Joe Strout wrote:

So? Since when did space become about science?

Well, I'll answer that: it became about science towards the end of the
Apollo program, when NASA realized that this huge organization it had
built to put a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth needed a
new purpose. Science was chosen as that purpose (and indeed, this was
the outward reason given for the Apollo missions -- mostly lunar
geology).



If you added the proviso that _manned_ space became about science at
that time, I'd agree with you; but a large number of unmanned spacecraft
were flown dedicated entirely to science before Apollo flew.

This was a bad choice in retrospect, though perhaps it was
the only choice available. But nothing has come of space science so far
that can justify the huge expenditures involved.


Well meteorology is a science; and those weather satellites have been a
very major benefit in both weather prediction and the tracking of
storms. I don't know what exactly they have saved in dollar terms since
they first were invented, but I have little doubt it has been many
billions; and tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of lives.


Now, space *development* -- that's another story. That's worth much
more than what we're putting into it, because it addresses real-world
needs in the near term (such as energy production, protection from
asteroids/comets, etc.).

The public intuitively knows this -- when people are out there
developing ways to live and work in space, they're interested, but as
soon as it devolves into taking pretty pictures, we get a giant
collective yawn and change to the sports channel.

Unfortunately, we still have this myth rolling around that space is
supposed to be about science. Engineering is certainly required for
space development, and a small bit of science here and there is needed
to support that engineering. But science is not the *reason* for space
development. Attempting to make it so just undermines the whole
enterprise.

Indeed, to put the cart properly behind the horse: once space
development is further along, then we can build much bigger and better
instruments to answer those cosmology and astronomy questions, much
cheaper than we could today.


This would cost a _lot_ of money... money which looking at our budget
deficit, we frankly don't have.

Pat