In a statement issued today, the American Geophysical Union (AGU) is calling on the administration and Congress to increase funding for NASA’s earth and space science programs. The AGU believes that funding requirements for shuttle return to flight, ISS assembly, and “launching the Moon-Mars initiative” are forcing NASA “to do more than it can with the resources provided”, with the sciences on the losing end. Of particular concern are cuts in two small spacecraft programs, Earth Space System Pathfinder and Explorer, which have led to delays or elimination of several planned or proposed missions, which will, the AGU claims, “degrade our weather forecasting, search and rescue, and life and property protection capabilities,” among other things. (There’s probably a bit of hyperbole there.)
The statement’s call to action, though, is pretty weak: the AGU simply asks NASA, the administration, and Congress “to renew their commitment to Earth and space science research” without any specific recommendations, such as increasing NASA’s overall budget or transferring money from other programs within the agency to shore up the science programs.
Yep, funding the shuttle, ISS assembly, the VSE, and the earth sciences are forcing NASA to do more than it can with the funds it has. Too bad for earth science that the shuttle, ISS, and VSE actually push America into space (albeit most all of those programs are arguably counterproductive) wheras the earth sciences should probably not even be a part of NASA’s programs in the first place! So, the AGU’s pet programs should be the ones marginalized.
Again, making basic science research the “end all” sole reason to justify NASA fits right into the ivory tower scientists’ agenda. “We can’t do that! Its not good science!” usually means “Don’t do that! I don’t have a grant from it!”
The National Aeronautics and Space Act (1958 as ammended)which created NASA:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/ogc/spaceact.html#POLICY
“DECLARATION OF POLICY AND PURPOSE”
“(d) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;
(2) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles;
(3) The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies, and living organisms through space;
(4) The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes;
(5) The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere;
(6) The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defense of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency;”
So space science is part of NASA’s charter and Brent doesn’t know what he is talking about.
As a science writer, I am on the AGU’s list and I received the press release this morning. I had to write the press officer there about another subject, and I appended the following:
Regarding the press release, I respectfully disagree with the AGU on NASA’s future direction. While I am no supporter of the Bush administration, they somehow have stumbled on the correct way forward in space.
If we are truly to understand the Solar System of which we are a part, we must send human scientists out there. We won’t do that if NASA’s budget is spent entirely on small scientific projects without focus. In the process of going to Mars, we will learn vast amounts about geology, atmospheres, cryospheres, et cetera. Beyond relatively simple reconnaissance, that is something that cannot be done by automated spacecraft. For example, recall that the only absolute cratering record, with actual dates attached to it, was obtained during the Apollo missions; all other cratering records are relative to that history. Obtaining that information required the scale of the Apollo project and the flexibility of astronauts on site: it has not been duplicated in almost fifty years of automated spaceflight. Real, creative science requires scientists, able to explore on site and in detail.
I would prefer that all of the projects your list were funded, but, if limited budgets force us to choose, the choice should be to get scientists out into the Solar System as quickly as possible.
Thanks for listening!
— Donald
What better argument could there be for focusing NASA on its core business? Being all things to all sciences certainly creates lots of support but results in fuzzy objectives and blurs the vision. Aerospace, Geology, Education should be elsewhere; yes i know the acronym NSA is already taken, so how about ASSA?
I tend to agree with you clclops. I personally feel that it is past time that we reexamine the role of how we fund space science. It made sense when space was new that all things pertaining to space be under one single agency, NASA. However, now space technology is much more mainstream and perhaps its time to change who funds what.
We are already beginning to see this happening with weather satellites. The latest GOES (a geostationary weather satellite) acquisition is for the first time having NOAA be the prime agency in charge of the purse strings in acquiring the satellite. This is a first as all previous GOES s/c developments were led by NASA.
This is a breakthru in the standard civil government acquisition that should be replicated elsewhere. It is high time we move the funding for basic science away from NASA and move it to an agency that deals more with funding science endeavors like the NSF. The NSF itself already has the infrastructure required to evaluate scientific proposals with the Space Studies Board. The only thing they are lacking are the pruse strings.
I’m not picking sides, but just observing that, if space science goes to the NSF, it will probably lose its “special status.” We spend far more on space science than just about any other kind of science. Would the Space Telescope have even been built if under the NSF and in greater competition against ground-based telescopes that many at the time thought would be as good or superior? Maybe that would be okay, but we should think about whether we really want space science to lose its special status. It is, after all, one of the few steady markets the launch industry has. . . .
— Donald
I’m not picking sides, but just observing that, if space science goes to the NSF, it will probably lose its “special status.” We spend far more on space science than just about any other kind of science.
OK, Donald, why is it again that “space science” should have a “special status” among other kinds of science? Just what is it that makes it so holy, other than the fact that, due to screwed-up federal space transportation policy, it costs so damn much?
I disagree Donald. Look at the sounding rocket market. This is largely devoted to servicing various researchers from a variety of institutes that put up one or two instruments at a time to perform a specific research. These sounding rockets are extremely cheap and there are a number of companies that can supply them. Some of the smarter alt.space companies are even courting these markets.
By switching this funding to NSF we might be able to due away with the thought that these missions must be large multimillion dollar enterprises. Many scientific researchers would be content to purchase a nanosat for a few hundred k that they can throw into LEO with their one instrument on it collecting its data contently. Currently that is not easy as one has to wait for an announce of opportunity to open up in which you can house your instrument as one of five on a much larger satellite that takes tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to create at LockMart or Ball Aerospace or inhouse at JPL or APL.
“The NSF itself already has the infrastructure required to evaluate scientific proposals with the Space Studies Board.”
The Space Studies Board is NOT at the NSF. Look it up.
And you seriously misunderstand how GOES procurement is handled.
You’re right. The SSB is at the National Academy of Sciences. I apologize for getting those two mixed up.
As for the GOES arrangement, it has changed in that NOAA is the prime agency with NASA though still a partner in charge of supervising the development of the technology on the s/c. The distinction I was trying to make is that NOAA is now taking a much stronger role in the procurement process itself and taking a much more strong stance in the management of the program, a position that once NASA was more responsible for. For reference see: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2408.htm and the GOES-R program office site at http://osd.goes.noaa.gov/
The point here was that NASA need not be the lead agency in all things space but could serve more in technology development capacity for space as it does for the aerospace sector.
“You’re right. The SSB is at the National Academy of Sciences. I apologize for getting those two mixed up.”
And that completely invalidates your previous point.
You really don’t understand these organizations at all.
“Would the Space Telescope have even been built if under the NSF and in greater competition against ground-based telescopes that many at the time thought would be as good or superior?”
Well, perhaps that is the way we should be comparing things, ground-based telescope projects as compared with space-based telescope projects. It seems like a smarter way of allocating our overall telescope dollar resources. I never did buy into the whole “adaptive optics” thing anyway, but I’m just a naive and ignorant non-astronomer.
“Would the Space Telescope have even been built if under the NSF and in greater competition against ground-based telescopes that many at the time thought would be as good or superior?”
The Space Telescope WAS built in competition with ground-based telescopes.
I suggest reading Robert Smith’s history of the Hubble on this subject. It was ground-based astronomers who pushed for the Hubble during the late 1960s and early 1970s. They did so precisely because everybody knew that a space telescope would be superior to ground-based telescopes. It was superior, and it remains superior for most applications. But because this telescope had to operate in space (and was designed to be serviced in space) it was natural for it to be funded and managed by the space agency, NOT NSF.
Seriously, I am amazed by the amount of ignorance demonstrated by posters on this commentary. You people really know almost nothing about how these respective organizations work. For instance, “science” is right there in the NASA charter. It was one of the main reasons why the agency was created. So when you question why NASA is so interested in space science, the reason is that this is one of the main reasons why the agency exists.
Second, NSF may have the word “science” in its title, but that does not automatically make it the primary place for science funding in the US government. Just look at the size of their budget. In addition, NSF primarily gives out grants–GRANTS. It does not manage contracts, it does not engage in procurement, and it does not run labs or major facilities. NSF does not have hordes of its own scientists doing research. It gives out grants to scientists at universities and elsewhere. So if you think that NSF should somehow “take over” space science, then this would require NSF to completely change the way it operates for only one segment of its operations–it would mean that NSF would conduct geology, medicine, engineering and other research in its traditional mode, and then have to acquire all kinds of other skills and personnel to do space.
Finally, what you fail to realize is how closely linked NASA’s space science research is to many of its other objectives. If you are going to fly people to the moon and have them operate there for weeks or months, then you need to conduct scientific investigation into things like radiation and weightlessness effects on the human body. For instance, one important question is if physiological deterioration occurs at lunar gravity like it does at zero gravity. And these subjects can combine many different scientific disciplines, like particle physics and materials research and human physiology (because particles hit materials in spacecraft, creating secondary particles that then hit human tissue).
I realize that you all have opinions. But I encourage you to base your opinions on a strong foundation of knowledge, rather than beer.