The future of NASA
 

I know we discussed this earlier, but I think it's buried in the random political thoughts and I think it deserves its own thread. The topic popped back up on my radar today through comments from Neil Armstrong decrying the plan to scrap the Constellation program to return to the moon.

Back when that plan was first announced, I was disappointed but ambivalent. I agreed to some degree that A) there is more tangible value in the kinds of experimental/observational space travel the plan focuses on and B) the private sector would pick up the slack and meet any demand for near-earth manned space travel. But even agreeing on those two points, the decision wasn't sitting right. I couldn't put my finger on what troubled, but since then I think my feelings have coalesced.

My reservations are two-fold. First is the pure flashiness factor. At a time when people are having legitimate concerns about the enthusiasm for science in this country, it seems silly to axe the single most visible and exciting draw towards science this country has ever had - manned near earth space flight. Hard science or not, seeing people shot into orbit spawned decades worth of nerds and geeks. NASA has lost that flash and the Constellation program promised to bring it back. It's a missed opportunity to revive that feeling in this country.

Second is simply the fact that I, and I think most people, trust NASA. Of all the government programs that this country has ever put together, it's by far one of the most successful, most well loved, and, unless I'm just blind to it, the most apolitical. Both domestically and internationally. Look how they've handled the operations of the International Space Station. Cooperating with several different nations, neither arrogantly demanding to take the lead nor taking a backseat to other agencies. By all public appearances at least it's been a lesson in international cooperation between peers of the scientific community. Do I trust the private sector to do that? Not really. Not that I expect Virgin Galactic to be evil and shoot competitor craft out of the skies. But NASA has proven that they are willing to put scientific progress ahead of the desire for proprietary gain, and I have serious doubts that any private company will do the same, there's too much business interest in protecting their proprietary sh*t.

For the record, I think the job loss argument is a dumb one. No budget decision will ever be made if a net-jobs-lost calculus is all we base it on.

It feels like it's too late to change Obama's mind on this. I guess Congress still has some opportunity to exert some pressure to reinstate the program funding. I hope they do.

Much as I think space is ultra cool, I don't see that we have any use for it. Frankly, the use conceived of back in the day was military in nature, and that's really all it's good for - so I can't see why we need to "go" to Mars, much less return to the Moon.

The great advancements in science are from designing the machinery and mission to get to other worlds. But we don't need to get there. Less flashy though it may be, we'd be better off directing our technological prowess and treasure at saving our planet rather than looking to explore other ones.

For one thing, we need better and cleaner means of energy - and there hasn't been a technological breakthrough in that area for decades - nor is one expected in the foreseeable future. That's the "barrier" we should seek to be breaking, not some fantasy fun fest of outer space romanticism.

I hate to be saying it. I thought the space program was ultra cool 40 years ago. I've grown up a lot since then. Our science needs have, too.

I'm fine with much of what NASA does but I think a new government campaign for manned visits to the moon (or any other planet, or even low earth orbit for that matter) is a waste of money (keep in mind that I'd love to see NASA's budget quadrupled, but lacking that eliminating waste on manned spaceflight without significant reduction in budget would be a significant step in that direction).

I do think you misestimate how well loved the space program is. I think it is incredibly well loved in an extremely narrow sliver of society, well regarded in a huge portion of society but it is a regard that doesn't actually put any effort into it and held in indifference except for the occasional splashy headline by the majority.

And yes, decades of geeks were inspired by men in space but it is a leap to say that without men in space they'd have been uninspired. NASA may have lost is gleam but 7 years of the Constellation program so far hadn't returned it and that means it probably wouldn't have done **** in that regard until at least 2020 which assumes that the Constellation Program actually ever accomplished anything which the last few years left in serious doubt.

Now, I love the thought of men in space and on other planets. I just can't justify it to myself on any more legitimate grounds than that it gives me a geek boner. And that's true even if private industry never steps in and it turned out to be the case that no other human ever again leaves our atmosphere.

I have to say it. Virgin Galactic gives me a bigger geek adrenaline rush than another moon visit.

Why is space exploration the only gov't funded science endeavor? Maybe there is another that I'm forgetting. Where's our high-profile acronymed group of geniuses working on new sources of energy, better ways of reclaiming materials, cleaning our factory output, making mass transit more convenient and affordable...the list is endless.

Ever hear of Los Alamos National Laboratory? There's a whole mess of national laboratories.

There are a lot of scientists and scientific research in the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, etc. Plus the government is a major (if not the major) source of grants to academia.

The government has a Web portal just for helping you find all the science they're doing. Some examples:

Agricultural Research Service
Federal R&D Research Summaries
Physical and Life Sciences Directorate
Geomagnetism
Woods Hole Coastal and Marine Science Center
Artificial Retina Project
Human Genome Epidemiology Network

Sorry to go on but I think it kind of emphasizes my view. The government (and NASA) does a ton of actual science and yet the glory goes to putting people into small capsules and sending them around and doing very little actual science in the process.

Yep, because it makes for better TV than a greenhouse full of grafted plant clippings.

Which is exactly my point. Fair or not it's the way it is, for the last half century, blasting people off this rock has been the most recognizable, visceral symbol of the allure of science. Might another take its place? Perhaps, but it's a tough act to follow.

what's wrong with the Government funding cool stuff just because it's cool? Maybe the NEA can fund some manned missions

Well, the allure of faux science anyway. But I understand your point, I just don't think it is sufficient justification for the spend, at least if they're going to lie and pretend it is actual science. If we're going to just go around doing things just because they make us tingly about our mighty engineering genius then there a bucketload more rivers that could be Hoover damned [sic]. If the president says "we're doing plenty of real science but we want to put men in space not because there's any real value in it because it's fun" then maybe I'll come around.

But it is also saddening that CP and others look at the manned space program and thinks "why doesn't the government do more science funding." It makes me wonder if manned space flight promotes actual science funding or instead gets the government off the hook to a degree from funding real science since we're all oohing about people living in low earth orbit for a few months at a time and the beautiful photos of a shuttle launch against a pre-dawn sky.


And as for the Constellation Program all the theoretical debate is fine but the fact remains that it was a project that if successful would have done what we already did 40 years ago (and was kind of boring America by then anyway) using technology not much more advanced and despite that was behind on a schedule longer than was taken the first time and was already way over budget.

Frankly, since I have no emotional investment in the United States being the "leader in human space flight" I'll be just as irrationally enthused if in 2025 it is a Chinese astronaut on the moon.

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??

Yes slanted, especially since the second half of that column has absolutely nothing to do with the leading contention.

And yes, the contest is not promoting new regulation or the value of any existing regulation. It is a contest for who can best explain the federal rulemaking process and how to be involved in it. That is greatly valuable information even if you want to minimize as much as possible the amount of federal rulemaking that happens. And whether you want it or not (and federal rulemaking is a process that is as old as this country) it is completely true that it is very important (and a lot of it is stuff of which even conservatives would approve).

I say this as someone who did a 20 minute presentation back in my Government Documents class in library school on the federal rulemaking process.

It's like bitching about Schoolhouse Rock's "How a Bill Becomes a Law" as being propaganda for diminishing our freedoms.

Thank you to Alex.

Seriously, from the very first sentence, that article is a joke. I learned about fact-to-assertion ratios when I was 15 years old. Admittedly, it was an excellent teacher who taught me this. Not everyone was so lucky, it seems.

The fact that people from both sides of the spectrum link to obviously slanted drivel such as this as if it were a valid, factual reference point is the most godawful thing that's happened to the world. Aren't you embarrassed?

You should be glad that I stay away from the political threads because I'd have to post this every time I saw anyone here link to such bullsh.t masquerading as a news source. Even if I do read biased stuff I know what I'm reading and I don't pretend that it's a worthy reference point.

Stop it. All of you. :(

I assume there's a reason you posted that link connected with what you said earlier? Because having watched the first six videos on that page I'm not seeing a connection.

Not one of them even mentions government regulations let alone advocates for more. They do encourage recycling, composting and reduction of waste which I can see would be the first step fascist socialism.

Teabaggers. Again, I guess it's completely OK to use such terms for groups of people you don't like. I realize that comment was from 4/14, but I hadn't read it until now.

Yeah. Stop doing that.

I believe members of the Fox media used the term teabaggers to describe them first.

I'll cop to that being a flimsy excuse for the continued use of the term by people who, unlike Fox's initial use which was out of ignorance, use it because of the derogatory meaning. I've mostly avoided using it myself, having only used it a couple times at the height of the humor value of the unintended use by those sympathetic with the movement. Once the humor value wore off, I recognized that continued use was purely derogatory.

When my 16 year old was 3, she was singing the "where is thumbkin" song or whatever it's called, where the singer holds their hands behind their back and when calling the fingers, the fingers come out and talk to each other (how are you today sor, very fine and thank you, run and hide, run and hide, blah, blah, blah). When she got to "middle man", it was pretty funny, really. Something tells me, though, that if she was showing me the middle finger as a 16 year old it might have a slightly different meaning associated and i don't think I'd be laughing.

All that said, to differentiate from what CP was frustrated by, I doubt you'll find anyone linking to a story that uses the term "teabagger" and claiming ignorance to the story's bias. CP wasn't reacting to using biases articles or biased language as part of a discussion. It was to the denial of the bias.

Sorry, that was the wrong link.

http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/videocontest/

I've seen teabagger used by lots of "mainstream" media. It think it's just become an easy shorthand, since tea partiers or tea party members is more of a tongue-twister.

I've even heard teabaggers refer to themselves that way. So, sorry, it's a done deal.

So the rule is if you've heard a couple of members of a certain group use a term to describe themselves the word or phrase is free to be used by all?

I do wonder though, what was the "other" things???

Early on that was definitely the case but I don't think it is particularly true any more. At least not in the mainstream journalistic media I'm consuming (though we all tend to have our own boundaries on what is mainstream).

That said, and while I found the unintended use of teabagger as funny as the next person I tend to fall into the camp of calling a group of people whatever they prefer to be called, unless is a complete obvious manipulation of the language (I probably wouldn't go along if the Democrats changed the official party name to "The Party of the Clearly and Obviously Best People in the World Party").

It's funny, I haven't even thought about how "teabaggers" was derogatory. I have been calling them that for shorthand. If I insulted anyone I truly didn't mean it as such.

As GD said, my point wasn't "don't call people names" it was "don't present assertions as if they are facts".

@sleepyjeff - I wouldn't say it's the rule, but I like it as a policy. I use it more for shorthand now than to insult, but I won't lose any sleep if Tea Partiers take offense at me calling them names - - they've had some choice ones for me, and those that haven't have continued to associate themselves with those that have. In fact, I'm pretty sure Teabagger was coined in direct response to their "stand" on homosexuality. It was an irresistible target, and I can't resist.

So, yeah, I'll be calling them teabaggers, and I doubt it will derail their tea party movement by much.


Oh, and I think Kennedy's other things remain undone.

Fair enough.


But what were they? Mile High skyscrappers? Bullet Trains? Flying Cars?

Bullet-proof convertibles

^Someone had to say it;)

Perhaps the airforce is looking to take over a lot of important space operations and experimentation, with the launch of the X-37B last night. I'm rather curious about that thing.

Yeh, you know, I've been curious about that thing, too. What the hell is it?