What to do in space--go to moon, mars , stay home--go to museum , see shuttle think about good old days--save money for birth control.

The Space Debate: Abolish NASA, Double Its Budget or Change Its Direction
By Mark Whittington | Sat, Mar 3, 2012

Arguments over the future of space exploration in recent years have been about what the role of government is. Libertarians support little or no government funding for space exploration. Others call for increased funding or a change of direction.

With a presidential election campaign in full swing, and one candidate advocating a moon base, the issue has gained some relevance. The debate is taking place against a backdrop of increasing discontent over the space policy enacted by President Barack Obama, who canceled the Constellation space exploration program and enacted a commercial crew program designed to use government subsidies to fund the building of private company space craft.


The Libertarian View: Abolish NASA and Privatize Space Exploration

Yaron Block, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, takes the view the government has no role in opening the high frontier of space, aside from a few limited military applications. He argues that in any case the U.S. has no money because of the current fiscal crisis for space adventures. He proposes abolishing NASA and in some unspecified way privatizing space exploration.


Neil deGrasse Tyson: Double NASA's Budget

Neil deGrasse Tyson has been doing a media storm, with the publication of his new book, "Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate Frontier," in which he argues for roughly doubling the NASA budget to create a greatly expanded human space exploration program. In interviews on NPR and with Gideon Rose of Foreign Affairs magazine, Tyson argues a greatly expanded public space exploration program would serve as a catalyst for technological innovation, economic growth, job creation, and the education of scientists and engineers.


Change NASA's Direction

While Block and Tyson might argue over funding, two frequent pundits on space policy argue that what is really needed is a change of direction for NASA and the focus of a clearly definable goal. Paul Spudis, a planetary scientist for the Lunar and Planetary Institute, suggests doubling NASA's budget will not solve what ails the civil space program unless there is a clearly defined goal. An advocate for a return to the moon, Spudis suggests the creation of an Earth-moon transportation infrastructure leading to the human return to the moon.

Rick Tumlinson, a space advocate and a supporter of commercial space efforts, writes in the Huffington Post that what is needed is a unified goal that would combine the strength and experience of NASA with the innovation of the private sector toward opening up the high frontier of space. Tumlinson sharply criticizes Obama's space policy for lacking this kind of rationale and setting the American space effort adrift, with various interest groups fighting over crumbs. He suggests that the vision is not just exploration, but the settlement of space. Tumlinson would avoid one shot, flags and footsteps missions in favor of regarding space as a frontier to be developed and peopled, much like the early American frontier.


The Bottom Line

It is uncertain how this debate will shake out. Dreams of a space future have repeatedly run aground on the shoals of politics and fiscal reality. But, as is seen in the continued debate, those dreams persist.

Mark R. Whittington is the author of Children of Apollo and The Last Moonwalker. He has written on space subjects for a variety of periodicals, including The Houston Chronicle, The Washington Post, USA Today, the L.A. Times, and The Weekly Standard.