In the words of the late, great gonzo journalist, Hunter S. Thompson, “When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.” That’s comforting to know because the future of America’s space exploration program has suddenly gotten weird, and the last thing you need when that happens is amateurs calling the shots.

It all started getting weird back in 2004 when President Bush announced that, after nearly 30 years of service, NASA’s space shuttles would be retired in 2010 following completion of the International Space Station (ISS). The plan was to replace the aging shuttles with a new Crew Exploration Vehicle, a.k.a. Orion, which would make its maiden voyage in 2014 as part of the ambitious Constellation program. Those with an aptitude for math quickly realized that left a four-year gap where U.S. astronauts would either have to remain earthbound, or rely on hitching rides back and forth to the space station aboard Russian owned and operated spacecraft.

To those of us who grew up during the cold war – which is what drove America into the space race to begin with – that didn’t seem like such a good idea. Granted, the cold war has been over for decades, and if anyone knows how to run a space taxi service, the Russians do. Since 2001, anybody with a taste for adventure and $20-30 million to burn could buy a seat on one of their Soyuz spacecraft and vacation aboard the ISS. But given the fragile relationship between the U.S. and Russia, the slightest amount of friction could put our entire space program in jeopardy, or at the very least make it hostage to the whims of a foreign government. Kind of a weird approach for the world’s leader in space exploration to take, wouldn’t you say?

But wait, it gets even weirder. When the White House released its proposed 2011 budget last month, one of the items they cut was the Constellation program. It’s not that they don’t want American astronauts to explore space anymore; they do, and they proved it by adding $6 billion to NASA’s budget over the next five years so they can develop the necessary technology to do so. They just don’t want that technology to include new spacecraft for such mundane tasks as commuting back and forth to the ISS or traveling to the moon.

So, just how are our astronauts supposed to get there, aside from hailing a Russian space taxi? With good, old-fashioned American ingenuity and profit-driven, private, commercial enterprise. I kid you not. According to information distributed by NASA, the agency has been directed “…to partner with the aerospace industry in a fundamentally new way, making commercially provided services the primary mode of astronaut transportation to the International Space Station. This new policy harnesses our nation’s entrepreneurial energies, and will create thousands of new jobs and catalyze the development of other new businesses that capitalize on affordable human access to space.”

 “Entrepreneurial energies”? Those wouldn’t, by any chance, be the same entrepreneurial energies that recently led to the near total collapse of two of our three major automakers and many of our biggest financial institutions, would they? The same entrepreneurial energies that exported most of our manufacturing capabilities overseas to capitalize on cheaper production costs, sometimes at the expense of better quality? And if you want to see how well entrepreneurial energies work for fare-paying passengers in a transportation setting, one need only look at what the commercial airline industry has degenerated into these days. Does anyone believe air travel is better today than it was, say, ten years ago?

I assume our astronauts would receive much better treatment from whatever commercial entity is selected to ferry them into space, but the point I am trying to make is this. With NASA designed, built and operated spacecraft, no expense was spared and no stone was left unturned to ensure the safety of the crew and the success of the mission. Yes, accidents happened – space travel is a dangerous pursuit – but it was never because corners were cut. Would a profit-driven, commercial entity go to equivalent lengths to ensure such a high degree of safety and success? Or would they look at the bottom line, weigh it against the risks, and then roll the dice, figuring our legal system gives commercial entities escape options that NASA doesn’t have should something go horribly wrong?

I certainly hope not. But looking back at what our “entrepreneurial energies” have done for us over the last 2 – 3 years, I have my doubts. What do you think?

July 20 marks the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11, the first space mission to land on the Moon. Astronaut Neil Armstrong’s words – “One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind” – arguably depict one of the finest moments in U.S. history. The landing was the culmination of a massive collective effort by the U.S. government, scientists, engineers, and countless others fulfilling the goal of President John F. Kennedy in 1961 to land a man on the Moon by the end of the 1960s decade.

When I decided to do a Google search on the event, I was taken aback by seeing a number of results discussing the possibility that the lunar landing was an elaborate hoax staged by NASA. Some groups and individuals believe the Apollo astronauts never landed on the Moon, with NASA intentionally fooling the public by tampering with evidence, including photos, satellite transmissions, and rock samples.

If you find that theory unbelievable, take a look at the Wikipedia entry on the subject, “Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories.” The entry on this subject runs 28 pages long – twice the length of the 14-page entry on the Apollo 11 mission itself. I’m not going to get into a full-blown discussion of all the hoax theories here, but one theory says the Apollo 11 crew faked their orbit around the Moon and their Moon walk using trick photography, and that NASA sent robot missions because space radiation levels were lethal to humans.

Hoax theorists contend the Moon landing was faked to preserve the country’s prestige during a politically turbulent decade marked by the lengthy Vietnam War and strained relations with the Soviet Union.

Conspiracy theories abound for historical events such as the assassinations of President Kennedy and civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. But to think for even a second that people wound consider the lunar landing– or for that matter any of the space missions – a hoax is impossible for me to fathom, given the stakes involved.

How would the U.S. have possibly been able to pull off such an elaborate scheme with thousands of talented people representing various scientific disciplines and interest groups putting in countless hours of work? How much money would it have cost to pay off those involved to stage this enormous cover-up? And, how would NASA have been able to fabricate and manipulate lunar landing evidence to make it believable that a moon landing occurred?

I cannot begin to imagine the amount of ingenuity that would have been required to stage such a complicated hoax as conspiracy theorists suggest.

As a longtime technology journalist, I maintain a dose of skepticism as I sift through a never-ending stream of data and claims by companies and research labs. However, I firmly believe the U.S. space program, despite well-publicized problems, continues to represent some of our best efforts in scientific research by some of the brightest minds around. With proper direction and support, it will continue to yield future dividends in both theoretical and practical scientific knowledge.

The “Research Opportunities in Aeronautics” announcement from NASA’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate seeks research in several new topic areas for the Next Generation Air Transportation System Air Traffic Management Airspace Project and the Subsonic Fixed Wing Project.

The primary goal of the Airspace Systems Program is to develop revolutionary concepts, capabilities, and technologies that will enable significant increases in the capacity, efficiency, and flexibility of our National Airspace System. A major focus of the Subsonic Fixed Wing project is to develop improved prediction methods and technologies for future subsonic aircraft with lower noise, lower emissions, and higher performance.

For evaluation criteria and deadlines click here.