2004-07-07
praise for the guys in skinny black ties

07:37

This also reminds me of a few things about X-Prize and the launch of SpaceShipOne. But first, I must go back to when Bush made his speech regarding the future of NASA. It all ties in. Honestly. This is a looong post, so be forewarned.

______________________________

Right after President Bush's January 15th announcement of the US Space Initiative, instead of being excited by the prospect, many people I know within the space community acted with sarcastic indifference. I, myself, was (and am a bit still, I'll admit) skeptical. Having been burned before by similar proposals from past Presidents, people weren't joyfully jumping on the bandwagon. While the rest of society expected us to be like kids at Christmas, we immediately started pointing out the flaws of such a plan, and whining about funding.

When the US Consulate in Strasbourg visited ISU, it was my good friend, Willie P, who pointed out this fact. It made me realize that the cue comes from us, the space community, and if we are not excited, then how can we expect others to be? Even if the Initiative is not all that we wanted and hoped for, it's a step, and the only way we can get everyone else interested in space is to be interested in it ourselves. After all, why else do we work here?

The above is mostly a reiteration from a previous post, I know. But with the launch of SS1, the point seems to be gaining in importance. Nearly everyone I heard from compared it to NASA; unavoidable to be sure, but it was all negative, including from NASA employees. Often, I hear about how working for NASA is disillusioning, draining, and not the excitement which had been anticipated. Then along comes SpaceShipOne, reinvigorating the stagnant mind and inspiring the weary soul. Meanwhile, NASA, caught up in red-tape, budget overruns, and safety mandates, struggles to get the oft-critiqued space shuttle back into the air to finish building the increasingly unpopular International Space Station. A big lumbering giant stuck in the mud next to a sleek bird. Of course comparisons were made.

A fan made a sign, "SpaceShipOne 1, Government 0". Many find this humorous; I do not. I am not trying to rain on SpaceShipOne's parade, but is the success of this endeavour dependant on sticking it to NASA? It turns what should be an unspoiled and shining achievement into an ungracious winner thumbing their nose at the competition, chanting "nyah nyah nyah". Furthermore, the sign is not accurate. SpaceShipOne's flight, albeit cleaner and with less fuss, accomplished nothing more than the same feat as NASA; only NASA did it just over 33 years ago (SpaceShipOne launched June 21st, 2004 and Alan Shephard rocketed into space on May 5, 1961). Since then, NASA has hurtled hundreds of people into space. The private sector has a long way to go to catch up.

What Burt Rutan, Mike Melvill, and Paul Allen did is tremendous. But they did not do it alone, they had help, and from none other than NASA. Indirectly, to be sure, but still they benefited from the space agency. When NASA launched Shephard into space in 1961, the technology was primitive. Everything was ad hoc, made up as they went along. The technology was new and fairly untested. Rockets still blew up. Things went wrong. Today, it's a different story. Burt Rutan had a much more advanced starting point than did NASA. He had better technology, better materials, and he improved upon them and fashioned them to his purpose. As Thoreau said (the quote is stolen from Becca's blog), "If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put foundations under them." Rutan's vision comprise the "castles in the air"; research the foundation.

But where does this research come from? Much of it within in the space sector to improve materials for spaceflight, to make them lighter, stronger, more durable. While the specific fuel for SS1 was developed by SpaceDev, hybrid propulsion (a combination of solid fuel with a liquid oxidizer) has been in testing by government programs for nearly 10 years. The composites that make up SS1's hull, including the entry thermal protection, are straight from the space program. Research, however, does not make money. That is where the government steps in. NASA does not turn a profit. It is not meant to. It is about research, about furthering our knowledge, and improving our lives. The money comes from the applications and the minds of people such as Rutan who know a good idea when they see it.

Another major difference is that of policy, stemming from the fact that SpaceDev is a private company, while NASA is constantly in the public's eye; the failures, the successes, all are scrutinised. The loss of Challenger and Columbia are tragic, but should the result be a NASA bogged down in safety regulations and Return-to-Flight upgrades for which there is no money, while at the same time fighting budget cuts? A space agency forced to make its vehicle so safe that it cannot even lift off of the ground? People scream for safety, yet long for the gung-ho days of Apollo. Remember Apollo? There were failures and problems with every flight. Yet, NASA pushed on. The Apollo 1 crew died on the launchpad in a test; two-and-a-half years later, Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon. Gus Grissom, Roger Chaffee, and Ed White did not die in vain; they died for a cause they believed in, and NASA did not let them down. We should honor those lost in Columbia by continuing the quest of spaceflight, and SS1 is a step in the right direction. SpaceDev is not a competitor, but rather a compatriot. It is proving to society that all of this red-tape is unnecessary. There will be failures. People might die. But they will go on. NASA should be allowed to do the same.

Furthermore, while SS1 appears to have the capability to climb 200 miles with three people (or corresponding ballast) onboard, it does not have the hauling capacity of the US space shuttle, or other heavy-lift vehicles. The launch of SS1 does not mean the end of NASA; instead, it is the beginning of a new era in which space is more attainable than ever before. It is an exciting time.

I don't like the uninformed criticism of NASA. I don't like the unfavorable comparisons with SS1; I think it is demeaning to both. I do like the fact that the recent Aldridge Commission's recommendations borrow liberally from the Ansari X-Prize. Peter Diamandis has a great idea, which NASA recognizes. Good for them. Cooperation is key to success, mixed with a little bit of healthy competition.

To conclude, I love my job. I love NASA. Every day that I pass by that giant Saturn V rocket, I still get shivers. I hear about the excitement over Spirit and Opportunity, Cassini/Huygens and I think, "I work for NASA! Me!", and I get the shivers all over again. The day that I don't is the day I find a new job. I work for NASA because I am excited by the concept of space travel, because I believe in the dream of spaceflight. Do not we all? Movies, television shows, books, comics - all attest to the fact that we, as a global society, love space. I see SS1, and others like it, as playing an important part in the future of space travel. I do not see it as a criticism to NASA, but rather as a much-needed fresh-faced approach. I hope that the launch of SS1 does wake NASA up. I hope it does motivate the government to realize that we are going to be surpassed if we're not careful, that the shuttle, while a great ol' bird and unique in its capability, should be retired and we need a bold, new vehicle if we are to keep pace with the private sector. But it is important not to forget what NASA has done, and what it still continues to do, and that is to "inspire the next generation of explorers". And with companies like SpaceDev doing a little bit of inspiring on their own, the possibilities truly are endless.

Previous | Next

Friends
Strongbad | Artemis | Jen M. | Jo | Karen | Jen O. | Saadah | Unfinished Life
Skytland | Brooker | Kells | Margot | Viking Boy
Dinesh | Beth | Tydogg | Steve-o | ISU Blog | ISU Home