Nick Smith, August 15, 2004

Since the Soviets launched Sputnik in 1957, space exploration has captured the imagination of the American public while generating a wealth of scientific discovery. I remember the pride and awe that we all felt when Neil Armstrong took his first steps on the moon. Unfortunately, tragedy has also struck the space program, such as when Apollo 1 exploded on the launch pad in 1967, when the Space Shuttle Challenger was lost shortly after takeoff in 1986, and again, when the Space Shuttle Columbia broke up during the final stages of re-entry into the Earth’s atmosphere last February.

My Science Committee recently reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. It concluded that a piece of insulating foam damaged Columbia’s left wing, leading to a thermal breakdown of the wing and breakup of the orbiter. In addition, bureaucratic pressures and cultural problems within NASA likely contributed to the accident. The report, however, does not address a more fundamental question. More and more people, including legendary space scientist James van Allen, discoverer of the van Allen radiation belts encircling the Earth, are questioning our reliance on expensive manned missions for such a large part of our space program. As Chairman of the Research Subcommittee, I believe that we need to balance the research value of manned space flight against other research opportunities in areas such as nanotechnology, miniaturization, advanced engineering, health research and robotics.

The benefits of manned space flight have been relatively few compared to the costs. The Washington Post reports that the International Space Station (ISS), if completed, is expected to run $17 billion over budget. While manned shuttles provide some useful scientific information, the major objective of many missions is simply to re-supply the space station. We spent $25.4 billion on the 11 Apollo missions. We are looking at $100 billion for the International Space Station. We spend $3-$4 billion on the shuttle (approximately $6,000 per pound of payload). These projects have provided relatively little scientific discovery compared to cost benefit of unmanned missions.

Unmanned space missions have provided us with extremely useful and interesting information, and at a much lower cost. For instance, the Galileo project discovered and analyzed oceans and volcanoes on Jupiter’s moons, and sent back information on the planet’s weather patterns at a cost of $1.35 billion over 14 years. The Mars Pathfinder mission, which operated three times longer than its original planned lifetime, cost $270 million, provided our scientists with more than 16,000 images from Mars, 15 chemical analyses of rocks, and large amounts of useful information on Martian winds and weather. The Mars Rovers Opportunity and Spirit, which cost $800 million, built enormously on the Pathfinder mission. The Kepler space telescope, costing $286 million, is expected to be operational by 2006. It will observe nearly 100,000 stars and any planets in orbit around them. This will allow us to estimate how many earth-like planets capable of sustaining life exist in the universe.

This fall, as we complete our appropriation bills, we will weigh the costs and benefits of our current manned space programs. With our overall efforts to reduce spending, debating potential changes to NASA will be futile if we first do not closely scrutinize our space science efforts, particularly with regard to manned versus unmanned exploration.

Congressman Nick Smith, a Republican, represents Michigan's 7th Congressional District, which includes Battle Creek and the counties of Branch, Eaton, Hillsdale, Jackson, Lenawee, Calhoun, and Washtenaw in south-central Michigan.