American space policy as a public project

Let’s take a look at a speech President Obama made that emphasized the following two points: (1) At least 3 billion dollars will be invested in the research and development of heavyweight rockets. The rocket design needs to have been completed and its manufacture commenced upon by 2015. (2) A manned exploration plan will require verification tests that are necessary with flights beyond a low orbit to be made within next 10 years before a manned mission beyond the moon can take place by 2025. The plan will commence with a flight to an asteroid, flowed by a round trip between the Mars orbit and the earth in the middle of 2030, and then eventually a manned landing on Mars.

　

However, the most important thing here is: (3) The creation of more employment around the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, a total of 2,500 more new jobs than the previous policy, with a total of at least ten thousand around the country surrounding Florida then being created a few years later. The U.S. government intends to invest 40 million dollars (about 3.7 billion yen) in activating the local economy of these areas and in creating jobs.

There are two things that can be read from this. One is that the speech involves an extremely rough and ready proposal. The Constellation Program" (Note 1) outlined by President Bush in 2004 was also put together at a rather high pace, with the effort needed to realize the program, such as a long-term budget and the technological direction, being rather evident. The "Constellation Program" was subsequently called off, although at least it can be said that President Bush presented a reasonable vision and plan.

Obama’s speech however did not present a concrete budget, very important with the severe financial situation, and did not even refer to the technological issue of exactly what type of "heavyweight rocket" would be produced. Moreover, it only presented the rough plan of achieving the exploration of some asteroids in 2025 and then Mars in the 2030s. The plan involves a much longer term than what President Obama will in office for, of course. I must say that I consider it to be rather irresponsible as it basically sets no concrete milestones. The purpose of Obama’s speech, after all, involved the setting of goals that go far beyond his field of view: The overall nuance is that it is a temporary measure which is being used to cover up the discontinuation of the "Constellation Program".

Another point is that the speech clarifies the nature of the U.S. space development as being a "public project" for use in maintaining levels of employment. A midterm election will take place this year. President Obama, who is in the middle of a severe battle with Congress in terms of the medical system reformation, and being subjected to bitter criticism, must therefore somehow gain the support of Congress. The increase in their financial deficit that corresponds to the economic crisis caused by the Lehman Shock is resulting in a situation where further budget increases for space development cannot be expected. Florida is referred to as a "Purple state (Purple because it is not the red of the Republic Party or the blue of the Democratic Party)", as seen in the presidential election of 2000: It is an important state that can determine the course of an election. Canceling the "Constellation Program", and the resulting unemployment of the middle class with their high level of skills and political influence, could possibly damage his next hope of being elected.

The speech was made at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida and the audience limited to invited officials from the space industry, mainly working for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). That is to say, rather than being a speech to the citizens it instead involved the promise of employment to those who could lose their job due to the discontinuation of the "Constellation Program". The U.S. space policy therefore has become a "public project" for use in maintaining levels of employment in a severe financial situation.

The Japanese manned space exploration project is one step behind.

At about the same time Obama made the speech astronaut Naoko Yamasaki was experiencing the unprecedented "simultaneous stay of two Japanese in space" along with astronaut Soichi Noguchi who was also living on the International Space Station. She played the Japanese harp and was interviewed while in space, which was subsequently broadcast throughout Japan. The mainstream of the media on it provided an impression that greatly deviated from the actual drastic change in direction of the manned space project in the U.S.

First, as in the case of astronaut Yamasaki, the broadcast of the manned space flight in Japan appeared to focus on a performance that would gain general popularity than on any concrete work, and did not provide any information on the "Reason for going to space". Obama’s speech set sort of set the goal of "sending a human to Mars" and eyed the possibility of residing off the earth in the future while information on what Japan wants to do in the space was barely provided and instead the misunderstanding that the only purpose of the broadcast was to demonstrate a popularity gaining performance.

Second, astronaut Yamasaki is the 13rd Japanese to have experienced a space flight since astronaut Mamoru Mohri (present director of the National Museum of Emerging Science and Innovation). It would now appear "natural" for Japanese to traveling into space. In the U.S., too, the enthusiasm that existed at the time of the Apollo program has waned, with the latest poll revealing that half of all U.S. citizens are of the opinion that manned space flights should be ended because of the critical financial situation. And there can be no denying that the Japanese broadcast was a type of "running out of stories to tell" and that they have often resorted to reporting on the household affairs of astronaut Yamasaki. This probably actually means that they have been trying to attract the attention of citizens by emphasizing that rather than an "elite" type astronaut but a general citizen has travelled into space.

However, Japan, which is suffering from the same kind of financial difficulty as the U.S. cannot ignore the fact that they have been sending astronauts into space using taxpayers’ money to merely demonstrate that they could. The Japanese manned space program can be considered to be type of hidden "public project" that has vested interests and utilizes a huge amount of tax money for an unclear purpose in the name of "dream" and "hope", while that of the U.S. is at least open. The situation where a fantasy exists that involves the mass media and the general public is identical to the American manned Apollo program: It is one step behind the U.S.

Where will the manned space project of Japan and the U.S. go to?

The manned space project makes up a large proportion of all space development, and thus has a large impact on both society and finance. Both Japan and the U.S. therefore face pressure in maintaining it as a "public project" as it is financially quite difficult.

A proposal made by the private advisory committee of the Minister in Charge of Space Development Seiji Maehara that was released the same day as astronaut Naoko Yamasaki returned to the earth pointed out that "Investment in the International Space Station should only be made after first clarifying its cost-benefit performance (diplomacy, science, utilization) and an exit strategy." It was just a proposal made by an advisory committee; however, it did reveal a direction where the manned space project has to be determined in accordance with its "cost-benefit performance" as well as the currently popular "project sorting". It would also suggest the manned space project’s status as a "public project" would be reviewed, possibly leading to the manned project being abandoned in the future.

Looking once again at Obama’s speech reveals that as a result of the drastic measures of reviewing the manned project of the Bush administration and then calling off the "Constellation Program" it instead proposed the "public project" of landing a human in Mars in the 2030s in order to ease in a drastic change.

What about Japan’s manned space project then? What will result if the advisory panel (private advisory committee of the Minister in Charge of Space Development) is accepted and the manned space project then reviewed based on its "cost-benefit performance"? First, it is very difficult to say that the manned space project produces any large purely economic effect. Many experiments in the space shuttle have now taken place since its first flight in 1981; however, very few results were obtained for use in the chemical and pharmaceutical industries that expected some fruition and the spillover effect on industrial technology was also rather small.

In terms of a long stay in space the Soviet Union operated the Mir Space Station for a period of 15 years and the achievements obtained there were extremely limited. No obvious economic effect can be pinpointed as having originated on the current International Space Station, either. Nevertheless, pure scientific results and certain degree of progress on the research on the effect of zero gravity to the human body were found and it can be said that it had some kind of diplomatic impact as the symbol of international cooperation. Moreover, the effect of revealing the power of Japanese technology both at home and abroad and a way of preventing a "moving away from the sciences" can be expected; however, as described above, enthusiasm about the manned space project has already cooled down both domestically and internationally, which could therefore limit the effect.

From these perspectives the cost of the manned space project is very difficult to justify, in which sense continuation of the manned space project would be extremely difficult if the proposal of the advisory panel were to be accepted.

However, the criticism exists that abolition of the manned space project would result a loss of employment and eventual succession of technologies. And in that case do we have to intentionally make it a "public project" as President Obama did? The size of the Japanese space industry completely differs to that of the U.S. About 80 thousand people are employed in the space industry in the U.S. (Still half the number 10 years ago) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) employs about 12 thousand. Conversely only about 7,000 people are employed in the Japanese space industry and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) only employs about 1,600 officials. In the U.S. space development is usually undertaken by dedicated companies while in Japan heavy industries and electric appliance companies carry it out as part of their businesses.

In that point employment is more flexible in Japan than in the U.S. and the manned space project being used to create employment thus unnecessary. This then means that the justification of being intentionally made a "public project" as a measure of easing in a drastic change is rather meaningless. No succession of technologies will follow if the manned space project itself is ended.

A financial point of view will make the manned space project difficult to continue unless it is effective in terms of the economy, science, and diplomacy. Government debt already exceeds 180% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and the value of government bonds is larger than the tax income of the 2010 budget: It is no exaggeration to say that there is no financial room for it in Japan, which is suffering from a low birthrate and an aging population. The annual amount of 40 billion yen will be needed for operation of the International Space Station after completion, which. It is doubtful that Japan can bear the cost of.

Some discussions have taken place on how international cooperation must be promoted in reducing that cost; however, the U.S. making the manned space project a "public project" in guaranteeing employment means that the major projects in the U.S. will probably involve use of domestic companies and hence any international cooperation would be limited to the secondary field of technology. President Obama also clearly declared a policy of committing manned transportation to the International Space Station after retirement of the space shuttles to private American companies, and which is located as a measure to improve the competitive power of American companies that have started to lose their international competitiveness. In this sense the U.S. is giving preference to the development of their domestic economy and protecting employment over international cooperation.

As argued above it is difficult to intentionally make the Japanese manned space project a "public project" and the necessity for that rather low. Japan should instead specialize in other space development fields than the manned space project in more effective utilization of limited financial and human resources. However, as long as the mass media is actively playing up the manned space project and disseminating the image of "space = manned project" the manned space project will remain a hidden "public project" in maintaining the vested interests of the aforementioned group and a large budget would be then need to be invested in a manned space project that in the broadest sense is of low "cost effectiveness".

What needs to be done in the current situation is to not get too excited about "project sorting" that saves on superficial waste and instead review exactly what the nation and citizens consider a worthy project to be and how much tax should be invested in it after taking the international and financial situation of Japan into consideration.

(Note) "Constellation Program" = A program approved by President Bush in 2004 in which the simultaneous development of new rockets (Ares 1 for manned flight and Ares 5 for materials), a manned capsule (Orion), and a moon lander (Altair) for a manned exploration of the moon (and eventually Mars) would all take place.

Chinese / French / Japanese