Comments on: Balancing science and exploration funding http://www.spacepolitics.com/2006/07/03/balancing-science-and-exploration-funding/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=balancing-science-and-exploration-funding Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway... Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:35:41 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38 By: Chris Mann http://www.spacepolitics.com/2006/07/03/balancing-science-and-exploration-funding/#comment-8374 Sun, 09 Jul 2006 07:01:25 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=1032#comment-8374 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.

]]> By: Matthew Corey Brown http://www.spacepolitics.com/2006/07/03/balancing-science-and-exploration-funding/#comment-8373 Wed, 05 Jul 2006 21:05:40 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=1032#comment-8373 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.

]]> By: David Renholder http://www.spacepolitics.com/2006/07/03/balancing-science-and-exploration-funding/#comment-8372 Tue, 04 Jul 2006 03:48:01 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=1032#comment-8372 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

]]> By: Richard Mains http://www.spacepolitics.com/2006/07/03/balancing-science-and-exploration-funding/#comment-8371 Mon, 03 Jul 2006 17:16:02 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=1032#comment-8371 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)

]]>