Yogi said it: "It's deja vu all over again." And, in context of the American space program, he was pretty close to the mark...all over again.

When Richard Nixon and Congress ended the Apollo program two flights early, their chief concern at the time was the Vietnam War, an ill-advised episode that was draining the country of its young men and resources. Somehow, a historic technical enterprise paled in comparison to events on the ground so we turned our backs on a program rife with possibility and the envy of the world. Besides, as one commentator reminds me, Nixon hated all things Kennedy (Apollo was JFK's idea), so it was easy to dump it. Whatever, several years passed before NASA flew astronauts again in the cobbled-together Skylab and a publicity stunt called Apollo-Soyuz. After that, it would be another long dry spell before the Space Shuttle flew, costing more time and talent among a nationwide work force that had actually put men on the moon in record time. Through it all, NASA management bobbled heads to their political masters, fearful as usual of losing whatever funds were to be handed down. As a practical matter, what else could they do?

Meanwhile, the competition kept flying and building, flying and building.

Well, here it is.."all over again."

We're in another war that is costing us dearly in young people, influence and money, which we are borrowing heavily from one of our competitors. We are about two-thirds of the way through a tremendous project, the International Space Station (ISS), and we are preparing to jump ship. The White House has decreed that the costly Space Shuttle, originally conceived during Nixon's time to support the station, will be retired in 2010, whether the International Space Station is completed or not. This fails to take into account the capriciousness of the shuttle system itself, faulty or undelivered materials, and untimely weather delays. The White House has decided we should return to the moon and NASA management has agreed to the stringent retirement schedule so the cost of the shuttle can be eliminated as an obstacle to the lunar mission.

Editor's aside: Just after this editorial was published, the House of Representatives' Science and Technology Committee's Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee added a provision to the upcoming NASA budget which would allow three extra shuttle missions to insure completion of the ISS. If the bill is passed by the full house with the extra flights included, it would effectively extend the life of the shuttles past the now-mandatory retirement date of 2010. In the process, it would boost the 20.2 billion dollar NASA budget proposal by 2.6 billion. Since the proposed change would extend into the next presidential administration, since the current White House has not yet voiced an opinion..and since the Senate hasn't looked at it, the extension may be more gesture than fact.

Meanwhile, the competition is flying and building, flying and building. And that's the good news.

The European Space Agency, ESA, has just advertised for new astronauts..the first time since 1992. With addition of a European laboratory to the space station and hoped-for development of their own piloted spacecraft, the Europeans are taking a more independent attitude, while remaining part of the ISS team. Right now, the shuttle or the pay-as-you-go Russian Soyuz are the only way for crewmembers to get to the station.

The Europeans made news recently with the successful launch, flight and automated docking to the station of their new cargo carrier, Jules Verne. Anticipating the end of the shuttle program, the Jules Verne, or ATV (Automated Transfer Vehicle) can be launched on a French Ariane rocket to deliver heavy tonnage to the station, re-boost the station's orbit, take on refuse from the station and dive back into the atmosphere to burn. No landing. It has done all of those things successfully except for the dive, which should come in late summer.

Right: Jules Verne on approach to Space Station. NASA photo.

Depending on European politics, ATV may be modified later to carry the proposed ESA manned spacecraft, a three person crew capsule, on its nose. The capsule would dash back into the atmosphere to a parachute landing, ala' the Apollo spacecraft, which is another irony.

All the players are going back to Apollo for their operating platform. Never mind the tremendous advances that bring the shuttle back for repeated operations, the Apollo platform is simply cheaper and more straightforward. As planned, the American rockets and spacecraft which will take us to the space station post-shuttle and later to the moon are basically an expanded Apollo. Using lessons learned since the moon flights, they will borrow booster rockets from the shuttle system, but what you will have at the end is two in-line rocket systems like Apolllo's; one to fly the crew, the other to fly the cargo. To go to the moon, the crew module will mate with the bigger rocket and push off. The capsule will carry four crewmembers to the station or moon; six if they're going to Mars. At least, that's how it's planned now. Who knows how it will change?

Left. Orion. US crew capsule. (Lockheed Martin artist concept)

ISS may last only to 2015 or 16. We are obligated to "get-r-done" because we promised to do so when we brought the Europeans, Canadians and Japanese into it..not in the spirit of international cooperation so much as a way to spread the cost. We "carried" the Russians financially in exchange for their help, expertise and their Soyuz. So far, all but the Russians have had very little use of the station, but that's about to change with addition of the Japanese laboratory. The European lab was put in place earlier this year. Soon, instead of the usual crew of three (alternating two Russians and one American with two Americans and one Russian and/or sometimes one of the others to keep them happy) there will be a crew of six rattling around up there.

Meanwhile, the Japanese and the Chinese are making noises about going to the moon on their own. When they do, it will be largely on know-how that the US spent billions to learn and build into viable systems. Good for them. Humans should be back on the moon just as soon as possible to use it as a science base and as a training ground for the real goal, Mars.

What has always bothered me most about all this (and I have been involved for more than fifty years), is the US government's fairly cavalier approach to space; is it important or isn't it? Certainly, it started as a political power play .. all the way to the moon. The political competition gave it spice and pizzazz, and, lo and behold, it produced scientific discovery, development, investment and jobs!! Yes, it has cost us billions, but it has paid back billions, too. It is a global icon of our technological prowess, but it is blithely taken for granted, and may be allowed to fritter away. Political leaders seem embarrassed by it; few wish their public to see them discussing it seriously even though it will require great leadership to press on. Concommitantly, few young people are inspired to involve themselves beyond a day trip from Disneyworld to Cape Canaveral to see a launch...and the news media ignore it unless something goes wrong.

Maybe human spaceflight is now just a given, a part of the political woodwork. If so, it will continue much the same way as the Corps of Engineers builds dams; everybody knows they're doing it, that's what the Corps does, and that's all anybody wants to know.

I don't think that's good enough. The human intellect grows a little every time we -- or the others -- fire a rocket. That's an awesome thing, and it's happening right in front of our eyes, so why can't we take it seriously?

Mars is waiting.

Who's going?

May 20, 2008

Click here for a previous Left Seat column on this subject.