Needed: a Space Policy

As the United States prepares to resume launching its vaunted but wounded space shuttle, the nation’s space policy remains muddled. Much has happened since that day in January, 1986, when Challenger exploded over the Atlantic and in living rooms across America, and NASA no longer enjoys the euphoric support that it once had. But decisions need to be made soon that will affect this nation’s activities in space until 2010--little more than two decades away. What course should NASA and Congress pursue?

A series of recent reports from the congressional Office of Technology Assessment put the choices starkly: Any major new undertaking beyond the space station, whose fate also remains to be settled, would require the development of a costly new generation of rockets that could loft large amounts of weight into orbit. Sending people to Mars or deploying a major military system (like the Strategic Defense Initiative, or “Star Wars”) could not be accomplished with existing launch power.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration had a difficult time getting Congress to increase next year’s budget from $9 billion to $10 billion. The Office of Technology Assessment figures that the agency’s budget will have to be $16.4 billion 10 years hence in order to meet its current agenda. How much more than that should Congress spend? And how much is it likely to?

The Challenger accident demonstrated the flaw in the nation’s shuttle policy. The shuttle had been sold as America’s single launch vehicle into space. Simpler, “expendable” rockets were to be phased out. That policy turned out to be one of placing all the eggs in one unsturdy basket. Now NASA’s strategy is a “mixed-fleet” plan: Use the shuttle for tasks that need astronauts, and use plain, reliable rockets for tasks that don’t--like launching satellites. The key question now, which will determine most other space-program decisions into the next century, is what kind of rockets NASA should be ordering.

According to the congressional technology assessors, NASA’s current plans can be accomplished by improving current rockets. More ambitious plans require added launching power. While not endorsing any of several technologies that have been proposed, the report looks with favor on an unmanned, all-cargo version of the shuttle known as Shuttle-C--an interim vehicle that could carry twice as much cargo as the shuttle. If Congress approves the space station next year, NASA’s estimates foresee Shuttle-C paying back its $1.7-billion investment by cutting out seven of the 19 flights needed to build the station.

But a trip to Mars, for example, would require a new transportation system with a price tag as high as $120 billion in the next 20 years. If such a trip is to take place, Congress needs to begin giving NASA the money to develop these new rockets. A presidential candidate who endorsed a voyage to Mars (preferably with the Russians, but without them if necessary) might enjoy the same political boost that John F. Kennedy got in 1961 when he committed the country to going to the moon. A cogent space policy should be high on a new government’s list of things to do.

Mars is the next step in the great undertaking of space exploration that began just 30 years ago and that will be remembered long into the future. The presidential campaign could be an opportunity for the nation to recommit itself to this sweeping and most human endeavor. The question is not whether we can afford to do it; the question is whether we can afford not to do it.