in the administration's policies. BHO is supposed to be smart.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Except in
wartime, there has never been another government program that produced
as much technological innovation as the U.S. space program, and there
likely never will be. No other program has so successfully infused the
economy, rallied the nation, inspired youngsters toward academic
achievement or established the U.S. as the world leader in technology.
In spite of
this, on Feb. 1, President Barack Obama announced the cancellation of
the Constellation program of exploration, leaving NASA, for the first
time in history, without a specific mission. It is as if President
Gerald Ford had canceled the space shuttle program in 1975, just as the
last Apollo mission was being flown. The shuttle orbiter development
was well under way at the time, but that did not save us from a
six-year gap before the next American was launched into space.
Today there is
no realistic successor for human spaceflight waiting in the wings.
The biggest
consequence of that first gap was the best and brightest of the NASA
engineers and scientists leaving to seek more challenging jobs. It took
years to rebuild the professional team that would eventually launch 134
shuttle missions and construct the most amazing engineering project in
history — the International Space Station.
The space
shuttle program not only maintained our preeminence in space, it raised
our technical expertise and further increased our prestige among the
developed nations of the world — precisely the same reasons the
Chinese are now working toward landing a man on the moon.
Congress is
our last hope of putting a stop to the dismantling of a once great
agency. Members of Congress are concerned about job losses and the
economic impact, but in the long run they are not nearly as costly as
the loss of an inspirational vision for the next generation of space
scientists, engineers and explorers. You have only to look at Lewis and
Clark, our westward expansion and Armstrong and Aldrin landing on the
moon to know exploration is in our blood. We should be proud of it.
Americans need a frontier.
While NASA and
some others are trying to put the best positive spin on the budget
proposal, the negative fallout is building. Personnel requirements for
the agency's new direction will do little to mitigate the tremendous
losses from this foolish cancellation without a replacement in hand.
The real loss, as in the 1970s, will be those trained and experienced
engineers who are already leaving for more inspiring pursuits.
Spokesmen are
trying to rationalize the debilitating cuts in the agency's programs.
They claim the “$6 billion increase over the next five years
demonstrates President Obama's strong commitment to space
exploration.†That is just over 1 percent a year, and $2.5 billion of
it is committed to the shutdown of Constellation, the same amount
proposed for research on how global warming is affecting the Earth.
The $19
billion for 2011 is less than 0.5 percent of the proposed federal
budget, one-ninth of what it was at its peak in the 1960s. The $300
million increase eliminates the program of human space exploration and
sentences the agency to the same starvation diet it has existed on for
the past several decades. NASA needs a $3 billion increase to continue
operating a viable human space program.
NASA spin is
touting “new technology development programs to expand the
capabilities of future explorersâ€â€” in-orbit fuel depots, rendezvous
and docking, closed-loop life support systems, heavy-lift research and
development of new engines, propellants, materials and combustion
processes. These may sound new to someone unfamiliar with what NASA has
been doing for 50 years, but (with one exception) they are pursuits for
which NASA already has an unmatched reputation. Each of these would
have played an essential role in the now canceled Constellation
program. Without the focus of a specific mission, the raison d'être
for these technologies is now “to advance the field of space
science.â€
In the place
of the canceled Ares and Orion hardware, we now have increased support
for education, increased spending on the discredited global warming
hypocrisy and subsidies to several new commercial rocket companies.
And, oh yes, don't forget a new outreach program to Muslim countries
without established space programs.
In canceling
Constellation with nothing to take its place, the president is saying
the U.S. should not have its own human space program and is directing
funds to the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program, or
COTS. If NASA wants to participate in human spaceflight, it will have
to be through contractors.
Market
realities
NASA has
always contracted for most of its hardware and service needs. Some of
the contractors were successful in private industry, and sometimes the
government was the sole customer. A company dependent solely on
government grants, contracts and guarantees is not a free-market,
private enterprise.
To succeed in
the private sector a company must raise capital, develop a product,
sell it at a profit and show a return on investment commensurate with
the risk within a reasonable time frame. Unfortunately, space will not
be an attractive commercial opportunity for the foreseeable future.
Space exploration is a costly precursor to uncovering commercial
opportunities, and it will be decades before a private investor can
expect a return commensurate with the risk of exploration.
Until we find
a way to make a profit in space, governments and countries are the only
institutions able to afford space exploration and live with the
extremely long-term returns. That is why NASA must continue to develop
the next-generation human space system, whatever form that system may
take. Human space systems cannot be evaluated solely on the basis of
scientific return per dollar spent. Dominance in space gives our
country credibility or leverage in so many other forms than economic
gains; scientific discovery, understanding of the universe,
international prestige, military stature and being seen as a country
that can do anything we set our minds to.
Limited
effect
The COTS
program — companies selling services to NASA — made some sense with
NASA still in the exploration business, doing the applied research and
expanding the envelope of space travel beyond the moon. It would be
very difficult for private companies to replicate the singular
competence NASA has developed. Even if COTS-created vehicles are
successful, they will be woefully inadequate for near-term needs and
will do nothing for exploration.
Only
government programs — regardless of country — will get humans to
the moon and beyond. Space exploration is an activity from which
monetary profits cannot be generated, leaving contractors supplying
government programs that do not have to show a profit. After 50 years
in space, how many lunar or interplanetary space probes have been
launched by commercial space companies?
We have been
told by the agency that future exploration programs, such as returning
to the moon or going to Mars, will be a global effort, not an American
one. That may sound appealing with respect to sharing costs and other
resources, but it virtually guarantees those programs will take longer,
cost more and render them vulnerable to political bickering — like
the International Space Station. As a result of the political decision
to make the Russians a full partner, the ISS has cost the U.S. $10
billion more, was two years late and required that the station be
placed in an orbit unacceptable for most alternative uses.
Degeneration?
Have we really
degenerated as a country to the point where we can no longer fund our
own exploration? Did we spend $460 billion becoming pre-eminent in
space, only to stupidly surrender it? What does our new dependence on
other countries to send Americans into space say about our culture,
society and prospects for the future?
NASA was
always considered in a class by itself. Now, when the world is becoming
increasingly dependent on space-based systems, we seem bent on slipping
back into mediocrity. How do you rationalize surrendering our
pre-eminence in space? The last time a country voluntarily gave up its
pre-eminent position in exploration was when the Ming government
recalled the Chinese fleets in 1433. That critical error condemned
China to worldwide stagnation for centuries.
NASA has
always been a mission-driven agency that attracted a particular kind of
individual. It focused on the objective, determined the obstacles,
solved the problems and, in the end, accomplished the impossible. We
all benefit from the technological fallout to our economy and our
growing stature in the world. Continuing NASA's program of exploration
requires three things: the technology, the resources and the will to do
it. We have plenty of the first two, but have we lost the will?
Cunningham
piloted the first manned Apollo mission in 1968 and is author of The
All-American Boys.
