An editorial in today’s issue of Florida Today criticizes a number of organizations for what it perceives as decisions that are “threatening new satellites for hurricane forecasting and global warming studies.” (While not explicitly stated, the editorial appears to have been prompted by an AP article on the issue a week ago.) The editorial mentions the White House and Congress, but singles out NASA for special attention, or, rather, blame: “The problem is evident at NASA, which is gutting Earth science research and putting the money into the shuttle, International Space Station and a new moonship.” The editorial then mentions two examples: the Deep Space Climate Observatory (née Triana) and the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) spacecraft.
The problem is that this is relatively small fry: Triana has been mired in controversy for years, and GPM has not been canceled, only delayed. The editorial then states that an additional problem is the delay of “a trio of next-generation weather satellites in a project jointly run by NASA, the Pentagon and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.” NPOESS, the system the editorial is referring to, is a much bigger problem than the delay of GPM and putting Triana out of its misery—and one that is largely the responsibility of NOAA and the DOD—yet it gets glossed over by the newspaper. It’s convenient to think of Earth science being victimized by manned spaceflight, and in the case of the GPM delay specifically that appears to be the case, but in the greater scheme of things NPOESS is a more serious problem—and one of its own doing.
I’m so tired of proponents of one type of space exploration constantly trying to throw other types of space exploration “under the bus”. This constant in-fighting is doing more harm than good.
If you belive your project, (manned or unmanned) deserves more funding than make that argument to congress without taking money from something else. You might find more support from others in the space community if they don’t have to worry about you trashing funding for their projects.
Mrearl,
While I am certainly guilty at charged (and largely unrepentant!), I do agree with you to the extent that alienating the space science community at this point in time was not wise. Until the VSE is more firmly established — i.e., at least until it survives into the next Administration — it needs the active support of all the constituencies it can get. Until this year, my sense was that the space science community was cautiously supportive, or at least not actively opposed. Now, they are, and that is a political problem.
As to what could have been done differently and retain the VSE, I have no idea. However, by forcing a choice NASA will pay a political price, and my guess is that it will be a steep one.
>>I’m so tired of proponents of one type of space exploration constantly trying to throw other types of space exploration “under the bus”
Well, maybe its time to get rid of that abstract “exploration” umbrella that supposedly has different types and put the projects where they belong. Science has its own body in government, thats where science projects should go. Aerospace R&D ? they used to have NACA for that which reportedly worked very well.
As for government run space trucking service …
> If you belive your project, (manned or unmanned) deserves more funding
> than make that argument to congress without taking money from something else.
> You might find more support from others in the space community if they don’t
> have to worry about you trashing funding for their projects.
On the other hand, one might find more support outside the space community, if one showed some fiscal responsibility and concern for the taxpayers, rather than simply demanding they fund anything and everything with the word “space” in it.
Taxpayers have to sacrifice things they want every day, to pay government taxes. When NASA fanboys demand the taxpayers fund *everything* their hearts desire, and aren’t willing to sacrifice anything, taxpayers see them as greedy and unselfish — not undearing qualities.
Every government agency has to prioritize, decide which programs it will fund and which it won’t. Why should NASA be an exception?
> It’s convenient to think of Earth science being victimized by manned spaceflight,
Hardly, since there’s very little manned spaceflight in VSE (or womanned, either). The NASA roadmap shows just 2-3 lunar flights a year, after ISS shuts down in 2016.
That’s a flight rate of just 8-12 astronauts per year, down from as many as 56 per year during the Shuttle era.
NASA has flatly reject alternative architectures that would allow for higher astronaut flight rates.
Human spaceflight is what NASA’s sacrificing. The scientists will get a few more moon rocks, rovers, and instruments on the Moon. Astronauts will get pink slips.
I was at a presentation today where Mary Cleave was literally fed to the lions in the astrophysics community.
Cleave’s weak excuse for the cancellation of Dawn was that it had exceeded its cost by 20%. Little discussion by her was had on the fact that JWST is 350% overrun with no end in sight. (The original Dan Goldin era contract was for ~$1 billion and it was supposed to be cheaper than Hubble).
Dr. Neukum from Germany said that NASA cancelled the mission without even consulting with DLR (who made a principal instrument for the spacecraft) and that this made a bad relationship even worse with Europe.
The astro folks are a bit disingenious as well in whining about the firewall between space science and manned spaceflight as the firewall was a 20% minimum cap and space science is now at 31% of the NASA budget. Cleave was right in pointing this out but the whole community is up in arms right now, especially the new young generation of scientists.
Dennis
Well, maybe its time to get rid of that abstract “exploration” umbrella that supposedly has different types and put the projects where they belong. Science has its own body in government, thats where science projects should go. Aerospace R&D ? they used to have NACA for that which reportedly worked very well.
As for government run space trucking service …
Absolutely!!! And espicially if we are talking about people in space, the phrase, ladies and gentlemen, is colonization. Then we can kill the stupid Manned vs Unmanned debate once and for all
I was at a presentation today where Mary Cleave was literally fed to the lions
I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
Yes, one wishes that peoples’ heads would literally explode when they write things like that.
Oh I just love it when I put something in like that. Makes sure you read the post, literally.
Dennis
Yes, it would be a joy to see your head literally explode.
Now now Thomas, you need to go to the bathroom and open the cabinet and get your meds out. You know how naughty you get when you don’t take them.
Dennis