Chinavation

On Sept. 25, 2008 China successfully launched the Shenzou VII spacecraft. Two days later a five-yellow star flag waving, 'made in China' spacesuit wearing Chinese astronaut, Zhai Zhigang, made history by becoming China's first space walker. Only two other super powers, Russia and the United States, have ever sent humans to walk in space. On Sunday, Sept. 28, the Chinese astronauts returned safely to a heroes welcome in Beijing.

The compressed development of China means that in just 30 short years the country has risen from a depressed Maoist-planned economy to fulfilling the same goals of science and exploration that JFK and the USSR sought as world powers during the space race of the 1960s. By 2020 China plans to launch a moon orbiter, complete a space station and land humans on the moon. The recent spacewalk strengthens the Party's credibility to execute large scale projects such as the hosting of the Beijing Olympics. After the success of the Shenzhou 6 in 2005, the Chinese government announced China would launch humans into space to perform a spacewalk in 2008. This week the Chinese Government delivered the result.

What about the United States credibility to deliver results for large scale projects that it commits to? How does the democratic USA measure up against an autocratic state controlled government to deliver upon its public commitments in space science and technology?

Nearly five years ago on Jan. 14, 2004 US President George W. Bush announced that American astronauts would return to the Moon by 2015, develop a new manned vehicle, and use the experience to land Americans on Mars by 2030. The new NASA Moon landing alone was estimated to cost $12 - $50 billion dollars. One of the rationales for renewed interest in space exploration is over 1,300 new technologies were derived from the space industry leading to useful products such as satellite communications and heart monitors. In addition rare minerals may also be found.

All those things sound great! I love my mobile phone and generations of elderly and wall street bankers value heart monitors. Lets look at where the US is at meeting its milestones. The 2009 NASA budget rose 1.7% from '08, but leaves the agency $500,000,000 short of where NASA was told it would be by 2009 when Bush proposed the Moon mission. Wait, $500M short? The Moon is only 384,000 km away from Earth, how will Americans make it to Mars, which lies 490M kilometers away, a distance 3Xs times farther away than the Earth lies from the Sun on an underfunded budget?

The Whitehouse has stated that the US has been in a recession since 2001 and the fighting costly wars will require sacrifices. President Bush publicly committed to the American people and the world to a goal. Bush correctly stated, "the fascination generated by further exploration will inspire our young people to study math and science and engineering and create a new generation of innovators and pioneers." Yet unlike the years following the Kennedy address to land a man on the moon and return him safely to earth, in the years since Bush's speech, the Republican controlled Executive and Congressional(until 2006) branches did not commit the necessary resources to achieve the goal. Using historical budgetary figures adjusted for inflation, during the 8 year Clinton Administration NASA received a total of $131.76 Billion or $16.5 Billion dollars a year. During the 8 year Bush Administration NASA received less at $130.125 Billion dollars or $16.3 Billion per year. To date the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars have cost $604 Billion dollars, enough money to fund NASA for the next 35 years at current NASA spending levels. In fact, when adjusted for inflation, the Wars already total 75% of the entire 50 year budget of NASA since its creation in 1958.

Was it science or politics that led to the Bush announcement to pursue Moon and Mars missions when America is fighting two Wars, an unfunded health and social security system, and rising unemployment. Four years later unemployment figures are at a seven year high, and today President Bush signed a $700 Billion dollar bail out of America's largest banks and insurance firms. OK, the sub-prime mortgage crisis hadn't occurred, yet in 2004 America had just witnessed its seventh largest firm Enron declare bankruptcy - a sign that US businesses needed more robust assets and businesses models. The recent Financial Bailout represents nearly 7% of the total annual US Federal Government Budget, yet NASA's budget only consumes 0.6% per year. Since 2003, the CIA WorldFactbook states the US economy has grown an average of 3.1% a year. In 2007, China's economy grew 11.4%, its largest increase in 13 years.

In an Orwellian way, maybe the public perception is being used by two large state governments in different ways. China is opening up its media and reporting on the space missions with unprecedented transparency, which is promoting national pride and government allegiance. At the same time the US government is using its power to interrupt American TV broadcasting for President Bush to deliver state messages of fear and urgency to give tax-payer money to financial institutions NOW!

At the same time, Intel Chairman Craig Barrett cannot believe that the US Government failed to increase funding for Research & Development in Science and Technology by $1.2 billion, as authorized by the America Competes Act, which President Bush signed in August of 2007. Barrett states, "A big part of the world is still investing in infrastructure, China, Russia and India. Those regions are seeing good growth rates. ....I’m not against bailing out Wall Street, because they are bailing out individuals. But when you look at the agricultural subsidies and the bailouts and the earmarks it’s hard to believe the government can’t come up with $1 billion to fund innovation. We as a country have chosen not to compete." To put this in perspective, Congress approved a $487.7 billion 2009 budget for the Defense Department, including a single Navy Destroyer at a cost $1.5 billion, more than required to fully fund the America Competes Act. Since 2003, President George W. Bush's missile defense spending has run about $10 billion per year, and the FY 2009 is the highest missile defense request on record at $13.2 billion. In my opinion, military spending has shown a poorer return on investment relative to spending on scientific research and innovation. Regardless of where you stand on military spending, the issue is about prioritizing. We cannot engage in global wars, bailout entire financial industries - including five large banks this week alone, and expect to remain dominant in science and technology, including space exploration. The trend suggests that the current US Government can identify an issue, yet like the inadequately funded Space Exploration Program, does not supply the resources to bring the project to completion. In business we frown upon blue sky thinkers who have ambitious plans, yet do not follow-through with execution to achieve the stated result. A plans without action is irresponsibility.

During the 2004 Moon and Mars announcement, Bush stated, "We choose to explore space because doing so improves our lives and lifts our national spirit." Bush is right, investments in Science and Technology, embodied in space exploration can enhance our collective innovation, produce new products and services and instill us with pride. By delivering on its goal of a spacewalk in 2008, the Chinese Government has enabled Chinese citizens to celebrate in the exploration of space and associated boosts in national spirit. Sadly like Intel's Chairman observed, the US is not investing in our competitive future. The every day person living in the BRIC countries are as hungry to succeed as Americans were during the Industrial Revolution. The recent Chinese space walk demonstrates the world has changed. The US Government and millions of Americans are failing to acknowledge that developing countries are focusing on developing systems of internal innovation and delivering sustainable results through investments in science and technologies that matter. We must do the same, otherwise there will be 45 less stars on the cover of Time Magazine for generations to come.