They were not sent out to just host a flag in strange land or show the world whose’ exploration technology is better than others.

And they weren’t dispatched on anything remotely resembling a scientific expedition. Space Cadet presented a false choice, that’s all there is to it.

They were not sent out to just host a flag in strange land or show the world whose’ exploration technology is better than others. They were also sent out to do the things we do today with probes. In the case of Lewis and Clark, map new areas, scout out resources (water, rivers for transport, ect.), send back specimens of wild life(what sorts of plants and animals grow in the area), even to some extent gather information about the natives then living in the area, gather information about what are the weather conditions in an area ect.

Jefferson wanted a way to trade with China (i.e. via say some overland waterways) but that was not possible. They also had commercial goals (what riches can be exploited in this new area).

Today’s technology means that we use space probes to do what once took a real human being. Heck if it were the 60ies you would not be able to detect water at the lunar poles without sending a crew (and Apollo was not capable of polar missions…just equatorial ones).

Da Gama, Columbus, Hudson, Lewis and Clark are examples of exploration-WITH-science missions.

How do you figure?

Prez Cannady: “For tourists, Da Gama, Columbus, Hudson, Lewis and Clark did damned good work.”

Exactly the point. Da Gama, Columbus, Hudson, Lewis and Clark are examples of exploration-WITH-science missions. Darwin’s famous voyage on the Beagle would be another example. They mapped and learned about the place they visited, its ecology, inhabitants, minerals, etc.. The product of these early expeditions was knowledge, which enabled future economic exploitation.

A meaningless statistic as it counts only civil servants. All this indicates is that the robotic exploration centers on average employ a higher proportion of contractors (for e.g. JPL is 0% civil servants) than the human exploration centers.

In the context of this discussion, your satisfaction is sure curious. In FY12, Congress appropriated 3.5% less for NASA than it did last year. For SMD, it appropriated 3.1% more than last year. If we’re going to get more such good things out of them in FY2013, SMD will be on a roll. Your satisfaction is surprising, but appreciated. In fact, the FY12 approps report language had nothing to say about what you could call cis-lunar science, and the budget it supported included only a small increase (to an already small number) for lunar science.

I have to assume that your satisfaction is aimed at funding for SLS. But that’s not really what this thread is about.

“For tourists, Da Gama, Columbus, Hudson, Lewis and Clark did damned good work.”

Re exploration, science and tourism, that remark — “Exploration without science is tourism” is often ascribed to Ed Weiler, but was actually first made by the former president of the American Astronomical Society, Bob Kirshner. HIstorical explorers were scientists if just in that they allowed us to see places we’d never seen before. Back then, we had no more economical or less risky way of doing that. Those historical explorers discovered new things about our world and the cultures on it. Yes, Da Gama, Columbus, Hudson, Lewis and Clark did damned good work. But in this day and age, human explorers really aren’t needed to do that kind of thing in space. Certainly not to interact with other cultures. There are good reasons for putting humans in space, but not to do what those historical explorers did.

“Exploration without science is tourism.”

For tourists, Da Gama, Columbus, Hudson, Lewis and Clark did damned good work.

So stop whining about SMD. It’s valuable to somebody.

You first. After all, you’re the one who wants to take up the cause of academics at the expense of far larger Congressional constituencies.

Our point about the SLS has been that there are less expensive alternatives for the same function (i.e. getting mass into space)…

So what?

…and that the SLS solves no unique problems.

Wrong, but I’ll let it slide this time.

And yes we get it that it is currently funded, but as we all saw with the Constellation program, that can change quickly.

Seeing as we’ve gone from one government funded and operated super heavy lift arch to another, larger one, not sure if your definition of “change” is meaningful.

I’ve always thought it would be killed in 2013…

Fat chance.

Your point seems to be that you want an alternate use for the funding SMD currently gets – something completely different than science, or at least the science that is currently being done.

Specifically, I wouldn’t mind seeing SMD reprogrammed for cislunar development activities. It’s already host to LPRP, so there you go.

Yet you have failed to show where Congress has any interest in making such a change. Could they? Sure. Will they? I haven’t seen any indications, and Congress has a long history or funding science missions for NASA –

I’ve shown that Congress is willing to make a change. All the time in fact, considering the comparatively short dev-to-launch lifecycles of SMD programs. So what’s your point?

far longer than building mega-rockets with no funded missions.

What’re you talking about? NASA’s been funding one mega-rocket program or another since its founding.

Well Son, if it’s so easy, then what’s the issue? I’m sure all you’ll have to do is corner a Congresscritter and point out the error of their ways…

I’m satisfied with how Congress approached FY2012, and I expect more good things in 2013.