NASA suffers from acute schizophrenia. Its twin objectives–to provide data and services to scientists throughout the country, and to enable manned space exploration–are often in conflict budgetarily and intellectually. Unmanned missions are managed by academia and industry, proposals are solicited and funding is decided similarly to grant funding. Manned missions are chosen by mandate from the President, and are managed internally within NASA. Funding the two broad branches of the agency is largely dictated by Congress and the President, but a single NASA administrator oversees the execution and direction of the agency.
This schizophrenia has converted some of NASA’s biggest potential supporters into its harshest critics. Many space scientists, those who chose their careers while watching Gemini and Apollo, see manned exploration as ridiculous waste of money that achieves very limited science. They are forced to compare the successes of the unmanned robotic probes to the stumbling progress of manned exploration because the two programs compete for the same slice of the budgetary pie.
NSF and NIH do not compete for funds with the Vision for Space Exploration, and neither should the satellites and probes that are currently operated by NASA. Freeing these robotic craft from the grip of the manned space program would satisfy space scientists everywhere, and remove the biggest criticism of the manned space program: compared to unmanned science it is incredibly expensive and inefficient.
This would seem to damage the prospects of the U.S. manned space program, but I think it would have the exact opposite effect. NASA would no longer be forced to sell exploration as science. American taxpayers and politicians could then truly deal with the question of the value of space exploration. This difficult discussion may initially harm the program, but because the drive to explore lies within the roots of our species the side in favor of manned exploration will prevail.
It’s time to move forward from NASA, as we did from NACA 50 years ago. We need a Manned Space Exploration Administration (MSEA) to lead our exploration of our solar system, and oversee aeronautical research. Alongside the MSEA, we need a Satellites and Probes Science Adminstration (SPSA) to manage our growing network of robotic instruments scouring the solar system and beyond.
Isn’t there a term for this in business? Some sort of an antimerger? (divesting of interests?) You know, what you do when you realize that you have diversified too much, and can no longer afford the huge bureaucracy required to keep track of it all.
I like this idea though. I’m sure that I’ve also heard similar sentiments with regards to bringing NACA back as an independent agency.
As far as the NASA centers are concerned, NACA would probably get Langley, Glenn, and Ames; MSEA would likely get Marshall, Johnson, and Kennedy; and the SPSA could probably make due with JPL and Goddard.
The separate agencies would be able to fund their own priorities without having to directly compete with specific programs in the other agencies. However, the agencies would still be able to (and should) work together on missions with common objectives (MSEA and NACA on hypersonic vehicle design, MSEA and SPSA sharing scientific data, etc.).
I think you’re right, it is some sort of divestiture.
I had thought about separating out NACA as well, but I wasn’t sure how much aeronautic research still went on at NASA. But ceratinly, if entire centers are devoted to it then a tripartate split would be more appropriate.
It is interesting how “quantized” the research centers already are. Despite the fact that there are more of them than is strictly necesary due to the need to spread out congressional support, NASA has managed to keep them fairly focused. That’s kind of what gave me the idea that such a split would not be painless.
I agree about working together, there is no reason that the MSEA and SPSA could not work together on manned missions to the Moon or Mars where astronauts make use of SPSA orbital assets. Good point about hypersonic vehicle design, too. Thanks!