National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering. 1988. Toward a New Era in Space: Realigning Policies to New Realities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18717.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering. 1988. Toward a New Era in Space: Realigning Policies to New Realities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18717.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering. 1988. Toward a New Era in Space: Realigning Policies to New Realities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18717.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering. 1988. Toward a New Era in Space: Realigning Policies to New Realities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18717.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering. 1988. Toward a New Era in Space: Realigning Policies to New Realities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18717.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering. 1988. Toward a New Era in Space: Realigning Policies to New Realities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18717.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering. 1988. Toward a New Era in Space: Realigning Policies to New Realities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18717.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering. 1988. Toward a New Era in Space: Realigning Policies to New Realities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18717.
×
Page R8

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING 2101 CONSTITUTION AVENUE WASHINGTON, D.C. 2O418 The Honorable George Bush The President-Elect of the United States Office of the President-elect 1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20270 Dear Mr. President-Elect: Early in your Administration, you will be called on to balance the pace and direction of the civil space program with many other claims on the federal budget. The most immediate decisions concern the Space Station. We believe a permanently manned space station is needed to maintain a viable manned space flight capability for the United States. However, its primary justification is to establish the feasibility of human exploration beyond Earth's orbit. For this reason decisions regarding its final configuration, pace of deployment, and place among competing budgetary priorities are best made in the context of your long-term goals for space. Goals that emphasize human exploration, for example, would require that the station be optimized for research on human biology in the space environment. Building Consensus on Goals The post-Apollo years saw the consensus on space goals dissolve. The technical and budget resources available for space did not match the commit- ments made, leading to cost overruns, postponed accomplishments in space science and applications, erosion of the national space technology base, and the prolonged disruption of American access to space. Thus, long-term, durable, and widely accepted goals for the nation in space are essential, both to sort out priorities within the space program, and also to match the pace and direction of the space program with the larger set of national priorities. Such goals might include automated scientific exploration. They might propose human exploration of the Moon or Mars in the next cen- tury, for which a space station is a prerequisite. These goals, established in con- sultation with the Congress, would provide the stability and consistency that

The President-Elect of the United States Page 2 the space program has lacked, and should be an early priority for your civil space policy. Structure of the Civil Space Program We believe the national effort to realize your goals requires two structural components. The first is a base program, balanced and stable enough to ensure U.S. competence in the essential space activities. The three highest priorities should be assured access to space by a variety of manned and automated launch vehicles; a balanced space science and Earth remote sensing program; and advanced technology R&D to support current missions, national security, and the goals you set for the future. This could be accomplished at an annual budget of approximately $10 billion. This core competence would provide the foundation for selected special initiatives, the second component. These large, long-term projects would serve U.S. scientific, political, cultural, and foreign policy objectives. Examples in- clude the space station, or a program of expanded monitoring of the Earth for environmental and scientific purposes. Each special initiative would require an additional $3 billion to $4 billion in peak years. Each would be funded separately from the base program to ensure that operational expediencies do not erode the nation's basic capabilities in space. Decisions on the staging of special initiatives must of course be affordable within the larger set of national priorities. International Partnership The core capabilities and one or more special initiatives, taken together, would provide a strong leadership position for the United States in civil space. Equally important, they must take into account the growing capabilities of other spacefaring nations, especially Japan, China, Western Europe, and the Soviet Union. Through cooperative arrangements, the United States might achieve cost savings or gain political or scientific objectives otherwise unob- tainable. Management Improved management is also essential. This will require

The President-Elect of the United States Page 3 • early appointment of a strong Administrator for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), who enjoys your confidence as an adviser; • redefinition of the now diffuse roles of the NASA field centers, with some being converted to private operation to attract and retain the best people; • separation of space operations from space science, research, and development; and, • better coordination of technology development and space infrastructure, including expendable launch vehicles, between the civil and defense space programs. Private Space Ventures Finally, the government should use commercial space services where these can be procured at comparable cost and without compromise to legitimate government functions. Your commercial space policy should develop options to stimulate the use of private investment capital. Unclassified technology developed for the space program should be readily available for scientific purposes, commercial ventures, and civil agency use of space. The Budget Context We recognize that space must take its place within the larger framework of national priorities. A civil space program aimed at maintaining a respectable position within the growing community of spacefaring nations requires a long- term commitment of significant national resources. But we also believe the na- tion has received good value for its past investments in space, and that this will be the case for the future. These points are developed more fully in the following paper "Toward a New Era in Space," prepared at our request by a panel of distinguished scien- tists and engineers. Yours sincerely, Robert M. White Frank Press President President National Academy of Engineering National Academy of Sciences

REFERENCE COPY FOR LIBRARY USE ONLY Toward a New Era ii in Space Realigning Policies to New Realities Committee on Space Policy NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING PROPERTY OF NRC LIBRARY FEB ^3 1989 National Academy Press Washington, D.C. 1988

TV 769.8 ;U5 k Q National Academy Press 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20418 The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars in scientific and engineering research, dedi- cated to the furtherance of science and technology and their use for the general welfare. Under the authority of its congressional charter of 1863, the Academy has a working mandate that calls upon it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. The Academy carries out this mandate primari- ly through the National Research Council, which it jointly administers with the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Frank Press is President of the NAS. The National Academy of Engineering (NAE) was established in 1964, under the charter of the NAS, as a parallel organization of distinguished en- gineers, autonomous in its administration and in the selection of members, shar- ing with the NAS its responsibilities for advising the federal government. Dr. Robert M. White is President of the NAE. Printed in the United States of America

FEB 1 3 1989 PREFACE Decisions made over the next few years will be critical in determining the future of the United States in space. The National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering believe that an informed public discussion of these decisions is fundamental to the creation of wise policies. To that end, the Academies assembled a group of experts in science, economics, engineer- ing, and private technology-based enterprise to examine past policies and their consequences and to recommend policies that should guide the national space program over the long term. Of special concern was the lack of national consensus regarding the long- term goals of the civil space program. This lack of long-range vision has led to the loss of heavy launch capabilities, the fall of the Skylab, and, for lack of al- ternative launch vehicles, the prolonged absence of the United States from space following the Challenger accident. Without a durable framework to estab- lish priorities, the U.S. space program has promised too much for the resources made available to it. That the National Aeronautics and Space Administration achieved as much as it did under these circumstances is a tribute to the dedica- tion and professionalism of its staff. The study committee met five times during the summer of 1988. We ex- plored the key components of space leadership and were challenged by the problem of setting priorities in times of severe budgetary constraints. We con-. eluded that major changes are needed in the way the country and its leaders ap- proach national space policy. The committee recognized that the foundation of space policy is its sense of purpose—national goals that are imaginative, durable, and affordable. These goals and the programs to achieve them must recognize the growing capabilities of other nations and, through cooperation, accomplish objectives otherwise unobtainable. The United States cannot ex- pect to be preeminent in all fields of space endeavor, but we must mount a na- tional program to maintain a level of competence in all areas. The committee proceeded to describe the components of a balanced program and to develop the concept of a "base" program that provides a floor of competence and spe- cial initiatives—large, ambitious undertakings aimed at major scientific, politi- cal, and cultural objectives. We believe major challenges also provide major opportunities. This paper addresses those near-term decisions that we believe can lead to a fruitful, con- sistent U.S. space program in the decades to come. H. Guyford Stever Chairman iii

COMMITTEE ON SPACE POLICY H. Guyford Stever, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, D.C., Chairman Laurence J. Adams, Consultant, Retired President, Martin Marietta Corporation, Potomac, Maryland William A. Anders, Senior Executive Vice President, Operations, Textron Inc., Providence, Rhode Island Arden L. Bement, Jr., Vice President, Technical Resources, TRW Incorporated, Cleveland, Ohio Joseph V. Charyk, Chairman of the Board, The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. and Retired Chairman and CEO, Communications Satellite Corporation (COMSAT), Washington, D.C. Richard N. Cooper, Center for International Affairs, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts Robert S. Cooper, President, Atlantic Aerospace Electronics, Greenbelt, Maryland Edward E. David, Jr., President, EED, Inc., Bedminster, New Jersey John M. Logsdon, Director, Space Policy Institute, George Washington University, Washington, D.C. Jeremiah P. Ostriker, Director, Princeton University Observatory, Princeton, New Jersey Samuel C. Phillips, Retired General, USAF, Palos Verdes Estates, California Elmer B. Staats, Truman Scholarship Foundation, formerly Comptroller General of the United States, Washington, D.C. Edward C. Stone, Jr., Vice President for Astronomical Facilities, California Institute of Technology Staff David L. Bodde, Executive Director, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems JoAnn C. Clayton, Principal Staff Officer David S. Johnson, Senior Staff Officer Paul J. Shawcross, Research Associate Susan R. McCutchen, Administrative Assistant ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The U.S. scientists, engineers, and policy experts who shared information and views with the committee during the course of its considerations are too numerous to mention individually. Nevertheless, they made valuable contributions to our thinking. Special thanks are in order for those who spent time with the committee discussing their and our concerns. These include in alphabetical order: The Honorable Edward C. Aldridge, Jr., Colonel Roger G. deKok, Dr. Thomas M. Donahue, Mr. Daniel J. Fink, The Honorable James C. Fletcher, Dr. Jay Goldberg, Dr. Noel W. Hinners, Mr. Dale Myers, Dr. Norine Noonan, Mr. Willis M. Shapley, and Mr. Andrew J. Stofan. The committee also drew on a wealth of past studies and reports, which are listed in the bib- liography. IV

CONTENTS PREFACE v INTRODUCTION 1 THE LEADERSHIP ROLE OF THE PRESIDENT 2 TOWARD STABLE BUDGETING: A BALANCED BASE PROGRAM AND SPECIAL INITIATIVES 4 Special Initiatives 5 The Base Program 8 Investment in Technical Capabilities for Advanced Space Programs 8 A Balanced Space Science Program 10 An Aggressive Civil Space Applications Program 11 Private Capabilities in Space 13 PURPOSEFUL, LONG-TERM MANNED SPACE FLIGHT 14 SPACE INFRASTRUCTURE 15 A STREAMLINED AND REVITALIZED NASA 17 Strengthen Headquarters Management Capabilities 18 Reassign Field Center Roles and Missions 18 Give Semiautonomous Status to Field Centers 19 Separate Development and Operational Capabilities 19 NATIONAL SECURITY AND CIVIL SPACE: THE NEED FOR HARMONY 20 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 22 Decisions Regarding Goals 22 Decisions Regarding Methods 22 Decisions Regarding Programs 23 Decisions Regarding Budget Priorities 23 ENDNOTES 24 BIBLIOGRAPHY 25

Next: INTRODUCTION »
Toward a New Era in Space: Realigning Policies to New Realities Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering assembled a group of experts in science, economics, engineering, and private technology-based enterprise to examine past space policies and their consequences and to recommend policies that should guide the national space program over the long term. Of special concern was the lack of national consensus regarding the long-term goals of the civil space program, which led to the loss of heavy launch capabilities, the fall of the Skylab, and, for lack of alternative launch vehicles, the prolonged absence of the United States from space following the Challenger accident. Without a durable framework to establish priorities, the U.S. space program has promised too much for the resources made available to it.

Toward a New Era in Space concludes that major changes are needed in the way the country and its leaders approach national space policy. The foundation of space policy is its sense of purpose—national goals that are imaginative, durable, and affordable. These goals and the programs to achieve them must recognize the growing capabilities of other nations and, through cooperation, accomplish objectives otherwise unobtainable. Major challenges also provide major opportunities. This report addresses those near-term decisions that can lead to a fruitful, consistent U.S. space program in the decades to come.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!