Comments on: Planetary scientists protest NASA operating plan

By: David Davenport

David Davenport — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 23:38:16 +0000

and the communal sector is required.

That “communal” is not a typo, is it? You really do mean “space commune cultists,” I take it.

By: Kevin Parkin

Kevin Parkin — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 00:02:18 +0000

I’d find it disappointing that Sykes’ plea argues the CEV should be cut and not the Shuttle.

I guess if their science money is restored they’ll be able to save their pennies and maybe even become rich enough to afford a shuttle payload one day.

By: Thomas Lee Elifritz

Thomas Lee Elifritz — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:04:55 +0000

Bugger off, Sykes. Apollo on Steroids (TM) is more important. You need to lay off the steroids. They are making your eyes BUGGER out.

By: Karen Cramer Shea

Karen Cramer Shea — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 13:17:14 +0000

Apollo on steriods will be worth a lot less if we don’t have scientists to study what we find.

I really object to the proposal to cancel already granted research contracts. These scientists have spend years getting these grants and months waiting for them to start planning their whole lives around them. It will badly burn these scientist to cut them once they started.

I have less of a problem with reducing the number or size of new research contracts but still it is a bad idea. For the most part there is no other funding agency for this type of research so cuts will force people out of planetary scince. This is the last thing we should be doing when we are restarting our human planetary exploration program.

By: David Davenport

David Davenport — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 02:11:17 +0000

You have been given some exceptionally bad advice”

A rather caustic and plainspoken letter:

— Original Message —
Subject: Undermining US Solar System Exploration
From: “Mark V. Sykes”

Date: Thu, February 9, 2006 8:32 am
To: Michael.D.Griffin@nasa.gov
—-

Dear Dr. Griffin,

…

The success of our solar system exploration program is particularly sensitive to the health of the planetary research programs. Your cuts will substantially reduce the ranks of our planetary scientists, particularly young researchers. It will damage our nation’s immediate and long-term capacity to lead the world in what has been a very high profile and successful enterprise.

You have been given some exceptionally bad advice.

Your SMD management should have been sufficiently knowledgeable to apprise you of the impact of such a draconian step. However, it seems that over recent years their ranks have been depleted of people that understand this, and dissent from within SMD ranks is not tolerated.

…

/////////////////////////////////////

Bugger off, Sykes. Apollo on Steroids (TM) is more important.

By: Greg Kuperberg

Greg Kuperberg — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 01:43:58 +0000

Direct Congressional lobbying, even for the noblest of science projects, has a bad odor. Either NASA’s mandate or management has run off the rails, or the project does not deserve Congressional attention, or both. The right way to do these things is with non-political panel review.

By: Jim

Jim — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 01:05:15 +0000

I think the Department of Defense should be split too.

The Army and Navy have never gotten along.

By: Phil Smith

Phil Smith — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:14:27 +0000

Well, I wrote to my Georgia congressmen, and to some on the Hill that work on science and technology committees. No good will come of it…

Anyway, this is the sort of thing that was predicted. Also on tap – running over budget on CEV and new luanch vehicle development, multi-year delays on operational delivery, and major cuts in NASA budgets due to natural disasters and this infernal “war on terror”. Plus, we will need to take out some cartoon insurance.

That’s precisely why NASA can’t explore and exploit space by itself. A strategic plan involving commercial entities, national security elements, and the communal sector is required. Indeed, NASA’s role should be redifined entirely (split in two – one for astronautical RDT&E and one for aeronautical RDT&E). Hand off science missions to NSF, keep Earth monitoring with NOAA, and get the new “NASAs” out of operational activities. All this as only part of the new national strategy/economic development plan for space.