In 1969, the United States sent men to the moon, making its mark on the history of space exploration and continuing to do so in the decades following with further research, discoveries and accomplishments. But today, the likelihood of the U.S. sending another man to the moon is on hold.
On Feb. 1, President Barack Obama unveiled his plan for the restructuring of NASA’s budget and objectives, allotting $18 billion to fuel spacecrafts in orbit over the next five years and ruling out a potential manned Moon mission in the near future.
His proposal would maintain spacecraft in orbit and fund research on how to turn churn soil from the Moon and possibly Mars into rocket fuel, but would effectively cancel NASA’s Constellation human spaceflight program, eliminating in particular the possibility of sending astronauts back to the moon by 2020.
Congress has spent over $9 billion on the Constellation program over the past four years. It will cost an additional $2.5 billion to end Constellation due to contracts with companies such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Alliant Techsystems, according to a Feb. 1 New York Times article.
Associate professor Nathan Schwadron of Boston University’s Astronomy Department said he suspects Obama’s decision to cancel plans to put a human on the moon could result in the need for private funding or further international collaborations.
“It depends on whether industry can step in and fill the void left by canceling NASA’s space program,” Schwadron said. “This is risky business, given the lobbying power of advocates for the space program. It is not clear to me that Obama’s administration has really gotten the support to make this happen. This box may be hard to close once it is opened.
Another critical part of Obama’s controversial plan is that instead of continuing the development of rockets and spacecraft through the Constellation program, money would go towards financing commercial companies to fill the void as a space taxi service.
“It would be great if it works,” Schwadron said of the plan to commercialize. “The media sure makes it sound good, but I have my doubts.”
2006 BU alumnus Foy Savaz agreed with Schwadron.
“I think it makes sense, but is definitely a defeatist position,” Savaz said. “The thing that is really sad is that there isn’t really a pointed direction that the president is trying to take NASA in.”
College of Arts and Sciences senior Anunita Garg, who said she heard the story on National Public Radio, supported the idea of potential privatization.
“I think commercializing is a good idea because it will create business,” she said.
Many members of Congress, particularly those representing Alabama, Florida and Texas, states home to the NASA centers most involved with the Constellation project, also expressed concern about Obama’s plan for the future of NASA.
Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Tex. expressed his distress in a statement during an aerospace subcommittee hearing on NASA programs.
“I cannot understand how this administration can rationalize its decision to scrap Constellation and simply start anew, especially given the strong support it has received in Congress,” he said. “It is naïve to assume that a do-over will somehow deliver a safer, cheaper system faster than the current path we’re on.”
Some BU students didn’t feel as strongly about the president’s plan.
School of Management freshman Nick Kontos said he thinks the focus on domestic funding needs in the proposed budget was rational.
“Things like education are more important than NASA,” he said.
CAS senior Himali Gandhi agreed there were other priorities.
“I think it’s OK because we can use that money other ways,” Gandhi said.
Hall also reacted to the country’s investment in space.
“American taxpayers have invested $9 billion, and the agency and its contractors have spent five years, working to ensure that Constellation will be flexible, affordable and safe,” he said.
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who chairs the aerospace subcommittee, said she is concerned Obama’s plan may hurt the future of science.
“I fear that we may soon abandon our vision,” Giffords said.
Professor Schwadron concurred with Giffords.
“In the past, a move against manned spaceflight leads to a move inside NASA to raid science programs. What may look like a good thing now could actually threaten science in the long run,” Schwadron said. “There is going to be a firestorm at NASA next week. I am bracing for impact.”
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
