.S. to protect that investment. Sorry if that irritates the rest of the world, but it's coming. Especially with Bush winning re-election.
I would be careful with the word 'dominence' as this contains a certain expectation of military aggression. I would prefer to use the word 'lead' as this implies a more peaceful, cooperative and mutually friendly effort.
All political correctness issues asside (I don't consider myself to be politically correct!) I would like to see the US take a more proactive approach to space exploration.
I would like to see a greatly expanded space program to encompass robotic exploration of the Near Earth Asteroids for future resource extraction.
I would like to see an expanded effort to complete the Internation Space Station. We have but fifty billion into that thing--let's finish it and get what we can out of it before it falls apart!
I would like to see the US replace the Space Shuttle with a Next Generation Vehicle--perhaps by splitting cargoes and crews apart. Build a larger cargo only vehicle that lift huge payloads. And develop a smaller, lighter, more menuverable lifting body vehicle with a monolithic heat shield (instead of tiled) for ferrying crews to and from the Space Station. Also, I would like to see a dedicated space rescue system composed of one or more of these vehicles situated in silos at Cape Canaveral, or elsewhere. These dedicated vehicles could be 'hot' launched (directly from the silos) on short notice to rescue stranded crews at the space station or Low Earth Orbit, and could be used to ferry emergency supplies or spare parts on an emergency basis. They could also serve as a secondary or tertiary backup to the assured crew return vehicles already docked to the space station.
I would like to see an expanded role of nuclear power in space for energy production and propulsion.
I would like to see more work done on Electro Dynamic Tether Propulsion--this currently is the only viable means of shifting the space stations orbital plane from its currently (and nearly useless) 51 degree inclination to a one more closely aligned with the equator.
Also, I would like to see VASIMIR tested either as a stand alone mission or as a component of the space station for reboosting the station.
I would like to see the ESA launch complex in the French Guiana expanded to include the capability of Launching Russian Soyuz rockets. This added redundancy and expanded orbital plane capacity for the Soyuz rockets would greatly increase the overall safety for all crews operating in space.
Space is for all of us, not just the U.S. of A. The US might take the lead in certain areas, but many other countries are willing and able to contribute. "Space for all mankind" might sound like a cliche, but the reality is that a carefully integrated international space effort can greatly improve the overall safety to everyone involved. Eventually when people work, live and permanently settle in the places once only visited by space probes generations before, these places will become theirs. And space will thus become ours.
) I would like to see the US take a more proactive approach to space exploration.
