«  
  »
Other

Space science and social conservatism

By Jeff Foust on 2005 April 13 at 12:52 pm ET

Or, at least how Washington Post cartoonist Tom Toles perceives the intersection of these topics…

8 comments - (Comments are closed)

8 comments to Space science and social conservatism

  • Mike Puckett
    April 13, 2005 at 5:11 pm

    That cartoon was pretty lame.

  • Rand Simberg
    April 13, 2005 at 9:12 pm

    Do you have an opinion about this, Jeff, or is it one of those “caption contests”?

  • Jeff Foust
    April 14, 2005 at 7:23 am

    No, Rand, just throwing out some raw meat to see if anyone’s hungry…

  • Kevin
    April 14, 2005 at 8:26 am

    Cartoon was lame..

  • Dave C.
    April 14, 2005 at 10:46 am

    Come now, we who read this board must admit that the Bush administration’s desire to cut Voyager off is shortsighted at best. Griffin himself has said, “the single overarching goal of human space flight is the human settlement of the solar system, and eventually beyond.” [emphasis mine] Buying information about the edge of the solar system now with the existing Voyagers has gotta be cheaper than trying to buy the same information later.

    The point about this being motivated by social conservatism isn’t off the mark either. There is a choice in space between humanist and nationalist values, Hubble and Voyager distinctly falling into the former and MMI the latter. It isn’t coincidence that the choice is being made by a socially conservative administration.

    I admit my second point is fuzzier than my first, but it’s import underpins space endeavors in a more fundamental way.

  • Mike Puckett
    April 14, 2005 at 12:08 pm

    “Come now, we who read this board must admit that the Bush administration’s desire to cut Voyager off is shortsighted at best.”

    I seriously doubt the President is even aware of any discussion about cutting Voyager funding, much less directing it from the level of the White House.

    I doubt the term ‘desire’ is even sequitr within the context of the discussion. You are assigning a conspiracy where there is lacking evidence one exists.

  • Tevan Dijoian
    April 14, 2005 at 12:38 pm

    “I seriously doubt the President is even aware of any discussion about cutting Voyager funding, much less directing it from the level of the White House.”

    The cut was actually directed from OMB; it did not come from NASA. And it was an “ideological” decision in the sense that they decided to eliminate money for “old” spacecraft in favor of new ones.

    While this seems reasonable at first, it should be noted that “old” spacecraft could still be returning useful data that might not be obtainable in any other manner. (Spirit and Opportunity, for instance, are both way beyond their design lifetimes. Should they be shut off because they are “old”?) It is for this reason that NASA actually has a process for evaluating the usefulness of old instruments. It appears that in this case the OMB essentially bypassed that established procedure. They did not consider if the data is still useful, only that the spacecraft were old.

    More than just Voyager has been proposed for shutting down. For instance, Ulysses was scheduled for shut down in 2008 after completing its second full solar cycle. This decision shortcuts that plan and would leave an incomplete dataset.

  • Donald F. Robertson
    April 14, 2005 at 1:01 pm

    I agree re. the stupidity of shutting down working spacecraft, but I also support NASA’s change in direction. So I’m torn. . . .

    As the (relative) flaming lefty in this discussion, I support the President’s “vision” primarily for humanistic reasons. I strongly disagree with the implicit belief by both political parties (before the “vision”) that automated science is somehow more humanistic than physical exploration. I believe the truth is quite the reverse.

    — Donald