Save Our Science
While the public laughs at the IAU for their brouhaha over what it means to be a planet, a more serious space science issue isn't getting any press at all.
Our esteemed President came up with a new "Vision for Space Exploration." In it, he stated that NASA should send people to Moon and then Mars. The shuttle was to be retired and a new Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) was to replace it. One problem: No money. In essence, W threw a party and gave NASA $5 to go out to the store and buy enough beer for 40 people. I'm not kidding here. The 2007 budget for NASA was $3 billion less than 2006 (that money needed for Halliburrr...errrr uhhh, the war in Iraq). I don't even know if I can call this a "half-assed" attempt to get something done.
So NASA had to prioritize. They chose to get the CEV done and finish building the space station, which is why the shuttle fleet wasn't mothballed as soon as Columbia was destroyed. The CEV isn't revolutionary, it's essentially "Apollo on steroids." Really. It's just a bloated version of the old crew capsule. Obviously cuts had to be made somewhere. NASA chose space science. All those cheap (at least when compared to manned missions) robotic missions and orbiting telescopes... gone.
This is stupid. In an age where we're hemorraging money in foreign wars, why would you cut the cost effective programs in favor of expensive missions which accomplish alot less scientific bang for the buck? All I can come up with is PR. Really. Putting people back on the Moon or sending them on to Mars makes more headlines. It's more glorious to have people out there than a couple of rovers running around on Mars (although millions of people have tuned in to watch). Or maybe that's where Saddam hid the WMD?
I'm not alone in feeling this way. Advisers resigned. The Planetary Society, the largest space advocacy group in the world, has launched it's Save Our Science campaign and is lobbying Congress to get the money back. They've had some success in both houses. But I've still got my fingers crossed. "The Decider" might veto it. Maybe if he can be convinced that we're spreading freedom and democracy to the planets he'll approve it.
I want humanity to branch out into space. Colonize the Moon and Mars. Mine the asteroids. Even travel to the stars. I want to go too, though after my last experience with a tilt-a-whirl I'm sure that I'd puke my guts out. It's a dream I share with millions of others, but I'm also practical. You don't eliminate your best selling product on the hopes that what you've got in R&D is going to knock the socks off your customers. And you can't expect the private sector to pick up the slack. They're still working out the kinks for (relatively) inexpensive access to space (and clearing those bureaucratic hurdles). Their budgets are a thousand-fold smaller than NASA, though that might not be the case for long as we might have more wars to fight.
\_/
DED
Our esteemed President came up with a new "Vision for Space Exploration." In it, he stated that NASA should send people to Moon and then Mars. The shuttle was to be retired and a new Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) was to replace it. One problem: No money. In essence, W threw a party and gave NASA $5 to go out to the store and buy enough beer for 40 people. I'm not kidding here. The 2007 budget for NASA was $3 billion less than 2006 (that money needed for Halliburrr...errrr uhhh, the war in Iraq). I don't even know if I can call this a "half-assed" attempt to get something done.
So NASA had to prioritize. They chose to get the CEV done and finish building the space station, which is why the shuttle fleet wasn't mothballed as soon as Columbia was destroyed. The CEV isn't revolutionary, it's essentially "Apollo on steroids." Really. It's just a bloated version of the old crew capsule. Obviously cuts had to be made somewhere. NASA chose space science. All those cheap (at least when compared to manned missions) robotic missions and orbiting telescopes... gone.
This is stupid. In an age where we're hemorraging money in foreign wars, why would you cut the cost effective programs in favor of expensive missions which accomplish alot less scientific bang for the buck? All I can come up with is PR. Really. Putting people back on the Moon or sending them on to Mars makes more headlines. It's more glorious to have people out there than a couple of rovers running around on Mars (although millions of people have tuned in to watch). Or maybe that's where Saddam hid the WMD?
I'm not alone in feeling this way. Advisers resigned. The Planetary Society, the largest space advocacy group in the world, has launched it's Save Our Science campaign and is lobbying Congress to get the money back. They've had some success in both houses. But I've still got my fingers crossed. "The Decider" might veto it. Maybe if he can be convinced that we're spreading freedom and democracy to the planets he'll approve it.
I want humanity to branch out into space. Colonize the Moon and Mars. Mine the asteroids. Even travel to the stars. I want to go too, though after my last experience with a tilt-a-whirl I'm sure that I'd puke my guts out. It's a dream I share with millions of others, but I'm also practical. You don't eliminate your best selling product on the hopes that what you've got in R&D is going to knock the socks off your customers. And you can't expect the private sector to pick up the slack. They're still working out the kinks for (relatively) inexpensive access to space (and clearing those bureaucratic hurdles). Their budgets are a thousand-fold smaller than NASA, though that might not be the case for long as we might have more wars to fight.
\_/
DED
Labels: science_under_attack
posted by DED at 11:04 AM
1 Comments:
I want to be blasted into the sun, on the dark side;)
Hey Ded, I changed my template, would you please tell me if you are still having trouble loading it? Thanks!
Mort
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home