I understand where you’re coming from. And true, when it comes to new spacecraft, NASA hasn’t designed, built, and flown a new spacecraft in a long time. But neither have any private companies. I’m not so warped to think NASA can solve all the world’s problems in spaceflight- a lot of times it will help to just get out of the way. But there are a ton of smart people at NASA (who wear many different badges) who’ve spent years building up practical knowledge about what it takes to keep people and hardware alive and working in space. It would be a shame not to take advantage of all that knowledge.

cm17,

My point was that this change only makes sense if it really frees NASA up to do more exploration, which is what the agency was founded to do. And if it shakes things up and leads to an organization that’s more adaptable to change and thinking in new ways, that’s a good thing. I share a lot of the same concerns about not having a specific new mission and hope that we’ll get to craft what those specific new missions look like in the coming weeks/months.

Plus, I was hungry at the time.

Garret

That’s a nice list, but it’s a list of science projects since most are systems that were designed in the 70s, have never flown, are not directly involved in spacecraft design, or are being provided by the Russians or some other non-NASA organization. Furthermore, all these things are really done by NASA contractors.

As far as what determines what the federal government is responsible for, you might want to consider the US Constitution. Specifically, you might want to look at Article 1, Section 8. You’ll note that NASA isn’t in the list.

A.

Yes, the role of NASA as an operations organization (someone building/operating spacecraft to build the ISS, move crews to and from the ISS, and move supplies to and from the ISS is going away). OK, it is change, and as Bolden pointed out on Wednesday, that was actually the plan in the late 80’s anyway: take NASA out of the “run the thing we built” role and enter the next “build something newer and better role.” OK, fine. I think I can deal with it.

But, being in a position to notice, I think what many NASA people fear most is the fact that Obama has not provided a “newer and better job to do next.”

JFK and LBJ set us off with sending people to the Moon and then bringing them safely back to Earth.

After Apollo, the task was to build a space station and a long term human habitat in space.

After the loss of Columbia, G. W. Bush said let’s move away from our current projects, test out some new equipment on the Moon (preferably in regions humans have not visited before) and then send people to Mars, study the planet, then bring those people back to Earth. Cool! So we start on that. Sadly, most people want to change the destination or change the designs of the vehicle to go there, but at least we start work and our work is aimed at a goal.

Now Obama says: no Moon, no Mars. Go to your labs and tinker on stuff. Stuff that will someday be useful for some mission to some place at some point in time. But he doesn’t name the place. He doesn’t name the time. He doesn’t name what we will do there. When people ask his appointed staff what the mission is, they either give a non-answer or say they need more time to figure that out. But they know for sure they want to cancel what NASA is working on now.

So now there are a bunch of NASA people wondering what the hell they are supposed to do. They have a directive that says build new and better engines, but they don’t know how big they need to be, how much mass they will need to move, where they will be operating, how long they will need to operate, in what conditions they will need to operate, etc. Should this engine work at sea level, in the upper atmosphere, in deep space, or near a gritty landing spot on some other world, or near an icy landing spot on some other world? Should that engine run on hydrogen (probably not – the DC folks are saying that is too old school for them). OK, how about kerosene like the Russians use for some of their rocket engines, including the one in Atlas V. Is that better? Or how about Methane, which isn’t as efficient, but maybe could be made out of Mars dust, which would be useful if we go to Mars, but we don’t know if we are going to Mars and thus have MArs dust.

Should NASA design new parachutes and heat shields? Well, if NASA was sending people some place with an atmosphere then maybe NASA would do that. But NASA doesn’t know if the goal will be to go someplace with an atmosphere.

It’s hard to believe that Obama has plans to send NASA exploring, when he hasn’t said where he wants NASA (or any private space development company for that matter) to be able to send people (other than ISS, of course).

Yes, many people will be annoyed at the propect at their work getting cancelled before it flies, but those same people might feel better if there was a plan to do something else. Instead, there is no plan for anything else. There is just the promise of cash to spend tinkering on stuff in a lab that might be useful for some project To Be Determined later. We just better hope that all the smart NASA people naturally start building stuff that will be compatible with other people’s stuff and will be useful for the same mission/destination to be named later.

Sadly, after several years around NASA people, I think we can be guaranteed that without a guiding project, the stuff that is developed won’t work together and won’t be suited for the same task. Instead, NASA will be left with a bunch of spare parts that can’t be assembled into anything of substance.

NASA will just be drifting until someone else comes up with a definite mission, gets the funding, and orders NASA to begin exploration in that direction. I hope such a person stands up soon. But, I think many are assuming that it will take at least 3-4 years for that to happen.

Also, I’m not determining what the federal gov’t is responsible for- its in NASA’s charter: “The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.” Not everything for which there is no market falls to the responsibility of the gov’t; only those that the people (the American public and their democratically elected officials) feel are important enough to pay for, which still includes space exploration.

And as for the use of force in collecting taxes, I’m not sure this is the right forum for that discussion.

Thanks,
Garret

I really like your Cheese analogy. Great post.

I don’t disagree with most of what you said, but I did say design and _economical_ operation. Very few of the current cadre at NASA know anything about manned spacecraft design as they weren’t even born the last time it was done. And as far as economical operation, well, that’s self evidently missing.

Bottom line is that the private sector doesn’t have any farther to go than NASA does. In fact, they might be closer as they don’t have to un-learn bad habits.

Justin,

MOD has a very narrow expertise: shuttle operations. Expensive shuttle operations. In fact, much of how MOD does business today is what needs to be un-learned as it is not sustainable.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s not the people involved that are lacking — they are some of the most capable people on the planet. It’s the organizational structure that is flawed. The private sector will always out-perform the public sector in value creation.

A.

I honestly think NASA has a great deal to teach about manned spacecraft design as NASA is the only entity in the United States to do that successfully multiple times; in fact, besides DOD (who doesn’t share anything with anyone), NASA is the only entity that’s done manned spacecraft design in the U.S. Just look at the shuttle’s track record. What type of vehicle, any type of vehicle, that is as complex as the shuttle with is amazing track record?

I think it’s great that the private sector is finally getting into spaceflight, but it has a long way to go. Much of the research data and design ideas they will be using will be NASA-generated ideas and research data.

Why do you think NASA has something to teach private companies about manned spacecraft design or economical operation? NASA hasn’t done the former in over 30 years and has never done the latter. Seems like you have it backwards.

How do you determine what the federal government is responsible for? Is everything for which there is no market a responsibility of the federal government?

Finally, you are holding many guns. Or, more accurately, your agents are. Government is the only organization that holds a monopoly on the use of force. I can assure you that when someone doesn’t empty their wallet to pay your salary, guns will show up at the door.

A.