Counterintuitive? Obama and America's future in space

Conventional wisdom asserts that Barack Obama would be the worst Presidential choice for space activists. Many people point to Obama lacking a record of supporting space exploration and to a number of recent skeptical comments about NASA and space funding. For those satisfied with the status quo - such as the current progress and projected pace of the ESAS architecture adopted by NASA - perhaps this is true.

On the other hand, many space activists desire to shatter paradigms such as "NASA equals American spaceflight and American spaceflight equals NASA" and many of us believe that a measure of creative destruction may be needed before we can build a robust and sustainable American presence in space. To achieve these objectives, a skeptical President who insists on asking tough questions about "Why" we have a space program and how can we make it coherent may be exactly what is needed, even if that President demonstrated little prior interest in space policy.

Recently, Barack Obama offered this comment on NASA p0licy during a Cleveland TV interview:

The only thing I want to say is that I want to do a thorough review because some of these programs may not be moving in the right direction and I want to make sure that NASA spending is a little more coherent than it has been over the last several years.

He also said this to the Houston Chronicle (published on February 15, 2008):

Obama agreed that NASA, which employs thousands of Houston-area voters who work at or with the Johnson Space Center, should be a tool for inspiring the nation.

But, he said, the next president needs to have "a practical sense of what investments deliver the most scientific and technological spinoffs — and not just assume that human space exploration, actually sending bodies into space, is always the best investment."

Humans have continuously inhabited the International Space Station since November 2, 2000 but have we gotten sufficient value from that effort? Should we continue to spend billions of dollars in taxpayer money if we are not to venture beyond low Earth orbit?

Is ESAS the right architecture (in terms of politics and budgets as well as engineering) to support efforts to return to the Moon and thereafter go to Mars? Does ESAS sufficiently implement ideas to generate economic return from human activities on the Moon? Should a "science only" and "Mars forward" focus be the leading driver of American human spaceflight?

John McCain and Hillary Clinton appear unwilling to even ask such questions and they appear committed to staying the course chosen by George W. Bush and his chosen NASA Administrator, Michael Griffin. Therefore, even if Barack Obama has not offered compelling answers (yet) to these questions, a willingness to ask challenging questions and demand compelling answers from others will offer space enthusiasts an opportunity for genuine change.

= = =

A side note on ESAS. I believe the ESAS architecture will indeed succeed and allow America to return to the Moon, but ONLY IF the program is adequately funded. Fail to adequately fund ESAS and we will spend billions of dollars and receive very little or nothing in return. I also believe that the current STS workforce and infrastructure is a political reality we must acknowledge and accommodate.

That said, to build and deploy Ares 1 but then NOT return to the Moon very soon thereafter would be a horrific waste of tax dollars. Using Ares 1 primarily for access to LEO and ISS would be akin to buying a Cadillac Escalade SUV to commute 4 miles between Brooklyn and Manhattan, or using a $30,000 truck to deliver $50 worth of hay, as is depicted in this Hillary Clinton campaign spot.

If we "stick with the Stick" but thereafter fail to adequately fund NASA to achieve a prompt lunar return, then America will be very much like that fake Texan who uses a $30,000 truck to haul $50 worth of hay.

Business as usual? Yup. Coherent policy? Nope.