Bolden & Garver, NASA Leaders, Source: NASA

A provocative, timely article was posted on “The Space Review” site last week written by G. Ryan Faith of the Center for Strategic and International Studies titled, “Giving NASA a Clear Mission" . I generally concur with his insightful analysis of NASA’s historically vague mission definition, and I've provided a very brief summary of it below on which to base my comments. Bottom line, Faith suggests a new exploration mission for NASA that he thinks is clearer and whose goal is the open-ended “expansion of human influence” in space.  We respond to this further below. 

Let’s review his main points. Faith argues that currently NASA “has no mandate to explore space” and in addition Congress has tasked it with “a number of things that are related to neither space nor exploration”. He notes that the original Space Act of 1958 created NASA to “provide for research into problems of flight within and outside the earth’s atmosphere and for other purposes”. I agree that this was a rather vague and not particularly inspiring goal. It’s interesting to note that Dr. John Logsdon (former Director of the Space Policy Institute at GWU) has written a first-class historical analysis that includes documentation of the chronically tenuous support for human space exploration by NASA, Congress and the general public, that supports Faith’s view.

I also conclude, based on many surveys and reports done over the years, that public support for NASA in general, and human space exploration in particular, is tentative and has not changed significantly from the post-Apollo era to the present. This appears to be true, especially for those born post-Apollo, in spite of President Bush’s 2004 announcement of the Vision for Space Exploration that for the first time, strongly supported the human element. Space advocates, and I count myself among them, generally support human space exploration, but we have yet to convert most taxpayers to our position. The appointment of the Augustine Committee by the Obama Administration to specifically review NASA’s human spaceflight plans is related to the marginal public support and major concerns about the adequacy of infrastructure funding for this significant portion of NASA’s objectives. This challenge appears to be a key element in what has driven Faith to search for a clearer NASA mission.

Faith considers the Apollo Program, initiated by President Kennedy in 1961, to have been a highly focused major research and technology development effort that morphed NASA into a space exploration agency. However, as he notes, the mandate was so specific to the Moon landing that when the Agency accomplished its goal in 1969, it no longer had a clear reason to exist. Thus the Apollo Program’s success and subsequent termination also erased the mandate for exploration. Faith concludes that this returned NASA to being an unfocused research entity and even though the Agency has pursued many of its priorities over the years, it hasn’t sent anyone beyond low Earth orbit since 1972.

Faith’s position is that even the subsequent development of the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station were primarily technology-oriented, not capability-oriented goals. And, “once a given technology is developed, maintenance of that technology, rather than further expansion of basic capabilities, becomes paramount”. He proposes that if we expect NASA to pursue exploration again, the Agency must be specifically tasked to do so based on a clearer definition of that goal. And for that definition he proposes that “space exploration is the expansion of human influence in space”, which can also serve as the rationale for capabilities development. For him the key is that “such a mandate compels each step to build on past accomplishments and lay the groundwork for future missions.” That strategy has been a key element of the Russian space program and I think should be more common in the U.S., as well. The result of choosing such a mission, in Faith’s view, would be that, “the mandate for expanding human influence can’t run out”. Importantly, Faith sees this exploration path as creating opportunities for other stakeholders to play key roles, such as the private sector. I completely agree with him on the importance of the human element for increasing entrepreneurial space commerce – indeed, the Augustine Committee and NASA management seemingly are depending on it.

For those who strongly support human space exploration, I expect Faith’s broad goal for increased human influence will resonate strongly. For others who lean toward robotic planetary exploration, classic space science discovery missions like Kepler and the Hubble Telescope, and those who think NASA should align itself more strongly with protecting Earth from what appears to be significant threats from human industrialization, this focus will be too narrow. Many human space exploration advocates see the ultimate goal being human habitation of space beyond Earth, but that is infrequently mentioned within NASA, and even less so in Congress. The promotion of “human influence” in space may be more acceptable than “human settlement”, but if we’re looking for a definition of space exploration, it must include robotic explorers since they are ultimately sent and controlled by humans, and they can be seen as an extension of humans, as Faith agrees.

A recent NAS report titled, “America’s Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program with National Needs” concluded that NASA should more closely link its goals with our national challenges in order to garner public support sufficient to improve its prospects for stable funding and sustainability. I whole-heartedly support this recommendation and think NASA’s goal must include efforts to protect Earth from profound climate changes, damage to the biosphere, killer asteroid impacts, and similar threats. Perhaps this too can be considered part of the “human influence” if its regarded as a stewardship role. Ideally, a return-on-investment focus on “beneficial human influences” can be part of the mission definition that also applies directly to the expansion of space commerce. Faith is going in the right direction in his analysis, but we need to ensure NASA’s focus on space exploration is inclusive and seen as beneficial to humanity in general and our home planet.

Space exploration will receive stronger, more sustainable support from the general public when its mission is perceived as more inspirational, participatory, and clearly beneficial to our planet and our high priority societal needs. Once again, A. Lincoln had it right when he said, “With public sentiment, nothing can fail: without it nothing can succeed.” Space commerce has a special role in helping NASA identify and demonstrate the value that space has, is now, and will continue to provide to all. We need to learn how to better demonstrate and communicate that value at every opportunity.