Last week’s report that NASA’s Voyager 1 was approaching the outer frontier of the solar system got the attention of newspaper editorial writers: not because of their heartfelt interest in space science, but because of reports that Voyager 1 and other spacecraft were threatened with termination as a budget-saving measure. Condemnation of the proposal came far and wide:
- The Roanoke (VA) Times decries this “ignoble end to such a visionary quest” in order to fund “President Bush’s election-year pledge to send men to Mars – a ridiculously expensive project of limited scientific usefulness.”
- The Harrisburg (PA) Patriot-News concludes that the Voyagers “appear likely to join the ground-breaking Hubble telescope as projects of exceptional worth that have now become expendable.”
- The South Florida Sun-Sentinel believes the Voyagers “deserve a chance to complete their missions”.
Regular readers, though, know that these concerns are a bit misplaced: in late April NASA decided to suspend plans to cut funding for Voyager 1 and other missions scheduled for termination until a senior review is completed later this year. (The folks in Harrisburg should also note that Hubble is not nearly as expendable as they may think.) Voyager 1’s not dead yet.
Per all these funding issues and viable projects getting killed, I am wondering if it would make sense to propose a law that would require the space agencies to put any projects up for auction that they propose to kill. The investment and lead times on these projects is simply too great to throw away. If an organization can post a bond and afford to run the project this would make sense to me. Potentially this is win for everyone, corp or univ gets to own project, space agency at least saves cost of decommission, if not makes money. The public gets a chance to save a project outside of normal appointed administrative channels.
Does this seem viable? Do we think this would make it easier for projects to be killed? Thoughts?
As long as government plays a role in the project — facilities, staff, etc., liability issues might sink the notion of selling off abandoned projects. It seems to me the only way to avoid this would be to establish duplicate non-government facilities. I’m also doubtful that you can “rent” government resources.
Like many others, the Roanoke paper’s protest seems founded on ignorance. Since the exploration vision will be funded without significantly expanding NASA’s budget, outrage about “ridiculously expensive” projects is completelt misplaced.
Frankly, does anyone really believe anyone on the staff of any of these papers even knew that the Voyagers are still alive, barely, before that wire service story popped up on their screens? So much for their concern about a “visionary quest”.
“the Roanoke paper’s protest seems founded on ignorance.”
The day my father dies, the first thing I am doing is cancelling his subscription to the Roanoke Times. If I were to wipe my butt on a piece of paper, it would be of equal journalistic quality. It is a good firestarter however.
It is indeed a pleasure to burn.
In a recent Planetary Society interview Ed Stone stated that the senior review process decision on Voyager would not be made until February 2006, until then the mission will continue.
“Per all these funding issues and viable projects getting killed, I am wondering if it would make sense to propose a law that would require the space agencies to put any projects up for auction that they propose to kill.”
No, that would make no sense. The reason is that these missions do not generate profit. Nobody is going to want to run them at a loss for no reason. The only possible reason to take them over would be to turn around and sell the data to scientists. But of course many of the scientists already work for the government, or get funding from the government in some way (grants, etc.). So then all that happens is that you funnel the government money through a middle-man.
Also, keep in mind that these spacecraft are unique, with special handling requirements. They often require use of the Deep Space Network and things like that. If a “private” entity is going to run them, then they will essentially need the government’s assets and personnel. So, does the “private” entity then rent DSN time? Does it rent government employees? And where does it get the money?
Let me think here. Have my tax money being spent just so a few scientist can get thier jollies or have my tax money being spent on NASA doing something usefull…
I still don’t understand why universities or consortiums of universtities can’t take over these older programs. I’m not too hip on the auctioning idea, but having young students cutting their teeth on real life projects like establishing communications with or receiving data from a far flung probe seems like a good idea. I find it very difficult to believe that ONLY NASA can provide the facilities for support and personnel to run something like a Voyager 1 program. As for the money, that’s what alumni fund drives are for.
SETI at home has shown us that NASA doesn’t have all the answers, and it is possible to prosper outside their fold. Let’s apply some of these lessons and learn new ones by getting creative with these old programs.
I also think any Hubble rescue should be spun off and funded through a worldwide fundraising effort. That’s when you get things like schoolkids in Libya collecting pennies to help save the Hubble. I have no doubt the fundage could be raised from a worldwide capital base, and the scope of interest would be far wider than any other recent space mission.
“I still don’t understand why universities or consortiums of universtities can’t take over these older programs.”
Because universities that do space science currently get a significant portion of their money from NASA already. You seem to be operating on the misperception that there is private money out there in sufficient quantities to fund these kinds of things. There isn’t. Private philanthropic organizations, for instance, operate at a substantially lower level than this. They don’t have the large amounts of money necessary to operate these programs. And private business wants a return on their investment.
“but having young students cutting their teeth on real life projects like establishing communications with or receiving data from a far flung probe seems like a good idea. I find it very difficult to believe that ONLY NASA can provide the facilities for support and personnel to run something like a Voyager 1 program. As for the money, that’s what alumni fund drives are for.”
Alumni fund drives pay for football stadiums. Can you name any other areas of scientific research that do not have direct commercial payoff that are funded by alumni fund drives? If you are insisting that it can be done another way, then the burden is upon you to prove that it can. What proof do you have?
“SETI at home has shown us that NASA doesn’t have all the answers, and it is possible to prosper outside their fold.”
What are the cost figures for SETI at home? How much money does it require each year?
“I also think any Hubble rescue should be spun off and funded through a worldwide fundraising effort.”
The world has its own problems. Besides, do you think that they honestly want to give money to the Great Satan?
“That’s when you get things like schoolkids in Libya collecting pennies to help save the Hubble.”
Why stop there? Why shouldn’t the CEV and the moon landing program be paid for based on private donations? The Mars rovers too? And while we’re at it, why don’t we take up a fund drive to privately fund the U.S. Navy?
I say that there’s private money for this kind of thing because I can see it. Here in Dallas the Crystal Charities just gave the Science Place Planetarium over 3/4s of a million dollars for an upgrade and renovations. Texas Instruments is responsible for much of the revitalization of the Science Place in recent years, especially with their TI Founders Day Weekend. UT Arlington is building a new planetarium with a great deal of alumni support. The Monnig Meteorite Gallery at TCU is funded by private money.
The Seti Institute has corporate support from Sun Microsystems, Xilinx, Agilent Technologies and Trimble Navigation, as well as lots of private individuals.
And don’t forget, Hubble is a joint project with ESA. Who said anything about giving money to Great Satan? (I have no idea where that one came from)
The point is that when folks work together they can get a lot more accomplished. It’s not beyond the realm of possibility that a legitimate worldwide “Save the Hubble” campaign couldn’t raise hundreds of millions of dollars. It’s the kind of project that brings people together, and your cynicism is not terribly constructive.
Let me ask you, how much infrastructure is actually required for what we do right now with Voyager I? Does it require lots of large buildings stuffed with computer equipment? Does it require large numbers of people manning banks of monitors? Is it something that could be replicated on a couple desktops at a handful of universities and staffed by grad students?
I strongly feel that the mindset that only NASA can do all of these things is part of what’s holding us back. NASA doesn’t need to be working on Voyager I, they need to be working on getting us to LEO and beyond LEO.
“Let me ask you, how much infrastructure is actually required for what we do right now with Voyager I?”
A Deep Space Network. Do you know where we can get one of those cheap?
“and your cynicism is not terribly constructive.”
But your naivete is endearing.
Ken,
I agree with you.. NASA should be sending humans to Mars and beyond…
the DSN issue is realtivly easy, lease time on the current one, its already built and if the they turn off the switch on the probes what would the equipment be doing? In 20 years time the DSN will be using different tech to Mars so that frees up for other solar system missions. The cost of leasing time is a rolling target since most of it is payed for by tax money anyways. I’m sure there is a hard number but I have been as of yet unable to pin it down in the last month or so researching this.
Barring that, for political reason people make it too expensive. Its easy enough to do the listening portion of the DSN with linked Analog Sat Dishes. I read something in the early 90’s that a HAM group did just that. The problem came in getting past any encryption. At this time not sure if Voyager has any, but i sure hope it does. SO in the end you’ll need to have political permission to setup any type of foundation to take over the Operations of the probes and to release the data to the scietific community.
And as we see with some probes in the past a private organzation has exclusive rights to the data and gets to decide which data is released and when. People have a piece of the pie and don’t want to give it up. Human nature is if “I can’t have it.. no one can.” So it will be tough politically to do so. Which is my weakest area.
Now it is cheaper to streamline operations for probes then it is rovers. As rovers still need an actual physical mockup to run command sequences through to prevent killing of the rover, or getting it stuck on site. SO if you want to do that kind of missions you’ll need that infrastructure and that raises the price considerably. Space based probes are easier to model in the computer.