U.S. needs clear goals in space

After 30 years of flight, the space shuttle program launched its final mission Friday. Once the Atlantis returns, the United States will no longer be able to launch people into space, and when it needs to do so, plans to pay the Russians $60 million per ride.

That dependence is a far cry from the Apollo moon landing in 1969, in the midst of the Cold War, which signaled our dominance over the Russian space program. Our nation has triumphed spectacularly in space and our achievements have brought us considerable pride, particularly on Long Island, a linchpin of the aerospace industry.

This last launch can't be allowed to mark the beginning of the end of the U.S. space program. Instead, it provides an opportunity to take a logical -- but not entirely unromantic -- look at NASA, private ventures and the efforts of other nations, to decide what we want out of space exploration, then commit to and fund our goals.

None of this is being done effectively, not least because there is disagreement about how important the space program is. Even among those who prioritize it, there are battles. Should our missions include astronauts, which makes space travel expensive, dangerous and inspiring? Should they be unmanned, which is safe and scientifically advantageous, but provides less thrill?

The moon or Mars? Deep space or low-orbit? Landing crafts or satellites?

The answer should be "all of the above," but not all by NASA alone.

A vibrant space program is a worthy priority. Exploration and experimentation represent the best of humanity and provide tremendous rewards. GPS systems, the artificial heart, robotic limbs, cochlear implants, and numerous other computer and medical innovations are, according to NASA, among the more than 1,600 advancements derived directly from the space program.

Shuttle missions allowed us to fix the Hubble Space Telescope, take crews to and from Mir and the International Space Station, launch satellites and conduct a vast array of experiments. But the touted 40 flights a year never materialized. There were two tragedies, and a loss of public interest as the missions seemed to settle into routine trips ferrying personnel and supplies.

That's been bad for NASA, and the agency's allocation, as a percentage of the federal budget, has dipped more than 60 percent since 1985. NASA funding creates battles for every Congress, president and budget negotiation. Space programs take decades to complete but are subject to constant politically motivated changes. Worst of all, decisions are influenced by politicians who support projects based on whether they bring jobs to their home states.

Yet the space budget is expected to stay around $19 billion, and important work is ongoing. NASA, out of the low-orbit taxi business, is helping two private companies to develop their own ships and take over this task. That lets the organization focus on projects like Dawn, a spacecraft that will begin exploring the asteroid Vesta later this month, and Juno, which leaves in August to investigate Jupiter. NASA is also investing in a heavy-lift rocket and crew capsule to take astronauts farther than ever, perhaps even to Mars.

The successes of other nations in space, most notably India, China and Russia, are a plus. Our civilian space program (the military has its own) is no longer a weapon in the Cold War. The scientific knowledge gained in space will end up belonging to all of humanity, and it's good that the cost and benefits can be shared among nations.

Yet the efforts of private companies and other nations can't justify letting NASA wither. There are projects so expensive and long-range that only a government can achieve them -- and so important that ours must be the one. That means NASA's planning must become more stable and apolitical, and funding levels must be maintained.

We are a voyaging, frontier people. That's how we got to America, and it's how we need to move forward. hN