Ok, even for most science there is some level of engineering to be done. But why does general space flight have to be included in that? With the rare exception of the payload specific final stage the rockets used for _ALL_ of NASA’s ‘science’ are the same ones that launch commercial satellites. Why do you even have NASA running those launches on government launch sites?

Just move all of the science to the NSF and if someone needs a mass spectrometer on some spacecraft at some given orbit then let the NSF contract specify money for that and then buy that service on the open market? The spacecraft might need some custom engineering but even then a good portion of it will still be based on common standards that can be outsourced.

Move ALL spaceflight to the DOT, get that organization out of the operations business, move the science to the NSF, and have those space scientists buy their launch services the same way they rent a moving van from Hertz.

I believe that automated space science should remain part of NASA, but that much of it should be reoriented as described earlier in this thread to more directly support near-term human expeditions.

— Donald

I do think, though, that the current dichotomy between Earth science and the Moon/Mars initiative is quite real, and have a brief response at my blog.

Thanks again.

But space science should keep the name “NASA”, because NASA is still good at it. Since NASA has been very bad at human spaceflight lately, that’s the department that should have a new name. You could call it the “Department of Space Transportation”.

Bravo! We don’t often agree on a lot, but that statement is “spot-on”.

When humans move to Mars to stay, more ‘Science’ will be done in a week than probes culd do in a decade.

There is a lot more Geologic research in Colorado since western man permenantly settled it done in a week than was done in a year in the 1600 and 1700’s before it was permenantly settled.

That may take 20 years to prove. In the meantime the survival, escape, and rescue breakthrough technology developed can help reduce fatalities in vehicles on Earth, justifying the human spaceflight effort whether or not a single human being is launched in the next 20 years – all at constant budget.

Maybe that is extreme, but what is the rush? Space shuttle return to flight has not been called return to success.

Failure and success are often not understood.

It seems to me that back in the Apollo days, much of the effort was spent on the applied knowledge of humans in space and the environment they would face. No one had ever done anything in space before, so of course things like science of Earth from space made sense as a mission for NASA. Afterwards, as NASA began to drift, it became a hotbed of esoteric science, often with little application in the world around us as we soaked up the technological riches of Apollo.

Now the competencies have expanded, and we have organizations like NOAA that could reasonably be expected to handle things like studies from space of the oceans and atmosphere. So the funding gets transfered, okay. So some NASA scientists have to move to a different government agency, not like it hasn’t happened before.

(I secretly think that the reason the scientists don’t want it to happen is because it’s a lot harder to pick up a chick in a bar if you tell them you’re an atmosphere scientist at NOAA than if you tell them you’re a rocket scientist at NASA [Oooh!])

I look at some of these deep space missions and I have to ask myself “Why do we need to know this, right now?” I fail to understand why we need to see the lakes of Jupiter right now. I can see why we would want to try to get a sample return from one of the Lunar polar everdark craters. Knowledge of the character of the hydrogen deposits at the Lunar poles offers direct benefits in the provisioning of propellant to cislunar space. For commercial development there must be fuel. The Jupiter mission serves no where near any kind of application like that. It’ll show us lakes. Nice.

Things like PKE and TPF and the like also make me wonder. Is it worth waiting 250 years for the next go ’round to study the atmosphere of Pluto so that the current funds can be applied today towards building an infrastructure between the Earth and Moon? Um, let me think here…jobs for lots of people in space, including astronomers, in the near-future, against knowing right now that there is an Earth-like planet in orbit around Vega? Hmm, tough call. I think I’m going to have to place my efforts into commercial development and space jobs.

No offense, I’m sure it would be intriguing to know that there’s an Earth-like planet around Spica, but when I go out and talk to kids they want to go out there and do things like fix sats and build SPSes and Lunar power towers and travel to asteroids to mine them. That’s what gets them excited. Their generation (Y) has the unique opportunity to build for humanity the beginnings of a true space-faring civilization, not just space-visiting. The opportunity to provide constant, clean and perpetual power to Earth from the construction of SPSes. The opportunity to mine and divert asteroids, and not just on an emergency, oh $#!? basis either. The opportunity to tap the resources of the heavens so we can stop tearing up our own planet and wreaking environmental degradation on it.

I think that’s what we need from NASA in 2005. They’re not going to build the whole kit and kaboodle, but it sure would be nice if they helped show us the way.