Why Obama is Smart to Cut the NASA Moon Plan


Fly me to the moon? Eh, never mind.

President Obama's $3.8 trillion budget for fiscal 2011 doesn't cut very much, but it makes one budget slash that is sure to draw blood from certain constituencies: He's wants to end the NASA moon program and encourage the private sector to pick up the slack.

I know what some critics are going to say about this plan, because they've already said it.

This was Charles Krauthammer last year, on the

40th anniversary of the first moon landing:

America's manned space program is in shambles. Fourteen months from today, for the first time since 1962, the United States will be incapable not just of sending a man to the moon but of sending anyone into Earth orbit. We'll be totally grounded. We'll have to beg a ride from the Russians or perhaps even the Chinese.

So what, you say? Don't we have problems here on Earth? Oh, please. Poverty and disease and social ills will always be with us. If we'd waited for them to be rectified before venturing out, we'd still be living in caves...

Why do it? It's not for practicality. We didn't go to the moon to spin off cooling suits and freeze-dried fruit. Any technological return is a bonus, not a reason. We go for the wonder and glory of it.

This is exactly wrong. It's does not make sense to spend money on "wonder and glory" without any practical benefit, and Krauthammer knows this perfectly well. It's extraordinary that somebody who works himself into such a fury about pointless pork spending, will abandon his orthodox focus on practicality only when the end is not people, no, but an inanimate satellite.

Where I feel sympathy for the space program is not the space part, but the program. Florida's Sen. Bil Nelson told reporters ""I, for one, intend to stand up and fight for NASA, and for the thousands of people who stand to lose their jobs." Job loss is a real concern, but one fact that will be obscured by the noise over our lunar drawback is that total NASA spending will actually go up in Obama's budget by $1 billion. Other agencies that fall under discretionary spending will not be so lucky because of the announced freeze to demonstrate the administration's seriousness about fiscal restraint.

Nelson's plea reveals the political impossibility of meaningful spending cuts. If it is unacceptable to increase a department's budget by one billion dollars while cutting one of its programs whose advocates admit is "not for practicality," then what part of fiscal restraint will be acceptable?

Jump to comments
Presented by

Derek Thompson is a senior editor at The Atlantic, where he writes about economics, labor markets, and the entertainment business.

Get Today's Top Stories in Your Inbox (preview)

Social Security: The Greatest Government Policy of All Time?

It's the most effective anti-poverty program in U.S. history. So why do some people hate it?

Elsewhere on the web

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register. blog comments powered by Disqus


Adventures in Legal Weed

Colorado is now well into its first year as the first state to legalize recreational marijuana. How's it going? James Hamblin visits Aspen.


What Makes a Story Great?

The storytellers behind House of CardsandThis American Life reflect on the creative process.


Tracing Sriracha's Origin to Thailand

Ever wonder how the wildly popular hot sauce got its name? It all started in Si Racha.


Where Confiscated Wildlife Ends Up

A government facility outside of Denver houses more than a million products of the illegal wildlife trade, from tigers and bears to bald eagles.


Is Wine Healthy?

James Hamblin prepares to impress his date with knowledge about the health benefits of wine.


The World's Largest Balloon Festival

Nine days, more than 700 balloons, and a whole lot of hot air



More in Business

Just In