Leadership in Space

Times Square was filled with people who came to watch the Mars landing. For many this is the space moment of their generation, tantamount to the 1969 lunar mission. The United States proves that the high failure rate of missions to Mars bears no hint of fatalism and that it’s worth it to invest in NASA, in engineering, in technology and in science. Most of all, the United States proves which country is best prepared for the space contest, a parallel world championship where points are awarded for the status, prestige, vision and cutting edge technological might of superpowers and of those who aspire to the title.

From the White House’s point of view, this was a mission of excellence, skill and power. From the point of view of Americans, opinion is divided: For some the starry American dream has been restored, while others discuss the pertinence of the investment. All in all, does Obama get any electoral benefit out of all this? Well, most likely not that much. Apart from demonstrating perseverance and global leadership, the only benefit would be locking in middle class votes connected to universities, science and research, in states which have close ties to the space industry (Florida, California, New Mexico or Oklahoma).

But mainly, what this mission might trigger is the arrival at the next level of competition between superpowers. As of late, Russia’s missions, the latest of which was in January, have been flops. In Moscow, along with frequent military disasters involving obsolete material, failure to compete in space is just another symptom of decline.

China still needs to make technological headway, which means time and investment. India already has a mission scheduled for November of 2013, a plan that is described as the “technology demonstration project,” another necessary trial of India’s ascent and power.

It’s not only on Earth that the equilibrium between powers — not all of which are, necessarily, confrontational — is decided. Mars has also joined the party.