The editors of the Hampton Roads Daily Press sound off in support of aeronautics and earth science in a pair of editorials in this morning’s issue. The editors are skeptical that the administration cares for aeronautics research:
It will take considerable will for Congress to reverse the now presidential-fueled juggernaut that threatens to dismantle this nation’s capacity for aeronautical innovation and domination. There is no doubt that to George Bush and his new NASA administrator, aeronautics is not a priority and will be sacrificed to make room in the budget for Bush’s manned space odyssey.
Of course, that new administrator, Mike Griffin, has said that the agency needs a new “national aeronautics policy” that might address those concerns (although what that policy might include, and what power such a policy might really have, is uncertain), but that statement doesn’t make it into the editorial. The editorial also cites a National Institute of Aerospace report that calls for doubling funding for NASA’s aeronautics programs, a conclusion that the paper reported yesterday as unlikely to go over well in Congress.
Earth sciences, the companion editorial notes, is also feeling the squeeze, citing last week’s House hearing and NRC report on NASA’s earth science programs. “The drive to learn what lies beyond Earth is undeniable, and the knowledge gained can be of enormous benefit. But many in the scientific community agree that that knowledge can best be gained with unmanned technology, without the risks, costs and constraints of sending people.”
So, do you think the editors of the Daily Press have something against human space exploration?
Despite all of the talk about science vs human spaceflight at NASA, the only non-support missions that NASA in mind for astronauts, either on the ISS or in the VSE, is science experiments. That’s the fundamental point. The choice is really science that scientists want vs science that scientists don’t want. Defending either ISS or VSE as something other than science is like buying your parents a Winnebago that they don’t want, then claiming that you’re not doing it for them. They would rightfully believe that your scheme comes at a price to them.
If NASA ever wrote a script for human spaceflight that isn’t Potemkin science, then scientists wouldn’t complain, even if the program did nothing for them.
Bull poopy.
Science complain because they have been spoiled. ISS aside, VSE is not about science. It is about exploration. An not is like buying yourself a Winnebago and your cousin complaining about the color since he “has to ride in it too.”
NASA should not be about pure science. That is what NSF is for. Sure NASA can support sciencetist with Launches and lagistic support, but I believe NASA should be about exploration. BTW: What is Potekim science? Pokémon? Not being picky, just not sure what you meant.
It is true that Sean O’Keefe claimed in a press conference that the VSE was about exploration and not science. However, all of the exploration that O’Keefe actually describes in the official VSE document is scientific exploration. Science is one kind of exploration; O’Keefe offered no plans for any other kind.
A Potemkin village is a political showcase that looks elaborate and impressive but lacks substance. The House hearing on ISS research two weeks ago was a perfect show of Potemkin science.
Hmmm. Well I guess that is one way to look at it. Except the goals listed in the Official VSE document are as follows:
beyond;
decisions about the destinations for human exploration;
and economic
He goes on to talk about ISS goals to “support US space exploration goals” and Lunar goals to ” to enable sustained human and robotic exploration of Mars” and “Use lunar exploration activities to further science, and to develop and test new approaches,technologies, and systems…” Oh there it is. So exploration is about new science. Oops and new Engineering (which as an engineer I can tell you is not science).
So what I see it 3 goals. Science, New Technologies (Engineering & Product development), and colonization (sustained human presence).
. . . Extend human presence across the solar system . . .
What does presence mean?
Kilroy was here?
“Virtual” presence by tele-robotics?
Little dome on the regolith?
To my knowledge, all efforts to tease out what NASA actually means by “presence” are met with feel-good vague tautologies.
Okay. What does presence mean? Well I would define it as being there. Tele-robotics? Sure if you can’t go there physically (like Saturn). I would only call that a partial presence.
This is not all about NASA. The idea that space exploration is only for science is bad for the inventment market in private space companies. I have lots of reasons for wanting to go (and live) on other planets. Science is really not hig on the list. I suspect very few other potential “spacemen” are in it for science, either.
Maybe I am showing my age, but What does the whole “Kilroy was here” thing mean?
Follow-up. . .
Personally, I believe the s-word (settlement) or the less PC c-word (colony) would fire up public support for space exploration. I also believe anything LESS than settlement/colony will continue to leave the public yawning with the space-nuts facing annual cliff-hanger battles to pass skimpy NASA budgets.
If only President Bush had said “settlement” (as Griffin has in the past) rather than “presence” (which is ambiguous).
What O’Keefe and Bush call “goals” of the VSE aren’t the actual missions. You can attach any goal that you want to your plans, but it’s just talk. You can buy a Winnebago, and say that the “goal” is peace in the Middle East.
Again, the actual exploration planned in the VSE is scientific exploration. Unfortantely, except for some of the unmanned missions, it is science that doesn’t interest scientists.
When you folks here suggest things like engineering and colonization as alternatives to science, you’re onto something. If Bush or Griffin removed the Potemkin science from the VSE and made the missions — not just the “goals” — something else like colonization, then at least it wouldn’t be a problem for scientists.
“It addresses, says the Academy, ‘such profound issues as the sustainability of human life on Earth.'”
And human spaceflight addresses such profound issues as the sustainability of human life beyond Earth. Which matters because life support systems would be useful both on Earth and in space.
NASA has multiple goals. Science is one of the goals. (Engineering is its main goal: aeronautical and astronautical.)
If you are looking for a science-only agency, please ask for directions to the NSF/others.
Before he was NASA administrator, Mike Griffin was quite the colonization advocate.
I interpret his Congressional testimony from October 2003 to say that permanent settlement (not presence, but settlement which must mean children) is perhaps the ONLY goal that can sustain space exploration long term. Ultimately, its the only reason that can justify the risk to life and expenditure of billions in national treasure.
Since I believe this personally, perhaps I am biased when I read his remarks yet his October 2003 testimony seems pretty clear to me.
Back to this thread.
=IF= settlement is the objective in the reasonable near term (not 100 years from now, maybe) I favor humans over robots and science. But, tell me NASA is NOT in the settlement business and I would say buy more robots, fully fund science and give the rest to midnight basketball programs.
= = =
As Tumlinson might say, do it O’Neillian and not von Braunian and not Sagan-aut.
Science is about answering the questions that linger in everyones eyes as needing explaination.
Doing science to keep us safe as in earth science should fall under another government agency possibly even the house subcommitte on science as there charter. Aeronautics should fall under the FAA, doing sceince that is geared towards being sure that we will be safe as a colonizing or settling of peoples of the beyound LEO is still exploration. For it answers questions for our survivability in space.