Is America Losing Out in the Space Race?

Is America in danger of becoming No. 2 in space as a result of the Challenger accident? 1986 was the worst year for the U.S. space program since the Soviets launched Sputnik in 1957. But determining who is winning the competition depends on what the competition is about.

In the 1960s, in the race to the moon, we clearly were in competition with the Soviets, and we won. Since then the competition has been to see which country can utilize outer space to benefit its own economy here on Earth. This economic competition is much more difficult to measure. There are no significant areas in which the Soviets or other countries are ahead of us, and there certainly are some areas in which we are ahead.

But if we are to maintain this position we must improve the focus of our program. The catastrophic failures that plagued it last year were very discouraging. However, the United States has not had an interruption in services from our satellites in space because of the large number of highly capable long-life satellites already there. This is powerful testimony for the program’s basic strength.

It is difficult to compare U.S. and Soviet space efforts due to the differences in our societies and our more sophisticated technology. Both countries use satellites to beam TV broadcasts back to Earth. But the Soviet Union has only three TV channels while the United States has nearly 100. The Soviets launch five times as many satellites, but ours last five times longer.

If the Soviets had to face launch delays like ours, by now most of their satellites in orbit would be inoperative. They would virtually have to restart their space program. But with the exception of our photo-reconnaissance satellites, a problem created not by the shuttle accident but by the loss of two Titan expendable rockets, there is no threat of an interruption of service. Americans still will get long-distance phone calls, weather forecasts and cable TV via satellite.

Europeans, on the other hand, are in the same league with the United States in terms of the sophistication of their satellites. But their Ariane rocket has experienced a dismal number of failures, and they have said that they do not intend to expand the production of their rockets, because they expect that in the long run the United States will maintain its competitive edge.

The Japanese still are largely reliant on American designs for their rockets and satellites. And they have not yet entered the international launching competition. Their main launch facility is on the coast in a major fishing area, and they can launch rockets only twice a year. But in the future the Japanese may begin to sell advanced satellites to other countries, and they are planning to build a new launch facility that would avoid conflicts with local fishing fleets.

The American space program is doing comparatively well, and should recover from the immediate problems posed by the Challenger accident. But larger problems with the direction of our effort in space cloud its future. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration continues to pursue large projects of questionable value. At the same time the government is not funding less expensive projects with readily identifiable benefits. This course risks our present preeminence in space.

It now appears that the space station to be built in 1993-94 will cost $13 billion rather than the $8 billion originally estimated. There is little doubt that we will eventually develop uses for it that will justify this expense, but its near-term scientific and commercial applications are unclear.

The current plan for building the entire space station over a two-year period will have to be changed. Otherwise the crew members will be sitting in space playing cards, because science and industry will not be ready to utilize their services. We should build the space station gradually over a period of perhaps 10 years, learning as we go, adding capabilities as needed.

There are a number of projects that the Reagan Administration is not funding that are less expensive and more immediately useful than the space station. The Administration made a major mistake a few years ago by turning our Landsat satellite, which monitors world agricultural output, over to the private sector before a market for its pictures was adequately developed.

Now this mistake has been compounded by a government failure to pay Landsat’s new owners the subsidies that were the key to the original deal. Hundreds of Landsat technicians have been laid off, and the future of the program is in doubt. Meanwhile, European governments continue to subsidize the French satellite Spot, Landsat’s competitor.

Other programs such as the advanced communication technology satellite, which would support American industry in its effort to remain competitive with Japanese and European satellite makers, also are suffering from a lack of Administration support.

All these endeavors would benefit from a greater degree of international cooperation. In the race to the moon there could be only one winner, but in the competition to use space for scientific and commercial purposes we all could benefit.