« Hillary Clinton - Democrat | Main | Florida and the Idiocy of Primary Leapfrog »
No Candidate is Even Remotely Adequate on Space Policy
By Bill | August 27, 2007 | Email This Post
Yahoo decided to place an article detailing the Chinese and Japanese efforts to land humans on the moon on its front page today. The Chinese claim they may attempt a landing in the next fifteen years, and Japan by 2025. This isn’t exactly news to anyone who follows this sort of thing, but with the upcoming Presidential campaign it serves as a reminder that America isn’t the leader we once were when it comes to space technology.
The interesting - well, sad, anyway - thing is that not a single one of the major Presidential candidates has indicated what they intend to do in the area of space. Okay, I know, the issue isn’t one on which elections are won or lost, and therefore won’t show up on the evening news from Iowa… but still, is it too much to ask for that anyone who seeks the White House has dealt with the issue? At least formulated the outline of a plan and put it on their web site? Or otherwise addressed it?
There are a few tangential references. John Edwards references the space race and how America “led the world in innovation” (notice the past tense here.) Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate who mentions NASA by name, promising to link the agency to his “Works Green Administration” - sort of a FDR-style WPA focused on green energy technologies - without saying exactly what that means. Mitt Romney is the sole Republican who brings the matter up, but only to reference that he believes we should spend a similar amount on “power generation, nanotechnology, and materials science” as we do on space. Even Obama is silent on the issue, and one would think reaching for the stars would be a easy conversational extension to his “campaign of hope.”
It’s an awful set of responses. They could start by addressing the symbolic weight of the United States effectively ceding primacy over the moon to Asia - remember, up until now, the USA is the only country who managed to get people there. Not even the Soviets could do it. The current administration has proposed renewing manned lunar flights by 2020; do the current candidates support that initiative and/or commit to see it through? What about Mars? Then there’s the space shuttle, which faces mandatory retirement in 2010 (as in, a scant two years from now.) It’s replacement, the Ares/Orion combination is scheduled to be ready (maybe-kinda-sorta) by 2011, but more likely by 2014. Do the current candidates commit to fully funding the effort to get the US flying again? Assuming the 2011 date gets pushed back (hey, what are the chances) what are the contingencies to keep a manned US-presence in space? Are we limited to hitching rides on other country’s vehicles, or are we grounded for years?
And forget manned space, which is hideously expensive (but still worth doing, in my opinion.) What about NASA funding for basic science and research? Satellites that will warn us of the next Hurricane Katrina? Increase signals intelligence gathering? How about basic research in traditional areas of aeronautics and biology, to say nothing of more esoteric disciplines like nanotech and quantum computing? NASA’s budget has been
gutted in recent years, with cuts as high as fifty percent in some fields of research. Despite all the platitudes about America maintaining its science and technology edge - something all candidates touch on, even if they don’t directly relate it to space - what are they going to do about it?
Topics: Science and Technology |