Is Space Getting Too Politicized?

From Wired Science: Is Space Getting Too Politicized?

Now that the 2012 Presidential field is officially set, the candidates can finally focus on the question that is on everyone’s mind: what would you, as President, do with NASA?  How would you guide the American space program?

Ok, so space exploration isn’t exactly a high salience issue for most of the country, but it does loom large for several swing state constituencies, most notably the Space Coast of Florida.  A couple of excellent articles in the current edition of Space Quarterly Magazine, excerpted on NasaWatch, contemplate the role space policy may have in the 2012 election.

Eric Sterner sees an opening for Republicans. 

“Republicans may sense vulnerability in the Administration’s handling of NASA and the civil space program. During the 2008 primaries, candidate Obama promised to cancel NASA’s flagship human exploration program, Constellation. He reversed himself for the general election, promising to increase support for it, which he did his first year in office, before finally canceling it in 2010 and then muffing the development and roll-out of a new civil space framework.”

If President Obama wins a second term, Aaron Oesterle envisions a cautious, under-the-radar approach that would expend little political capital.

“Space policy is at best a 3rd tier issue for most people (whether voters or elected officials), and having fought two very bruising battles over space policy, President Obama may want space to pass into the realm of “do no harm” to his other priorities.”

Oesterle’s characterization of Obama’s political calculus reflects a recent trend: despite widespread public support for space exploration, recent polls suggest that the issue is getting increasingly polarized.  The overall percentage of the American population supporting the enterprise remained roughly constant between 2008 and 2010 according to the National Opinion Research Center, but the groups declaring that the government spent “too little” or “too much” both grew by about 5 percentage points.

This is an alarming development, because manned spaceflight seems to work best when it’s de-politicized, or, perhaps more accurately, de-partisanized.  Space exploration is a long game: it requires long-term planning and a consistent goal-driven trajectory that builds on previous accomplishments.  It’s difficult to fold this reality into the “what have you done for me lately?” culture of Washington, where failure to hit quarterly benchmarks is grounds for cancellation.  Of course, government-sponsored space exploration also requires public support, and mobilizing enthusiasm without stoking partisanship is a fine line indeed.

If space exploration is something that we decide is worthwhile (and apparently it is), then the best policy is often to let previous plans germinate.  As administrations come and go, the long term path will rarely be exactly what current leaders had in mind, but it’s better to make some progress toward a palatable destination than to make no progress toward the ideal one.  This approach runs counter to the political impulse to exert strong opinions on every aspect of public life, the principle that if it’s possible to have an opinion, one should be had, ideally if it’s perpendicular to that of the opposition.

Ultimately, constant course corrections waste previous investments, sap institutional purpose and morale, and deliver uninspiring results.  Ironically, in order to make more sustained progress and not be subjected to micromanaging debate, space exploration might be best served by falling off the political radar.