NASA is forty-five years old today.

The space agency was chartered on October 1, 1958, almost a year to the day after the nation was shocked by the launch of the Soviet Sputnik satellite, in response to that event. We had believed that we were technologically superior to the communists, and being beaten into space (a field closely aligned with military prowess and the new guided missiles that could rain death and destruction on our cities with no defense) woke us to the urgent need to regain the lead. I've written before how that response both began our space age, and in a very real sense, planted the seeds for its ultimate decline as well.

For people, birthdays are usually something to celebrate. For government agencies, it can often be more appropriate to commemorate such anniversaries by reflection on their purpose, particularly when they may be getting long in the tooth. Here is NASA's own rosy assessment:

Since its inception in 1958, NASA has accomplished many great scientific and technological feats. NASA technology has been adapted for many nonaerospace uses by the private sector. At its forty-fifth anniversary, NASA remains a leading force in scientific research and in stimulating public interest in aerospace exploration, as well as science and technology in general. Perhaps more importantly, our exploration of space has taught us to view Earth, ourselves, and the universe in a new way.

While NASA's achievements are indeed many, so are its failures (in the apparent interest of public relations, not mentioned on that particular web page). While space is indeed challenging, there's no excuse for many of the management mistakes that have given us near-sighted telescopes, misguided space probes, the fiery loss of billions of dollars of hardware with its crews, and most tragically, the squandering of billions of dollars, and irreplaceable years, on mismanaged and misbegotten programs that were ostensibly to reduce the cost of space flight, but instead ended up lining the pockets of contractors while delivering, at best, hangar queens.

In light of that, the age of the agency should particularly give us pause when we consider the tragic event at the beginning of this forty-fifth year of its existence, and the urgent calls for reform and change--calls that may, in fact will likely, as in the past, go unheeded.

Let's review the history. Periodically, there have been national commissions set up to either investigate some particularly egregious failure, or to provide new direction to a seemingly rudderless space agency.

In 1986, a citizens commission chaired by former NASA administrator Tom Paine put together a set of recommendations on what the agency should be focused on in the future. Those recommendations included not just doing space and earth science, but reducing the cost of access to orbit and the planets, and exploring and settling the solar system. Unfortunately, its release occurred a few months after the Challenger disaster, and, overshadowed by that event, it remained unread by anyone who mattered.

NASA was chastened by the loss of Challenger in 1986, and abandoned the lofty (and unrealistic) goals they had for the Shuttle, focusing on finishing the space station (still being designed) and implementing the recommendations of the Rogers Commission Report, satisfied merely to avoid a repeat.

After an almost three-year hiatus, the Shuttle started flying again in late 1988 (almost exactly fifteen years ago) and in 1989, to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the first Apollo landing, newly-elected President Bush (the current President's father) boldly made a speech on the Washington Mall seemingly calling for a return to the goals of the Paine Report. He declared that we would go "...back to the Moon, back to the future, and this time, back to stay. And then a journey into tomorrow, a journey to another planet, a manned mission to Mars..."

But NASA had other plans. The agency wanted to continue its focus on low earth orbit, and actually actively lobbied against the initiative on Congressional Hill. In response to a White House request to come up with a plan and a budget, the agency came up with a plan that included every wish list and hobby horse that every center had ever dreamed of, with a sticker price of half a trillion dollars.

The initiative died shortly thereafter (and Admiral/astronaut Richard Truly, then NASA administrator, was eventually fired).

Obviously, it was time to get more advice. Ignoring the Paine Report, now gathering dust on shelves, a new commission on the future of NASA was assembled, this time led by noted aerospace industry executive Norm Augustine. The Augustine Report was released with great fanfare in 1990. It was politically unrealistic, calling for a ten percent increase in NASA's budget every year, which made it yet another non-starter.

Now, in the wake of the CAIB report, NASA is once more confronted with a need to change, something that it has never been able to do in the past, and seems institutionally incapable of doing now. It retains its monopoly on civil space, and its defenders continue to claim that there's no problem--it's just that space is hard. This is certainly a convenient excuse, because it allows them to continue to ask for more money, despite the disastrous track record for the past three decades.

It's often noted that insanity can be defined as doing the same thing over and over, and expecting to get different results. By that definition, our current space policy continues to be insane.

For humans, with modern nutrition and medicine, age forty-five is now considered, at least in the west, to be the prime of life. But for government bureaucracies, it can be an age that's over the hill and down the other side, perhaps deep in their dotage. This is particularly the case when the political circumstances that brought about their creation disappeared years, if not decades ago.

While euthanasia remains a controversial topic for humans, it shouldn't be off the table for an agency that may have lived long past its usefulness. But abandoning a flawed governmental approach need not mean an abandoning of the high frontier. In fact, it may be a necessary first step.

[Update on Sunday]

Some people (you know who you are) are claiming that I'm calling for the euthanization of NASA. I'm not, necessarily. I'm just saying that it should be an option on the table. And as almost always, when I say "NASA," I really mean JSC, Marshall and the Cape. While the aero part and the actual space science parts have their own problems, I'm not really addressing them in this column, and they could continue to do their thing and/or things, for good or ill, in a restructured agency, or even in other agencies (e.g., FAA, NIST, NAS).

I think Carmack should launch his Black Armadillo to space on this date a year from now. :)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=585&ncid=585&e=7&u=/nm/20030929/sc_nm/space_station_dc

I think they're on to something! No need to respond.

You make it sound as if NASA is doing a worse job now than in the 1960s or other government space agencies (e.g. USAF?). While the agency certainly had a more dynamic workforce than today (mostly, I think, because the space program was a high priority government effort), it is easy to forget that many spacecraft were failures even then. Cost overruns (Surveyor, Gemini, Apollo LM, Centaur etc. ) also were every bit as common as today, and also on the military side. In fact, these DoD & NASA cost overruns caused a need for additional Congressional oversight during the early 1970s.
---
Regarding the 1989 Space Exploration Initiative, I would argue Administrator Truly did the only responsible thing by focussing NASA's manned spaceflight effort on the Shuttle+Station... You are saying the 90-day Study [ http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/Station/Slides/sld049a.htm ] was "a massive boondoggle", yet one might also argue that NASA finally provided an honest answer about the cost of massive manned spaceflight undertaking! Think about it: the agency has consistently underestimated (or even deliberately downplayed) the cost of developing the Shuttle and Space Station. When you look at the $400-billion estimate, it seems quite realistic -- and the difference vs. (for example) Zubrin's Mars Direct is really not as great as it seems because the former includes things such as necessary infrastructure upgrades, the cost of hiring additional staff as well as the cost of doing science on the Moon and Mars. Nor is the total cost of SEI particularly exceptional compared with the Apollo program, which cost almost $100 billion over ten years and employed more people than the combined SEI lunar/Mars effort!
---
It is of course debatable whether manned lunar and Mars exploration requires additional funding and the hiring of a much bigger workforce. You feel a bunch of libertarian entrepreneurs could do the job for much less. I am not commenting on that. But if *NASA* is expected to do the job, there is fairly strong evidence the agency indeed will need Apollo-level support from the government to do it... And *that* is really everything NASA requested from the White House in 1989-90: Apollo-level resources to do an Apollo-level program! The Augustine Report had just warned that NASA didn't have the staff to even do STS+ISS right (both projects were in dire straits in 1990).

MARCU$

Here are the expected funding levels for the 1986 National Commission on Space and SEI 90-day projects:

[ http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceExp/sibudget1.gif ]

[You feel a bunch of libertarian entrepreneurs could do the job for much less. I am not commenting on that. But if *NASA* is expected to do the job, ..]
What "job" are you speaking about ?
The one thing that private enterprise can do, is put space to some sensible use, i.e. generate some real value out of it ( or in more popular words, "make space a place, not a program"). In terms or ROI, call it the Return with capital R.
NASA cannot and will never do that.
It doesnt even matter whether absolute size of Investment in year is couple of billions or hundreds of billions. As long as this money is spent in government bueraucracy, you will see scant little return of it.
As long as this money is invested by private enterprise, you are bound to see some return of it
So IMO, 100Million/year space industry with 120Million/year of return is better than ~8 Billion per year black hole with practically no return.

MARKU$ -

?You make it sound as if NASA is doing a worse job now than in the 1960s or other government space agencies (e.g. USAF?).?

Well, in 10 years we went from the first American in space to the first Moon landing, developed and used three separate manned spacecraft and, among other things, sent a number of probes to other planets. Today, we are still using spacecraft developed in the ?70s.

?it is easy to forget that many spacecraft were failures even then. Cost overruns (Surveyor, Gemini, Apollo LM, Centaur etc. ) also were every bit as common as today?

There were many early failures, usually due to hardware problems caused by the new, unknown environment. We learned from them. Compare this to Columbia versus Challenger (both accidents occurring due to very similar organizational failures).

Cost overruns? Sure, but at least something was BUILT. Compare to X-33, and several other space shuttle replacements.

?Regarding the 1989 Space Exploration Initiative, I would argue Administrator Truly did the only responsible thing by focussing NASA's manned spaceflight effort on the Shuttle+Station?

Just what is the space station supposed to DO? A reusable spacecraft (not the shuttle) and a decent space station make sense as part of an infrastructure to expand into space, but what good are they alone?

?? argue that NASA finally provided an honest answer about the cost of massive manned spaceflight undertaking! Think about it: the agency has consistently underestimated (or even deliberately downplayed) the cost of developing the Shuttle and Space Station. When you look at the $400-billion estimate, it seems quite realistic . . .?

So . . . it is realistic to assume it would cost NASA $400 billion IF it is done the way NASA runs the Shuttle and Space Station programs. Sounds like a great argument to keep NASA out of it. And he sure didn?t do a good job focusing on the Shuttle and station. To build a station, you start with developing cheap and reliable transportation. A second generation shuttle should only need a few hundred people to keep it going, instead of the 40,000 currently needed. That alone would dramatically reduce costs.

?You feel a bunch of libertarian entrepreneurs could do the job for much less. I am not commenting on that?

It sure FEELS like a comment, not that it is clear what the ?job? is, nor do I remember anyone here taking a libertarian viewpoint on space. What I see are people saying that NASA shouldn?t have a monopoly on space and is doing a bad job with what it is doing. If we had inexpensive and reliable space access, NASA could do much more with less money ? and space wouldn?t be limited to astronauts and robots. But NASA isn?t interested in cheap space. There?s just no excuse for continuing to run something as costly and unreliable as the Space Shuttle.

You say the X-15 program was cancelled because it didn't "hold a near term promise of showing up the Russians" How do you figure that? Three X-15s flew 199 missions between 1959 and 1968. It may have been the longest-running X-plane program ever and wasn't cancelled--it just ran its course over nine years of flying and was retired.

Rand,

There are people who have worked at Goddard who want to shut that place down as well. Dishonesty and abuse, while not universal, are entirely too common at Goddard.

BTW, I'm not one of the people who wants to shutter Goddard. Just reform it and perhaps privatize it.

NASA IS DEAD!!!Period!!! NASA is not treating people the right way, they lie to you, they promise things that they won`t do. Now they are trying to hurry things in order to return to flight, they`ve even brought back some formers to help the Stanford-Covey project, but that`s not the solution. They`ve done it before, they are doing it again. They are hurrying things as usual in order to go back to flying the shuttles left, they have obviously the seeds of self-destruction in their veins. At first they said that the piece of foam that had hit the Columbia in the wing had nothing to do with it, now they say it was that the reason why Columbia desintegrated like that because of a rack through which gases came out that could the shuttle desintegrate like that. It`s the same story different day. They never learn. Aside from that they are trying to promote a program that is basically not working the way it should be. They are living in a bubble trying to show the world that no matter what, they are gonna make it, as if the world had said something to them, when in fact they have to take a look in the mirror, a look at themselves and see the way they are acting, to learn from their mistakes; while they don`t do that, they will always be at risk. They have very good people working for them, and then for any stupid reason they laid them off or fire them, they have jerks working for them but still they are there, working for them. It`s a matter of giving a good check at the HH RR side. I know what I`m talking about, I`ve never worked for NASA but I know a lot about the way they act, they way they treat people, the way they build a wall around them so that if you don`t belong to what they call "their big family", then forget it, you won`t belong there, they will close the door on your face, not even giving themselves a chance to get to know you. If you don`t believe me, just try getting in contact with them, try to get in contact with the astronauts, try to talk to them, try to get some pics, whatever that comes to your mind and then maybe it won`t happen to you, but I will happen to others, and certainly it has.
I could tell more but not yet... sooner or later the truth will come out, at the right moment, but all the world will know what NASA and some, not everyone but some NASA people act like, the way they treat you, so unkindly, aggressively and even more. The Government of the US will know, everybody will know... because those masks will fall down once for all.
You can agree or not, it depends on who you are and the relationship you have with NASA, but the one writing these words had a lot to do with NASA and NASA people, still has, no matter that I never worked for them or even tried. And I will tell... I will tell the whole story for all the world to know. Because they show you a face, but they have another one, and if there`s something I hate about people in this world is hypochresy, no matter if it comes from NASA.
NASA is no longer what it used to be. NASA should close it doors forever. It`s done. So if they think so much about the future, then retire and leave some Space for the new generations who have lots of better ideas, leave some space for others who are more creating. Just by sending the astronauts around the country, well, you can fool kids but who else can you fool? Americans, we all know it very well.
So, NASA and NASA people, specially some people, take that bra off your eyes, would ya? For all the humankind`s sake!!!!
Kevin Richardson.

I agree with Kevin Richardson. We are very good friends and I know what Kev has gone through when it comes to NASA and they way they acted toward him!!! They were very aggressive, he is here with me and doesn`t want me to tell too much but the only thing I can say is that I know and so other friends and family members do that what Kev is saying is absolutely true. I really hate it, to think that he loved NASA the way he did, all his being for NASA and what they did do to him boy?? Just a big kick in the ass!!
I can tell about some astronauts being so false, liars, so arrogant!! You just have to try to contact them and well, you will get it so better don`t do it, unless you ask for one of their autographs, and even so, there`s no guarantee that they will respond back. I really don`t understand what it`s going on with them. I know, we all do, that what happened with the Columbia was terrible, but, why are they hurrying things again, even thinking about selecting new astronauts when they have lots of them who have not flown yet? That is totally crazy!! But of course it is us the ones who pay for that, so, why would they care??
The future, what future lies ahead which such a Space Agency??
They are doing what they did when the Challenger accident. They don`t learn, that is true!! They talk so much about this and that, but they don`t learn, boy!!
The Government, our Representatives should do something about it, we should do something about it, we don`t want to see another disaster going on, do we?? And if they go on like that, it`s gonna happen, no wonder about that. Even the Space Station is dangerous, but did they inform us on it? They had major problems these last times, and nobody from NASA said a word, until somebody did. Now of course they are denying it, but a lot of people who were investigating the Columbia accident have resigned, so they are attracting new people because they want to be back to Space as soon as possible. On one hand is understandable, but on the other... Seven people were lost, for God`s sake. How can they be so sure that it`s not gonna happen again?? They said that when the Challenger accident... so, didn`t it happen again??
Please NASA, STOP KILLING MORE ASTRONAUTS!!! YOU SAY THAT DREAMS COME TRUE, BUT YOU MAKE THOSE DREAMS LOOK REALLY DANGEROUS!!!!
AND ALSO, BE A LITTLE MORE FRIENDLY TO PEOPLE THAT WANT TO GET CLOSER TO YOU, WE DON`T BITE, YOU KNOW, BUT WE SURELY PAY FOR YOUR BUDGET!!
D.

Thanks so much Susan for giving us this space to express ourselves! Let me tell you that I love your site and that you look great in those pics! I guess you must be a real nice person, so thanks!
Well, I, as I call myself, I`m a bittersweet babe, I won`t hide it, and I just want to say something for everyone to know: when it comes to what Donna and Kevin have posted I agree with some of the stuff they`ve written and not with other but one thing I can say I do: Astronauts are not nice as they used to be.
I had the chance to meet astronaut Tracy Caldwell a few times, at different places, like Yuri`s night party, the return of the Exp 5 crew to Earth party, etc, and she gave me her phone number at work for me to call her. At first I can tell she was really nice, or at least she seemed to be so, but after I called her a few times, and left her some messages, she changed completely, so I was wondering if I was talking to the same person or if it was just a joke to put it like that! She was even very aggressive to me on the phone several times, I was trying to explain to her that she had herself given me her phone number at work, but she wouldn`t listen, she hung up on me, and later when I met her again last year at one astronaut party, she was being so cocky, cold, I`d try to talk to her again, just to make things clear for her, but she wouldn`t listen, and I really hate that attitude, WHO THE HELL DOES SHE BELIEVE SHE IS???!!!!!!!!
Still today I really don`t understand her attitude at all, I didn`t force her to give me her phone number at all, we both love singing and she sings in the all-astronaut-band MAX Q, so we had a very good time talking and even singing together, and while sharing some beers we exchanged phone numbers, it even called my attention very much that she`d be giving me her phone number at work, I mean at the Johnson Space Center, but well, I thought that maybe she didn`t want me to call her house, or something.
So Tracy, why did you do that to me? If you didn`t want to give me your phone number, that was okay with me, but, what I can`t understand is that double face of yours!! I can understand that maybe you are feeling down because five years have gone by since you were selected as an astronaut and still you haven`t fly into Space but other astronauts including a cousin of mine whose name I will not tell, haven`t either. That doesn`t give you the right to treat people like that!!!
It`s really something that you have that double face and you expect to go to Space,great you have the right to do so,you are an astronaut, but I`m just thinking of those guys who will go with you.
Hopefully you won`t go to Mars. Having to deal with you moodswings must be something!! Certainly I wouldn`t like to be in any of those crew members´shoes or skins. Didn`t they realize about it when they selected you, I mean those shrinks, how couldn`t they? It takes a little more than a career and a good smile, I think. What kind of monster do you have underneath that mask you wear?
So please, give me a break! Hopefully not all the astronauts are the same!!!
I just hope that next time they chose better!
Lilian Forrester.

Lilian: I have met Tracy Caldwell before and am familiar with her hometown. She seemed very nice and considerate of others, and tries to inspire other kids to follow careers in science. It just seems to me that these people are highly intelligent, motivated, and have a very strong desire to succeed, (i.e. go into space). Since they are under a lot of stress, I think it would be hard to put ourselves in their shoes and try to figure out what they are thinking. I am sure that Tracy did not mean any harm to you, and I am sorry that you took it this way. I have always viewed her are being very nice and one of NASA's brighter stars.

Tony