Today’s USA Today features an op-ed by John Lehman, former Secretary of the Navy, expressing concern that other countries “are starting to leave us in the dust” in space exploration “while U.S. special interest groups quibble over NASA’s faults.” His argument is that several countries, including China, India, Japan, and Russia, are accelerating their efforts to explore space, putting us at a strategic disadvantage. “With capable challengers multiplying, continued leadership in space is a bellwether of America’s determination to remain a great power of the future,” he concludes.
Reading through his essay, though, is appears that Lehman may have overplayed his hand. Some examples:
- Regarding China, he writes that China’s robotic lunar exploration plans “should keep Beijing on course to land men on the moon in this century’s second decade,” even though there have been very mixed messages, at best, about if and when China will mount a manned lunar landing mission; even the most ambitious Chinese statements don’t suggest such a mission before 2020. And while Lehman writes that “a third manned mission that includes the first spacewalk is being planned,” recent reports suggest that there may not be a spacewalk on that mission in 2008.
- Lehman said that India “is in the contest to land men on the moon again.” However, G. Madhvan Nair, chairman of the Indian space agency ISRO, said just a few days ago that India has “no plan to send man to moon at present” and is only now starting to consider developing a human spaceflight program.
- Japan, writes Lehman, “is well-suited for the financial and technological requirements of space exploration.” That may be, but their performance to date has been less than impressive. For example, an article this week in the Yomiuri Shimbun noted that an experimental communications satellite launched late year “as run into so many problems since its launch that it cannot perform planned experiments”.
- As for Russia, Lehman says that Russia is planning five robotic lunar missions in three years and a “base” by 2012. Of course, it’s difficult to figure out in Russia which programs are real and which are simply desired. For what it’s worth, the same Newsweek International article that Lehman cites for that claim also states that China’s first lunar mission will launch on April 17; Chang’e-1 is still on the ground and won’t be launched until later this year.
Lehman’s recommendations for the US aren’t terribly controversial: he advocates “ambitious manned exploration” as well as a strengthening of the industrial base “by drawing in the more entrepreneurial firms, instead of only the two or three biggest”. Those seem like measures that can be advocated without resorting to overstating the abilities and ambitions of other countries.
Nor did he omit 3He:
“Beijing wants to learn whether Helium-3, which occurs in trace quantities on Earth, is abundant on the moon. If so, it could be mined, returned to Earth and used in a non-radioactive fusion process that would release tremendous energy from very small volumes of mass.”
Excellent analysis by Mr. Foust. The Admiral’s assessment of foreign civil space programs is out-of-touch, at best.
I would only add that the Admiral’s argument about STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) education is a tired and worn out justification for space exploration.
Trends in STEM graduation rates in different counties are far from clear because different countries have differing definitions of STEM careers and differing educational systems. China, for example, includes auto mechanics and similar votech positions in its STEM definitions, greatly inflating its numbers.
Even if the trends were clearly negative, the causal connection between highly visible acts of space exploration and STEM education and career choices is tenuous, at best. Simple economics, not inspiration, is the biggest driver of trends in education and career choices. During the 1960s and 70s, physical engineering disciplines were among the highest paid positions in the country and this was especially true in the impoverished South where many NASA human space flight facilities were erected. Today, the legal profession and business/investment management careers have replaced the physical engineering disciplines at the top of the pay pile. Even within STEM, the biotech and IT sectors demonstrate much higher pay opportunities than available within aerospace sector. Little wonder that students choose one over the other.
The strong cause/effect relationship between salary size and career choice is not limited to aerospace. Since the advent of managed care, the medical profession has seen a trend towards highly specialized and highly paid doctors to the detriment of the lower paid general practitioners.
None of this means that it’s not important to inspire our youth to pursue STEM educations and careers. But if the purpose of space exploration is to encourage youth into the STEM sectors, we’re much better off spending those tens or hundreds of billions of dollar on direct economic incentives (scholarships, higher salaries, etc.) rather than the indirect and hard to measure incentives provided by inspirational engineering projects.
There are better, more direct, and more concrete justifications for human space exploration. Its advocates, including the Admiral, need to refocus on their argument on those rationales.
My 2 cents… FWIW.
When he says second decade, is he counting this decade as the zeroth decade? Because at the current pace China will be lucky to get LM-5 built by 2025.
Lehman was not an admiral, he was Secretary of the Navy. He was the architect of the “600 ship Navy” buildup under Reagan. They never got to 600 ships, only around 570. Then the Cold War ended. (Today we’re working on a “1000 ship Navy.” The idea is to redefine what a “ship” is so that you can count more of them.)
But you’re right about him not understanding the STEM workforce issue. I think he’s also wrong about more and more foreign students returning to their home countries with the skills they learned here. Although that increased in recent years, I believe that the trend line has flattened out. The reality is that the job opportunities are still better in the US than in their home countries.
Lehman doesn’t understand the subject at all and it shows.
“Lehman was not an admiral, he was Secretary of the Navy.”
Thanks for the correction. Apologies for the repeated brain-freeze in that post.
The op-ed is well-intentioned but specious, at best. The connection between a strong space program and education is old and unsubstantiated. There are plenty of other lucrative and exciting technical careers available besides human spaceflight.
Folks,
While Secretary Lehman overplays the foreign competition, and I agree with Anonymous about the tangibility of human space exploration inspiring youth… I would prefer to embrace what I agree with:
a strengthening of the industrial base “by drawing in the more
entrepreneurial firms, instead of only the two or three biggestâ€.
I have no problem with making the nationalistic argument that America should be dominant in space exploration/development/settlement. We aren’t going to be dominant in low-cost-manufacturing, or outsourced services (except high-end financial). So if we’re going to lead, we need to really lead in high tech areas.
The fact that Lehman at least acknowledges that, perhaps, the only way for America to lead is to get mammals involved as well as dinosaurs is something of a breakthrough. I would like to embrace that.
I agree with Jim Muncy and Secretary Lehman. We need to include a broader range of private contractors/entrepeneurs than we are currently doing. I do feel, however, that NASA is working towards that end.
The Ansari X Prize is the most popular example from a few years ago. NASA is also offering several more grants and prizes to encourage new business ventures, even at the “small” level of glove design (for example).
NASA is on the right track, in my opinion. The issue is the political aspect of budgeting.
The American public has been trained to look at things as a “what do I get now out of it” situation. NASA can’t answer that effectively. When our politicians and public are looking for entertainment and lifestyle improvements, NASA suddenly finds itselft competing against more exciting and entertaining fields of study (as far as the public is concerned). It is like PBS competing against the Superbowl. PBS could be airing something proving that God exists and showing the one true religion, signed off by all athiests, and it will lose to the Superbowl. If PBS sent $1,000 to everyone who tuned in for their program, then they’d do better, but I think the Superbowl will still win.
Politicians in the US spend money based on popularity. Popularity these days tends to be based on entertainment value. If that doesn’t change, then NASA will have difficulty in getting even approved funding for some time to come. I fear that, because of these things, we’ll see a sharp decrease in funding once the Shuttle program is retired, because suddenly a large chunk of money will be freed up, and budget cuts and tax breaks are the best way to get votes.
Great. Now we’re going to end up with reality TV shows on the ISS!
Bob: “I’m really upset right now. It wasn’t right for her to take that prject from me. It has been mine from the start!”
Linda: “The sooner he gets over the fact that he’s attracted to me, the sooner we can get back to work!”
BTW: My error. Ansari X Prize was not NASA funded. I should have drank one more cup of coffee before I wrote my comment. The idea still stands, though.
Tina: Linda, I’m pregnant. How is that going to look on the debriefing?
Linda: Is it Bob’s?
Tina: No, it’s Sven’s. He left for Russia three days ago and I haven’t told him yet.
Linda: I knew there was a reason we voted him off last week. Tina, if you want to stay on the ISS, we need to keep this between you and I until next week so we can vote Tom off.
Tina: Ok. I remember the plan.
Jim Muncy quotes Lehman::
a strengthening of the industrial base “by drawing in the more
entrepreneurial firms, instead of only the two or three biggestâ€.
To accomplish this, we need to support players other than Boeing, Lockheed and ATK in providing Earth to LEO lift. Thus, while a transition to an EELV Crew Launch Vehicle may be preferable to the Stick, it is irrelevant to this critical point.
ESAS (and much much better yet, Direct) uses the Big Three (Stooges?) to provide NASA with heavy lift, leaving market space for SpaceX, KIstler, XCOR etc. . . to provide light and light medium lift. And if Lockheed chooses to man-rate a small Atlas V crew taxi on its own dime to service Bigelow, well then, they can join the mammals.
Eric Conrad,
In my opinion, the mission critical task is to get money flowing into space exploration that is NOT taxpayer-sourced. Once funding passes through Uncle Sugar’s digestive tract it becomes subject to a great many ancillary considerations (jobs in Florida, comments about global warming) that have nothing whatsoever to do with space exploration.
Almost ANY source of private investment in space exploration should be encouraged and welcomed. Remember, the American consumer is the greatest economic engine in the entire history of the human race and all around the world, a new middle class with similar spending habits is just beginning to emerge. Tap into that and there will be plenty of bucks for Buck Rogers
But how, unless we adopt a Nike or marketing mindset?
Space enthusiasts need to go where the money is rather than demand (fruitlessly) that Congress bring more money to them.
The American public has been trained to look at things as a “what do I get now out of it†situation. NASA can’t answer that effectively. When our politicians and public are looking for entertainment and lifestyle improvements
Sort of correct. The American public is knowledgeable enough to recognize that our lifestyle improvements come from scientific research, and are prepared to spend a small portion of their income supporting it. However, they’re also smart enough to read between the lines and realize that on the moon, like on ISS, NASA isn’t doing any.
Hence the shrinking budget.
But how, unless we adopt a Nike or marketing mindset?
The first thing you need to recognize is that in an open market there is no “we”. Until “we” stop lobbying government to pick winners, there will not be an open market and there will be no private investment of any significant magnitude.
The first thing you need to recognize is that in an open market there is no “weâ€. Until “we†stop lobbying government to pick winners, there will not be an open market and there will be no private investment of any significant magnitude.
I concur with this but also note that it is very difficult to avoid the government “picking winners” if the money flows through the government.
Finding non-taxpayer sourced revenue (somewhere, anywhere) strikes me as essential.
Also, space exploration need not provide any earth shaking benefit to generate marketing revenue. Actually, marketing dollars are usually spent between competitors that lack any significant differentiation in their products.
Budweiser vs Miller beer or Coke vs Pepsi or Colgate vs Crest toothpaste or Verizon vs Cellular One vs Sprint.
Quisp vs Quake took this to its logical extreme although Aquafina vs Dasani is close.
Let us suppose public support for space exploration is a “mile wide and an inch deep” as is often said. An inch of depth is all someone might need to increase the sales of Brand A over Brand X IF the products are more or less identical to begin with.