President Trump signs the new 2017 NASA Authorization bill. Is a new version of the National Space Council in the works?
News reports indicate that some version of a national space council (with Vice-President Mike Pence as chair) might be established. For some, the idea of a White House-level committee designed to monitor the nation’s space program may seem like a new idea, but in fact, it originated at the dawn of our civil space program. The purpose of a space council is to provide executive oversight of major space programs, both to ease possible obstructions that might arise during execution of a program and to assist in coordinating contributions from different entities participating in a national effort.
Different space councils have taken a variety of forms over the past 60 years, ranging from being intimately involved in the creation and implementation of policy to virtual non-existence. The most famous incarnation of the concept was the National Space Council under President George H.W. Bush, who conceived an ambitious plan of human exploration of the Moon and Mars. Reports detailing the announcement of that major initiative and its subsequent fate make for doleful reading, but in order to understand both the strengths and weaknesses of a space council, this story and the events leading up to it need to be retold.
The late 1980s was a depressing time for America’s space program. Following the loss of the Challenger Space Shuttle in 1986, there was an extended pause in human spaceflight – a shadow had been cast on the idea that access to space had become “routine.” More significantly, the then-next NASA program (Space Station Freedom) was caught in an endless loop of design and revision; not a single piece of station hardware had been launched by the end of that decade. Following more than a year of work, including public hearings and getting input from a wide variety of experts, an ambitious report on future space activities from a Presidential Commission (The National Commission on Space, which included luminaries such as Neil Armstrong) was released to near-universal indifference. Yet within NASA, teams of engineers and scientists had devised detailed plans for a human return to the Moon, as well as first-order studies of possible architectures for a follow-on mission to Mars.
In January of 1989, as the last phases of the Cold War were being playing out and Soviet influence and power were rapidly declining, President George H.W. Bush began his administration. The defense build-up of the Reagan years had created an American technological juggernaut of unsurpassed power and excellence. An unanswered question at the time was, “What is to become of this capability?” The United States was the most powerful country in the world, yet absent the imminent threat of a Soviet Union, such capability would likely dissipate. How then could this technological base – a national industrial and human capital infrastructure of immense power and capability and a major contributor to national wealth and innovation – be maintained, if not at its current level, then at least at levels high enough to be resurrected in times of some future national need or emergency?
One answer was to channel these capabilities toward other productive endeavors, ones that required high technology, large industrial capacity, and human capital working in an intellectually challenging environment. Although never so articulated by the Bush administration, it is my belief that it was decided that those requirements could be met by using some of these Cold War capabilities for the civil space program. This transfer of effort would accomplish several goals: we would maintain our technical innovative edge (a capability necessary for future conflicts and one that also contributed to our national wealth) and re-invigorate the moribund space program by adopting a challenging – yet reachable – set of goals. On July 20, 1989, President G.H.W. Bush stood on the steps of the National Air and Space Museum and announced the “Space Exploration Initiative” (SEI). It called for a human return to the Moon (“this time, to stay”) and a human mission to Mars. No timelines or detailed plans were produced for these journeys; instead, the SEI was laid out as a national strategic direction for the manned civil space program following the completion of the then-planned Space Station Freedom.
The subsequent fate of the SEI does not concern us here, but I note the role of the Space Council in the conception and execution of this major Presidential initiative. The Council conceived the SEI on the well-intentioned grounds of setting a challenging goal for the space program, one that would deliver significant benefits in technology development and also have enormous inspirational power. Once adopted and announced by the President, they carefully monitored NASA’s reactions and implementations of the SEI, noting where it fell short and taking appropriate actions, including eventually recommending the replacement of the Administrator. This was an entirely appropriate and justified set of actions and the subsequent Aldridge Commission carefully considered this example in the formulation of their report.
After a decade and a half of agency confusion, a second Shuttle disaster – the loss of the Shuttle Columbia in February 2003 – initiated a yearlong White House review of the direction of the U.S. space program. Once again, a return to the Moon followed by a human Mars mission was the direction selected, but this time, circumstances were different. The construction of a revised version of Space Station (the International Space Station, ISS) had been initiated and was progressing well. Many still fantasized about a human Mars mission, but the cognizant recognized that such a goal was beyond the fiscal and technical capabilities of the agency. On the other hand, as a result of two robotic missions flown in the 1990s (Clementine and Lunar Prospector), and in contrast to earlier SEI days, by 2004 we knew that the Moon’s poles contained both the material (e.g., water ice) and energy (e.g., near-permanent sunlight) resources needed to establish a sustained human presence there. Finally, unlike the previous SEI (and significant for its early fate), the new initiative had been briefed and found support from Congress, both houses of which were controlled by the President’s own party.
The goals of the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) announced by President George W. Bush in January 2004 were the Moon (with an emphasis on developing and using its resources) and eventually, Mars. The President also announced that a commission would be convened to make recommendations on how the VSE would be implemented. This group was charged to consider the “Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy” and was chaired by former Secretary of the Air Force Pete Aldridge. In its report issued in mid-2004, one of its notable recommendations was to resurrect the Space Council.
This recommendation drew some criticism, in part because of the track record of previous space councils. But as a member of the Aldridge Commission, I can attest to my own motivations for supporting the idea. I was concerned (rightly, as it turned out) that without it, the agency would follow its own direction and inclinations, rather than the stated policy outlined by President Bush in his VSE speech. A sizeable contingent within NASA opposed a return to the Moon, favoring instead an Apollo-style Mars mission, and they set about to “slow roll” the lunar part of the Vision. To give but one example of this, a workshop was held in the spring of 2006 to consider exactly why we were going to the Moon, despite the fact that the mission of lunar return had been clearly stated in the 2004 announcement of the VSE (“…we will undertake extended human missions to the moon as early as 2015, with the goal of living and working there for increasingly extended periods.”). The Mars lobby within NASA continually attempted to demote and minimize lunar activities in the years that the VSE was in force (they were more concerned with an “exit strategy” for the Moon than they were in getting there). They succeeded in their quest when President Obama deleted the Moon from the NASA exploration plan in 2010 and replaced it with (essentially) nothing.
So what would a space council do? Ideally, this White House-level body would provide executive oversight of NASA by monitoring how it implements policy objectives and be ready to make needed course corrections early, when they are least painful and most efficacious. Had the Aldridge Commission recommendation on establishing the space council been adopted, that body could have reminded NASA exactly why the Moon was on the critical path, how and where its chosen implementation of the VSE was wanting and where it could be adjusted, and have wielded the political force necessary to assure compliance with those directives. With a multitude of important pressing issues, no President can be expected to constantly monitor NASA to assure that his directives are understood and carried out. A space council, supported by a professional staff with technical backgrounds, fiscal knowledge and executive experience, could monitor the progress of a Presidential initiative to assure that course corrections are applied in a timely, efficient manner.
Currently, there is no mechanism to provide this kind of oversight. NASA is overseen by Congressional committees that don’t always have the expertise necessary to judge agency technical decisions or compliance with directives. They also get direction from the Office of Management and Budget, likewise limited in time and personnel (NASA is a relatively small agency in a very large federal government). A suggestion that the National Research Council (NRC) could provide such oversight is misguided – their process for generating reports is somewhat arbitrary and parochial. NRC reports make excellent doorstops but do not carry any executive weight (their last report on human spaceflight has been totally ignored by NASA). In contrast to some opinions, the goal of having a space council is not to “micromanage” the tactical implementation of an architecture, or to “second guess” routine management decisions. A White House space council operates on a higher level, assuring that strategic intentions are being adequately addressed and managed. The agency’s past performance on major initiatives has repeatedly shown that such supervision is necessary.
The creation of a space council is no guarantee of good management and programmatic excellence. But the tendency toward mission creep and institutional stasis is a natural feature of bureaucracies. The Pentagon learned this lesson long ago and its Defense Science Board carefully monitors both requirements and products for major programs. While not a perfect system (waste, fraud and abuse still occur, even with the most carefully monitored programs), having outside technical oversight works to assure course correction in an environment prone to groupthink and mission drift. NASA needs competent external oversight in order to fight both.
Will you be a member of the new space council? Are you ready to do the job of bringing some rationality to space policy? I can’t imagine you wouldn’t be most welcome if you showed interest. I think your cut-the-crap rational realistic near term kind of plan for Lunar exploration will sell it to this president. You stand out in a business which, at least on the outside of it that I know of, seems to be full of corruptocrats, dreamers and some other weirdness I cannot quite diagnose.
The full members of the Council will be Cabinet Secretaries and similar executives (such as the NASA Administrator). There should also be a technical staff to support and advise them on programmatic issues requiring an evaluation of scientific and technical information — I would be happy to serve in such a group (as long as I don’t have to live in Washington!)
“A White House space council operates on a higher level, assuring that strategic intentions are being adequately addressed and managed. The agency’s past performance on major initiatives has repeatedly shown that such supervision is necessary.”
The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard have all gone through endless acquisition debacles due to a combination of factors. Though a comparatively tiny service I mention the Coast Guard because I was an eyewitness to their failures. Jobs in congressional districts and jobs for retired military officers and profits from defense corporations poured into re-election campaigns all contribute to literally billions being squandered on cold war toys and programs that turn out to be worthless. No hyperbole: that is the continuing reality. Not such a juggernaut.
The public sees very little of these problems and believes our military is mighty and perfected. Not true at all. Sadly, to criticize the military is to be instantly branded a traitor when the truth is…the truth is what is needed. In regards to NASA the Shuttle train wreck is more of the same. How anything requiring such effort could be so fundamentally flawed and have gone so wrong, gone nowhere, and no lessons even learned is…amazing.
NewSpace is essentially a cheaper nastier hobbyist version of the space shuttle concept that space flight can be remade into a cheap and profitable “industry” by borrowing concepts like airliner “reusability.” Add basic human greed by way of satellite launch revenues. The truth is that satellites have little to do with “space” when space is defined as Human Space Flight Beyond Earth Orbit (HSF-BEO). The very first job of a White House space council in my view would be to throw the B.S. flag on LEO and NewSpace. There is no cheap.
“A sizeable contingent within NASA opposed a return to the Moon, favoring instead an Apollo-style Mars mission, and they set about to “slow roll” the lunar part of the Vision.”
A National Space Council sounds like a smart idea and you serving on such a council would be essential to making sure NASA doesn’t waver from tapping Lunar resources and industrializing the Moon and the rest of Cislunar Space.
Time waits for no one and NASA’s leadership has had its eyes tightly closed for six long years while it blindly served extremely narrow partisan political interests and largely ignored the future economic, diplomatic, and security space interests of America and the Home Planet. What a terrible waste of America’s time, money, and talent.
Note:
“It’s been more than a month since Blue Origin’s plan for sending payloads to the moon for a permanent settlement came to light – but the company’s president, Rob Meyerson, lifted a veil a bit higher by showing off an artist’s conception of the lander here at the 33rd Space Symposium.”
And, “‘We believe that the lunar surface offers valuable resources, with valuable science return that can serve as a location to demonstrate key technologies and serve as an appropriate location for that long-term permanent settlement,’ Meyerson said. ‘We also believe the moon is in sequence for long-term exploration of the solar system, including Mars.’”
“‘We’re willing to invest in its development as part of a private-public partnership with NASA,’ he said. ‘The more NASA flies SLS, the more they will need commercial logistics delivery services. New Glenn and Blue Moon complement SLS and Orion, enabling NASA’s return to the moon, and this time to stay.'”
From: ‘Blue Origin space venture slips in a sneak peek at design of Blue Moon lunar lander’
By Alan Boyle 4/5/2017
At: http://www.geekwire.com/2017/blue-origin-sneak-peek-blue-moon-lunar-lander/
And note:
“The Moon Village concept got an endorsement from Yulong Tian, secretary general of the China National Space Administration.”
And, “Later missions, Tian said, would include missions to the lunar poles, thought to have deposits of water ice that could support future human bases. ‘In the coming five to 10 years we have a few more missions to the polar regions of the moon, including establishment of a lunar base, or part of the Moon Village,’ he said.”
From: ‘Space agency heads see the moon on the path to Mars’
by Jeff Foust 4/5/2017
At: http://spacenews.com/space-agency-heads-see-the-moon-on-the-path-to-mars/#sthash.PF2Wl3Ig.dpuf”
Yep, the business folks and international “Space agency heads can see the moon” even if the eyes and minds of NASA’s leaders remain tightly closed to avoid reality.
With, or without NASA’s leaders and their super costly and highly risky nonscientific Mars flags and footprints soon delusions, humans are going back to the Moon to build the Moon Village and tap Lunar resources.
I can see how a national space council can keep the direction of NASA on track. My only concern is what the specifics of the chosen architecture are that it is being held to. If it is a cost-effective yet ambitious architecture then, yes, a NSC could be a good thing. But if the architecture is costly, indirect, and uninspiring then having the weight of the council ensuring its momentum could prevent the needed course change. Reading the tea leaves, I’m concerned that it might be the latter. I’m guessing that we are headed in the direction of continuing very expensive and uninspiring programs that will result in our rotating irradiated crew from an EML station and supposedly unable to afford a lunar lander sized for the SLS all the while telling ourselves that the EML station is a gateway to Mars. The result being getting stuck in cis-lunar space without accessing the resources of the Moon and essentially delaying any real progress.
I’m guessing that we are headed in the direction of continuing very expensive and uninspiring programs that will result in our rotating irradiated crew from an EML station and supposedly unable to afford a lunar lander sized for the SLS all the while telling ourselves that the EML station is a gateway to Mars
That’s the direction we’ve been headed in for the last decade. If that “direction” doesn’t change significantly, then having a space council or not doesn’t make any difference — we won’t be going anywhere.
Exactly. But I retain a sliver of hope. I think that there is a desire on the part of Bridenstine, some in Congress, and some in the Administration to return to the Moon but I think that a specific plan to do so hasn’t been agreed upon as of yet. So there’s still a window of opportunity here. I see some continuing the previous administration’s argument that establishing an EML habititat constitutes going to the Moon as a step to Mars. I’ve never bought that definition because it doesn’t give us the ground truth experience that the lunar surface can give. It’s the vicinity of the Moon not actually the Moon. But I don’t believe that this is Bridenstine’s view.
The rub comes when it comes to the money. How do we not give up anything while adding a real lunar return? Worse yet, how can we add an EML gateway like many advocate and build a government lander sized for the SLS not to mention ice-harvesting telerobots and a new surface habitat? There’s also talk now about extending the ISS to 2028. Something’s got to give.
The rub comes when it comes to the money. How do we not give up anything while adding a real lunar return?
It’s not all that bad. The last paper Tony and I wrote outlined how SLS can be fit into a lunar return architecture, which includes depots in low Earth orbit and low lunar orbit, all within the existing budget. See here for details.
“very expensive and uninspiring programs that will result in our rotating irradiated crew from an EML station . . .”
Hopefully not, though I share your apprehension. Regarding a Council, I think it could help vocalize the President’s position, provide some publicity. This is a good thing, but when push comes to shove with dollars, the dollars reside with Congress and the President, not the Council, would need to spend some political capital to push forward an agenda for real progress. If the administration agreed perfectly with Congress there would be no clash, of course, but I’m referring to significant cuts or cancellation of SLS/Orion in order to pursue many of the TRL-raising activities, infrastructure, prospecting questions solved via orbiters, penetrators, rovers, etc. which represent a better use of funds. In the case of this level of disagreement, I’m not sure it matters if there’s a Council or not. Just my two cents.
:”…but I’m referring to significant cuts or cancellation of SLS/Orion in order to pursue many of the TRL-raising activities, infrastructure, prospecting questions solved via orbiters, penetrators, rovers, etc. …”
Just out of curiosity, where are you getting the idea that the administration intends to fund those worthy goals at the expense of SLS/Orion?
I know you can go to a number of websites to read people (not associated with the administration) proposing such plans, or (for that matter) defunding SLS/Orion for practically anything else as defunding SLS/Orion is their only real goal.
However, nobody associated with the administration had said anything like that.
In fact Representative Jim Bridenstine (considered to be the frontrunner to become NASA Administrator has repeatedly said just the opposite. He supports at least some of the “laundry list” you posited above and full funding for SLS/Orion as well.
Since the topic of directions was mentioned, I was curious on what could be said about this:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/04/nasa-goals-missions-sls-eyes-multi-step-mars/
Back on topic, this was quite an eye opener for how a national space council functions.
If formed, I would hope this council can steer NASA back in the right direction.
With recent events, we may not get results for quite some time, if ever.
In a recent article on his website Congressman (and possible NASA Administrator) Jim Bridenstine brought up another good reason for having a National Space Council (NSC).
If we are to truly make use of lunar resources to develop cis-lunar space, other (public and private) entities will have to be convinced to design there future payloads to be compatible with that goal. The NSC could coordinate such compatibility with the Department of Defense, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and other US government agencies. This would encourage other governments and private concerns to do likewise.
NASA as a single government agency would not be able to take the leadership in such a process.
“The NSC could coordinate such compatibility with the Department of Defense, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and other US government agencies.” – Joe
Yep.
Note:
“Speaking at the symposium Tuesday morning, prior to Raymond’s announcement, Rogers said his ultimate goal is to create a separate space force within the military.”
“’We have to acknowledge that the national security space structure is broken,’ the congressman said. ‘It’s very hard for a government bureaucracy to fix itself, and that’s exactly why congressional oversight exists.’”
From: ‘Air Force reorg too timid for House milspace leaders’
By Phillip Swarts April 5, 2017
At: http://spacenews.com/air-force-reorg-too-timid-for-house-milspace-leaders/#sthash.AMvkU6m9.dpuf
To make full use of such a “space force”, America would need lots of propellant in cislunar Space.
The Moon offers great opportunities to provide that propellant to a “space force” and many international commercial space folks.
However, a trillion tons of NASA Mars blather and decades more of dithering and unfunded ‘flags and footprints on the Red Planet’ plans won’t provide one drop of the needed propellant for such a “space force” and the many international commercial folks in Cislunar Space.
A powerful national systems perspective that includes all of our activities and concerns in Cislunar Space is needed.
International space activities will need to be understood and worked with as part of our American efforts to integrate space opportunities with the Home Planet’s economy and security.
A strong National Space Council could be quite useful in helping America and the world coordinate all of the Home Planet’s work on the Moon and in the rest of Cislunar Space.
A powerful national systems perspective that includes all of our activities and concerns in Cislunar Space is needed. International space activities will need to be understood and worked with as part of our needed American efforts to integrate space opportunities with the Home Planet’s economy and security concerns.
NASA’s leadership has failed and continues to fail in providing effective leadership in Cislunar Space resource awareness and exploitation.
However, NASA isn’t the only American government agency with critical responsibilities in space.
“The Air Force is looking to expand its information sharing not just with the commercial industry, but with international partners as well. Strategic Command announced April 5 a new agreement with Norway to share space situational awareness data.
And, “It’s the 75th such agreement the United States has signed, Hyten said, which includes agreements with 13 nations, the European Space Agency, the European Organization for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites, and 60 commercial entities.”
And, “The Air Force is responsible for many national security space programs and the SecAf was named as the Principal DOD Space Advisor (PDSA) in the Obama Administration. Still, finding an effective organizational model to develop strategy for and execute space activities in the national security sector — DOD and the Intelligence Community (IC) — apparently remains elusive.”
From: ‘Declassification and partnerships needed for better space defense, Hyten says’
By Phillip Swarts 4/6/2017
At: http://spacenews.com/declassification-partnerships-needed-for-better-space-defense-hyten-says/#sthash.xTUq0UUw.dpuf
As Joe noted above:
“The NSC could coordinate such compatibility with the Department of Defense, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and other US government agencies. This would encourage other governments and private concerns to do likewise.”
As Paul Spudis noted above:
“A sizeable contingent within NASA opposed a return to the Moon, favoring instead an Apollo-style Mars mission, and they set about to ‘slow roll’ the lunar part of the Vision.”
And, “If that “direction” doesn’t change significantly, then having a space council or not doesn’t make any difference — we won’t be going anywhere.”
To meet America’s and the Home Planet’s resource, industrialization, security, and other needs on the Moon and in the rest of Cislunar Space we need to get rid of the ‘Mars Soon and Cheaply Too’ cancer that has infected NASA’s leadership.
A strong National Space Council could be quite useful in helping America and the world coordinate all of the Home Planet’s work in Cislunar Space and in doing the needed surgery to remove the ‘Mars Soon Cancer’ from NASA.
I am almost convinced the only way, absolutely the only way it can happen, is the same way it happened the first time- by way of the DOD. This time instead of a cold war battle precipitated by nuclear weapons it would be a response to the over half a century launch-on-warning mutually assured destruction status quo. The hair trigger that would start a nuclear holocaust now seems to be, like mortality itself, conveniently ignored by the collective consciousness of humanity. It is real.
On the short list of events that could end civilization and send us back to the dark ages is several thousand H-bombs exploded on the surface of the Earth at once. The disruption of the global food producing and distribution infrastructure would result in a cascade of death, malnutrition, and disease that would kill off most of the 7.5 billion human beings on Earth within a few years.
And yes, there are people who look forward to it and if they had the opportunity would try and make it happen.
Moving the global nuclear arsenal into deep space months away from Earth would ratchet down the hair trigger launch on warning scenario and also provide a way to deflect comet and asteroid impact threats. An impact is an item on that short list of civilization ending events that could not only kill most of us, but kill us all and render humankind extinct. The ice on the Moon is the critical enabling resource and a program of state sponsored Super Heavy Lift Vehicle launches the inflexible path to answering these very real threats.
Over the past four decades the world has plodded on with the same political and economic problems it has always had and sooner or later our luck is going to run out. Billionaut hobbyists with space clown tourist fantasies are not the solution.
“An impact is an item on that short list of civilization ending events that could not only kill most of us, but kill us all and render humankind extinct.”
Lesser impact events can also kill and do significant damage to folks on the Home Planet.
“However Kevin Yau et al. of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory did note several similarities of the Ch’ing-yang meteor fall to the Tunguska event, which would have destroyed a highly populous district.[1][6]”
And, “One surviving account records:[1]
‘Stones fell like rain in the Ch’ing-yang district. The larger ones were 4 to 5 catties (斤, about 1.5 kg), and the smaller ones were 2 to 3 catties (about 1 kg). Numerous stones rained in Ch’ing-yang. Their sizes were all different. The larger ones were like goose’s eggs and the smaller ones were like water-chestnuts. More than 10,000 people were struck dead. All of the people in the city fled to other places.”
“And, The History of Ming work (the 明史, or Míng Shǐ) states only that there was a rain of uncountable stones of various sizes. The large objects were as big “as a goose egg, and the small ones were the size of the fruit of an aquatic plant”. The date given was the third lunar month of 1490, which translates as March 21 to April 19, 1490.[2]”
From: 1490 Ch’ing-yang event Wikipedia
At: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1490_Ch%27ing-yang_event
Perhaps another impact event was involved in killing a large number of humans and animals.
“The South Carolina researchers found an abundance of platinum in soil layers that coincided with the ‘Younger-Dryas,’ a climatic period of extreme cooling that began around 12,800 ago and lasted about 1,400 years. While the brief return to ice-age conditions during the Younger-Dryas has been well-documented by scientists, the reasons for it and the demise of the Clovis people and animals have remained unclear.”
And, “‘Platinum is very rare in the Earth’s crust, but it is common in asteroids and comets,’ says Christopher Moore, the study’s lead author. He calls the presence of platinum found in the soil layers at 11 archaeological sites in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina an anomaly.”
‘Discovery of widespread platinum may help solve Clovis people mystery’
By: University of South Carolina March 9, 2017
At: https://phys.org/news/2017-03-discovery-widespread-platinum-clovis-people.html#jCp
“The ice on the Moon is the critical enabling resource and a program of state sponsored Super Heavy Lift Vehicle launches the inflexible path to answering these very real threats.”
Yep.