[Moonbase-discuss] NASA & privateers

[JonAlexandr@aol.com]

I enjoyed the first session of Moonbase University, and I look forward to the 
next sessions.  I've decided to toss the following comments into the 
discussion; they derive from some threads briefly explored at that first 
session.  For a variety of reasons I may not be able to follow up, but I hope 
everyone here will appreciate a little controversy.

First, I disagree with people who have nothing good to say about NASA.  To 
those who think that NASA is a 'big gorilla' holding down private efforts in 
space, I say that the big gorilla to worry about is the one represented by 
our military space efforts.

NASA was designated a civilian agency, and our defense departments 
(particularly the Air Force), have always resented this.  Quite a few years 
back, however, direct spending on military space efforts finally eclipsed 
spending by NASA.  But even worse, many of NASA's civilian programs have been 
quietly integrated with military efforts, or headed by military officials.  
Unfortunately, this trend is accelerating under the current Bush 
Administration, and I expect redoubled efforts following the World Trade 
Center disaster.  (By the way, am I the first to call missile defense -- AKA 
"Star Wars" -- a faith-based initiative?)

I see the best of NASA as an agency under siege from several directions:  
>From the covetous military; from a fickle and uneducated Congress (and from 
its respectively fickle and uneducated public); and from the 
private-enterprise crowd that erroneously blames all of its own failures on 
the white "gorilla."

Certainly there is to some extent a 'circle the wagons' mentality in parts of 
NASA, but I think there is also some justification for this.  If many people 
in NASA had not stood their ground during tough fights for funding, many of 
the very missions that are now considered 'jewels' in NASA's (and USA's) 
crown of achievements, such as the spectacular Voyager missions (et cetera) 
-- well, these literally would never have gotten off the ground.  And I 
remember:  I wrote many letters to my representatives when those missions 
were in danger of being canceled or downgraded.  I'm glad NASA scientists and 
engineers held firm to their visions.

I think the swipes that the space technology private-enterprise crowd takes 
at NASA are part of a larger pattern that is reflected in the overall 
Republican agenda:  Bring government spending down just enough to starve 
funds for "unnecessary" social programs.  And how does this translate to 
science and space exploration?  Cut basic research and support only those 
efforts that have a high chance of direct economic return.  Since NASA is 
supposed to be an "exploration" agency -- which is equatable with basic 
research -- then NASA is in Republican eyes a target in the same way that a 
social service agency is.

And what about the International Space Station (ISS)?  It goes around and 
around, but goes nowhere.  Well, I disagree with this perception as well.  
Space is a hostile environment to us now.  It's going to take a long time 
before it becomes 'second-nature' to live and work in space.  I consider the 
main task of ISS as getting people -- humans -- familiar with the space 
environment in all of its spectacular AND boring details.  Only then will 
humanity be prepared for permanent space habitation -- which, I think, is the 
REAL reason for ISS.

All the best.  --Jon

Jon Alexandr
JonAlexandr@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/jonalexandr/myhomepage/profile.html

---------------------------------------

PS:  You might find the following news story interesting.  Go to:

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nasa-01d1.html

Crunch Time For US Space Science
Cameron Park - August 27, 2001

"In a recent article, I reported the current squabble between Congress and 
the Senate over how to deal with NASA's growing budget crisis due to the 
Space Station's steadily ballooning cost overruns, and the effect these have 
had on actual space science funding.

This conflict will have to be resolved over the next two months through 
House-Senate negotiations, at the same time that an independent commission 
issues its recommendations as to how to try to cope with the Station's 
problems."