NASA, THE US's National Aeronautics and Space Administration, is celebrating its 50th anniversary. It was cobbled together quickly in 1958 by President Eisenhower who was spooked by the Russian success the previous year with the Sputnik satellite. Despite the fact that the US was in recession, it was given $100 million and 8,000 employees. But the Russians were still the first to put a man into orbit. It then received an order from President Kennedy to get a man on the moon which it did with great aplomb. That achievement though, in 1969, was Nasa's high point. The much talked-of moon station never materialised - never mind a man on Mars - and the space station, after 20 years of planning and building, still isn't finished and has achieved little.
The anniversary has occasioned a degree of soul-searching on what Nasa should be doing and just how much money should be allocated to it. At present, Nasa burns through $17 billion a year or, to put it more starkly, $46 million a day. It is little wonder that its chief, Michael Griffin, calls for "an understanding that not everything that is worthwhile can be justified in terms of immediate dollars and cents on the balance sheet".
President Bush announced four years ago that the US should once again send manned flights to the moon and, when that was accomplished, should turn its attention to Mars. Mr Bush realises that space exploration is popular with voters but also that there are reservations about the cost. Not surprisingly, he has failed to find the funds for Nasa to deliver on his vision.
Opinion is divided in Nasa and elsewhere on whether manned space travel is where the future emphasis should be. Currently, just under a third of the budget is spent on unmanned endeavours with two-thirds devoted to manned flight i.e. the shuttle and the space station. The most fruitful exploration of the solar system in recent times, which has hugely expanded the frontiers of human knowledge, has been achieved by unmanned flights and robot probes. Manned flights are more showbusiness than science but because they capture the imagination (and television news) they get funding with less difficulty. Significant decisions cannot be postponed. The shuttle has to be retired. Nasa's desire is to return to the moon by 2020 and then get a crew on Mars, which is a six-month trip compared to the three-day hop to the moon. The costs would dwarf what is being spent at present and it will be a tricky conundrum for the next occupant of the Oval Office.