Editorial: NASA needs the support of the next president.

At last week’s Republican National Convention, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz made headlines by refusing to endorse nominee Donald Trump. But there was a less-noticed but still-notable withheld endorsement from another convention speaker: retired sasatgroenaut Eileen Collins, the first female shuttle commander.

While Collins didn’t provoke the cries of betrayal from delegates that Cruz did, her failure to explicitly back Trump spotlighted — intentionally or not — the key role that the next president could have in preserving America’s legacy as the world’s leader in space exploration.

“We need leadership that will make America’s space program first again,” Collins told the delegates, right before her script called for her to say, “That leader is Donald Trump.” She never said it.

Trump said, “I love NASA” and “Space is terrific” when asked about the subject earlier this year on the campaign trail, according to The Washington Post, but said the nation has to “fix our potholes” first. While road repair is a sensible priority, it shouldn’t preclude spending to revitalize the space program. NASA’s current annual budget of $19.3 billion amounts to about half a percent of federal spending.

The Republican platform approved at last week’s party convention praises the “public-private partnerships” between NASA and space companies, an Obama administration policy. This free-market approach “is revitalizing the nation’s space capabilities, saving taxpayer money, and advancing technology critical to maintain America’s edge in space and in other fields,” according to the platform. We agree.

However, the platform doesn’t explicitly address funding to cultivate those partnerships or propel other NASA missions. Flat budgets for the space agency in recent years have delayed private rocketeers in developing the capability to carry U.S. astronauts, prolonged NASA’s dependence on Russian rockets, and slowed the agency’s progress toward other goals.

Trump has proposed a tax cut that would reduce federal revenues by $9 trillion or more over the next decade, which would ratchet up pressure on him to make deep spending cuts to avoid pushing the national debt — already approaching $20 trillion — much higher. How would NASA escape cuts under that scenario?

This month Democratic officials added a section to their party’s platform that praised the space agency. “We will strengthen support for NASA and work in partnership with the international scientific community to launch new missions to space,” it reads in part.

Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton said on the campaign trail, “I really, really do support the space program.” But the pressure on NASA funding in her budget could come from other areas where she has promised to spend hundreds of billions more, including education and infrastructure. If Congress balks at the tax hikes she has proposed on corporations and the wealthy, would space remain a priority for her?

Even when money is tight, space is a worthy investment. It’s important in Florida, where at least 11,600 aerospace companies with 132,000 workers contribute more than $17 billion a year to the economy. And it’s important for the nation as a whole. Space exploration has driven scientific and technological advances that have enhanced U.S. prosperity and power. These are benefits both candidates ought to be willing to acknowledge with explicit commitments to make NASA a priority in their budget plans.

As Collins said in her speech last week, “Countries that are strong are countries that explore, invent and discover to remain resilient in a changing world.”