NASA

Balancing science and exploration funding

In an essay in this week’s issue of The Space Review, Taylor Dinerman argues that the exploration program budget should not be raided to pay for science programs. He is concerned that steps like this in the early stages in the development of the CEV and the newly-named Ares launch vehicles could jeopardize their long-term success, drawing comparisons to the early development of the shuttle in the 1970s:

The budgets for early work on the shuttle and for missions such as the Mariner-Jupiter-Saturn, which became the two Voyager spacecraft, were cut to the bone. For the science community this was frustrating, but for fourteen astronauts it was deadly. There is no doubt that the lack of enough early funding for shuttle development in the 1970s has lead to a vehicle whose problems are all too well known. Flaws that should have been recognized and dealt with in those years made the shuttle into a far more fragile and cantankerous system than the safe and reliable “DC-3 of Space” that had been promised.

Right now the situation doesn’t seem to be nearly as dire as Dinerman states, since the cuts in the FY07 exploration budget are associated with longer-term technology development, and not the CEV or the Ares launchers. Also, the diverted funding is going to programs particularly hard hit by the original budget proposal, in particular research and analysis grants and aeronautics. The best solution might be an addition billion or two dollars for NASA in FY07, as Sens. Mikulski and Hutchison have proposed through an emergency funding measure, but, as Dinerman writes, “it seems unlikely that in the current tight budget environment NASA could in fact get that much.”

4 comments to Balancing science and exploration funding

  • Two major science-related areas need to be sustained if the exploration program is to succeed as Dinerman hopes. First, exploration leading to space colonization (Griffin’s goal) needs integrated systems including, human transport, life support, robotic and isru support, energy support, biomedical/performance support systems and more. Second, since finding life is a key goal in addition to commercial interests, astrobiology needs strong support. This requires a solidly-funded biological and physical science space research community to help develop, test and implement these systems. Without these science-supported systems, exploration will not be implemented, let alone be sustained. (see url for AIAA article)

  • David Renholder

    Dinerman’s article doesn’t really have much of a point other than that the scientists should stop complaining and they will do this as long as NASA gets an extra billion dollars in funding. Because it is unlikely that NASA will get that money, should the scientists be quiet anyway?

    But he misses a bigger issue, which is that today is not the mid-1970s. Science is a much bigger part of NASA than it was in the past, and it is a bigger part of NASA’s popularity and its raison d’etre than it was in the past. NASA’s science programs are popular, particularly with Congress, and they are productive. So there is no reason why the scientists should be expected to be quiet if they think that manned spaceflight is stealing their money. After all, they can make the argument that they produce real results, whereas manned spaceflight has not really accomplished anything new in 30 years.

    Dinerman would do well to read The Space Review for background information, such as this essay: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/572/1

  • Matthew Corey Brown

    If the government could produce CATS or help it along (Yeah right.) Then space based science will become cheaper. Its the Spiral effect, once launch costs are cheaper, you don’t need as much reduncancy so your instrument is cheaper (and lighter) so would would need less lauch capibility so its even cheaper.

    Ain’t gonna happen but it should.

  • Chris Mann

    Its the Spiral effect, once launch costs are cheaper, you don’t need as much reduncancy so your instrument is cheaper (and lighter)

    Or heavier if you can halve your mission costs by using a slightly heavier standardised bus.