The Right Stuff, Again

National Review Online ^ | January 19, 2003 | John C. Wohlstetter

[Cincinatus' Wife]

The president's new space program represents the first major commitment to space flight since the last moon landing in 1972. Unfortunately, any progress on this ambitious goal will be hindered through 2010, thanks to existing commitments to the international space station — perhaps the all-time champion of dollar-guzzling boondoggles. Yet thankfully, because the lion's share of the NASA budget now gobbled up by the space shuttle will finance the president's program, the plan at least should prove eminently affordable. Finally an administration grasps the inadequacy of the shuttle, which upon final phase-out (also in 2010) will have been the centerpiece of NASA's efforts for four decades, having never achieved its original goal of making space transport economical and routine.

By contrast, the Bush space initiative incorporates four cardinal virtues of a successful program:

Boldness: Space is a frontier to explore, not merely a hostile environment;

Creativity: New space missions require much better technology, and thus inspire innovation;

Balance: Manned missions will be guided by safety, not showboating;

Oversight: An outside panel will monitor and guide NASA managers.

To a baby boomer who was a lad of ten when Sputnik sent shockwaves through America's policy and science establishments, and a freshly minted college graduate when Apollo 11 landed, the Bush vision is a tonic. It is impossible for anyone under 40 to fully appreciate how unimaginable it was in 1972 that we would retreat from the "high frontier," not to return for nearly half a century, when the college grads of America's lunar heyday would be in their golden years. A Mars landing by 2000 seemed, at least back then, a sure bet. Even now, President Bush has set a modest timetable of 11 to 16 years to return to the moon, the latter figure being twice the time it took NASA to meet JFK's original lunar challenge, issued in 1961.

History teaches that great civilizations must look outward and embrace grand — though achievable — visions to remain ascendant. When they turn inward — at least, for periods longer than needed to consolidate after expansion — decline sets in. Such a turn can take the form of fratricidal, internecine warfare (classical Greece), exhaustion at the empire's frontier (Rome after the death of Marcus Aurelius), or an end to the spirit of exploration (Ming China).

The 1972 end to the moon missions coincided with the inward focus of an America disheartened by failure in Vietnam (its first major martial defeat since the War of 1812), an economy heading into prolonged stagflation, and domestic unrest at home in the form of war protests, race riots, and skyrocketing crime. President Bush begins his new quest in the midst of a worldwide war on terror, in which America faces the specter of mega attacks by fanatics who make the barbarians Rome faced seem positively genteel by comparison.

Undaunted by worldwide conflict, and confident that a great civilization can and will prevail, President Bush has made a courageous choice — one that exemplifies America's famed optimism and "can-do" spirit at its best.

— John C. Wohlstetter is a senior fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute.

[bonesmccoy]

The current White House proposal does not see the new vehicle until ten years from now. They suggest ending the shuttle and station program in 2010 (four years prior to the launch of the Bush capsule design).

This proposal, while exciting in some ways, appears to be a method to end the US space program's future development of space commerce, research, and experience.

It is wise in focusing ISS activity on medical research, but the plan fails to defend our nation's need for the following:

1. Strong materials science research
2. Propulsion research
3. Development of newer, more efficient rocket engines
4. On-going use of the ISS at a level of STS flight ops to make the program worthwhile

Ending the STS program in 2010 is premature because the newer vehicle will not be around until 2014.

2010 is supposed to be when China is landing on the moon again.

Unless the White House and Congress reprioritize NASA in an authoritative fashion, we have just ceded control of space to the Chinese.

[Frank_Discussion]

"It is wise in focusing ISS activity on medical research, but the plan fails to defend our nation's need for the following:

"1. Strong materials science research"

How so?

"2. Propulsion research"

The Prometheus program is already looking into the issue, and will handle the next-term propulsion development for Mars transit.

"3. Development of newer, more efficient rocket engines"

See #2, and also understand that the Space Shuttle Main engine in its current form is very efficient and capable, and I expect it will be used in some form. Much research has been done already on aerospike engines, as well, and their maturity wouldn't take that long to achieve. Finally, there has been recent discussion of resurrection of the F-1 engines from the Saturn program, and they are still state of the art in some ways. The development has been taking place, but in an unorganized fashion. The exciting thing is, if the research efforts are truly refocused under the plan, we'll have a lot of options.

"4. On-going use of the ISS at a level of STS flight ops to make the program worthwhile"

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Truly, I don't really see it, no sarcasm at all.

"Ending the STS program in 2010 is premature because the newer vehicle will not be around until 2014."

Year 2013 for Lunar landing, I recently heard/read.

"2010 is supposed to be when China is landing on the moon again."

And if their progress is really that swift, watch for a significant compression of our timeline. Politically, we don't want to look like the Chinese are prodding us, so following a much different schedule is advantageous for the moment.

"Unless the White House and Congress prioritize NASA in an authoritative fashion, we have just ceded control of space to the Chinese."

I seriously doubt that.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

I think Bush's program will get us further with more capacity and less cost than anything we've seen in decades.

[Professional Engineer]

History teaches that great civilizations must look outward and embrace grand — though achievable — visions to remain ascendant. When they turn inward — at least, for periods longer than needed to consolidate after expansion — decline sets in. Such a turn can take the form of fratricidal, internecine warfare (classical Greece), exhaustion at the empire's frontier (Rome after the death of Marcus Aurelius), or an end to the spirit of exploration (Ming China).

We can see it in the Old World now.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Bump!