A response to Mr. Augustine’s questions

The Augustine Commission met in Houston on Tuesday to review the human space flight program, particularly Dr. Sally Ride’s subcommittee’s work, and get the public’s reaction.  Here’s mine to two questions Mr. Augustine himself posed.

He asked:

1. Would the U.S. taxpayer have been so excited about paying for Neil and Buzz if they had planted a UN flag on the moon?

2. If one accepts that much of the scientific community believes there’s no scientific value in the international space station, and setting aside international relations, I understand that its value is as a testbed for living in space and eventually going to Mars. But we’ve already said that the moon is our testbed for going to Mars. So why do we need the station as a testbed?

In regards to the first, I would say “Probably not.”  However, we must also consider that 1969 and 2009 are very different eras.  In 1969, we were competing with the Soviet Union for the prestige and power of being the first to the Moon.  It was framed as a battle between the Free Western World and Communism. In 2009, the Russians are essential partners on the Station and able competitors in the commercial launch market.  We have functional partnerships with ESA, CSA, JAXA, ASI, and other organizations that simply did not exist back then.

The simple fact of the matter is that we cannot afford to go it alone any more. America can still be a leader in space while engaging willing partners who contribute their fair share to accomplishing shared goals.  I don’t think we have to give up our unique identity in the process.

In regards to the second, I do not accept the premise that there is no scientific value or that there should be some sort of popularity contest over it.  Admittedly, I am biased because my job is to support research planning for science missions on the International Space Station.  My disagreement with Steve Schafersman on Eric Berger’s blog I think illustrates that.

More to the point, though, I think Mr. Augustine creates a false dichotomy with his question.  While the Moon can be used as an analogue for Mars surface exploration, there is still the issue of the transit to Mars itself.  We will need new propulsion systems to get there.  We will need radiation mitigation strategies and technologies.  We will need the data on the human response to long-term microgravity that only the Station provides.  It is not a question of either/or, in my mind.  It is a matter of taking advantage of the benefits platforms in both environments would provide.

It is on the International Space Station that Franklin Chang-Diaz plans to test his VASIMR plasma rocket.  It is for the International Space Station that testbed programs for optical communication, disruption-tolerant networking, and other exploration-enabling technologies are in development.  The ISS provides a unique platform for research, development, and testing of space hardware that will require human input and maintenance.

There is also the simple fact that we have the Space Station here and now.  We do not yet have any sort of lunar infrastucture, nor can we rely on such lunar infrastructure to be the critical path for exploration-enabling technology R&D. Dr. Christopher Chyba spoke of the “fundamental absurdity” of abandoning a facility we spent billions to develop and that is now coming into its own.  I have to agree.

Cross-posted at Cosmo.Sphere