Inner space, then outer space? Doubts on Bush's initiative

I'm a big supporter of the space program, and my initial reaction to Bush's initiative to put a settlement on the moon and Mars is enthusiasm. But there are many important questions. First, there are the legitimate political concerns about what kind of priorities the Bush administration has in proposing a hugely expensive program while they are pushing the US into massive debt with military expansion and tax cuts for the rich. Those fiscal and priority concerns drive the results of a recent poll which finds a majority of Americans opposing the Bush space program. Young people, whites, Republicans and men are most supportive, but even majorities of those groups opposed the program when the multi-billion price tag was mentioned.

But probably the most important fan is Bush's big corporate allies in the aerospace industries:

US aerospace groups were drooling over President George W. Bush's program to resume manned flights to the moon and build a base there as a "stepping stone" for manned missions to Mars and beyond. "As a company, we are very excited about the announcement," Boeing Space Division spokesman Ed Memi said of Bush's speech at National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) headquarters in Washington.

"Obviously, we are excited to hear the White House issuing this policy, which is likely to strengthen the space market," said Kimberly Campbell, marketing director at Spacehab, which furnishes resupply modules for the orbiting International Space Station (ISS).

"This is good news for the entire industry" said Evan McCollum, communications director for Lockheed Martin Space Systems. link

There are also some serious ecological questions being raised about the potential use of nuclear fueled rockets in the plan, especially the trip to Mars. Physicist, left-winger and transhumanist-inclined futurist Michio Kaku for instance weighs in on behalf of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space.

According to Dr. Kaku, “Perhaps one of the greatest risks facing this ambitious program is the use of dangerous, unproven technologies which could backfire, eroding public confidence in the space program. One such dangerous technology is the nuclear rocket, which is now seriously being reconsidered after being rightly rejected for the past several decades. The nuclear booster rocket has gone through many stages of development in the past, and all of them have been cancelled with good cause.”

The nukes-in-space movement (or should I say, the front organization for whatever corporate interests would benefit from this technology) begs to differ. If we do develop a safe, clean, effective propulsion method then its a whole new ball game. Asteroid mining might then be cost-effective for instance.

The Space for Peace folks also see the effort to get a base on the Moon and Mars as a continuation of the US refusal to sign on to the UN treaties on the Moon and space, which forbid national or private property claims in the solar system. Also, there is a clear military strategic motivation, to counter Chinese plans to colonize the Moon and Mars. The Air Force Space Command's Strategic Plan, which has been online for years, is very explicit about the U.S. mission in space:

(The US Space Command's Strategic Plan says) Effective use of space-based resources provides a continual and global presence over key areas of the world ... military forces have always viewed the 'high ground' position as one of dominance. With rare exception, whoever owned the high ground owned the fight. Space is the ultimate high ground of US military operations. Today, control of this high ground means superiority ... and significant force enhancement. Tomorrow, ownership may mean instant engagement anywhere in the world.

Simon Smith, the editor of Betterhumans, weighs in this week with an anti-manned-spaced/pro-robots editorial. He argues that the spin-off benefits of the investment are too indirect compared to the enormous benefits to be gained from investing in anti-aging and intelligence enhancement research.

advocates of manned space exploration fail to point out just how much we'd need to alter the human body to make it suitable for exploring the cosmos. Surviving long-term exposure to space radiation alone would probably necessitate biological changes that would most efficiently be addressed through genetic engineering. Sending humans without modifications on manned missions would be completely impractical if genetic interventions existed. As an extreme and possibly unfeasible example, genetically engineering astronauts to photosynthesize would reduce the need for them to store large amounts of food...

Robots won't be the solution forever. Eventually, manned space exploration will make sense. But for now, we should let the robots explore outer space while we explore inner space and directly advance humanity. Instead of engineering for manned missions, let's work on engineering humans. Then, when we're smarter, stronger and longer-lived, and mature enough to handle the challenges and responsibilities of traveling the Universe, we can boldly go.

At any rate, Bush's proposal is only modestly funded so far, and phased in over decades, so he really isn't proposing anything but ideas. I like the ideas, but when we do expropriate back the stolen billions from the corporate robber barons I suggest we invest them in the human beings first and wait for advances in propulsion, nanotech, genetic engineering and so forth that would make colonizing the Moon and Mars practical. We may not have to wait long.

Simon's plugged into the mood of the people, since surveys this week also found that not only did majorities want to prioritize human needs over space right now, but majorities thought we should send cheaper robots to do our space exploration until we have served human needs on Earth a little better.

Postscript: An upside to the plan would, apparently, be closer cooperation with the Russian space program:

U.S. President George W. Bush's new plan to send men to the moon, Mars and beyond excited Russian space officials and designers, who voiced quick hopes Thursday for winning a lucrative share in the U.S. program and boosting the sagging status of Russia's space program. link