Conference 7.286::space

398.0. "Civilian Space Policy Reform" by AUTHOR::KLAES (The President of what?) Wed Feb 10 1988 13:34

From: [email protected] (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Civilian Space Policy Reform
Date: 7 Feb 88 22:06:06 GMT
 
                     CIVILIAN SPACE POLICY REFORM
 
                          By James A. Bowery
 
                          February 5, 1988
        
        
        I) CIVILIAN SPACE POLICY REFORM
        
        The following list of civilian space policy items are given 
        in order of their importance.
                
        I.1)  DIVERSIFY
        
        Reform the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
        by creating a number of independent space agencies 
        with overlapping purviews.  Do this by giving each
        NASA center its own independent administrator and
        budget.  Allow Jet Propulsion Laboratory to come into
        the civil service system as one of these agencies.
        Require the use of recharge accounting.  Set statutory
        limits the number of civil servants in each agency based
        on their current employee counts.  
 
        This is a prerequisite for all other reforms.  Without
        it, other reforms will eventually fail.  With it, we can 
        recapture leadership in space permanently.
                
        I.2)  GIVE CONTROL TO SCIENCE
        
        Beyond fixed recurring personnel and facility costs
        the entirety of every agency's budget should be
        earmarked for unsolicited research proposals
        from scientists outside of NASA who receive less
        than one half of their funding from NASA development
        or operations contracts.  Model proposal review after 
        the National Science Foundation's (NSF) peer review 
        system.  Require reviews to be public, written and 
        attributed unless the reviewer is not a civil servant 
        and has compelling reasons to remain anonymous.  A 
        letter of acceptance or rejection giving rationale must 
        be written, public and attributed.  Require that all
        revenue for development or operations contracts come
        from research scientists who have been awarded 
        funding for their unsolicited proposals.  Allow 
        funded research scientists to buy services, including
        launch and on orbit laboratory facilities, from any 
        source they choose -- private, public or foreign.  
 
        Operate private space services under the same rules
        of liability that airlines operate under.  Allow 
        requests for proposals to be issued only in the 
        case of operations and development contracts.
                
        I.3)  PRESERVE SHUTTLE-DEPENDENT MISSIONS
        
        As an exception to policy item 2, maintain direct funding 
        for Shuttle flights sufficient to fly already pending 
        missions, such as Spacelab, that require manned rating
        or the return from orbit of large payloads.  Allow this 
        exception to continue for a period of no more than 3 
        years subsequent to the execution of item 2.
                
        I.4)  OFFER EARLY RETIREMENT
        
        Offer voluntary early retirement to any NASA civil 
        servant for a period of one year subsequent to the 
        execution of item 2.  Offer enhanced retirement
        benefits during this year only.          
        
        II)  RATIONALE FOR CIVILIAN SPACE POLICY REFORM
        
        It is widely recognized that the United States is
        losing its leadership in space due, in part, to
        structural problems in our civilian space program.
        The extent to which increased funding can help us
        recapture leadership is limited by increasing
        budgetary pressures.  Fortunately, we can recapture 
        our world leadership without increasing the civilian
        space program's budget.
        
        The strategy followed in this reform is to redirect
        inappropriately allocated funds into creating a private 
        space services industry whose initial market is a 
        dramatically increased space science community, and 
        whose later markets are yet to be discovered by that 
        space science community.  For a variety of historic 
        reasons, there is so much funding being inappropriately
        allocated in NASA that the gains possible are truly 
        astounding and more than sufficient to support a 
        renewed world leadership in space by the United States.
        
        The following is a list of the reasons for each of the
        proposed policy items.
  
        II.1)  WHY DIVERSIFY?
        
        Any reform of NASA that does not involve breaking it 
        out into separate agencies is subject to a relapse of
        the current problems.
        
        NSF has shown itself to be an effective agency at 
        $1.5 billion which is the approximate size each of the 
        space agencies would be.
        
        Currently, when one NASA center accomplishes something 
        significant, its credibility is used by the other NASA 
        centers via headquarters to embark on dubious programs 
        (such as Space Station) with very little funding being
        fed back to the credible center based on its prior
        performance.
        
        Programmatic "hostage taking" (such as requiring all 
        JPL launches to go on Shuttle and similar games with 
        Space Station) creates a political climate in which it 
        is very difficult to kill the largest and most destructive 
        programs.  This kind of political game is possible only
        under coordination of headquarters.
        
        There are significant overlaps between other federal 
        research agencies with benefits that clearly 
        outweigh the cost of redudancy.  These benefits include
        independent verification of scientific results, having
        a backup team in case of failure and the added incentive 
        of having others in the same field who might do a better 
        job using less money.
        
        JPL should be made part of the civil service system
        so it is on an equal footing with the other agencies.
        
        Space Shuttle should be terminated if its recurring 
        costs cannot be supported by its users rather than 
        having headquarters protect it from competition from 
        outside launch services.  (This is referring to many of
        the government, not commercial, payloads that NASA STILL 
        refuses to move off Shuttle).  Breaking NASA up would 
        require Shuttle to stand on its own merits rather than 
        the political clout of headquarters.
        
        While scientists need space laboratories, Space Station 
        as currently envisioned, is not correctly conceived or
        executed and should be terminated so as to open the market 
        for private efforts to provide such laboratories.  Without 
        the political clout of headquarters, Space Station would
        be terminated and the market for space facilities would
        be wide open.
                
        II.2)  WHY GIVE CONTROL TO SCIENCE?
        
        Give control to science because NASA's main purpose
        is to acquire knowlege about space through
        exploration and research.  Every dollar that goes
        into NASA should be under the control of science.
        Other activities, such as system development and
        operation, should be conducted only at the requirement
        of scientists with scientifically meritorious 
        objectives.
        
        Scientifically meritorious objectives are best 
        uncovered by allowing scientists to decide
        independently what proposals to write, and then submit 
        them for review by independent peers with knowlege of 
        the scientific area of the proposal.   This procedure
        has a track record of success in other scientific
        fields so it should be pursued in space science 
        as well.  Specifically, the National Science Foundation
        (NSF) has a good track record of effective disbursement
        of government research funds and should be used as a
        model.
        
        Written, public, attributed reviews and letters of
        acceptance or rejection for all proposals goes a bit
        further than NSF's procedures.  This extra care is
        necessary due to the current institutional culture
        at some NASA centers which tends to review proposals
        based on who is making the proposal more than on
        the proposal's content.  
        
        Research proposals must be unsolicited in order to
        protect the scientific integrity and independence 
        of the proposal generation process.  
        
        Development and operations contracts must obtain
        all funds from funded scientists in order to ensure
        these contracts are serving scientific needs.
        
        Scientists must be free to purchase services, including
        launch and the use of on orbit facilities, from any
        source they choose so that these choices are based 
        solely on scientific merit.  The several billion 
        dollars available from scientists for space 
        activities will be sufficient to seed a domestic 
        space services industry including launch services and
        on orbit facilities.   Such a domestic space services
        industry will play on the greatest strength of the 
        United States -- diversity and competition
        in the open market.  Conventional aerospace 
        contracting practices do not play on this strength 
        because they are not "arms length" the way they 
        would be with a wide variety of independent
        scientific activities providing an open market.
                
        II.3)  WHY PRESERVE SHUTTLE-DEPENDENT MISSIONS?
        
        There are many scientists who have spent their 
        careers preparing to fly missions that require a
        capability very similar to Shuttle.  It may be that
        Shuttle cannot pay its own way based on these users.
        Since the government got them into their position of
        dependency on the Shuttle, it has an obligation to
        pick up the slack and provide Shuttle service to them
        in a timely manner even if it is expensive.  
                
        II.4)  WHY OFFER EARLY RETIREMENT?
        
        NASA, like many federal agencies, has run into the
        problem of having an aging staff.  Many of these
        hard working staffers would appreciate a peaceful
        retirement after their productive careers and this
        would give the agency open slots to fill with 
        young people with new ideas.
  
        III)  AUTHOR'S ADDRESS
 
        James A. Bowery
        PO Box 1981
        La Jolla, CA 92038
 
        PHONE: 619/295-8868
  
UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: [email protected]
INET: [email protected]

    What the previous author proposes is indeed A method that could
    help reinvigorate the National Space Effort.
    
    May I suggest one more, eliminate the cost plus fixed fee contract!
    
    This dinosaur from the Department of Defense-Aerospace firms saps
    productivity!  If the goal is to develop a low cost to orbit launch
    vehicle, the last thing you want to do is to give the developer
    a blank check.  Get the involvement of the developers, help them
    pay for the development and sign contracts for launch services,
    but, and this is a must, make sure they have a FINANCIAL stake in
    success!  Without firms believing that they can make more money
    by opening up space than by getting those contracts, we'll never
    make it.
    
    Tony

    What the Re .0 proposal means, is this lets get rid of our space
    activities and here is a first step.
    
    Desguised as a pro-space proposal its really a kill-space proposal.

    I tend to agree with .2.  Two things that help make NASA great in
    the 60's were James Webb and unswerving presidential leadership
    and support.  Webb ran the agency from the top and kept the various
    NASA facilities in focus.  He also forced the contractors to stay
    in line.  Presidents Kennedy and Johnson (until the Vietnam War
    consumed the latter) helped keep NASA free from the DoD and the
    Pentagon and pushed the program with Congress.
    
    Dispersing control among the various components will defocus NASA
    and waste money.  It will make it more vunerable to contractors
    and the defense agencies.
    
    Rather than early retirement, how about stopping the NASA-contractor
    shuttle?  How can NASA keep the contractors in line when people
    keep moving back and forth between the two?
    
    Until we get presidential leadership and a strong leader for NASA
    I'm afraid that we're stuck.
    
    						Mike

    Did it occur to anyone that the proposal was honest? Maybe RR wants
    to do something in last moment he can remembered for in centuries
    to come. (aka JFK - now all he needs is a single Pan-Am from DC
    to Dallas ;-) Something like "The Ronald Reagan Moon Base", he might
    not be a lunatic after all.
    
    You (we) have been complaining about the space (lack of) effort
    for years, here it comes and you wont beleave it. Let's be optimistic,
    after all the guy has a vice (whom can even drive a truck :-) did
    ya getit folks?) he'd like to see in office.

    re .4
    
    I was commenting on .0 and not RR's space goals.  I heard the latter
    on the tube last night but haven't seen the details.  A permanent
    space station, moon base and Mars expedition were the three biggies.
    
    Did I miss something or is .0 part of the president's policy????
    
    						Mike

Article: 71302
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: [email protected]
Subject: First few pages of U.S. National Space Policy
Sender: [email protected] (USENET News Client)
Organization: NASA/JSC/DE44, Mission Operations, Space Station Systems 
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1993 21:18:38 GMT
 
The following text is the first few pages of the National Space Policy,
written by the now-defunct National Space Council in 1989.  I'm posting
it to the Internet to foster some discussion about the topics covered.
The only copy our technical library here at NASA/Johnson Space Center
had was faxed from headquarters and copied several times.  This is a
scanned version of that document, and it may contain errors caused by
the translation processes.
 
The policy is obviously outdated -- it still contains references to
the role of the National Space Council, and it has a Cold Warrior
flavor to it.  I've always wondered what the CLASSIFIED version
contains.  I'll probably never know.
 
I seriously doubt that Clinton is paying attention to this policy,
nor do I think he'll take the time to update it to reflect his
current goals and policies.
 
-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/DE44, Mission Operations, Space Station Systems
      [email protected]  (713) 483-4368
 
     "It is mankind's manifest destiny to bring our humanity into space,
      to colonize this galaxy.  And as a nation, we have the power to
      determine whether America will lead or will follow.
 
      I say that America must lead."  -- Ronald Reagan
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      November 2, 1989
 
                        NATIONAL SPACE POLICY
 
This document contains national policy, guidelines, and implementing
actions with respect to the conduct of United States Space programs and
related activities.  United States space activities are conducted by
three separate and distinct sectors: two strongly interacting
governmental sectors (Civil and National Security) and a separate,
non-governmental Commercial Sector. Close coordination, cooperation,
and technology and information exchange will be maintained among these
sectors to avoid unnecessary duplication and promote attainment of
United States space goals.
 
GOALS AND PRINCIPLES
 
A fundamental objective guiding United States space activities has
been, and continues to be, space leadership.  Leadership in an
increasingly competitive international environment does not require
United States preeminence in all areas and disciplines of space
activity critical to achieving our national security, scientific,
technical, economic, and foreign policy goals.
 
 -  The overall goals of United States space activities are:  

    (1) to strengthen the security of the United States; 
    (2) to obtain scientific, technological and economic benefit for
	the general population and to improve the quality of life
	through space-related activities;
    (3) to encourage continuing United States private-sector investment
        in space and related activities;
    (4) to promote international cooperative activities taking into
	account United States national security, foreign policy,
	scientific, and economic interests;
    (5) to cooperate with other nations in maintaining the freedom of
	space for all activities that enhance the security and welfare
	of all mankind; and, as a long-range goal,
    (6) to expand human presence and activity beyond Earth orbit into
        the solar system.
 
 -  United States space activities shall be conducted in accordance with
    the following principles:
 
    -- The United States is committed to the exploration and use of
       outer space by all nations for peaceful purposes and for the
       benefit of all mankind.  "Peaceful purposes" allow for
       activities in pursuit of national security goals.
 
    -- The United States will pursue activities in space in support of
       its inherent right of self-defense and its defense commitments
       to its allies.
 
    -- The United States rejects all claims to sovereignty by any
       nation over outer space or celestial bodies, or any portion
       thereof, and rejects any limitations on the fundamental right of
       sovereign nations to acquire data from space.
 
    -- The United States considers the space systems of any nation to
       be national property with the right of passage through and
       operations in space without interference.  Purposeful
       interference with space systems shall be viewed as an
       infringement on sovereign rights.
 
    -- The United States shall encourage and not preclude the
       commercial use and exploitation of space technologies and
       systems for national economic benefit.  These commercial
       activities must be consistent with national security interests,
       and international and domestic legal obligations.
 
    -- The United States will, as a matter of policy, pursue its
       commercial space objectives without the use of direct Federal
       subsidies.
 
    -- The United States shall encourage other countries to engage in
       free and fair trade in commercial space goods and services.
 
    -- The United States will conduct international cooperative
       space-related activities that are expected to achieve sufficient
       scientific, political, economic, or national security benefits
       for the nation.  The United States will seek mutually beneficial
       international participation in space and space-related programs.
 
CIVIL SPACE POLICY
 
 -  The United States civil space sector activities shall contribute
     significantly to enhancing the Nation's science, technology,
     economy, pride, sense of well-being and direction, as well as
     United States world prestige and leadership.  Civil sector
     activities shall comprise a balanced strategy of research,
     development, operations, and technology for science, exploration,
     and appropriate applications.
 
 -  The objectives of the United States civil space activities shall be

    (1) to expand knowledge of the Earth, its environment, the solar
        system, and the universe;
    (2) to create new opportunities for use of the space environment
	through the conduct of appropriate research and experimentation
	in advanced technology and systems;
    (3) to develop space technology for civil applications and,
	wherever appropriate, make such technology available to the
	commercial sector;
    (4) to preserve the United States preeminence in critical aspects
	of space science, applications, technology and manned space flight;
    (5) to establish a permanently manned presence in space; and
    (6) to engange in international cooperative efforts that further
	United States overall space goals.
 
[...text deleted...]