Bush to announce new missions to moon

In article ,
Sander Vesik wrote:

So? Since when did space become about science?

If space science isn't about science but say making footprints, it should
not be claimed to be science

I agree. And in fact, you'll notice that I didn't say anything about
"space science" -- I said "space."

and it budgeting should come out of PR
budget, not science or engineering budgets.

No, it has nothing to do with PR, though everything to do with
engineering. NASA has its own budget, as you know, so it's not coming
out of any "science budget" either. What I wonder is, why has so much
science been taken out of the NASA budget, which would be much better
spent on engineering and development? It would be good to have this
corrected. Let the space scientists get their funding from NSF, like
other scientists, and fly their experiments on whatever craft they can
afford to buy or rent. (If that means "none" then clearly the state of
the art needs to advance a bit before those experiments are practical.)

But nothing has come of space science so far
that can justify the huge expenditures involved.

Come out of it? If you want something to come out of it other than science
data and even more science, then you should call it something else, and
it should be getting its money from DARPA, DOE and similar.

You're using "it" to refer to two different things here. Let's review:
I'm claiming that nothing has come out of space science that justifies
the expense. What has come out of it? Why, science data and more
science, just as you say. And I'm saying, that doesn't justify its
expense, therefore we shouldn't be doing it (until it becomes cheaper).

No, I don't expect anything else to come out of space science. I'm
saying, the space science we've been paying for hasn't been worth it.

Now, I think you then switched "it" above to mean space development in
general, and you say that I shouldn't call that science (with which I
agree), and that it should get its money from DARPA, DOE, etc. But NASA
already has its own budge. The "S" in NASA doesn't stand for "science."
I see no need (nor precedent) for one national agency to be getting
money from another. Rather, we need to redefine what it is NASA's
supposed to be doing with the money we give it. You seem to think it
should be doing science, but I see no justification for that.

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.).

Except the US has no such thing as a space development program, so
the point is moot.

We have NASA, which was clearly a space development program in the
beginning, and a very successful one at that. After Apollo/Skylab,
things went rather downhill. ISS could have been a useful bit of space
infrastructure, but we're all familiar with the problems it's had. Same
for the shuttle, for that matter. But all the while, there have been
some who have believed that it was all about the science. I don't think
that was ever the case in truth, and it'll be good to have that
clarified so that we can focus more openly on what's important.

Again - if you want space engineering or space engineering research, call
it that and blame DARPA, DOE, the mining and so on depertments for
being damn stupid and not having a space related arm that is organising
missions.

You're still not quite getting it. I don't want space engineering
research, I want space development. And we already have an organization
for that -- NASA.

If you want space science, why don't you have NSF fund it, or even
propose some new National Space Science Administration (NSSA?) which can
have its own budget? Let NASA focus on opening the frontier, and NSSA
(or NSF or whatever) can benefit from this right along with everyone
else. But first things first. Why should the space scientists get to
go before, say, the movie studios?

So write to your reps in US goverment structures and ask when there
will be space development parts in various deperatments and agencies
that actually deal with development but have been lazing around so far
and not doing anything about space related matters?

No, I write to my reps and ask them when NASA is going to quit allowing
space science to distract it from its more important infrastructure
development activities, and really get something useful accomplished,
like a permanent lunar base. And maybe the answer is: "Next Wednesday."

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

In sci.space.history 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). 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.

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.).


I think one axis is development vs science and the other is manned vs
unmanned. They might not be rigidly related.

Most space development to this day has been unmanned, and that has also
brought the most direct useful stuff to people's lives in the form of
satellite services. (Weather forecasting, data relay, earth observation,
gps)
Then there are those more scientific matters that are also pretty
directly important, like space weather, planetary atmospherical models
etc...

Of the manned missions on the other hand, ISS and the moon missions are
almost the opposite. One is a continued mission which is supposed to
exist almost purely for scientifical purposes and use international
co-operation, while the other was more of a national prestige event,
although it gave also lots of scientific knowledge.
A few more moonflights might have given more, but what I understand,
they were cancelled because they were dangerous and expensive.

Anyway, because of the very fragile nature of man, manned missions
in space tend to be heavy on the technology and engineering side,
which these two examples were/are too, so they've done lots of
infrastructure development as a side product (and thus cost a huge
amount). But i don't think either has given that much direct benefit.

Someone said that after a "flag and footprints"-type mission we're
further from real space development than what we started from.
Apollo was in many ways a "false start", a mega-project that got
us a few people who went to the moon, but what after that?
Ordinary people are still very far from going into space. Not to
talk about any space colonies, we can't get a closed system to work
even on earth.

So, if a few guys go to Mars, what after that? What does it change?
At least it's inspirational and bold, but I wouldn't talk about much
direct practical advances to humanity. Maybe something useful is
invented as a side-product, although that invention might have been
done if the same money had been used with no relation to space at
all. It's reasonable and honest to say that people get motivated
and happier because of the spirit of a Mars mission, and not trying
to find some concrete advances, which are side-effects anyway..

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.

On the other hand, Beagle 2 and Spirit have raised more headlines
and interest here than ISS.

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.

I think space is about science, direct use and inspiration. Manned
space tends to be heavy on the latter, unmanned Mars missions maybe
50/50 former and latter and GPS or weather satellites very much the
middle one.

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.

Cheers,
- Joe

Maybe once we get space elevators...
I don't see manned Mars missions doing that (giving bigger and better
instruments), but maybe that is to be pointed out. Big rockets, yes,
but that's just a fraction of the manned Mars expenditure.

I believe unmanned vs manned space is now in practical ways in a
pretty good balance. A "permanent" space station in LEO for people
and then deep-space exploration and science by robots. The space
shuttle just needs replacing/retiring so it doesn't eat so much
money.
In a more spiritual way of course there might be a place for a more
glorious manned mission. I just personally believe that the cost is
too high, axing all the unmanned stuff.
An alternative would be a really glorious but unmanned exploration
mission, or a huge amount of FBC-missions, just group it under one
name and image so that it's easy for people to understand.

--
Valtteri

In article ,
Valtteri Maja wrote:

Anyway, because of the very fragile nature of man, manned missions
in space tend to be heavy on the technology and engineering side,
which these two examples were/are too, so they've done lots of
infrastructure development as a side product (and thus cost a huge
amount). But i don't think either has given that much direct benefit.

Well, they have the benefit of giving us experience building and using
hardware in space.

Someone said that after a "flag and footprints"-type mission we're
further from real space development than what we started from.
Apollo was in many ways a "false start", a mega-project that got
us a few people who went to the moon, but what after that?

True. What should have followed was an incremental development program,
including space stations and a lunar base. That didn't happen, but that
doesn't mean we shouldn't do it right now.

Ordinary people are still very far from going into space. Not to
talk about any space colonies, we can't get a closed system to work
even on earth.

Early space colonies won't be closed systems. That's OK. You build
what you can, and then refine it from what you learned.

So, if a few guys go to Mars, what after that? What does it change?

Nothing. That's why I'm not in favor of a few guys going to Mars at
this time. What we need is space infrastructure -- both in orbit and on
the Moon.

I don't see manned Mars missions doing that (giving bigger and better
instruments), but maybe that is to be pointed out. Big rockets, yes,
but that's just a fraction of the manned Mars expenditure.

No, no, obviously my point was unclear. I'm not talking about manned
Mars missions. I'm talking about an extended human presence on the
Moon. That gives us the capability to build (and maintain) large space
telescopes on the far side, or in shadowed craters. It gives us a
source of oxygen (and maybe hydrogen) to refuel orbiting craft. It
gives us a steady stream of traffic back and forth from Earth's surface
to other locations, on which scientific payloads can piggyback. Etc.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

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

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:

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.

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.

Ah yes, fair enough.

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.

Good counterexample. And I'm sure there are a few others. But I think
the point stands on the whole.

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.

Well goodness, if you look at our budget deficit, we don't have money
for anything (including things like, say, thumbing our noses at the U.N.
and starting a war just because we want to). But not having the money
has never stopped the Bush administration from spending it.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...

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.

which is why the entire world sits spellbound at all the data/imagery coming
down from ISS, and why there have only been seventeen hits on the "Spirit"
web pages. Sure, sport.

--
Terrell Miller


"It's one thing to burn down the **** house and another thing entirely to
install plumbing"
-PJ O'Rourke

Joe Strout ) wrote:
: In article ,
: Sander Vesik wrote:

: Would that be including unmanned programs, both mooted and/or inflight
: (eg JIMO, Cassini etc), as well as manned ones?
:
: Yes, it sucks. Its another "science, what science?" approach to well,
: space science.

: 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). 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.

I suspect that you mean there has been no engineering or manufacturing
profits made because of space travel? A space industry outside of NASA and
other public funds has not been established.

: 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.

Hell, let's just convince everyone that we need it for defense (wink,
wink) and then do our science, engineering and devlopment because we are
up there anyway. Whad'da say?

: 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.

Well, you presume to get where we will need to be but not actually address
how we intend to get there. It will be by repetition and discovery. And we
don't know the timetable. It could take several lifetimes before we begin
to terraform Mars to get it to a point where it can sustain its own
civilization. But continue we must.

Eric

: Cheers,
: - Joe

: ,------------------------------------------------------------------.
: | Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
: | http://www.macwebdir.com |
: `------------------------------------------------------------------'

Sander Vesik writes:

Yes, it sucks. Its another "science, what science?" approach to well,
space science.

For years, the science community has complained that all the money
spent on manned space travel could be better spent doing science with
unmanned probes.

The Bush administration is rejecting that and turning it on its head.
They are essentially saying that it is unmanned space science that is
holding back the manned exploration of space.

Men have not set foot on any planetoid besides the earth for more than
30 years. The Bush administration is saying that it's time to start
manned exploration again. IMHO, going round and round in LEO isn't
exploring much.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

In sci.space.policy jeff findley wrote:
Sander Vesik writes:

Yes, it sucks. Its another "science, what science?" approach to well,
space science.

For years, the science community has complained that all the money
spent on manned space travel could be better spent doing science with
unmanned probes.

The Bush administration is rejecting that and turning it on its head.
They are essentially saying that it is unmanned space science that is
holding back the manned exploration of space.

What use is manned space explorartion as things stand now and considering
that teh same administration hasn't provided even one reason or goal for
said manned explorartion?


Men have not set foot on any planetoid besides the earth for more than
30 years. The Bush administration is saying that it's time to start
manned exploration again. IMHO, going round and round in LEO isn't
exploring much.

What does man setting foot there give us over a robot doing so ?


Jeff

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

In article ,
Sander Vesik wrote:

For years, the science community has complained that all the money
spent on manned space travel could be better spent doing science with
unmanned probes.

The Bush administration is rejecting that and turning it on its head.
They are essentially saying that it is unmanned space science that is
holding back the manned exploration of space.

What use is manned space explorartion as things stand now and considering
that teh same administration hasn't provided even one reason or goal for
said manned explorartion?

Well, the administration hasn't given us anything yet. They've only
leaked rumors that they're going to be talking about it next week.
Perhaps some reasons will be given then, for those listeners who don't
find the reasons for manned space development (let's not say
"exploration" since that is rather pointless) to be self-evident.

What does man setting foot there give us over a robot doing so ?

Why, it gives us men (and women) there, of course. And that is the
whole point. The only way to get humanity off the Earth is to start
getting humanity off the Earth.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'