Purdue News

July 4, 1983 Life Or Death For Space Science? By Michael E. Lipschutz About one year ago, the Reagan Administration announced plans to accelerate a trend begun by President Ford and continued under President Carter, by making yet another severe reduction in the U.S. space science program (which includes planetary exploration, physics and astronomy and life sciences). The effect of that deed would have been to virtually eliminate U.S. planetary exploration, certainly for the rest of the 1980s and probably for the rest of the century. This, despite President Reagan's eloquent words in his "State of Space" speech on July 4, 1982 that "in the future, as in the past, our freedom, independence and national well-being will be tied to new achievements, new discoveries and pushing back frontiers." Actions by a few people, prompted by public concern, allowed the planetary science program, in particular and the space science program, in general, to survive. My purpose here is in explaining the why and how of this survival and what it may mean. First, some facts. The planetary exploration program not only supports missions like Voyagers I and II, now en route to Uranus, but also laboratory studies like those in my research group involving meteorites. Planetary science funding in the current fiscal year is just under 1982 levels at $180 million. This is roughly 78 cents per person in the U.S. and less than the amount spent on Pac-Man alone last year. This money is spent for research activities like those in my group, here on earth, in the United States. It is spent for stipends for graduate students earning their Ph.D.'s; for co-workers who already have their degrees but wish to learn new techniques and approaches; and for chemicals and equipment. These funds produce knowledge, which has no price, and they produce people trained in high-technology areas having nothing to do with space — areas that hold the promise of economic revival for this country. Some history should be cited. In terms of current dollars, planetary exploration funding is at its lowest level since 1964, the first year for which figures are available. Total space-science funding is also at a low — less than half of what it was in 1964. Furthermore, in 1964, planetary exploration involved about 55 percent of the space-science budget; today, it is less than 40 percent. This smaller proportion of a smaller budget partly explains why so many university and other research laboratories have had to close or curtail their activities and why the U.S. has reneged on international space commitments — in short, why a crisis exists. One measure of this is the decline in planetary spacecraft launches: only one is planned for the 1980s compared with 36 in the 1960's. During the past year, Congress recognized the crisis and reevaluated the space-science situation so that its worth could clearly be assessed. Those leading this assessment included Rep. Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI); Rep. Edward P. Boland (D-MA); my own former congressman, Rep. Floyd Fithian (D-IN); Rep. Ronnie G. Flippo (D-AL); Rep. Don Fugua (D-FL); Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA); Sen. Edwin "Jake" Garn (R-UT); and former Sen. Harrison "Jack" Schmitt (R-NM). From my perspective, two extremely significant results emerged. The first was an appropriation of an additional $27 million for this fiscal year, a survival level but no more. The second — and more significant — result of the congressional review — was the recognition of the possibilities that space-science research offers to improve our lives on earth. Every economic study to date indicates that spending for NASA research and development yields positive effects on the GNP. The pursuit of planetary science has accelerated technological advances in communications, and has aided in weather predictions, ozone monitoring, and research of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. These were among many benefits outlined in "Space Science Research in the United States," a Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) technical memorandum issued in September, 1982 and available from the Superintendent of Documents. Administrator James M. Biggs recognized this and, last July, committed NASA to increase support for space science, in general, and planetary exploration, in particular. This would be limited because of pressing funding needs for programs such as the space shuttle. During the past year, many of my colleagues and I have devoted much time to informing the public and, in particular, members of Congress and their aides, of the crisis in space funding. In my case, and in the case of others, this has been at the cost of time that would otherwise have been devoted to research. Many members of the public joined us by contacting members of Congress to support space-science and planetary exploration. As a result, space science survived — barely. On January 31, Congress will begin considering the 1984 budget. We will then see whether efforts last year led merely to a stay of execution or marked the beginning of a revitalized program. Purdue News Service: (765) 494-2096; purduenews@purdue.edu