Following NASA's spectacular and astounding successes in the
late 1960s, the space agency has been used as a political tool for
decades. Reliance on a civil
service workforce has created a culture of entitlement within NASA, instead of
a focus on genuine scientific curiosity and inquiry. Much of its current function is to bureaucratically
administer contracts, and relatively little scientific expertise, is retained
by its government workforce. When
NASA had a clear politically-motivated goal, as it did in the 1960s, it was
extremely effective; however, it is currently an agency in search of a mission. Federal government organizations, in
general, and NASA in particular, do not sell products, and therefore no
optimizing profit constraints, exist.
This easily leads to substantial waste of taxpayer money. Since any expenditure of taxpayer
dollars creates a drag on the economy, NASA's continued existence, should not
be taken lightly.
Instead of pursuing unbiased scientific truth, some NASA programs
have sought ways to keep funding going, both for the agency itself, and for its
contractors, by coming up with politically-correct conclusions. One example was the proposed
"Single Stage To Orbit" (SSTO) program. Even though there exist excellent scientific reasons to
stage rockets, notably to increase the amount of payload that can be delivered
to orbit, the SSTO program was heavily studied and promoted, as a
cost-effective solution to eliminating overhead associated with rehabbing the
Space Shuttle for successive flights.
(The SSTO program was eventually canceled.) Another example was in the area of Earth Science,
specifically in programs directed at studying climate change. Even though climate models were complex
and sometimes had ranges of possible outcomes from various forcing functions,
NASA was often more supportive of findings that showed an anthropogenic impact
on global warming. It should not
come as a surprise, that a government agency, would have findings that (1) were
politically in line with the President and Congress, or (2) showed more study (and
hence, additional funding), was required.
Certainly NASA's past accomplishments, of putting men in
space, and on Earth's moon, were monumental, and worthy of the highest
praise. And NASA is often pointed
to, as an "inspiration" for scientists and engineers. However, looking at NASA historically, the
Space Shuttle, as a follow-on to the Saturn rocket, was a vehicle in search of
a mission (the space shuttle was approved prior to the space station), and the
Space Shuttle did not supply a heavy-lift capability for getting payload
inexpensively to orbit. It is
unfortunate that NASA was not given the opportunity to come up with a better
solution to payload delivery to orbit, at the close of the Apollo program; however,
the compromises that were made in the original Space Shuttle design, points out
the difficulty of changing the course of a government agency. For example, one might argue that
deciding to use solid rocket motors (SRMs) on manned vehicles, as they were on
the Space Shuttle, was extraordinarily risky (because there's no
"OFF" switch on a solid propellant rocket). And the NASA-proposed Constellation program, relied heavily
on the Space Shuttle design, ostensibly to reduce design costs. It is true that NASA did successfully
use SRMs in manned spaceflight, but one has to question if this decision was
based solely on scientific, cost, mission optimization, and safety
considerations, or if politics were a deciding factor.
Solutions:
NASA needs to step aside and allow private industry (e.g.
SpaceX), or other agencies with arguable constitutional authority (Department
of Defense), handle access to space.
At an estimated $10,000 per kg of payload delivered to Low Earth Orbit,
the space shuttle was no bargain.
Phase out NASA and eliminate duplication of effort with
industry, and with other government agencies (such as the Department of Energy
and Department of Defense), Allow attrition to reduce the workforce size, if it
cannot be eliminated, outright.
If there were any projects suitable for a government,
non-military space agency, fundamental science missions that would not be
immediately profitable for industry, might make sense for NASA. Possible examples might include
searching for extraterrestrial life in other solar systems, and robotic exploration
of our own solar system. These
could be continued, while employing a substantially reduced budget and
workforce.
[ good but need more to reinforce the point ]