In the past 72 hours I’ve been misquoted in print and added as a signatory to a policy letter I never saw in draft form (and really didn’t agree with; my name has since been removed). Although I’m certainly not a government policy or budget maker, for some reason I get asked my opinion on the future of human spaceflight on an increasingly frequent basis. If you’re interested in my opinion on this emotionally charged issue (for some), feel free to read on. Otherwise, please enjoy the great photo that my friend Dave Strome took soon after the launch of STS-131: the high altitude contrails of Discovery are lit with a dramatic sunrise, a view unlike any I’ve ever seen.

So what does this former Space Shuttle astronaut think of the double whammy of Shuttle retirement and Constellation Program (CxP) cancellation? And what of the future of Commercial Spaceflight (CSF), the gap in US access to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and long range planning for Beyond Earth Orbit (BEO)? Although I think our nation will really miss the capabilities of the Space Shuttle, and I’m concerned about the impacts to our talented aerospace workforce in the short term, I think there’s a silver lining in all of this for our Space Futures.

Times of change can be very uncomfortable, and this is a time of unprecedented — but not unexpected — change. In the aftermath of the Columbia tragedy, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board set the wheels in motion for Shuttle retirement in 2010 (else undergo a major and prohibitively expensive recertification process). Developing a new spacecraft architecture like the CxP, even though solid rocket booster segments were being repurposed for the Ares-1 launch vehicle, is technically challenging and expensive in its own right. With Constellation costing more and taking longer to develop, it didn’t surprise me that it would at least be on the budget cutters’ radar screen during this current recession.

From my perspective as an extreme high altitude construction worker on the International Space Station (ISS), we would be crazy not to reap proper rewards from our investment in this National Laboratory, particularly since we’ve essentially completed its construction and now have a full 6-person crew to take advantage of its science capacity. Flying ISS until 2020 or beyond is a no brainer, provided we have affordable access for crews and their science. The Augustine Commission and the budget proposal also see it this way.

With Russian Soyuz seats running a cool $50M and likely to rise (simple supply vs. demand, coupled with Russian capitalism), affordable access isn’t necessarily assured. To the extent possible, closing the gap in US access to LEO is an imperative. I’m encouraged by the investment the Administration’s new budget makes in CSF, especially if it is spread between several of the viable candidates, ultimately resulting in options to LEO. NASA and other space agencies may one day be able to shop a la carte for LEO transportation, weighing safety margins, price and other factors into their decision making process. There will be setbacks to be sure, with cost overruns and schedule delays for these new launch vehicles as well, but ultimately a few of them will succeed in human-rating their vehicles for LEO. Since the frontrunners in this launch industry are all American companies, the US industrial base will maintain and even extend its leadership in aerospace, not spiral into oblivion as some suggest. Moreover, having NASA focus on the technologies and architecture for BEO exploration leverages what the agency does best.

Where I differ from the Administration (and from how I’ve recently been misquoted), I’d prefer to see us garner as much as we can from our investment-to-date in the CxP: possibly launching an Orion-derived capsule on an EELV as one of the commercial options, for example, and accelerating our work on a heavy lift vehicle for BEO. Moreover, we need a milestone- and destination-driven program if it’s to last beyond the attention span of the current Congress. Anything that lacks definitive goals and milestones is by definition discretionary spending, and therefore imminently deferrable/cancelable. NASA has done a great job developing a lunar architecture that one day could form the basis of our life-searching exploration on Mars. I’d like to see us incrementally test these on the moon first, just 3 short days away from home, rather than risk their failure several months away on Mars.

I understand the doom and gloom being expressed by some in the human spaceflight industry, particularly with the way in which the budget was first rolled out, but I see an opportunity for a brilliant American future in space. I believe that if we deliberately move ahead with ambitious stated goals (moon, near earth objects, Mars), realistic milestones (even if many years out) and proper funding (included in the current budget proposal), America can retain its technological leadership in space and inspire our kids to dream of and pursue space as a realistic destination for their talents. This wouldn’t be transient “Cash for Clunkers” spending, but rather an intelligent expenditure on high tech industry and people, with an enormous potential return on investment… 

In closing, I’ll refer you to a couple of amazing videos that capture the essence of why human spaceflight is so important to our collective futures. One is of my friend Lars’ son Adam, observing the recent Space Shuttle launch: http://bit.ly/cWKy5g If we could only find a way for every American family to see a launch, there would be no question as to how motivating human spaceflight is to young people. I vividly remember seeing Apollo IX launch from Cocoa Beach as a young boy, and it obviously had a lasting impact on my life…! The second clip is from the incredibly eloquent Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, explaining why NASA is so vital to our prosperity: http://tinyurl.com/yepv7wp

So there you have it. My opinion comes free, and it’s worth every penny…