[FPSPACE] Re: NASA Administrator

[Jens Kieffer-Olsen]

In FPSPACE digest, Vol 1 #161 Jonathan McDowell <jcm@head-cfa.harvard.edu>
wrote:

>>  Jonathan McDowell for NASA Administrator
>
>I don't think so, somehow... maybe in the Jesse Jackson Administration,
>but I can't see myself getting a phone call from Bush. And the job
>of NASA Adminstrator is not to excite the public, but to schmooze with
>Congress. I'd have to cut my hair and wear a tie. That doesn't sound
>like much fun... 
>
[snip]
>
>For what it's worth, my platform:
>
> - separate clearly in the public mind the goals of (1) science and (2) exploration

  I seem to be missing (3) defence ?

  At least one asteroidal impact may or may not be intercepted this century
  depending on whether the task is granted budgetary priority 

> - the long term goal of exploration is the colonization of the Moon and Mars

  I take Mars to include Phobos and Deimos ?

  Also a suitable NEO asteroid could be considered for permanent settlement  -  
  faster to get to and from it, highly relevant experience hollowing out your first 
  'batcave' relatively close to home     

> - public support, however, is not there yet for the outlay it would take, even
>   for the new 'cheap' approaches.

  I hope no approach is considered which would attempt to copycat the Apollo effort? 
  A steady proportional allocation of budgetary funds will eventually open up the entire 
  solar system for public and private enterprise  
   
> - therefore, an agressive automated lunar and mars exploration program focussed
>   more explicitly on technology development for human exploration, 
> - while keeping astronauts in LEO for now (perhaps with some thought for
>   experimental missions to GEO and/or NEO); we've spent so much on Station 
>   we should complete it, but we need to think of ways to keep long term
>   operations costs lower
> - strongly support the X-38 program and investigate the possibility
>   of being able to launch it on an expendable (e.g Ariane 5) as a backup
>   human access to space should Shuttle and Soyuz be unavailable
> - maintain collaboration with and limited support for Russia, but ensure
>   they are not in the critical path for Station. However, find ways to
>   help their space infrastructure survive - I do believe the Russian economy
>   will get healthy again a few years down the road.

  Better duplicate the Russian contribution than surge ahead with minimal delay?  

  I think not!

>   This is a tricky one - we can't see Energiya go down the tubes (Krunichev
>   is OK because of Proton) but we can't get messed around by the Russian govt.
>   in the way we have been. Maybe the attitude is, no more loans but we'll
>   buy stuff to own and *control* ourselves.
> - revisit the advanced launch program, in particular review the X-33
>   (I don't have the knowledge to say now that it should be cancelled, but I
>    am skeptical of the program). We need cheaper access to space, not fancier.
>   We need a Shuttle replacement, we need to learn lessons from Shuttle, but
>   we should be building a vehicle with more margin, not one closer to the cutting
>   edge, as our prime replacement. The fancy X-33/DC-X/whatever experimental
>   spaceplane should also happen eventually when we have the money, but the key
>  for now is getting humans to space cheaply  (and for human spaceflight, I
>  don't believe the commercial world will do the trick).

  The right answers could well make or break a NASA administrator :-)

> - accelerate efforts to move as many functions of Mission Control as possible
>   onto the spacecraft itself, with the MOCR moving more to a backup role for the
>   next generation of human spaceflight.
> - for science missions, increase the ratio of data analysis money to mission
>   development money, at the cost of fewer new starts. It's silly to throw away
>  a working spacecraft because you don't have 1 percent of its cost to continue
>  operating it, or to gather all the data and then not have any postdocs to
>  analyse it. Since it always takes about 5 years to fully understand the calibration
>  of a scientific space mission, shutting the team down after 2 or 3 years is
>  never a good idea.
> - maintain a mix of SMEX-type small missions and a few major missions. There
>   are some things small missions just can't do, but you do need a reasonable
>   flight rate to keep teams from stagnating or dispersing.
> - Pluto now; Europa's cool, but it will keep, while Pluto's atmosphere won't.

  Proximity over such distance is most likely inferior to EO-based observations. 
  Technology is bound to move forward over the years it takes such a SLOOOW
  probe to plough through interplanetary space      

> - HQ vs the centers: I think HQ is now actually *under*staffed. But HQ
>   must give programs as much autonomy and responsibility as possible.
> My impression is that too many trivial things need multiple approvals and
> signatures... I don't know how much of that is NASA and how much is federal
> govt. requirement.
> - aeronautics: I don't know enough to say what should happen, but we either
>  need to make the aeronautics part much more visible, or give it to someone else.
>  Langley should be (1) researching only things that commercial aviation won't do
>  and (2) providing a set of resources and facilities to the aerospace industry.
>  The NACA heritage makes a strong sentimental attachment to Langley and Lewis/Glenn;
>  but it's not clear to me how strong the practical tie is between the aero side and
>  the space side these days - do we gain by having them both in NASA, or should
>  we give aero to some other agency, would they do better if they weren't space's
>  unloved junior partner? Alternatively, are there obvious aero things we should
>  be doing that we're not that could be an important chunk of NASA?
> - anything that industry can do well, should be contracted out. But for things
>   that industry has turned out to be poor at, we need the in-house expertise
>  and experience (one thing that comes to mind is certain kinds of software,
>  where contracting out has often led to disaster).
> - I think there are certain centers where there's still a lot of dead wood to be
>   cut. I'm not going to name names, though, because it's not fair to trash people
>   based on relatively superficial impressions. There's a lot too much of that on
>   the net. 
>
>  There, now at least you know what you're voting for. I'd be a terrible NASA
> Adminstrator.

  I'm sure you would grow with the job :-)

Respectfully
Jens Kieffer-Olsen
Slagelse, Denmark