Building the space program around the space shuttle killed leadership.

Logsdon 7/6- professor emeritus at the Space Policy Institute and George Washington University, (John M. Logsdon, July 6, 2011, Was the Space Shuttle a Mistake?, Technology Review, http://mobile.technologyreview.com/computing/37981/, DMintz) Forty years ago, I wrote an article for Technology Review titled "Shall We Build the Space Shuttle?" Now, with the 135th and final flight of the shuttle at hand, and the benefit of hindsight, it seems appropriate to ask a slightly different question"Should We Have Built the Space Shuttle?" After the very expensive Apollo effort, a low-cost space transportation system for both humans and cargo was seen as key to the future of the U.S. space program in the 1980s and beyond. So developing some form of new space launch system made sense as the major NASA effort for the 1970s, presuming the United States was committed to continuing space leadership. But it was probably a mistake to develop this particular space shuttle design, and then to build the future U.S. space program around it. Even Obama said it, without technological developments were falling behind in the aerospace industry. Space Politics 7/7 (Space Politics, July 7, 2011, Obama: pushing NASA to revamp its vision, http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/07/07/obama-pushing-nasa-to-revamp-its-vision/, DMintz) We are still a leader in space exploration. But, frankly, I have been pushing NASA to revamp its vision. The shuttle did some extraordinary work in low-orbit experiments, the International Space Station, moving cargo. It was an extraordinary accomplishment and were very proud of the work that it did. But now what we need is that next technological breakthrough. Were still using the same models for space travel that we used with the Apollo program 30, 40 years ago. And so what weve said is, rather than keep on doing the same thing, lets invest in basic research around new technologies that can get us places faster, allow human space flight to last longer. And what youre seeing now is NASA I think redefining its mission. And weve set a goal to lets ultimately get to Mars. A good pit stop is an asteroid. I havent actually we havent identified the actual asteroid yet, in case people are wondering. (Laughter.) But the point is, lets start stretching the boundaries so were not doing the same thing over and over again, but rather lets start thinking about whats the next horizon, whats the next frontier out there. But in order to do that, were actually going to need some technological breakthroughs that we dont have yet. And what we can do is for some of this low-orbit stuff, some of the more routine space travel obviously no space travel is routine, but it could become more routine over time lets allow the private sector to get in so that they can, for example, send these low-Earth orbit vehicles into space and we may be able to achieve a point in time where those of you who are just dying to go into space, you can buy a ticket, and a private carrier can potentially take you up there, while the government focuses on the big breakthroughs that require much larger investments and involve much greater risk. Leadership failing now---NASA leaders prove. Logsdon 7/11-Space Policy Institute Founder (John M. Logsdon, July 11, 2011, The U.S. space programs leadership black hole, Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-leadership/the-usspace-programs-leadership-black-hole/2011/07/11/gIQADj538H_story.html, DMintz) There are too many leaders of the U.S. civilian space program, and not enough leadership. These several leaders at this point are not in agreement regarding how best to transition away from 30 years of the space shuttle being the visible centerpiece of the U.S. human space flight effort. Attempts at leadership without agreement among leaders is a recipe for short-term confusion and longer-term drift. But isnt space program leadership the responsibility of the NASA administrator and deputy administrator, selected by President Obama and confirmed by the Senate? It would certainly be desirable for that to be the case. Yet that would require some form of consensus among the countrys overall policy and political leadership regarding NASAs future direction, and that agreement is sorely missing. So NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden and Deputy Administrator Lori Garver find themselves pulled between the rather incompatible directions coming from the White House and those emerging from the elements in Congress with a particular interest in NASA. Their job is to implement policy, not set it; and they are not

getting the clear guidance they need to deal with the challenges of convincing NASAs workforce that the agencys future is bright. Boldens and Garvers public statements are relentlessly positive, but they have not persuaded the NASA rank-and-file to accept their optimism. And this hobbles their ability to lead. In more than 40 years of close observation of the U.S. space program, I dont think there has ever been more uncertainty and fear of impending program collapse. One result of the current confusion is the too-widespread impression that the final flight of the shuttle means that the U.S. program of human spaceflight has come to an end. This is most certainly not the case. Many American astronauts will be living and working on the International Space Station for the decade to come. And yet equating the end of the shuttle program with the end of human spaceflight is symptomatic of the failure of national leaders to agree on and then communicate a vision of the U.S. future in space. There is no precedent for the White House and the Congress being so much at odds about how best to move forward in space, particularly since Congress has taken upon itself to specify the technical parameters of new developments, something traditionally an executive branch prerogative. Congress has lost much of its trust in NASAs decisions and, in an unprecedented move, has specified both the basic design features and schedule for a new space booster. High among congressional concerns is preserving the manufacturing and operating capabilitiesand the associated jobs in the space industrial basethat were developed during the shuttle era. Substituting congressional directives for NASAs technical judgment seems ill advised. There is also disagreement on destinations. The Congress prefers to focus on cislunar space the area between the Earth and the surface of the moon, while President Obama last year announced that the moon will not be the first destination for new exploratory missions, suggesting instead a visit to a near-Earth asteroid by 2025. That goal has not caught on, so NASA has developed a strategy for building the capabilities needed to visit a variety of solar system destinations. But that approach is too vague to be publicly understood; it needs to be linked with a clearer sense of what those destinations will be. There is one path out of the current uncertainty. Both branches do agree on certain development needs: some form of new transportation service to the International Space Station to replace the shuttle, a new spacecraft for journeys beyond Earth orbit, a new heavy-lift launch vehicle to send that spacecraft on its way, and more investment in innovative technologies than has been the case during the shuttle era. Where they differ is the relative priority and schedule deadlines among these objectives; and it is these lingering, and fundamental, differences that are causing the confusion. To move forward, these differences have to be reconciled. Here is where effective leadership is so badly needed, and it can only come from the White House. Barack Obama in public statements has offered his personal support of NASA; as the shuttle lifted off last Friday, he said, Todays launch may mark the final flight of the space shuttle, but it propels us into the next era of our never-ending adventure to push the very frontiers of exploration and discovery in space. The president and his senior staff need to back up these words with intense engagement with Congress to reduce the differences between the presidents vision for space and congressional preferences, so that the level of uncertainty can be significantly reduced. Without strong White House support, NASA leaders by themselves cannot achieve that goal. With it, there can be grounds for agreement on a sustainable path forward. Given everything else on the presidents plate and the many other issues dividing the two ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, suggesting more active high-level White House involvement in space issues may not be very realistic. But it seems the only way out of a deplorable situation. It does no honor to the achievements of the space shuttle program to have its end come with no clear sense of what will follow. Space leadership is dead, spaceflight proves. Rohrabacher 7/8-Senator, member of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. (Dana Rohrabacher, July 8, 2011, End of shuttle program doesnt mean end of American leadership in spaceflight, The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/170373end-of-shuttle-program-doesnt-mean-end-of-american-leadership-in-spaceflight, DMintz) American leadership in human spaceflight is dead. Long live American leadership in human spaceflight. Just as America ended the successful and celebrated Apollo program to blaze a different trail, now we are ending the space shuttle program to follow a different, more flexible path. Ending Apollo didnt end American leadership in human spaceflight and ending the space shuttle program wont end it either. This week, Atlantis is scheduled to make the last ever liftoff of the space shuttle program. It is both joyful to see such an expensive, unsafe program end and tragic to see such an accomplished, ground-breaking program end.

There can be no doubt that the space shuttle program made the reusability of space vehicles a reality, brought dozens of crew and tons of cargo into space, and facilitated our space science goals for decades. These tremendous vehicles have served as an inspiration to countless Americans, and people around the globe.

Not having an alternative to the space shuttle is a huge mistake for leadership. Dunn 7/8- (Marcia Dunn, July 8, 2011, NASA's last space shuttle blasts into history, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/07/08/science-us-space-shuttle_8555523.html, DMintz) This day of reckoning has been coming since 2004, a year after the Columbia tragedy, when President George W. Bush announced the retirement of the shuttle and put NASA on a course back to the moon. President Barack Obama canceled the back-to-the-moon program in favor of trips to an asteroid and Mars. But NASA has yet to work out the details of how it intends to get there, and has not even settled on a spacecraft design. The space shuttle demonstrates America's leadership in space, and "for us to abandon that in favor of nothing is a mistake of strategic proportions," lamented former NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, who led the agency from 2005 to 2008.