I grew up there. School field trips involved going to the meson physics lab and trying to figure out what the heck the tour guide scientist was talking about.

I think a lot of the "real science" that goes on, that is, the science which we can see impact our lives here on earth is all the residual development that goes on... creating ways to make things happen in a zero-grav environment, creating systems that work in the isolation of space, materials that survive breaking out of the atmosphere and back into it. Space flight is about so much more than just space and the moon. It gives us a new way to approach problems and find solutions to issues we didn't even realize we had here on earth.

To me what promotes science funding is having a population interested in science, and a scientific community made up of bright people excited about science. Sure an expensive scientifically substanceless program may funnel short term money away from hard science, but if the brightest members of the next generation is uninterested in science, all the money in the world won't matter. Marketing is a valid expense. The number of kids that said "I want to be an astronaut when I grow up!" who actually became astronauts is nil. But some percentage of them did take that excitement and turn it toward science of some sort.

I'd be happier about the move if there seemed to be an effort to come up with a suitable replacement, something big and ambitious to excite the population. The stupid public service announcements saying we need scientists aren't cutting it for me. Until then, I'll mourn the loss of a proven winner.

Except in what way is it a proven winner? The Constellation Program is almost 8 years old, exactly when is it going to start producing societal excitement (keeping in mind that only one third of the way through its mandate it is already years behind schedule and billions over budget)?

I would argue that the Mars rovers have produced multiples of the amount of interest that Constellation has, at a fraction of the cost and with the benefit of involving actual science. Hell, exploding a rocket into the surface of the moon generated more interest so far than the manned moon mission.

And if you want a big flashy manned spaceflight goal is not the maintained goal of sending manned missions to Mars (skipping the moon) sufficient in that regard?

By "proven winner" I meant generally men in space, not necessarily Constellation in particular. I guess I didn't realize that men on mars was still part of the new plan, I had figured that went along with no men on the moon. That makes me feel somewhat better.

Fair point re: rovers. I suppose I should have some faith that they'll keep coming up with stuff like that. But I still fear that an policy of, "we can't do that, it's all flash and no substance!" will have a long term negative effect on space exploration and science in general, despite short term cost savings.

While not exactly a direct tie-in with this conversation, I thought of this thread when I read this article in the paper today.

General tells Congress that arts funding could aid military and diplomatic goals

Yeah, I really don't know much of anything about what science our gov't bankrolls.I agree with this. Perhaps if instead of spending billions on sending people into space, they could hire some decent PR firms to educate the public on what real science the gov't is promoting, and make it palatable and exciting? I understand that "pure" science is a hard sell, but the more practical stuff should be marketable.

I suspect that many of these agencies don't actually want too much light of day on their projects, because if the teabaggers hear about them they are going to start screaming about tax money being wasted.

The more I think of it, the more the idea of gov't PR in all areas sounds smart, especially in an era of supposedly increasing transparency. Along with visibility comes the requirement of relateability. If our society is truly moving in a progressive direction, it needs a bit of polish to get people on board.

And if they start wasting money on PR campaigns the Tea Party members won't scream?

Besides, it looks like at least one government agency has decided to let the people create their own propaganda.......gotta give them props for saving money if nothing else:snap:

http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Clim...ent-regulation

Every now and then I click one of your links to see just how slanted it is. The answer is still "very".

Oh, and I know the Tea Party will scream, regardless. That's all it does.

"Slanted?"

So, are you suggesting that the EPA is not conducting a contest promoting regulation? Because that's all I was asserting here??