In an op-ed piece in Monday’s edition of the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, astronomer and author Adam Frank describes the tug of war going on among various NASA programs for funding. After describing the benefits provided by NASA science programs, Hubble in particular, and the current funding problems for science programs, he concludes, “With this great history behind us and the growing dangers ahead of us, it is time for all to ask with fresh eyes, ‘What is the space program for?'”
One can argue that this question has already been asked and answered by the current administration and Congress, which proposed and endorsed, respectively, the Vision for Space Exploration. That answer gets tweaked though the appropriations process every year as well. It’s not clear what “all of us” should do, assuming that most Americans would even bother to give much thought to the goals of the space agency.
Frank does rightly point out that the Hubble in particular has been both a productive scientific tool as well as one of the key symbols of the space program. Hubble images “have inspired countless kids to go into the sciences at a time when the U.S. faces its stiffest competition ever in the international marketplace of ideas and technology,” he writes. I wouldn’t doubt that such imagery can be inspiring, but I wonder if anyone has ever studied just how influential Hubble imagery has been in encouraging students to pursue science and engineering compared to other aspects of the space program, such as the shuttle and station, as well as external influences, space-related or otherwise. (Left unanswered is how images of things like the Eagle Nebula, Saturn, or the galaxy NGC 4414 would encourage students to pursue studies in biotech, nanotech, or electrical engineering, among other fields.)
One can argue that this question has already been asked and answered by the current administration and Congress, which proposed and endorsed, respectively, the Vision for Space Exploration.
One can also set their head in concrete. This does not mean that it’s a wise thing to do.
One can also argue that inspiring students to enter areas where they will be underpaid (looked at how much a typical postdoc earns?) is not doing them, or us, any favors.
One can also set their head in concrete. This does not mean that it’s a wise thing to do.
I was lowering my head into cement when I read your comment. Thanks, Chris, you just saved my life.
One can argue that this question has already been asked and answered by the current administration and Congress, which proposed and endorsed, respectively, the Vision for Space Exploration.
One could argue it, but one would be wrong. The VSE more co-opts the question than answers it. “Our first goal is to complete the International Space Station by 2010″ is not a “new plan” and “spacecraft assembled and provisioned on the moon” is not a tractable goal. It’s a load of BS, is what it really is, just like Reagan’s vision of a space station in 1984: “A space station will permit quantum leaps in our research in science, communications, and in metals and lifesaving medicines which could be manufactured only in space.” Just as with Reagan, it’s BS that some people will remember and believe, or pretend to believe, for decades.
I agree with Jeff Foust on one other point, though. The Hubble Space Telescope is a supremely important project, but “we’re doing it for the children” is a bad argument. As it often is. Indeed, the more that any government effort runs off the rails, the more its promoters infantilize it. Fortunately, in the case of Hubble, it’s just occassional lip service. In the case of the space shuttle and the space station, a substantial amount of actual space time is devoted to catering to children.
This is not to say that every government program for children is all wrong. For example, the government should at least set standards for vaccinating and educating children; because otherwise, there will be diseased, illiterate children whose caretakers insist are learned and healthy. What is inappropriate is mixing smoking rooms and kiddie rooms, that is, using children to justify adult projects.
Whatever we do with humas in space, similar to Columbus getting to the Canary Islands first and then Bon Voyaging, humans must first get to low Earth Orbit. The modern problem seems opposite Columbus’s problem – the first step is a doosey.
The problem is still just getting humans to and from LEO, keeping them alive at some “acceptable” fatality rate, and controlling cost. So far the “acceptable” rate is ‘if it happens, you are dead in the water for around 3 years for an investigation. It would help to have more than one company for access to LEO, in that respect – avoiding 2 – 3 or more year shutdowns.
Whatever we do with humas in space, similar to Columbus getting to the Canary Islands first and then Bon Voyaging, humans must first get to low Earth Orbit. The modern problem seems opposite Columbus’s problem – the first step is a doosey.
LEO is halfway to anywhere but actually is nowhere all that interesting or useful.
Who will PAY FOR developing low cost reliable Earth-to-LEO without a business case?
Bigelow habs in LEO (Good luck, tomorrow!) would be a fantastic start yet lowering the cost for travel from LEO to Luna is another important goal that makes getting to LEO more valuable, and useful. Lunar oxygen, re-useable LSAMs, and things like momentum exchange tether transport from LEO to Luna will open up new business cases for Earth-to-LEO transport.
But Everyone has to go through LEO if they do want to go anywhere intresting.
Independance, MO was/is a very dull place but thats where half the people geered up in the migration to the west.
With all the developing nations looking to have a space policy, there is the market to LEO. Not as an end destination but a pitstop. Yes there are some applications thats it is currently cheaper to bypass LEO, but if LEO got cheap enough that edge wouldn’t be there. Or at the veryleast the edge would be regain by adopting whatever breakthrough that gives us LEO on the cheap.
Independence MO was especially dull before people decided to head further west. That is my point.
Making it easier to get from Independence to Oregon or California increased demand for travel to Independence from New York. Making it easier to get from LEO to Luna will increase demand for access to LEO.
Therefore, we cannot focus 100% on lowering costs to LEO, we also need to develop a complete cis-luanr transport system, Earth surface to lunar surface and return.
Mo-Ex tethers for cargo, solar ion, lunar oxygen and reuseable lunar landers are part of that.
But there are more interesting places then just the moon. Granted having a cheap cislunar tranbsport would spure cheap LEO if its not there. But to prove its Cheap you need to get to LEO first. The smart business case for CATS doesn’t concern itself with trying to get things elsewhere.
Company A gets you to LEO.
Company B gets you from LEO to the moon.
Company C gets you to GEO.
Company D gets you else where in the SOloar system.
Company B, C, and D busniess castes depend on the exsistance of company A.
Yes its a chicken or egg thing, but the most long term profit comes from funding A first so there is more chance of the others being funded. If A already exsists it becomes cheaper to develop the others, as in under 50 million, as opposed to 1 billion.
If we do CATS at the exclusion of all else and it takes 15 years. It would take less then 5 years to catch up on the all else. Plus create allow new markets to be developed cause it would be economically viable to develop those markets.
Including the science, we could have dozens of telescopes in orbit around the earth for the price of the hubble.
But no one is willing to put their carrers on hold for 15 years, for the bennefit of all others. Humans will get what we deserve for this erronious zero sum mentality.