Defining NASA
In discussions lately with my fellow travelers at NASA, we’ve been getting down to the fundamentals of defining ourselves as an agency and determining our value. More than a few people I’ve talked to agree that we struggle with communicating that to the public because we haven’t really figured out the “why” ourselves. This is a conversation that we should be having at all levels, both internally and publicly, and OpenNASA is an ideal forum for it.
We need an answer to the question “Why?” that is stronger than esoteric notions of destiny and the role of great nations. Our answer should reflect the values and concerns of the people we share this great country with. Our answer to the question “Why?” could be how NASA is helping solve America’s present problems as we build for the future.
We’ve always had pride in this organization as being comprised of America’s best and brightest – people who have a passion for what is arguably humanity’s greatest accomplishment. We have a reputation for being problem solvers. We’ve inherited the legacy of the men and women who put crews on the Moon and brought every one of them back. We can embrace that heritage and make it our own.
NASA could be defined as an agency whose primary mission is the utilization of the solar system’s resources to meet our society’s needs. Figuring out how we can help solve the strategic problems facing our country – “space solutions,” if you will – would give us the credibility and support to build a truly space-faring civilization. This would involve shifting our priorities so that basic science & exploration are geared towards supporting the development of those “space solutions”.
The economy is what Americans are more concerned about than anything else today. The problems of the energy crisis and climate change are inescapably intertwined with those economic concerns. NASA has an opportunity to take a position of leadership in deriving achievable solutions to those two problems, by virtue of our long-standing Earth Science and engineering disciplines. The economic benefits of providing our country with large-scale energy solutions and climate change mitigation strategies would make our value both tangible and inarguable.
Whether it’s reliable, safe nuclear power derived from research for interplanetary ships or space solar power or even concepts we haven’t thought of yet (perhaps all built with resources from asteroid mining?), we can create opportunities where human ingenuity is needed and our story becomes part of everyone else’s. We can connect science and exploration to real-world problem solving on a much broader scope than we do today.
The NASA motto is “For the benefit of all”. I think the best way to communicate that benefit is by demonstrating it. What do ya’ll think?
4 Responses to “Defining NASA”
Leave a Reply
BD on May 20th, 2008
I like this answer, which I heard from the webcast of the 3rd Space Exploration Conference:
“NASA is the most visible symbol of American leadership you can find for .58% of the federal budget.”
rquintanilla on May 22nd, 2008
I think that NASA is an important symbol in America’s economic strength, much like the pyramids were for the Egyptians. The symbol is only one facet of the utility of NASA. The utility and motive of NASA should be stretching the limits of American Ingenuity by going where no one has gone before.
Ferrari invests heavily in the Formula One cars not only because it is a symbol of their dominance, but because the research that comes out of this competitive endeavor provides the groundwork for future cars. I am not sure if Ferrari is still the dominant car in the Formula One but it was meant to be an analogy.
We should be providing the groundwork for America’s future. I do think that NASA is too stretched, trying to do too much and not excelling as much as it should in any. This is my perception, I don’t know if it is true — my perception is based on the basis of this post.
Specific_Impulse on May 24th, 2008
As an industry engineer I can tell you that most knowledgeable people outside of NASA are appalled at the direction it has taken in the past 2-3 years. Trade studies that steered the ESAS architecture were completely contrived to fit the notions of your administrator who is probably the most vicious and intolerant individual most of us have ever run into. Mr Griffin deliberately suppresses technical discussions that oppose his pipedreams. He has no ethical problem with simply calling up our CEO and forcing the removal of AIAA papers (dozens of them) that contradicted assertions of his ESAS study, Between him and his henchman Scott Horowitz they did this nearly a half dozen times. This attitude alone and the internal behaviors it fosters will stop NASA from going anywhere near the moon. That is a certainty.
The selected architecture is just about the most inefficient conceivable from a technical and also economic standpoint. It is clearly is a sophomoric effort by someone who has never actually designed a launcher or understands what drives costs. NASA has systematically eliminated industry input that they knew would contradict their positions. This is an ego-driven attitude from leadership and will not only undermine the exploration efforts but directly impact the launch industry in the US. In other words NASA is working in direct opposition to its charter.
Everyone in industry knows that the whole exploration effort has been steered by a desire to make jobs at NASA. But even in that it will fail since the whole scheme is far too protracted and expensive and will be hacked by future administrations. It will be another ISS- an expensive thing with minimal utility. A toy abandoned almost as soon as it is finished being built. Shameful.
Now obviously I am in the launch industry and it could be construed that I have an axe to grind. 3 years ago you could not have found a more enthusiastic fan of exploration. We spent thousands of hours, much of it on our own time, creating an architecture that was not only workable but was affordable. We condensed it down to two main engine types and two main tank designs. It was extensible to indefinite lunar stays and even supported Mars with minimal changes. We were freaked out when our management bloated the total cost of the launcher system ( centered on an 80t LEO) to a whopping $2.5B. But at least that was a certified price. We were pissed that they had priced us out of competition. Little did we know that NASA would prefer to spend over $20B to get an inferior system! We simply could not believe this decision making. And then the whining that NASA cannot get the job done on its scarce budget. We, people who REALLY design rockets for a living, are infuriated. We see terrible designs that we would kill in a first cut design review becoming the anchor elements for the next 30 years.
I imagine this perspective is a wee bit annoying to you. I would not take the time to write this if I did not still have the desire to do real exploration in my lifetime. I truly urge the smart NASA engineers out there to stop kowtowing to management and stand up for what you know is true. Educate yourself. Do the numbers yourself. When you see shit design- call it what it is. I know many great NASA engineers who tell me time and again that they are afraid to go against the will of management. If you young engineers don’t start acting in a technically responsible way I guarantee you that you will preside over the biggest NASA debacle yet seen. It will make Shuttle look like a wondrous success. And it will be the death of NASA.
You can, of course, treat this as sour-grapes drivel. But recognize I am far from being the only person out there with this perspective. It is widespread. Most other engineers have just thrown up their hands in frustration and are now sitting back and watching the spectacle unfold. It is really sad to watch but something like a car crash compilation on YouTube.
z
rgray on May 30th, 2008
Freedom
One day soon, humans are going to leave Earth and embark on long duration space missions to explore our solar system and universe. In their space ship they will take along with them provisions such as food, air, and rocket propellant; however, more importantly they will take along with them on their journey their values. It is crucial for all future humans throughout the galaxies that the first values to be firmly implanted on other planets are American values, specifically how freedom is valued in the U.S.
To keep the universe free for all people and creatures (earth born or not) is why Americans must never give up on the space program. If America is not the first to settle the planets of our solar system and the other heavenly bodies, and freedom isn’t allowed there then we have failed and will remain stuck on this one area of rock forever.