NASA’s Biggest Challenge? Congress

by Nancy Atkinson on April 9, 2009

NASA
Earlier this week, Orlando Sentinel columnist Mike Thomas wrote a scathing opinion piece on how NASA has been scamming the American taxpayers for decades, delivering very little for a whole lot of money. Additionally Thomas believes the Constellation program needs to be stopped to allow the concepts and technologies to be reviewed before more money is spent. The view from Thomas’ desk doesn’t seem to include a solution to any problems NASA may have, or any reasons why NASA might be in the predicament he proposes.

So, how do others see NASA’s current situation, particularly someone who might have a closer view of what NASA is trying to accomplish? I recently had the chance to talk with Taber MacCallum, CEO of Paragon Space Development Corporation, a company working with NASA to help develop the Orion and Altair spacecraft. His opinion of NASA’s state of affairs is that the space agency is working as hard as it can and as best it can, given the constraints imposed by the US government.

“I think NASA has done an incredible job of getting Constellation this far with the funding they’ve received,” he said. “The more of us who have gotten into this program, the more we have appreciated how much of the things we derogatorily attribute to NASA are really things that Congress has created. I think all Americans need to realize that when we say NASA has problems, the problems are really with Congress. NASA has become the organization it has in response to what Congress has made it do.”

“Congress has asked NASA to do things and not given them the money, or marked certain money for this or that or tied their hands a certain way,” MacCallum continued. “The more we’ve gotten into this the more I think that NASA does an admirable job given the challenges Congress gives them.

Taber MacCallum, CEO of Paragon Space Development Corporation.

Taber MacCallum, CEO of Paragon Space Development Corporation.


It should be noted that MacCallum’s opinions are not in response to Thomas’ article, and they came unprompted during a generic interview a couple of weeks ago about Paragon, their work with the Constellation program and their recent partnership with Odyssey Moon in the Google Lunar X PRIZE.

Paragon is contracted by NASA to help develop the thermal control and life support systems for the Orion and Altair spacecraft, as well as doing preliminary work on a series of life support technologies for spacesuits for Mars.

When asked about the challenges of helping to creating a new human spacecraft, MacCallum said that the biggest challenge for NASA is that Congress needs to fund the Constellation program at a level where it can be successful.

The Constellation Program.  Credit: NASA

The Constellation Program. Credit: NASA


“Congress keeps putting NASA on continuing resolutions, but doesn’t have them on a funding profile that the program needs to be successful,” said MacCallum. “Its lots of money, yes, and you can’t equate Constellation to Apollo. Apollo was different because Congress and the Administration gave it a different agenda. NASA makes the smallest mistake now and it’s time for a congressional inquiry as to why all this taxpayer money is being wasted rather than saying that NASA is trying do something really hard and this time it didn’t work. Instead of an investigation we need to go try it again. We don’t seem to mind when a test pilot crashes a hundred million dollar aircraft into the ground. That’s part of developing high tech airplanes; that’s part of being on the cutting edge of defense. We accept all that. But when NASA plummets a spacecraft into the surface of Mars it’s time for a Congressional inquiry. It’s a whole lot harder to land a spacecraft on Mars than fly an airplane. But somehow, we treat this differently, and I haven’t figured out why that is, aside from congressmen trying to get brownie points.”

MacCallum said Americans need to see NASA’s mission with new eyes.

“The paranoid, risk-averse, over-conservative appearance that we see NASA in currently is their response to Congress raking them over the coals repeatedly,” he said. “When you talk to people at NASA at an individual level they are so dedicated and really want to do the right thing. I think there are very few people just sitting on NASA’s laurels. For the most part these are people who want to see an aggressive space program and are working night and day to do it.”

“The other real challenge we have is because we’ve put NASA in this sort of stand down mode for the past 30 years, we haven’t designed a new spacecraft. So there’s nobody around, literally, who has designed a manned spacecraft before,” MacCallum continued, “so all that experience from Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and the shuttle isn’t around. Even if they all were around, the tools are so radically different that we have to manage the technical side of these programs in a different way.”

The Ares rockets. Credit: NASA

The Ares rockets. Credit: NASA


However, MacCallum said these are good challenges to have. “Gosh, we as a nation really need to learn how to do this. We have woefully under-challenged our youth, our people and our NASA. JPL does a great job, because every couple of years they crank out a new space mission. The planetary science people and companies like Lockheed have cranked out spacecraft regularly, so they have people who are used to that cycle; they’ve gone from concept to mission closeout. But a human spacecraft that goes in all the different environments from launch to on-orbit to around the moon to re-entry to landing, with all our of our human safety requirements, it’s a surprisingly new deal.”

So, what if the Constellation program were halted and NASA had no way to fly humans to space?

“Soon we’re going to be at place, and people will wake up one day and realize we are in stand down mode and America can’t fly people to space, but only current and former communist countries can,” MacCallum said. “It’s going to be an interesting day. That gap is going to be pretty big. It terms of NASA’s charter to lead and Congress’s charter to give them what they need to lead, we’re in an interesting position where the most modern human spacecraft is made by China – not to demean the Chinese at all, but it’s not what we think of as American’s leadership in space.

MacCallum said he will be interested in how the Obama administration deals with everything on NASA’s plate in addition to everything else currently facing the country. “They are clearly fighting lots of fires, and NASA has certainly been without an administrator longer than this before,” MacCallum said. “I think Obama realizes we need to be a leading country in science and technology. That’s our only chance to hold our own in the global economy. I was certainly inspired by space to take a career in science and be interested in engineering. I think a lot of kids are. We need to be doing interesting things that inspire kids and make them want to study math and science.”


  • http://www.chriscoles.com Chris Coles

    The problem is the way the space program is funded. Nancy, you gave the game away without realising it when you quote: “We don’t seem to mind when a test pilot crashes a hundred million dollar aircraft into the ground. That’s part of developing high tech airplanes; that’s part of being on the cutting edge of defense. We accept all that. But when NASA plummets a spacecraft into the surface of Mars it’s time for a Congressional inquiry.”

    That statement underpins a great misunderstanding that runs right through public policy today. That somehow, all those millions of dollars are somehow pasted onto the surface of the aircraft or spacecraft and are automatically lost with the failure of the mission. That is complete rubbish.

    The money was spent within the nation and remains; flowing throughout the nation. It paid for all those hidden costs, wages, salaries, taxation, marketing, printing postage materials, materials development…. I could fill a whole page with ways the money spent has benefited the surrounding nation.

    But still, everyone uses the mis-perception that the money has been lost.

    The second problem is that, because of the way our financial system has developed over the last century, we no longer live in a capital based society, but instead, have sleepwalked into a feudal mercantile economy where the funding for any long term “off the wall” proposal, such as space development, has to be funded from taxation. Today, there is no mechanism to invest the savings of the nation back into anything outside of the new, feudal, intra/inter – institutional bank related paper asset trading systems that have been created and underpinned by law, to effectively prevent the possible “LOSS” of those savings.

    Yes, we are right back to the original mis-perception, that any failed mission, (re-read, investment), has the money pasted to the surface of the `whatever’ was mooted for the investment in the first place.

    ANY FAILURE is now seen as a mechanism that results in the loss of the money.

    NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.

    Until Congress wakes up to that simple truth, that the money circulates and makes us all more prosperous; the Western nations will continue to decline. Why? Because all your wonderful prosperity was built on using the money saved by the Chinese and lent by the Chinese nation to the US. The US has no money of its own. Period.

  • http://jsbrookspresents.blogspot.com/ J.S. Brooks

    My father covered the American space program since it began and the biggest challenge NASA faces is indeed Congress … and those folks who feel the monies spent on space are wasted, despite the high return in technology we use every day … and the intangible but essential return in wonder we receive with each new achievement and discovery. Thanks for the terrific and timely article Nancy.

  • Max

    I keep thinking of Ron Howards notorious quote on the Apollo 13 dvd: “I don’t think man will return to the moon for 150 years”.

    While he is a certified space fan, its an accurate estimation based on the amount of interest congress has shown for space.
    They don’t see exploration as anything mandatory for the health of the nation or as an altruistic act for mankind.
    They see it in votes.

    Right now, as much as the public loves space, it doesn’t garner the same vocal support as education or welfare programs because it doesn’t generate votes unless the public is scared. There are no pro-nasa protests on the news, so there is no rush for a return to the moon or anywhere else.

    …But there is some opportunity, if we know the beast well enough to harness it.
    On the retirement of the shuttle it is a fact that the only road to space will be through Russia.

    I say we play off that fear and build a media frenzy to not only secure constellation, but also cots D and a second look into ssto and orient express type craft.
    Timing is the problem here however. Because if the shuttle survives then so does another 30 years of mediocrity.

    Politicians simply don’t care so long as they think we’re satisfied. We need to show them we aren’t, but do it at just the moment when their drawers are down.

  • Pat Hajovsky

    Mr. Lam, who cares? Do you think he’s accurate? That’s the only question.

  • Everett Williams

    How in the world does every person involved here manage to write and comment on an article as if half of what is going on did not exist. Paragon isn’t, and MacCallum is part of the problem, not part of the solution. All NASA has to do to have almost instant access to the ISS for both cargo and crew, if not structural elements is to put a few more bucks into the COTS contract with SpaceX, which they seem to be deliberately slowing, so their idiotic Ares I can be more important, eventually…when the damage has already been done. In addition, there is the DIRECT 2.0 Jupiter Launch System that makes so much more sense than anything in the Ares I and V nonsense. What we need here is some scientists who care enough to fight the politicians often enough for us to get at least a half way reasonable return on our research and development dollars.

Previous post:

Next post: