Nick Autiello, Contributor
Ideology: Moderate Republican | Writing from: Washington, DC
President Obama released his budget this week, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) head Pete Orzag was promptly criticized before the Senate Budget Committee by Florida Senator Bill Nelson. Despite increasing NASA’s overall funding, the President’s budget cuts out the Constellation program, which would send Americans to the moon again. But is his criticism correctly placed? Should we really be returning to the moon? The reasons to say ‘no’ are numerous, but at the heart of each of them rest renewed American leadership in the world and ambitious thinking about the future.
We’re confronted with challenges from every corner, but our difficulties are new. In thinking about the future of NASA and the space program we first must recognize that a return to the “Moon Shot” is an impossibility. That kind of thinking cannot be found in today’s world. Then, unlike now, we lived in a bipolar world of two competing ideologies. The political leaders of both the United States and the Soviet Union both sought desperately to avoid the kind of nuclear showdown that would destroy humanity. That dynamic no longer exists. Those energies that allowed President Kennedy to declare that “we choose to go to the moon in this decade” was predicated by the fact that if we weren’t competing with the Soviets to go to the Moon, then we’d be doing something far less productive, probably ending in nuclear Armageddon.
But despite the differences of situation in terms of specifics, we are still in need of some sort of large-scale national renewal. But why should we worry about going to the moon again? India and China are both planning on sending manned missions to the moon in the next ten years. Is that who we should be competing with? I’d say not. We should be bolder than to simply repeat past success. Now there are certainly those in the scientific community who would say that we need a base on the moon to continue on to Mars. I’ve gotten in from others that this is a completely bogus statement. The distance between the Earth and the Moon compared to the distance between the Earth and Mars would be like building a pit stop a mile away from New York city on the way to Los Angeles.
But Obama’s cutting the Moon program in favor of greater terrestrial NASA spending is still misplaced. Obama’s election was supposed to be a moment of great national renewal. But his presidency has turned into anything but. A Mars shot isn’t political. Yes, it would cost billions of dollars. Yes, it would take time. But we decided once before that we would pursue the moon, and before the advent of the personal computer or the iPod, we were able to send a man to the moon in ten years.
Inspiration is a funny thing. Its presence is necessary for success, but its consistent formula is elusive. Americans have been inspired in the past – there’s no question. But the current program of instilling hope into the American people has withered away. We’ve collectively exhausted ourselves over the last year in a battle over health care reform, from which we will most likely see nothing commence. Though Iraq has stabilized, it still can’t be called a rousing success, and the establishment of democracy there hasn’t inspired the American people. Why shouldn’t we try and land a man on Mars?
The benefits of the space program here on Earth have been extolled again and again. From better golf balls, to solar energy, to radar, to satellite technology to angioplasties, NASA spinoff technology has benefitted those of us on Earth with dozens of the comforts and hallmarks of life in the twenty-first century. Those who argue for the elimination of the space program altogether seem unfazed by the elimination of one of our nation’s greatest engines for discovery. There are those who will argue that we have too many problems here on Earth to be spending money on sending a human to Mars. Maybe, but that’s why the private sector needs to be engaged in the process, and in that sense President Obama has his space priorities in order. Without the cooperation of private industry, it will be impossible to undertake this great feat. But the fact that we aren’t ready to go right now doesn’t mean we should scrap the idea altogether.
But we can talk about the practical benefits of the space program for years and it still won’t accomplish anything in the face of those who refuse to see the practical use of it. Committing the resources to send a man to Mars is going to require leadership in government, in science and in private industry and it’s going to have to be able to succeed amidst a sea of criticism. There may not be any hostile flags seeking to conquer Mars that require our prevention. But the American spirit may very well be conquered by its own pessimism about the future and uncertainly of what is to come. So then let’s make this certain: we choose to go Mars in this decade, not because it is easy, not because it is hard and not because it is a challenge that requires us to rise to it or be destroyed by a foreign power. We choose to go to Mars because we need some great national renewal. That event that at the same time fulfills the need for wonder and awe in the human spirit across the globe, and provides the inspiration that America can still do great things.