3 Questions: David Mindell on Obama's NASA proposal

Feb 05, 2010 by Morgan Bettex
NASA's Constellation program — including the Orion spacecraft and Ares rockets (shown here in a concept image) — would be scrapped under President Obama's new budget proposal. Image: NASA

In 2008, David Mindell, the Frances and David Dibner Professor of the History of Engineering and Manufacturing; professor of aeronautics and astronautics; and director of MIT’s Program in Science, Technology, and Society, was the lead author of an independent review of the future of the U.S. human spaceflight program. Among the report’s many recommendations were that the nation set loftier goals for humans in space, focus research more clearly toward those goals and increase cooperation with other nations and private industry.

In an interview with MIT News, Mindell responds to the Obama administration’s recent budget proposal for NASA. The proposal would increase the agency’s budget but would cancel the Constellation program, which was intended to send humans to the moon by 2020, and would also rely on the commercial sector to ferry to the .

Q. Some observers have said President Obama’s 2010 budget proposal marks the demise of U.S. human space exploration. Do you agree?

A. I don’t agree. First of all, we have to remember that humans have not been exploring space beyond low-Earth orbit for nearly 40 years already, so the so-called demise actually began in the 1970s. Moreover, the program that was canceled, Constellation, was simply not viable, financially and possibly otherwise. The Augustine commission reported last fall that NASA needed at least $3 billion more per year to achieve even modest goals in the next 20 years, and in this political environment there is no stomach for that. So the best it would have done would be muddle along, cost a great deal, and likely get people hurt along the way. The Augustine commission also laid out a “flexible option,” which the Obama budget is seeking to follow, which makes for a more sensible, forward-looking policy, thinking in new ways about what constitutes exploration. Space exploration will certainly be different if this policy (i.e., budget) goes through. There will be more focus on new technologies within NASA, and the private sector is being ramped up in a big way to contribute.

In the history of American technology, it’s often been the case that the federal government tends to support radical new technologies (e.g. interchangeable parts in the 19th century, computers in the 20th century) for about 40 years to help them get off the ground before turning them over to the private sector to take hold. There’s a good case to be made that government-funded human spaceflight has grown conservative and bureaucratic; it’s time to see how private industry will do and what other models might work. We don’t know how well they’ll do, but we can only know by trying.

Q. Under the proposal, NASA’s budget would receive an additional $6 billion over the next five years. Is this enough funding for NASA to meet Obama’s stated goal for it to focus on developing radically new space technologies?

A. It’s hard to tell in terms of absolute numbers; spaceflight is expensive, but $6 billion is a lot of money, especially when combined with whatever’s freed up from Constellation and from retiring the shuttle. There are a lot of exciting, practical ideas out there about operating in space, like learning to refuel on orbit and to fly autonomously, that are waiting to be tried. Constellation had short-circuited many such ideas in a rush to get something built. NASA had canceled essentially all of its advanced technology development work (both in-house and supporting places like MIT), eating its seed corn for Constellation.

Q. If Obama’s proposal is implemented, how different would NASA look five years from now?

A. The Obama proposal is a very clear statement that NASA should be an advanced technology development agency for spaceflight, not just a government-run airline for space or a manager of rocket-building projects. Moreover, NASA has been too hesitant to investigate radical combinations of human and robotic in its explorations, and this budget also will push the agency in those directions, which should prove very valuable. For example, a recent press release mentioned the possibility of telerobotic rovers on the moon. In my opinion, it was simply ridiculous to talk about sending people back to the moon without first doing the best exploration possible with telerobotics. Look at what’s been done on Mars, where the time delays, available power, bandwidths and everything else are so much more difficult than on the moon. Yet I still can’t walk into my local science museum, or a lunar geology lab at MIT, and drive around a remote rover on the moon. In five years, we should be able to do that, and we should be able to send our students and our faculty on short, sub-orbital privately run flights for their research.

Explore further: Suddenly, the sun is eerily quiet: Where did the sunspots go?

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

More Money, and a New Path to the Stars

Feb 02, 2010

The Obama Administration plans to cancel NASA’s Constellation program that was to take American astronauts back to the Moon. Instead, NASA will oversee a competition among commercial space developers to ...

NASA to get more money, but must scratch moon plan

Jan 28, 2010

(AP) -- President Barack Obama is essentially grounding efforts to return astronauts to the moon and instead is sending NASA in new directions with roughly $6 billion more, according to officials familiar with the plans.

MIT report outlines goals for future of human space program

Dec 15, 2008

(PhysOrg.com) -- A team led by MIT researchers releases today the most comprehensive independent review of the future of the nation’s human spaceflight program undertaken in many years. The report recommends setting loftier ...

NASA: Good night moon, hello new rocket technology

Feb 01, 2010

(AP) -- President Barack Obama is redirecting America's space program, killing NASA's $100 billion plans to return astronauts to the moon and using much of that money for new rocket technology research.

Recommended for you

New launch date set for ISS delivery vessel

9 hours ago

A robot ship will be launched from Kourou, French Guiana, after a five-day delay on July 29 to deliver provisions to the International Space Station, space transport firm Arianespace said Tuesday.

The heart of an astronaut, five years on

10 hours ago

The heart of an astronaut is a much-studied thing. Scientists have analyzed its blood flow, rhythms, atrophy and, through journal studies, even matters of the heart. But for the first time, researchers are ...

Image: Kaleidoscopic view of Mars

16 hours ago

Astrophotographer Leo Aerts from Belgium took advantage of the recent opposition of Mars and captured the Red Planet both "coming and going" in this montage of images taken from October 2013 to June of 2014. ...

User comments : 4

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

vivcollins
5 / 5 (5) Feb 05, 2010
This comment I like
"The Obama proposal is a very clear statement that NASA should be an advanced technology development agency for spaceflight, not just a government-run airline for space or a manager of rocket-building projects. "
sesc
5 / 5 (4) Feb 05, 2010
That, and "NASA had canceled essentially all of its advanced technology development work (both in-house and supporting places like MIT), eating its seed corn for Constellation".
RoboticExplorer
5 / 5 (4) Feb 05, 2010
"The Augustine commission also laid out a �flexible option,� which the Obama budget is seeking to follow, which makes for a more sensible, forward-looking policy, thinking in new ways about what constitutes exploration."


This is the line I like the most. The Mars rovers are the most intrepid explorers since the original NASA Astronauts 40+ years ago. They have compiled data that scientists will be sifting through for decades and at an original mission cost of $800 Million. That means we could have made ~100 sets Mars rovers and sent them all over the solar system for the cost of the, thankfully, canceled Constellation program that had a $100 Billion price tag.
missile16
5 / 5 (1) Feb 09, 2010
If we have no replacement after the Shuttle (I know I know, private industry will come to the rescue. Which I hope is true but have my doubts about the time frame)how will we build refueling stations to fuel our space ships that we don't have? Rely on Russia? How much will that cost? The Russians just increased the price per seat to send Americans to the ISS. How much more will it go up?

With no heavy lift vehicle and no space ship we are stuck with robots. Yes robots are useful and have a purpose, but they can't do everything. One day yes...but not anytime soon.

I would propose keeping Orion and modifying it to fly on an Atlas or Delta rocket. That way you have a backup to the private sector and don't have to pay the Russians so much money. Once the private sector comes along, let them bid on contracts to ferry Americans to the ISS. But the US should always have a way to get into space on its own.