Advertisement

Losing Out to Military : NASA Space Efforts Hurt by Lack of Defined Goals

Share
Times Science Writer

When President John F. Kennedy challenged the nation in May of 1961 to put a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth “before the decade is out,” he left no doubt as to what the U.S. mission in space was all about.

That challenge, as political as it was technological, unified scientists, engineers and politicians behind a specific goal and forged a multibillion-dollar American space Establishment.

Now, nearly a quarter of a century later, the U.S. space program remains popular in Congress, is well funded compared to other government programs and operates one of the most spectacular pieces of technology ever devised--the space shuttle.

Advertisement

Unlike the early days, however, some now see the agency as being all dressed up but not quite sure where it wants to go.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, unable to decide which of many goals it should adopt for the years ahead, has chosen instead to develop technology and equipment to facilitate whatever missions it eventually picks.

It is a strategy that keeps the agency’s options open. NASA officials argue that equipment such as a proven fleet of shuttles and an orbiting space station, which is now entering the advanced planning stage, will be required to meet such diverse goals as a manned mission to Mars or a permanent base on the moon.

It is also a strategy that in the interim raises the questions of what NASA is really accomplishing in space and whether military goals should take precedence over civilian space spending.

“We don’t have a long-range goal in civil space,” said Bruce Murray, former director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory near Pasadena. The agency has left itself with no electrifying goals on the scale of Apollo--which took man to the moon--leading to far less public understanding of what it is trying to do, he said.

Scientists Divided

Murray was among several scientists who cited the absence of a major, easily understood goal for the civilian space program as one of the main causes of a trend toward military dominance of U.S. space efforts. Several top officials in NASA privately concede that the U.S. scientific community is so divided over which course the program should follow that the selection of a single long-range goal would alienate a large segment of NASA’s constituency.

Advertisement

The Apollo program was an easy choice because the moon was the obvious place to begin manned exploration of space. But, once that goal was achieved, it became much harder to pick favorites from a list of very challenging targets.

Last year, Congress passed legislation creating a commission to set the civilian space agenda, but it took nearly a year for President Reagan to name the members of the commission. He did so last month, but it may be some time before the commission comes up with recommendations, and there is no guarantee that the recommendations will be adopted.

By contrast, the rapidly growing military space program has clearly defined goals in surveillance, communications and weapons research.

Military Satellites

The military presence in space at this point consists largely of spy satellites, which require regular replacement because many of them are placed in orbits close to Earth and thus frequently get pulled out of orbit by gravity. The military maintains also an extensive network of communications and navigational satellites and is developing a system that will allow military vehicles to pinpoint their position anywhere in the world.

However, the bulk of the mushrooming military space budget is for research into sophisticated weapons systems, including powerful lasers, that could be used against enemy missiles and satellites. Weapons experts have said that such a network would require major breakthroughs in several areas, including computers and the ability to detect the nature of orbiting objects.

“The good thing about ‘Star Wars’ is they know what they are trying to do,” Murray said. “When people say space, they think NASA, but it ain’t that way anymore.”

Advertisement

Space is becoming “primarily a military program,” said Rep. George E. Brown Jr. (D-Riverside), a physicist who sits on several congressional science committees. “As a policy issue, that concerns me.”

The growth of the military role does not necessarily mean that NASA’s program will shrink, but an expanding military commitment will undoubtedly lead to conflicts. That has already occurred in at least one area, several experts said, and the Defense Department emerged as the clear winner.

That area involves remote sensing, the process of observing the Earth from satellites. Military sensors, including various types of cameras, are widely believed to be able to identify objects on the ground as small as three or four feet across.

Civilian Sensors Restricted

Civilian sensors using that same technology could offer vital information concerning natural disasters, such as earthquakes or volcanic eruptions, and thus help direct rescue crews to the right areas. However, civilian sensors could also pick up details about sensitive military installations. Thus, civilian sensors are restricted in their resolution to about 40 feet, prohibiting the identification of smaller objects.

“The question of resolution is an artificial limitation,” said one source who asked that his name not be used because of the sensitivity of the subject. He cited remote sensing as one of the “military roadblocks” to the civilian space program. “The military wants to monopolize that,” he said. “The technology is ripe, but we’re being left out.”

Brown struck a similar theme in an impassioned speech before the House of Representatives during debate on the fiscal 1986 NASA budget, which the House voted to freeze at its current level of $7.5 billion, about $380 million less than the Reagan Administration had requested.

Advertisement

“The Department of Defense in the last five years has increased its space spending more than the entire NASA budget,” Brown said. “That is forcing us to make compromises in the civilian space program that we shouldn’t have to make.”

Murray, who left JPL when it became apparent that unmanned planetary missions were being cut back severely, noted that the Administration is considering spending $25 billion for research on its “Star Wars” plan, compared to $8 billion for construction of a civilian space station.

“In 1985, the trends are predominantly toward weapons systems,” he said. “There is no civil program of that scale.”

However, top officials within NASA insist that the civilian space program is alive and well. They contend that the space agency is on the threshold of an ambitious era that holds great promise for diverse fields ranging from pure science to the commercialization of space.

For example, they note that several companies are planning to rent space aboard the shuttle for a variety of gravity-free processes. Johnson & Johnson and McDonnell Douglas hope to use electrophoresis equipment to separate drugs in commercial quantities. Microgravity Research Associates of Coral Gables, Fla., wants to produce 125 pounds of pure gallium arsenide to sell at $500,000 a pound for manufacture of advanced computer chips.

To Launch Telescope

And “next year will be an incredible year for science,” said Jesse Moore, head of the space shuttle program, because of the launching of the space telescope, which Brown described simply as “the most powerful scientific instrument ever created by man.”

Advertisement

The space telescope will be placed in orbit by the shuttle and, because it will be above the Earth’s atmosphere, it will send back unfiltered photographs of distant targets that will be many times sharper than those made by the largest telescopes on the ground.

The telescope has been a long-range goal of astronomers, who were able to put together a program to accomplish it. But advocates of other long-range goals have been far less successful.

Some scientists support a permanent base on the moon, which could be used as an advanced staging area for exploration of the universe. Others believe that unmanned probes of the solar system should have top priority, because they would return more data for the dollar than manned expeditions. Still others believe that the only reasonable goal is a manned mission to Mars.

Mining on Moon Urged

Robert Weed, president of the private American Space Foundation, which was formed to support a vigorous U.S. space program, said he believes that the American people are unsure of NASA’s objectives, thus robbing the agency of some of its support. Weed’s Washington-based group advocates a permanent lunar station that would mine materials on the moon for use in space projects.

Murray advocates a joint U.S.-Soviet mission to Mars. The circumstances, he said, call for a “commitment to go to Mars together, sometime in the next century.”

“An international mission would have an enormous, positive effect on people’s morale concerning nuclear war. And all of our functions would have a focus. It’s the one thing that would provide a solution to a terrestrial problem.” In addition, he said, “it’s the only planet that is habitable. It’s the logical long-term goal.”

Advertisement

Ivan Bekey, head of long-range planning for NASA, said that the agency is considering such ambitious goals.

Mars Mission Studied

“We are beginning a study of a permanent lunar base, of manned missions to Mars, of flights to asteroids,” Bekey said. “We are looking at the use of lunar materials.” (Moon rocks are rich in oxygen, which could be used in rocket fuel, for example.)

“It would be cheaper to bring materials into space from the moon than from the Earth. One potential for a lunar base is to manufacture propellants we will need in low Earth orbit,” Bekey added.

But, for any of those long-term goals, Bekey said, “we will need an infrastructure,” meaning a shuttle fleet and a space station. “That’s the immediate goal.”

Advertisement