So where’s the “profit” in manned space flight?

COWING: “That’s fine to get the discussion of where to go next going – but as Ed Weiler said “exploration without science is tourism”. Science needs to be in the equation when the actual plans are being made. I still don’t see it.”

I think most of us agree that “exploration” is not sufficient, and that science should be “part of the equation”, but Cowing misses a larger point.

Weiler makes a mistake that would not be tolerated in another agency in the U.S. government. Scientists (like Weiler) who leap to the conclusion that “science” is missing as an objective in NASA, are using fuzzy thinking. They are putting the cart in front of the horse.

Science is a tool — yes, a fantastically useful tool — to satisfy an objective. But it is only a tool (and a process). And it is only one of several useful tools that can be used to meet an objective.

If you visit the National Cancer Institute, they are all about science. It is fundamental. But you will NEVER hear one of their executives say “Science is the objective”. (But, as Cowing says “science is clearly in the equation”.) The same goes with the NIH, or the Pentagon, or NIST, or NOAA, or the EPA. All of these government agencies have very clear objectives, that are useful to focus their planning, but they do not confuse the process/tools of science with their real goals.

Our nation’s leaders need to answer the “why” for NASA. At that point, we then apply the various tools/processes to support the objective (the answr to why), and choose to use science as appropriate.

The first stumbling block with regards to our nation’s agenda in space is that we have many valid and legitimate answers to the “why” question. There is no “one answer”. Let me give three, each which instills passion among its backers, and each which is sometimes (and in some cases often) orthogonal to the others: 1) The permanent (and large scale) human settlement of space; and 2) The discovery of life (and intelligent life) in the Universe, and3) Improving (and protecting) life here on Earth (think both asteroid defense and Mission to Planet Earth).

Yes, it is hard work for a large group to make choices among these competing objectives. But we should not make it even harder by adding “science is an objective” to the mix.

Which gets me back to my original point –> “Science” should be seen as a critical and indispensable tool — but ONLY a tool — to support meeting these (and other) useful objectives. Depending on the specific objectives chosen, other “tools” may be more appropriate than science, or the objective may require a combination of tools. Other useful tools include “engineering” and “capitalism”.

Let’s not put the cart in front of the horse.

– Nemo2

The bottom line is there has been no vision other than (1) controlling NASA spending and (2) having cheap airplane equivalent access to low-Earth orbit for later visions to come.

But the space shuttle never achieved the cheap airplane-style access to LEO.

Back to the future.

1) the Columbia accident, and
2) the CAIB observation that lack of top-level vision was a contributing factor to the accident.

Without those two, there would be no VSE, period. All other possible contributing factors are a sideshow, at best, and a distraction at worse.

– The desire to reward Republican apparatchik Tom DeLay of Texas by putting a huge program in his district,

– The need for Bush the Second to outdo his father on yet another front, as in Iraq and the imposition of Conservatism and religion on the Government.

These seem likely enough influences on the “vision decision” to at least merit examination.

Whatever the genesis, however, the so-called vision is funny to me. Only in today’s climate do we use the term ‘vision’ as flippantly as we use ‘hero’.

Regarding the statement “little has been written about President Bush’s 2003 decision to pursue the Vision for Space Exploration”: the only book that addresses the decisionmaking process in any detail is, in fact, New Moon Rising, and only part of that book is devoted to an examination of that process. I’m also hard-pressed to think of any other accounts (articles, papers, etc.) that go into great detail about the formation of the VSE. So it’s difficult for me to understand how stating that little has been written about that decisionmaking process can be construed as being “a little lazy”. But everyone is entitled to their opinions.

Regarding Mr. Mackenzie’s question: another key factor that sets the DPT apart from previous planning efforts was that it was specifically funded by OMB, although why that money was given to NASA — a request by Goldin, a mandate by someone higher up in OMB or the administration, or simply by Isakowitz himself — is something that Garber and Asner, the NASA historians working on the DPT history monograph, are still looking into. This may have given DPT’s efforts more of an official imprimatur than previous low-level exploration studies.

That’s fine to get the discussion of where to go next going – but as Ed Weiler said “exploration without science is tourism”. Science needs to be in the equation when the actual plans are being made. I still don’t see it. Check http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1082 for today’s comments on that topic.

I took notes.

Dennis