Barack Obama Publishes His Space Policy

A Scaling Back of Vision and Ambition

Mark Whittington
Senator Barack Obama has published a comprehensive space policy that is conspicuous in what it does not mention as in what it does. Unfortunately it constitutes a return to the 1990s during which astronauts flew in circles in low Earth orbit and commercial space was ignored.

The policy begins promisingly enough:

"Over the decades, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has embodied the adventurous spirit that lifted this nation to greatness and inspired people around the world. Barack Obama believes that the United States needs a strong space program to help maintain its superiority not only in space, but also here on earth in the realms of education, technology, and national security."

Unfortunately this paragraph is simply PR blather to mask what is to follow.

There is a list of things Obama wants to do in space. He is in favor of building the Orion/Ares space craft "to ensure that the United States' reliance on foreign space capabilities is limited to the minimum possible time period." There is no mention of building the heavy lift Ares V or using the Orion to send explorers back to the Moon and on to Mars. Obama is also in favor of completing the International Space Station.

Obama is in favor of "a bold array of robotic missions that will expand our knowledge of the solar system and lay the foundations for further manned exploration." The reader will note the verbiage concerning "further manned exploration." "Lay the foundation for." Not "do" or "accomplish" or even "pursue." For a man who aspires to be the African American John F. Kennedy, support for manned space exploration seems tepid at best, nonexistent at worse.

There are some proposals to task NASA to study climate change and increase support for science research. Obama seems to be in favor of surveillance satellites but against weapons in space. In the latter area Obama appears to favor the sort of arms control agreements that proved somewhat fruitless in the 1970s. There is no evidence to suggest that China might give up the ability to take out American satellites upon which the American military depends so heavily.

The largest section consists of support for education, particularly science and math education. Obama seems to be in favor of spending more money for teachers and programs.

While Obama's space policy is an improvement over his previous proposal to delay the Orion/Ares development for five years to pay for a comprehensive education initiative, it still constitutes a serious disappointment for space advocates.

First, reading between the lines, it appears that Obama will put President Bush's Vision for Space Exploration on the back burner for the foreseeable future, perhaps forever. Programs such as VSE survive on a certain momentum and are very hard to stop and start according to political whim. Even if the exploration program is not "officially" cancelled and only delayed, getting it back into something resembling full gear will be politically difficult at best.

More ominously is the complete lack of any mention of commercial space. There is nothing in Obama's plan about the Commercial Orbital Transportation Systems program, which proposes to develop commercial vehicles to resupply the International Space Station. There is nothing about the Centennial Challenges competitions which offer cash prizes for certain technological accomplishments that could further the exploration of space. It is as if, for Barack Obama, commercial space does not exist.

The only conclusion one could come to is that, under a President Obama, it is back to the 1990s for the nation's civil space program. American astronauts will be stuck in low Earth orbit for the foreseeable future. Commercial space will once again be ignored or, even, opposed as a possible threat to NASA's space efforts.

Fortunately this policy, with its lack of vision and its disappointing scaling back of ambition, gives a great opening for Republican candidates-if they choose to take it. Most GOP Presidential candidates have given general support for human space exploration and even commercial space. According to most polling these things remain popular with the electorate. So there is now the potential for space to actually become a political issue for the first time in decades,

Published by Mark Whittington

Mark R. Whittington is a writer residing in Houston, Texas. He is the author of The Last Moonwalker, Children of Apollo, Dark Sanction, and Nocturne. He has written numerous articles, some for the Washington...  View profile

6 Comments

Post a Comment
  • sulieman al-fuhaid2/16/2008

    i am disappointed to hear the barak obamas space exploration policy is limited to sending probes like spirit, opportunity, cassini and others. however what people do not seem to realize is that a human explorer can do in a day what a rover like spirit or opportunity can do in 4 or 5 years; basically its entire life. if u look at it that way then a manned misson to mars is relativly cheaper than a rover in regard to the scientific value it returns.

  • Rich Thomas1/17/2008

    Simply put, what most space-boosters don't want to admit is that exploring even the inner solar system is prohibitvely expensive until we develop a launch technology that has a better pound/dollar ratio than rocketry. We've hit the wall with rocketry, and putting a vessel out there for a 3 year roundtrip costs more than it is worth using it. Even the moon is pretty pointless otherwise. What we ought to be doing is spending the money you folks want to spend on building a moonbase on researching new launch technologies.

  • John M1/12/2008

    Obama understands that the way to aggressively explore and set up bases on the outer planets is to continue what we are doing, not indulge in a nostalgic return to capsules, lunar landers, and Saturn rocket wannabes. If anything harkens to the past, it is not Obama's program, but Bush's silly vision of exploring the moon sometime in 2020 and Mars by who knows when. It turns out that we have sent explorers the moons of Saturn, our explorers are on Mars now, grinding rocks, rolling around interesting geologic formations, our explorers have captured and returned solar space dust to earth, have blown chunks out of comets to discover their composition and so on and so forth. All of this was performed not by manned missions, but by telepresense robots. Manned missions cost 10x what unmanned missions do, and so 10x less science and exploration is going to get done if we focus on antiquarian modes of exploration. And safety requires that the development schedule be stretched- so we will

  • John M1/11/2008

    Worse, safety requires ultra conservative engineering approaches that are timid about pushing the technolgical envelope. This means dramatically less technology spinoffs for business.

    Still worse, Bush's plan was to require Nasa to do this all on existing budget, so cost effective robotic projects delivering real science are being scaled back or eliminated. This means dramatically less science will be coming out of Nasa.

    Sorry, but if you work in aerospace, if you want to America not someone else building the moon and outer planet bases first, then you better take a closer look at Obama's more aggressive plan of space exploration.

    (please ignore/delete my prior two attempts at posting)

  • Mark Whittington1/11/2008

    Kevin - Point taken. Someone suggested it'll be worse because the shuttle, for all of its faualts, had capabilities that an orbital only Orion couldn't hope to have.

  • Kevin Murphy1/11/2008

    This is closer to a return to the 70's: Skylab, Voyager and building the shuttle. Voyager worked out, the others not so much. Massive scaleback. We need to go to the moon to stay.

Displaying Comments

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.