Wall Street is in more than a slump--dare I say, it seems impotent. The question is, can the space industry fly while the market is crashing? The answer is...well, it's debatable.

Operations in the space industry aren't cheap, but like time, its financing should be looked at in terms of relativity. In the past half-decade, NASA has spent just under $600 billion, and in less than a decade, U.S. taxpayers have spent much more than this amount on the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Virtually everyone, from Republican hockey-moms to Democratic party leaders, would prefer to see the United States go to Mars rather than the Middle East. It's cheaper, and soldiers of the sky would likely experience a better survival rate than our soldiers on the ground.

Another good sign for our capitalistic society is that there is certainly no lack of enthusiasm in the space industry. New markets are opening up due to the emergence of private companies, such as Virgin Galactic and XCOR. The private sector is attracting plenty of financing and there appears to be a robust market in this domain, despite the general market downturn.

Whilst the global economy is looking grave, the future of NASA's missions in zero-gravity will at least be in the hands of a politician who is fully in support of the space industry's continued exploration. The tides of both policy and funding can, and likely will—change when the new President takes office. Last year, Science Debate 2008 put the presidential candidates on-the spot with the following question:

The study of Earth from space can yield important information about climate change; focus on the cosmos can advance our understanding of the universe; and manned space travel can help us inspire new generations of youth to go into science. Can we afford all of them? How would you prioritize space in your administration?

Lucky for NASA, President-elect Barack Obama was loud and clear about his support:

As president, I will establish a robust and balanced civilian space program. Under my administration, NASA not only will inspire the world with both human and robotic space exploration, but also will again lead in confronting the challenges we face here on Earth, including global climate change, energy independence, and aeronautics research. In achieving this vision, I will reach out to include international partners and to engage the private sector to amplify NASA's reach. I believe that a revitalized NASA can help America maintain its innovation edge and contribute to American economic growth.

If this is true, then perhaps NASA can be a part of the solution, rather than a part of the economy's problem. Time will tell of course, but at least Obama's intentions are in line with the space industry—that's half the battle. Here are the more specific details of Obama's plan:

Between 1958 and 1973, the National Aeronautics and Space Council oversaw the entire space arena for four presidents; the Council was briefly revived from 1989 to 1992. I will re-establish this Council reporting to the president. It will oversee and coordinate civilian, military, commercial, and national security space activities. It will solicit public participation, engage the international community, and work toward a 21st century vision of space that constantly pushes the envelope on new technologies as it pursues a balanced national portfolio that expands our reach into the heavens and improves life here on Earth.

All of this sounds good, of course, but the reality at present is that NASA's budgets are being cut and missions are being delayed. Noting that history does tend to repeat itself, Dr. Edward Belbruno, a celestial mathematician who formed an influential theory on chaos with regards to the weak stability boundaries in space, offers a skeptical, and perhaps more realistic perspective. In his opinion, the current state of the economy is comparative to the market circumstances at the close of the unpopular Vietnam War. During that period, Belbruno explains, "The space program was hugely successful with the Apollo Moon landings…When Nixon ended the Vietnam War, he also ended the Apollo program. Why? Because the U.S. economy was in shambles due to the war… then we elected a much more liberal president, Jimmy Carter, who inherited a weak economy and an oil embargo."

Belbruno goes on to point out that Carter could not cope with the economy's downward spiral, noting that it did not fully rebound until the 1990's. And he thinks that our situation today, while similar, is perhaps even worse since the war in Iraq is on-going, and because there are more players, such as Japan and China, in the field. Globalization seems to have complicated an already-complex problem. Belbruno doubts that the stock market can handle the enormous volume of money exchange at such a fast pace. And what does this mean for the space industry? "The conclusion seems pretty clear," says Belbruno, "If the economy continues to drop at the current rate, projects like the proposed lunar base, proposed by the Bush administration, are likely to be cut since it would cost on the order of 100 billion dollars. Also, the new rockets to replace the shuttle may not be developed—the Orion V and Ares V. This may actually enhance space science and lesser-priced robotic projects. What this implies is that it may be desired to keep the space shuttle longer than proposed. The lunar base may be cancelled and the proposed goal of sending people to Mars, by the Bush administration, may be pushed off indefinitely. One may see a spiral down of the US space program. The current Obama administration… reminds me of the Carter administration, which may not be able to deal effectively with these issues."

Ultimately, time will tell whether the new administration will be able to launch the economy, and space programs, on an upward path-- or if we'll continue to regress…a blast from the past administrations' space-cadet maneuvers.

    Subscribe via RSS