The future of NASA

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex

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.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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.

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.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex

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.

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.