Madhurita Sengupta, MPA
In January 2004, President Bush announced his Vision for Space Exploration, setting forth executive policy that would send us back to the moon and onto Mars. Though it meant that the end of the Shuttle Program – created in 1981 – was imminent, this promise ignited hope and inspiration in those of us who spent their youths dreaming of “slipping the surly bonds of Earth” (to quote Magee by way of Reagan) and setting foot on extraterrestrial soil, while honoring the legacy of those who’ve made space exploration possible.
And yet, on February 1, 2010, the fabric of our nation’s space program was effectively rewoven, as President Obama announced a new plan for the future of NASA. Constellation, the program that would take us to the moon and onto Mars, was abruptly cancelled. In its place, a crop of commercial efforts would soon be undertaken to ferry US crew and cargo to the International Space Station, effectively freeing resources for NASA to concentrate on developing the next generation of launch and crew vehicles and advanced technologies for future missions. In the meantime, as predicted, the shuttle program officially ended in August of this year, one month after the final flight of the space shuttle Atlantis. (Currently, without a shuttle program, the Russian Soyuz vehicle is our sole mode of transportation to the Space Station, for which the US pays on the order of $60M per seat.)
Many protested Obama’s radically different plan and today, a year and a half after that announcement, NASA sits at a pivotal juncture – one that will determine the future of our nation’s human spaceflight program. The recently passed FY12 budget promised the agency $17B for the fiscal year (which equates to roughly $0.005 per taxpayer), but NASA remains at an impasse. In this budget, Congress has not only cut funding to the commercial efforts, but also attached conditions to this funding contingent on progress made in the development of the next generation launch/crew vehicle, effectively forcing NASA to extend the schedules of both programs, or prematurely choose one commercial provider over another.
Regardless of funding allocations, we, as a nation, now have the opportunity to set the course for the future of human space exploration. Never before has NASA been faced with such apathy and lack of support and funding; and yet, it presents the agency and the nation with a challenge to overcome. How can NASA prove to the administration, Congress, the American public, our international partners, and the rest of the world that it is truly capable of pioneering the future of human spaceflight? Moreover, how can NASA demonstrate that investments in science and technology today are apt to yield dividends of various magnitudes for years to come?
Since the inception of the US human spaceflight program, countless individuals have devoted their livelihoods to further the cause of exploration, to test the limits of mankind’s knowledge and experience, and to expand the boundaries of our terrestrial existence. NASA has been, is, and forever will remain an agency of people who believe in space exploration. It is a collective group of passionate, dedicated workers who are inspired by the contributions of spaceflight to humanity. It is men and women who were awed by Sputnik, by Neil Armstrong’s first steps, by the first joint Russian-American venture in space, by the space shuttle’s maiden voyage, by the building of the International Space Station, piece by piece, before our eyes and who are still inspired on a daily basis by the feats that they themselves help accomplish. They are motivated by man’s innate desire to achieve the impossible, to paraphrase Kennedy, not because it is easy, but because it is hard.
Our nation now has the opportunity to draw on all of our many impressive years of experience and inspire others to not only marvel at our ingenuity and initiative, but to contribute and invest in it. With the end of the shuttle program, we now stand at a crossroads, at which we are fortunate to have the opportunity to honor those who have given their lives to help mankind escape the gravitational bonds that have tethered us to this lustrous planet for centuries, and explore the recesses of the unknown, bit by bit, in order to understand, appreciate, and provide for our species. No matter what path we ultimately take, let us not forget that we are all passionate about many common things; let us not ignore our inner child, who declared his/her desire to become an astronaut at age eight; and all the while, let us honor the legacies of the past, by embracing the possibilities and potential of the future. We owe those who have sacrificed their lives for the advancement of mankind, who accomplished seemingly impossible tasks, at the very least, that much.
I grew up wanting to be an astronaut, but I really don't see what manned space flight offers to justify its exorbitant cost, especially when compared to unmanned missions. It's particularly strange to bemoan the death of the space program only a few days after the launch of Curiosity, an unusually ambitious unmanned mission that has decent odds to show the presence of microbial life on Mars. If manned space travel is really so valuable, on the other hand, then private ventures like the SpaceX corporation will succeed.
ReplyDeleteThe manned space program was, clearly, the most inspiring and positive of the ways in which the US and the Soviet Union vied with one another in the last century. In addition to its immediate scientific benefit and the spinoff value of its technologies, it was undoubtedly a contributor to making scientific discovery and science education a more central part of our public culture and national discourse. But the fact that it once served this role does not mean it is the only means of doing so. We should take inspiration from the manned space program: it reminds us of the power of public investment joined with technological innovation. But the time for spending billions of dollars to blast people into orbit has past.
Jacob -
ReplyDeleteLet me first start by addressing your point on timing - most of the content of this was written soon after I finished working the last Shuttle mission at NASA, before I came to Princeton. My sentiments reflect those of many of my colleagues and friends who've worked tirelessly to make human spaceflight thrive at NASA. In no way do I discount the contributions that the Mars Science Laboratory will bring to many scientific communities worldwide, and that was most definitely not my intent in submitting this piece this week (in fact, I owed a post to the editor weeks ago, well before Curiosity even took off for Mars). However, I think you will agree that it's appropriate and very natural to recognize something that has been not only a fabric of our nation, but in the souls of each and every person involved with the Shuttle Program from day one (and that's not a melodramatic statement in the slightest).
As to your other points, while I agree that the magnitude of the progress that has been achieved since the Apollo program is no way in proportion to those years when we worked to land man on the Moon, I absolutely do not agree that there is no justification to human spaceflight. In a time when our nation is sorely lacking in contributions to the international scientific community, I see the rallying behind a common technological goal as a means to spur the same magnitude of scientific and technological progress that we saw during the Apollo days. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that, if undertaken, a feat such as sending humans to the Moon or Mars could spur the drive to develop new technologies, lead to as-yet-unknown scientific breakthroughs, and just as importantly, inspire a new generation of scientists, engineers, and explorers.
As to your point about companies such as SpaceX - I agree. There's a whole crop of commercial ventures out there who are working to open the market up, and they're getting a chance to prove that it can be done in the coming years. The whole point behind the commercial crew program at NASA is to help these companies succeed in getting people into Low Earth Orbit (LEO), so that NASA can free up resources to concentrate on developing new technologies that have practical implications in your every day life. There are things out there that remain to be discovered, new technology waiting to be created. We should not lull ourselves into a false sense of security and complacency in thinking that we shouldn't be striving to do everything in our power as a nation to be pioneers in these discoveries. I see human spaceflight as a tool in that process.
And lastly, billions of dollars may be spent to "blast people into orbit," but I'd urge you to take a look at NASA budgets compared to many of the other places government funding goes. It's an enlightening revelation when you think of just how small of a percentage (< 1%) of the federal budget goes to spurring on technology and scientific discoveries. If we, as a nation, are keen to turn our backs to such organizations, in hopes of investing in more short-term dividend yielding ventures, then we're in a boatload of trouble in the long run, and when we realize it, it will be much too late to do anything about it.
- Madi
Well written. I'd even argue that the NASA budget is important for more than just space travel. Numerous technological innovations have originated through NASA funding, many of which have found their way into consumer products and thus increased the U.S. standard of living demonstrably over the past few decades. For example, many of the key robotics technologies evident in consumer and medical products were first developed at NASA, including 360-degree photography rendering and polymer coating material for implantable therapy devices treating for patients experiencing heart failure. So cutting funding for NASA is more than just about crushing the hopes and dreams of aspiring astronauts; it's also about crushing the hopes and dreams of technological improvement and economic prosperity.
ReplyDelete