In my last entry, I made what I believe is the fundamental case for space exploration – the fact that the survival of our species ultimately depends on it.  Perhaps the world’s most reknowned cosmologist, Stephen Hawking shares this view and, with the help of computer graphics, illustrated it on the Discovery Channel with tonight’s episode of “Into the Universe” – The Story of Everything.

Not only do we have external and internal threats to our continued existence, we have a final time limit of about one billion years.  The Sun is in its “middle age,” but it will eventually expand – in about five billion years – into what is called a red giant star.  At this point, it will have stopped fusing hydrogen in its core and will only be burning in the outer shells.

These regions where fusion is still taking place will expand out from the core and, eventually, engulf the Earth itself.  Long before its physical destruction, though, the planet will be rendered uninhabitable by the increased radiation as the Sun continues to age.  Even before the transition to a red giant, the Sun’s output will be so strong in a billion years that the oceans will boil off and the hydrogen lost to space.

Red Giant Sun
Video of the Sun expanding in its red giant phase

There are no “ifs, ands, or buts” about it.  We will not be able to call Earth our home forever.  By that time, we must have learned how to live on other worlds and, eventually, even how to cross the vast distances between the stars.  Though we may be able to live on Mars or terraformed moons of the outer planets for a time, the Sun’s expansion is likely to eject Mars and the outer planets into deep space.

Even if we figure out a way to stay in the solar system on entirely artificial habitats, the Sun will eventually die.  The outer layers will be cast off into a nebula of gas and dust.  Fusion will cease completely.  All that will remain is an extremely dense white dwarf, cooling away until it no longer even emits heat.

Yes, a billion years is a very long time from now.  The fact that we can even conceptualize such a problem, though, is a credit to our species.  We will have to solve it, eventually.  With today’s space programs, we are taking the first steps.  Russian rocket pioneer Konstantin Tsiolkovsky said that Earth is the cradle of humanity, but that we cannot stay in the cradle forever.

Artist’s concept of a lunar base (NASA)

So, what role should the government have in all this?  Why should we even have a NASA?

First, I look to the Constitution itself.  At the very beginning, the Preamble says that our government was created, in part, to “provide for the common defence” and to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

Given the potential near-term threats from space hazards to life, liberty, and property and the long-term necessity of space travel for our continued survival, I’d say we’re pretty well covered there.  A just government exists to protect the rights of its citizens through reasonable measures and in accordance with the rule of law.  Thus, a just government has an inherent interest in protecting its citizens against space-based threats and developing the means to do so.

The Constitution grants Congress the power to pay for such a capability and the President the authority to direct both the armed forces and any other agency established by Congress to execute that capability.  Some also argue that the Constitution grants Congress the ability to promote science and “the useful Arts,” but I think that is an overly generous interpretation of the clause granting Congress power to establish patents and copyrights.

If we agree that the US government has a just role in protecting its citizens and American property (including assets in space) from threats beyond our atmosphere, you still might ask why we don’t just let the military handle it all.  Until the Space Act of 1958, that’s precisely what the case was.

President Eisenhower and Congress agreed that the United States should have separate, but parallel, military and civilian space programs, unlike the centralized military system in the Soviet Union.  NASA was created to coordinate all non-military activity in space, as the commercial and civilian benefits of space applications were recognized early on.  This had the added benefit of initiating multiple development paths for American rocketry in its race with the Soviet Union for space supremacy.

Sputnik
Sputnik – The first artificial satellite and the beginning of the Space Race

However, we won the Space Race.  We beat the Soviets to the Moon.  Since then, our government has largely taken the position that what NASA does best is inspire the nation through its pursuit of science in space.  We’ve spent the past forty years trying to either figure out “what’s next?” or get back to where Apollo left off.

While basic science research is more important than ever, especially with the closing of private research institutions like the venerable Bell Labs, and is a vital component of ensuring NASA has the knowledge it needs, I don’t think that is necessarily the best attitude to have about NASA as an agency.  I think NASA has an obligation to be directly relevant to the country’s vital interests, beyond nebulous claims of our importance to prestige and technology research.

The Space Act itself says that “the general welfare and security” of our country require that NASA seek and encourage the “fullest” commercial use of space.  It also requires NASA have a watch program for Near-Earth Objects to “provide warning and mitigation of the potential hazard,” I might add.

Space exploration for its own sake is enough to get me out of bed in the morning, go for my run, shower, and head down to Clear Lake.  However, it has become clear to me that isn’t enough to justify the cost to the American taxpayer, as much as many of my colleagues wish the politicians would just give us the money and leave us alone.

In the process of carrying out its Congressionally-designated mission to protect the Earth from space-based threats and increase our understanding of the planet and space phenomena, NASA can and must undertake initiatives that help solve America’s strategic problems.  By thoughtful selection of NASA’s programs, we can all get the best of both worlds.

For example, rare-earth metals are resources both vital to modern technology and largely supplied by foreign countries, like China.  There is serious concern that China may restrict the supply of these materials to feed their own domestic needs.  Preliminary surveys of some Near-Earth Objects suggest that they might have more usable metals, including rare-earth elements, than has ever been mined in the history of civilization.

NASA technology developed to study, track, and deflect threatening asteroids could possibly be commercialized to provide the United States with vital commodities that we lack in abundance within our borders, if it can be done economically and safely.

Artist’s concept of an asteroid mining operation (NASA)

Perhaps that’s a bit too much of a stretch, though.  After all, it might turn out to be cheaper to cut some kind of deal with a country that has the resources we need, but lacks the capability to extract them on their own.

Let’s consider energy independence, then.  Solar power is often criticized because it doesn’t work when the weather is bad or at night.  The Sun is always shining in space, though.  The fundamental technology already exists where we could collect solar power in space and beam it to the ground on a frequency largely transparent to the atmosphere.

It just hasn’t been demonstrated on a large enough scale to be useful – yet.  The National Space Security Office has done studies showing how space-based solar power could allow the military to provide clean, safe, on-demand power to forward-deployed bases.  In some places, the cost per kilowatt-hour for the military today is 20 times what we pay stateside.  Space-based solar would also eliminate costly and dangerous powerplant fuel convoys.

The European Space Agency sponsored a study that showed a powersat system could pay back its energy costs of being established within its first year of operation.  However, the problem is that the cost of launch to orbit is still very high, so much so that the commercial space industry tends to be very conservative.  It would be hard to get a powersat initiative going without a large first customer.

Advances in technology are reducing the size and increasing the efficiency of solar panels, though.  New designs currently in development could provide as much power as all eight arrays on the International Space Station on a single array a fraction the size.  Such high-density production will also be useful for electric propulsion systems that are orders of magnitude more efficient than chemical propulsion in space.

Artist’s concept of a powersat (NASA)

Author Ben Bova laid out a possible roadmap to a powersat future, though, in 2008.  The United States built its giant hydroelectric dams through public-private partnerships where private investors were backed by low-interest, long-term loans guaranteed by the government.

A similar program where NASA demonstrates the technology for in-space applications and turns over mass production to private industry for such customers as the military could be just the thing to spur the creation of this new industry – an inherently high-tech field with direct security and economic benefits to the country.

If you’re still skeptical about solar, though, there is always nuclear power to consider.  To minimize crew exposure to cosmic radiation and dramatically reduce transit times (perhaps to intercept an asteroid or comet), nuclear-based propulsion in space may be required.  This will require the development of safe, simple, but highly-productive nuclear reactors suitable for launching into orbit and propelling spacecraft.  Such advanced nuclear power would certainly be useful for terrestrial applications, as well.

In partnership with the Department of Energy and private industry, NASA could play a key role in developing lightweight, but safe, nuclear reactors that would reduce our dependence on fossil fuels for energy production.

NASA has published its successfully commercialized technology since 1976.  However, Tang and Velcro remain – incorrectly, I might add – the “spinoffs” captured in the public psyche.  I think this is because we have not been successful as a community at designing our leading programs and missions to simultaneously contribute to solving America’s most pressing issues.  Once we do that, I don’t think there will be any question of NASA’s relevance.

Just as President Jefferson sent Lewis and Clark out into the frontiers of America to see what opportunities awaited us, NASA is the Congressionally-empowered civil agent of the government to explore our opportunities in “the High Frontier”, gather the knowledge and develop the technology we need to protect ourselves and our investments, and foster America’s best utilization of space resources.

Artist’s concept of an aerobraking Orbital Transfer Vehicle (NASA)

Cross-posted at A World With No Boundaries