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.