"Bush's Space Plan: Bold Vision or 'Moondoggle'?", Jan 26, 2004 (I don't have a link), emphasis added.

It could have been the headline on our news coverage of President Bush's speech redirecting NASA's human spaceflight endeavor: "President Signs Space Policy Backing Lunar, Mars Course." There followed stories on the efforts to get the space shuttle flying again after an accident, new funding for technology for Moon and Mars exploration and - tellingly - the cancellation of a program to develop an unmanned planetary science spacecraft. But the President was Ronald Reagan and the year was 1988. Our editorial page gave the new policy "a hearty right on" and signaled acceptance of "short-term sacrifices [that] must be made" (AWST Jan 18, 1988, p7). But then we warned, "The drive to fund manned operations must not overshadow the need for complementary unmanned efforts."

Fast forward to today. Americans have been to Mars and beyond - several times - but only vicariously via robots and probes. Astronauts haven't been beyond low-Earth orbit in more than 30 years. The shuttle program is recovering from another accident. And a major science program, the Hubble Space Telescope, has just been handed a death notice, though ostensibly for reasons related to shuttle safety (see p. 24). It's as if we all went to bed on Jan 18, 1988, slept for 16 years, woke up and found everything exactly the same.

NASA can ill afford another false start on Moon-Mars. The dictionary defines boondoggle as "unnecessary, wasteful and often counterproductive work." And make no mistake, as much as we support the idea of sending humans back to the Moon and on to Mars, setting down this course again, if it is done tentatively, has real potential for being counterproductive.

To be sure, there is much that is encouraging. Most significantly, NASA has a clear road map for human spaceflight beyond Earth orbit, something it hasn't had in at least a decade. Second, Bush's comments about using commercial space transportation indicates the administration wants NASA to stick to science, research and development - and not run its own "space lines" to Earth orbit. Also, the inclusion of members of the "alternate space" community in the audience at Bush's invitation-only speech suggests the administration "gets it" about the desirability of involving entrepreneurial space companies.

Finally, the two men named to oversee NASA's change in direction are intelligent, no-nonsense veterans of aerospace programs and oversight. Retired Rear Adm. Craig E. Steidle, named head of exploration systems at NASA, was the experienced director of the Joint Strike Fighter program and vice commander of Naval Air Systems Command. E. C. "Pete" Aldridge, a former Air Force secretary, Pentagon acquisition chief and Aerospace Corp. head, will head a presidential commission. He's not bashful about telling it like it is. One matter is disturbing, though. We don't question Aldridge's integrity, but he should resign from Lockheed Martin's board of directors to avoid any appearance that the new initiative will tilt towards "the usual suspects" in the aerospace industry.

NASA must remember to keep its eyes on the ball in human spaceflight. As exciting as the new direction may be, the agency must realize the first order of business is get the shuttle flying again safely and complete the International Space Station. Another accident could easily bring a swift end to the Moon-Mars undertaking.

For the space community, we also have some advice: Don’t sink into an argument about whether to skip the Moon and go directly to Mars, or go somewhere else like an Earth-Moon libration point. The important thing is one of many viable courses has been selected, now stick with it. Remember, if a journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step, you won’t get very far if you keep shooting yourself in the foot.

Much, much more must happen for the dream of sending humans to explore Mars to become a reality, however. President Bush put the ball in play. Now, if his speech at NASA headquarters is to be more than an empty gesture, he must really get in the game, politically. Polling immediately after his speech indicated that with a war going on, economic woes lingering and government racking up huge budget deficits, more Americans than not see little value in a multibillion-dollar human spaceflight endeavor.

Sadly, Bush’s vision for space wasn’t important enough for him to mention in his State of the Union speech last week. Not a word about it. That instantly calls into question his administration’s commitment to this endeavor.

Failure to win wide national support for Moon-Mars will spell its doom. No one President, no single U.S. administration, perhaps not even a superpower by itself can make something as ambitious as landing humans on Mars happen without considerable help. Bush needs to push Moon-Mars as both an industrial policy and an education initiative, as no one ever spent really big bucks purely for “exploration.” Columbus and the Spanish conquistadores were propelled by their sponsors’ desire for exploitation. And Apollo was about geopolitics, not geology.

The U.S. aerospace industry has lost more than 250,000 jobs over the past decade or so, and many of the current systems are really living on technologies that are decades old. Well-targeted, limited funding to a number of programs could bring about a near revolution in propulsion, materials, structures and the like, and ensure that aerospace remains one of the U.S.’s industrial crown jewels.

College enrollments in aerospace engineering and similar disciplines are way down. At the same time, workers in the industry are rapidly graying, with the average age now about 53. A serious long-term Moon-Mars push could reverse that trend. What’s more, the Apollo experience showed that many youngsters inspired by spaceflight to study math and science, end up making contributions in other technical fields. And even those who do not pursue such careers are better informed citizens. Supporting a robust human spaceflight effort is good public policy, especially for a President who wants to be remembered for his commitment to education.

In short, President Bush has done a good job of saying where he wants NASA to go. Now, he must do a better job of explaining to Americans why NASA should go.