Ah, the open highway. Is there another
icon that more perfectly evokes America's view of itself? Freedom... to move
about over vast spaces. Wealth... generated by transportation-supported commerce.
Power... to control one's future, the result of freedom and wealth.
NASA
Administrator Mike Griffin has suggested recently the highway as
the perfect analogy for his agency's implementation of the Vision for Space
Exploration. Let's examine this closely, beginning with Mr. Griffin's words on
these very pages in a commentary published May 24, 2004, entitled "Exploration
and Commercial Space." At that time, he was head of the Space Department at
Johns Hopkins University's Applied Physics Laboratory, and thus not hemmed-in
by the political and financial realities of Washington.
"... [I]n the context of
the proposed Exploration Initiative, we have an opportunity to examine the
issue anew. We're not going anywhere in a hurry, and if we plan it right, there
are enormous opportunities to use the initiative to build a true commercial space
infrastructure along the way. ..." He went on to describe the great need for propellant,
"... tanks of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen ... the constituents of water, ..." in low
Earth orbit for decades to come, concluding that "... the delivery of water to appropriate
staging areas in cislunar space is the perfect 'kick start' for a commercial space
initiative." In other words, to use the highway analogy, gas stations.
Unfortunately,
now that Mr. Griffin is head of NASA and faced with the political pressure to
maintain Johnson Space Center and Kennedy Space Center jobs and infrastructure,
along with shuttle and international space station budget constraints, the
highway analogy now is used to support NASA's Crew Exploration Vehicle/Crew
Launch Vehicle (CEV/CLV) plans. In other words, vehicles rather than
infrastructure.
The highway analogy may
seem perfect at first glance, but the analogy is being misused. The government
builds roads, not vehicles, and it is inappropriate to say that CEV/CLV are the
road when they are obviously vehicles. Since one doesn't lay down asphalt and
concrete in space, what is the space equivalent of a road? Infrastructure, like
those water (gas) stations. Infrastructure, such as cislunar navigation systems
like the Federal Aviation Administration provides for transcontinental
aviation. And just as the government builds roads by accepting competitive bids
from businesses, NASA must build its cislunar roads the same way.
I know the argument
that NASA can't rely on the unproven NewSpace companies if it's going to meet
the president's deadline for returning
to the Moon, but this is a false argument for two very powerful reasons.
First,
NASA and the traditional aerospace companies can hardly boast of their ability
to develop new space vehicles, as the readers of this publication are certainly
aware.
Second, and more to my
point, recall Mr. Griffin's statement above that "We're not going anywhere in a
hurry. ..." Exactly. The president himself stated that NASA's new mission isn't a
race, and the Aldridge Commission emphasized that NASA must transform its
relationship with the private sector.
It therefore follows
that deadlines for reaching the Moon and Mars should incorporate and support
the NewSpace companies and their development of the cislunar highway, rather
than be solely based on the expected time required by NASA and the traditional
contractors to build CEV/CLV. This is the way to create the commercial space
infrastructure and services that NASA, and the world, need.
NASA and its
contractors, of course, will loudly proclaim that CEV/CLV meet unique
requirements that only they can provide, and that NASA's peculiar procurement
methods are the only way to provide these vehicles. Well, if the traditionally
conservative U.S. military can work in new ways with businesses, so can NASA.
The Nov./Dec. 2005
issue of Defense Technology International describes the U.S. Navy's sea
trials of Sea Fighter:
"The ship underwent a
novel procurement process for the Navy: It was built in a medium-sized yard to
commercial standards and practices. Specifications didn't change during
construction; there were incentives to bring the project in on time; and only
14 people, including six from the Navy, oversaw construction. The vessel was
the first navy ship certified by the American Bureau of Shipbuilding, which
saved more money than if built solely by the Navy. Sea Fighter was budgeted at
around $75 million, one-third to one-half the cost of a ship built to standard
Navy criteria. ..."
There is a clear lesson
here, and spare me the arguments about why this doesn't equate to space
transportation. We have heard enough from the naysayers, the doubters and the minions of mediocrity. This is the
time for leaders, for thinkers, for doers. The visionaries already have provided the goals.
NASA has taken
tentative steps in the direction espoused by Mr. Griffin in 2004, but by no
means is it enough. As Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) told the
Commercial Space Transportation Congress Feb. 10 when speaking about the NewSpace companies:
"The job of Congress is to pass legislation and exercise its oversight
functions in such a way that will enable this industry to succeed. We must keep
a watchful eye on our government agencies to ensure they are operating and
cooperating with the commercial space industry and not implementing unnecessary
or overly burdensome regulations."
Space
highway construction would be an excellent place for Mr. Calvert's attention.
Jeff Krukin is
executive director of the Space Frontier Foundation.
