Bethejustin.com

It's no secret that I have been a space enthusiast/geek/dreamer since I was a teenager. At the age of 13 my boyhood dream was to be among the first to see the Red Planet with my own eyes. Since that time I've followed NASA's efforts, their triumphs and at times deep tragedies, I've always remained adamant that the ultimate goal of humanity should be to expand our civilization beyond our home and I believe Mars is the next logical choice.

February 1 marks seven years since the tragic events of the Columbia disaster. It also marks the day when what is now several long weeks of debate, anxious waiting and wondering about the details of President Obama's plans for the future of America's human space flight efforts have come to an end.  Despite being an avid space fan for most of my life I have found it hard to find a voice with regards to all the rumors of what the Obama plan may or may not do/fund/cut/etc. While struggling to find the words to consolidate my thoughts on the matter I thought it best to wait until the real announcement had been made. Today we have some answers and it seems, I must admit discouragingly, that they do not differ drastically from what has been leaking out over the last week or so.

I am puzzled by the manner in which this new plan was rolled out. Initially we had been told the NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden would hold a live press conference at NASA Headquarters.  Over the weekend that was hastily changed to a conference call for reporters. Well by now there are numerous summary stories outlining things but essentially it boils down to what we had been hearing, Constellation (NASA's replacement for the Shuttle) has been canceled (despite rumblings from Congress I have to think that today will probably represent the end for Constellation) and the focus of NASA will shift to: ISS expansion through 2020, championing efforts for commercial crew launch providers, earth sciences, robotic missions, and aeronautic projects. Additional work on things like propulsion technology, yet more study of human physiology in space, and work on a new heavy lift vehicle were skirted around in vagaries.

"A clear destination."

Like much of the human space flight community what all of this may ultimately mean is swirling around as an ocean of thoughts in my head. What keeps bubbling to the top as my biggest concern with this new plan is the lack of any real goal or clearly defined mission/destination.  Throughout the nineties and indeed after the Columbia disaster we were told that the big problem with NASA was that there was no clear mission no ultimate goal. The merits can be debated but for all that Constellation was or wasn't it was a clear destination. It was a line in the sand to work towards.

As best as I can tell the Obama plan offers no insight into the issue of what our end goal might be.  We're told that perhaps in time we will develop the technologies to take on and tackle bigger more ambitious missions. However I've not seen any indication of what that timeline might be and what ends for thes potentially newly developed means might be. What will drive that research if we have no guidance on what those missions will be? It is very hard not to feel like we've been here before and we are going to be once again confined to low-earth-orbit feeling around in the dark for some glimmer of light.

It isn't that I don't believe that efforts like earth sciences, and encouraging a commercial space industry aren't valid or even very important, they absolutely are. However what worries me with regards to these announcements and the usual dialogue around commercial space efforts is that there is a focus on things like tourism or LEO transport and very little talk of exploration. 

One of the primary definitions of exploration is "the investigation of unknown regions" I can't help but feel like after 50 years we should know low earth orbit reasonably well. Whatever happens, hardware and programs aside, it is my strongest deepest belief that we must continue to have a clear plan for reaching beyond LEO and to a destination that allows us to expand our civilization beyond this planet, push ourselves to the limits, and to live up to that human desire to truly be explorers.

"Too hard."

Another thing that really gets me going are suggestions that some how Mars is too hard, or beyond our reach with current understanding and technology. Witness the comments of NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden below speaking in Israel.

"We’ve got a lot of work to do before we can responsibly send humans to Mars. The biggest thing, the biggest challenge right now, there are two big challenges, one is propulsion and propulsion is a challenge because of the biggest challenge, which is radiation. We don’t completely understand the radiation environment between here and Mars but we know it’s bad. And we suspect, based on past experience and the limited data that we have, that if we put humans into a normal spacecraft now and have them embark on an 8-month one-way mission to Mars they’re going to die unless we spend a lot of money and a lot of metal on tremendous shielding for the vehicle. We know that.

“So, we cannot responsibly put humans in a spacecraft and say next year we’re going to send them to Mars. Can we conquer that? can we overcome that? Yes we can. I don’t know how long it is going to take.” (Source)

Who are we to say this is too hard? Quite literally when we committed to landing humans on the Moon we barely had a handle on how to launch to Earth ORBIT!  For all we knew the lunar lander would touch down and sink into the sandy surface of the Moon.  More over why not let the humans who will make the journey decide whether they are willing to accept the risk? I'd wager that if you put out the call you'd find a number far in excess of any crew compliment of people willing to go even on a one way journey. I don't think the problem is a lack of creative solutions to these problems or the ability to find them it is the lack of the will to do so in the aggressive tradition of Apollo. 

More than that though I think this kind of rhetoric is damaging to our culture and to one of NASA's newly prescribed missions, to encourage kids to pursue careers in engineering, science, math, etc. What message does this send? We'll do something that's hard but only after we've spent multiple lifetimes analyzing the dangers? Should 13 year old me temper his dreams of visiting Mars because there are too many unknowns involved?

This is directly counter to the American tradition of exploration and the "can do" attitude not only America but NASA has stood for.  I would wager that we probably know more about what we will find when we get to Mars and what we will find on the journey than Lewis and Clark did when they started west into their unknown.  What would American history look like if they had chosen to study every possible permutation of wagon design for sixty some years before embarking?

When we set out for the moon we had less computing power than my car does today in the Apollo modules and we had no idea what-so-ever how to put a square peg (the Command Module CO2 scrubber) into a round hole (the Lunar Module CO2 scrubber) but we figured it out and we are the better for it. If we're saying we're not only not willing but flat out incapable of tackling that challenge today then I don't think it is at all unreasonable to wonder what have the last 50 years meant? What stewards are we of the memories of those who have given their lives in the name of tackling those challenges?

"Hindsight."

It is interesting that as all of this has come about I have once again picked up the book "Deke!", Deke Slayton's autobiography. I wanted to pick it up again because when I was watching some of the Columbia memorial footage I was struck by Bob Crippen mentioning that he was at Kennedy Space Center when Columbia arrived escorted by Deke Slayton in a T38.  I forget at times that Deke was involved in the development of the Shuttle as well of course as virtually all aspects of our space program that came before. I'm currently working my way through his discussions of the Apollo and lunar programs.  There are casual mentions of the "Apollo Applications Program" as a framework for what the Apollo hardware might have been used for after the initial lunar missions wound down. 

I need to pause here and say that I grew up with the Shuttle, I have nothing but respect for the amazing vehicle it is and has been.  If it were up to me we would keep flying the Shuttle for as long as we fly the ISS it doesn't make sense, in my view, to extend the ISS and cripple it by eliminating the additional capabilities the Shuttle represents.  I also have tremendous respect for the Shuttle workforce, more so now than ever as a result of my interactions with the Space Tweep Society.  It will be hard to watch as the program winds down after all it's the program I grew up with, it was the Hubble missions that really truly inspired me to be as passionate as I am about human space flight.

Hindsight is 20/20 and I'm not an expert on the decision making process that lead to us abandoning Apollo in entirety and going with the Shuttle. It is my understanding that it was originally intended that they were to compliment one another, the Shuttle for example as I've heard it was hoped to be ready in time to boost Skylab to a higher orbit.  A part of me imagines the alternate universe were this was born out. Where we kept the Apollo hardware in place and maintained the heavy-lift capabilities of the Saturn V.  Apollo seems like it was a versatile architecture with capability for LEO, Lunar missions, a space station, and as a heavy-lift perhaps even Mars.  Indeed Von Braun himself dared to dream a program that had humans on Mars by 1982!!

"Wake-Up"

My hope for the future comes from the fact that there has been progress in the last fifty years. There has never been more ways to communicate and the Internet has brought a community of hundreds, if not thousands, of passionate space enthusiasts, and stakeholders together. People are passionate about the belief that we do need to expand into the stars and are represented online by countless groups, organizations, and efforts. 

If this group is able to mobilize then I am hopeful that for perhaps the first time our direction in space might be determined by, in the best traditions of democracy, the people. I believe the the online community could serve as a powerful catalyst but I truly believe that even the more mainstream audience takes pride in our space program and in the Shuttle and our Astronauts.

When the Shuttle program comes to an end soon I believe America as a nation will be dealt a stiff wake-up call and the general public will start to ask why we have allowed the state of affairs to devolve to the point where the first and only country to land humans on another terrestrial body no longer even has the ability to launch its citizens into space.

Have I agreed with him on every point? No. But the words of George W. Bush in the aftermath of Columbia ring as true to me on this matter as any I've heard and I truly believe they're not just lofty rhetoric but an imperative and absolute…

"This cause of exploration and discovery is not an option we choose, it is a desire written in the human heart."

In May President Obama formed what is essentially a presidential commission in the form of the Human Space Flight Committee (HSF). The HSF is charged, more or less, with evaluating all aspects of our current efforts as a nation in the area of manned space flight. As I understand it everything is on the table for the committee they're looking at current programs (the shuttle, station) as well as future efforts (constellation, the lunar mission, etc.). As part of this effort the committee has been holding a series of public meetings to both gather information and present their findings. I spent most of the day watching the latest meeting held in Houston, TX and it got me thinking about what I'd do if I could wave a wand and shape the face of space exploration for the next several decades.

Since I was a teenager I've always been a major proponent of human space exploration and NASA's efforts. I had a boyhood dream of being the first person to step foot on Mars and have always been fascinated by the red planet and desperately hope that I will see someone plant a boot there in my life time. I often joke that I would retire to Mars given the opportunity but in reality I would literally jump at any opportunity to migrate to Mars. Truth be told many of these views are shaped by the work of Dr. Robert Zubrin and the Mars Society (who's testimony I eagerly await on August 5th).

One thing I took away form the committee today is that we can't do it all with the budget NASA currently has. The interconnectedness of everything the committee looks at is amazing to me everything has it's cause and effect with implications almost to wide to comprehend. Which I guess brings me back to what would I do? I'm not really qualified to debate the merits to shuttle derived this vs. Orion that vs. Constellation whatever so I am going to stick primarily to the overall mission of the program. It's the potential to see this altered that gives me as much hope as I've had in some time about the future of our manned space efforts.

Well ultimately I would craft a program built with the end goal of full scale human colonization of Mars. It occurred to me today that the human psyche has already considered this possibility. After all how many places in movies, pop-culture, literature, etc. do we see Earth threatened in someway and we take off in search of a new home in the stars. In the tech community when we talk about backups it's often said that something doesn't exist unless exists in two places. Humanity as a race fails this basic test and that seems unacceptable to me.

Before we get to Mars though I think we need to do something to address the so called "gap" this is the idea that there will be a 5 (or according to today's presentations as much as a 7!) year gap where the United States will not have the capability to launch humans into space. Let's consider some examples from fiction how many movies are there were an asteroid shows up and we have a crash program to send astronauts out there to meet and confront the threat? How exactly is that going to work when we've put the Shuttle in a museum? So I would fund the shuttle program to insure that there is effectively no gap between programs, yes this will require more money but we're either committed to a manned space program or we're not. If we're not going to be more committed than we have in the past the we will end up with the same results previous programs have yielded. I often think about the dismantling of the Apollo program in the context of a threat to humanity, let's say we HAD to get people off planet. How would we do that today? We don't have the hardware.

Then there is ISS. This is a tough one because as I mentioned above the central goal of my program is human colonization of Mars. While I'm admittedly not an engineer I have a very hard time buying any of the rationales that use the ISS as a test bed for exploration of Mars, heck for me the Moon as a Mars analogue is even a hard pill to swallow. The reality is that the ISS remains in orbit, has cost us 60 billion dollars and that is is the INTERNATIONALSpace Station. It just feels totally asinine to me to crash 60 billion dollars worth of hardware that we spent decades assembling into the ocean after just 6 years of service. In addition to which I think that there are very real issues with the execution of that it seems pretty clear that our partners have no desire to end the ISS after 2016 so what do we do if they don't want to leave? Stick them with the bill? Is this something we really want to risk international relations over? Practically I don't think it is a U.S. decision to make in-terms of whether we de-orbit the station. Perhaps we could just pull the funding but that doesn't seem like a great way to insure the cooperation of other nations going forward. One thing that's always appealed to my imagination is the ISS as a 2001-esque launch terminal for interplanetary shuttles, etc. What it comes down to for me is that I don't have a good answer for the ISS question. It's at direct odds with the stated goal of my program but from a rationale thinking perspective a crash landing doesn't make sense and isn't practical anyways.  I would like to additionally say that the ISS is an engineering marvel and watching it's construction has been nothing short of amazing.

So in summary my desire plan would define as the clear and direct goal of the manned space program to work towards large scale human colonization of Mars, while also insuring that we do not allow a gap. Achieving no gap will require additional funding. I'm not as clear on the ISS but I am certainly in favor of exploring the various commercial launch solutions for re-supply and crew transfer to the ISS and freeing up NASA to support shuttle missions and the hardware and exploration work needed to support eventual colonization.

In short: Colonize Mars.