Daily Kos

Progressive Space Policy & Netroots Nation

Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 07:21:49 PM PDT

Yesterday, my diary Progressive Space Policy & Human Spaceflight was posted to promote discussion of progressive attitudes towards human spaceflight especially given the strong prospects for electing a Democratic POTUS & continued Democratic control of Congress.

US space policy is at a cross-roads. The Space Shuttle and ISS approach genuine white elephant status. Commercial space ventures are on the cusp of becoming viable but remain far from a sure thing. We lack consensus on WHY we even have a human spaceflight program and for many the risk & expense of putting humans in space is simply unjustified.

However, any POTUS who terminates the American human space program would be vilified for the surrender of a potent symbol of American prestige and since NASA employs a great many people in key electoral states such as Florida the political costs would be enormous.

Perhaps our Democratic leadership should simply "kick the can down the road" and hope that nothing bad happens on their watch (such as loss of another shuttle).

But would that be the progressive thing to do?

Should human spaceflight be placed high on the list of priorities needing the attention of the progressive community?

Probably not.

However, US space policy truly is at a cross-roads and decisions made between 2009 and 2012 will have consequences that shall last decades. A stitch in time saves nine and therefore to allocate a modest amount of attention to these issues is entirely warranted, in my opinion.

How much attention?

If we use the Netroots Nation schedule as our model, to devote one morning from 9:00 am to 12:00 noon or one afternoon from say 2:00 pm to 5:00 pm to a discussion that seeks to develop a progressive vision for human spaceflight would be entirely appropriate, in my opinion. And this would merely constitute one track amongst many.

Apart from Netroots Nation, a similar level of attention from progressive bloggers seems appropriate to me. NOT to trump the other genuinely urgent issues that we face but as one of the full spectrum of issues that a political party holding power will need to address.

What topics might be addressed at Netroots Nation space exploration track? My initial thoughts are as follows and I seek further suggestions:


(1) Space shuttle // ISS // Replacement systems

Before Colbert went off on his own, he and Jon Stewart did a funny bit on the ISS and Shuttle program. This is from memory and is paraphrased:

Stewart: So tell me, why do we need the Space Shuttle, anyway.

Colbert: Jon, we need the Shuttle because it is the only vehicle that is capable of completing the International Space Station.

Stewart: Well, okay. But why do we need the International Space Station?

Colbert: Jon, Jon, Jon. If we didn't have the International Space Station, what would the Space Shuttle do? Think about it, Jon.

In real life, the Space Shuttle is very near to the end of its useful service life AND the amounts of useful payload it can place into Earth orbit are quite small compared with the money spent to continue flying that system.

George W. Bush and NASA Administrator Michael Griffin have proposed a replacement program that goes by the acronym ESAS - Exploration Systems Architecture Study.

Serious controversy exists as to whether the ESAS is the proper system to replace the shuttle AND decisions made in the next few years could lock NASA into a truly deficient platform. If that becomes final on the watch of a Democratic POTUS, there could well be future political repercussions.

Unfortunately lack of space precludes my presentation of much detail, here. A future diary shall be needed.

Potential speakers to address this topic?

Both Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland) and Bill Nelson (D-Florida) are strong supporters of the space program. Perhaps they could send a staff person to address these issues. In addition, Lori Garver was an informal space policy adviser to John Kerry and has offered assistance to candidate Hillary Clinton.

This topic can also morph easily enough into a discussion of WHY we should have any human spaceflight program at all, since FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION is a basic rule of design. What types of rockets we build should very much depend upon what we wish to accomplish when we use those rockets.


(2) Spaceport America // X Prize Cup // New Space Venture

Kossack FerrisValyn has been running an excellent series of diaries bringing news of the "Space Revolution" happening outside of NASA's bailiwick.  These diaries are an excellent source of information and links.

Such topics include Spaceport America, a public-private venture involving the State of New Mexico and something that Governor Bill Richardson is rather proud of. Perhaps the Governor could arrange for the appropriate staffers to come give us a briefing and answer questions as part of Netroots Nation spaceflight track.

There are TWO open X Prize Cup challenges. One is the original X Prize Cup Lunar Lander Challenge being held annually in New Mexico (see above) and the other is the Google Lunar X Prize.

Perhaps the next Administration should seek greater synergy with these private efforts in order to accomplish more within a given level of taxpayer funding.

FerrisValyn's diaries are a source for a great many other potential topics for discussion.


(3) Humans versus Robots for exploration

This is a continuing favorite "debate topic" for space themed panels. My diary yesterday included a poll question that received a significant number of votes for "robot only" exploration.

Perhaps we can identify strong advocates of the various positions from within the Netroots community and let them engage in a civil and moderated discussion of this topic.

Given the ongoing candidate diaries war, how could it be worse?


(4) The "need" for permanent settlement

Kossack Shadan7 made this comment in my diary yesterday:

We are, sooner or later, going to have to get at least some of our eggs off this rock one way or the other.

And if anyone is interested, that's a big part of my novel noted below, which is set in 2052.

Physicists Stephen Hawking and J. Richard Gott agree.

In January 2004 (and in the aftermath of the loss of the shuttle Columbia) there was a marvelous short piece in The Atlantic print edition. The quote is from a comment I made at the Space Politics blog in a discussion of "Manned versus unmanned" (sexist, it should be "human versus robot"):

This is from the Atlantic Monthly and was written January 1, 2004:

In the aftermath of the breakup of the space shuttle Columbia an important debate on the purpose and future of the U.S. human-space-flight program is under way, though perhaps not as forthrightly as it should be. The issue at stake is not space exploration in itself but the necessity of launching manned (versus robotic) vehicles. Because articles of faith are involved, the arguments tend to be manipulative and hyperbolic. If the debate is to be productive, that needs to change.

And here is the crux of William Langewiesche’s piece:

One thing for sure is that the American public is more sophisticated than the space community has given it credit for. In the event of a grounding the public might well be presented with a question now asked only of insiders not whether there are immediate benefits to be gleaned from a human presence in space but, more fundamentally, whether we are to be a two-planet species?

Should we (whether as a nation or as a species) aim at becoming spacefaring? A two planet or multi-planet species?

Whether this takes 50 years or 150 years or 250 years to accomplish, how we answer that question NOW greatly impacts what types of rockets we wish to build NOW and since the next President (presumably a Democrat) will have a tremendous amount of influence on the systems that shall replace the Shuttle, I assert this is something progressives need to talk about.

At least as one small part of a balanced diet of discussion.


(5) Additional topic as they occur to me or are suggested by others . . .

The above topics are merely my suggestions and others may have additional or better ideas. My goal now is to ascertain a level of interest and see who might be interested in helping organize such a track for Netroots Nation.

Poll

Your thoughts on a Netroots Nations (NN) Space Exploration track of up to three hours

33%9 votes
3%1 votes
0%0 votes
55%15 votes
0%0 votes
7%2 votes

| 27 votes | Vote | Results

Tags: Space, Nasa, Netroots Nation, Netroots Nation 2008 (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 34 comments

  •  Tips for a non-candidate diary (9+ / 0-)

    If you are interested in helping persuade Netroots Nation to hold a space exploration track and / or helping to shape the topics, please let me or FerrisValyn know and we can perhaps organize an informal on-line committee.

    For this purpose you can use this e-mail:

    lunarplatinum =at= aol.com

    AOL? Yup. I'm an oldster and keep the account active out of pure sentiment.

    Just as soon as the Ossetia war broke out, Dubya canceled a trip to Atlanta . . .

    by Bill White on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 07:24:54 PM PDT

  •  Steven Weinberg, Nobel physicist, thinks ... (3+ / 0-)

    human space flight and a mission to Mars anytime soon is a colossal waste of money, relative to other potential uses for unmanned space exploration and space-based earth studies.

    If you wanted to get both sides, rather than just a "rah rah" session for the next biggest human staffed idea NASA and its supporters can generate, you should try to get someone with Weinberg's perspective to join the debate.

    I doubt you would be able to get Weinberg himself, but I bet there are other knowledgeable types with the same perspective.

    Love this topic.

    Thanks for posting.

    •  I agree with you (3+ / 0-)

      And therefore I wrote this:

      (3) Humans versus Robots for exploration

      This is a continuing favorite "debate topic" for space themed panels. My diary yesterday included a poll question that received a significant number of votes for "robot only" exploration.

      Perhaps we can identify strong advocates of the various positions from within the Netroots community and let them engage in a civil and moderated discussion of this topic.

      Given the ongoing candidate diaries war, how could it be worse?

      If this develops as a track, I would wish to find someone to argue Weinberg's position.

      Two interesting links on this:

      The New York Times did a rah-rah piece here -- 11 January 2008 and the comments are where the action truly is.

      Sam Dinkin interviews Steven Weinberg (January 14, 2008)

      Just as soon as the Ossetia war broke out, Dubya canceled a trip to Atlanta . . .

      by Bill White on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 07:38:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  After posting, I saw that in yesterday's thread (0+ / 0-)

        you included explicitly Weinberg's view.

        As I say, very interesting topic.

        Who, besides Weinberg, has (a) the credibility and (b) the willingness to speak unpopular notions?

        Where's Feynman? After his investigation of the shuttle, he seemed skeptical of NASA's estimates of risk of catastrophic failure of shuttle missions, and of NASA management practices in general.

        Oh well, it's back to the Science Channel, to watch the William Shatner narrated series "Mars Rising".

        •  Once this gets off the ground, I might (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          science first

          write Weinberg and ask if he can suggest a surrogate.

          And since Lori Garver seems to be a well connected Democratic space advocate, maybe offer her the human side of the debate.

          Just as soon as the Ossetia war broke out, Dubya canceled a trip to Atlanta . . .

          by Bill White on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:05:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Not with us anymore, unfortantly (0+ / 0-)

          That said, I have not seen any evidence that he was opposed to manned spaceflight (although I admit to not having looked that hard).  One can be critical of the Nasa administration (or in my case, almost hostle), and still be supportive of manned spaceflight

    •  We all have our failings NT (0+ / 0-)

      no text

  •  The High Frontier of space exploration (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ryangoesboom, Neon Vincent

    is something that needs a collective effort. In other words, a government effort. Private ventures are impressive but realistically, would they exist now without the groundbreaking work done by NASA?  

    Honestly, for me, the question of whether we should have human space exploration doesn't need debate.  In the immortal words of George Mallory: "Because it's there."  And because we can.

  •  Here is a narrow question -- China and ISS (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Uthaclena, Neon Vincent

    Should we ask China to join the International Space Station effort?

    Full partner or junior partner? Occasional visits by Shenzou? Or not at all?

    Just as soon as the Ossetia war broke out, Dubya canceled a trip to Atlanta . . .

    by Bill White on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 07:40:01 PM PDT

  •  Human-craft space is absolutely critical for the (3+ / 0-)

    technological revolution we are about to embark on: bio and nano. The effects of a research or manufacturing disaster (anyone remember Bopol?) are so potentially catatrophic that any sane person would DEMAND they were done on the moon (and in separate facilities there, likely).

    And of course any sane person who thinks human beings have intrinsic worth would want to avoid 'all the eggs in one basket' problem.  That, for many reasons, means terraforming (at least partially) Mars.  (Which in turn will use the new bio and nano-tech.)  That's not to say we have to go to Mars in 10 or 20 years, no matter how much I might likel it. (OTOH, you don't thik the Chinese will try as soon as they can, to show they have become the pre-eminent power if nothing else?)

    Those 2, along with commercialization of NEO are where the space program has to go IMO.

  •  Manned Space Flight is Always in Jeopardy (3+ / 0-)

    People are always ready to point out that "16 Billion dollar a year could be better spent on earthly needs" as if that money would not just be subsumed into  the Defense budget or frittered away on a lot of "preferential" (i.e. 'pork') projects.

    We were foolish to terminate the Saturn 5 program in 1973, which strikes me as similar to the abandonment of Zheng He's explorations in the 13th Century. At the very least, maintain the capabilities you have developed, if not advancing them! The Russians are, of course, still reliably using an (upgraded)booster, the Proton, which was first launched in 1965.

    But we Americans like our newest, shiniest, and most sophisticated toys, get bored quickly, and put last year's technologies out on the curbside. Would that we had some consistency and follow-thru. We might have gotten down to some reasonable prices if our production lines kept running like the private aerospace industry.

    "You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -Abbie Hoffman

    by Uthaclena on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 07:48:09 PM PDT

  •  Manned vs. unmanned (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Bill White, FerrisValyn

     I am unhappy at, too often, seeing these as two programs in conflict.  Obviously, manned spaceflight has a great many concerns (notably, keeping human beings alive and healthy in space) that don't concern unmanned spacecraft engineers and scientists.  Manned spaceflight is also more difficult and expensive.

     But manned spaceflight should not be funded to the exclusion of unmanned, or vice versa.  We should think of it this way:

     Unmanned spacecraft are the scouts, the first explorers.  They chart the territory and determine what the interesting and practical landfalls are; they tell us what the interesting questions are that can be asked about the many worlds in space.  

     But these efforts must be followed up by spaceboots on the ground to get practical answers to our questions.   We are pushing the envelope constantly in our efforts to get additional value out of our (underfunded and under-designed) unmanned missions, with amazing results; but the costs in time, and the overall inefficiency, are not to be underrated.  We've had two rovers on the surface of Mars for years now, doing, at an agonizingly slow stop-and-start pace, science that could have been accomplished in a few days by a manned science team.  No machine has the versatility and self-motivation of human beings.

      And in the long run, we don't want to just collect data on these places; that's only a means to an end.  We want to be there.  We want the Moon and Mars and Ceres and Europa and Titan to be, not just names but actual destinations that can be visited. In the process we'll learn more about the origins and nature of the Solar System, and we'll better appreciate the special position of our own planet.  But we'll also restore a sense of purpose to the human race, a purpose that has, perhaps, been lost since the late 19th or early 20th century.

      Are we just on Earth to stay alive and do our best to avoid destroying our habitat and each other?  Obviously, that's a prerequisite -- but is there nothing else?  What is the point of humanity?  Why do we exist?

      I suggest that going beyond our own planet into space is going to be our species' long-term contribution to the universe. And if we fail to take that challenge -- if we remain stuck on one planet for centuries to come -- we will, at length, destroy ourselves for lack of anything better to do.  We all want peace, we all want to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and heal the sick.  But we need a greater purpose even beyond that.

    •  WIds, I've often argued that (0+ / 0-)

      the unmanned and manned contingents serve 2 fundemental purposes.  No one gets angry at the school lunch programs for not providing clean energy, nor do we get mad at the DOE for not funding school lunches.  Unmanned flight has one purpose - science (ok, if you stay in earth orbit, thats not true, but out of earth orbit - totally true.  And its true of a number of earth orbit things as well).  The data we have gotten from Spirit and Opportunity are incredible, and things like Hubble have shown us new words.

      But manned flight has a fundamental different purpose - and thats development, and colonization.  And, as I pointed out with my school lunches and DOE example, we have to look at what primary purpose of both programs is about.

  •  1 topic addition, and 1 change (0+ / 0-)

    Topic addition - off-planet resources - whats avaliable when?  I often talk about off-planet resources, and it would be ideal to have some discussions about actual returns that we could look at.  While I do think that talking about being a multi-planet species is of course very excellent, the problem is that can be more esotaric than people are prepared for.  On the other hand, if you can provide them with a drug that cures disease right now, they tend to change their minds.

    Also, I think any discussion about nasa should be tied in to a discussion about NewSpace.  I suspect you think so as well, and just hadn't fleshed it out.  Maybe ideally hold Newspace first, and then a discussion about Nasa.

    •  That may be influenced by who we can arrange (0+ / 0-)

      as speakers. If Lori Garver has genuine interest in speaking (for example) she could have some real influence concerning what we cover.

      I am a very big NewSpace supporter however our new Democratic POTUS simply will not have the political capital and leverage to support NewSpace except in the margins.

      There are a great many locked in and vested interests, here and how we replace the shuttle is a HUGE OldSpace topic of vital importance.

      Especially if Ares 1 proves technologically infeasible.

      Just as soon as the Ossetia war broke out, Dubya canceled a trip to Atlanta . . .

      by Bill White on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:14:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know that (0+ / 0-)

        I'd agree that a Dem POTUS won't have the political capital to spend on this.  Espcially if it were Obama, him being the candidate of change and all that, combine with the failures of Ares I, it will be time for serious reconsideration.  

        However, my main point is this - First and foremost, I'd argue have the NewSpace be the first track - more people are probably aware of Ares I and Orion, than Dragon and Falcon 9.  This would be a good introduction.  Then have the discussion about what should happen with Nasa (and what role NewSpace will play in it - this woudl have to be addressed).

        BTW, you have an email

  •  The "go it alone" doctrine (0+ / 0-)

    needs a complete overhaul. If were going to be in the space biz it should be a global financed effort. 1 trillion to go to mars is ridiculous, NASA should have a mission change to include green energy efforts. Lots of Scientists available to start tomorrow!

    •  Would you also have Nasa investigate (0+ / 0-)

      compliance with SEC regulations?  I ask in all seriouness, because the implication of

      NASA should have a mission change to include green energy efforts

      implies that Nasa is first and foremost a science agency, or a science and technology agency.  I would argue that they are a space agency, first and foremost, and if you can't tie it to space, Nasa shouldn't be doing that.

      Also, concerning the projected costs of a Mars mission - don't believe the hype.

Permalink | 34 comments