The Moon. Once again out of Reach.

The Constellation program came to a quick death when it was announced "canceled" in the latest budget proposal. This decision has once again put any moon exploration in limbo for the not to distant future. Was this decision based in the best interests of human advancement, or is it rooted in political short sightedness?

To be fair to President Obama, his decision may well be based on the best advice of his scientific advisers and N.A.S.A administrators. The 100 billion dollar program, in it's short existence, was already expected to be realized over budget and behind schedule. With that in mind, perhaps the program as it stands was not the best use of N.A.S.A resources. What is troubling is that there are no proposed alternative to the endeavor, it is just canceled.

So why is a trip to the moon at all important? It is a desolate rock in space that has no redeemable qualities. What value does the moon hold? The answer is, quite simply, human advancement. A long term and continuous presents on the moon will ignite an new age innovation, progress and understanding. To have human beings able to exist outside the confines of the Earth will increase the rate at which efficient and abundant energy sources are developed. It will help solve problems of over population and limited food supplies. There will be increased understanding of our planet and the Universe. Our long term goals should be as important as our short term goal, and should be set to achieve.

It should be said that the Obama administration has, at his time, only canceled this particular program and that other N.A.S.A. programs are still on the go list. They have also set out to increase the time that the International Space Station can be effectively used which will be a benefit to future space exploration. Just that there is no outline what that exploration will be, or what time frame.

Then there are the programs they support that seem more politically based then scientific. Satellites that measure the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere, for example. What is wrong with that? You may ask. To put satellites in space to study the atmosphere in its entirety is a good idea, to put satellites up to study a single component of the atmosphere is a waste of resources. It is equivalent to trying to cure cancer by studying the rate of hair growth. Although there may be a relationship, concise conclusions can not be obtained though the data collected.

Suspicions are also raised when the Constellation program is cut from the budget and 4 billion dollars are added to fund ACORN and other similar organizations. Not to mention a trillion dollar Health Care bill sitting on the table. This makes it look like N.A.S.A. is being sacrificed at the alter of the Obama agenda.

In a recessed economy there are bound to be casualties. The question is, should funding be stopped for programs that will ensure future prosperity? With all the spending on entitlements and social programs with little over all benefit, why is N.A.S.A. one of the first heads on the chopping block? Lets all hope that this decision was not made to trade tomorrow in for today.