As the space shuttle Discovery flew three times around Washington, a final salute before landing at Dulles airport for retirement in a museum, thousands on the ground gazed upward with marvel and pride. Yet what they were witnessing, for all its elegance, was a funeral march.

The shuttle was being carried — its pallbearer, a 747 — because it cannot fly, nor will it ever again. It was being sent for interment. Above ground, to be sure. But just as surely embalmed as Lenin in Red Square.

Is there a better symbol of willed American decline? The pity is not Discovery’s retirement — beautiful as it was, the shuttle proved too expensive and risky to operate — but that it died without a successor. The planned follow-up — the Constellation rocket-capsule program to take humans back into orbit and from there to the moon — was suddenly canceled in 2010. And with that, control of manned spaceflight was gratuitously ceded to Russia and China.

Russia went for the cash, doubling its price for carrying an astronaut into orbit to $55.8 million. (Return included. Thank you, Boris.)

China goes for the glory. Having already mastered launch and rendezvous, the Chinese plan to land on the moon by 2025. They understand well the value of symbols. And nothing could better symbolize China overtaking America than its taking our place on the moon, walking over footprints first laid down, then casually abandoned, by us.

Who cares, you say? What is national greatness, scientific prestige or inspiring the young — legacies of NASA — when we are in economic distress? OK. But if we’re talking jobs and growth, science and technology, R&D and innovation — what President Obama insists are the keys to “an economy built to last” — why on earth cancel an incomparably sophisticated, uniquely American technological enterprise?

We lament the decline of American manufacturing, yet we stop production of the most complex machine ever made by man — and cancel the successor meant to return us to orbit. The result? Abolition of thousands of the most highly advanced aerospace jobs anywhere — its work force abruptly unemployed and drifting away from spaceflight, never to be reconstituted.

Well, you say, we can’t afford all that in a time of massive deficits.

There are always excuses for putting off strenuous national endeavors: deficits, joblessness, poverty, whatever. But they shall always be with us. We’ve had exactly five balanced budgets since Alan Shepard rode Freedom 7 in 1961. If we had put off space exploration until these earthbound social and economic conundrums were solved, our rocketry would be about where North Korea’s is today.

Moreover, today’s deficits are not inevitable, nor even structural. They are partly the result of the 2008 financial panic and recession. Those are over now. The rest is the result of a massive three-year expansion of federal spending.

But there is no reason the federal government has to keep spending 24 percent of GDP. The historical postwar average is just over 20 percent — and those budgets sustained a robust manned space program.

NASA will tell you that it’s got a new program to go way beyond low-Earth orbit and, as per Obama’s instructions, land on an asteroid by the mid-2020s. Considering that Constellation did not even last five years between birth and cancellation, don’t hold your breath for the asteroid landing.

Nor for the private sector to get us back into orbit, as Obama assumes it will. True, hauling MREs up and trash back down could be done by private vehicles. But manned flight is infinitely more complex and risky, requiring massive redundancy and inevitably larger expenditures. Can private entities really handle that? And within the next lost decade or two?

Neil Armstrong, James Lovell and Gene Cernan are deeply skeptical. In a 2010 open letter, they called Obama’s cancellation of Constellation a “devastating” decision that “destines our nation to become one of second or even third rate stature.”

Which is why museum visits to the embalmed Discovery will be sad indeed. America rarely retreats from a new frontier. Yet today we can’t even do what John Glenn did in 1962, let alone fly a circa-1980 shuttle.

At least Discovery won’t suffer the fate of the Temeraire, the British warship tenderly rendered in Turner’s famous painting “The Fighting Temeraire tugged to her last Berth to be broken up, 1838.” Too beautiful for the scrapheap, Discovery will lie intact, a magnificent and melancholy rebuke to constricted horizons.

Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for The Washington Post. Readers may contact him at letters@charleskrauthammer.com.

Join the Conversation

3 Comments

  1. Why don’t the “job creators” kick in and contribute some money for this? Don’t think of it as taxes. Think of it as the best model rocketry club in the world.

  2. Well Charles,
    Considering the Republicans gutted NASA’s budget, calling space exploration “wasteful spending” you should be positively gleeful.

  3. Obama’s assault on America continues apace.  Keep in mind Obama’s whispered message to Medvedev that he’d have “more flexibility” after the next election, and how we’ll be dependent on Russia to launch ourselves into even low Earth orbit:

    “Obama’s Failure to Launch

    In a speech to political allies gathered at Cape Canaveral last week, President Obama laid out his vision for America’s space program.  Under the Obama plan, NASA will spend $100 billion on human spaceflight over the next 10 years and accomplish nothing.

    Of course, that’s not how Mr. Obama phrased it.  But beneath the President’s flowery rhetoric, that’s how things add up.

    Here’s the background.  In 2004, the Bush administration launched a program called Constellation to develop a set of flight systems, including the Orion crew capsule and the Ares 1 and Ares 5 medium and heavy lift boosters that together would allow astronauts to return to the moon by 2020, and then fly to destinations beyond.

    Under the plan announced by Obama, almost all of this will be scrapped.  The only thing preserved out of the past six years and $9 billion worth of effort will be a version of the Orion capsule – but one so purposely stripped down that it will only be useful as a lifeboat for bringing astronauts down from the space station, not as a craft capable of providing a ride up to orbit.

    With the Space Shuttle program set to sunset in the near future, what this means is that the only way Americans will be able even to reach low Earth orbit will be as passengers on Russian launchers, with tickets priced at the Kremlin’s discretion. In other words, instead of flying astronauts from the earth to the Moon, our human spaceflight program will become a vehicle for transporting cash from Washington to Moscow.

    The most amazing thing about Obama’s speech, was its cognitive dissonance.  The President desperately tried to spin the abandonment of the Moon program not as a retreat, but as a daring advance.  We’ve been to the Moon before, he declared, and so we have.  There’s a lot more of space to explore; we should set our sights on points beyond, to the near Earth asteroids, and reach for Mars.  Indeed, we can and should.

    But the President’s plan makes no provision for actually doing so.  Instead, he proposes to simply stall.

    So, for example, as the first milestone in his allegedly daring program of exploration, Obama called for sending a crew to a near Earth asteroid b 2025.

    Such a flight is certainly achievable.  To do an asteroid mission, all that is required is a launch vehicle such as the Ares 5, a crew capsule (such as the Orion), and a habitation module similar to that employed on the space station.  Had Obama not canceled the Ares 5, we could have used it to perform an asteroid mission by 2016.  But the President, while calling for such a flight, actually is terminating the programs that would make it possible.”

    http://www.marssociety.org/home/press/tms-in-the-news/obamasfailuretolaunch

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *