A new frontier

For those who don't know, I'm a bit of a science geek, particularly when it comes to space. I've read my copy of The Physics of Star Trek countless times, and I spent a good portion of my childhood searching for accurate schematics of the USS ENTERPRISE (the starship, not the aircraft carrier).

Thus the rollout of NASA's budget for fiscal year 2011 was of interest to me, particularly now that NASA Administrator, former astronaut Charles Bolden, and the Obama administration, have had some run time to firmly establish their direction for the country's exploration of space. To digress a little, I am a firm believer in the value of a strong and diverse space program backed by public funds, as the return on the investment justifies the comparably small expenditures. And I'm not talking about just Velcro and Tang, nor semiconductors and microlasers. The government's support of cutting edge scientific research instills in many children the desire to become scientists and engineers. Sure, it starts with "I want to be an astronaut when I grow up," but it often ends with distinguished careers in physics, mathematics, aeronautics, astronomy, mechanical/electrical/nuclear engineering, meteorology, - the list goes on and on and touches on far more areas than just the final frontier. Many people in this country lament the U.S. brain drain in science and engineering, and warn that we are losing ground to an increasingly educated Chinese population; however, many of those same people call the government's investments in space technology a waste of taxpayer dollars that would be better spent at home.

I think President Bush set the right foot forward in 2004 when he announced a new push to return humans to the moon by 2020. The space race of the mid-20th century served as inspiration for many to choose careers in science and engineering - a spike of innovative minds that have served this country both in public and private capacities in myriad sectors of the economy for decades and have been retiring in droves. The Bush administration recognized the importance of reinvigorating the passions of those who could lead the next wave of U.S. innovation. Unfortunately, the model under which this was to be accomplished remained unchanged; that is, NASA would establish a new program (Constellation) that would use government oversight of prime contractors to design and build the necessary rockets and vehicles. The funding would compete with every other spending priority in the government (including the increasing needs in Iraq and Afghanistan), and predictably fell victim to many of those other higher priority items. What we ended up with, captured in a 2009 review of Constellation by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) was a program that lacked a solid business case that still had not even minimized the risk of the launch vehicle hitting the launch tower at liftoff.

So the first slide of the NASA budget rollout that shows highlights caught my attention: "Cancellation of the Constellation program." I think the writing was on the wall, particularly in light of the aforementioned scathing GAO review, but this came across to me as a bold move that could position NASA to reclaim some ground it lost in deep space exploration during the years of focus on the space shuttle program. Near-term launches of humans to low Earth orbit, including to the International Space Station (ISS), will be carried out by the Russians, and U.S. initiatives in this area will be assumed by the private sector. This proposal was roundly supported by conservatives and panned by liberals when suggested by President Bush and is today seeing the exact opposite reactions from both sides now that it is being implemented by President Obama.

When I see that type of obvious partisan reaction, one that is not grounded in any core belief or party platform but rather guided by the sole issue of party affiliation of the guy who suggests the idea, I treat all of the ensuing rhetoric as the garbage that it is and zero in on one question: Is this a good idea? Many space industry observers have said for years that the private industry could accomplish far more than NASA with more innovative, cheaper solutions. I agree that private sector solutions to maintaining a human presence in low Earth orbit would help NASA focus its efforts on exploration of the solar system and beyond, as well as research the technology needed to achieve a human landing on Mars. I am not troubled by the reliance during the next few years on Russian launch vehicles to service the ISS; U.S. space scientists have had a healthy, productive relationship with the Russians for years - one that has occasionally and successfully risen above politics. Such is often the nature of scientific collaboration.

Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer opined recently in the Washington Post, "Sure, decades from now there will be a robust private space-travel industry. But that is a long time. In the interim, space will be owned by Russia and then China." I think it is an unfair characterization to say that eliminating a government program that was already showing signs of severely underdelivering on needed capabilities will allow the Russians and Chinese to own space for decades to come. I also think that his assertion that private companies cannot take over launching astronauts due to the expense and advanced nature of the technical work severely underestimates the business and technical acumen of the private sector.

If nothing else, this new approach within the taxpayer-funded U.S. space program should be applauded for its focus on eliminating a costly program that was not working and offering up another idea that has merit. This is the type of thinking we should be encouraging.