Obama and the Space Program, Revisited

The other day President Barack Obama made a major speech at Cape Canaveral regarding his space plan. His choice of venue was important, as Cape Canaveral is where the Apollo missions were launched in the 1960s and 1970s and the space shuttles are launched today. It is home to tens of thousands of people with jobs connected to the space program, many of whom are understandably concerned that Obama's plan will cost them their jobs. Obama's plan has also received public criticism from three Apollo astronauts, moon walkers Neil Armstrong and Eugene Cernan and Apollo 13 commander Jim Lovell, though he has also received public support from Armstrong's Apollo 11 colleague and fellow moon walker Buzz Aldrin. His speech was intended to further explain and defend his plan, elaborate on his vision for space, and reassure space industry workers about their future.

As I stated in my earlier piece on this topic, I have some reservations about Obama's space plan. The biggest issue was the cancellation of the Constellation program, which was to develop a new heavy booster and space capsule for a return to the Moon. I can sympathize with the view of Armstrong and his colleagues that the cancellation of Constellation without anything specific to replace it seems like an abandonment of the US crewed space program. But the other side of that argument is that Constellation was underfunded and way behind schedule, so without a very large funding increase there was little chance of it getting Americans back to the Moon anytime soon. Of course what I'd most like to have seen would have been just such a large increase in funding. However, even though as I have argued previously, funding for space exploration is about the best investment the government can be making, especially as even if it were doubled it would be a small fraction of the budget, in the current economic and political climate a funding increase large enough to rescue Constellation was highly unlikely. As it is, Obama's budget does call for an overall increase in NASA's budget, so it isn't like he is starving the space program as a whole. Among other things, he is extending the lifetime of the International Space Station, unquestionable a good step if we want to get sufficient use out of it, especially considering how much it cost and how long it took to build it.

I didn't hear or read Obama's entire speech, but the parts that were quoted certainly sounded good. He said that he is strongly behind space exploration, and that he expects to see humans not only visit an asteroid but also go to Mars in his lifetime. Since I also want to live to see these things happen, and he is older than I am, if he is right that would certainly be reassuring. Of course, while I still generally think Obama is doing a reasonably decent job in most areas, at least compared with most recent presidents, there is often a noticeable gap between his rhetoric and his actions (not surprising, as such a gap is almost always present in politics). But if he sincerely believes that his space plan (which does have many good points, not least that it involves serious rethinking of the US approach to space) will really lead to exploration of Mars in his lifetime -- and I have no particular reason to doubt that he at least hopes that is the case -- then that is all to the good.

But despite the good points of his plan and his positive speech, the obvious flaw that remains is a lack of clear major medium-term (as in the next decade or so) goals for NASA in terms of human spaceflight, at least as far as I am aware. Even before Obama mentioned it in his speech, I had heard about the idea of sending humans to land on a near-Earth asteroid, but as far as I know the proposed time-line for such a mission is very vague, and what launch vehicle would be used is uncertain. Obama did mention that he was including funding for a new heavy launch vehicle (though it isn't clear why this would be better than the one being developed under the Constellation plan), and that the Orion crew capsule from Constellation would be retained, though modified to serve, at least initially, as an escape vehicle for the International Space Station, with the potential to be adapted for other missions. The idea that private ventures in space should be encouraged is good (at least up to a point; I wouldn't want to see space be turned into a place for unrestrained capitalist exploitation either), as is the idea that NASA should be working on solid long term "building blocks" for space exploration, rather than just short-term results. But specific medium-term goals are necessary as well, and clear plans for achieving them. Hopefully Obama's plan can be modified to include these things as well.