"U.S. Space Science Confronts..." Topic

…New Economic Reality

"Astronomers are worried.

It's not some new unexplained mystery of the universe or the upcoming launch of a space telescope that is unnerving them, though. The problems they currently face are much more down-to-Earth — and the future of space exploration hangs in the balance.

The anxiety stems from the fact that astronomy, especially space-based astronomy, is just plain expensive. And with federal budgets tightening, the government will be less and less able to make huge investments in big science projects.

"We may see in the next decade or so an end to the search for the laws of nature which will not be resumed again in our own lifetimes," warned Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg in January during the American Astronomical Society meeting in Austin, Texas.

The president's upcoming 2013 federal budget request, which will be released Feb. 13, will include a taste of things to come for U.S. space science. NASA is likely to have fewer resources in the near future. Smaller reserves and fewer missions have already caused divisions and public fights between different groups of scientists. If astronomers want to build bigger telescopes that can do better science, NASA says that they have to band together and agree on a very limited number of big flagship projects.

"Right now, everyone needs to step back a little bit and ask not ‘how can I have mine' but ‘how can we have ours,'" said astronomer Matt Mountain, director of the Space Telescope Science Institute that oversees operations of Hubble and other telescopes.

But some astronomers claim that consensus-building and political thinking are getting in the way of research. Packing multiple instruments into a single project leads to increased costs without necessarily delivering more science. The result is a mission that will be able to do more things, but less well.

"Everyone likes the big flashy flagships," said astronomer Nahum Arav of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. "This is what Congress will approve, this is how we satisfy the community. But you are not being driven by science, you are driven by lots of different levels of political thinking."

Instead, astronomers like Arav say it's time for NASA to take a look at how it does business and see if there's a better way. Rather than working on enormous and expensive projects, perhaps the community could be better served with a suite of smaller, cheaper, more focused missions and increased competition.

If the astronomy community can't agree on which tack to take, science could suffer greatly and the United States stands to lose its dominance in space science and technology. If a big, expensive mission gets funding, but some of the astronomy community doesn't support it, the project becomes extremely vulnerable to being killed by a Congress that needs to find budget cuts. This leaves European missions — which are often smaller in scale and enjoy long-term funding commitments — at the forefront.

Particle physicists learned the hard way that the government is willing to abandon a project even if billions of dollars have already been spent on it, as was the case with the Super Conducting Super Collider. When that project got the axe, Europe's Large Hadron Collider stood to become the world's biggest collider and the center of the particle physics world.

All of these concerns are coming to the forefront in anticipation of the new budget. In recent years, astronomy's main federal funding sources, NASA and the National Science Foundation, have seen modest funding increases at best, while NASA's 2012 funding fell roughly $650 USD million to $17.8 USD billion.

Shrinking budgets have already cast a shadow over nearly every area of astronomy. Space-based flagship-scale missions — projects like the Hubble space telescope or its successor, the James Webb Space Telescope — are likely to only get funded once every 20 or 30 years. Cost overruns on the massive James Webb project — which has grown from an original $1 USD billion estimate to the current $8.7 USD billion price tag — are an ever-increasing portion of NASA's budget, leaving project managers of smaller missions looking nervously over their shoulders.

The NSF announced in January that it can no longer afford to support either of the large ground-based telescopes currently under construction, the Thirty Meter Telescope and the Giant Magellan Telescope. This throws the future of both projects into question and could cause them to lose their foreign investors to the European Extremely Large Telescope.

NASA's planetary science division also seems destined to take a significant hit, possibly losing 20 percent of its budget next year with additional reductions through 2017. Earlier this week, the European Space Agency revealed that NASA may back out of two planned joint Mars missions — an orbiting satellite scheduled to launch in 2016 and an advanced rover that would be the first part of a Mars sample-return mission in 2018…"

More here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Meh.
China plans to put a man on the moon within the next five years.
link

Yeah, that's just what we want.

A Nation-state whose current government intentionally murdered 120 Million of its own citizens in the 20th century to be at the top of the gravity well from us.

Sigh.

There is a "cost" and a "Cost". I know what >I< would rather pay.

In before: "…should be left up to private companies who do everything better than big government…. because capitalism…that's why!"

NASA should definitely put together a new action plan and get the money that would normally go to pork barrel military spending congress keeps enacting. Space exploration and exploitation is more important that new fighter jets and humvee stockpiles; and if the government isn't going to do it, it won't get done.

Unfortunatley, as important as Space exploration is … It's still a dangerous world out there … 9/11 showed us again the cost of not being more vigilant. And that an attack can come from anywhere. I'm a big proponent of the Space Program, however, a strong military is still very important. In current military situations, in the 21st Century, you don't have the luxury to play catch-up … But on a lighter note, I do hope they replace most of the Hummers with MRAPs, could literally be a life saver …

NASA's budget is paltry compared to the rest of the budget, something like 0.5% of the national budget. IIRC the US spends more money on international aid than it does on NASA. End half of the US foreign aid and you could double NASA's budget. All of that without touching the Military budget.

While free enterprise is (and will be) an important component to creating a spacefaring civilization, it is hardly a panacaea for all the ills of NASA, and money still needs to be spent on the "big science" projects that don't have a direct profit line.

Damon.

They might make it up there, but I'm pretty certain that they will quickly discover that it is a colossally expensive proposition with no useful return other than bragging rights.

There is no military advantage that I can think of. ICBMs are much cheaper and easier to launch from earth, and they reach their targets in a fraction of the time.

It's a waste of money and technological research effort.

Yeah, before the military budget is cut any more … maybe we need to quit sending aid to places like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc. …

Why not cut spending to the military? Last I heard we spend more than the next eight countries combined, and the budget's only grown since then. Not to mention a large portion of that is stuff the military doesn't even want; so we can spare a bit from there I think.

Toshach-"It's a waste of money and technological research effort."

Considering that most of the resources in the universe are not *here* that's pretty shortsighted. Plus it might be nice to learn more about what universe and the tech that takes us there can offer us before just writing off the whole of creation.

Well as being a former Infantryman, I'd hate to loose men because the government can't afford "the right stuff" …

@wofgangbrooks – My (admittedly limited) understanding is that a good portion of the military budget is for 'nation building'. Stuff the military was never designed to do.

@Toshach – The research that went into the space program led to a LOT of discoveries that translated into new products and jobs for poeple not involved in the space program. So, I disagree, not really a waste.

…it might be nice to learn more about what universe and the tech that takes us there can offer us before just writing off the whole of creation.

Like button needed here.

@GreyOne: Thanks. :)

@Stryderg: The nation building stuff is over and above normal military spending.

Don't forget programs for new systems that don't work that certain congressman continue to champion because of campaign contributions and jobs for their district. The Osprey and F-22 Raptor for example. (There seems to be alot more of that going on in relation to the Airforce for some reason.)

Also, what do we need a -fleet- of nuclear missile armed submarines for again? Or a larger surface fleet than several other nations combined for that matter.

There seems to be alot of waste and misappropriation when it comes to military budgeting. Cutting the fat and re-examining the actual needs of the military won't hurt their capacity in any way. It's silly in my mind to think we're in any danger from doing so, especially if the proceeds go to a good cause.

That's correct … nation building is over and above normal military spending … I'm more concerned about Grunts, the guys on the ground, having the best offensive and defensive capabilities … Better body armor, improved small arms, MRAPs, better commo, etc., etc. … And some of the tech from the Space Program may help …

I completely agree with gutt…cutting our navy down to size. After all, we all know that we're *never* going to fight another war with our major creditor nations; THAT'd be STUPID, right? Besides, we can *always* just rebuild the entire USN if we had to; it'd be "putting Americans back to work"! The industrial infrastructure's already there, we just need to use it!

Oh…wait!

At the risk of going political, one might ask when big wars typically occur— when there is a superpower, when there are more than one superpower, or when there is no superpower and the leading nations are all at roughly equal military capability.

Then read up on the world situation at the time of Napoleon, then the Crimean War, then the Great War (WW1), then WW2. All began during times of rough parity, with no one nation having an overwhelming force (and in the case of WW2, some nations "downsizing" to reduce the "unnecessary" military spending, while others "upsized" to "reach a level of parity," etc., etc.).

Those who do not* learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

*Or in some cases, "refuse to."

As a corollary, nobody mugs a guy who's holding a shotgun.

Back OT.

NASA has always been subject to political whims, both from within and without. The original race to the moon, while an enormous technological achievement with I believe incredible impact on both technology and science (both pure and applied) around the world, was the result of a political decision and motivated and guided by political considerations over long term planning, science, or even potential practicality. The result was a series of expensive one-shots that left no significant hardware in place for either continuation or improvement once the political considerations ended. We planted the flag, but did next to nothing to plant ourselves there or make the most of the opportunity.

The Space Shuttle too was a brilliant idea to address the major shortcomings of Apollo— an actually reusable spacecraft instead of throwaway rockets. Unfortunately, it too was overtaken by political considerations and internal "us too" pressure in its design, resulting in a grossly compromised design, construction and operations program that wound up making the "reusable" spacecraft both more expensive and less versatile than the throwaway rockets it was intended to replace!

Lastly, we had the International Space Station. Again, though conceived for science and as a springboard for commercial R&D and expansion into space, it got taken over by the political consideration of "getting other countries involved" on the mistaken notion this would somehow significantly improve relations over the long term. As a result, its scientific utility was compromised (particularly its orbit was altered to match the more limited (at the time) capabilities of the Russian space program, resulting in an orbital position and path that rendered much of the science for which it was intended either severely limited or impossible). In addition, the changes caused the cost to skyrocket. Rather than benefiting from the input of multiple nation's technologies, it was hampered by them.

Finally, look at the Constellation program. Begun on a political whim and ended on a political whim (naturally by politicians from opposing parties), the result was in the end a major setback in capability for NASA, at considerable expense.

While I do suspect that none of the research, etc., was truly wasted (knowing more than you did before seldom hurts in the long run), I certainly believe that dollars were in terms of the efficiency of the programs and in the unfortunate necessity to appease whatever faction or politician stuck the proverbial hand in the till.

I would like to see NASA removed from the realm of political whim, possibly even converted into three arms: one for pure science (astronomy, automated planetary exploration), one for manned exploration, and one merely as an information & brainstorming clearinghouse to private commercial space transportation and exploitation efforts— a place to dessimenate knowledge about innovative space propulsion concepts, both for the mundane (near Earth operations) and the exotic (interstellar travel). And then do not intermingle the budgets. One side does not get more if the other gets less. And on top of that, lock it away from the whims and whining of congressmen, governors, presidents. Sorry, Senator, no credit for you.

I don't know what will be necessary. But I cringe whenever I hear the ill-informed whine that NASA spending is (or was ever) some sort of wasteful stealing from social programs (which, IMHO, are the real waste). I equally wonder about the ones who say government shouldn't be spending money on space at all, but let private companies do it. I used to think that way, but lately I wonder if private enterprise will get us into space permanently. Even the people who are doing it are in the end really just a pack of nerds with money getting their inner geek on. They've always wanted space travel, so by golly, they're gonna make it happen, whether there's gold in them thar hills or not. More power to them, but in the long run it's gonna take more than trying to live out your Star Trek dreams to make a sustainable manned expansion into space a reality. It's going to take a place to go and a reason to go there— and in the end, only the accidental discovery from the pure scientist is likely to produce that key element. Will private enterprise fund that on its own? I don't know.
Moon colonies are a grand idea… but there's got to be a reason to have one.