What if you were in control of NASA?

[WestAir]

Kerbal Space Program gives us one opportunity to play leader of a Space Administration. But here's the question we're all wondering:

What if you woke up one day, and someone handed you the keys to NASA? If you awoke to be proclaimed Administrator of NASA and Senior Space Science Adviser to the President of the United States?

What would you do? Would you re-instate the Apollo program and shoot for the moon? Send an armada of probes to Callisto and Titan? Or use your nearly $20billion annual allowance to construct the Death Star?

Me? ? I'd put a rover on each capable Jovian moon in the first 5 years of my term, then I'd shoot beyond the International Space Station and try to create the worlds first Stanford-Torus Space Station with a 50 year multi-national, joint, year round-the-clock expedition plan to provoke intense cooperation between current and future space giants like China, SK, India, etc. Before I left office I'd probably try and write down that the Torus must be the first self-sustained extra-terrestrial facility ever built. Lots of plants, lots of new inventions. You?

[drakesdoom]

I would issue a press statement that NASA is becoming a coffee chain due to chronic underfunding making any sort of space mission a joke.

[WestAir]

I would issue a press statement that NASA is becoming a coffee chain due to chronic underfunding making any sort of space mission a joke.

Is $17,800,000,000 every fiscal year really too little to operate a Space Administration? India has less but they have a planned mission to the moon next decade.

[Tommygun]

Well being it's Administrator isn't all powerful.

You have to deal with congress voting for your funding and forcing programs on you that are to keep their contributors (Pack money from high tech companies) happy.

Then there is the issue of the administration changing every 4 to 8 years.

So when you do get the money for a big program, you almost have to get it done in the 8 year window before the next president comes in.

The Administrator may well be more like an office manager/cheerleader and just oversees the daily running of NASA.

[Stochasty]

I would disband it. Ever since the end of Apollo, NASA has been more of a hindrance than an asset when it comes to utilization of space. As it stands now, it's essentially a bloated jobs program.

There are a few worthwhile projects going on at NASA (the various probes and telescopes), but by far the majority of NASA's funding has gone towards expensive, useless nonsense (the shuttle program, the ISS, etc.). While in a perfect world I would like to see NASA get out of the manned spaceflight business and repurpose itself towards exploration and scientific research, NASA is a government agency; the red tape would make doing so impossible. We'd be better off getting rid of it completely, and creating a new, more narrowly focused agency with that goal in mind.

[lobsterbark]

The budget isn't 20 billion, its more like 10. Its to the point all NASAs pr was canceled. Its basically controlled by a bunch of idiots that think going to the moon is just a matter of going straight up. The engineers and such have no control whatsoever. It makes more sense to either disband it, merge it with the Air Force, or just do some other things, like a probe return from Mars, with samples, or a Titan probe, and just maintain the Iss. The only hope for NASA is if China started building a moon base, or something along those lines, and the government felt compelled to beat them.

[Canopus]

I would send Probes to Uranus and Neptun and then establish a space station at the earth Moon L2 point to support exploration of the surface.

[Nibb31]

The NASA Administrator really doesn't have much power. It's Congress that controls NASA by deciding which programs can be funded or not. When you look at the scientific background of most members of the US Congress, who are more interested in banning Evolution from Biology classes, taking bribes from from corporations and giving free guns away in raffles, it's easy to understand why NASA is in such a mess.

NASA has become a jobs program. Members of Congress don't vote on whether a NASA project brings value to the nation, they vote on whether their particular district is going to get any of the jobs and money related to it. NASA's budget is discussed every year, and gets cut every year, so it's impossible to plan ahead.

What NASA needs is a clear mission statement with a tangible objective. It also needs to be cut lose from Congress and become a scientifically-driven organization instead of a politically-driven one. It needs to have a garanteed budget over 10 years, in order to achieve a specific mission. Once those goals are set, then they need to stick to them, and a change of Administration should have no effect.

[Awaras]

I would make a lot more videos like this one:

[Nibb31]

One of NASA's problems is that it makes too many videos and powerpoints and not enough metal.

[drakesdoom]

Space Metal?

[Tommygun]

Nibb's probably right, but that video is damn cool.

[Kryten]

That's just a symptom. PowerPoint rockets are a lot cheaper than real ones...

[nothke]

I'd give all the money to SpaceX, only people with some rational and courageous ideas.

[Flixxbeatz]

The agency will live by a single phrase: "NO WE NEED TO EXPLORE"

(I hope you'll get the reference )

[Nibb31]

I'd give all the money to SpaceX, only people with some rational and courageous ideas.

SpaceX is a government contractor. NASA is both their main investor and customer. They only exist because they are funded by NASA. Take away NASA, and there is no more private space sector.

[Kerbface]

SpaceX is a government contractor. NASA is both their main investor and customer. They only exist because they are funded by NASA. Take away NASA, and there is no more private space sector.

I doubt Musk would just give up because they lack an immediate customer.

[Nibb31]

Musk is a businessman with a dream, but he is still a businessman. SpaceX would not be sustainable without government money. SpaceX is not going anywhere unless somebody pays them to.

[Thaniel]

They should initiate an international torus shaped station in lunar (allmost munar) orbit. Aim for ti to be selfsustained. Large enough to provide a substantial fraction of a G inside.

That project would both facilitate the benefits of a return to the moon for extracting metals for the stations construction.

Practical side of a fully selfsustained habitat, and ways to reliably protect it´s inhabitants from radiation.

All of that will provide valuable knowledge and experience for proper deepspace human travel.

So the first stop would probably be a lunar mining and production facility.

If aiming for safety, sustainability and longterm presense, then the moon is the next good step. Close enough for emegency supplies, but far enough out to pose a challenge.

Problem is, NASA have too small a budget, and a lot of it is used for things that aren´t directly related to space exploration or travel. Granted, providing proffesional and economical support to private bussinesses and educational programs for schools are all valuable and important duties. But they should probably single out that part of the budget, so it is clearer what they actualy have to work with, so they conceviably could get more funds for the space part of their work.

[Nibb31]

They should initiate an international torus shaped station in lunar (allmost munar) orbit. Aim for ti to be selfsustained. Large enough to provide a substantial fraction of a G inside.

Wow! So many things are wrong with your proposition:

- First of all, lunar orbits are typically unstable. You can't stay there for a long time without constant reboosting. It's a really bad place for a space station.

- Why do you need a substantial fraction of G when you have gravity on the surface. If this is a gateway station, you won't be staying there for long.

- How to you build a torus shaped station? It would require a massive amount of launches and many years of EVA construction for no real purpose.

- If you want to build a ground infrastructure on the Moon, there is no use for an orbital station above the Moon.

If the objective is establishing a human presence on the Moon, the first step is to start building a semi-permanent polar base for long duration scientific research. There is water on the poles, but not much sunlight, so the base has to be nuclear powered. The purpose of the facility would be to perform research on low-g biology, ISRU technology, robotic construction, interplanetary logistics, as well as to be a base for robotic exploration. These are all capabilities that we need to demonstrate before going to Mars, and it's much easier to test them out in our backyard before going interplanetary.

[NASAFanboy]

I would do a couple things......

1. Cut off a few robotic science missions that noone likes or knows about.

2. To heed Boldens warning, I would create a new program that would hand off lunar exploration to private companies. Private American companies.

3. I would announce an bold plan to partner with bigelow and golden spike, for an permenant human presence on the moon by 2021, to conduct research and preparation for an Inter-planetary mission.

4. I would consult with Zubrin on Mars Direct, in hopes of getting a man to Mars by 2028.

5. Orion Flight Test will be moved to 2013, and since Congrass loves the SLS, I would ask for more money, to run the rocket to its flight test in 2015, in hopes of a manned flight by 2018. Asteroid capture mission moved to 2020.

6. Congress ideals for the space program and mine have some in common. Exploit these common grounds and use them to gain funds.

7. Announce support for an Mars Base.

So, if Congrass funds everything, my timeline will be like this ;

2013- Orion Flight Test

2015- SLS Flight Test

2017- First manned mission, lunar flyby. Private sectors start launching manned missions.

2020- Astronauts visit the captured asteriod. Mars Rover sent to Europa.

2021- In partnership with Bigelow and Golden Spike, the first lunar outpost is constructed.

2025- EML-2 Gateway Outpost is established, by takin the ISS and dragging it using and electric tug. Recycle, Recycle....

2026- First Launch of Mars Direct.

2028- First Man on Mars.

[Thaniel]

- First of all, lunar orbits are typically unstable. You can't stay there for a long time without constant reboosting. It's a really bad place for a space station.

Ok, so it´s not the most stable place to set up a station. But bear with me here:

- Why do you need a substantial fraction of G when you have gravity on the surface. If this is a gateway station, you won't be staying there for long.

Well, the substantial fraction of a G is to make the place relatively homey and pleasant to live in. The problem with building anything large around earth is that the argument for simplicity allmost allways wins, and we wouldn´t need much in the way of redundancy other than on a short term basis. The whole idea is to "trick" society into actualy building the first sustainable space colony. The distance to the moon is the important thing here.

- How to you build a torus shaped station? It would require a massive amount of launches and many years of EVA construction for no real purpose.

Well, the closeness to lots and lots of construction materials are the nice thing about building in orbit around the moon. Atleast metal sheets, supporting beams and glass are available a lot cheaper than lifting it from earth.

The EVA part, well, drydock? Can be used for constructing other things later as well. Or just added to the station itself as a hangar, or most likely, refitted as a freefloating lab-unit.

- If you want to build a ground infrastructure on the Moon, there is no use for an orbital station above the Moon.

As far as minimalistic goes, I agree, but the idea is to think big, and ahead. There will be necesary to build infrastructure on the moon to make this work anyway, so that´s covered

If the objective is establishing a human presence on the Moon, the first step is to start building a semi-permanent polar base for long duration scientific research. There is water on the poles, but not much sunlight, so the base has to be nuclear powered. The purpose of the facility would be to perform research on low-g biology, ISRU technology, robotic construction, interplanetary logistics, as well as to be a base for robotic exploration. These are all capabilities that we need to demonstrate before going to Mars, and it's much easier to test them out in our backyard before going interplanetary.

Yepp, so lunar surface and orbital infrastructure would both be a nice thing to have to develope what we need to make a mars trip more pleasurable. There´s no reason not to have a rosegarden in lunar orbit. Well except that it would take up valuable space that can be used for so many other things.

And besides, this thread asked what "you" would do if placed as the spearhead of NASA. Although I believe NASA is too small for even starting something like this, unless in a bigger context, in cooperation with other nations. And that´s where the torus station comes in. Make it a uniting goal, make it large and pretty, make it believable and not too far away. Earth orbit simply won´t do for that.

[nothke]

SpaceX is a government contractor. NASA is both their main investor and customer. They only exist because they are funded by NASA. Take away NASA, and there is no more private space sector.

That's why I said give ALL the money to SpaceX, not just some..

[Nibb31]

You want US taxpayers to massively fund a billionnaire's private space business?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

I'd rush rush rush SLS for a test flight in the shortest time-frame possible, in the sincere hope it explodes and levels SLC-39B (ideally one of the SRBs would ignite in the VAB but I can't see a way to do that without endangering life). This is probably the best chance of getting congress to cancel SLS and free NASA from this millstone around its neck.

I'd spin off the aeronautics programmmes (probably the most useful part) as a seperate agency - reforming NACA (NASA then stands for National American Space Agency).

I'd cancel Orion becuase, while it is a perfectly good capsule, so is Dragon. There's little point duplicating the effort.

I'd refocus NASA on what it's good at, space-based science and technology development. Planetry science (focussing particulary on the moons of saturn and jupiter, not mars so much), space-based astronomy and earth observation would be the scientific priorities. I'd also reinvest in the ISS, reviving the centrifuge accommodations module, to get some genuinely useful data from the $100 billion project.

I'd focus on developing technology in the areas of propellant transfer, recylcing and life support and in-situ resource utilization. I'd also resurrect project prometheus, to develop nuclear power sources for deep space applications, and invest in next generation electric propulsion technology like VASMIR.

I'd work with partners to develop a "mission module" providing habitable space and life support for long term deep space missions. When the Falcon heavy and manned Dragon are operating I'd send guinea pigs into deep space to quantify the effects of the radiation upon biological systems. This would be succeded by a manned mars flyby or near earth asteroid visit. If all went well work could begin on a manned mars mission using dragon and the mission module.