This seemingly innocuous statement masks what’s actually happened to NASA’s space science programs. To keep the Shaft on schedule, Griffin & Co. have made the following cuts:

— In the Mars Exploration Program, the number of projected missions has been cut in half and Mars sample return, the one mission with the highest probability of confirming evidence of life beyond Earth, has been axed.

— In the Astronomical Search for Origins Program, both the Space Interferometry Mission and the Terrestrial Planet Finder mission have been axed. In contrast to ESA, NASA has no extrasolar planet imaging missions or program on the books and the U.S. runs the serious risk of falling behind Europe in discoveries in this area and the associated technologies.

— After the cancellation of Europa Orbiter, there is not a single astrobiology mission — even in planning — to any of the rapidly accumulating high priority targets in the outer planets (Europa, Enceladus, Titan, Ganymede, Callisto).

— Practically all future missions in high-energy astrophyics and solar physics have been cancelled.

— NASA research grants in all science disciplines have been cut, in some cases by as high as 50 percent.

— Associated technology programs are also cut or eliminated. For example, there is practically nothing remaining of the in-space propulsion program.

I’m all for human space exploration, but per the findings of the Augustine Commission, it should not come at the expense of NASA’s crown jewels — its space science programs. These are the very programs that will make the cutting-edge discoveries in areas like astrobiology necessary to justify sending astronauts to locations other than low-Earth orbit. Without them, as the Vision correctly identified, the rationale for substantial government funding of human space exploration is unsustainable.

Unfortunately, Griffin & Co. have strayed from the Vision, focusing most of NASA’s efforts into buying yet another low-Earth orbit space truck, at the expense of building any real human exploration hardware before the next President takes office or even doing any real exploration to speak of (human or robotic).

“Once the Constellation vehicles are developed, and we’re back into on-going operations (and the Shuttle expenditures are gone), the budget crunch should ease.”

Even in the best-case scenario, the Constellation vehicles won’t be developed for another decade. More realistically, as we’re starting to see with the FY 2007 budget debacle, we’re looking at a 15 to 20 years to build those vehicles. Real space exploration and science should not have to take a generation-long hiatus to create the funding necessary fix the human space flight program. By definition, fixing the human space flight program means coming up with an approach that is quicker, more affordable, more flexible, and more sustainable than what’s come before — one that does not require the commitment of several Presidents, many Congresses, and massive raids on budgets for ongoing robotic space exploration.

One only hopes that the next Administration restores some money to NASA’s science programs when it cancels Ares V, LSAM, and the rest. Unfortunately, they’ll probably take it all and the one part of NASA that actually does space exploration — its robotic science programs — will be all the poorer.

“and we will be back to doing real geology on the moon and potentially near earth asteroids, the Martian moons, and Mars.”

If I have to choose, as the costs of the Shaft are forcing us to do, I’d much rather have telescopic images of extrasolar Earths, samples of Mars nanobacteria from robotic rovers, and data on subterranean ocean life from automated subs under Europa than more astronaut-delivered Moon rocks and the faint hope that we might plant a flag on Phobos before the end of this century.

As for everything else, I see it as sort of a gamble that the UK will not need a domestic cutting edge in aeronautics or space for the next 50 years. i.e. that it won’t convey an economic or military advantage in the next 50 years or so. It’s a testament to the civil service that they can see this far ahead.

Once the Constellation vehicles are developed, and we’re back into on-going operations (and the Shuttle expenditures are gone), the budget crunch should ease. (And, don’t forget that the budget crunch is caused as much by the JWST as by the VSE, which also has suffered budget cuts from what was hoped for.)

Then, more money will probably go back toward high-energy observatories and we will be back to doing real geology on the moon, and potentially near earth asteroids, the Martian moons, and Mars.

That, surely, is a future worth a little near-term sacrifice.

Finally, local planetary geology and stellar astronomy should not be totally divorced from each other. The Solar System is a star system after all, and the regolith-dominated surfaces here are probably broadly similar to those likely to be found in other star systems. When we start to observe solid planets around other stars, the more ground-truth experimental knowledge we have locally, the better off we will be understanding what’s going on out there.

— Donald

apologies for my apparent arrogance here .. by “real astronomy” I only meant the study of things we can’t visit : exoplanets, stars, galaxies, quasars, cosmology. Like most people who study those things, I guess I think of “planetary astronomy” as more like geo-science than astronomy, and really a different (but equally important) subject.

Studying the oceans of Europa or deep drilling on the Moon etc is excellent science, and stands a good chance of being enhanced by manned exploration; but it won’t help the study of stars etc etc. I too am worried about data. If big-budget exploration squeezes us out, we won’t be able to afford big telescopes and space missions like Chandra; astrophysics will decay to onanistic astro-particle type cosmology.

Welcome, Andy. However, I do have to disagree with your implied meaning, here. “Real astronomy spending” is sending astronauts to the moon or Mars and do real survey geology, deep drills, and obtain absolute dates. (You might recall that the only extraterrestrial surfaces with absolute dates are one comet and Earth’s moon, dating from Apollo; dates for everything else, from Mercury to Neptune, are little more than educated guesses based on crater counts relative to the moon.)

“Real astronomy” is not only remote observation without scientists on site to get real, ground-truth data. “Real astronomy” is more than astrophysical guess work and theory based on wholely inadequate evidence. (If theory and remote observation are so great, why for example, with one possible exception, did no one predict the oceans on Europa in advance, which in retrospect should have been obvious?)

“Real astronomy,” like all real science, involves both experiment and theory, and, since Apollo, astronomy has been far too heavily weighted toward the latter.

— Donald

Good site by the way.

Depends on how much the dollar and rouble depreciate, don’t it?

Whoopee… three odd years into Griffin’s ESAS, one year plus into Dale’s outreach, and this is all we have to show in terms of international support for the Vision?

Pathetic… Griffin’s lunar “off-ramp” is going to be very barren. Way to build another bridge to nowhere. Great strategy, NASA.

At long last another flicker of interest has stirred in the government, ten million pounds a year ($20m) for a manned space program – pathetic, but better than nothing. It may even be a start.

At long last another flicker of interest has stirred in the government, ten million pounds a year ($20m) for a manned space program – pathetic, but better than nothing. It may even be a start.