We live in a crazy country when healthcare reform, temporary nationalization of the auto industry, and bailouts to financial institutions trump Ad Astra.

It is no surprise that our President, full of the hope and change that catapulted him into office, is killing the initiative to put man back on the moon by 2020. His “bold new initiative” is anything but. The initiative is tantamount to turning our back on US-sponsored manned space flight. It is an egregious and short-sighted mismanagement of our nation’s space policy, unfortunately coupled with the retirement of the Space Shuttle program. The United States will soon be left without a way to get our astronauts into Earth orbit for the first time since John Glenn’s famous 1961 mission.

As usual, Obama is a master of framing the debate for public consumption. The annual budget for NASA is increasing by $276 million to $19 billion. This is intended to mollify those in the space policy community by illustrating the administration’s willingness to invest in NASA. However, by killing the Constellation program, the Obama administration is ruining our near-term prospects for a US-Government owned/operated means of putting men and women on the international space station. We will instead be relying on Russia, the sole remaining nation with astronaut delivery capability, to be our taxi service.

NASA is also charged with investing in the private sector, but the technology and sustainability of cheap, commercial space travel has yet to prove itself. This portion of the NASA budget will be $6 billion (according to Joel Achenbach of the Washington Post). That means that the NASA budget is down a net $5.24 billion. Since we’re about to be reduced to bumming rides from the Russians, this paltry budget “increase” is actually a decrease in operating budget for NASA.

NASA itself stands to lose thousands of employees with the retirement of the shuttle program, which amounts to an unparalleled loss of knowledge and experience in the history of man. Some of these are likely to go to private companies, but many will be forced to pursue other forms of employment. The technical base of our workforce is about to be irreparably damaged, and the only people who notice are the congressmen and women who represent them.

The part that almost makes sense is Obama’s vision for NASA: to focus on developing technologies that make space travel more efficient, safe, and cost effective. Obama’s plan puts emphasis on the private sector (throwing a bone to all conservatives, right?), but it eviscerates aerospace companies who have invested the lives of their employees and their stockholder’s money in a dream of returning to our former glory. Lockheed-Martin and Alliant Techsystems have already spent $9 billion to develop the technologies necessary to meet this dream. If Obama’s plan is approved by congress, this money is essentially wasted, as well as an additional $2.5 billion in contract cancellation fees.

In the future, NASA could also be forced increasingly into the role of a regulatory agency, a function that strays from its core competency of exploration and technological development. I can envision a future where NASA is the space-based arm of the FAA, more interested levying fines and propagating its bureaucracy than exploring the rings of Saturn.

John Logsdon of the Space Policy Institute at George Washing University was cautiously optimistic: “It is a somewhat risky proposition, but we’ve been kind of stuck using the technologies we’ve developed in the ’50s and ’60s.” I couldn’t agree more. I railed against the use of chemically powered rockets for our return to the moon, but they have the advantage of being proven technology with easy to obtain fuel. The environmental impact (aside from heat) is almost negligible, and while the weight-to-payload ratios could be more favorable, the important point is to put people out there. Invest in the infrastructure that we need in low Earth orbit or on the moon to make travel sustainable, then use the technological gains to refine our boost methods and capacity.

Perhaps you think that a citizen with a distaste for big government is being a tiny bit inconsistent here. Perhaps you’re right. However, $6 billion divided between the Russians and whatever aerospace companies can get a piece of the pie just isn’t going to push our frontiers outward. It unfortunately requires the kind of spending power and leverage that only our government has to kick start a sustainable space program and provide a skeleton of profitability before publicly traded companies will invest in space travel. There must be a permanent, easily reachable presence in Earth orbit or the moon to make it worthwhile to provide services and technology. Furthermore, that presence must show some kind of revenue generating potential. Without these, companies such as Lockheed-Martin will be unwilling to commit the future of their business on such a venture.

Like most everything else Obama has done in office, his “bold, new initiative” for NASA is a disaster in the making. We are now spectators in the space race, while Russia, China, India, Japan, and the EU overtake us with both the will and capital to reach for the stars. In the US, we’ll continue to reach into our pockets.

Obama in January.

Obama in August.

In January, it was kosher to pull money from the space program to fund schools in the inner city. After all, he had to distinguish himself from his fellow Democrats by appealing to the one demographic most likely to give him an edge in the elections–inner cities.

Quoted from the January position paper:

Obama will support the development of this vital new platform to ensure that the United States’ reliance on foreign space capabilities is limited to the minimum possible time period.

In the wake of nationalistic pride generated by the Chinese hosting the Olympics, the issue of the space race has once again come to the forefront. China’s spoken intent is to put a man back on the moon by 2020. The USA performed the same feat with less advanced technology, going from space in 1959 to a moon landing in 1969. With China’s resource and technology base, isn’t it fair to assume a moon landing within twelve years?

Quote from the August position paper:

Speeding the Next-Generation Vehicle: Obama will expedite the development of the Shuttle’s successor systems for carrying Americans to space so we can minimize the gap. This will be difficult; underfunding by the Bush administration has left NASA with limited flexibility to accelerate the development of the new systems.

Obama accuses the Bush administration of underfunding the space program. To make that statement truly accurate, say: “Bush and the Democratically controlled Congress have hamstrung the space program with successive budget cuts.” I find it odd that Obama accuses Bush of that, when he was going to do the same thing, as illustrated in this education plan [emphasis mine]:

Barack Obama’s early education and K-12 plan package costs about $18 billion per year.  He will maintain fiscal responsibility and prevent an increase in the deficit by offsetting cuts and revenue sources in other parts of the government.  The early education plan will be paid for by delaying the NASA Constellation Program for five years, using purchase cards and negotiating power of the government to reduce costs of standardized procurement, auctioning surplus federal property, and reducing the erroneous payments identified by the Government Accountability Office, and closing the CEO pay deductibility loophole.  The rest of the plan will be funded using a small portion of the savings associated with fighting the war in Iraq.

Which is it? Are we expediting the new crew vehicle for the space program, or are we delaying it five years in the name of an education program?

Now that Obama is mainstream, language that touches even tangentially on Welfare is going to be a sore sport for swing voters in typically red states. Obama must do something to counter the Chinese ambitions for their own space program, so he releases a slightly modified position paper. 

Neither one of these position papers amounts to anything more than arm waving. How is Mr. Obama going to expedite the new crew vehicle? Can he promise the American public that our space infrastructure won’t rot away while we funnel money into enabling the poor to stay poor? What will he say when our skilled aeronautical engineers and technicians are laid off from NASA, and they find themselves paid high salaries in China, Japan, and Russia?

Quite frankly, our lack of manned space delivery systems couldn’t come at a worse time.  Who knew that we would be hitch hiking to LEO in a Russian space capsule that uses forty year old technology?