No other observatory now in existence or planned can determine the orbit of a Near Earth Object to anywhere near the accuracy of Arecibo. Or, to put it simply, without Arecibo, we can’t know what might hit us and can’t do anything about it. No other facility can do the ionospheric work Arecibo does with its radar, which provides a fundamental input into models of global climate. You know, the things we use to understand the weather and global warming? No other facility has anywhere near the sensitivity of Arecibo as a radio telescope or as a radar system. It is still generating Nature and Science cover stories on a regular basis (such as determining there is no ice on the moon’s polar caps).

The trouble is not the science of Arecibo. The trouble is that billion dollar telescopes are being built based on promises of increased funding made in 2002 and those promised increases never happened, and they needed $30M a year to come from somewhere to operate the new telescopes. The Senior Review was told find $30M but don’t touch any of the new projects. So, Arecibo got cut. And the SKA (another billion dollar project) is vaporware. No chance of it happening for another 10-15 years at the earliest, and it won’t have a radar system. There are no “cheaper” alternatives for doing the science that Arecibo does.

A better comparison would be DoD R&D versus the human space program as it is presently configured, and NIH versus space science and astronomy. Even if you include just space science, they are still getting an awful lot of money compared to the other sciences.

All that said, I suggest we stop here (or after your next turn!) since we are both cooking the books to support our respective points. . . . And I confess to being a bit uncomfortable with my own argument since I happen to believe that at least some fields of astronomy (e.g., planetary geology, asteroid and comet research) are more important than other sciences. I just wish sometimes the scientists supported by MASA would respect the great deal they’ve get, and see it a little less as a guaranteed entitlement that ranks high above all of NASA’s other jobs.

— Donald

Even setting aside development, during the 1990s, we spent roughly comparable amounts in astronomy, biology, and ecology research. Spending on geology research was somewhat smaller than astronomy, although spending on all enviromental sciences (including geology, oceanography, and the atmospheric sciences) was several times larger than astronomy. See Chapter 2 of this National Academies review:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309075890

Spending in astronomy research ranged from $800-$1,000M/yr. during the 1990s, per figure 2-13.

Spending in the biological sciences (biology) ranged from $400-900M/yr. in the same period, per figure 2-19.

Spending on environmental biology (ecology) ranged from $600-900M/yr. in the same period, per figure 2-20.

And spending on geology ranged from $400-700M/yr. in the same period, per figure 2-25. (Although it must be pointed out that spending on all environmental sciences, including atmospheric sciences and oceanography, totalled $2.5-3B/yr. in the same period, per figure 2-22.)

Hope this helps… FWIW.

Europe, for example, has the world’s second largest space science program, but a very small human space flight program.

It may or may not be fair to say that Europe’s program is at least somewhat a result of their preceived competative pressure with the US and may not get this level of support in isolation.

The accessibility of their instruments and ease of operation allows for degress of research flexibility that space-based telescopes simply don’t have.

If we continue to explore space, and give physical observation and experiment sufficient priority, this may change.

Regarding astrophysics, and local diirect observation and experimentation, and the way more of the latter should tie into the improvements in the former, I am preparing an Op Ed piece on that. I’ll continue writing that, rather than address it now.

— Donald

In the context of other federal R&D spending, astrophysics and space science don’t receive “a lot of public funding”. Total federal R&D spending is about $140 billion per year. Over half of that, about $75 billion, is spent at DoD. Another $30 billion is spent at HHS, mostly NIH. DOE gets another $10 billion. So we have tens and tens of billions going into R&D every year to support defense, health, and energy, versus the few billion dollars that go into NASA space science and NSF astrophysics every year. The results of space science and astrophysics may be highly visible, but the tax revenues going into them are not “a lot”, especially when compared to the tax revenues going to other R&D areas, not by any reasonable standard.

“Should this level of support continue when other sciences and projects that may be more important get less?”

But the important “science and projects” — those that directly affect the nation’s defense, the health of our population, and our energy supply — do get more, a lot more, than space science or astrophysics. We could wipe out space science and astrophysics and the few billion saved would make only a small dent compared to the spending going into these, justifiably more important, areas.

“and partly because the latter group, especially, are politically and financially tied to a wider NASA”

It’s a common mantra that NASA space science owes its funding to the human space flight side of NASA — that space science piggybacks on human space flight. But the statement does not hold up under scrutiny.

Europe, for example, has the world’s second largest space science program, but a very small human space flight program. Russia has a very large human space flight program, but a relatively small and practically inactive space science program. Based on these and other foreign examples, there’s no clear 1-to-1 or cause-and-effect relationship between the size of a nation’s human space flight program and the size of its space science program.

And in the specific case of NASA, before Columbia and especially before Griffin, the space science budget doubled over the course of a decade while spending on human space flight activities remained relatively level. Again, there’s no clear 1-to-1 or cause-and-effect relationship between the budget for NASA human space flight activities and the budget for NASA space science activities.

“especially since they seem to have enough money to waste on over-priced and under-scienced projects like SOPHIA, and, if Anonymous is correct, Arecibo”

Don’t blame the astrophysics community for continuing SOFIA — that was a (arguably politically driven) decision from Griffin, not the result of a review of astrophysics research priorities.

And certainly don’t blame the astrophysics community for Arecibo — NSF is actually following the community’s research priorities by trying to cut off funding for Arecibo and move those dollars into new astrophysics research. In Arecibo’s case, the system is actually working as it should!

“How much money are we going to continue to spend of far cheaper but far more limited ground-based telescopes, versus far more expensive but far more capable space telescopes”

Ground-based telescopes will always have a place. The accessibility of their instruments and ease of operation allows for degress of research flexibility that space-based telescopes simply don’t have. For example, without ground-based telescopes, astronomers would have a very hard and expensive time following up to transient phenomena, like the gamma-ray bursts detected by space-based telescopes. Ground-based telescopes also serve an important role as technology demonstrators for space-based telescopes. Before Griffin cancelled SIM and TPF, NASA was planning to test out separated interferometry using outrigger telescopes at Mauna Kea. Heck, the adaptive optics that make JWST possible (and probably some number of intelligence satellites) were also first tried on ground telescopes. And this says nothing of the many detectors and instruments (not to mention graduate students) that are first tried out on ground-based telescopes before moving to space-based counterparts. And there are also still some observations, even massive galactic, stellar, or asteroid censuses, that simply don’t require the expense of a space-based observatory. Heck, neutrino physics requires that we put the observatory underground!

“and direct observation by going there”

Unless and until Einstein is overcome, the vast majority of the objects that telescopes investigate are not accessible by human or robot. And even if we could travel infinitely fast, some of the most important questions in astrophysics are cosmological in scale, involving phenomena that unfold over extragalactic scales or on the scale of the entire universe, often billions and billions of years ago, and in wavelengths that we cannot see. Those phenomena will never be directly observable by a human, no matter where we send them. Our senses do not operate on those scales or in those wavelengths, and we cannot travel back in time.

For much of astrophysics, it’s not a question of remote versus direct observation. It’s a question of being able to do observation at all.

“Just because “we’ve always done it that way” and “they’ve always got that money” does not automatically mean that should continue.”

Agreed. And that’s exactly what’s happening with Arecibo.

FWIW…

Another important, related question: How much money are we going to continue to spend of far cheaper but far more limited ground-based telescopes, versus far more expensive but far more capable space telescopes and direct observation by going there?

Just because “we’ve always done it that way” and “they’ve always got that money” does not automatically mean that should continue.

— Donald

Damn.

At this rate, you could blame NASA for your mother-in-law and get away with it.