Comments on: Increasing NASA science funding authorization

By: David Davenport

David Davenport — Sun, 05 Mar 2006 17:20:50 +0000

No, Greg, the worst case scenario is that we give up on human spaceflight, to concentrate on robots or for any other reason.

Who is this “we”?

We are not necessarily giving up on human spaceflight if WE criticize NASA’s current plans.

Your vague use of the collective “we” is a rhetorical scare tactic.

… That guarantees that humanity will not have a future, probably at all, and certainly not one worth getting excited about.

Oh, scary, fright, horror, despair.

By: David Davenport

David Davenport — Sun, 05 Mar 2006 17:10:43 +0000

Can members of the various scientific fields (Colleges, Universities and even private enterprise)partner with NASA on funding the projects they deem most important?

No, they want the taxpayers to pay for it.

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 18:52:56 +0000

Space science should be done if the results are worthwhile.

Was it worthwhile to spend well over $1 billion finding out that there probably was standing water on Mars at some point in the past?

Contrast that with the results of placing geologists on Earth’s moon for a few weeks or months with a good tool set. If there is any truth to the cost estimates for the VSE (and I fully admit that this is by far the weakest card in my argument!) a single human expedition to Earth’s moon will cost only about twice what the Mars Exploration Rovers have cost. Which will give us more science?

But, you say, that ignores the cost of developing the VSE. True, I say, but if you want to include that, than you have to include in the Mars Rovers’ budget all the money spent over the decades developing and upgrading the Delta and proving interplanetary automated spaceflight.

Scientists are trying to compare current operations costs for automated missions with the total costs including development of the VSE. That is not a valid comparison. While it is hard to do that today, a valid comparison will be the operations cost of each.

If it is true that an operation VSE flight to the moon will cost only twice (or four times, or even ten times) what an automated Mars mission costs (and those aren’t getting any cheaper, either), than you clearly get far more science per unit dollar with the former.

Likewise, check out the cost estimates for the lunar precursor missions. Automated lunar missions are not all that cheap, either.

Finally, as I argued in a later thread, I am not opposed to curtailing human spaceflight to keep some of the science budget — as long as its not the VSE or Space Station. Take the money out of the Shuttle, not future capability.

— Donald

By: Paul Dietz

Paul Dietz — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 14:08:26 +0000

The same could be said of space science, Paul.

Space science should be done if the results are worthwhile. Very clearly, the shuttle was not worthwhile, and honest assessments would have concluded it wasn’t going to be worthwhile even early on. Ditto for ISS.

Space fans such as yourself excuse NASA of anything. You shouldn’t be surprised when this unconditional support has been taken advantage of. Entitlement programs do that. Only when NASA and its bureaucrats are faced with the real possibility of having to switch to careers in the food service industry will they have incentive to clean house. The real possibility that manned spaceflight, and their careers, will be terminated has to be emphasized and held over their heads like a sword or we’re going to see more of the institutional dishonesty that has characterized NASA’s manned space efforts for a generation.

By: MrEarl

MrEarl — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 04:05:54 +0000

Just a thought…
Can members of the various scientific fields (Colleges, Universities and even private enterprise)partner with NASA on funding the projects they deem most important? I know that organizing scientists can sometimes seem like herding cats but it could be a way to continue these important projects.

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 02:11:16 +0000

Also, Paul, neither Greg nor (I believe) are you spending your own money. Most institutional science is on the public dole. It is very easy to call other peoples’ kettle’s black, but it might be a good idea to check out the color of your own.

— Donald

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 02:08:44 +0000

The same could be said of space science, Paul. How many expeditions, say, to Antarctica would the money spent proving that, at some unknown date in the past, there probably were standing pools of water on Mars? How many laboratory scientists would be supported by the money “wasted” mapping Saturns moons? One man’s waste is another man’s bacon.

If we can survive without human traverses across the lunar landscape, than we can survive just as easily without robot traverses across the Martian landscape. You can’t have it both ways.

— Donald

By: Paul Dietz

Paul Dietz — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 00:55:40 +0000

No, Greg, the worst case scenario is that we give up on human spaceflight, to concentrate on robots or for any other reason

Similar thinking led to space fans supporting NASA’s egregious waste of the last three decades. It’s so easy to support spending money propping up your fantasies when it isn’t your own money.

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 21:30:27 +0000

No, Greg, the worst case scenario is that we give up on human spaceflight, to concentrate on robots or for any other reason. That guarantees that humanity will not have a future, probably at all, and certainly not one worth getting excited about. Even if you are right and human spaceflight is entirely “impractical,” we have to try. It is experience, even failure after reaching too high; experiences communicated to those who stay at home, that inform and renew human societies. Experience gives them the flexibility to survive change.

Real experience can never be obtained third-hand.

— Donald

By: Greg Kuperberg

Greg Kuperberg — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 19:43:44 +0000

I do believe that there are many in the lower tiers who do honestly believe in the VSE and are fighting to make it happen.

Given the polymorphic nature of the VSE, the depth and nature of belief in it within NASA needs fleshing out. Who believes in the CEV specifically, and what exactly do they believe about it? I agree with you about Griffin, but enthusiasm from one guy at the top is not enough.

Enthusiasm from astronauts is also not enough. They aren’t building the vehicle.

Likewise, the Space Station is likely to be completed in some form, or used as is, and will thus be a potential market no matter what happens.

Unlike the Bay Bridge, the space station may well be delayed until it falls into the water. That’s the worst-case scenario that ought to be on your mind.