A Political Goal for Space and Society?

Roughly two years ago, the Obama Administration released its new space policy and direction for the nation’s air and space agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. It specified canceling the Bush era’s Constellation program, which called for returning to the moon and sending humans onward to Mars and beyond using a vertical rocket + capsule system more advanced than, but reminiscent of, the Apollo era. Through Constellation, the space shuttle, a highly complex system with modest goals, was to retire and make way for a modest system with lofty goals. After the President’s cancellation of this program, as many rightly point out, we presently do not have any particular system planned for what’s next in human space flight.

This has led to much protest, especially from the more operationally-focused NASA centers such as Kennedy Space Center and Johnson Space Center, with whom I certainly sympathize. The most ardent of human space flight proponents have gone so far as to claim that American dominance in space has ended, and that NASA has lost its primary purpose. Why, they ask, are we not driving full steam ahead to establish permanent human bases on the moon?

The desire is, in summary, that human space flight should be a goal in and of itself, and that the agency’s purpose is to technically implement this goal. In this respect, the President is often negatively compared to President Kennedy, who, as we all fondly remember, set a very clear goal and deadline for landing on the moon. If Kennedy could set such a clear goal and fund NASA appropriately, the result of which was clearly a boost for American image and technological advancement, then why should the current President do any differently?

I propose that this perspective is… not wrong, but limited.

Let this sink in: NASA is not a technical agency. It is, fundamentally, a political agency that happens to use technical people… and always has been.

The goal of the Apollo program was not “land on the moon by the end of this de-cayde”, despite that phrase being the one central to Kennedy’s famous speech. The moon landing wasn’t actually the ultimate point; the goal was really “beat the Russians by whatever means necessary”. Though an incredible amount of technical advancement resulted directly and indirectly from the fact that we went to the moon, it was only a means to a political end.

NASA was and is but one piece in a very complicated game the U.S. Government is always playing.

One could say the same about the International Space Station… post-cold-war, the political goal is unifying a fragmented world of emerging powers that was no longer polarized between USA-USSR. NASA heeded the call and banded together with 15 other nations, some of which were not necessarily friendly to the United States, on the collaborative challenge of what was possibly the most complex construction job in the history of our species. The kind of diplomacy and bridge building is something the State Department can’t even get close to. It certainly is nice that the world gets it for research now, and I do hope that we get as much research out of it as practical, but… that wasn’t the point.

“Establish a permanent human presence on the moon” is not a political goal. It’s a technical one. Something like “beat the Russians” IS a political goal, out of which “land humans on the moon” merely follows. What is the political reason to establish a permanent human presence on the moon or Mars? While I personally agree that it’s a good idea, I think it would be difficult to make a serious political case for why the American public or U.S. government should care enough to justify the cost in the present environment. They cared a lot about beating the Russians… by whatever means. I see no such strong, passionate political or social motivation for… well, anything these days really. Do people really care anymore? If not, should they? If they should but don’t, how do we address that?

Saying “the public should believe in human space flight” or “the administration needs to value the space program” are empty statements, and dangerously insular. Instead, I believe our energy would be better spent to 1. frame human space exploration (e.g., “land on the moon first”) in terms of a broad national goal that does not actually explicitly require it (e.g. “beat the Russians”), and then 2. make the case for why human space exploration is the best means to that end.

I think the majority of us are trying to do (2) before we do (1). That is, we are saying that human space exploration should be a goal in and of itself, starting from that as a given. That would work on me pretty easily; but for the majority of government and society, that is really not the case. Landing on the moon was but one tool in the box for a much much broader political goal that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with human space exploration… we beat the Russians through all sorts of things, using all kinds of different methods, agencies, departments, ideas, etc.

Can we do that with starting a manned program for Mars now? I feel like most space advocates are saying “hey, we have a great solution here!”, a manned program which is good enough for us as a goal in and of itself, but without identifying clearly to those who need to know why anyone else should really care or what political problem it would be most effective at solving.

Because that’s why NASA actually exists. As an executive agency, its purpose is to implement the policy (all of it… national security, environment, energy, education, diplomacy, etc) of the President of the United States. Civilian air and space assets are simply the means by which it is authorized to do so… they are not the objective themselves.

Hypothetical example, for illustrative purposes (not advocacy).

Political goal: “Energy security and climate change demand that we research and develop alternative means of generating and transmitting energy in a clean, sustainable, and secure manner.”

Technical implementation: “Therefore NASA is directed to develop an orbital solar power station of X gigawatts generation capacity, associated delivery of energy to the ground (via beaming, space elevator cable or what have you), and all associated construction, supply, operational, and logistical considerations. NASA will work with the USAF to design and implement the most appropriate means of securing this national asset from foreign attack or influence, while maintaining its essentially civil nature.”

Note that the political component is totally independent of air and space. An air and space solution is proposed that addresses a much broader political problem, for which many possible solutions may be available.

Now… in those terms: Why establish a permanent human presence on the moon or Mars? Why continue independent government access to the ISS (whose initial primary purpose was to partner with emerging nations on a challenging project in a post-Soviet world, not to do research)? Why send humans to explore the solar system when robots are much more cost effective?

Let me re-emphasize: I love all of these things. I simply think we as a space advocate community are neglecting to put them into the one framework that will actually make them practical: political. The strong contempt that we nerds feel towards the political should not blind us to the real meaning behind the oft-quoted phrase: “No bucks, no Buck Rogers.”

If we can’t put it in those terms, it won’t happen, and that’s the hard truth as I see it.