america's future in space: an interview with dr. michael reynolds(posted 9/10/10)
The proposed Ares I launch system. This was the NASA return to heavy payload launch capability that gained traction in the Bush Administration, but now has been cancelled by Obama. In addition to heavy-lift duties, the two-staged Ares I was to be the launch vehicle for the also proposed Orion spacecraft, which was to be the foundation for lunar and Martian landing craft. Orion as a function of the Constellation program has been cancelled as well, with no real replacement in sight.
(artist rendetion courtesy NASA)
President John F. Kennedy at Rice University in 1962: "We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things. Not because they are easy, but because they are hard." JFK understood the importance of the 'final frontier' in America's future. He was undaunted by the unprecedented technological challenges a round-trip mission to the moon presented aerospace engineers in 1962. This was in the era of slide rulers, when computers were giant room-filling monsters with primitive capabilities. Even so, seven short years later, American astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin stepped foot on the lunar surface, while Michael Collins orbited above them. The Democrat Party of today, and certainly Barack Hussein Obama, have NOTHING in common with President Kennedy. By all measurable standards, were he alive and politically active today, JFK would find himself firmly in the Republican camp. JFK, who understood American Exceptionalism, saw the importance of AMERICAN pre-eminence in space exploration.
The following is a transcript of a recent interview with Dr. Michael D. Reynolds, Dean of Liberal Arts at Florida State College in Jacksonville. Dr. Reynolds earned his Ph.D. in Science Education and Space Sciences from the University of Florida. As a former high school teacher, he was a finalist in the NASA-sponsored Teacher in Space program. He has overseen the design, construction, and management of several astronomical research facilities, including the Chabot Observatory & Science Center in Oakland, California. Dr. Reynolds is a widely sought lecturer and has authored several successful books in the fields of observational astronomy and meteorite studies. With credits including former astronaut in training and a keen observer of space exploration efforts, Dr. Reynolds offered Raptor Republic his expertise and commentary on the state of America's space program.
(Interview for Raptor Republic conducted by Lee A. Heilig)
"Our nation is indeed fortunate that we can still draw on an immense reservoir of courage, character, and fortitude, that we are still blessed with heroes like those of the space shuttle Challenger. Man will continue his conquest of space. To reach out for new goals and ever-greater achievements, that is the way we shall commemorate our seven Challenger heroes."
President Ronald Reagan
He [Obama] rebuffed critics who complained cancelling Constellation meant turning away from human space exploration. He said he’s completely committed to human space flight.
“But we’ve gotta do it in a smart way,” Obama said. “We can’t just keep doing the same old things we’ve been doing and expect that it’ll take us where we want to go,” said President Obama.
Denver Business Journal
15 April 2010
reported by Greg Avery
This is from the same president who masquerades as a macro economics expert, a health care industry wizard, and a strategic military genius. Mr. Obama, scrapping Ares I in favor of new boost systems only delays the goal of achieving a new heavy-launch platform. Like a spoiled child, you have now turned your petulance toward the progress made during the Bush presidency with the Ares and Constellation cancellations. We cannot help but believe that you have little or no interest in maintaining America's leadership in space exploration. Allowing the United States to lag behind Russia, the European Union, and even China is indicative of your effort to reduce America's overall standing on the world stage.
RR: Welcome Dr. Reynolds. Thank you for spending time with us here at Raptor Republic. There are so many pressing, even monumental issues facing the American people at this time, that if you are like us, you feel as though you're drowning in a sea of intractable national problems. There is one very important issue, though, that we wish to discuss with you that is being pushed to the back of America's consciousness. I'm referring to NASA and America's space program.
MR: I know that some may not see this as an important issue. However it is indicative of the current administration’s failed policies. And how can one spend the dollars – our dollars – on some of these “projects” and not support the one area that has been shown to provide $7 in return for every $1 we spend?
RR: Indeed. Why allow efficiency to interfere with a federal program (laughs)? You were a finalist for NASA's Teacher in Space program. You trained extensively at NASA facilities in the early 1980s in anticipation of being a mission specialist aboard the ill-fated Challenger shuttle mission. Prior to the disastrous flight in 1986, there was an air of can-do optimism and excitement with the still-new STS program. How does that time compare to the feeling about our overall program today?
MR: I answer this with mixed feelings. Certainly space exploration is still very exciting – to some of us. Many in the United States agree with the President’s “been there and done that” comment. I do not think NASA has been its own best ally. They need to wave the flag: look at us and what we are doing. Look at the spinoffs from the space program: weather, communications, and GPS satellites.
(continued below)
(continued from previous column)
RR: It is estimated that Obama plans to request an additional $6 billion for NASA's current budget to be spread over the next five years. Yet, Obama is calling for the cancellation of both the Space Shuttle replacement and the Constellation program which would return American astronauts to the moon. Much of the research and development that have gone into the Ares I and V launch rockets and the Orion crew vessel will be scrapped. If this is indeed the case, then where is the money being spent?
MR: Your guess is as good as mine. Obviously NASA needs additional funds – and has always been a stepchild of the budget. You noted earlier the 0.7-1% range. It’s amazing we’ve been able to do what we have done with this pittance.
RR: Scientific American recently published an article by John Matson that outlined the program cancellations we just mentioned. In the article, NASA Director Charles Bolden said that he and Obama agreed that Constellation was in an untenable position. "The truth is, we were not on a sustainable path to get back to the moon's surface," Bolden said. He applauded the decision to delegate the development of launch capabilities to commercial providers while, he said, "NASA firmly focuses its gaze on the cosmic horizons beyond Earth." That sounds a little sycophantic and nebulous (pardon the pun) to me. But, it leaves a lot of unanswered questions about where America's true direction in space exploration now points. Do these developments, in your opinion, mean that this administration means to cede our country's leadership in space; or, at the least, signal a willingness to allow other nations to colonize the moon ahead of us?
MR: What else could the Administration’s position mean but to disengage from the frontiers of space? Where I have great respect for NASA Director Bolden (I have had the honor of sharing the stage with him), I must respectfully disagree with this position.
Do the Chinese plan on lunar exploration – and beyond? You betcha! What about the Europeans through their European Space Agency? Ditto! Russians? Any doubt here? Even the Japanese have talked about this goal.
Let’s look at it in another way. Suppose we decided to cede our high-level medical research to other countries, physicians and scientists. We’ve developed numerous and almost miraculous medicines and techniques. But “been there and done that.” Let’s now focus on better ways to cremate people when they have died. How would that fly in this country? Almost sounds like a new health bill to me…
RR: Have you looked favorably on the Ares and Orion systems as a means of returning to the moon? Why?
MR: There are plusses and minuses to the Constellation program; the Ares booster, Orion spacecraft and the Altair Lunar Lander. Plusses include use of some of the technologies that we have already developed and know work. Minuses are development time (we should have started these 15 years ago!) and apparent costs. Some say the technologies are not as proven as they should be. Others feel we should have gone back to a more Saturn-like booster.
Either way, choose a direction and proceed. There were lots of critics of the Apollo-Saturn V/Lunar Module solution. There were problems, too. We lost three astronauts to a stupid fire on the pad (Apollo 1). We nearly lost three others while on their way to the Moon (Apollo 13). But we did it – and no one else has to date!
RR: Let's talk some more about returning to the moon for a moment. After the stunning success and triumph of the Apollo program in the early 1970s, there was a abandoment in our effort to return. No other nation at the time had the economic might, technical prowess, or desire to perform independent missions. The Soviet Union had essentially surrendered their efforts to land cosmonauts there after some rather spectacular, and secretive, failures. Uncertain years followed, where America's long-term manned space effort foundered. Skylab, the Apollo-Soyuz mission with the USSR, and the burgeoning STS program, which was essentially a 'space truck' were the extent of our efforts. Now, there is a worldwide renewed interest in manned lunar colonization. Recent probes have discovered the existence of water in the lunar soil, which portends tremendous benefits for a future colony. What is your take on the desirability of colonizing the moon? Do you believe the United States can and/or should take the lead, independently if necessary, in this effort?
MR: Absolutely! Think about the historical aspects of human colonization. Yes, yes yes -- I know there were some problems and unethical treatment of native peoples. Yet, it is in (most) human nature to explore, to extend out. And, the Moon is rich in resources, from hydrogen to titanium. Plus, I could buy lunar meteorites for a lower price… (laughs)
RR: I'm a little out of the loop with regard to follow-on systems proposed for replacing the Space Shuttle fleet of orbiters. I do know that the current STS system, even if it were to remain viable indefinitely, has a cost-per-pound payload capability somewhere around $10,000. Other countries' systems are more affordable with costs in the neighborhood of $4000. The one significant advantage the STS program had, though, was the ability to lift extremely large payloads in a single launch. That capability has eroded. Do you foresee, as the administration does, the ability of private sector launch companies such as SpaceX to pick up the slack in the next several years?
MR: There is no NASA shuttle-like project in the works. However, the U.S. military has developed and launched a shuttle of its own! [It is] much smaller than the current space shuttle. No manned flights as of this writing.
Regarding the private section… Well, the private sector believes they can do it. And I am all in favor of private enterprise; that’s a really-good thing. But it will take some time to develop heavy launch vehicles and that’s where Ares V – the planned Shuttle follow-on unmanned booster – will find its niche.
One must also understand how risky space exploration can be. Even with all of our experience, we have lost 14 astronauts in the shuttle program and then the three Apollo 1 astronauts. For the shuttle that is about 1 flight in 60! Would you fly commercial airliners if you had 1 in 60 odds of being killed?
RR: Congratulations are in order for Elon Musk, CEO and founder of SpaceX, the commercial launch vehicle company that had a successful maiden launch of its Falcon 9 rocket from Cape Canaveral a few of weeks ago. This system is touted as a viable system for inserting orbital payloads and for transporting astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS). President Obama, trying to sound like a born-again Adam Smith economist, says this is the direction future space flight should be taking, as he seeks to shift an increasingly large amount of space transportation responsibilities onto the private sector. Is this the way to go?
MR: Again, private enterprise is part of the answer, not the entire solution at this time though; not in this early stage of our exploration of space. There is too much at risk.
RR: What is the fall back position regarding a reusable system for ferrying cargo and astronauts? The Shuttles were effective only for low-earth orbit activities, although they excelled in geosynchronous satellite deliveries as those satellites were configured with booster rockets. Are commercial systems up to the task of higher-orbital or beyond-Earth research?
MR: What is the fall-back solution? According to the current administration it is buy seats from the Russians at $51 million per astronaut per flight and hope private sector spaceflight develops. And develop the Orion spacecraft to be parked at the International Space Station; flown there unmanned. However one small (!) gaffe here: how do you get the Orion to the ISS? Duct tape it to a Russian Soyuz? That one directive tells you how idiotic this plan is…
RR: The Air Force seems to be dithering on its decision to select either the Atlas V or the Delta IV launch systems as the unified ‘heavy’ launch vehicle. Are these systems sufficient for NASA purposes in the near or long term?
MR: Both the Atlas and Delta launch systems have matured nicely over the years. I personally believe either would excel for military purposes. As a heavy launch vehicle, neither is quite there.
As a follow-up, others have suggested man-rating the Atlas or Delta instead of jumping through the Ares development hoops.
RR: Let’s broaden the scope of discussion a bit. The late Dr. James Van Allen, the American engineer who is generally credited for detecting the earth’s magnetic fields with the Explorer I satellite in 1958, had long been an advocate for robotic or unmanned space exploration. What are your thoughts on his premise?
MR: No bucks… no Buck Rogers! Seriously though, I understand Dr. Van Allen’s argument; manned spaceflight is much, much more expensive than unmanned. But I am still a supporter of human space exploration as much as possible.
RR: I suppose I’m somewhat a romanticist. I see American manned exploration of space as an extension of ‘Manifest Destiny’. Through vision, political will, and the hard work of the American people, we conquered the gulf that separated us from the moon. As the earth figuratively shrinks with exponential improvements in communications and travel, I see the exploitation of the solar system as a next logical step in American achievement. The only thing stopping us, in my opinion, is the political will to make it happen. What is your idealized vision for America’s space exploration future?
MR: You nailed it… quite frankly since John F. Kennedy’s bold proclamation we have had no real and solid direction.
RR: Before you go, there is a developing controversy surrounding the White House and NASA regarding the mission of the agency. Recently, current NASA administrator Charles Bolden had some rather interesting comments in a televised interview for al-Jazeera Television. In the interview, Bolden unequivocally stated that President Obama had tasked him with three main goals for NASA: 1) “re-inspire children” to study science and math; 2) to “expand our international relationships;” 3) and, to “reach out to the Muslim world.” Raptor Republic has its own take on this policy statement. As an educator, research astronomer, and someone who is intimately familiar with the history of America’s space program, what is your opinion of Bolden’s statements?
MR: When I first heard about this comment, I thought it must have been a mis-quote. Then I heard it… Administrator Bolden is stating the White House – President Obama’s – position. How inappropriate and disappointing.
Even the second comment, “expand our international relationships”, is not an appropriate goal for the Nation’s Space Program. Period. These comments further illustrate an administration that is out of touch with reality.
RR: Dr. Reynolds, we thank you for taking the time to share your analysis on the status and future of our nation’s space program. Any last thoughts on the subject?
MR: One of the (many) positive historical aspects of this great nation one can point to is the successes of our space program. To see it all come down to an administration that apparently is clueless about the true nature of not only space exploration, not only the history of this great country, but the human need and desire to explore, is another sad day in the United States. One can only hope and pray that sanity will retake this great country and put us back on the path that Washington, Jefferson, and Adams started us down.
RR: Again, thank you for your insights. We hope to revisit this conversation in the near future to see how our nation’s programs have progressed.
If one thinks about the last 40 or 50 years of the United States, one of the things we can point to with a lot of pride is our space program. Yes, we’ve had some serious bumps along the way, in particular the Challenger and Columbia accidents and the Apollo 1 fire.
But, space shuttle launches still draw 500,000 to one million people – ordinary citizens. Trust me I have seen it and the traffic after launches. And, when NASA tried to shut down the Hubble Space Telescope, the public outcry was so loud they not only reversed that decision but sent one last servicing mission to the Hubble.
RR: Perhaps since the presidency of John F. Kennedy, there has been an unceasing debate between those who view space exploration as a frivolous indulgence that wastes taxpayer money, and those who view our space program as a necessary and beneficial endeavor. This debate has raged for years, even though NASA's share of the federal budget historically has ranged from approximately 0.7% to 1.0%. I know which camp you fall into, but could you briefly explain to our readers what kind of returns America's space program have given our country?
MR: There have been books written about these spinoffs, so this subject is well-documented. Some people get silly and talk about Tang (“the drink of the astronauts”) but the spinoffs have been real and affect all of us. Let me repeat that last statement: ALL OF US!
Let’s start with satellites in Earth orbit. Weather satellites have saved countless lives, from the broad predictions of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons) to major weather fronts. How many people in this country “enjoy” cable television? Where do they think this comes from? Communication satellites have been used all the way back to the early 1960’s and the simple balloon-like Echo 1. Earth-monitoring satellites assist scientists in understanding droughts, soil migration, crop successes, etc. The technology needed for space exploration, from electronics to materials, surrounds us every day. Electronics miniaturization and advances, medical monitoring, and even carbon fiber materials are everywhere.
RR: I've always viewed the relationship between the Department of Defense and NASA as one of symbiosis, where advancements in one leads to improvements in the other. A prime example of that is the Global Positioning Satellite System. Can you expound on that or others?
MR: One of the orginal thoughts about the shuttle was military uses. There have been several DoD-dedicated missions, including at least one KH-12 (Keyhole) satellite. Our abilities to understand what our not-so-friendly neighbors are up to is paramount!
RR: A Wall Street Journal On-Line article (6/27/2010) written by Andy Pasztor reported what is essentially an extension of policy announcements made by the Obama Administration. Pasztor reports that the Administration will "call for significantly greater international cooperation than ever before in outer space, covering a wide range of civilian and military programs." This is a significant break from President Bush's stated policy of relying upon U.S.-built space delivery systems, providing an "assured access" for U.S. payloads unencumbered by the vagaries of potential foreign-owned and operated systems. President Bush favored reliance on U.S.-built systems over international cooperation. What are your thoughts on this?
MR: Fairly straight-forward: we cannot be allowed to depend on anyone else for our access to space! I really want to scream “Are you crazy?!?” So… are we going to launch a next-generation KH satellite on a Russian or Japanese booster? You have got to be kidding me!
(continued next column)
Artist rendition of the Orion spacecraft. A project begun in 2004 under the Bush Administration, Orion was intended to be a mult-purpose astronaut vehicle. Should full development of the program be reinstated, Orion can be used to ferry astronauts to and from the International Space Station (ISS), with future missions planned for the moon in 2020. Orion is even envisioned as the foundational platform for an American mission to Mars following our return to the moon. Lockheed-Martin is the prime contractor for development of this next manned space exploration technology. Obama has seen fit to relegate this milestone effort to a marginalized 'rescue vehicle' platform. Reducing the scope of the Orion mission can only mean a reduction of high-paying jobs within Lockheed-Martin and subcontracting companies. How is that congruent with 'stimulus packages' and 'job creation'? One can only speculate if this administration's virtual dimantling of the program is a vindictive effort to marginalize any constuctive developments of the Bush Administration with regard to America's space program... or American industry at large.
