Civilizations advance through exploration, so NASA’s goal of returning humans to the moon satisfies a certain urge to venture into the unknown. But the proposal comes against a backdrop of tight budgets and competing priorities both within the space agency and elsewhere in the federal government. Simply put, the grand vision of propelling humans into the cosmos will be tested against two other age-old truths: money and politics.
On Monday, NASA chief Michael Griffin announced a $104 billion program that over 13 years will enable America to again send astronauts to the moon, but send more of them and have them stay longer than in the Apollo program. The new spacecraft’s fundamental design will be similar to Apollo, with a manned capsule sitting atop a giant booster rocket and both elements intended for one-time use.
But why should the moon be NASA’s goal? The reasons are pragmatic and political. In practical terms, space scientists must solve a legion of engineering and physiological problems before humans can occupy distant worlds – if we can’t figure out how to live on the moon we’re not going to be able to exist on Mars or any other far-off planet. Politically, NASA has to regain its public sex appeal, especially among young Americans who think space travel is passé.
President Bush tried to re-energize NASA with his January 2004 announcement of the new moon-Mars push. But Congress and the public reacted tepidly, largely because Bush made such a fiscal muddle with his other programs and policies. He simultaneously cut taxes, boosted Medicare benefits, battled terrorism, waged two foreign wars and now must rebuild the devastated Gulf Coast. The combination turned a government surplus into a $400 billion deficit.
While $104 billion spread out over more than a decade is pocket change to Uncle Sam, the proposal arrives just when Republicans and Democrats in Congress want to pretend that every dime is precious.
Griffin says NASA will finance the new moon shot by juggling its existing budget, a declaration that inspires more concern than confidence. NASA’s other missions include providing the rockets and other support for global warming research, hurricane prediction and even monitoring of geological hazards. So indirectly, Griffin acknowledged what critics fear: returning to the moon could come at the expense of projects much closer to home. That idea will face scrutiny both on Capitol Hill and Main Street.
