President Bush looks set to announce a US return to the moon. But with poor public support and escalating costs in Iraq it is a long-term prospect
Two unrelated events last week, several thousand kilometres apart, have underlined the dilemma the US government faces as it tries to balance the need to ensure the safety of its forces in Iraq, and its obligation to rebuild that country, with its desire to retake the domestic initiative with programmes that will make Americans look beyond near-term problems.
The shooting down of a US Army Boeing CH-47 Chinook helicopter in Iraq on 2 November, killing 15 and wounding 20, strongly suggests that the cost of keeping forces there will be higher than anyone anticipated even when Congress approved $87 billion in supplemental funding to cover operations and reconstruction in Iraq. Meanwhile, on 6 November, Congress held hearings on whether the USA should return to the moon, an endeavour that is likely to cost further billions.
Only one system could have defeated the surface-to-air missile fired at the Chinook - a directed infrared countermeasures (DIRCM) jammer. Equipping every helicopter and transport aircraft operating in Iraq with DIRCM is possible, even likely, but it will cost millions of dollars the US Department of Defense had not planned to spend, at least not immediately.
As the USA comes to terms with the realities of sustaining operations in a country where hostilities continue, and of maintaining a military presence sufficient to allow reconstruction efforts to proceed safely, it must also come to terms with the likely cost. Already, other US domestic and military programmes are being deprived of funds to shore up the Iraqi occupation. And that is only the economic cost. Such a substantial demand on government attention is certain to have an impact on US leadership in other areas, from the social to the technological.
Past wars have actually stimulated the USA industrially and technologically. The classic example is the Apollo programme, spurred on by the Cold War and accomplished even as the Vietnam War escalated. But times have changed. In the wake of the Columbia accident, the White House and Congress spoke out strongly in favour of continuing US human spaceflight, and of providing NASA with a new vision. In the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, debate over a new national space policy has faded into the background.
Unconfirmed reports that President Bush will announce a plan to return to the moon at the 17 December celebration of the centennial of flight, and last week's Congressional hearing into lunar exploration, are the first real signs that a new human spaceflight strategy is indeed taking shape. But the public reaction has not been encouraging. Instead of being inspired by the vision of man returning to the moon, many are asking "why?" and "why now?".
In the absence of the Cold War imperative to deny the enemy the ultimate high ground of space, Americans have more down-to-earth concerns about a sluggish economy at home and mounting post-war casualties half a world away. While Columbia's fiery disintegration over Texas shocked the nation, it has not produced a groundswell of support for a bold new vision for US human spaceflight. Some, in fact, would view an Apollo-like presidential directive to return to the moon as a cynical attempt to divert attention from other issues.
Human spaceflight does have proponents where it counts, in Congress, where support for reversing the steady years-long decline in NASA's budget is gaining momentum. But Congress is also charged with making decisions on where US taxpayer dollars are spent, and Iraq, homeland security and the war on terrorism are all making escalating demands on the government purse. And every suicide bomb and shootdown in Iraq increases the pressure.
If President Bush does indeed stand on the sands of Kittyhawk and announce a return to the moon, it will be a far cry from the crash programme that put a man on the lunar surface in just eight years. Any return to the moon would have to be accomplished without a massive increase in NASA's budget.
But why return to the moon at all, when there are so many terrestrial problems to be solved? Because it is possible is one answer. A Mars mission would be more inspiring, but far more costly and risky. Because others may get there first is another. China and India are among countries with lunar ambitions. Because the moon has resources the world wants is yet another reason. Last week, Congress heard of plans for generating solar power to beam back to Earth, and mining helium-3 for fusion powerplants. And if there is another reason to return to the moon it is because the USA needs to look beyond its immediate horizons. Whether it is willing and able to is another question.
Source: Flight International
