Putting the debate in context Balancing
the promises and perils of commercialization
"The
truth is, NASA has always
relied on private
industry to help design and build the vehicles that carry astronauts to
space, from the Mercury capsule that carried John Glenn into orbit
nearly 50 years ago, to the space shuttle Discovery currently orbiting
overhead. By buying the services of space transportation --
rather than the vehicles themselves -- we can continue to ensure
rigorous safety standards are met." - President Barack Obama
"If
Congress approves [Obama’s
cuts to the Constellation Program],
NASA astronauts will be stuck riding in commercial space taxis.” Sawato
Das, in a New York Times op-ed
The
historical context: Traditional arguments for and against NASA
The question facing Americans today is
whether they want human spaceflight controlled by their government, or
by private sector interests. The important parts of that
debate can be traced back to historic arguments for and against NASA.
There has always been factions who state that there are more pressing
problems here on Earth, and that the billions of dollars funneled into NASA projects
like the Mars Rover, which got stuck and was unable to accomplish the
things it was sent out to do, could go to social programs and other
more terrestrial concerns, something the President acknowledged in his
April address at the Space Conference in Florida (Remarks by the President).
Between the tragic loss of
the Challenger and Columbia crews in recent years and the staggering
cost increases involved in the space program, it has always seemed
poltically easier to put the program on the backburner. The move to
make it some private
company’s responsibility is in essence a new iteration of previous
attempts to avoid dealing with NASA's percieved floundering and lack of
mission.
These arguments have long been countered by those who say that the long
history of scientific and technological advancements that have stemmed
from NASA’s exploration. President Bush acknowledged that the costs are
great, but so are the benefits:
Like the
explorers of
the past and the pioneers of flight in the last century, we cannot
today identify all that we will gain from space exploration; we are
confident, nonetheless, that the eventual return will be great. Like
their efforts, the success of future U.S. space exploration will unfold
over generations. (“A renewed spirit of discovery”)
Impacts of privatization: Who's
involved, and what do they want?
Last year, President Obama asked a commission to explore the future
of NASA human
spaceflights. The group, headed up by retired Lockheed Martin CEO
Norman
Augustine, arrived at the conclustion that the "unsustainable
trajectory" the agency was on could not be continued, and that allowing
private industry to be more involved in the shuttle process was a
possible way to keep costs more under control ("NASA Braces for Course Correction.")
One
of the big questions, of course, is who are these private companies
that are apparently so desperate to swoop in and take responsibility
for the US human spaceflight program? Meet Elon Musk, the founder of SpaceX. Musk, who established his fortune by co-founding PayPal
and then selling it to eBay, has garnered a lot of attention over the
last several months for his promises that his start up company can fill
that gap cheaper and more effectively than NASA can ("Adding Rocket Man to his Resume".)
The Falcon 9 rockets his company has developed have had several
successful tests, and are equipped to carry cargo to the International
Space Station. They're still not ready for crew transports, but they
claim they will be ready for their maiden flight by the end of 2010
("Adding Rocket Man to his Resume.)
Video: Time Magazine interview with Elon Musk, SpaceX founder
For some, this seems like the ideal solution to many of NASA's
lingering problems. In an article in the New York Times about Obama's
plan, John Tierney wrote that "traditional aerospace companies remain
leery of the plans... but there are other upstarts besides SpaceX
working on project to get humans into space." He continues that with
responsibility for trips moving astronauts and cargo back and forth
from Earth to the International Space Station, NASA would be able to
focus on developing the far more advanced technologies needed to enable
travel far beyond Earth's orbit ("NASA, we've got a problem. But it can be fixed.")
Some early concerns, such as what will happen to American space
presence during the intervening years between the end of NASA's human
spaceflight efforts and the handoff to private companies as well as the
potential dangers of having third parties responsible for the safety of
American astronauts, have been overshadowed to a degree by the promise
that the change would enable NASA to focus on bigger and better things
while cutting costs. "NASA would be better served to spend its money on
going beyond Earth orbit rather than running a trucking service to low
Earth orbit," said Augustine in a press conference discussing the
panel's findings ("NASA Braces for Course Correction.")
Criticism
of Obama's
proposal to cut Constellation
A big part of achieving America's space goals in the “smart way” President Obama talks about
is putting
responsibility in the hands of the private sector, and not everyone has been so happy to go along with the plan. Sawato Das, a
technology and science writer, described the decision’s impact
critically in a New York Times op-ed. “If Congress approves it [Obama’s
cuts to the Constellation Program], NASA astronauts will be stuck
riding in commercial space taxis,” he wrote ("Farewell
to NASA’s Glory
Days"). These concerns were echoed in Congressional
discussions, with
many representatives raising questions about whether the shift from government
control of human spaceflight to commercial control will negatively
impact American prestige. Responding to NASA Administrator Maj. Gen.
Charles Bolden, Jr., Rep. David Wu, a Democrat from Oregon, said he has
been against privatization from the start, and questioned how much
profit there was to be made by private companies in the space business.
“I would encourage the administration and your agency to consider
whether this is premature, whether this is wise and whether this dooms
us to a future where there are no Americans in space, or at least the
dominant language in space is not English,” he said (“Under
Fire,
Administrator Defends NASA’s New Direction”). Representatives
were also
concerned at the lack of Bolden’s knowledge about the viability of
commercial space programs, reinforcing the concern that the change was
too abrupt (“Under Fire, Administrator Defends NASA’s New Direction”).
There has also been strong criticism
from politicians whose constituencies are more concerned with the
Earth-bound parts of the human space program. Sen. Kay Bailey
Hutchinson( R-Texas), has vociferously protested the change,
saying that the plan kills jobs – Texas is home to the Johnson Space
Center - and that “America’s decades-long dominance of space will
finally come to an end” (“Obama’s plans for NASA changes met with harsh
criticism”). Senators and representatives from Florida, Colorado, and
other states impacted by the change have responded similarly.
Sen.
Orin Hatch (R-Utah) had some strong criticisms of the President's
decision. Speaking to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on
Commerce, Justice and Science in April 2010, Hatch protested the move
on the grounds that it would essentially throw away the $9 billion
already invested in the Constellation Project, the loss of jobs and
national presige would be significant, and the plan relies on
"utilizing
unproven private businesses as the means to transport our astronauts to
the International Space Station." He added, "It also should be noted,
many of the
companies which are expected to bid for these contracts are start-ups.
These new start-ups do not have any experience in carrying humans, or
even cargo, into space. In addition, even under these corporations’
most optimistic near-term proposals, their systems will not be able to
travel beyond low-Earth orbit" (Hatch Predicts Dire Consequences)
Some
of the most prominent members of the space community have also come out
against cutting Constellation. In an open letter to the President, Neil
Armstrong, James Lovell and Eugene Cernan, all commanders of Apollo
missions, warned that private industry does not yet have the
capabilities to operate human spaceflights and that the decision to
turn the program over to them without their being ready leaves the
United States in a difficult position.They wrote,
"For The United States, the leading space faring nation for nearly half
a century, to be without carriage to low Earth orbit and with no human
exploration capability to go beyond Earth orbit for an indeterminate
time into the future, destines our nation to become one of second or
even third rate stature. While the President's plan envisages humans
traveling away from Earth and perhaps toward Mars at some time in the
future, the lack of developed rockets and spacecraft will assure that
ability will not be available for many years" (Astronauts: Obama Nasa Plan "Devastating")
The
two camps seem to be divided along the question of whether cutting
costs and redirecting NASA's priorities away from overseeing human
spaceflight is worth the potential loss of prestige in the lag time
during the hand off, and whether the private sector can do the job as
safely, and without losing the traditional focus on space science for
the human good.
[1]
[2]