Bush's Space Vision Thing Published: January 15, 2004 [C]ritics will no doubt accuse President Bush of fiscal folly for proposing a grandiose plan for space exploration at a time when the nation faces onerous deficits and insufficient money to meet costly obligations on planet Earth. The critics would be right that money is short and there are many more important things to do than put astronauts on the Moon or Mars. But Mr. Bush is a canny enough politician to avoid committing much money to his new space vision. He calls for only $1 billion in new financing for NASA over five years and a reallocation of the current five-year budget of $86 billion. The cost will of course explode later on, when NASA tries to actually carry out the program. What Mr. Bush has really done is promise the moon (literally) while leaving future presidents and Congresses to figure out how to pay the potentially large future bills while they cope with the severe revenue losses caused by Mr. Bush's reckless tax cuts. The political significance of Mr. Bush's proposal seemed obvious when Mr. Bush gave special thanks to Representative Tom DeLay of Texas and Senator Bill Nelson of Florida for attending his speech. Each comes from a potential swing state, rich in electoral votes, that is or has been governed by a Bush. It is probably not a coincidence that each would benefit from a rejuvenated space program. Fiscal issues aside, the Bush space exploration plan has some commendable aspects. It would end the troubled shuttle program in 2010, thus relieving NASA of a costly burden that relies on old and finicky technologies. Retirement makes far more sense than trying to extend the shuttle lifetimes for a decade beyond that. The plan would refocus research conducted on the International Space Station to concentrate on the long-term health effects of space travel, a prerequisite to long-distance missions, thereby ending studies of more limited importance. The plan also calls for development of a new spacecraft that could fly not only into low-Earth orbit but also to the Moon and Mars. Before Congress signs off on this plan, it needs to carefully consider whether the reallocation of funds within NASA will cause serious harm to important science programs, robotic explorations or climate-related studies. If so, the loss may be too great to justify full financing of the new program. Congress should also hold a vigorous debate on whether Mr. Bush is right to head for the Moon first, or whether Mars is a more important destination. In the end, the Moon may serve more as a diversion than a steppingstone. The space program badly needs a bold new goal as an organizing principle, but it is important to get it right. Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company