Mar
9

Is NASA 2011 A Waste Of Space?

7 Comments

As Patriotic As Baseball And Apple Pie.

Laurel wrote a great post yesterday morning questioning the Obama Administration’s dedication, or lack thereof, to NASA’s space program. While Laurel’s views are a little more critical than my own in some areas, she brings up a handful of interesting points. The first of which is whether the Obama Administration is opposed to exploring the next frontier of space, whatever that frontier may be, or whether it is simply apathetic. I believe it is closer to the latter. While the Obama Administration has not done anything greatly inspiring to promote space exploration, it has taken a few very substantial steps. The most notable of these is the President’s signal that he will support funding for the International Space Station (ISS) to keep it operational through 2020, rather than through 2015. However, Obama has also plans to shut down the Constellation Program that was intended to succeed the Shuttle Program, meaning that American astronauts will need to hitch rides into space. Former Director of the Office of Management and Budget Peter Orszag declared, “We are proposing canceling the program, not delaying it,” in a February 2010 interview with The New York Times.  At 11:57 AM EST today, Space Shuttle Discovery is scheduled to land for the last time after 39 missions, 365 days in space, and more than 145 million miles traveled, according to NASA (watch it streamed live).

The ISS is very important to international cooperation. It is offers an opportunity for the world’s great scientific powers, led by the United States, to research critical projects. The ISS and the astronauts working in it are helping to discover the tools that will be used in the efforts to reach the next frontier, be it going back to the Moon, going to Mars, going to Jupiter’s moon Europa, or going elsewhere. The ISS plays a role similar to that of economic interdependence in the strategic diplomacy of the United States. It provides other world powers a reason to work with us, and in many cases follow our lead. President Obama’s extension of support for the ISS is no small move and is laudable.

Tom Hanks, Center, And Kevin Bacon, Right, Tried To Get Back To The Moon.

However, the biggest difference between the international cooperation at the ISS and the bipolar competition during the Space Race is that one encouraged diplomacy and the other encouraged patriotism. The Space Race made Americans proud to be Americans. We made it to the Moon first; we were the best. NASA of the mid-twentieth century inspired young engineers and scientists to serve their country and galvanized the American nation in support of a single cause. While very important, support for the ISS does not foster patriotism or scientific ingenuity, at least not to a comparable extent.

In a recent TIME piece entitled, “How to Restore the American Dream,” Fareed Zakaria writes about the potential decline of America and American exceptionalism. He writes that conservatives want to cut spending to reduce the deficit and liberals want to increase investments to stimulate the economy. Zakaria argues that this ideological purity does not serve the public interest. He asserts that we need to make smart cuts and smart investments, pulling funds from unnecessary places and investing in the right areas (like Eisenhower with the interstate highway systems and Kennedy with the space program). I think it is, or is almost, time to invest significant funds in NASA’s space exploration program once again. NASA not only has a unique ability to inspire Americans, but also presents opportunities to explore outer space and invent applications that benefit us, here on Earth.

President Obama has thought strategically about his administration’s NASA investments. It soon will be time for him to reconsider his goals and reinvigorate the space program. The United States is capable of anything, but we need to try to go to the Moon, or Mars, or wherever, in order to get there.

Editor’s Note (3/29): A manned mission to an asteroid by 2025 and, possibly, a manned orbit of Mars by 2040 are interesting and potentially very significant goals. AOL News reports on it here.

Apollo 9 Command Module Pilot David Scott. The Successful Mission Began 42 Years Ago This Sunday.

Related posts:

  1. Houston, We’ve Got a Problem
  2. Inspire Me, Mr. President
  3. Obama to address Congress, waste time

Tags: , , ,

Posted in David Domestic Policy
7 Comments Posted by David

7 Responses to "Is NASA 2011 A Waste Of Space?"

  • Laurel says:
    March 9, 2011 at 8:15 am
    Reply

    I like the continuity in the theme, David. You bring up excellent points about the fundamental goal and purpose of NASA. I absolutely agree with you when you say that we need to re-invest in the program as a way of stimulating patriotism. I believe that it would fall under Zakaria’s realm of smart investment. I am especially critical of the president’s strategy, as the future of NASA lies in space, not in forming diplomatic relationships with the Middle East. We can find the funds internally. If the GAO’s March report is anything to go by, there is ample opportunity for us to consolidate governmental organizations to reduce costs. Those moves, along with more budget-balancing, would put us on the track to freeing up enough funds for space exploration.

  • Laurence says:
    March 9, 2011 at 10:45 am
    Reply

    See, I’m not quite convinced that now is the time to invest in NASA, and I’m surprised that Laurel, our resident fiscal conservative, agrees with you. To me, this simply looks like a case where in general we support budget cuts, but once we realize those budget cuts affect goods and services we enjoy we try and fight each and every cut tooth and nail.

    And I think you make a false argument. You argue that a return to NASA will foster patriotism, and point towards the moon race as evidence. The problem with the moon race is that we had an enemy, a competitor in that race of equal merit who most Americans wanted to beat. No such competitor exists today. (If you suggest someone like China, then I would argue that we cannot both attempt to try and treat China as a diplomatic ally and enemy at the same time). In addition, we don’t have a comparable goal as going to the moon. Going to the moon again would be supported by the public. Going to Mars, too, has already been done and is too expensive even deemed by NASA in the near future, and going to Europa is even more expensive than that! Unless, of course, you suggest we send men or women to Mars – a plan for which has not yet emerged and would obviously be the most expensive of all. And yet still, I would argue, galvanization would not occur because we don’t have a real competitor, and so no competitive forces will force us to reach higher.

    I agree, in theory, with Fareed Zakaria’s notions. However, the space program is not the right program to invest in according to this theory because it won’t galvanize the US the way you want it to. Believe me, if times were better, and when times are better, I support the space program more than any other. But if we are going to make crucial spending cuts, it’s got to be to the luxurious programs such as NASA as well. Why not explore the ocean, 95% of which remains unexplored? Exploring the ocean is far cheaper than exploring space. Or why not invest in smart energy technology? This would not only galvanize American spirit far better (by making us the leading car manufacturers again, proud to own American, making us efficient, and making our technology more advanced than anyone else). There are plenty of superior options, and I think you’re thinking with your heart here and not with your head.

  • David says:
    March 9, 2011 at 12:03 pm
    Reply

    You make a handful of very good points. Like I said in the post, I think a revitalization of NASA should occur soon (maybe allocating more funds in FY 2013 or 2014 when the economy is on slightly better footing, or even a little after that). As for the question of galvanizing patriotism, I think it is unquestionable that if American astronauts were on a manned mission to mars (which many experts say is a feasible goal, like Robert Zubrin) the country would be in awe of the accomplishment. While competition does help to catalyze patriotism, it certainly isn’t a prerequisite.

    Your best points are in your last paragraph. I have argued in other posts that if the Obama Administration were to commit to becoming totally energy independent in ten years, it could have effects similar to those of the Space Race. There are other very important investments that should be made at home, some of which pragmatically come before a return to the Moon or a mission to Mars or Europa. However, if Kennedy had said that the $20-25 billion we spent in 1969 on NASA’s Moon mission was too much, there would likely be a Soviet flag flying in place of the American one on the Moon today. For a kid who supported Barack Obama’s ideological inspiration as a large qualification for his candidacy for president, I’m almost as surprised at your contention of my points as I am of Laurel’s support for them. Pretty soon even our space vehicles are going to be made in China (or Russia, more likely), and putting a man on Mars (which could have tremendous scientific advancements for the future and could discover the possibility of other life forms existing, etc.) could be a way to counter that.

    Many suggest that when historians look back at the 20th century, they will consider putting a man on the Moon its most significant scientific accomplishment. We’re more than 10% of the way through the 21st century and we’ve hardly set our eyes toward anything comparable. Putting a man on Mars could be the single greatest scientific achievement of our time, as could creating a national electric infrastructure based on renewable energy. One way or the other, we’re seriously lacking in science endeavors, innovation, and funding.

  • Laurel says:
    March 9, 2011 at 3:33 pm
    Reply

    I should clarify my sentiments, Laurence. I stand by my point that investing in NASA demonstrates fiscal responsibility. Don’t go painting Republicans as stingy people – I’m a proponent of wise spending. The fact of the matter is, we do have enormous inefficiencies in the economy, from the multiplicity of government organizations with the same mission, to the federal funding of programs like Planned Parenthood and NPR, which the GOP aims to slash (the merits of which should be debated elsewhere). Basically, after strategic cuts have been made, I believe that we can and should rededicate ourselves to NASA. As far as the importance of ideology goes, I see “galvanization of the American spirit” through an achievement in space as quite a bit more tangible and attainable than the vague promise of “Hope and Change” to which you were referring.

    I’m also confused as to why you write China off so quickly. While you’re correct in noting that they are not the looming, obvious enemy that the USSR was, there is no small level of competition and resentment between Americans and the Chinese. With more people in China graduating with advanced degrees in mathematics and the sciences, our debtor seems like the ideal candidate to race to space.

    Of course we would like to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I’m glad that the media is finally turning their attention back to the fact that we have healthy domestic oil reserves, and it would be beneficial to start pursuing them. Granted, it’s not a long-term solution, and also a much bigger debate. I guess I just fail to see why clean energy and NASA have to be in an “either or” situation. I think that the funding is available – it just needs to re-allocated. Though I may stand in a GOP minority, I really believe that the ideological component of NASA is a crucial one. Achieving the next great scientific discovery of the 21st century benefits the U.S. in more ways than one, and would certainly justify the short-term cost.

  • Laurence says:
    March 9, 2011 at 4:14 pm
    Reply

    To be quite frank, I don’t quite have the energy to argue my points more fully. However, I do want to make three cases that I think are important amongst what you two mentioned.

    Mars: Gentry Lee, a 30-year veteran of NASA’s Mars missions once said “Never send a human to do a robot’s job.” The rovers did great. And right now, and probably for the next decade or two, Mars just isn’t a possibility. The moon was a possibility back in the moon race – an incredible one that the PEOPLE thought was impossible – but scientists didn’t.

    Today, our very own don’t think it’s in our NEAR future (which is what I’m advocating against…down the line I’m so for exploring Mars it’s ridiculous). According to BBC news, the last NASA chief Mike Griffin recently said he did not foresee humans landing on Mars for another 20 years or more.

    Scott Hovland, head of human systems at the European Space Agency (Esa) in Nordwijk, the Netherlands, says: “I have to admit that, right now, a manned Mars mission is far away in the future. There are still a lot of things that we really have to look into and better understand before we can commence a trip like that.”

    Cutting Planned Parenthood and NPR (which I’m morally opposed to but, once again, a different debate) don’t even come near to paying for NASA as well. It’s a ridiculously expensive program in the short term. And if things are as bad as everyone on the GOP is saying they are, even after we make tons of cuts we’re still going to be in trouble. We won’t have the availability to tinker with projects that aren’t really going to get Americans going. And I don’t think anything but Mars is going to excite Americans the same way the moon did.

    As for writing off China, I’ll say the same thing I said when people were talking about this being America’s sputnik moment. It’s not. This is an important moment for America, for sure, but the sputnik reference is a poor one because China is not our enemy but our ally. Our competitor, maybe, but what really drove us in the moon race was not just that we had competition, but that that competition was our sworn enemy. See this brilliant analysis in the economist for details: http://www.economist.com/node/17964348

    P.S. Even PHP‘s public agrees, check out the poll! A majority voted for Yes, but not soon!

  • David says:
    March 9, 2011 at 4:44 pm
    Reply

    Laurence, you make a lot of good points. Like I said, a mission to Mars could be the biggest scientific accomplishment of the 21st century… even if it’s a little later in the century. However, I still believe that NASA serves as a “galvanizing force” and that ending the Shuttle program, terminating the Constellation program, and cutting broader funds for NASA’s space program are not ‘smart cuts’. I support the President’s decision to keep the ISS operational through 2020, but that can’t be the end of American presence in space. I still think you give NASA less credit as a force for patriotism, unification, and inspiration than it deserves, but I’ll leave that contention for now. I don’t think Laurel was suggesting that cutting funds for Planned Parenthood and for NPR (to which I’m very much opposed) alone would balance the bottom line. China is deserving of a handful of separate posts, so I’ll leave that topic for now as well.

    At the end of the day, my broader argument is that fiscal support for NASA is waning and that’s a bad thing. NASA inventions have changed our everyday lives and NASA accomplishments have helped prove that 20th century America was exceptional. With low math and science grades and 103% of the population planning to go to law school (okay, a little exaggerated), NASA still has the ability to inspire Americans and to encourage a rededication to scientific exploration. If we don’t go to Europa tomorrow, fine, but if we let the American presence in space disappear, that’s not fine. Barack Obama was eight when Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon, Eugen Cernan (the last man to walk on the Moon) is now 76. It’s a new generation’s turn to inspire and discover and we have to start soon, and, beyond that, the side effects of such an effort would do the country tremendous good.

  • Golden Eaglez says:
    March 16, 2011 at 6:01 pm
    Reply

    Love the pun in the title, definitely was intended. fuck nasa though

    Geagz out.

Leave a Comment