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.

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.

And that completely invalidates your previous point.

You really don’t understand these organizations at all.

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.

The Space Studies Board is NOT at the NSF. Look it up.

And you seriously misunderstand how GOES procurement is handled.

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.

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?

— Donald

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.