The document discusses the cancellation of NASA's Constellation program by President Obama and the future of American human spaceflight. It outlines the history and goals of the Constellation program, the reasons for its cancellation due to budget cuts, and arguments from supporters of its continuation regarding national defense, jobs, and scientific discovery. Alternatives like privatizing spaceflight are mentioned but seen as insufficient to replace NASA's role. The summary concludes the cancellation leaves NASA without direction and could end America's leadership in space.

1. John T. Knowles<br />Position Paper<br />Jo Ann Hallawell<br />ENG112-0AJ<br />May 2, 2010<br />Cancellation of the Constellation Program and Future of NASA<br />In January 2004, President George W. Bush announced an ambitious new direction for the future of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the American crewed space program. His proposal, which would eventually become the Constellation Program, called for a plan of action to ensure the continued exploration of space by the United States and return astronauts to the Moon and eventually Mars by 2020 (Office of the Press Secretary, 2004). President Bush’s plan would likely ensure the continued dominance of the United States as a world power and provide ample opportunities for future scientific discoveries that would benefit all mankind.<br />By the time President Barack Obama took office in 2009, the economy of the United States was in crisis. President Obama would have to make many difficult fiscal decisions to begin repairing the troubled American economy. One such decision was the cancellation of the Constellation Program.<br />In his budget for 2011, President Obama called for a reduction of $3.6 billion in federal spending by ending work on the Constellation Program and bringing the program to a permanent close (Office of Management and Budget, 2010, p.26). Elimination of the Constellation Program would allow the Obama administration to redirect federal funds toward programs such as jobs creation, education programs, tax cuts for working families, and many other economic stimulus efforts (Recovery.gov, 2009). President Obama’s administration reputedly considered these programs more germane to solving the immediate crisis facing the nation than the exploration of space.<br />Cancellation of the Constellation Program and the retirement of the aging space shuttle fleet in 2010 would leave NASA with no clear direction for its future and America without a crewed space program for the first time in over 50 years. Proponents of an American crewed space program appear to be united in believing American exploration of space will result in continued dominance of the United States in world affairs, retention of top scientific minds in the United States, and increased scientific knowledge as a result of discoveries made in space.<br />Opponents of an American crewed space program appear to be divided into two points of view. Many people, President Obama included, believe crewed space flights should be privatized until NASA develops more advanced space exploration vehicles. A smaller group, whose views are outside the scope of this paper, believe international cooperation in the form of a multinational space agency would be the most effective way to explore space.<br />According to the President’s Science Advisory Committee (1958), there exists in many people “the compelling urge…to explore and discover, the thrust of curiosity that leads men to try to go where no one has gone before” (p.1). Since there is no longer land to discover on Earth, explorers must look to other worlds to satisfy the urge for discovery. If NASA is required to abandon its crewed space program, the dream many people have of seeing an American flag planted on another world may be lost forever. This would not only be a psychological blow to the citizens of the United States, it would also end any chance of ensuring America receives a share of the future distribution of knowledge and wealth gained by crewed space exploration.<br />The costs associated with cancelling the Constellation Program can be measured not only in dollars, but also in political capital. One of the most compelling reasons to keep the Constellation Program – and NASA – in place is the potential impact it will have on the defensive capabilities of the United States. The continued investment in crewed space exploration vehicles pays direct dividends to the defense of the United States. With each new advancement in space vehicle design, valuable information is gained which will allow the Department of Defense to acquire technology which would enable future missile systems to deliver military payloads more accurately and at a much lower cost than is possible today. <br />Although it could be argued the world does not need a more efficient method of waging war, the fact remains that the enemies of the United States, both current and future, are constantly working on new ways to remove the United States from its position as a world leader. The best way to ensure the United States retains its dominant position is to continue to develop new rocket based delivery systems that would be more effective than those of its enemies. In a press release from the office of Senator Robert Bennett of Utah, dated March 16, 2010, Representative Rob Bishop said:<br />There is a direct link between our national defense capabilities and our role as global leaders in space exploration. Destroy one and we stand to lose our global dominance in the other. Cancelling the Constellation Program would be an irresponsible, irreversible blow to our space and missile defense technologies. The U.S. stands at a crossroads. Move forward with the proven and successful technologies currently under way through the Constellation Program, or face handing over our position as global leaders in space and defense technologies to countries such as Russia, China or India. Constellation allows both government and private industries to have a role in space exploration without compromising national defense capabilities, which is why this continues to be the most responsible way forward for our country.<br />Failure to update and improve the nation’s defense capabilities would leave Americans vulnerable to many current and future threats. Global tensions continue to grow as a result of so called rogue nations, such as North Korea and Iran, developing nuclear weapons and the necessary missile systems to deliver them. The United States cannot afford to relinquish its role as a world leader and protector of nations that cannot defend themselves from such weapons.<br />If NASA is no longer in the business of developing and building rockets for space exploration, a large number of supporting industries and high technology jobs will vanish as a result. Florida and Texas alone stand to lose thousands of NASA jobs as a result of the cancellation of the Constellation Program (Achenbach, 2010; Cornyn, 2010). Just like may of the manufacturing jobs that have been sent overseas in the recent past, the elimination of the Constellation Program will likely result in a loss of skilled and educated scientists that the United States may never recover. <br />A great number of former NASA scientists will be forced to go elsewhere, even overseas, to find jobs that will allow them to participate in the development of future space exploration vehicles. Exporting space exploration technology and talent to other nations will likely lead to an ever-increasing trade deficit for the United States. Historically, as the trade deficit grows, millions of high salary skilled labor jobs disappear from the United States (Scott, 2002). These jobs would emerge in the nations making investments in their space programs. This spiraling cycle would result in a nearly complete loss of many of the best and brightest minds from the United States space program. <br />Cancellation of the Constellation Program would leave NASA with no clear roadmap for the future. Both China and Russia have space programs with specific, attainable goals, whereas NASA’s ever changing focus and budget has left the United States without a concise plan for the future (Boyd, 2009). Foreign governments would be in a position to reap the rewards of the unfortunate decisions of the United States. Many of those rewards include scientific and technological discoveries and the associated financial benefits of such discoveries. <br />Senator John Cornyn of Texas, a member of the Senate Finance and Budget Committees, is well acquainted with the impact cancellation of the Constellation Program would have on the United States. According to Senator Cornyn (2010), America would be placed in the position of being a consumer rather than innovator of high technology developed from research and discoveries made during crewed space flights. The United States would fall well behind nations such as China, India, and Russia in developing technologies that could make the world a better place. <br />The value of the Constellation Program should, therefore, not be measured by its solely by its cost in dollars, but by the many discoveries that will arise from its very existence (“What is the Future,” 2010). There are many unforeseen, yet beneficial discoveries that are made during the course of crewed space exploration. The challenge of putting astronauts in a new environment leads to innovation and inventions that will benefit mankind far beyond space exploration alone. Failure of the United States to pursue these discoveries will undoubtedly result in America trying to regain lost time in the future when it finally realizes how damaging a mistake it has made by abandoning its crewed space program.<br />Some experts and government officials, including President Obama, see another vision for American crewed space flight outside of the control of NASA. When President Obama included the cancellation of the Constellation Program in the 2011 federal budget, he did not do so without giving thought to possible alternatives for continued American space exploration. According to Joel Achenbach (2010), President Obama’s commission to explore the effectiveness of the Constellation Program concluded the program would not meet its 2020 target for returning Americans to the Moon. Cancellation of the program would, in effect, give NASA the opportunity to get out of the business of developing and utilizing rockets based on old technology. <br />The Constellation Program was based on rockets and crew capsules similar in design to NASA’s early space programs. Reliance on this old technology represented a step backward in space exploration vehicle design (“Propulsion Systems,” 2003). Eliminating the Constellation Program would free NASA to focus its efforts on developing space exploration vehicles using radical new technologies that would enable astronauts to reach other planets faster and safer than is possible today (Matson, 2010). NASA would be able to resume its original vision “to explore the Universe and search for new life, and to inspire the next generation of explorers” (“NASA Mission”, 2009).<br />It is also argued NASA has become nothing more than a shipping company responsible for shuttling astronauts and material back and forth to the International Space Station. By relieving NASA of the routine task of sending astronauts and cargo into space and encouraging private companies to develop the next generation of traditional rockets, NASA could, according to Charles Bolden, “…pursue technology that will enable astronauts to explore the solar system” (Achenbach, 2002).<br />Privatizing space exploration using traditional rocket technologies may seem like a viable replacement for the Constellation Program, but there are inherent problems with this approach. Although launching crewed space vehicles into space is fairly routine for NASA, private companies that endeavor to take up the challenge are far from prepared to assume the task. Private companies interested in developing space exploration vehicles would require a great deal of financing, and be required to conduct extensive research and testing before they could regularly launch astronauts or cargo into space (Cornyn, 2010). Lacking a NASA sized budget alone would prohibit most companies from considering developing vehicles that could rendezvous with the International Space Station, let alone achieve interplanetary travel.<br />In a letter to President Obama, the Congressional delegation from the state of Utah points to the fact the Constellation Program was developed from existing technology based on the space shuttle program, and that many technological barriers had already been addressed during development of the space shuttle. The most critical obstacles presented by President Obama’s plan would be the unknown costs involved with starting from scratch, and the lack of known safety benchmarks for the newly developed launch systems (Hatch, Bennett, Matheson, Bishop, & Chaffetz, 2010). Private companies that wish to pursue development of space exploration vehicles would have to begin development with no previous experience or body of work to draw upon. Their efforts would likely mirror the early efforts of NASA and all other national space programs – significant failures and setbacks lasting for many years and costing millions of dollars.<br />With a lack of a viable alternative during the formative years of private space exploration, the United States would have to turn to competing nations to send astronauts and satellites into space (Harwood, 2010). With no competition from NASA during these years, countries that agree to launch our astronauts and cargo would be free to charge exorbitant rates for transit to the International Space Station, or refuse to launch our satellites, both civilian and military, altogether.<br />Exploration of space and travel to other worlds has been a source of wonder and fascination for more than a century. The discoveries and dangers of such exploration have been the subject of countless books and films, and many people cannot help but imagine what it would be like to travel to other worlds when they look up into the night sky.<br />For the past 50 years, American astronauts have had the privilege of living out their dreams of exploring space, but future generations may not be so fortunate. The cancellation of the Constellation Program brings into serious question the future of NASA and the American crewed space program. Unfortunately, as with many other government programs that have come before, once NASA’s funding has been cut and all its missions have been stripped away, it is only a matter of time before NASA itself disappears, along with all the benefits that it has provided.<br />References<br />Achenbach, J. (2010, February 2). Obama budget proposal scraps NASA’s back-to-the-moon program. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020102145.html<br />Bennett, R. (2010, March 16). Utah congressional delegation to Obama: don't ground project Constellation [Press Release]. Retrieved from http://bennett.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?<br />p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=1c751149-4fc9-44fd-864c0019d0982510&<br />ContentType_id=0519105c-e65b-4667-a499-f637deae7aee&1faead15-454a-4bbc-b5a7-4cb518dd4b7c<br />Boyd, R. (2009, November 19). U.S. losing its lead in space, experts warn Congress. The McClatchy Company. Retrieved from http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/11/19/79195/<br />us-losing-its-lead-in-space-experts.html<br />Cornyn, J. (2010, February 9). NASA: Impact of a scale-back goes far beyond Houston. The Houston Chronicle. Retrieved from http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/<br />editorial/outlook/6859387.html<br />Harwood, W. (2010, February 1). Obama ends moon program, endorses private spaceflight. The Space Shot. Retrieved from http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10445227-239.html<br />Hatch, O., Bennett, R., Matheson, J., Bishop, R., & Chaffetz, J. (2010, March 15). Utah delegation letter to the President of the United States on Project Constellation. Representative Rob Bishop. Retrieved from http://robbishop.house.gov/UploadedFiles/<br />03-15-10_Utah_Delegation_Letter_to_POTUS_on_Project_Constellation.pdf<br />Matson, J. (2001, February 1). Phased out: Obama’s NASA budget would cancel constellation moon program, privatize manned launches. Scientific American. Retrieved from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nasa-budget-constellation-cancel<br />NASA Mission Statement. (2009, June 1). NASA Ames Conference Center. Retrieved March 27, 2010, from http://naccenter.arc.nasa.gov/NASAMission.html<br />Office of Management and Budget. The White House. (2010). Terminations, Reductions, and Savings: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.<br />Office of the Press Secretary. The White House. (2004, January 14). President Bush announces new vision for space exploration [Press Release]. Retrieved from http://history.nasa.gov/SEP%20Press%20Release.htm<br />President’s Science Advisory Committee. The White House. (1958, March 26). Introduction to Outer Space. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.<br />Propulsion Systems of the Future. (2003, March 15). NASA. Retrieved from http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/travelinginspace/future_propulsion.html<br />Recovery.gov. (2009) Retrieved March 3, 2010, from http://www.recovery.gov <br />Scott, R. (2002, April 2). The U.S. trade deficit: Are we trading away our future?. Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/<br />webfeatures_viewpoints_tradetestimony/<br />What Is The Future Of Human Spaceflight?. (2010, January 4). Impact Lab. Retrieved from http://www.impactlab.com/2010/01/04/what-is-the-future-of-human-spaceflight/<br />