A New York Times editorial today congratulates NASA for the COBE mission, which netted a Nobel Prize in Physics earlier this week for John Mather of NASA Goddard and George Smoot of UC Berkeley. The editorial notes, though, that COBE was a relatively small Explorer-class spacecraft, the type of mission getting squeezed out in the NASA budget. “Too bad the program that yielded these pioneering discoveries was reined in not long ago so that NASA could pour billions of dollars into resuming shuttle flights, finishing the international space station, and developing spacecraft to pursue the Bush administration’s ambitious space exploration program,” the Times writes. It’s interesting that the editorial doesn’t mention the cost overruns (or is it “undercosting”?) on the James Webb Space Telescope, which is certainly not helping the cause of small science missions.
“It’s interesting that the editorial doesn’t mention the cost overruns (or is it “undercosting”?) on the James Webb Space Telescope, which is certainly not helping the cause of small science missions.”
No, it’s not particularly interesting, in view of the fact that they didn’t mention a bunch of real money-down-a-hole encumberances for the agency, or more spectacular overruns/undercostings either. It is interesting, and perhaps a little disappointing, that the Times didn’t point out that this work with such little Explorer missions are at the front line in the exploration of the universe. Unfortunately, that e-word has been somewhat hijacked by the human space flight effort in the current vernacular.
As an aside, the JWST budget problems are certainly unfortunate, and as is well understood are due to a combination of true overruns, undercosting and, not insignificantly, revised ways of counting dollars.
The COBE satellite was part of NASA’s Explorers Program, which uses small satellites to conduct important studies that don’t need gigantic, costly space platforms. Yet these and similar small-scale missions were disproportionately cut to free up money for more grandiose programs. The Nobel award suggests that NASA needs to rebalance its portfolio, a task the agency says is in progress.
Yeah, “rebalance” in the sense of cutting these type of efforts even further. But is this surprising? This Administration has made the screwing up of things into a fine art.
All of this (including the Times) ignores the fact that NASA is spending a larger percentage of its total budget on automated science than it was a decade ago. There has been no cut in automated science, only a “rebalancing” to bring human spaceflight closer to its traditional percentage.
This may or may not be a good thing (you all know my opinion on that), but whatever else it may or may not be, it is not a retreat by NASA from automated science.
— Donald
Yes, and where did the larger fraction of human space flight expenditures a decade ago actually get us? Oh, yeah, it’s “traditions” you’re after …
Now, the shuttle is an amazing machine, though it never came anywhere close to expectations in dollar value, and the ISS is truly an engineering triumph, though it has become a real dead-end for human space flight.
More power to an ambitious (and cost-effective!) program of human space flight that really goes places, but please, not at the expense of promises for scientific productivity and the international admiration that obviously brings us.
Well, Doug, I believe that an ambitious (and cost-effective!) program of human space flight is what is on offer in the VSE. I support the VSE because I believe it has found a way to make a meaningful advance while staying within the political and financial realities of the time — that is, while staying more-or-less within the “traditional” funding given to human spaceflight. Many here, obviously, disagree with me, but it is a valid position, that I have attempted to back up. I’ve heard you attack the human space program in the abstract — variations on a theme of it’s useless for science — but I don’t recall you actually proposal a realistic ambitious (and cost-effective!) program of human space flight that really goes places of your own.
It is true that outside events, prior commitments, and the Bush Administration’s financial ideocies have conspired to require that both the VSE and space science receive significant budget cuts. But, given where we are, I’d like to hear your constructive ideas to create an ambitious (and cost-effective!) program of human space flight that really goes places.
My guess is that, once you’ve thought about it, you’ll come up with something that sounds a lot like the broader strategies — if not the technological choices and details — of the VSE.
— Donald
You need to go back and study the archives. I’ve said very clearly and consistently that VSE offers special benefits to science, and the reflexive response of many in the science community to run away from it is not smart. (I don’t happen to believe that the most important science opportunities for VSE are on the Moon, though. There we disagree.) I have NEVER attacked the human space flight program. Never. I have, however, expressed some skepticism about your vision for it.
What’s more, I have no big problem with the budget posture of VSE. Doing big things is hard and expensive. I never said VSE wasn’t ambitious or cost-effective, either. (We’ll see about the latter!) And it certainly has the potential to take us places.
What I said was that such a space program should not be done at the expense of a successful science program that brings strong return to our nation, and that spending levels founded founded on a program that wasn’t particularly cost-effective doesn’t make for smart planning.
I’m hearing a shrill and equally reflexive response, in which human space advocates feel threatened by science advocacy. A real pity.
I’ve heard you attack the human space program in the abstract — variations on a theme of it’s useless for science — but I don’t recall you actually proposal a realistic ambitious (and cost-effective!) program of human space flight that really goes places of your own.
Ambitious but cost effective? For ISS servicing, how about we put a 4m diameter, 10-12T headlight shaped capsule (call it “Zarya On Steroids”) on an Atlas V 401?
If Hillary doesn’t can the lunar surface mission, give lockheed another $4B to develop the three core Atlas Phase 2 and break the EDS and LSAM into two launches. I’m sure both Bigelow and the DOD could find an alternate use for a launcher that size, and with an 8m fairing it could launch a truely bitchin’ space telescope to replace the Hubble.
All up we save $10B on developing the stick, $11B+ from not developing a heavy booster so large that it will never have a commercial use, $5B in not keeping the ATK production line open for the ten years between retiring the shuttle and 2018, $1.5B+ a year in ops costs at KSC, and the volume will make the US commercial launch market more competitive internationally by driving down unit costs.
Doug, while that certainly has not been your tone, I’ll accept your contention that you have never argued against the VSE. Note that I argued that the Space Shuttle should have been canceled after the last accident, and again when major problems were discovered on the first return-to-flight. I do defend the Space Station, mostly because enough of it was already in orbit to keep it going without the Shuttle, and I think opponents vastly underestimate what it is teaching us that will be useful in the future. So, I would have cancelled the Shuttle and stopped building the Space Station; kept the reminder of the station going with (commercial) expendables, and used the savings speed the VSE; invest in longer term technologies, and protect automated science. That is not the decision that was made.
I don’t happen to believe that the most important science opportunities for VSE are on the Moon, though.
Actually, neither do I. If it really were a choice at this point in time, I’d rather have humans on Mars than the moon, but realistically that is beyond our technological and financial means at the moment. Likewise, if I were “god-king” of the space program, a human geologic survey of near Earth asteroids would be my highest priority. That would teach us more about the history of the Solar System, potentially locate more exploitable resources, and teach us more about deep space travel and survival.
However, for various political, technical, and logistical reasons, the decision has been made far above my pay scale to go back to Earth’s moon first. There is no political gain in fighting this decision, which has been repeatedly reinforced in every serious government plan for what to do next in human spaceflight: the best you could do is kill the lunar program while not getting a Mars or asteroid program in return. (Even the Mars Society seems to have realized this.)
Given all this, we should get the best science possible out of a lunar program that is being done for other reasons. I do stand by my argument that — both in the short term and to prepare for longer term endeavors — it is scientifically more cost effective to send geologists to Earth’s moon than it is to continue to send robots to the moon, and that the former should have a higher priority than automated science elsewhere in the Solar System. However, I am willing to compromise on equal priority, meaning that when cuts have to be made for unrelated reasons, both the VSE and automated science have to suffer those cuts, not just the VSE.
— Donald
Well, if the choices were just lunar science or Martian science, down in the dirt, I’d have to agree with you. But when you’ve developed heavy lift, sophisticated robots, a transportation system that reaches beyond LEO (propulsion, nav, comm, AR&D), and the ability to build big things in free space, a lot of other possibilities arise that don’t even involve rocks.
Perhaps my pitch is off, so read my words and don’t worry too much about tone.
Doug: But when you’ve developed heavy lift, sophisticated robots, a transportation system that reaches beyond LEO (propulsion, nav, comm, AR&D), and the ability to build big things in free space, a lot of other possibilities arise that don’t even involve rocks.
Which, of course, is exactly what Dr. Griffin is trying to do. My point has been that if, every time you get into financial trouble, you cut only the VSE and let automated scientists continue to do everything they want, you’ll never successfully develop those skills.
— Donald
OK, then. Don’t do the lander. Keep your suits clean, pioneer construction projects in space, save oodles of bucks, and do stunning science to boot. Rake in Nobel’s.
C’mon, we’ve been to the Moon. Many times. Let’s move on and proudly do something new for the nation. Everyone and their dog is saying that. It’s that “again” word that grates. Even on steroids, you’re just doing it again.
Do robotic prospecting on the Moon for ISRU capabilities and act responsibly on that real information. (Um, and it’s got to be real ISRU, as opposed to virtual ISRU like He3 mining.) As a taxpayer, I don’t need boots in the dirt to turn over random lunar rocks and push an accelerator pedal to drive around. I could use those boots to assemble big things in space, though. Building on what we do now. LEO, Lagrange points, and eventually beyond. Surveillance stations, depots, telescopes, etc.
Speaking of turning over rocks and driving around, seen the new results from Opportunity, which uses many years-old robotic technology to journey for miles and bring us to the lip of a vast crater? Boy, we do good stuff. International envy. Three cheers for the explorers at JPL. Oh, but maybe you’re not an explorer if you get to go home at night …
‘C’mon, we’ve been to the Moon. Many times. Let’s move on and proudly do something new for the nation. Everyone and their dog is saying that. It’s that “again” word that grates. Even on steroids, you’re just doing it again.’
I am sure that hundreds of years ago the early sea explorers traveled to North American many times before anyone actually settled here. Early sea explorers must of went to lands more than once before people actually settled on them. I dont think it will be that different in space. We might have to travel to planets more than once before they are actually settled. It might take a long time to learn how to live on other worlds. It may be like an evolution of sorts.
vze3gz45
Sorry, that doesn’t do it. This isn’t about colonization or settlements. (Well, VSE has nothing to say about that.) It’s about exploration. Pardon me, but I don’t seem to recall from my history classes. What was that famous, inspiring, seventh voyage to the new world again?
Yep, they land on the Moon, step down on the surface for an EVA, and proudly raise seven fingers with two hands. Damn, we’re good.
Doug
The form or function of the renewed lunar missions are far from set but if you read the ESAS report at no point is it just flags and footprints. The initial sortie missions are that but the report says that as early as the first mission the beginnings of an outpost can start. The outpost has as one of its key functions, the development of an ISRU capability leading to a “sustained presence” on the Moon.
There are legitimate beefs about the transportation system that gets us there but after the return to the Moon there is a lot of interesting stuff to be done there.
Disclaimer
I am working on a lunar surface activities contract at this time with NASA so have a working knowledge of what is going on, but the ESAS report itself has a lot of good stuff in it.
Dennis
Well put, but “sustained presence” and “settlements” are miles apart. What’s the name of the settlement we’ve got right now on ISS? Issville? Well, it’s true that it does have a tourist industry …
As I’ve said, ISRU could (if justified both by basic physics and cost-trades) possibly justify large numbers of people on the Moon in the interest of doing important things there and elsewhere. The ESAS report is about getting-there architecture with vague handwaving about why we’re going. NASA is waiting for the LAT to tell it just what is really worthwhile doing by humans once we’re there. Unfortunately, that has never been obvious.
Doug: Pardon me, but I don’t seem to recall from my history classes. What was that famous, inspiring, seventh voyage to the new world again?
Okay, Doug, this means that you oppose any further missions to Antarctica (unless, of course, they are conducted by robots)?
— Donald
Not quite sure what that means. We’re talking about $400M/yr in logistics, ops support, and science for Antarctica. That’s orders of magnitude less than for a sustained presence on the Moon. We’re talking apples and oranges (or maybe pumpkins and peas …)
As it turns out, decades old aeronautics technology gets you to Antarctica (and it needs humans as pilots anyway, as it turns out). That’s kinda handy, compared with developing a whole Exploration architecture. The “getting there” part for Antarctica is (with due respect to the fine ops people who do it) like falling off a log compared with lunar trips. Why should we develop robots to do that?
And while we do have a sustained presence there, it’s a quite stretch to call it a “settlement”. By that reasoning, we have a “settlement” in Bagdhad, I guess, and lots of others on ocean oil platforms. Big whiz. Would I be happy to see robots used for those? You bet. But it isn’t going to happen.
You’re falling back into the the humans-versus-robots fight. That’s an old and tired argument, and not really what this is about. The issue is how best to use humans in space to fulfill national needs.
It might help to understand exactly what is being done in Antarctica. It’s not about exploration. We aren’t exploring the wasteland.
Primarily, it’s international cooperation, astronomy, meteorites, and ice cores. It’s climate science and solar system composition. It has little or nothing to do with exploration. That’s why we have satellites.
Infact, the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty explicitly prohibits useful exploration.
When we started our trips to Antactica, Doug, it wasn’t “falling off a log simple” and $400 million was a much larger percentage of our smaller economy.
The point is, if we had waited to send missions to Antactica until “we could afford it” or “it was falling off a log simple” or until we can “let robots could do it without risking people” we never would have gone. Or, we would have done the science that robots could do in a century of effort or so — which is only a very tiny percent of what has actually been achieved.
and it needs humans as pilots anyway, as it turns out
Indeed? Please elaborate. I’m intensely curious. . . .
— Donald
Last I heard, the C-141s and C-130s that everyone uses to get to McMurdo and the Pole need human flesh holding the stick. As in, pilot, copilot, navigator.
Well, maybe they could outfit the planes for autonomous or robotic operation, but it’s not clear that would be worth the effort, if you did a value-added trade study.
Now, given that they are carrying human passengers in the back, and the dangers are quite low, it seems a little odd that one would even consider removing people from the cockpit.
Doesn’t seem like that would be something that would merit intense curiosity, but diffrent strokes for different folks!
P.S.
“When we started our trips to Antactica, Doug, it wasn’t “falling off a log simple” and $400 million was a much larger percentage of our smaller economy.”
That doesn’t make any sense. We weren’t spending RY$400M per year back when the US polar station was established. Not hard to look it up, but my guess is that as a fraction of GNP, we’re probably spending more now on Antarctica than when we first started our trips there.
Also, it wasn’t the going to Antarctica that eventually made the trip relatively easy. It was leveraging investments in pre-existing large military transport planes.
Doug: It was leveraging investments in pre-existing large military transport planes
And how is that different from leveraging pre-existing Shuttle components to assemble the infrastructure to return to the moon? Or, the Air Force’s pre-existing EELVs (the strategy I prefer, but which would not have been dramatically less expensive than the current plan)? Of course, we should have leveraged the pre-existing Saturn-V, but we didn’t do that.
Granted, the analogy is not exact, but the VSE has always been about trying to leverage existing capabilities to return to the moon with measurably greater capabilities.
Now, let’s assume there had not been World Wars-I and -II and that large military transport planes had not been developed. Would you then argue that we should not develop those capabilities (or a comparable set of capabilities) and never explore Antarctica? Or, that we should lob clock-work robots over there with the Naval guns that were the military state-of-the-art before WW-I and forgo all the science that you can’t do with those?
This analogy is exact.
— Donald
Oh cut the crap Donald. You know as well as anyone here that there is absolutely nothing in these vehicles that is shuttle derived.
Chris, you are both correct and wrong. These vehicles are directly derived from Shuttle (and Saturn) technologies and components, albeit with significant changes. They are not the Shuttle (or Saturn) components themselves.
As many here will happily point out, there is little truly new technology in this effort.
— Donald
“Now, let’s assume there had not been World Wars-I and -II and that large military transport planes had not been developed. Would you then argue that we should not develop those capabilities (or a comparable set of capabilities) and never explore Antarctica?”
Well, Roald Amundsen didn’t have military transport aircraft, and he and his immediate successors did some nice Antarctic exploration without them. Granted, the polar station would not have been anywhere near as fully developed were we still using sledges and dogs, but what we’ve gotten out of Antarctica in no way shape or form would have justified the development cost of military transport aircraft.
Which brings us back to the Moon. I’d have no trouble with developing Exploration architecture to get people back to the Moon were there a strong case to justify that return. In the absence of lunar property rights and national territorial claims, ISRU resources might be the only way to justify that, as opposed to doing other things in space with humans and robots. But using relatively inexpensive robots to assess that lunar ISRU opportunity seems like the first thing you’d want to do before signing large checks.