Space Shuttle Atlantis is docked with the International Space Station yet real questions remain concerning the future of American human spaceflight. Senators Mikulski [D-MY] and Hutchinson [R-TX] joined together to pen an editorial calling for an additional $2 billion to assure America does not lose the ability to place humans in space:
[E]ven though the shuttle fleet will be retired in 2010, under the current schedule, Orion will not be ready for launch until 2015. This means there will be a five-year gap in which the U.S. will be unable to launch humans into space. By surrendering our leadership in space -- even for just a few years -- our national security will be at unnecessary risk.
Compare with this WaPo editorial, also from 6 Feb 08:
We all love manned space flight, but at this point, we're not learning much from it. There's another $5 billion [of potential budget savings].
Which course should we follow?
Add ~$2 billion to NASA's annual budget and assure America will not lose the ability to send humans into space OR save $8 billion in annual spending and terminate the American human space program outright? Or is there a 3rd option?
An aside
Q: $8 billion? Pearlstein said $5 billion.
A: Actually, $5 billion is the approximate total for just shuttle and ISS; if you add in Constellation, that’s another $3 billion. Don’t tell him.
Constellation is the program intend to replace shuttle and that is the program Mikulski and Hutchinson are writing about:
That leadership is now being put to the test. Without the space shuttle, we will have to rely on Russia to get our astronauts and scientists into orbit at a cost of $700 million. On a wide range of issues, including preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, Russia has proved that it does not have our best interests at heart. While we should maintain our international partnerships, the world's leader in space technology must not fall into a pattern of dependency.
Rising powers, such as China, are determined to move ahead of us and become leaders in space. Since 2003, when China became just the third country to send a man into space, it has made major strides in its space program, including sending its first probe to the moon last year. It is believed that the Chinese are determined to beat America back to the moon by sending an astronaut there as soon as 2020. A decade or so from now, China's red flag may be flying on the lunar surface.
Do WE care about this? And by "we" I mean progressives.
My own opinion is that America's stature in the world would take another hit if China and Russia became the only nations capable of puttting people in space even as I also argue that Mikulski and Hutchinson overstate the military threat.
But anyways, for those who might answer an instinctive "No" -- progressives should NOT care about human spaceflight -- let me suggest a more meta or cynical political perspective.
Will our next Democratic POTUS (whoever he or she may be) be able to preside over the LAST landing of Space Shuttle and the termination of America's ability to place humans in space without suffering heavy political fire from the Right? Is $5 billion or $8 billion in budget savings sufficient to expose our next President to the potential loss of prestige and political capital that would arise from being the President who greeted the return of the LAST Americans to enter space, even if you might otherwise have ZERO interest in human spaceflight?
Here is the full context of Pearlstein's WaPo quote:
Let's begin on the spending side, using round annual numbers:
After 9/11, it was natural that we'd respond by throwing money at every threat that ever crossed the mind of a federal security official or consultant. But now that we've had a chance to try a few things and reassess the risks, does anyone really think that we can't shave $5 billion from a $60 billion homeland security budget that is out of control?
We all love manned space flight, but at this point, we're not learning much from it. There's another $5 billion.
Agricultural subsidies distort the global economy, enrich wealthy farmers and drive up the cost of food and land. Replace them with a comprehensive, well-run federal crop insurance program and you can protect more farmers from the vagaries of weather while saving taxpayers a cool $5 billion a year.
Compared with the items above and below, NASA's money almost seems trivial.
Anyway, more is at stake than US prestige and the political capital of our next President. There also is the question of jobs. Here is an excerpt from the comment / discussion thread WaPo created for the editorial:
Oviedo, Fla.: No soup, er, vacation, for you! We need you on deck to think straight. Please stay glued to your desk for the duration. So NASA would evaporate under your plan? Them's fighting words here in central Florida, where layoff rumors are already rife with the shuttle winding down. How do you see NASA going forward, if at all??
Steven Pearlstein: NASA MANNED space flights, specifically space station and shuttle flights. Don't see much more upside there, at least as a national priority. Sorry. Exploration of outer space, which is cheaper and is more at the frontiers of knowledge -- that's probably worth doing, people who know more about these things tell me.
Florida? Key battleground state?
Can America "afford" $8 billion for human spaceflight? I say "Yes" but I am willing to agree that your mileage may vary. Now let me re-frame the question.
Do Democrats dare be the party to tell Florida voters that we are shutting down the Kennedy Space Center, laying off thousands of workers and closing what is at least a minor tourist destination? How will that play in 2010 or 2012 or 2016?