Rutan had harsh words for NASA’s Crew Exploration Vehicle program—and the space agency’s revisit of the Moon. He likened NASA’s efforts to archeology.
“They are forcing the program to be done with technology that we already know works. They are not creating an environment where it is possible to have a breakthrough,” Rutan advised. “It doesn’t make sense,” he said, contending that programs must encourage risks “in order to stumble into breakthroughs.”
Although tipping his hat to the technical competence of NASA chief, Mike Griffin, “I wouldn’t have his job,” Rutan added. The NASA task ahead is trying to fulfill the President Bush space exploration vision … but given “only pennies to do it.”
It's definitely true that if NASA only uses the same technology that they already have, the space program will lag further and further behind commercial space interests. Back in the 60's when they were trying to shoot rockets to the moon, they took and encouraged plenty of risk, developing new technologies to get the rockets there without jeopardizing the lives of the astronauts. We ended up with the space shuttle almost 30 years ago. It was cutting-edge, ahead of the pack, and by far the best space vehicle on the planet. That time is past. It's time for NASA to adopt new strategies and new vehicles.
However, as Rutan also says they're working with pennies. Although you might be staggered by the actual amount of NASA's budget, you should realize that space is an expensive business. NASA needs more funding in order to achieve its mission goals, but it also needs to be forced to adapt and innovate. It's been a long time since NASA introduced a new vehicle, and I'm thinking 30 years is long enough to develop something new. By comparison, not only have the Air Force and Navy have retired all the airplanes designed in the 70s, two generations of airplanes have come and gone in that time. Would we expect them to field the ancient F-4, or are we happy we invested in the F-22? Perhaps we should do the same for NASA and expect the same of them; namely to stay ahead of the game, not behind the curve.
Make no mistake, commercial interests are going to space, with or without the US government. I think we'd all prefer it to be with. We'd severely regret letting NASA languish to the extent that when industries are mining the asteroids NASA hasn't even explored them yet.
2 comments:
And yet Bush's call to go to Mars falls on deaf ears. Though I hardly hold that against the American people. For one, that we are focused on national security is only natural. But two, that people percieve us as no longer being able to afford such grand endeavors is the fault of politicians in general, and Republicans in particular. Drowning the government in the bath tub does not make it conducive to carrying out missions in space. Surely our missions to the Moon were no motivated purely by a desire to beat the Soviets right? The fact is that without these ideas to inspire us, without goals like going to Mars or beyond, we limit our own accomplishments. And we are a smaller people as a result.
Smaller people indeed. But when, o when, are people going to understand that taxes in and of themselves are not evil? Our strategy to stop wasteful expenditures should not be to stop all expenditures whatsoever, it should just be to stop wasteful programs!
Post a Comment