Can a democracy put an astronaut on Mars?
The thrilling success of NASA’s Perseverance mission to Mars has captured well-deserved national attention. As occurs intermittently, the air is filled with bold predictions of a revived U.S. human spaceflight program, with Mars as its goal and the moon as its staging area.
I hope it happens. A national commission I co-chaired a few years ago concluded that, for reasons tangible (scientific discovery, economic spinoffs, national security) and intangible (inspiring of young talent to scientific pursuits, national morale and prestige, the elevation of human aspiration and imagination), a resumption of our attempts to reach beyond low Earth orbit was justified.
If and when humankind reaches that next frontier, though, there are reasons to doubt that it will be a U.S. government space project that leads us there. Ironically, the society that put a man on the moon may be just the wrong one to succeed in this next great endeavor, at least through a grand national project like Apollo.
In launching what became Apollo, President John F. Kennedy said we should attempt it not because it was easy, but because it was hard. As dazzling as the Perseverance achievement is, it involves radiation-proof robots, not fragile humans, and a seven-foot, one-metricton craft, not the 40-metric-ton, two-story system that a human landing, life support and ascent vehicle would require.
It will be exponentially harder for humans to fly safely to Mars, establish a sustained presence and survive to return to Earth. To do so, our commission concluded, would require making the goal a central, single-minded priority of the U.S. space program; a relentless, unswerving multi-decade commitment to a pre-agreed path to reach the goal; and constant investments in amounts well above the rate of inflation. American democracy is not very good at any of those things.
Our system affords us, thank goodness, a chance to change national direction every two years, and presidential leadership quadrennially. That competitiveness and responsiveness enables the quick correction of mistakes and the flexibility to navigate changed circumstances. What it doesn’t excel at is sustaining long-term projects of distant or indirect benefit to the voting public.
Each new national administration brings its own agenda. Presidents are always more interested in starting initiatives than in extending those they inherit. Fiscal, economic and other national policies can be altered frequently, and often should be. Yet this pattern has also applied to space policy, jerking NASA through a series of major strategic shifts, from Apollo to the space shuttle to the International Space Station to asteroid capture and, finally, to thinking about reaching Mars with a manned mission via the moon.
With a micromanaging Congress resetting budgets on an annual basis, picking out a priority for NASA and sticking to it for 20 years or more is likely not in the cards; we’ve proved very poor at “perseverance.” Plus, our legislators regularly carve out NASA dollars for favored non-exploratory causes such as environmental monitoring, and fiercely protect multiple space centers and resulting costly redundancies.
Even if a consensus plan were reached, and some magical mechanism invented for maintaining it over changing administrations, the money wouldn’t be there. The nation’s elected representatives continue spending vastly beyond revenue and legislating promises that cannot conceivably be paid for. The odds are that a crisis in the safety net – forcing some combination of massive tax increases, benefit reductions and further asphyxiation of discretionary programs such as NASA (which has never registered more than tepid public support) – will arrive here before we arrive on Mars.
So if our system is ill-suited to the task, what kind of nation would be most likely to reach this next frontier? Oh, in theory, one with a patient, farsighted culture, accustomed by history to taking the very long view. A country with an authoritarian regime, capable of commandeering the massive resources necessary without making concessions to public opinion. Perhaps one with a “leader for life” intent on establishing his realm as dominant in both reputation and technological power. Just speaking hypothetically.
The superiority of free enterprise has given birth to nimble private companies, unencumbered by political realities, backed by private fortunes imbued with the explorer spirit and, in some cases, a dream of profits. Either on their own or through increasingly harmonious partnerships with NASA, they give us the best chance that, despite our mismatched system of government, the first human on Mars, as on the moon, will be a free citizen of a free country.
DEAR ABBY:
I recently had a child with a man who is now incarcerated. I was widowed when I met him, and although he brought me happiness, it has come at a steep price.
I pay for literally everything. I love him very much, but his entitlement was an issue even before he had legal issues. Now he has become very nasty and minimizes everything I do.
If I send $100, he’s upset that I didn’t send $200. If I have a day off from work that I don’t spend communicating with a lawyer and the courts, I’m “not taking initiative.” He has even gone so far as to say it was my fault he got in trouble because I was on his case so often that he “had to go out to get some peace.” His only redeeming quality is his wonderful relationship with the kids, who see none of our fights and regard him as a father figure.
He is now even more negative and derogatory than when he was at home. I manage a busy restaurant and a household of five
children. Since he has been away, I’m ashamed to say life has actually been less stressful.
I think my loneliness when I met him made it easier to ignore red flags. In every other aspect of my life, I am an independent woman who has the respect of my peers. Is it too late to set boundaries with him? -- GROWING IN
FLORIDA
DEAR GROWING:
This emotionally abusive individual is milking you like you are a Guernsey cow. His ingratitude is boundless. You are not the reason he got himself in trouble with the law, and it isn’t your responsibility to get him out or support him financially.
It is way too late to set boundaries with this manipulative ingrate. He won’t change. What you must do now -- for your own sake and for your children’s -- is tell him you are finished and cut ties with him.
DEAR ABBY:
I live in Kansas and my boyfriend lives in another state. We talk online all the time, but I haven’t heard from him in three days and I don’t know what to think. My friends say I’m being paranoid, but I can’t help but think that he might be seeing another girl. I’ve had problems like this before and ended up getting hurt because I didn’t listen when my friends told me that a guy was cheating. What should I do? -- LONG-DISTANCE
LOVE
DEAR L.D.L.:
Recognize that as much as two people might care about each other, long-distance romances don’t always have fairytale endings. I don’t know if your boyfriend is cheating. Neither do you and neither do your friends.
It’s time for you to have a calm conversation with your boyfriend. Tell him you were worried by his three-day silence because it was unusual. Let him respond. If you are satisfied with his answer, change the subject. However, if you aren’t, ASK him if he has met someone closer to home and tell him to level with you. It takes courage to do this, but it will save you a lot of pain in the long run.