ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Guest Blog

Guest Blog


Commentary invited by editors of Scientific American
Guest Blog HomeAboutContact

As Atlantis Glides to Its Final Landing, What Comes Next?

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



space shuttle Atlantis in Earth orbit With all of the discussion about future U.S. efforts in human spaceflight precipitated by final flight of the space shuttle, too little attention has been given to how international cooperation might factor into that future. I guess that is appropriate, given the iconic nature of the shuttle as an exemplar of U.S. capability. But it is worth noting that the STS-135 mission was international in character. It was enabled by a Canada-built remote manipulator and an Italian-built logistics module; the mission provisioned a 15-nation International Space Station. Also, for the time being, the U.S. will have to depend for a few years on cooperation with another country, in this case Russia, for astronaut access to the ISS. International cooperation is an integral part of today’s spaceflight enterprise; it should come even more essential to future human exploration.

By following the reasoning of the 2009 Augustine Committee, the Obama administration has imposed unneeded constraints on future space planning. The committee concluded that future NASA budgets could only support the development of a new heavy lift launcher and a new spacecraft for deep space expeditions, not also a vehicle to land on another planetary surface, especially the moon. This led the committee to propose a "flexible path" for exploration that bypassed the moon on its way to other distant destinations. The Obama administration embraced this perspective, and President Obama on April 15, 2010, announced that reaching a near-earth asteroid by 2025 should be the initial goal of the next round of human exploration, and that a return to the moon would not be a high priority U.S. objective.

To put it politely, visiting an asteroid as the initial destination for exploration has not excited the American public, indeed, there is a pervasive sense despite the president’s announcement that NASA is planning to build "a rocket to nowhere." Congress in its 2010 NASA authorization bill gave priority to operations in the Earth-moon "cislunar" space, including the lunar surface, but did not mandate development of a landing vehicle to reach that surface. The uncertainty over future destinations is one of the reasons NASA’s future is so unclear as the shuttle program draws to an end.

It does not have to be this way. In another part of its report, the Augustine Committee said, "If the United States is willing to lead a global program of exploration, sharing both the burden and the benefits of space exploration in a meaningful way, significant accomplishments could follow. Actively engaging international partners in a manner adapted to today’s multi-polar world could strengthen geopolitical relationships, leverage global financial and technical resources, and enhance the exploration enterprise." This counsel has so far been ignored. There has been no pressure on NASA from the White House to actively incorporate potential international contributions in its planning, and NASA on its own has not yet done so. Traditional U.S. partners in Europe, Canada, and Japan—and perhaps new partners in emerging space powers—are standing by with increasing impatience, with the hope that they could contribute to a U.S.-led post-shuttle, post-ISS exploration effort. They seem willing to accept U.S. space leadership, if only it were offered.

NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden says in many of his speeches that the U.S. cannot go it alone in the future. He is certainly correct in this regard. But neither does he have top-level political support from the Obama administration to engage national partners in serious discussions nor has the NASA staff developed a strategy for how international contributions could be incorporated into a global exploration effort. Such an effort, by pooling the resources of participating countries, could include a return to the moon (the option most potential partners prefer) as an early possibility.

However desirable it might be, I have little hope that President Obama will use the occasion of the final landing in the space shuttle program to invite his counterparts around the world to consider how their countries might participate in future exploration efforts. But I hope that he would issue such an invitation in the near future. More than a quarter century ago, President Ronald Reagan invited U.S. "friends and allies" to participate in the U.S. space station program; the International Space Station is a direct result of that invitation. A similar call from Barack Obama to his colleagues in the G-20 or a similar grouping might open up multiple new prospects in space, making the end of the shuttle program a real point of transition to an exciting future.

Image: This is one of a series of images showing various parts of space shuttle Atlantis in Earth orbit as photographed by one three crew members — half the station crew — who were equipped with still cameras on the International Space Station as the shuttle "posed" for photos and visual surveys and performed a back-flip for the rendezvous pitch maneuver. Courtesy of NASA


About the Author: Dr. Logsdon is Professor Emeritus of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs. Prior to his leaving active faculty status in June 2008, he was on the faculty of the George Washington University for 38 years; before that he taught at the Catholic University of America for four years. He was the founder in 1987 and long-time Director of GW’s Space Policy Institute. From 1983-2001, he was also Director of the School’s Center for International Science and Technology Policy. He is also a faculty member of the International Space University. During the 2007-2008 academic year, he was a Distinguished Visiting Professor at MIT’s Science, Technology and Society Program on a part-time basis. During 2008-2009, he held the Charles A. Lindbergh Chair in Aerospace History at the Smithsonian Institution National Air and Space Museum. He holds a B.S. in Physics from Xavier University (1960) and a Ph.D. in Political Science from New York University (1970).

Dr. Logsdon’s research interests focus on the policy and historical aspects of U.S. and international space activities. His book John F. Kennedy and the Race to the Moon was published in December 2010.Dr. Logsdon is also the author of The Decision to Go to the Moon: Project Apollo and the National Interest (1970) and is general editor of the eight-volume series Exploring the Unknown: Selected Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program. He has written numerous articles and reports on space policy and history, and authored the basic article on “space exploration” for the most recent edition of Encyclopedia Britannica. Dr. Logsdon has lectured and spoken to a wide variety of audiences at professional meetings, colleges and universities, international conferences, and other settings, and has testified before Congress on several occasions. He has served as a consultant to many public and private organizations. He is frequently consulted by the electronic and print media for his views on space issues.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Take a look at the complete line-up of bloggers at our brand new blog network.






Comments 10 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. geojellyroll 12:18 pm 07/20/2011

    We could have made incredible discoveries with unmanned space exploration with the 1.5 billion wasted on each Shuttle mission.

    Please…NO MORE MANNED SPACECRAFT…it gobbles up funds for actual scientific discoveries. The last science needs is more photo ops of smiling folks tumbling inside a spacecraft.

    Link to this
  2. 2. jgrosay 2:58 pm 07/20/2011

    Some think the long tube a rocket is would make a perfect pipe for some pot, as this will lead you to stars too. Do you remind the origin of the name "Jefferson Starship" ?. It’s hard to imagine a worst connection for a scientific achievement. Bigger launchers would allow sending heavier things to space, but, to do what ?. It’s possible that our ability to puts things out of this planet is larger than our knowledge on how to obtain advantages, science and engineering progress from it. May be this is a precocious attempt, but at last, it produced some jobs, and marvelous things such as digital cameras.

    Link to this
  3. 3. Andira 3:59 pm 07/20/2011

    A few general comments. Obama is in the hands of the American left and right, and America has lost what we call "the Geist", i .e. that spirit that made us Europeans admire America and Americans for so long. When John F Kennedy was shot, and after Lyndon J. and Nixon, that spirit has so far seemed impossible to repair. The space program is and must be an offensive one, and the idea of a base on the Moon is paramount. I believe that the idea to bypass the Moon and go straight for Mars is just a way to delay decision-making and in fact to make the whole program impossible, for if we cannot establish a base on the Moon, then we can’t go to Mars either. I miss the optimism that WWII left behind in the fifties, the exuberance, the John Wayne & Robert Heinleinesque daredevil sense that if you are an American, anything is possible. Hollywood has during the last decade produced an increasing number of movies about Americans that fail or find life meaningless and they make me sick, because depression often masks itself as "truth". The only positive classic American movie I can recall just now was done by Roland Emmerich, yes, Independence Day, and he is a German! So stop wasting your resources of trying to make tribal people democratic (Afghanistan etc), just make sure they are isolated and cannot make nukes, and instead assume your old role of the Western Worlds Technological Leadership. After all, your universities collect, as far as I know, more Nobel Prizes than any others. In that state of affairs, to be known all over the world as the main enemies of Darwin’s theory of evolution, is pathetic. Get a grip of yourselves. All of us in Europe who used to like a and love America, we miss it. In addition I agree that any major space program has to be international. But with a major American component! So, we love you, but do you love yourselves?

    Link to this
  4. 4. ennui 4:20 pm 07/20/2011

    If Nasa had had people with brains, they would have applied the propulsion system of the Flying Saucer, that was discovered, patented and offered to Nasa. The Shuttle would have been on the Moon in a couple of hours.
    Instead they allowed Rocket Propulsion Engineers, who did not know electronics to experiment with it and cause a disaster.
    Anyone, would would put money into Nasa’s Heavy Lifter is in for a bad surprise.
    Look at One Terminal Capacitor first before laughing.

    Link to this
  5. 5. ltrotti 5:17 pm 07/20/2011

    It’s time for other nations to step up and take some of the weight of the space station and future explorations. I don’t know that looking at asteroids and comets is the answer for future missions.

    Link to this
  6. 6. Wayne Williamson 6:50 pm 07/20/2011

    The article states…"to put it politely, visiting a neo doesn’t excite the public"…well guess what, going back to the moon doesn’t either…I think that knowing the composition of all the neos is important…whether or not this can be accomplished by robots or manned missions I don’t know….

    Link to this
  7. 7. jack.123 8:01 pm 07/20/2011

    The next generation of spaceship if it is going to be successful will need to be nuclear.A 1 g acceleration type of this craft would put trips to Mars and asteroids,but a few weeks away instead of months and years,and trips to the Moon just in hours.Of course there would be great protest against putting the fuel for this in orbit.But at some point the shortening of resources on Earth will demand that it be done,and it’s that or World war.The question is which would cause more damage,a launch failure or two or the war.We are at a point of no return and the sooner we build these ships the better.The longer we wait puts us one day closer to this war.And if the war happens we all lose and the chance to do this will be lost quite likely forever.

    Link to this
  8. 8. LoftyAmbitions 10:21 pm 07/21/2011

    We recently saw the Dragon capsule on display in Florida and were pretty impressed. We have photos of that (and of course, of the shuttle) at LOFTY AMBITIONS BLOG.

    Link to this
  9. 9. nfiertel 10:58 pm 07/21/2011

    Going to an asteroid is hugely important and significant…more so than landing on the moon! The moon is not a danger to life on earth but one day in the future NOT knowing the structures of assorted kinds of asteroids will be our end or at least a significant threat. Edward Teller of thermnuclear lunacy history thought lobbing a hydrogen device at one would prevent catastrophe. He was so off the mark in this regard as that would have produced hundreds of craters and impacts on the earth and a firestorm that would have ended life on this blue planet. He was ignorant of the questionable structure of many asteroids which might vary from solid bodies to accretions of dust and pebbles moving however at 50 km/sec. We need to study them up close and as soon as we are technically able. This approach will lead us eventually to landing on Mars and is satellites but we earth creatures need a safe and certain methodology of getting there protected from solar storms and technical failures. International cooperation is the only way to do this. This is not a space race but space exploration folks. Is anyone listening?

    Link to this
  10. 10. Quinn the Eskimo 12:48 am 07/22/2011

    "What Comes Next?"

    RENT. $60 million per body.

    This is our vaunted ‘reset’ with Russia. Soyuz.

    NEXT.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Holiday Sale

Black Friday/Cyber Monday Blow-Out Sale

Enter code:
HOLIDAY 2014
at checkout

Get 20% off now! >

X

Email this Article

X