Joan Johnson-Freese, the author of Heavenly Ambitions: America’s Quest to Dominate Space, is the chair of the National Security Decision Making Department at the U.S. Naval War College. She discussed the nomination of Charles Bolden to serve as the next NASA chief and contemplated the U.S. future in space with foreign-affairs columnist John C. Bersia.

Q: If Bolden is confirmed, will the space agency have the appropriate leadership?

A: He has the quintessential “right stuff.” A retired Marine general and former astronaut, he is a proven, decisive leader who understands the dynamics of the U.S. space program, both from the civil and military perspectives. Because 95 percent of space technology is dual-use (of value to both communities), they cannot be completely considered independently.

Q: How might Bolden correct the label of “adrift” that Obama has applied to NASA?

A: The difference between “adrift” and “headed toward success” is having clear goals, a realistic strategy and timetable to reach the goals, and adequate resources to implement the strategy. NASA has been “adrift” because there has been a serious mismatch between goals, strategy and resources. I am confident Bolden will be willing to speak truth to power about the potential for failure if goals, strategy and resources are not brought into alignment. Hopefully, as well, the National Space Council will be reconstituted to assist Bolden in making those alignment arguments to others. As U.S. Senator Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, recently pointed out at confirmation hearings for Science Advisor John Holdren, “NASA has become the handmaiden of the Office of Management and Budget.” That must end.

Q: Summarize your recommendations for redefining NASA’s mission.

A: The big question right now, to be addressed by the Obama administration-mandated Augustine Commission review, is whether the current plan for human space exploration is on the right track. NASA has been focused on the Bush administration’s 2004 Vision for Space Exploration, which aims for a return to the moon by 2020. But the NASA budget is insufficient to carry out that mandate. If the current plan is endorsed by the Commission, it will require an increase in NASA funding for human exploration, with a high probability that less money will go toward other areas of NASA’s responsibilities – such as Earth-monitoring, essential for gathering climate-change data, and space science. If NASA is told it must live within its budget, then realistically human spaceflight goals will have to be downsized.

Q: In an era of cost-cutting and recession, why should Americans continue to support human space exploration?

A: The value of space assets to everyday life is critical. The U.S.-owned Global Positioning System (GPS) of navigation satellites is, with the Internet, one of two global utilities. Even the benefits of GPS are often transparent, though, and therefore taken for granted. The value of space exploration is even less obvious but critical as well. Space exploration has always been symbolic of the future, and the United States has symbolically and actually led the world toward a more prosperous future since the 1960s. Only three countries in the world are capable of human spaceflight: the United States, Russia and China. Leading the world in human spaceflight is a significant element of strategic leadership, with political, economic and social implications.

Q: What should the next grand objective be for the United States – a return to the moon, or to go boldly in another direction?

A: Americans raced the Soviets to the moon in the 1960s and delivered an unqualified win. We didn’t just win, the Soviets gave up. I don’t see the rationale now to return to the moon, with China, India and potentially other countries also headed to that destination, and possibly come in second or third. Unless the plan is for the United States to lead a return to the moon with other countries as a political demonstration of cooperation, which is not a bad idea, I think we should wish the other countries the best of luck and go somewhere else.

Q: Should the United States cooperate with other countries in reaching for its space goals?

A: There are two reasons I generally advocate cooperation in space: to share the inherently high costs of space programs and because many of the critical issues to be faced in the future cannot be handled unilaterally. Dealing with climate-change monitoring and mitigation, and the increasing threat to space assets from debris, for example, requires the efforts of countries working together. In space, as in other areas, it’s important to recognize that because of economics and national-security issues, countries in the future are likely to compete in some areas and programs, and cooperate in others.
___

Joan Johnson-Freese can be reached at joanjohnsonfreese@gmail.com.