Standing on the steps of the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C. -- middle ground, quite literally, between the White House and the U.S. Congress -- the President saluted the 20th anniversary of Apollo 11's historic flight to the Moon.
Bush then requested a "to do" list of sorts. What was needed, he asked, in terms of money, manpower, and materials, and the feasibility of international cooperation to kick-start and chart a new and continuing course to the Moon and Mars and beyond. Furthermore, he wanted realistic timetables, milestones, along the way.
After his July 20, 1989 declaration, the Bush push for lunar/Mars exploration went nowhere fast. And NASA's beyond Earth orbit trajectory for its astronauts followed the same path.
Now, nearly a decade and a half later, there are growing expectations of new destinations for NASA's human spaceflight program.
Akin to a second-generation launch vehicle, current President George Bush, like his father, could attempt to boost NASA onto a heading outward. As one NASA senior official puts it: "There is a new window of opportunity."
Option rich, direction poor
Deliberations are now underway regarding the overall health and direction of the nation's space agenda. Those discussions involve representatives of such power blocks as the Domestic Policy Council, the Office of Management and Budget, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, the State Department, the National Security Council, and NASA itself.
Insiders, however, caution that these discussions involve a range of "could be" outcomes. A back-to-basics heavy-lift booster might be one upshot. Others sense that the big vision of Moon bases and a Mars expedition is in the offing, just the ticket for a re-focused NASA. To flight-qualify humans for long-haul journeys beyond Earth orbit also helps shore up a sorely needed reason to keep the International Space Station (ISS) functioning.
"We seem to be option rich, and direction poor," explained one senior space policy watchdog, familiar with in-and-out box NASA strategizing. "It is difficult to anticipate that they have a basis for narrowing these down to a set of things that the public might relate to," the source said.
Then there are those that expect little more than a promissory note about future NASA space goals -- pushing off any commitment to fork up tough-to-find dollars. After all, on November 3, Congress voted final approval for an Apollo-like foreign affairs project: $87.5 billion for U.S. military operations and aid in Iraq and Afghanistan.
However, the U.S. Congress does appear keen about refurbishing or revitalizing NASA. Restructuring the space agency is bandied about as well. Taking such action is typically tied to some sort of bold new vision, one that perks up NASA by rekindling its "can do" spirit.
For example, the U.S. Senate Science, Technology, and Space Subcommittee will hold a hearing November 6 about 21st century exploration of the Moon, a follow-up to a similar hearing held late last month on the future of the space program.
Asking for trouble?
But is giving NASA a go-ahead to propel humans headlong into deep space likely asking for trouble?
That's the belief of Greg Klerkx, author of the forthcoming book, Lost in Space: The Fall of NASA and the Dream of a New Space Age, to be published by Pantheon Books in January.
NASA is probably capable of technically and organizationally sending humans beyond Earth, Klerkx said. "But could NASA send humans anywhere beyond Earth within a reasonably engaging timeframe -- perhaps a decade from announcement -- and within a budget that wouldn't leave taxpayers howling, and thus at some point force the government to scrap the idea altogether? I doubt it. The precedents of the space shuttle and ISS programs don't bode very well for success," he told SPACE.com .
In the aftermath of the Columbia tragedy, much has been said about what 'vision' the nation should have for human spaceflight, Klerkx acknowledges. But he adds that this dialogue has focused on "revitalizing NASA" -- as if the right infusion of money and 'vision' can recreate the achievements and excitement of the Apollo era.
"Any effort to try and to reengage the public by revitalizing NASA is a red herring," Klerkx senses. "Any consideration of what 'vision' we ought to have for human spaceflight needs to start from a much cleaner slate than 'how do we revitalize NASA'," he said.
Klerkx said that there is a better question. "What is it about the idea of humans in space that is exciting and valuable? From that should follow how such activity should be pursued, rather than assuming that it will be a repeat of how things happened before and with the same players taking the same roles."
The term of "restructuring" NASA has little meaning, Klerkx said. "Restructured for what? Another space race? Keeping the shuttle program alive? Finishing the ISS so that it can do whatever nebulous job NASA is now claiming it will do? The question gets tricky very quickly!"
In his forthcoming book, Klerkx suggests that the promise of human space exploration has come to rest in the hands of private entrepreneurs and visionaries.
ISS: Stepping stone or stumbling block?
A revamped Bush-push to put NASA into high-gear doesn't seem likely said Howard McCurdy, Chair of the Department of Public Administration at American University in Washington, D.C. He is also an astute observer of presidential space policy decision-making.
"I would be very surprised if the White House and Congress provided an authoritative command to send NASA beyond low earth orbit, except for the usual general pronouncements about our desire to extend human presence into the solar system someday," McCurdy said. NASA officials have their hands full finishing the International Space Station and finding a suitable replacement for the aging fleet of space shuttles, he added.
Looking back into space history, McCurdy said that White House aides and congressional leaders have been "notoriously reluctant to let NASA officials move to their next course before they finish what is already on their plate." Opinion polls, moreover, show scant support for deep space missions, he said, like a lunar base or Mars expedition at this time.
"A deep space mission would also affect the functions assigned to the International Space Station at a time when that program needs all the stability it can get," McCurdy concluded.
On the other hand, use of the ISS as a stepping stone for beyond Earth orbit human traffic is backed by NASA's William Readdy, Associate Administrator for Space Flight. "There are those who advocate NASA should have a goal for space travel by humans to other parts of the solar system. It must be stressed by us, and recognized at large, that the ISS is the gateway to exploration beyond low Earth orbit, Readdy told lawmakers last month.
Readdy testified that NASA's current draft of a Critical Path Roadmap of challenges addresses the following risks associated with long-term crew health and safety in space: the effects of radiation, physiological changes, medical practice problems, and behavior and performance problems. Reducing these risks will be accomplished by identifying and developing countermeasures where applicable.
"Virtually all of these challenges will require research from experiments that can best be carried out on the ISS," Readdy said.
Next page: Knowledge gaps
advertisement
