Dear Mr. Krauthammer,

Please pardon this long piece, but after reading your editorial, "Closing the New Frontier", several times, I decided that it demanded a rather detailed response. While I agree with your conclusion that Obama just shut the door to human exploration of Space beyond LEO (low earth orbit), I strongly disagree with how you got there. To be honest, I expected better from you. The article has a partisan flavor to it simply because of the inaccuracies contained therein.

Inaccuracies addressed

You begin by claiming that it is the first time that we've had no access to Space since John Glenn. This simply isn't correct. When the Shuttle was grounded after the Columbia accident, we had to send people up via the Russians. True it was self-imposed but so is this one. We could keep flying the Shuttle until there is another system but we have chosen not to do so. We can debate as to whether that is a wise decision or not, but it is the current decision.

You continue by claiming that there is no prospect of having another system in place for the the foreseeable future. Again this is inaccurate. As I type this, SpaceX is assembling the Falcon 9 at the Cape for a test launch tentatively set for 22 Mar 2010. SpaceX also has the Dragon capsule which will not only carry cargo but is capable of carrying seven humans which, I might add, is more than the Orion capsule is designed for. The reality is that there will soon be a private sector alternative to NASA's bloated and over-budgeted Ares I. Not only can the private sector do it, it is doing it and it will be online well before the Ares I would have been.

Which brings me to your next point. I'm surprised that, as a conservative, you think that a government agency such as NASA can launch humans into Space better and safer than can private enterprise. Too risky? Too experimental? We've known how to do for 50 years! In the early years, NASA was willing to take risks and was on the cutting edge which is where it should be. That was what being an astronaut was all about. They were former test pilots who lived for the adrenaline rush ... but no longer. NASA has gone from a slim, trim agency that was focused on a goal to a bloated, risk averse bureaucracy with no vision. What little vision it did have, was revoked by Obama.

As for your assertion that going to Mars is nonsense and just too far away, well ... that's nonsense! Bob Zubrin of the Mars Society has already laid out a viable plan called Mars Direct. It doesn't call for any radical new technology but it does call for an HLV (heavy lift vehicle). Since we don't have one, Grant Bonin argues that not only can we use the MLVs (medium lift vehicle) that we currently have but it is also more economical to do so.

Whether we use HLVs or MLVs, the Mars Direct adheres to what I call the "good enuff" policy. "Better" is the enemy of "good enuff". Would it be better to have nuclear propulsion? Yea, you bet it would, but the chemical rockets are "good enuff" to get boots on the ground now. "Better" is what dragged down and killed Constellation. Dusting off and modernizing the plans for Saturn and Apollo or using MLVs would have been "good enuff" to get boots on the Moon and thus would have ensured human exploration beyond LEO. But NASA chose to start over from scratch. The delays and costs killed any prospect of making it to the Moon in the next twenty years via NASA all because the bureaucracy wasn't interested in "good enuff".

But let's continue with your objections. The long-term weightlessness is also addressed in the Mars Direct program with the use of a counterweight to induce a spin for artificial gravity. The problem also could be solved by reducing the trip time with a nuclear propulsion system which I'll come back to in a moment. 

As for radiation, the whole thing about the radiation exposure is way out of line. News reports in the past have misrepresented the risk, stating that it might prevent human missions to Mars. However, it could be easily managed with current technology and is within tolerable limits. An astronaut in a six-month journey to Mars, the time required with conventional propulsion, would be exposed to about 0.3 sieverts, or 0.6 on a round-trip. Eighteen months on the surface (if it takes so long to get there, you might as well stay awhile!) would bring another 0.4 sieverts, for a total exposure of 1 sievert. Limits set by NASA vary with age and gender but range from 1 to 3 sieverts.

The danger lies in an unexpected intense solar flare but there are "good enuff" ways to add in the protection needed. One way to add more protection spacefarers aboard a Mars transport ship might be to surround them with the water they'd need for their journey or hydrogen used for fuel. The hydrogen in water, scientists have learned, is one of the best absorbers of particle radiation. And, of course, the "better" way to lower the dose received would with shielding technology such as a simple magnetic plasma bubble that NASA has been testing for years. This alone would protect the astronauts from most radiation on its trip to Mars. Add a radiation compartment completely surrounded by water or hydrogen as mention above to stop the fast and slow solar neutrons then you would have a very, very safe journey.

You can't plan for every contingency. But that is part of the risks! That is what being on the cutting edge is all about. If you designed the perfectly safe airplane, it'd never get off the ground. The astronauts who volunteer know the risks. Would you turn down a trip to Mars just because you couldn't get triple redundancy on every component? I wouldn't.

Mars isn't a bait and switch as you suggest. Mars was always the goal. The Moon was just supposed to be stepping-stone that many argued was unnecessary in the first place. In that sense, Obama isn't trying to pull a fast one. However, I, like you, doubt his sincerity.

Sincerity

Human space flight has always been strongly opposed by two groups. There are those who think that the funds could be better spent on social programs despite the fact that Health and Human Services would eat NASA's budget in about a week with no lasting effect. Then there are those inside of NASA who think that human exploration is a waste of money ... more could be done with robots. What the second group fails to realize is that the first group will turn on them if human exploration is ever eliminated. I would guess that Obama definitely falls into the first group (According to Rand Simberg, "Obama’s first space policy position appeared on the “Education” section of his campaign website; it bizarrely proposed that Constellation be postponed for five years in order to fund new educational programs.") and maybe into the second group as well ... or at least his science advisors fall into the second group. The combination of both has led Obama to effectively end human exploration beyond LEO.

What could change my mine about Obama's sincerity? I hold a glimmer of hope that since Obama has come out in support of nuclear energy that this will translate to reviving nuclear propulsion. Nuclear propulsion would cut down the travel time to Mars to about 60 days which would give the astronauts 90 days on Mars before they had to return to earth which now would take another 75 days, so the round trip, including the time on surface, would be around 225 days drastically cutting down the astronauts exposure to radiation and weightlessness. It would also allow a greater payload. Nuclear propulsion technology is nothing new, NASA has been testing this type of advance technology for 50 years. It just needs some emphasis. I will believe that Obama is sincere about pushing new technology for Mars when I seen money flowing into reconstructing a nuclear engine prototype similar to NERVA (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application) or even a nuclear power source for a VASIMR engine.

NASA needs to back away a little or maybe a lot from a process called failure mode effects analysis (FMEA). FMEA was designed by NASA as a way to think through a system's reliabilty to pin down possible ways it could break; then tests are designed to validate the system under those conditions. This sounds good in concept except that it has led to unnecessarily prolonging the research and development stages in an effort to make sure that it worked correctly and perfectly the first time. It would be interesting to find out how many patents NASA has been awarded in the last twenty years versus the previous years to see if this process has had any effect the actual amount of research being done.

If Obama is serious about research in lieu of exploration, it would be better to return the X-project mode of research which focuses on technological objectives. If you want to design a nuclear engine then design and test a nuclear engine, don't design the whole spacecraft to go with it. It should say something when a former astronaut, Franklin Chang-Diaz, leaves NASA to pursue the VASIMR technology and now NASA is about to test it at the ISS. Shouldn't it be the other way around with NASA passing the technology off to private enterprise?

Again, tho, I must emphasize that we have the technology to get to Mars now with "good enuff". Nuclear propulsion and VASIMR engines should be ready for the second or third generation of Earth-Mars transport vehicles.

Whither NASA?

Let's face it. In a few weeks, human explorers could have done all the research, and more, that was done by robots on Mars over the past several years. Once Apollo landed, scientists were salivating at the research possibilities but that was pulled out from under them. Has Obama just shut NASA out from sending humans to do scientific research on other planets?

Does retreating to do research end NASA's role in human exploration? Is it NASA's job to put a man on the Moon or to provide the research so that the National Geographic Society (NGS) could put a man on the Moon? The question that we should be asking Obama and Bolden to clarify is: Do you see human space exploration beyond LEO as part of the research effort by NASA?

I think you'll get different answers depending on whom you ask. Bolden will try to hedge a bit. NASA, as an institution, wants to be in the forefront of human exploration but does Obama want it there?

This is how I understand the situation.


1. Obama has killed Constellation. That in itself isn't a bad thing if the decision was reached because Constellation was bloated, over budget, and behind schedule. But Obama did the right thing for the wrong reason. He didn't do in an effort to get the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) back on track. He did it to end the VSE.

2. Obama turned transportation to LEO over to private enterprise. Again, the right thing for the wrong reason. Unless NASA intended to earn a profit from it in order to support other endeavors, it was time for NASA to get out of the way. Personally, I would have kept the Shuttle going until the Falcon/Dragon came online despite the cost but it wasn't my decision to make. However, I believe Obama did it in order to get NASA out of the rocket launching/design business all together.

3. Obama has order NASA to focus on earth sciences with emphasis on studying climate change. Is this really the purpose of the National AERONAUTICAL and SPACE Administration?

4. Obama has said that NASA is to do the research to allow private organizations like the NGS to go to the Moon. So what is the focus of this research? Will it design but not build a HLV? Will it test nuclear propulsion or just work on designs and turn them over to companies like SpaceX? Will there be a need for astronauts at NASA?

Conclusion

I applaud turning transportation to LEO over to private enterprise. It's time for NASA to step aside.

I'm even ok with killing Constellation simply because NASA was wasting money and, more importantly, time reinventing the wheel. In the time frame since the announcement of the VSE by President Bush, we should have already been on the Moon again testing equipment for Mars.

I'm not ok with withdrawing NASA from human exploration. This is where NASA should be. It should be out there on the edge. Astronauts are explorers and test pilots who want to be on the edge. This is where we, as a nation should be.

Ironically, for better or worse, this could lead to further militarization of Space. The military has a need to be in Space. Without NASA leading the way, the military will forge ahead with its own programs.


For the moment, the U.S. still has the technological edge in Space but we're about to loose it thru inaction. We must market to the American public that we, as a nation, are explorers ... it is what we have done from the moment the first colony sprang up in the New World. IT IS PART OF OUR DNA! People from all over the world migrated to the U.S. to take part in pushing the frontier. WE TAKE RISKS! It's what we do. Exploration is HOPE! If we turn out back on Space, we're giving up hope ...

It also helps to guarantees our Liberty. Is it a coincidence that every time the U.S. turns it back on exploration and begins to examine its own navel that we loose more freedoms and liberties? Those who found that "civilization" with it ever encroaching rules, regulations, and bureaucracy was too confining could head for the frontier to escape the bureaucrats. It was a relief valve. Now where is that frontier; where is that relief valve? It's either the ocean or Space, neither of which are open to the common person.

We need to move common people to Space. Astronauts should be out pushing the technology ... and yes, this means some will die when it fails but like I said, we take risks! There should be a rotation of technicians who take care of the inner workings of the ISS. We should not be sending astronauts to fix the toilet!

The ISS should serve as a base station for the astronauts to sleep, eat, and relax when they're not out testing a prototype nuclear-powered OTV (orbital transfer vehicle). There should also be tech there to work on the OTV when it returns to dock at the ISS.

Sigh, we could turn the ISS into a truly useful platform and push our knowledge and engineering while at the same time capturing the imagination of those still on the ground ... but sadly, we won't.

Mr. Krauthammer, you reached the right conclusion but for the wrong reasons.

Obama did indeed just slammed the door shut

Monday, 09 Nov 09

Today marks the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Yet one must search for anything other than a mention of it or a slideshow in the U.S. media. How sad. This should be an international holiday for freedom. It was the day that the bell tolled for the Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact, and communism in general. It was the day that showed the world that the Iron Curtain rested on a layer of clay. It was a day that brought tears to my eyes.

Allow me a moment to explain and to reminisce. In the mid-80s, I served as an American soldier in Berlin. These were turbulent years as the Cold War was drawing to conclusion tho we didn't know it at the time. The First World nations of the United States, NATO, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand and the Second World nations of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact still faced each other across the globe with the Third World nations, consisting of everyone else, were caught up in the turmoil. During my tour of duty the Pershing missile deployment to counter the Soviet SS-20 missile was still controversial, Major Nicholson was killed, Chernobyl melted down (I remember ducking out of the first rain after Chernobyl ... just in case), Solidarity in Poland was a thorn in the side of the bear, and there was the terrorist attack on La Belle's in Berlin which led to the bombing of Libya (I narrowly missed being there having just gotten off a late shift and declined to join some of my buddies who did go). While the Superpowers exchanged rhetoric, those of us in Berlin quietly kept watch. It was a rich environment for those serving in the intelligence field. There were five Soviet Armies in East Germany and more just across the border in Poland. 

Berlin was a unique place at the time. As one walked down the Ku'damm to go to the Irish Pub for drink, it was easy to forget that the city was surrounded and virtually under constant siege. But no matter where you went, the Wall was in the back of your mind. It was about 100 miles of a double-row fence made of reinforced concrete with a no-man's strip in between. Any unauthorized person in this no-man's land could be shot without question. There were several escape attempts that never made the news. Our hearts always sank when the East Germans soldiers or Polizei capture one. We always joked that in case of war, the Soviets would simply put a sign on the wall and call it the West Berlin POW Camp since they already had the Wall and the guard towers built.

It was also unique politically. Few people know that in Berlin, WWII was still a reality. The four powers, the United State, Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union each controlled a section of Berlin. Originally France wasn't included but Great Britain feared that the United States would pull out of Berlin and leave Great Britain alone, so a sector was carved out for France. What this meant tho, was that Berlin was still under military occupation. For my service in Berlin, I was awarded the WWII occupation medal instead of the overseas ribbon given to those stationed in the "Zone" (West Germany). I kidded my father that we were veterans of the same war. Indeed, I was eligible and did join the VFW. Under occupation rules the "Allies" had free access to each other's sector. Thus, I could, and did, make trips to the Soviet Sector also known as East Berlin. And since we were the occupying powers, the German guards were not allowed to search or detain us. Seeing East Berlin was educational. It was supposed to be the showcase of communism to counter the glitz of West Berlin. It never even came close.

Still, Berlin was a great place to be. It was ALIVE! It was if everyone knew it could end at any time and were determined to live life to its fullest. I usually rode my bicycle from Andrews Kaserne in Lichterfelde to the Teufelberg site in the Grunewald. I joined Germans and Americans as we met at our weekly Kontakt stammtisch for German-American friendship and it gave me a chance to practice speaking German among friends. Unlike in the Zone where there were often protests and demonstrations against American military bases, most Germans in Berlin were very grateful for our presence. I swam in the lakes and, yes, laid out at the nude beaches there. I met friends for a drink at the Irish Pub while the live band often played Beatles music. Life was on the edge.

However, the Wall, was there, ever present. I sometimes rode the S-bahn line that ducked under the Wall and no-man's land. There were closed stations there. Eerie reminders of times past and the constant tension of the Wall. The station signs that could be scene by the light of the train were printed in the old German letters used during WWII. Stations put out of commission by the Wall.

The sight of these ghostly stations and the Wall itself often brought back the words of President John F. Kennedy: 

There are many people in the world who really don't understand, or say they don't, what is the great issue between the Free world and the Communist world. Let them come to Berlin. There are some who say that communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin. And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin. And there are even a few who say that it is true that communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lass' sie nach Berlin kommen. Let them come to Berlin.

President Ronald Reagan visited our city 24 years later. He stated, "Es gibt nur ein Berlin"(There is only one Berlin) and challenged the Soviet General Secretary to "tear down this wall!" I remembered that he was ridiculed for that statement at time by those outside of Berlin. Those in Berlin cheered. Who would have guessed that just over two years later, it would start to fall and his statement would come true. There is only one Berlin. 

I eventually returned to Memphis, enrolled in Memphis State University (as it was known then), and got on with life. I missed Berlin but had to move my life forward. While I was no longer connected to the intelligence community, I had learned how sift the news for kernels of truth. It was obvious to me and many others that the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact were in trouble and were faltering. I knew things had to come to a crossroads sooner rather than later. Would the hardliners loose the dogs of war?

The day that I watched, on TV, a young lady walk to the middle of no-man's land between the walls and give an East German soldier a flower, I cried and I cheered. Just two years earlier, maybe even a month earlier, she would have, at a minimum, been arrested or possibly even shot. I knew we were close. If the tanks didn't roll out soon, this might be it. As it turned out, the reformers kept the hardliners at bay until it was too late. The Wall began to crumble.

The Soviet Union itself disintegrated two years later. The Cold War was finally over.

Historians and political pundits will debate for years about the causes of the Great Collapse. I normally would offer my view from trenches but today is not the day for that. Today is an international day of freedom. Today is a day of celebration.

Noticed that earlier I wrote, "our city". In the tradition of John F. Kennedy, I consider myself to be a Berliner. I have been to Paris and to Athens. While they are great cities, if I have a "home" in Europe, it is Berlin. I haven't been back for years but I did visit after the Wall fell. Berlin has changed but it is still Berlin. 

However, the world has changed but again, this is not the time or place to bemoan the ironic loss of liberty in the United States. It is a day of celebration of the freedom gained in the rest of the world.

If you have never read Kennedy's speech (or listened to it) I would suggest you do. It is one of the greatest speeches of history. Let me close with his words:

Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free. When all are free, then we can look forward to that day when this city will be joined as one and this country and this great Continent of Europe in a peaceful and hopeful globe. When that day finally comes, as it will, the people of West Berlin can take sober satisfaction in the fact that they were in the front lines for almost two decades.

All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Ich bin ein Berliner."