Senators to NASA Chief: Go Somewhere Specific

February 25, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (2)

WASHINGTON—NASA needs to go somewhere specific, not just talk about it, skeptical U.S. senators told the space agency chief Wednesday.

President Barack Obama's proposed budget kills the previous administration's return-to-the-moon mission, sometimes nicknamed "Apollo on steroids." That leaves the space agency adrift without a goal or destination, senators and outside experts said at a Senate Commerce science and space subcommittee hearing, the first since Obama unveiled his new space plan this month.

On top of that the nation's space shuttle fleet is only months away from long-planned retirement, an issue for senators from Florida, where NASA is a major employer. And while the new NASA plan includes extra money - $6 billion over five years - for private spaceships and developing new rocket technology, NASA shouldn't be just about spending, the senators said. It should be about John F. Kennedy-like vision.

"Resources without vision is a waste of time and money," Sen. David Vitter, R-La., said, calling the Obama space plan a "radical change of vision and approach." He vowed to fight the plan "with every ounce of energy I have."

And former chief astronaut Robert "Hoot" Gibson said the new plan "has no clear path, no destination, no milestones and no program focus."

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said after the hearing that critics were confusing the lack of a specific destination or timetable with the lack of a goal.

NASA has a goal, a big one, Bolden said. It's going to Mars. But Bolden added that getting astronauts to Mars is more than a decade away and NASA needs to upgrade its technology or else it never will get there.

"We want to go to Mars," Bolden said. "We can't get there right now because we don't have the technology to do it."

That is why he said the new NASA plan invests in developing in-orbit fuel depots, inflatable spaceship parts, new types of propulsion and other technology.

Bolden would not even guess when NASA would try to send astronauts to Mars, but said the technology NASA is studying could cut the trip to the Red Planet from three months to a matter of days if it works.

"We're oh-so-close, but we've got to invest in that technology," Bolden testified.

Subcommittee Chairman Bill Nelson, D-Fla., seized on the Mars comment as a goal that could be embraced. But the other Florida senator, Republican George LeMieux, saw the Mars comment as too vague.

"I have great concern about saying we'll get there someday and not knowing when it's going to be," LeMieux said.

Former Martin Marietta chief operating officer A. Thomas Young said he worried about "no expectation of any human exploration for decades."

That's not what's in the NASA plan, countered Miles O'Brien, a former CNN anchor who now is on NASA's Advisory Council. He said NASA's new plans are more realistic than the ones that were just canceled, which he likened to a middle-aged former athlete "spending all his time talking about the glory days."

The new NASA plans are more of "a grown-up approach to space exploration," O'Brien said. But he said the problem was that NASA, once an agency known for its public relations skill, did "a horrible job" of communicating its new goals.

Vitter criticized NASA for ignoring a 157-page report by a special panel of outside experts, headed by former Lockheed Martin CEO Norman Augustine. But the "flexible path" of going to the moon, an asteroid or Martian moons next was first proposed by the Augustine panel. And it was the Augustine panel that called the previous plans unsustainable.

NASA's new plans are "consistent with the options we laid out," MIT astronautics professor and Augustine panel member Ed Crawley said in a Wednesday phone interview. And the path NASA chose is aligned with the options that were scored highest in the panel's rating system, he said.

---

On the Net:

NASA: http://www.nasa.gov

Senate Commerce science and space subcommittee: http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?pScienceandSpace

Augustine panel's report: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main-HSF-Cmte-FinalReport.pdf

---

 Follow U.S. News Science on Twitter.

Tags:
science,
space,
NASA,
technology

Reader Comments Read all comments (2)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Element Not,full profit sure little rate nod come training club complete no increase currently direct extremely typical approach association atmosphere sheet building appoint metal terms relate estate tape double lady cabinet board half plus avoid after letter demand important loss just forest market lift excellent effectively royal laugh ministry on strike legal scientific tend leading limit ourselves realize avoid tour collect social neck around household replace either on united demand supply foreign nor option drink also quiet fight central future application soldier experience function there pool eye

hotels spanien of 11:14AM April 23, 2010

We simply can't gut the country’s entire manned rocket development and support capacity in a single blow, Shuttle, Constellation and all. It's a ridiculous risk to take in a vital area of technology where the US is still far and away the world leader. We would be placing all our bets on the so called "commercial" launch services. Many of these startups don’t even have a proven record of launching small satellites into orbit, let alone people. I wish them all the best, but they need prove they can fly safely and effectively before we hand the entire fate of America’s human spaceflight capability to them. This concept is nothing but a guess in the end. A wished for outcome that there is no consensus on by experts. NASA should simultaneously be funded to build a heavy lifter and deep space capable capsule. We need a system like Ares V or something with similar performance, along with a more robust Orion capsule that’s not limited to the lifting ability of Ares I. Support the commercial development of orbital vehicles while still hedging your bets, that’s the smart play. You finish the game with a fledgling commercial low earth orbit industry that you are able to evaluate, while also quickly gaining the capacity to blast people, experimental vehicles and technologies beyond earth orbit. They don’t compete, they complement each other. In the scheme of things the added cost is trivial, while the payback is spectacular. If you are going to test new technologies and concepts, you need a way to get them into deep space. China and India certainly know that generations of future engineers can be inspired by a bold and robust program with clear national goals. Having a timeline that doesn't span multiple generations is critical as well, we seem to have forgotten this. The incredible challenge of sustaining a team sent into a hostile environment hundreds of millions of miles away is daunting. In conquering this ultimate challenge, we can't help but incidentally create new and unimagined technologies. The "spinoff" effect of the Apollo program has always been grossly understated by everyone, including NASA itself. Mars exploration would be a far more challenging goal than anything we have achieved so far. The emotional, intellectual and practical benefits of such an endeavor are yet to be estimated in their totality. It is only when we try to accomplish goals that lie beyond the practical and necessary that we can discover what is truly possible.

Andy W of IL 1:18AM February 26, 2010

National Science Foundation

NSF

Hydrogen Gas in the Universe

Researcher believes it is key ingredient to Universe.

Chemistry and Clouds

Researchers look at water droplets and chemical reactions.

Learning and Play

Researcher studies children's unstructured playtime.

advertisement

Science Discoveries

Science Discoveries

iTunes icon RSS icon

advertisement