BAYING AT THE MOON

I have written letters to Congressmen (and women) for many years concerning various issues on which I had opinion or suggestions. Now I am convinced that doing this is little more than an exercise in futility, judging by the content of the responses, if indeed there is a response at all. I suppose this must be the case for other letter writers as well. It seems to me the human equivalent of canines baying at the moon. Nothing satisfying comes back, though in the canine case it may be argued that the animal sustains an intense pleasure from their interaction with the moon. Not so with letters to Congress.

I can imagine stacked unanswered letters in a congressional office. A senior staffer passes them out to underlings for answering with maybe a guideline or two. What comes out in most cases hardly touches on the subject matter of my letter, and more often than not covers a subject not even mentioned by me.

Senator Boxer is notorious for ignoring the content of the letters she receives. Most replies boil down to: “Thank you for your letter. Let me assure you I will keep your views in mind in future Congressional activity. Meantime, please go to my website to see all the good things I am doing for my constituents and for America.”

To illustrate further: On August 29, 2011, I wrote a common letter to Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer of California and Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, along with copies of a Space News op-ed titled “Mission First, Then Heavy Lift,” that strongly questioned the wisdom of government investment in a heavy-lift space launch vehicle before a mission is defined for it. The reply from Senator Bill Nelson (Dianne Feinstein’s was similar) shows clearly how our representatives operate somewhere in a parallel universe.

Dear Senator Nelson:

The attached op-ed will appear in space publications in the next couple of weeks. I thought that you, Senator Barbara Boxer and Senator Dianne Feinstein would appreciate an advanced copy.

Before going ahead with funding a heavy-lift launch vehicle it seems imperative to define and approve a mission, or it will likely fall by the wayside in today’s tight budget situation. An approved mission that will require heavy-lift capability will ensure its development. I am a strong proponent of heavy-lift but without a mission it will be only a dream.

But there is a useful mission. As the article points out, without the Space Shuttle the International Space Station ( ISS is in a much weakened position. Were it to shut down sooner than planned, the United States could be looking at a 20 year hiatus before sending astronauts for prolonged service in Earth orbit again.

Everything points to a switch to something smaller than the ISS - multipurpose turnkey stations drawn from the Skylab design, weighing between seventy-five tons and a hundred tons.

Were we to move in this direction, a whole new world would open up. Instead of fielding only two or three astronauts at a time, which severely limits what can be accomplished, there will be hundreds, dedicated to scientific research, manufacturing and processing and even tourist destinations.

Moreover, the United States will move into a premiere position in space exploration and exploitation as a provider of turnkey stations to nations around the world. All this, plus a heavy-lift capability that can be applied to a wide variety of missions that include Lunar Base, Asteroid Landing, Manned mission to Mars, A space power prototype for beaming power to Earth, etc.

Sincerely,

Edward Hujsak

Senator Bill Nelson’s September 29 reply:

Dear Mr. Hujsak:

Thank you for sharing your concerns about our country’s human spaceflight programs. I want to assure you that the retirement of the Space Shuttle is not the end of the U.S. program, and we are going to continue to be world leaders in spaceflight. I have been working to provide NASA the direction and the funding they need to begin the next phase of space exploration. We will not take a back seat to Russia or any other nation in science and technology.

NASA just recently announced its plans to build a new monster rocket that will be the most powerful one ever created. It will carry our astronauts to deep space destinations in this decade and one day will take them to Mars. At the same time, NASA is helping four separate companies develop the next generation of rockets and spacecraft that will taxi American astronauts to and from the International Space Station ((ISS). The ISS was originally going to be cancelled in 2015, but thanks to legislation I led last year, it has been extended through 2020. That means we will continue to have presence of Americans in space through this decade.

I have been working with my colleagues to do everything we can to mitigate the impacts of the shuttle retirement to the Space Coast and the valuable work force that made that program possible. NASA’s announcement of their plans for the new heavy-lift rocket will provide stability to the aerospace work force and create jobs as the Kennedy Space Center is modernized. In addition, a non-profit organization based on the Space Coast will be managing research projects planned for the ISS. Projects like this will bring money, jobs and industry to diversify the economy of the Space Coast.

I will continue working with local leaders and community partners to bring in new opportunities by highlighting the concentrated, highly skilled work force that the Space Coast has to offer. If there is anything additional I can do to help, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Bill Nelson

One might just as well bay at the moon.

Here’s something to think about. In the fifty years of manned space flight, summed up to a total of around 30,000 man-days, the United States averaged about one guy in orbit on continuous duty. How are we going to get anywhere in space at that rate?

And is it a surprise that Americans give Congress an approval rate around 10%?.