Sept. 27, 2007 -- It took years for the United States to recover from the shock of being bested in space by the launch of the Soviet satellite Sputnik on Oct. 4, 1957, and the flight of cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin just 42 months later, but the country recovered in time to clinch the grand prize in the Cold War space race by landing a man on the moon.
This time, the United States may not be so lucky.
"I personally believe that China will be back on the moon before we are," NASA administrator Michael Griffin said during a luncheon speech in Washington D.C., last week. "I think when that happens, Americans will not like it, but they will just have to not like it."
Fifty years after space exploration debuted with the stunning launch of Sputnik, the goal of many of the world's space programs, including NASA, is to build a base on the moon. Unlike the first lunar venture, however, momentum in the United States is sluggish.
Most of NASA's budget remains committed to operation of the space shuttles, which were returned to service after a second deadly accident in 2003 for the sole purpose of finishing construction of the International Space Station.
By the time the outpost is complete in 2010 — barring additional delays — the United States, which has spent billions of dollars on the program, will not be able to fly there, or fund the vast number of science experiments originally planned to be conducted aboard. Many will not even be launched.
If Congress agrees to lift a trade embargo on Russia, enacted to suppress weapons proliferation to Iran, NASA plans to buy rides on Soyuz rockets for a handful of U.S. astronauts each year to live and work aboard the station. A current exemption from the trade ban expires in 2011.
Another option would be to buy space transport services commercially, if one or more of the entrepreneurial enterprises in development is successful.
Escalating shuttle and station costs, combined with relatively flat government spending for NASA, already has pushed back the debut flight of the shuttle replacement vehicle from 2014 to 2015. So far, NASA is sticking with its 2020 deadline for returning U.S. astronauts to the lunar surface.
Budget Crunch
Money for the predecessor Apollo program simply was not an issue.
"No one seemed concerned either about the difficulty or about the expense at the time. Congressional debate was perfunctory and NASA found itself literally pressing to expend the funds committed to it during the early 1960s," wrote former NASA historian Roger Launius in Apollo: A Retrospective Analysis.
At its peak, NASA received more than 5 percent of the federal budget in 1965, an amount comparable to more than $65 billion in 1992 dollars, according to Launius. NASA receives about one-quarter of that amount today, less than 1 percent of the annual budget.
"Our moon program isn't funded to succeed," said Joan Johnson-Freese, who chairs the Department of National Security Studies at the Naval War College in Rhode Island.
"If we're really going to go to the moon we're going to have to put the money in pretty quickly," Johnson-Freese said in an interview with Discovery News. "All along, people have been wondering if this vision to go to the moon is more fantasy than anything else. Right now our space 'vision' just doesn't have a matching budget."
Johnson-Freese echoes the NASA's chief's sentiment that the United States could find a welcoming committee if and when it returns to the lunar surface.
China has the ability to impose its political will, she said. "They don't need to fund Social Security or Veterans Affairs. Their government isn't accountable to a democratically elected Congress."
Ironically, the first race to the moon juxtaposed contrasting political ideologies as well, with the Communist Soviet regime pitched against the U.S. democracy. The difference between the first space race and one that may be shaping up today is the playing field. In the late 1950s, both the Soviets and the Americans were space rookies and both acquired missile technology from the Germans after World War II.
"Now the United States is at a disadvantage," said Johnson-Freese. "We made it look too easy."
Four years ago, China became the only other country besides the United States and Russia to launch people into orbit. A second, more sophisticated flight with two astronauts aboard occurred in 2005. A third mission is planned for next year.
Why the Moon? Why Now?
The reasons for going to the moon likewise have shifted. The first space race provided the Americans and the Soviets a virtual battleground to display their technology prowess without actually going to war. Fearful of an attack, the United States shoveled money into its space program out of a sense of national security.
Funding for Defense Department space programs continues to climb, but so far the military has no interest in a moon base, leaving NASA without the political imperative that drove Apollo.
"I think it does matter if we're not on the moon first," Johnson-Freese said. "If we're working on a moon program and China is working on a moon program and they get there first then I think there would be a perception of a leadership issue."
"We're at a cross-roads," she added. "The next 50 years are up in the air."
The opening salvos of the new space age are imminent. NASA plans to launch its Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter next year to get a better idea of resources and scout landing sites for a permanent moon base. It likely will be the late-comer, with probes operated by Japan, China and India already in orbit.
Editor's note:
This is the second of a three-part series on Sputnik. Part III: The search for life beyond Earth.
Related Links:
Listen to an audio history of Sputnik.
The Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum's Sputnik page