SCIENCE
Task Force Calls for Evolutionary Expansion of U.S. Space Program Panel on long-range space goals urges U.S. to avoid race to Mars, move outward in orderly way from study of Earth and solar system Richard J. Seltzer, C&EN Washington
For nearly a quarter of a century, notes a recently issued report by a National Aeronautics & Space Administration task force, the U.S. space program enjoyed a "golden age." From launch of Earth-orbiting satellites to visits by u n m a n n e d spacecraft to Venus and Mars, to landing the first humans on the Moon, the U.S. clearly led the world in space exploration. Then came the Challenger catastrophe of January 1986 and a series of unmanned rocket launcher accidents. Suddenly everything is in question, shocking shortcomings in the space program become starkly apparent, and space launchings are virtually halted. Critics charge that U.S. space policy is drifting and that the U.S. is losing its leadership in space to other nations. In an attempt to re-energize the space program, NASA set up a task force a year ago to recommend possible major new initiatives, longterm goals, and strategies to regain and retain space leadership. The panel was led by Sally K. Ride, acting assistant administrator for the Office of Exploration and the U.S/s first woman astronaut. The report drew on recent studies by NASA and other organizations and sought a wide spectrum of views. Ride has just delivered the 63-page report, "Leadership and America's Future in Space," to NASA administrator James C. Fletcher. 16
August 31, 1987 C&EN
The report is a kind of valedictory for Ride, 36, who is leaving NASA for a fellowship at Stanford University's Center for International Security & Arms Control. (She has a Ph.D. in astrophysics from Stanford.) Ride gave a preview of the report, without revealing details or conclusions, at a recent Congressional hearing (C&EN, July 27, page 5). The panel examined four options offering possibilities for bold, aggressive new space initiatives: • A "Mission to Planet Earth," which would use U.S. space capabilities for comprehensive scientific study of Earth as a global system. • Systematic unmanned exploration of the solar system. • Establishment of a permanent scientific outpost on the Moon. • Human exploration of Mars, leading to eventual establishment of a permanent base. Some observers believe a bold, visionary goal is needed to give direction and purpose to the space program and capture the public's imagination and support. They advocate a manned mission to Mars as such a goal. However, the Ride panel says, "it would not be good strategy, good science, or good policy for the U.S. to select a single initiative, then pursue it single-mindedly." Instead, it recommends "a strategy of evolution and natural progression," continuing "an orderly expansion outward from Earth." "Exploring, prospecting, and settling Mars should be the ultimate objectives of human exploration" of space during the next few decades, the report notes. But it should not be the next goal; "America should not rush headlong toward Mars," the panel stresses. There is a real danger that starting a manned Mars program now "could escalate into
another space race." This would bring constant pressure to adhere to a timetable and to accelerate to keep ahead or equal—possibly causing the kind of adverse effects that led to the Challenger disaster. Moreover, such pressures would make it difficult to design and implement a program with a strong foundation and adequate momentum to sustain itself beyond the first few piloted missions. Thus, instead of development of a habitable outpost, the Mars mission could turn into "another one-shot spectacular" like the Apollo moon landings— which many observers consider a "dead-end venture" with few lasting benefits. The task force therefore recommends a strategy that first would emphasize development of capabilities in low-Earth orbit. With international cooperation, it would establish a global observational system in the 1990s to operate for decades. This system would integrate results from sensors in space and on the ground to study how physical, chemical, and biological processes affect the Earth's environment, how components interact, how the environment is changing, and how those changes will affect mankind. The objective is development of predictive models of the global environment. The system would measure such things as global cloud, vegetation, and ice cover; global rainfall and moisture; ocean topography and chlorophyll content; motions of tectonic plates; and levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, methane, and ozone. The second step is to develop advanced capabilities for unmanned exploration of other worlds. In the 1960s and 1970s, unmanned planetary missions were a vital compo-
nent of the U.S. space program and had wide public support. Now, other nations are working vigorously in this area. For example, the Soviets plan three missions to Mars before 1995, with a sample return mission in the late 1990s. The Europeans plan to retrieve a sample from a comet. By contrast, the U.S. has launched no planetary missions since 1978. This led many scientists to speak of "a crisis in space science" well before the Challenger disaster in January 1986. The hiatus in launchings since then has only made things worse. Launch of scientific spacecraft has been delayed two or more years. Maintaining research teams and spacecraft until launch and receipt of results is difficult and costly. The centerpiece of the second initiative recommended by the Ride panel is robotic exploration of Mars. The first of three automated missions would bring back a sample to Earth before the year 2000. The panel also urges a comet rendezvous and asteroid flyby in 1993, providing possible clues to the origins of the solar system. And it calls for a three-year study (called Cassini) of Saturn and its largest moon, Titan, in 2005-08. Titan's organic chemistry is of special interest, enabling study of processes that may have been important in the prebiotic terrestrial atmosphere.
Ride: strive for US.
leadership
As the next logical step, the task force recommends establishment of a manned outpost on the Moon for scientific research, exploration of resources, and study of living and working in space. Robotic exploration would begin in the 1990s, followed by astronaut landings to start construction in 2000. The first steps in "living off the lunar land" would be learning to extract the plentiful oxygen from the soil—as an eventual source for propellant and lifesupport systems—and learning to make construction materials. By 2010, up to 30 people would be living and working at the base for months at a time. The most ambitious and by far most expensive initiative is human exploration of Mars. The panel's scenario calls for robotic exploration in the 1990s, including return of samples, and the first human landing by 2005, with a decision on how to establish a permanent base by 2010. However, the panel stresses, this Mars scenario would require a vast commitment of resources and money sustained over decades, with immediate investment required, and an approximate tripling of NASA's budget during the mid-1990s. This program could overwhelm other NASA programs during the next decade, including the space shuttle and space station, which NASA already is hard pressed to deal with. The panel therefore suggests proceeding at a more deliberate pace, spreading out the investment over a longer period, with the first human landing on Mars perhaps in 2010. The panel notes that the U.S. has "clearly lost leadership" to the Soviet Union in unmanned exploration of Mars and in use of space stations in low-Earth orbit, and is in danger of being surpassed in many other areas during the next few years. The U.S. no longer can reasonably expect to lead in all areas of space, so it is vital to adopt a strategy to strive for leadership in carefully selected areas the U.S. considers important. The U.S. also must seek major advances in many key space technologies to rebuild its eroded technology base. These include propulsion,
automation, robotics, flight computers, information systems, sensors, power generation, materials, structures, life support systems, and space processing. What the U.S. has right now, however, say many observers, is a "space leadership void." The space program is "foundering under the worst management crisis" since NASA was formed in 1958, says a recent editorial in Aviation Week & Space Technology, for example. Fletcher praises the Ride report, but does not say he will adopt its recommendations. He indicates, rather, that it will serve as a basis for further study—serving to "energize and guide the debate." The White House also is studying what to do about space policy. However, notes John Pike, associate director for space policy at the Federation of American Scientists, given current budgetary limits, both the manned missions to the Moon and to Mars look like nonstarters. "There's no way this White House will generate those huge sums," he says. The first two options suggested by the panel—the mission to planet Earth and unmanned exploration of the solar system—do look viable in terms of cost, however, he believes. Pike expects the impression of drift in space policy to continue to the end of the Reagan Administration. "Leadership at the Presidential level is required to push it," he says, and he does not expect that. However, when a new Administration takes over in January 1989, he adds, there could be support for financial commitment to longer term space goals. The space budget has been nearly constant in absolute terms for many years, he points out. "In terms of percent of gross national product or of the overall federal budget, we could be spending several times as much. "So it would not be bizarre at all to think we might go back to the kind of spending there was during the Apollo project," Pike says. "It would take some tall explaining, but a President could do it." Indeed, he suggests, it's possible the disarray in the space program could become an issue in the Presidential election campaign next year. G August 31, 1987 C&EN
17
