As the nation's flags return to full-staff today, the mourning for the crew of the space shuttle Columbia continues, as does the investigation into why the shuttle broke up during re-entry. Public officials have expressed the feelings of sympathy millions have felt for the families of those who died last Saturday. At the same time, President Bush has argued that exploring space "is a desire written in the human heart," and has declared: "Our journey into space will go on."

But based on both Washington, D.C.'s disinterest in adequately funding NASA before the Columbia tragedy, and Americans' overall disinterest in the space program, the question arises: Is exploring space a priority for
our country, as many claim? And if
so, is NASA's current approach adequate?

When Columbia first rocketed into space in 1981, NASA declared that a new age of space exploration had begun. But in the two decades since, public interest in the program has waned. Aside from John Glenn's 1998 return to orbit, the shuttle has received increasingly less public attention, partially because the research and the images from the ship lack the excitement and adventure of Neil Armstrong's first steps on the moon.

Political interest in space exploration also has declined. With the Cold War over, the political justifications of spending billions on space exploration largely evaporated. When Clinton left office in 2000, funding for NASA remained roughly equivalent to 1993 levels. Before the release of its latest budget on Monday, the Bush administration continued to tighten NASA's belt, and in 2001, cut billions for the International Space Station.

Conceived during the Reagan administration as a symbol of American scientific prowess, the space station now seems destined to become little more than a half-hearted symbol of America's commitment to manned space exploration. Deputy Associate Administrator for Spaceflight Michael Hawes, commenting on the spending cuts, told reporters that the station will still "deliver a science program that is of high value to the taxpayer." In light of the president's recent declarations that we explore space because of a burning desire, Hawes' statement reveals a major contradiction in philosophies.

After the budget cuts, NASA adopted a new "faster, cheaper, better" mantra, and launched five unmanned missions to Mars. While the images the Mars Lunar Rover sent to Earth garnered much attention, two recent missions to the red planet were failures, leading many to question whether "better" can be achieved. A report released by a group of experts who worked on one of those failed missions concluded: "The focus on cost and schedule reduction increased risk beyond acceptable levels on NASA projects."

Questions of increased risk are now foremost in the minds of many experts, who argue that the shuttle program has not received the funding necessary for safe operations. Several studies released by the General Accounting Office (GAO) have warned that budget cuts were "jeopardizing NASA's ability to safely support the shuttle's planned flight rate." Lacking funding, NASA delayed roughly $800 million of maintenance on the shuttle fleet indefinitely. Whether such delays led to increased risk on the latest shuttle mission is uncertain. But it cannot be denied that while we have ignored the shuttle program and its accomplishments, Washington, D.C., has ignored its budget.

We can no longer pretend that a space station that lacks the components necessary to achieve its original mission and a shuttle program based on aging technology are the hallmarks of a visionary national space agenda. To the contrary, the state of NASA's current manned space program offers proof of how little this country values space exploration. And despite the promises of our political leaders, it will take more than politically correct rhetoric about destiny and continuing the mission of Columbia's astronauts for NASA to get out of its rut.

If NASA Chief Sean O'Keefe is truly committed to the concept of manned space exploration, he must abandon NASA's long-term desire to maintain the shuttle through 2020. Instead of spending more money on old ideas, NASA should dedicate itself to developing a new shuttle based on 21st century technology. NASA must abandon the notion that efficiency breeds brilliance, and return to thinking boldly. Most importantly, though, the agency must present a new vision for manned spaceflight to reignite the public's interest in its primary mission. Without support, budget woes will continue.

As we learned this week, Columbia's crew was a diverse, talented group of explorers. Yet until the news of shuttle's demise hit the airwaves, many were unaware of the shuttle, its mission or its crew. In our complacency with the status quo at NASA, we have come to see space travel as routine, and have forgotten -- as Reagan noted after the Challenger disaster -- that "we're still pioneers" and that our journey into space has only just begun.

If Columbia's mission is to endure, then NASA must commit itself to change, and to reaching out to the stars with the same bold vision that fueled the early successes of the American space program. Only then will NASA again make the significant scientific progress that has eluded it in recent times.