NASA's cancellation of hypersonics research is a symptom of a short-sightedness that threatens to undermine technological advancement
The agenda of the world's largest aerospace research and development organisation - NASA - appears to determined almost entirely by public opinion, whether it is outpourings of grief over the loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia's crew; hits on the agency's Mars rover website; or acclaim over setting a new world speed record for air-breathing aircraft.
Perhaps it has always been that way. Certainly the Apollo programme, arguably NASA's greatest achievement, was a victim of dwindling public interest in watching men play golf and drive buggies on the surface of an otherwise lifeless Moon. The politicians responded by terminating the programme.
But NASA once shaped public opinion with its bold technological achievements. Now it seems to change direction before the public even gets a chance to make up its mind. The new vision of space exploration, still poorly defined, has already cost the cancellation of a Hubble space telescope servicing mission and most of the USA's hypersonics research. Rather than set out a bold agenda and defend it vigorously, NASA seems to bend with every shift in the winds of political and public perception.
It is generally agreed that the role of government agencies like NASA is to fund science and technology that is higher risk and longer term than industry-funded, product-oriented research and development. What is the point of space exploration? Where is the near-term return? There is none except the employment of the skills and the engagement of the imagination of current and future engineers and scientists. There may be no goal that is more important to the US aerospace industry.
Most would agree that space exploration is an appropriate role for NASA. Industry is embracing the new vision with enthusiasm, in the belief that it will capture the hearts and minds of future aerospace engineers now in school or university. But what will it cost, this new initiative, not just in terms of taxpayer dollars, but also in terms of the research that must be forsaken to make the funding available?
Just days before the successful Mach 7 flight of the X-43A, NASA cancelled all future hypersonics research because advanced air-breathing propulsion did not support the space exploration vision, which will rely on conventional rockets for the foreseeable future. Within hours of the 27 March flight, NASA had agreed to fund a Mach 10 flight attempt later this year and programme officials were working hard to parlay the X-43A's dramatic success into funding for a new hypersonics initiative.
When President George Bush announced that Americans would return to the Moon and travel beyond to Mars, NASA was quick to point out that money would not be taken from aeronautics research to pay for the new initiative. But at the same time it transferred hypersonics research to the new space exploration office, the logic being that advanced air-breathing engines are the key to future reusable launch vehicles.
But the space exploration programme has no near- or even mid-term need for reusable launchers. Conventional rockets will suffice for years to come, and money is too tight to fund technologies, like hypersonics, that might not pay off for decades. NASA's space exploration officials have no choice but to be near-sighted: only visible progress can ensure the programme survives inevitable changes in political leadership and public taste.
But what happened to the long-term view? The advanced engine technology that was being developed under NASA's now-cancelled hypersonics programme has potential applications beyond launch vehicles. There is military interest in high-speed, long-range strike aircraft and weapons. There is civil interest in high-speed transports, such as business jets. Work has been halted on a Mach 4+ turbine engine that has the promise to be the next big breakthrough in air-breathing propulsion.
The US Department of Defense is dismayed at NASA's decimation of its high-speed hypersonics research, but has its own near-term funding issues. Companies engaged in hypersonics will find it hard to justify that shareholders continue to fund the work in the hope that government investment with return. The only hope is that the groundswell of support sparked by the X-43A's world speed record can rekindle NASA's interest in hypersonics.
The space exploration vision is in danger of making NASA more near-sighted and public opinion-driven than ever. The agency needs to be able to take the long view, to fund research that might not pay off for years, but holds the potential to revolutionise aerospace and revitalise industry. Rockets will return man to the Moon, but hypersonics could change our lives.
Source: Flight International
