The whole point of leaving home is to go somewhere, not just to endlessly circle the block, said Wesley Huntress, NASAs space science chief during the 1990s.
He criticized the space shuttle and space station programs as too costly for what they deliver and encouraged U.S. lawmakers to view them as the legacy of a long-past era in which the space program was a weapon in the Cold War with the Soviet Union.
Alex Roland, a Duke University history professor and frequent critic of NASAs human space flight program, urged lawmakers to support permanently grounding the space shuttle fleet and mothballing the space station until both systems can be operated with little or no human intervention.
Roland, who called the space shuttle the worlds most expensive least robust and most deadly launch vehicle, said NASAs priority ought to be building a new vehicle that can make the trip to orbit much more safely and affordably. Before we can fly to Mars, we must first master flight to low earth orbit, he said.
Roland was joined in criticizing one of NASAs main rationales for the shuttle and space station programs -- that its about science -- by a college professor who has seen his experiments fly on no fewer than three shuttle missions.
Mathew Koss, an associate professor of physics at the College of Holy Cross, said he felt personally responsible for the loss of Columbia keeping quiet about his long held belief that astronauts are not necessary to conducting a vigorous microgravity science program.
I was responsible for not saying what I had known privately and discussed with other scientists -- that we did not need human beings to participate in the exercise of these experiments, Koss said. Almost all the physical science experiments done on orbit could be done autonomously or remotely.
NASA had no witnesses present to defend its programs or current vision, which calls for taking a stepping stone approach to unspecified destinations. In NASAs current plan, space shuttle and space station are important technology proving grounds and laboratories for learning about living and working in space.
Most of the witnesses agreed that NASA needed a clearer vision and that any new course for NASA ought to include sending humans to Mars. There was also wide agreement that destination specific visions have the best chance of concentrating resources and producing results. But opinions varied on just how and when to go about making such a trip a reality.
Huntress was among those who reasoned that a Mars or Bust crash effort like the Apollo moon program is neither necessary nor politically feasible.
The Apollo program was not primarily the science or exploration program we are all fond of remembering, it was a demonstration of power and national will intended to win over hearts and minds around the world and to demoralize the Soviet Union Huntress said. Exploration is not what motivated Kennedy to open the public purse. Beating the Russians did.
Mike Griffin, a former senior NASA manager and aerospace industry executive, presented the most charitable assessment of NASA's human space flight efforts, ranking it second in priority only to building a new, more reliable heavy lift launcher.Griffin advised following through with space station, which means returning the shuttle to flight, while setting a new course that includes Mars. To accomplish this, Griffin recommends increasing NASA's budget from $15 billion a year to $20 billion.
"NASA costs each American 14 cents a day. A really robust program could be had for about 20 cents a day," Griffin said. "Americans spend more on pizza then they do on space."
advertisement
