Ledyard King

Florida Today

WASHINGTON -- Tackling in-space propulsion, oxygen recycling and radiation protection is daunting enough. But the most formidable challenge in sending astronauts to Mars just might be the politics playing out on Earth.

There's near-unanimous support on Capitol Hill for making the Red Planet the next grand destination for America's space program. Paying for it, enlisting international partners, and deciding exactly how to get there? Not so much.

"The problem for this all along has been political will," said former NASA historian Roger Launius, senior curator for space history at the National Air and Space Museum. "And the political will has not been present for a Mars mission. Ever."

Launius was a member of the National Research Council committee that delivered a blunt message last week to the nation: Reaching Mars by the 2030s, as NASA planners envision, will require unifying behind a single strategy, involving other countries and making a serious financial commitment.

The panel, mostly made up of scientists, political analysts and aerospace consultants, concluded that "human spaceflight -- among the longest of long-term endeavors -- cannot be successful if held hostage to traditional short-term decision-making and budgetary processes."

Political will essentially means money.

It's true that Congress and the administration differ on how to get to Mars. Many lawmakers want to use the moon as a staging point, while NASA wants to redirect an asteroid into the moon's orbit and use it as a stepping-stone on the way to Mars.

It's also true that key players in Congress are loathe to share sensitive information with the one country -- China -- that's the most logical partner in a Mars mission. And turf wars between traditional Old Space aerospace firms and New Space upstarts threaten to hinder progress.

Money could go a long way toward solving those problems.

But lawmakers appear reluctant to spend hundreds of billions over the next few decades to make the mission a reality. That largely reflects a lack of interest among their constituents, experts say. President Barack Obama scuttled a return to the moon mainly because of the expense.

"The deficit is a more important issue than space," said Cliff Zukin, a Rutgers University political science professor and member of the National Research Council committee. "Unless there are some major changes, it ain't gonna happen."

As if to prove the point, lawmakers recently proposed barring NASA from spending money to develop a safe and nutritious system for feeding astronauts during the months it would take to travel to Mars.

"I want to ensure that taxpayer funding is not wasted on projects that are not going to happen," GOP Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania said in presenting the amendment on the House floor. It passed by voice vote without dissent.

Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, arguably the space program's biggest champion in Congress, said the GOP's strict adherence to budget austerity opened a first-ever partisan divide over last year's NASA authorization bill. Republicans argued they were simply following sequestration budget restrictions.

Things were very different in the 1960s, when lawmakers enthusiastically embraced a lunar mission. At its peak in the mid-sixties, spending on NASA consumed 4.6 percent of the federal budget. Today, it's less than one-half of 1 percent.

But public backing for a moon landing was hardly universal 50 years ago. Launius said the only time polls showed support above 50 percent was at the time of the moon landing itself. The Apollo Program won support from key policy makers because it was viewed as strategically important in trying to stay ahead of the Soviet Union.

"We did this as a Cold-War initiative and we did it because we viewed the Cold War and the moon race as war by another means," Launius said. "We demonstrated over and over again in our nation's history that when we view something as a national security issue, we're willing to spend what ever it takes."

That imperative doesn't exist with Mars, experts say.

Even if money weren't an issue, a Mars mission presents formidable logistical hurdles. The National Research Council listed 10 "high-priority capabilities" that would be required, with special emphasis on radiation safety, in-space propulsion, entry, descent, and landing.

Significant advances in technology would aid the mission's cause, ostensibly by making it faster and almost certainly cheaper.

"If NASA figures out a way to do it within their budget profile, I think there's a whole lot of people, including most political leaders, who would cheer," Launius said. "Part of this ultimately is the fact that we don't have a strong rationale for space flight. Period. Whether it's the moon or Mars or anything else, we can't find a good reason to do it, other than to do it."

Nelson is confident astronauts will eventually reach Mars because it's in our nature.

"If we continue to be a first-rate nation, we will continue to explore," he said. "That is our destiny."

--

Contact Ledyard King at lking@gannett.com; Twitter: @ledgeking