As one of your constituents, I grieve with the rest of the nation for the loss of the space shuttle Columbia and its crew, and want to thank you for continuing to show your support for the space program despite this tragedy. I fully agree with and support the points you made in your statement of February 4. At the same time, however, we must take an honest look at the deficiencies in the current space program and take this opportunity to re-evaluate its direction and priorities.
The shuttles were revolutionary and inspiring technology in their time, but they are now outdated, overly expensive to maintain and fly, and increasingly perceived as unsafe. Other methods of human space transport NASA is considering or working on, such as traditional rocket-based capsules or the new "orbital space plane," are merely stop-gap measures that will not be qualitatively cheaper or safer, and will certainly not capture the public's imagination or earn its widespread interest and support. They will not make space any more accessible to the public, nor will they help us get any farther than Earth's orbit. Robotic missions to other parts of the solar system have become humdrum at best. ("Wow, pretty pictures. Still no signs of life? What a surprise.") Not to say that NASA's current projects aren't useful or valuable - they are - but they are all (rather expensive) baby steps. It is high time we took aim for another "giant leap."
There is one project that could both capture the public's imagination and truly revolutionize our access to space by making it many orders of magnitude cheaper and safer: a space elevator. Previously thought impossibly far-fetched, with recent advances in carbon nanotube (CNT) technology space elevators have become eminently feasible and could be built and deployed in fifteen years or less. A space elevator would immediately reduce the cost of space launch from $10,000-$40,000 per pound to around $200/lb. The cost would continue to decrease rapidly thereafter, because unlike rocket- and aircraft-based technologies involving large fixed per-mission costs for fuel and othe expendable resources, the primary costs of a space elevator would be in its engineering (a largely one-time cost) and manufacturing (a cost subject to economies of scale). Unlike space capsules and space planes, which must withstand tremendous mechanical forces and temperatures during every launch and reentry, a "climber" for a space elevator would move at a relatively constant and leisurely 120mi/hr - straight up - and hence would be much simpler, more reliable, and safer. Moreover, a space elevator could lift cargo and humans to any Earth orbit, low or high, and to slingshot spacecraft economically to the moon or other parts of the solar system.
Can you think of any other feasible project that could better inspire the public to rally behind the space program, than the prospect of establishing a direct physical connection to space - a 60,000-mile long vertical railroad - that would open up space exploration to the people in the same way that the early railroads opened up the American frontiers?
At least one serious undertaking to design and build a space elevator is already underway. High Lift Systems (http://www.highliftsystems.com/) has completed preliminary NASA-funded feasability studies, and is already in contact with Congressman Norm Dicks and other influential members of government, so you may well already be aware of them. I am not affiliated with High Lift Systems myself in any way, although I strongly believe in the project and intend to invest in it in the future if opportunity permits. My goal with this letter is merely to bring the project to your attention, and to urge you to support it in any way possible. The project could be fully funded out of a fraction of NASA's yearly budget, at substantially less than the current cost of maintaining and flying the space shuttles. Even if a space elevator project still seems risky and far-fetched, given the overwhelming potential payoff for success, can the U.S. afford not to make its development a top priority? What would the long-term consequences be for the US's position of world leadership if, say, Europe or China was first to develop and deploy inexpensive access to space?
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Bryan Ford
Massachusetts Institute of Technology