What Civil Space Agency Would You Create?

Here's an idea: stop confiscating American citizens' personal assets to fund your favorite science project. If you think your project is so great -- fund it yourself!

Where in the constitution does it say that the federal government should establish a civilian space agency? And please, don't cite the general welfare clause -- that is the last refuge of the desperate.

Frank's note: Try looking in the U.S. Code, the body of federal law where the NASA Act of 1958, along with the establishment of Medicare and Medicaid, Dept. of Education, etc. are established. As far as "confiscating American citizens' personal assets", ever hear of the I.R.S.?

Thanks for the opportunity, Frank.

Break up NASA thus:

Combine aeronautics research with FAA into
The National Aeronautics and Aviation Administration.

Combine all earth-facing space assets (Earth Resources) and space environmental monitoring (SOHO, etc) with NOAA into
The National Environmental Resources Monitoring Agency

Combine the mission operations portions of JPL, JSC, GSFC, and KSC into a

National Space Exploration Administration

who's purpose is to blaze the trail to new destinations in the solar system. Part of the NSEA's charter must be that once a new destination is reached by human crews, they must contract out to private industry vital support services needed to maintain a facility at that new destination, such as transporation, communications, staffing, etc.

Create a new entity focused entirely on developing advanced spaceflight/spacecraft technology:

The National Advisory Committee on Spaceflight Technology (a la NACA).

MSFC & STL, and portions of Glenn/Lewis become their labs. This entity exists to support the industry that serves the NEMA and the NSEA.

Did I avoid anything obscene with the acronyms?

My ideas would be:

1. Spin off the aeronautical to a new NACA.
2. Earth observations to NOAA
3. Maintain the research on new propulsion & space technologies but make it open source
4. Do _not_ build or operate launchers. Send specs out to commercial and/or private companies for them to build and operate.
5. Certify as safe (ie: very small chance of blowing up or killing people) private and commercial spacecraft and launchers. They wouldn't prohibit a launch but insurance is required and a bad rating means no insurance.
6. Design and operate deep space and planetary probes for science purposes only.
7. Operate manned space flights for purposes of exploration only. Like the discovery expeditions of the Royal Navy during the age of sail.
8. Consolidate and close all unneeded facilities/centers.
9. Budgets as a lump sum under close supervision of the OMB/GAO so there are no earmarks or pet-projects.
10. Wherever possible commercial contracts are used for services.

Beats me, "American." Where in the Constitution does it say, for that matter, that there should be a US Air Force?

Another American

Beats me, "American." Where in the Constitution does it say, for that matter, that there should be a US Air Force?

Touche!

Another American,

The federal government is clearly given the responsibility to provide for the common defense -- and space is included in that.

But that's not the civilian space agency, so I don't see your point. Can you expand?

Returning to the actual topic ... If _I_ had the power to do it all over again, I think first of all I'd establish a deeper cleavage between "Space Science" and the rest of NASA. Nothing against astrophysics and cosmology and searching for exterrestrial life, etc., but perhaps the more purely scientific aspects of space exploration ought to be housed in the National Science Foundation or some related institution. I see some problems with this -- the space sciences have probably been much better treated where they are now then they would be if forced to compete for funds directly against biologists and physicists. OTOH, I think would be a step in the right direction to make the remaining parts of NASA a somewhat smaller, more nimble organization which stressed pragmatic engineering rather than ethereal science.

Point two: the Mission to Planet Earth should be pinned down at a crossroads on a moonless night and have a stake driven through its heart. Climate research is A Great Good, I'm sure; I'm sure as well other branches of the US government can concern themselves with it as well as NASA can. Ditto for Energy. Ditto for Education. Ditto, upon reflection, for International Collaboration.

Which would leave us with a National Aeronautics and Space Administration focused strictly on Aeronautics and Space.
What a concept! I'll not try to redesign such an entity on the fly; in any event, I don't think such a design should be set in stone; I don't the personnel working for such an agency ought to be irrevokably bound to the same little bureau or department for all their careers -- we should encourage a migration of skills and talents from one NASA branch to another. I would like to see this reborn NASA pay more attention to long-long range R&D programs; I would like to see a "Colonization Division" or something of that sort established with a formal timetable and adequate resources (shall we say two or three centers, each the size of JSC or KSC?).

My 2 cents.

"Frank's note: Try looking in the U.S. Code, the body of federal law where the NASA Act of 1958, along with the establishment of Medicare and Medicaid, Dept. of Education, etc. are established. As far as "confiscating American citizens' personal assets", ever hear of the I.R.S.?"

The Constitution supercedes any U.S. Code. The Constitution was written to give a complete and finite list of responsibilities to the federal government. If it isn't in the Constitution, then it isn't constitutional for the federal government to do it. This is fundamental, although the current administration seems to forget this more than most...

I'm not sure what to say about your IRS comment. I would welcome a discussion about the IRS' proper place in the cosmos, but that is perhaps a bit off-topic...

I like pretty much what Bob said above, but make all civilian liftoffs at least coordinated through his NSEA+NACA. It can be done via contracts, but NSEA+NACA should provide baseline rocket architecture controls, some launch facilities, too promote sharing U.S. funded research and faciltiies.

3 agencies + spin to DOT / FAA:

National Space Science Agency - actual science missions, manned and unmanned

National Space Development Agency - infrastructure and launches

National Space Research Agency - R&D

Aviation R&D to a NACA like entity (probably Ames + Dryden + some other stuff mostly go here) and off to DOT / FAA.

NSDA does not develop new technologies. They may develop new systems and infrastructure - on the ground and on orbit. But their primary goal is to get people and stuff where it needs to go.

If NSDA needs a new launch vehicle, they can provide the required specs off to industry and to NSRA to see who can propose to build what. But NSRA is no higher on the food chain than SpaceX or BoeMart.

NSDA astronauts assemble and maintain space and planetary surface bases as required.

NSSA astronauts are primarily scientists / data gatherers / science payload operators as required. They're "the payload" - if we need to drive a palentologist and a crustal geologist around Mars a bunch, they're NSSA astronauts, even if a NSDA astronaut pilots the lander/ascent vehicle and tags along to help carry rocks back to the rover.

NASA is an administration. Does anyone ever succeeded in downsizing an administration?

How would you populate this new agency? The same people under a different name? Then you'll get all the same problems you already have...

Common sense -

New agency, or agencies. Different boxes. The same old people, but reallocated. You'd get different behavior after a shaking down period. Really you would.

I rather like George's proposal -- it's very reasonable and would preserve most of the current capacity.

More realistically, though, I think it would be easiest to make each of your proposed agencies "directorates" much like the CIA operates. Different focuses and specialties, but with enough inbreeding to ensure that the right skills and people get where they're needed with the minimum of red tape.

Finally, fixed-cost contracts!

It's a timely topic. The 1958 National Aeronautics and Space Act was written up by a lady who went on to have a profound influence on space law coupling the mindset that space was a place and not a mission with legal statutes. She has just died aged 102.
The Act required the US to be 'pre-eminent' in space technology and to be equally responsible for disseminating information thus obtained, exempting national security interests.
Meddling with Administration-level civil service ranking is fraught with potential disaster - neither Agency nor Department, NASA exists to enact a desire and not to run a machine. The machine comes from the way the desire is satisfied. Which is why the Center-based concept is still right for the 21st century.
Breaking up elements of NASA activity is great for BIG GOVERNMENT but lousy for integrated use of assets, in-orbit or ground servers (Centers) assigned to manage the NASA mission. Breakup = greatly increased taxpayer costs, increased civil service manpower, diluted leverage on the Hill, lack of focus and a diversion from 'national icon' status.
What NASA has in abundance is a higher approval rating than at any time in its history - even during the height of Apollo - and it stands as a beacon of hope to a world fraught with economic depression, security threats and a general malaise.
The bigger picture starts with the vision and micro-management is in danger of destroying all those things that, from a distance, stand as one bright ray of hope in a troubled world.
Be careful, careful that in seeking to refine you fail to see the gradual decay from attention-to-vision to attention-to-management (of a self-imposed problem). It is very easy to believe that because we have the same system as one made 51 years ago it is inherently wrong.
Not sure if this does anything to progress the argument - thoughts, however, from a British citizen who for a long time had a deep involvement with the US space programme.

Unlike most I can relate back to the early sixties and the beginning of Apollo when NASA was trying to figure out what it needed to do to get to the Moon. Yes it was a far different agency then and was full of people who were focus on their jobs and the tasks ahead. When I departed the disconnected effort that is Constellation a few years ago I was sadden by the fact that the people within the agency seemed to be focused on how do I get my 15 or what ever their next step was. Too many people who have no idea what they are doing much less what do they need to do and don’t even mention System Engineering, it was like a foreign subject. So what should NASA look like? It should look like an Agency with a mission and leaders who care about the mission. It should be an agency with a love for exploration and the resolve to do it smartly and carefully with measured steps and a desire for the unknown.

I don't think my vote counts as a Brit but I have watched the US space program for a few decades now so here goes:

1. float off the ISS as an independent organisation, US led obviously but capable of more international collaboraton. It needs to find it's own purpose and surely than any other NASA accomplishment, merits its own head.

2. Make space transportation a government department with a remit to ensure a US capability, standards, safety, etc.

3. Make space science a separate agency - a guaranteed winner.

4. Make human space exploration and economic exploitation a separate agency. Gold rush thinking, as well as 'because its there'.

Splitting NASA into more specific entities is reasonable to consider, but only if each of those entities then gets the support needed to do its job. The Congressional Budget Office estimated (in 2004 & 2009) that NASA would require roughly $24B/yr (current dollars) to do what it has been assigned, yet the latest 2010 budget stops shy of $19B/yr.

Getting rid of centers or reducing staff does not make it easier to accomplish what has been assigned. Shifting the work elsewhere will also not make it easier to accomplish unless the assignments are matched to the level of support.

Assuming that budgets do not grow (which is realistic), the question becomes: "what tasks to drop?"

And for those that think that the issue is efficiency, I challenge them to provide data of other gov't organizations for accomplishments per budget.

Just a slightly different flavor of some of the above proposals:

- Aeronautics research gets folded into the FAA
- Earth science (and possibly heliophysics) gets folded into NOAA
- Space science (i.e. Astrophysics and robotic planetary exploration, astrobiology) gets folded into NSF
- Life science gets folded into NIH
- New space technology development (propulsion, computing, structures, etc). This one I'm not sure of where it should land. The civilian portion of government seems to no longer think this is a meaningful area for them to be engaged in. I'd love to see DARPA broken out of DoD and made into an engineering NSF for purposes that are not just defense-related.

Thus each of the science areas is allocated to a science agency responsible for that field. Space missions compete against other missions in the same realm. A new x-ray mission competes against new earth-based telescopes but NOT against atmospheric monitoring.

The breakup leaves open the question of human spaceflight of course. Create a new public/private partnership for human spaceflight. Funding could come from multiple sources: public funding if space exploration is deemed a national priority, public funding from other agencies (NSF, NIH) if they deem human-based scientific research important to their mission, private funding for tourism, amusement, etc. The organization needs to be quasi self-sufficient so it would have to find the best way of operating assets such as the ISS. Shuttle Extension/Constellation/Direct options would be driven by true cost-benefit analysis.

I recall a couple Space Politics posts on surveys of what types of science and technology improvements the public is willing to pay for. Virtually all of it was for security, environment, energy, and medicine/health. Space was barely on the charts. As a result, I'd shift NASA to more obviously provide benefits in these areas the public wants, as well as economic and educational benefits (areas the public also clearly wants and is willing to spend tax dollars on). However, all of this would be done in the context of space (and aeronautics), and the steps would bring us closer to being able to do the types of exploration and space development many of us want to see.

Completely remove NASA from design, development, and operation of launch vehicles. Retire Shuttle on time. Remove the Ares-based transportation system. Divest related infrastructure and cross-agency support. Use the resulting large savings (about half of NASA's budget?) to:

- adequately fund a COTS-like commercial ISS crew transport and rescue competition
- run COTS-like competitions in infrastructure areas with NASA and non-NASA market potential like reusable space point-to-point transport, satellite servicing, reusable tugs, refueling, small but frequent micro-reentry vehicles for space station sample return, and reusable space launch systems
- considerably increase near-term lunar precursor work by funding a new series of lunar robotics science, engineering, human factors, and ISRU missions, probably using small, affordable, and frequent missions in the style of Ames and Google Lunar X PRIZE teams
- considerably increase space station science (in publicly-supported application areas listed above), engineering, and spares funding. This would be towards ISS and, as they come online, Bigelow, Dragonlab, and similar commercial platforms.
- considerably increase Earth science funding to implement all of the National Academies recommended missions (15 for NASA plus small "Vanguard" missions), DISVR launch, and OCO replacement. In addition, fund satellite serviceability for these missions as appropriate, and add hosted payloads on commercial satellites. Vigorously transfer successes to operational agencies (NOAA, DOD, etc) and commercial space (DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, etc).
- increase funding for planetary science and heliophysics missions. An Administration like Obama's might orient this funding towards planetary and heliophysics missions with Earth science implications. There are enough large planetary science missions, so funding would go mostly for smaller, affordable missions and series of similar missions (eg: 5-10 near-identical rovers on various locations at Mars). Fund satellite serviceability as appropriate throughout these new and existing lines of missions.
- fund a major increase (over $1B) for more small missions to build space markets, educate future space workers, give NASA experience in running actual missions, work on application areas (health/medicine/biology, energy/environment monitoring, security) and of course for the mission science/engineering results:
* smallsats
* commercial suborbital RLV use
* Aeronautics X Planes
* hosted payloads/instruments
* Centennial Challenge prize competitions
* use of high-altitude balloons and planes
* small R&D efforts in spacecraft energy systems, efficient energy-using systems, and life support recycling
* various other small R&D efforts
* Education (university R&D, access to the above areas)
- a NASA exploration area that is much much smaller than Constellation, whose smaller funding profile obliges it to make use of the areas above (commercial launchers and infrastructure, robotic precursors, etc) as well as international participation. If lunar surface missions are out of reach at first with this funding, start with satellite servicing in LEO and then outward.

Let's say it runs something like this:

$500M/year: COTS-D
$1000M/year: COTS-infrastructure
$1000M/year: more lunar robotics
$1000M/year: more use of space stations
$1000M/year: more Earth observation satellites
$1000M/year: more planetary and heliophysics probes
$1500M/year: more small missions and efforts
$1000M/year: smaller astronaut exploration effort

I would let NASA go on its way. Its culture is set and its too well entrenched to radically change it, nor would you get the Congressional support to break it up.

What I would do is create a Space Economic Development Agency (SEDA)in the Department of Commerce. Its mission would be to increase American competitiveness in the global economy through development of the vast economic resources of space.

SEDA would be given them the initial goals of building a economically sustainable lunar base, development of NEO resources and the construction of a pilot Space Solar Power plant. I would fund them at $1 billion a year. Enough to get the the R&D going while requiring them to rely on innovative public-private partnerships to leverage their assets.

I would also give them bonding authority (U.S. Space Bonds) as a tool to bring private capital into the mix for initial funding, but put strict limits on its use and requirement for linking it to revenue potential from specific ventures.

Do not put any NASA functions under FAA, While the intent is good,
FAA is a regulator, FAA is like FDA or SEC, a regulatory agency
lots of green eye shade types, lots of lawmen, and the parts of FAA
that aren't Regulatory are stultified operational bureacracies.

Air Traffic Control operates in a mindset developed in the 1950's.

FAA has a terrible time with innovation, because of their regulatory nature.

If you moved Earth Sciences under NOAA, that would work out well.
You could keep Goddard as a R&D center, and move it's budget to
NOAA. That would keep Sen Mikulski happy and not wreck their mission.

Take JPL and the Ames Planetary groups, move them into 2 independent Labs like the National Labs (LLNL, LBL) and let the funding for that be moved into NSF and DOE. DOE could provide base funding, and project funding would come from NSF. These labs could then compete for programs against APL, Defense labs, etc.....

Take the Ames Aero group, Dryden, Langley and Glenn and put them back
into NACA. Make NACA an independent funded aerospace research group with a broad mission to provide technology and human factors for aviation, space propulsion. They are not to be operators,
just Demonstrations and technology excellence areas.

Finally take JSC, MSFC and KSC roll them into a Human spaceflight and
exploration agency. Leave them as independent, let them keep shuttle
for as long as it can last, let them keep the ISS and Orion Capsule,
but prohibit them from developing new boosters.

what this does after a while is take NASA and it's fragments out of booster
development, keeps space science and earth science running with their budgets protected in other agencies, breaks loose the R&D Aero functions
as an independent agency , and leaves MSFC and JSC to do their thing
with what they have already built.

1) Transfer all manned spaceflight activities to DoD. Mandate that DoD procure a range of suborbital and orbital capacities. Maybe attach to DARPA. Open these activities up to competitition among contractors.

2) Transfer Earth Science functions to NOAA.

3) Treat JPL and Ames as national labs and give them science budgets for missions beyond Earth orbit to be managed by NSF in addition to a budget for aeronautics research.

4) Give FAA oversight of private space activities (e.g., SpaceX, Bigelow) with a mandate to expand these using spin offs from DoD space activities.

5) Conduct beyond LEO manned flight either as DoD mission or contract with private firms for science/expoloration missions.

Maintain the current Structure as it now stands

The only significant change is the management of the Rocket build efforts, report directly to HQ under combined SOMD/ESMD structure.

This error has happened repeated, Apollo(baseline), Shuttle, ISS, now CxP. Each program has done it best to start from the beginning making the same errors, show budget growth and schedule slip in years.

Why Washington still operates the way that it does is because of the very thing the current President wishes to end. Lobbying and Earmarks.

DO not remove funding from one program to support another to support schedule slips or general lack of performance in any program.

Glad to see you guys are offering this as a topic of discussion. I doubt seriously whether the administration/congress will do anything though. Bureaucracies have a will to survive once created. Anyway, here are my thoughts...

• Fundamental space science research (gaining new knowledge about the universe). Spin it off. As wonderful as these missions are, they should compete with other fundamental science proposals. We should think in terms of the national research portfolio. The government funds a lot of fundamental research. It's time to think in terms of national portfolio management. Give this to the NSF. If the primary mission is science, NASA doesn't need to be involved. BTW, this includes astrobiology and other life science research with a space orientation.

• Aeronautical and space technology research. The sweet spot for NASA. One of a kind, doing what no one has done before, for the good of all. Can we push the envelope of state of the art? NASA's goal should be to generate new how-to knowledge in the areas of aeronautical and space technology (human and robotic). Propulsion systems, materials properties, etc. (As an aside, just like we have a NSF, maybe we need an National Engineering Foundation to over see the nation's applied sciences portfolio.)

There is a survey put out by the National Research Council called the Planetary Science Decadal Survey. I would love to see something like this for aeronautical and space technology. Survey aeronautical and space engineers about what they think are the most pressing areas of research to be pursued over the next ten years. Let it be the guiding document for NASA's portfolio.

• Space infrastructure development and maintenance. Time for a new organization. The Space Transportation and Telecommunications Authority (STTA). It's purpose is to build and govern the transportation infrastructure to LEO, and eventually to the moon and beyond. The Deep Space Network would also come under it's umbrella. Most people forget about the DSN. It's an amazing national (and international) operational asset. This is where the Interplanetary Internet would be developed and regulated.

Of course, what we do once we get out there is not the domain of the STTA. Just get us there. The national interests will take care of the rest (or not). In my view, if no one in government wants to create this organization, then no one is serious about sustained access to space.

> What would the U.S. civil space agency look like if you built it from scratch?

That's a loaded question, which presumes a *civilian* agency.

I wouldn't build a civilian space agency from scratch. I would repeal the unwritten policy that prohibits the military from doing human spaceflight and return the program to the military.

NASA was created as a sort of "Peace Corps" to take manned spaceflight away from the military, for Cold War propaganda purposes. You can debate whether that was the right decision at the time, but you can't deny that the Cold War is long over. What purpose does it still serve today?

Without getting too deep in the alphabet soup of Federal agencies and potential government entities, here are my thoughts:

1. Separate out the aviation research function. Not sure where you could put it and have it succeed. FAA probably could not handle this function. Perhaps to the Department of Transportation as a newly created entity solely responsible for civil aviation research.

2. Earth focused research -- mission to planet earth, etc. needs to be separated out too. NOAA has, unfortunately, conclusively demonstrated that it is not competent to handle this role. Perhaps combining the science component of the US Geologic Survey, NOAA, together with the Earth focused space research component (and funding) of NASA or, in the alternative, transferring it to the Department of Energy civilian science area -- the Office of Science -- that has a long history of successfully handling "big science" projects on a wide range of topics -- including climate change.

3. Shift funding responsibility for the planetary science program to the National Science Foundation. Let them compete for funding and meet the same standards as terrestrial based science. This would also shield the science programs from periodic raids on their budget to fund other space priorities. This shift would still require close coordination with the new NASA -- there are only so many people who know how to do these things -- but would protect NASA from constant attacks by researchers who want to sacrifice the manned space program to fund their pet projects.

4. Focus manned programs and robotic programs supporting exploration in the "new" NASA. This will clarify the mission and make it clear when and if Congress and the President are willing to provide adequate resources to accomplish those goals.

5. If options 3 and 4 proved to be too tough to achieve, you could combine those functions in the "new" NASA. However, I would still try to have NSF as the funding approval / oversight role for planetary science programs.

Eliminate NASA. Sell all it's assets, including those in space at auction.

Everything NASA does now will still get done, but by more focused groups with much greater accountability.

@mike shupp:

You will most likely get different behavior initially but for how long? The problem is inherent to any bureaucracy or even any large enough organization. NASA's problems are most likely related to leadership in general - not finger pointing here, just the facts. You need to understand the key players, the politics, the bells and whistles if you wish. This eventually is prone to be repeated no matter if it's a new agency. It is a human enterprise with all its associated problems. The change must be in its charter or the application of its charter, not necessarily in a new entity.

As someone who’s never worked for NASA and has no knowledge of the inner workings/politics/current structures, etc…, I’d have to propose only what I’d envision if I were to build a space agency from scratch. First, I’d envision a public/private partnership where the majority of technological discovery is driven by private enterprise. The commercial arm of getting to space for a commercial purpose should be done as cost effectively as possible. This is a job for the private sector with private investment. A partnership with universities for exploration and space research could be a second arm with private donation/investment coupled with government grants or funding. The third arm would be for military and defense purposes. Again, a mix of private defense contractors and government funding. All three arms could share a mix of technologies, where appropriate, but should be funded separately. International partnerships should be encouraged, especially in the exploratory arm where costs for larger and more ambitious projects can be shared. I think the most important piece of this new entity, would be that it’s not run or wholly-funded by the central government.

You can't just spin off 1, 2, or 3 entirely new agencies and expect anything to get done. These new agencies now have to fight for their own budget in Congress, have their own management and operations staff, and their own facilities. You lose all the benfits of one chain-of-command and agency structure. Creating more bureaucracy is a lose-lose.

Now, folding the Earth-observing mission into NOAA and the aeronautical research into the FAA or military has some possibilities and could focus NASA's mission on space...if that is the will of the Administration and Congress.

1. NASA's manned space program should focus on enabling humans to have a permanent, self sustaining, and continuously growing presence beyond the surface of the Earth. That means establishing permanent bases on the Moon and Mars. And that also means deploying large rotating structures in space that are properly shielded and that produce simulated gravity.

2. NASA should also focus on developing reusable SSTO vehicles in order to give NASA, the military, and private industry easy and convenient-- human- access to orbit.

3. NASA should focus on testing and developing terrestrially and extraterrestrially manufactured lightsails in order to begin exploiting the natural resources of asteroids and in order to transport humans through interplanetary

4. The US and other countries with space programs (Russia, Japan, China, France, Britain, China, Taiwan, India, Germany, Canada, etc.) should each contribute $100 million dollars in annual fees to an International Astronomy and Space Organization (IASO).

The IASO would use these funds to: monitor the skies for potentially dangerous NEOs, finance the construction of new telescopes both on the Earth and in space and on the moon, purchase access for its own international astronaut corp ($50 million per astronaut?) to space stations and future manned lunar and martian facilities, and to finance the construction and launch of space probes through existing space agencies.

http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2008/01/space-frontier.html

My New NASA:

National:
Selects contractors from all points of the United States. Closes all but the Cape & Huntsville. Makes Houston, Cleveland, etc... for profit centers, run by contractors.

Aeronautics:
Studies and gives reports on atmospheric and trans-atmospheric flight systems. Researches new propulsion systems to give us the ability to reach for the stars. Has flight assets chosen from contractor funded competition prototype build/test programs. Tests programs occur prior to committing to system configurations, mission planning, and hardware purchases.

Space:
Explores the final frontier. Sends unmanned probes to blaze the trail, with boots right behind. HOLDS AN HONORS SAFETY FIRST BEFORE ALL ELSE!

Administration:
Has a cabinet level position that shares a seat beside NOAA, (and does not run it). Has program funding uninterrupted once commitment contracts are in place for hardware. Stands alone from military.

Just a idea while we dream:
I think that the Oceans should have a exploration agency, (not controlled by NOAA). I think this agency should be mandated to explore the deep as NASA explores the heavens above.

Just my dream,

Carl

Hey Carl, that sounds great. When are you starting your company to do these things?

I read all the ideas you guys laid out and thought I earned my right to comment since I had done so... but then I realize I just don't know what I'd do... even though day in and day out, in Houston, away from home, I work hard trying do so...

This really is a truly telling string of thoughs

I hope NASA can maintain is current structure for the time being.

It is really easy to pick out regional ideas related to the location and Center activities.
Talk about calling the kettle black or a true ideal of closed it is me and only me thinking

an example:
I think first of all I'd establish a deeper cleavage between "Space Science" and the rest of NASA.
Which would leave us with a National Aeronautics and Space Administration focused strictly on Aeronautics and Space.

I would like to see a "Colonization Division" or something of that sort established with a formal timetable and adequate resources (shall we say two or three centers, each the size of JSC or KSC?).

The Mission to Planet Earth should be pinned down at a crossroads on a moonless night and have a stake driven through its heart. Climate research is A Great Good, I'm sure; I'm sure as well other branches of the US government can concern themselves with it as well as NASA can. Ditto for Energy. Ditto for Education. Ditto, upon reflection, for International Collaboration.

Aeronautics:
Studies and gives reports on atmospheric and trans-atmospheric flight systems. Researches new propulsion systems to give us the ability to reach for the stars. Has flight assets chosen from contractor funded competition prototype build/test programs. Tests programs occur prior to committing to system configurations, mission planning, and hardware purchases.
Space:
Explores the final frontier. Sends unmanned probes to blaze the trail, with boots right behind. HOLDS AN HONORS SAFETY FIRST BEFORE ALL ELSE!

The very broad topics of Aeronautics and Space are presented above with a pea brained notion of how we can organize to the maximum benefit of the USA. Ditto for Energy. Ditto for Education. Ditto, upon reflection, for International Collaboration.

It is no wonder a major work slowdown will be happening shortly no matter what you think your political sway is.

> I would repeal the unwritten policy that prohibits the military from doing human spaceflight and return the program to the military.
----

I, a civilian, started out helping fly USAF rockets.
Now, I work as a (still civilian) contractor to NASA.
I don't see much difference beyond who writes checks to my prime contractor ;).

Oh wait, we have one long experience civil servant to half a dozen contractors in my area now. Whereas before we had some captains who came and went every three years.

Thinking about NASA and DOD got me wondering what it would be like if NASA were more like DOD as a career option for people...it presumes though that NASA had a stronger mission requiring such lifelong commitments. So the idea is that there would be a NASA enlisted core plus officers core. There would be cool NASA uniforms and people would live on base and so on. Would that save on the budget for NASA workers? Would people enlist for a 20-year career the way they do in the DOD? I think such an agency only makes sense once there are people living in space, and these would be the people making all that happen, and eventually living in space themselves for tours of duty. But commercial companies can do the same thing, so the NASA space force idea is best if you love government (which ironically is politically incorrect) or this were a way that government could be more efficient with tax/debt dollars.

> I, a civilian, started out helping fly USAF rockets.
> Now, I work as a (still civilian) contractor to NASA.
> I don't see much difference beyond who writes checks to my prime contractor ;)

When was the last time NASA was called on to fly combat missions in defense of the United States?

Do you think the military does nothing but write checks to your prime contractor?

> But commercial companies can do the same thing, so the NASA space force idea is best if you love government

Okay, let me try one more time.

The military's job is to break things and kill people. That makes it fundamentally different from commercial companies, NASA, etc.

Giving NASA "cool uniforms" and other trappings would not make it equivalent to the military, anymore than the Salvation Army is equivalent to the military.

Oh, how soon we forget. Back in the old days, we HAD another civilian space agency, which accomplished great many things, including landing a modified Cadillac Coupe de Ville near tranquility base. This all was well documented in a great film by Andy Pobrow.
Now, with Obama a president, it would seem like a perfect time to finally recognize these great heroes and reestablish the agency.

> Do you think the military does nothing but write checks to your prime contractor?

My main point was that the bulk of the workforce will always be civilian, whether your large complex project is managed by the DoD or by NASA.

One government culture may be better than the other managerially for this sort of thing. But if one brings up the vaunted ballistic missile development programs from the 1950s as mastery of management, then civilian administration aficionados should bring up the more recent Apollo, and, um, SDI. ;) The DoD may be just as good as NASA at completing underfunded projects.

Exploration Agency - Mandate to push human and robotic horizons while using mostly existing equipment. Lewis & Clarke approach. Probably incorporates parts of KSC, JSC and other centers. "Go Further"

Development Agency - Aerospace research Revitalization Agency (AARA?) - incorporate DFC, Ames, maybe AFRL? Pure R&D properly funded with emphasis on open source or tech-transfer. "primes the pump"

Sensing Agency - Like Hubble Institute or LPRI - integrates all aspects of remote sensing (Earth, astronomy, planetary sci). Might start as merger of FAA and NOAA w/ NASA related elements.

Frontier Agency - NORAD/SPACECOMM space traffic control and claims-stake management.

My main point was that the bulk of the workforce will always be civilian, whether your large complex project is managed by the DoD or by NASA.




According to Wikipedia, DoD had 2,300,000 military employees and 700,000 civilians as of 2004. Not that I understand the relevance of your point.




One government culture may be better than the other managerially for this sort of thing. But if one brings up the vaunted ballistic missile development programs from the 1950s as mastery of management, then civilian administration aficionados should bring up the more recent Apollo, and, um, SDI. ;)




I wasn't talking about funding levels, Matt, but if you do want to talk about that, you picked a very bad example with SDIO.




When SDIO was building the DC-X demonstrator in the 1990's, NASA said it couldn't be done for less than $2 billion. SDIO did it for $60 million. Since that time, Armadillo Aerospace has since done similar demonstrations with total funding of about $2 million.




Around the same time, NASA was saying it was impossible to do a planetary space probe for less than several hundred million. Then SDIO did Clementine for $70 million and embarrassed NASA into creating the Discovery series and other programs to do lower-cost planetary missions. NASA only managed to do one planetary mission that approached the cost of Clementine (Lunar Prospector). When some medium-cost missions failed, Goldin used those failures as an excuse to throw cost reduction under the bus -- even though Lunar Prospector, NASA's only true low-cost program, had succeeded brilliantly and there was no statistical evidence that high-cost missions failed at a lower rate. So today, NASA is right back to doing Battlestar Galactica-class missions.




The DoD may be just as good as NASA at completing underfunded projects.




Again, that's not the point I was making -- although evidence from programs like DC-X and Clementine seems to disprove your claim. But even if DoD is just as expensive as NASA, there's still a difference in mission. If DoD decided to build a space station, it would be because they thought it would contribute to the national defense -- not just to build a space station.




Also, DoD is much more willing to use the private sector than NASA is. DoD relies on the private sector for over 80% of its logistical transportation. Contrast that to the ISS program, where 0% of logistics has come from commercial providers. (That may change in the future, but.)




Finally, I would ask you to compare what the military is trying to achieve in the Operationally Responsive Space program with what NASA is trying to achieve with Constellation. Military Space Plane would be a highly reliable, reusable vehicle capable of aircraft-like operations, quick turns, high-sortie rates, etc. Orion would be, in NASA's own words, "Apollo on Steroids." NASA officials boast that they are developing "an America Soyuz" that will be the only way NASA astronauts go into space for the next 40 years. They don't even want to do anything innovative anymore.




If we gave Military Space Plane even a fraction of the budget Constellation has, and allowed them to put humans onboard, we could achieve far more than merely reenacting the 1960's.




But let me turn the question around. If you think there's no difference NASA and the military, why should the military not be allowed to do manned spaceflight?

NASA should be a research Agency and not an operations Agency, which it has become for human spaceflight. That is why we have made no significant progress in rocketry since the Shuttle was developed (SSME's, TPS, Al-Li structures, etc.). We should be working on advanced propulsion, light-weight materials, durable TPS, and the other things it takes to make access to LEO as routine as air travel. Any efforts to explore the solar system are going to be cost prohibitive until we have routine and inexpensive, yet safe, access to LEO. As Heinlein said, once you are in LEO you are half-way to anywhere in the solar system. A moon base is absolutely unsustainable until we have access to LEO for less than $100/lb. NASA should be pure research and NO operations, that's the Agency I would create. Of course this would mean no one in the existing Agency would be allowed to work in the new NASA, myself included.

First and foremost, the United States of America needs to decide what the Goals are for this country in regards to space systems development and sustained space operations.

If the goal is to perform science, exploration and research forever then leaving NASA the way it is seems optimal. If, however, the goal is to develop and utilize space for industrial, military and later colonization applications then NASA is not achieving these goals and operational capabilities beyond low earth orbit effectively.

It is clear that this country and the world will need to utilize space resources in order to support and maintain the standard of living on this planet, continue technological progress, and relieve environmental stress to the earth biosphere. This progress will include moving away from the burning of carbon as the primary source of energy. Moving outward into space will also change the way that we look at and understand the world, the universe and our place in it in very profound ways. But before all this can happen the fundamental Goals need to be identified and agreed upon. Other wise this country is just wasting a lot of time, money and resources on projects that are not completed due to a lack of commitment to the underlying motivations and Goals.

If the Goal of this country is to reduce the cost of space operations and utilize space resources from the moon and asteroids, then NASA either needs, at a minimum, a new charter, or, may need to be dissolved and restructured entirely. I feel that breaking NASA up may be the best solution and form a new federal administration whose sole purpose is the responsibility of developing and deploying space transportation systems, life support systems, and space based facilities and infrastructure. It will be crucial that this new space administration involve corporations, industry and US businesses to the fullest extent, since part of the Goal will be the objective that private enterprise take over these efforts and operations once the technology has matured. The new space development administration will transfer mature technologies and capabilities to private enterprise, while simultaneously expanding the envelop and continue to develop new technologies and sustainable operational capabilities far into the foreseeable future.

But, before all this can happen, the United States of America, as a country, needs to decide what the Goals are for Space Development.

No Goals, No Glory

This does look like a good time to try to reform NASA; new president, a gap between launchers, an old work force.
The last may just give a chance to replace the mind-set of NASA by changing the minds. Early retirement new hiring on a big scale, is needed.

I like the concept of insulating funding for unmanned missions and having them compete with ground based facilities. In astronomy the decadal reviews have been considering both together for a while. The problem is cost overruns; so something like the MSL shouldn't be able to raid say the Very Large Array. That would be a recipe for breaking any consensus.

The reasoning behind NASA developing, and operating its own launch capability, was A to be independent of the military and B nobody else could do the job. Reason A is still valid, but B ... soon private companies will demonstrate the ability, to design, build and operate launchers at a fraction of NASA costs to boot! So NASA should encourage this: provide the specs, release (sell even) technology, and let others do the job. They would need to issue a wide range of contracts so small and large companies can get pieces of the action. Competitive contracts like for a new strike fighter through to X-prizes. Back to being an administration. This shift will move space transportation toward where commercial communications is now: viable if you are good at it.

Where in the constitution does it say that the federal government should establish a civilian space agency? And please, don't cite the general welfare clause -- that is the last refuge of the desperate.

It falls under the rubric of "internal improvements to facilitate commerce". This was done in New York and other states to build the original canals of the late 1700's (when almost all of the founders were still alive). Robert Fulton obtained his funding for his steamship trade between New York and Albany when the state granted him a 7 year monopoly and a former revolutionary war hero funded him.

This was extended on steroids during the 1830's-1858's with the railroad construction boom where states and the federal government bought stock in railroad companies, passed them direct grants based upon milestone performance (COTS anyone?), and provided large grants of federally owned land.

The Panama canal comes to mind as well.

If you really want to incentivise space these are great historical reference points and should point to where NASA and the federal government should go, which is to provide these types of direct and indirect incentives to private enterprise to open up the space frontier.

Zero G Zero Tax
COTS
COTS to the Moon
Prizes for major milestones ($20 billion for the first non government crew to the Moon and return twice using hardware built by private enterprise)

NASA can buy rides after this is accomplished but they would still have a role in doing what private enterprise cannot, which is the long payoff time research in propulsion and other technologies.

It falls under the rubric of "internal improvements to facilitate commerce".

How does spending billions of dollars on a new rocket that increases the cost of space transportation facilitate commerce, Dennis?

It doesn't.

This was done in New York and other states to build the original canals of the late 1700's

The canal in New York was built by the Niagara Canal Company, with support from the New York State legislature -- not the Federal government.

And it was done to reduce the cost of transportation.

How does that equate to your desire for the Federal government to fund the development of Shuttle-C, which will increase the cost of space transportation?

NASA can buy rides after this is accomplished but they would still have a role in doing what private enterprise cannot, which is the long payoff time research in propulsion and other technologies.

Building Shuttle-C is not "long payoff research in propulsion and other technologies." It's simply developing a new rocket so NASA can continue to compete with private enterprise in space transportation. It means NASA will have *less* money to invest in R&D.

Please explain why that is a good idea.

Building Shuttle-C is not "long payoff research in propulsion and other technologies." It's simply developing a new rocket so NASA can continue to compete with private enterprise in space transportation. It means NASA will have *less* money to invest in R&D.

Yes Ed, the Shuttle C will be in competition with ..........

Thought so.

Yes Ed, the Shuttle C will be in competition with ..........

Delta. Atlas. Falcon. Ariane. Proton. Soyuz. Long March.

Do you think no one but NASA builds expendable rockets ???