U.S. SPACE POLICY: A SWOON FOR THE MOON – March 4, 2007

Dreams of space have been simmering in the international consciousness since the Sputnik and Apollo eras. Now, with the world’s leading nations in the midst of bold, promising undertakings, the dreams of moons and stars are reappearing on the negotiation tables of international leaders. Granted, no nation currently possesses the capability to make our science fictions a reality, but with technology advancing exponentially and governments cooperating increasingly, the near-future holds great promise. Each nation retains its own agenda for space advancement, but at least for now, competition has given way to cooperation.

“Single countries cannot go it alone in space,” said Günter Verheugen, European Commission Vice-President and Commissioner for Industry and Enterprise. “Cooperation is key today for every space-faring nation.” [1]

A number of those space-faring nations, the United States included, have explored the possibility of returning to the moon.

THE BACKGROUND

Building on the “Winning through Cooperation” conference held the previous year, NASA president Michael Griffin, from April to December 2006, brought together more than a thousand aeronautics authorities from Australia, Canada, China, the European Space Agency (ESA), India, Russia, South Korea, and the Ukraine to formulate the Global Exploration Strategy. Moderated by NASA, the purpose of the discussions was to clarify what would be accomplished by returning to the lunar surface.

In response to the question, “Why return to the moon?” the discussion participants agreed on the following six themes [2] :

1. Exploration Preparation: To use the moon to prepare for future human and robotic missions to Mars and other destinations.
 

2. Scientific Knowledge: To pursue scientific activities addressing fundamental questions about Earth, the solar system, the universe and our place in them.
 

3. Sustained Presence: To extend human presence to the moon.
 

4. Economic Expansion: To expand Earth's economic sphere to encompass the moon and to pursue lunar activities with direct benefits to life on Earth.
 

5. Global Partnership: To strengthen existing international partnerships and create new ones.
 

6. Inspiration: To engage, inspire and educate the public.

These six themes became the basis of the newly iterated American space policy.

THE PLAN

On December 14, 2006, President George W. Bush officially affirmed his administration’s commitment to space exploration, adding a fitting capstone to the Global Exploration Strategy discussions that had taken place earlier that year. In a speech delivered to NASA officials, he outlined new objectives for American efforts in space, detailing a course that would climax with a return to the moon. [3]

The first step, he said, is to complete the International Space Station (ISS) by 2010. To accomplish this undertaking, the president plans to consistently deploy the Space Shuttle to assist in the multi-national endeavor. In 2010, the Space Shuttle will be retired from service, and with the completion of the ISS, the United States and other participating countries will focus their research on “the long-term effects of space travel on human biology.”

Along with the U.S., other participants in this cooperation of “unprecedented scale off the home planet” are Brazil, Canada, Japan, Russia, and the member nations of the ESA, each contributing key components to the space station. NASA, the United Space Alliance, and the Boeing Company have hailed the ISS as the “largest and most complex international scientific project in history.” [4]

The Station will then be used as a launching pad for even more ambitious projects in space. President Bush said that the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle, which will replace the Shuttle, is to be developed and tested by 2008 and is to conduct manned missions no later than 2014. America’s ultimate goal for the near future should then be attained by 2020: to establish a permanent base on the lunar surface that would allow for extended space exploration. Robotic missions to moon in preparation for human habitation will begin no later than 2008.

“We’ll make steady progress,” Bush said. “One mission, one voyage, one landing at a time.”

THE FOREGROUND

Political Factors. The timing of the speech is certainly of note. The United States has been exercising a generally unilateral foreign policy throughout the Bush administration, causing a slide in international regard for the world’s only superpower. After the 2007 State of the Union address, President Bush’s national approval rating was only 30%, with 58% of the total respondents — and 21% of Republicans, members of the president’s own party — wishing that the “Bush presidency were simply over.” [5] Although President Bush’s speech was compelling, even revolutionary, it came at a time when he was lacking political capital.

Much of the dissatisfaction has been resultant of the controversial occupation of Iraq. The occupation has cost “more than 3,000 American lives, $300 billion spent and, according to a UN report, over 34,000 dead Iraqi civilians in 2006 alone.” [6]

Said Dimitri Simes, president of the Nixon Center and publisher of The National Interest:

“In the international arena, the American-led occupation of Iraq has considerably damaged U.S. prestige, making it more difficult for friendly governments to be of help to the United States. It has also emboldened American adversaries, such as Iran and North Korea. Those we need to persuade, like China and Russia, feel less pressure to accommodate the United States and less respect for U.S. judgment. And as the war continues and the 2008 Presidential elections draw nearer, it will become more difficult for the Bush Administration to be effective on key foreign policy issues requiring both the commitment of U.S. forces and the cooperation of other nations. Domestically, a continuing large-scale U.S. commitment will make an increasingly polarizing impact.  And divided we fail—not just in Iraq, but in other foreign policy challenges as well.” [7]

In the realm of foreign policy, analysts have recommended that the United States build upon the multilateralism symbolized by the ISS. Paul J. Saunders, an associate of Mr. Simes at the Nixon Center, pointed out that, even on the international stage, “Leadership requires having followers who are prepared to move in the same general direction. And walking a path without followers, allies or partners can quickly become self-isolation — even for the sole superpower.” [8]

Fiscal Factors. In spite of the angst over U.S. foreign policies, a global interest has arisen in the technologies being made possible through agencies like NASA. The budgets of the world’s leading space programs have reflected this trend.

The most elusive budget among the space-faring nations is China; because funding for the Chinese space efforts is interlinked with other governmental projects, their precise spending has been difficult to calculate. The China National Space Administrator, Sun Laiyan, has said the development of China’s space industry is only 2 billion Chinese yuans — about $240 million — per year. However, “Though unsupported by documentation, western media report that China's annual spending on space activities is between $1.3 billion to $3 billion,” according to the World Security Institute. “There are also claims that China has invested tens of billions of dollars in its military-linked space program.” [9]

Other nations are more straightforward with their finances. The ESA, struggling to acquire sufficient funding, operated on a budget of only €2.9 billion or about $3.8 billion in 2006. [10] Yet, the ESA has, in the recent past, asked for as much as €9.05 billion ($10.6 billion) from their members, [11] and they currently “expect an increase in [their] budget to match [their] interests and [their] ambitions.” [12]

The revered Russian space program, Roscosmos, insisting that “history has shown it is necessary to have two systems available for space exploration,” [13] has resisted rallying behind the United States, with the exception of certain projects like the ISS. In 2006, the Russians pushed their budget up to $10.7 billion, a 25% increase from 2005, and by 2015, they hope to add seventy-three spacecraft to their fleet. [14]

In comparison, NASA, though accounting for less than 1% of the total U.S. budget, already possesses four times as many spacecraft as Roscosmos, and entering the 2008 fiscal year, NASA requested a ceiling of $17.3 billion. That figure was to increase each year by about 2%, so by 2012, the budget was projected to reach $18.9 billion. [15] The proposed allocation was low enough to encourage multilateral participation, yet high enough to prevent the United States from relying on the space capabilities of other nations.

In February 2007, however, President Bush signed a spending bill that left a $545 million difference between NASA’s actual budget and the budget he had initially requested. [16] Speaking on this fiscal squeeze before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Space, Aeronautics and Related Sciences, Michael Griffin estimated that U.S. undertakings in space will fall four to six months behind schedule, delaying the launch of the Orion until 2015. NASA’s ambitions of returning to the moon will be hampered by a “‘go-as-we-can-afford-to-pay’ manner” in the midst of increasing international competition for space technologies. [17]

CONCLUSIONS

With space technologies hailed as “indispensable strategic assets,” [18] NASA’s clarified objectives have sown seeds for improved U.S. “soft power” in the future. Aside from reasons related to advancing astronomical knowledge, space technologies bear immense potential for enhancing any nation’s ability to compete economically, enforce their security policies, and respond to global environmental concerns. [19] The U.S. will by no means enjoy a monopoly on the world’s space capabilities, yet the future of human exploration in space — beginning with the completion of the ISS and then on to the moon — will have no small American influence. Congress’s rejection of NASA’s proposed budget suggests a certain lack of commitment to space exploration; yet, arguably, the U.S., more so than any other nation, has consolidated a bold, long-term vision for the future and a stable financial pocket to continue their advancements in space. “Though nearly 50 years old,” said the space agency’s official website, “NASA is only beginning the most exciting part of its existence.” [20]

By: Michael Madson

-----------------------

The author of the article is a B.A. candidate in Political Science and Asian Studies at Weber State University in Utah. His interests are in poverty issues, human rights, globalizations and South East Asia relations.

-----------------------

1. Stated at the “Winning Through Cooperation” conference held in Brussels, Belgium, on February 17, 2005. See http://ec.europa.eu/comm/space/russia/highlights/space_boost_en.html

2. Quoted directly from NASA’s online report of the event. See http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/news/GES_FAQ.html

3. All quotations, unless otherwise noted, are from the White House’s own transcript of President Bush’s speech. See www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040114-3.html

4. See http://www.shuttlepresskit.com/ISS_OVR/

5. From “A Sorry State” by Brian Braiker, a Newsweek web exclusive dated January 27, 2007. The complete article can be viewed at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16840614/site/newsweek/

6. From “The Costs of Iraq” posted by Dimitri Simes on the blog “Subjective Evaluation,” dated January 19, 2007. See http://www.nationalinterest.org/BlogSE.aspx?id=13462

7. From “The Costs of Iraq.”

8. “Learning to Appreciate France” by Paul J. Saunders, published on the National Interest website on March 1, 2007. http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=13716

9. From the World Security Institute’s “China-U.S. Dialogue on Space: Budget,” which can be viewed at http://www.wsichina.org/program.cfm?programid=3&charid=1

10. “ESA Facts and Figures” at http://www.esa.int/esaCP/GGG4SXG3AEC_index_0.html

11. From “Ministers To Consider 9.05 Billion Euros in Funding for ESA Space Programs” by Peter B. de Selding, published in Space News on December 5, 2005. The article can be viewed at http://www.space.com/spacenews/051205_business_monday.html

12. Stated by Heinz Zourek, the ESA’s Director-General of the Commission’s Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General, at a conference held on March 10, 2006. Reported by a press release titled “New space milestone for EU and Russia,” which can be viewed at

 http://ec.europa.eu/comm/space/russia/highlights/milestone.html

13. See http://ec.europa.eu/comm/space/russia/highlights/milestone.html

14. “Russia to remain leading space power - head of Roscosmos” by Ria Novosti. Article can be viewed at http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/news/2005/space-050819-rianovosti01.htm.

15. From NASA’s “FY 2008 Budget Estimates” report. A pdf version is available at http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/168652main_NASA_FY08_Budget_Request.pdf

16. “Budget crunch will delay NASA's first manned moon flight” by Kasie Hunt, The Associated Press. The complete article can be viewed online at http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2007-03-01-moon-delay_N.htm

17. From a press release on February 28, 2007, “Testimony of Michael Griffin - Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Space, Aeronautics and Related Sciences” The press release, which is a transcript of Mr. Griffin’s testimony, can be viewed at http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=23495

18. See http://ec.europa.eu/comm/space/russia/highlights/space_boost_en.html

19. See http://ec.europa.eu/comm/space/russia/highlights/milestone.html

20. See http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/what_does_nasa_do.html