Thursday, February 11, 2010

Constellation and the Future of the US Space Program

Not long ago, Obama released his latest budget proposal. As was pointed out in a number of news articles, the budget included a small increase in funding in NASA, but eliminated all funding for the Constellation program which would have returned humans to the Moon. This was a disappointment, as long-term human missions to the Moon and Mars would be a very big step for human progress and would inspire younger generations to study science and engineering. In fact, there is very little that the US government could spend money on that would provide greater value in terms of an investment in the future, especially considering how little money is actually spent on space compared to all the other things the US government spends money on (an issue I addressed in a previous post). The lack of a major investment in NASA is certainly a disappointment, one which Obama has to be held responsible for. I don't even really consider the huge deficits he has to deal with much of an excuse, considering how many other things he could cut (unfortunately one of the best things to cut, the military, was one he left untouched), the option of raising taxes, and the relative minor sums involved.

Nevertheless, there were good arguments for rethinking Constellation, at least as it was being run. While Dubya's call for NASA to put plans in place to return to the Moon was a good thing, the problem was he didn't follow it up by calling for Congress to actual fund the plan properly. As a result, Constellation was way behind schedule and NASA had only been able to keep it going by taking funding from other important programs. While the original idea was that humans would be back on the Moon by 2020, at the current state of the program, the actual date would have been more like 2028, if that. So the only way to rescue the program would have been by dramatically increasing NASA's budget. While this would have been what I would have really preferred, I'm not entirely surprised that Obama didn't go for this option giving the current budget situation.

A positive aspect of Obama's NASA budget is that it calls for a serious rethinking of NASA's role, funds a number of important science programs and helps promote private industry in space. While I generally prefer public programs, I have no objections to the idea of private industry becoming more involved in space, as long as it is properly regulated, not with tons of red tape, but with a suitable regard for safety and appropriate restrictions on the exploitation of resources. If private companies can start sending people into Earth orbit and even to the Moon, that would be great, as long as they are reasonably safe (not perfectly safe, as that is impossible) and they are not permitted to exploit space resources without restriction -- no unrestrained strip mining on the Moon for private benefit, for instance. But there is still a need for a robust government space program, especially for major efforts like putting humans on Mars. Hopefully, if he can succeed in getting the federal budget under control, Obama will take a more forward-looking approach to space and fund a more ambitious human (and robotic) exploration effort.

Update - Here's an interesting article discussing future goals for NASA: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100223/ap_on_sc/us_sci_nasa_future;_ylt=Aq_JVsoa78mqsfOTK3mhbzhH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTE2NDAzMjdkBHBvcwM1BHNlYwNNd19WaXRhbGl0eQRzbGsDZm9ybmFzYW5vZWFz
The emphasis on developing new rocket technology is definitely a good idea, but I also agree with those quoted in the article who think that it would be best if there was a clear goal to shoot for.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.