The Space Launch Initiative will be
wildly successful if we so reduced the technical and financial risks that
the commercial marketplaces come back to the point where there will be
commercial entities that see an opportunity for providing commercial launch
services. That’s desirable, but not necessary.
I don’t believe it will happen. I pretty
well expect that by the middle of the decade things won’t have changed
in the commercial sector, so that if the government has to go forward with
the program, they’ll be able define the cost, the schedule and the expectations
of performance.
Q: Is it time for NASA to begin making
the case to the White House and Congress for a government-funded vehicle?
Goldin: We shouldn’t put our mouths
in gear until our brains understand that it can be done. There’s a difference
between wanting to make something happen and the real ability to do it.
We learned our lessons. During the experimental programs we had a half
decade ago, the industry told us, "this is going to be a commercial activity.
We want you to sign a cooperative agreement with us, you stay out, and
we will be totally in charge -- and you just give us a bottom-line contract
to fly something."
We don’t want that anymore. We’ve set
up what I call "inch stones." We are not going to wait five years to see
if we fly something. Half year into the program, a year into the program,
if its not meeting the inch stones, we modify direction. We are not going
to wait until the end point.
Q: By killing
X-33 and beginning the Space Launch Initiative is NASA now locked into
more shuttle upgrades?
Goldin: I’m not ready to concede that.
We are going to proceed with the Space Launch Initiative and it will be
a real government-industry team. We are going to track the inch stones,
we are going to watch the progress, we are going to modify our direction
when we need to, we’re going to really do a lot on the technologies being
developed by the private sector and we will see where we go.
Q: In the meantime, will NASA try to
avoid making too much of an investment in the shuttle?
Goldin: This question of the space
shuttle is not a matter of politics. We will invest whatever is necessary
to keep that space station as safe as we can. We’re not going to let go
of the space shuttle to make funds available to people having fun.
The awesome part of my job is the knowledge,
the personal sense of responsibility I feel for lives of those astronauts.
We will maintain that shuttle safer and safer. That is a given. When we
see [that] there is a better vehicle, when we see there is an opportunity
for that better vehicle, we will start investing in it.
But this isn’t politics, this isn’t
finance. This is a commitment of this nation to look families of the shuttle
astronauts in the eyes and say this machine is safe. When it comes to safety
and you know there is something you can do, you have an obligation to do
it.
Q: We understand that NASA needs to
spend money on the shuttle for safety and supportability, but will NASA
refrain from making larger, performance-oriented investments in such improvements
as liquid flyback boosters?
Goldin: The beauty of the Space Launch
Initiative is that it is going to develop technology that, if the USA company
chooses to compete the second-generation launcher with the shuttle, they
can feel free to apply it. I don’t think that at this point in time, it
would be fair to go ahead with a flyback booster.
We need a level playing field, not
a biased playing field. And I feel...and there are members of Congress,
like [Rep.] Dana
Rohrabacher, who really want a level playing field. I feel the administration
feels strongly it should be a level playing field. And just saying, "Hey
shuttle, here’s $5 billion or $10 billion, go build a flyback
booster while we have the Space Launch Initiative going" -- I don’t
think that’s a level playing field.
advertisement
