NASA Is NASA's direction being reviewed for the future of space science?

[Coin]

Via the Uncertain Principles blog, the NYT reports:

The Obama administration announced Thursday that an independent panel would take a “fresh look” at NASA’s human spaceflight program, a step that could lead to the scuttling of next-generation rockets or an affirmation of the agency’s direction.

The review will be led by Norman Augustine... The panel is to report its findings by the end of August.

Although the Obama administration has made effort to make science central in policy, it has so far struggled with what long-term strategy to take with NASA. It has yet to name a NASA administrator; and during the transition engaged in a http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/12/nasa-has-become.html with Michael D. Griffin, the Bush Administration's outgoing NASA administrator, over apparent concerns by Griffin that the Obama transition team would not preserve certain Bush-era programs he considered important.

 

[russ_watters]

Raise your hand if you expected Bush's plan to go to Mars would survive his presidency by more than a year?

Didn't think so...

Hopefully, we'll see NASA get back on track so it can answer some of those big scientific questions that are still out there, including The Big One. I'd like to see that one answered in my lifetime.

 

[Maged]

Hopefully, we'll see NASA get back on track so it can answer some of those big scientific questions that are still out there, including The Big One. I'd like to see that one answered in my lifetime.

Sorry..
but, What is The Big One?

 

[mgb_phys]

Sorry..
but, What is The Big One?

What is NASA for?

 

[waht]

The "big one" is privately funded though.

 

[math_04]

Seems like NASA have yet again not realized that sending people off to the Moon is not a great idea. They did that half a century ago and instead, they should be focusing on new challenges like building more cost effective robots that can be sent off to Titan or Mars. Also, they should probably focus more on projects involving interstellar travel, they stopped most research halfway and never restarted it. I know interstellar travel seems too crazy but so did going to the Moon and the atomic bomb. Cutting down on costs and better designing needs to be a priority, there has already been a failed Mars rover which cost hundreds of millions if not a billion dollars.

 

[Cyrus]

Raise your hand if you expected Bush's plan to go to Mars would survive his presidency by more than a year?

Didn't think so...

Hopefully, we'll see NASA get back on track so it can answer some of those big scientific questions that are still out there, including The Big One. I'd like to see that one answered in my lifetime.

I was working at a lab (Won't say where) when Bush made this announcement. There were serious meetings about work for sending people to mars. I was a sophmore at the time, and I was rolling my eyes at the fact that these people were taking it seriously! I was like, come on people. Do you really think Bush is going to send someone to mars? He's doing this for publicity points. I was in shock and awe that anyone gave this any serious consideration.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Seems like NASA have yet again not realized that sending people off to the Moon is not a great idea. They did that half a century ago and instead, they should be focusing on new challenges like building more cost effective robots that can be sent off to Titan or Mars. Also, they should probably focus more on projects involving interstellar travel, they stopped most research halfway and never restarted it. I know interstellar travel seems too crazy but so did going to the Moon and the atomic bomb. Cutting down on costs and better designing needs to be a priority, there has already been a failed Mars rover which cost hundreds of millions if not a billion dollars.

Robotics is being researched by several people outside of NASA. They can collaborate or bring someone (or someteam) in when they need it. I think that more efficient craft should be their priority. Perhaps human habitation in space (or on other bodies) a close second. The moon would seem to be the best location for testing human habitation possibilities. And (don't laugh) I've been considering ideas for a semi hard scifi story and am thinking that using the moon as a launch point may be a good idea if we are capable of finding all or most of the resources we need to fabricate craft from there (something I have been meaning to look into).

 

[D H]

Raise your hand if you expected Bush's plan to go to Mars would survive his presidency by more than a year?

Bush's plan to go to Mars didn't survive Bush's announcement of Bush's plan.

Hopefully, we'll see NASA get back on track so it can answer some of those big scientific questions that are still out there, including The Big One. I'd like to see that one answered in my lifetime.

The Big One? Can a nation forego human spaceflight and have all that wasted money flow instead to real space science? The answer is a resounding NO. Great Britain already answered this question. Space scientists urged Parliament to ban government funding of any human spaceflight activities 40 some years ago. Parliament obliged. There has been no government funding for anything related to human spaceflight in Great Britain ever since.

There also has been practically no government funding for anything related to space science in Great Britain ever since.

Seems like NASA have yet again not realized that sending people off to the Moon is not a great idea. They did that half a century ago and instead, they should be focusing on new challenges like building more cost effective robots that can be sent off to Titan or Mars.

For what purpose? If we aren't going to eventually send people there, why send robots?

The problem with focusing on space science only is that space science itself is very, very expensive. Which will yield more value to society, sending a 500 million dollar robot to some other planet to perform a narrow set of tasks or funding 15,000 underpaid graduate students to study and advance a very wide range of tasks? Without the justification that we will follow, space science cannot compete with more mundane Earth-based science in terms of bang for the buck, or wow factor.

Also, they should probably focus more on projects involving interstellar travel, they stopped most research halfway and never restarted it. I know interstellar travel seems too crazy but so did going to the Moon and the atomic bomb.

You've been watching too many movies.

Cutting down on costs and better designing needs to be a priority, there has already been a failed Mars rover which cost hundreds of millions if not a billion dollars.

It's not just one. More than half of the missions sent to Mars have failed. Some significant fraction of those failures is attributable to human error. However, a possibly greater part is that we don't know what we're doing. That's what research is: "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research."

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry..
but, What is The Big One?

Are we alone in the universe?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Are we alone in the universe?

Wouldn't that be more of a SETI thing?
Unless you just mean discovering some form of life so as to increase the likelihood that life may be more common than we think.

 

[Pyrrhus]

Are we alone in the universe?

 

[russ_watters]

Wouldn't that be more of a SETI thing?

SETI probably won't be able to answer it, but we didn't know that when SETI was first started. SETI is based on the assumption that an advanced society emits a lot of radio, but with digital broadcasting, the wattage we are emitting is actually going to drop significantly instead of continuing to rise as we advance. So it doesn't seem likely that we'd get a detectable signal from somewhere else.

Unless you just mean discovering some form of life so as to increase the likelihood that life may be more common than we think.

Well, we may yet discover life elsewhere in our solar system and don't discount the magnitude of that discovery: "more common than we think" is the difference between 'absolutely unique' and 'likely exists around almost every star'.

NASA actually has missions on the drawing board and in various stages of development which would allow us to photograph and do interferometry on earth-sized exoplanets. If we can do that, we'd likely answer the question, at least to the satisfaction of scientists.

 

[D H]

Fortunately, this review is not going to get into the human spaceflight versus unmanned spaceflight imbroglio. It's goal is to

The "Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans" is to examine ongoing and planned National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) development activities, as well as potential alternatives, and present options for advancing a safe, innovative, affordable, and sustainable human space flight program in the years following Space Shuttle retirement. The panel will work closely with NASA and will seek input from Congress, the White House, the public, industry, and international partners as it develops its options. It is to present its results in time to support an Administration decision on the way forward by August 2009.

For more see http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/press_release_files/Holdren letter pdf.pdf and http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/press_release_files/NASA Review.pdf.

 

[russ_watters]

That quote doesn't imply to me that it won't get into that debate -- and I don't see how they could possibly avoid it.

In essence, the decision to curtail manned spaceflight has already been made and NASA is already moving down a path to partially or completely phase it out, as the near-term replacement for the shuttle can do little more than service the ISS. Any review is going to have to start within that context.

 

[D H]

You are reading the wrong tea leaves. The decision to curtail human spaceflight has not been made. The decision that has been made is to change from the Shuttle to some other vehicle(s). The purpose of this panel is to determine whether that is Constellation as currently envisioned or something else.

 

[russ_watters]

You are reading the wrong tea leaves. The decision to curtail human spaceflight has not been made. The decision that has been made is to change from the Shuttle to some other vehicle(s). The purpose of this panel is to determine whether that is Constellation as currently envisioned or something else.

The shuttle had a shelf-life - why was a replacement not put into development 15 or 20 years ago?

Anyway, the programs Bush started, I don't think they were serious because he didn't fund them adequately to actually develop them. The Constellation will surely be cancelled. And the CEM doesn't have much capability beyond going to the ISS and back. And neither could really do the things the Space Shuttle could anyway.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Are we alone in the universe?

It is all but a mathematical certainty that we are not alone in the Universe. I thought the big one meant "Is or was there life on Mars or in this solar system [beyond Earth of course]?".

...not to suggest that a positive SETI result would be anything less than monumental. But, like the Drake Equation, that is limited to our Galaxy, isn't it?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is the NASA mission statement

To advance and communicate scientific knowledge and understanding of the earth, the solar system, and the universe.

To advance human exploration, use, and development of space.

To research, develop, verify, and transfer advanced aeronautics and space technologies.

http://naccenter.arc.nasa.gov/NASAMission.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I would like to see:

1). Expanded near-earth research and development. The need to gain a better understanding of issues like climate change is paramount.

2). Expanded robotic exploration of the solar system. This will further the fields of robotics and artificial intelligence as well as the more abstract fields of interest.

3). Continued development of space systems for high energy experiments and other fundamental physics research.

4). Continued development of exotic propulsion systems - NASA dreamworks

 

[mgb_phys]

To advance and communicate scientific knowledge and understanding of the earth, the solar system, and the universe.

To advance human exploration, use, and development of space.

To research, develop, verify, and transfer advanced aeronautics and space technologies.

However their spend is about:
$5Bn aerospace (according to a case before WIPO $2.5Bn of this is research into large commercial airliners)
$4Bn Shuttle
$3Bn ISS
$1Bn Technology
$3Bn Other missions

Although if you believe NASA all the money will be spent on basic science as soon as the Shuttle is retired

 

[russ_watters]

It is all but a mathematical certainty that we are not alone in the Universe.

It most certainly is not: you cannot construct a trend line with one data point. The Drake equation is an interesting game, but it has little real value at this point.

And even if it was more useful, it would only be an hypothesis - a prediction: you need the evidence before it is as a theory. The Drake equation might be a good reason to ask the question, but it cannot answer the question. Finding actual life is the only way to actually answer the question.

[edit] IIRC, the way you like to interpret the Drake equation is that as long as the probability is *much above* 0, then there must be a lot of life in the universe and since we know it is *above* 0, there must be many out there. But that's not how probability works. With the one data point we have available, the strongest difinitive prediction we can make is that the number of planets with life/intelligent life is at least 1. Ie, if there are some 10^50 stars out there, all we can truly say right now with the available data is that the probability is at least 10^-50.

 

[D H]

Although if you believe NASA all the money will be spent on basic science as soon as the Shuttle is retired

The "Exploration Missions" portion of NASA's budget includes sending people to the "Moon, Mars, and beyond".

You guys are reading the wrong tea leaves.

 

[mgb_phys]

The "Exploration Missions" portion of NASA's budget includes sending people to the "Moon, Mars, and beyond".

So that makes it even worse - Nasa's primary goal (To advance and communicate scientific knowledge and understanding of the earth, the solar system, and the universe.) ie HST, NGST, TPF don't even show up on the graph

 

[WhoWee]

So that makes it even worse - Nasa's primary goal (To advance and communicate scientific knowledge and understanding of the earth, the solar system, and the universe.) ie HST, NGST, TPF don't even show up on the graph

Kennedy made it popular...but NASA should not be a political tool (or toy). NASA needs a very clear long term plan with sustained funding.

 

[D H]

So that makes it even worse - Nasa's primary goal (To advance and communicate scientific knowledge and understanding of the earth, the solar system, and the universe.) ie HST, NGST, TPF don't even show up on the graph

Sure they do. They are a part, not the totality, of NASA's Exploration Missions budget. You are implicitly assuming that the human spaceflight aspects of NASA are incapable of advancing understanding of the Earth, the solar system, and the universe. That is not true. The scientific returns from the Apollo missions was immense. Since Apollo, human spaceflight activities have been limited to low-Earth orbit. The scientific return from human spaceflight activities is admittedly less in that environment, but it is not zero. Being stuck in low-Earth orbit also contravenes NASA's goal "to advance human exploration, use, and development of space."

The solution is to once again move people beyond low-Earth orbit. Removing people in space from the picture is not the solution. Some of you here at PF are rabidly anti-human spaceflight. You seem to think we would have a robust, well-funded space science platform if only all that money were not wasted on sending monkeys into space. That is a naive point of view. There is no guarantee Congress would maintain NASA's budget at its current level should Congress decide to strike NASA's human spaceflight goals. There is no guarantee Congress would maintain NASA's non-human spaceflight budget at its current level should Congress decide to strike NASA's human spaceflight goals. Eliminating NASA's human spaceflight endeavors would most likely spell the end of NASA.

 

[mgb_phys]

You are implicitly assuming that the human spaceflight aspects of NASA are incapable of advancing understanding of the Earth, the solar system, and the universe. That is not true. The scientific returns from the Apollo missions was immense. Since Apollo, human spaceflight activities have been limited to low-Earth orbit.

I remain unconvinced that the ISS contributes any amazing new understanding of the universe and I don't think putting people in orbit around the moon solves that.

Eliminating NASA's human spaceflight endeavors would most likely spell the end of NASA.

True - the interesting and important question is what is NASA for?
Photo-op projects for a President
Provide hidden subsidy to the civil aircraft business
Stop the Army/Airforce fighting over who owns space
Subsidise/hide the costs of military space programs (or double the costs by duplicating military programs)
Keep the pork flowing to Md,Tx and Ca

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It most certainly is not: you cannot construct a trend line with one data point. The Drake equation is an interesting game, but it has little real value at this point.

And even if it was more useful, it would only be an hypothesis - a prediction: you need the evidence before it is as a theory. The Drake equation might be a good reason to ask the question, but it cannot answer the question. Finding actual life is the only way to actually answer the question.

[edit] IIRC, the way you like to interpret the Drake equation is that as long as the probability is *much above* 0, then there must be a lot of life in the universe and since we know it is *above* 0, there must be many out there. But that's not how probability works. With the one data point we have available, the strongest difinitive prediction we can make is that the number of planets with life/intelligent life is at least 1. Ie, if there are some 10^50 stars out there, all we can truly say right now with the available data is that the probability is at least 10^-50.

While it is true that we can't show a trend line, we can look at our place in the Universe and ask if it is unique. Also, what I have said is that any Drake answer greater than 0 suggests probability 1 for the entire universe.

There is no reason to assume that intelligent life would be emitting strong radio signals for more than a century, so we can't extrapolate based the lack of a detected radio signal either. That is only a test for civilizations emitting strong RF.

 

[D H]

I remain unconvinced that the ISS contributes any amazing new understanding of the universe and I don't think putting people in orbit around the moon solves that.

Regarding the first, http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/science/experiments/Expedition.html . Regarding the second, you are making an appeal to ridicule.

True - the interesting and important question is what is NASA for?
Photo-op projects for a President

Politicians of all ilk use every project of any significance they helped fund or administer for photo ops. Heck, they use the stuff their fought against (and lost). for photo ops.

Provide hidden subsidy to the civil aircraft business
Stop the Army/Airforce fighting over who owns space

Whether these statements true or not is irrelevant because these statements are irrelevant and off-topic to this thread.

Subsidise/hide the costs of military space programs (or double the costs by duplicating military programs)

Also off-topic, but ludicrous. NASA's budget is a pittance compared to that of the DOD.

Keep the pork flowing to Md,Tx and Ca

To take a rather jaundiced view, from a politician's perspective, whether a project keeps the pork flowing is the ultimate test of almost every federal program.

 

[russ_watters]

Also, what I have said is that any Drake answer greater than 0 suggests probability 1 for the entire universe.

I'm not sure what you mean by that - the Drake equation's design purpose is to predict the number of civilizations we can communicate with. Dropping terms, you could use it to predict the number of star systems with intelligent life, the number with life, etc. Under no formulation I can think of would a probability be 1 - that would suggest that every star in the sky has life we can communicate with, intelligent life, or life (etc.), depending on the formulation. We do have enough data to place some upper limits on those probabilities and they are far below 1 based on the proportion of stars capable of supporting planets and the number of star systems that have "hot Jupiters" and thus could not possibly support life-bearing terrestrial planets.

Or are you just saying that any probability greater than 0 implies that there must be life/intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy/universe? How is that different than what I described in my previous post? Basically, you're assuming an answer to the question based on careless rounding.

There is no reason to assume that intelligent life would be emitting strong radio signals for more than a century, so we can't extrapolate based the lack of a detected radio signal either. That is only a test for civilizations emitting strong RF.

Agreed - I was only saying that I think SETI will fail, not that failure implies that there are no other civilizations out there.

 

[Al68]

Don't forget about private ventures. A LOT was learned from the first X-prize alone. Just as one example, they figured out how to re-enter Earth's atmosphere at supersonic speed with no heat shielding, and a (relatively) tiny budget.

 

[D H]

Don't forget about private ventures. A LOT was learned from the first X-prize alone. Just as one example, they figured out how to re-enter Earth's atmosphere at supersonic speed with no heat shielding, and a (relatively) tiny budget.

Not really. They were going Mach 3. That isn't reentry. Reentry is Mach 25. There is a huge difference in energy between a suborbital vehicle going at Mach 3 versus a re-entering spacecraft hitting the atmosphere at Mach 25.

 

[Al68]

Not really. They were going Mach 3. That isn't reentry. Reentry is Mach 25. There is a huge difference in energy between a suborbital vehicle going at Mach 3 versus a re-entering spacecraft hitting the atmosphere at Mach 25.

Well, of course there's a big difference, but what was learned by their innovations is still very valuable.

 

[D H]

Well, of course there's a big difference, but what was learned by their innovations is still very valuable.

I agree with that. Where I disagreed was with your statement about heat shields. SpaceShipOne didn't experience much thermal loading on its re-entry, but that was largely due to its low speed.

 

[Al68]

I agree with that. Where I disagreed was with your statement about heat shields. SpaceShipOne didn't experience much thermal loading on its re-entry, but that was largely due to its low speed.

My understanding was that their design purposely increased drag and used it as an advantage to keep it cool. I could be wrong, but the implication was that their re-entry speed was more than enough to overheat the ship were it not for that innovation, although obviously easier to deal with than much faster speeds.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm not sure what you mean by that - the Drake equation's design purpose is to predict the number of civilizations we can communicate with.

Drake is limited to the galaxy. I was talking about the Universe. Even a nominal Drake result implies a very large result for all galaxies.

I also think we can use inductive reasoning. Since it appears that there is nothing unique about our sun, and since we are now finding extrasolar planets almost daily - suggesting that planets are relatively common - and given that we fully expect that life arose through natural [not supernatural] processes, and since there is no reason to think those processes are unique to our planet, it is reasonable to expect that the universe is full of life. We can safely say that if we are unique in the universe, then we are a 1:10²⁴ event, or so, which makes our existence so unlikely that in that event I reject Descarte's conclusions and conclude instead that we don't exist.

 

[Coin]

Now MSNBC is reporting that someone named "Charlie Bolden" is to be appointed NASA administrator.

 

[russ_watters]

Drake is limited to the galaxy. I was talking about the Universe.

I didn't differentiate because it is easy to add a term to include the universe and I figured that that is what you meant.

Even a nominal Drake result implies a very large result for all galaxies.

Yeah, that's what I thought you meant. And it is wrong for the reasons I stated. We don't have enough information to project a range that predicts more than one "to all but a mathematical certainty" because we know of only one. We know that the odds are at least one in a universe, but that is it. We don't know if the odds are above that.

I also think we can use inductive reasoning.

Maybe we can, but that's not what you claimed in the post I objected to. You said "all but a mathematical certainty", which means a proper mathematical prediction of the Drake equation.

Since it appears that there is nothing unique about our sun, and since we are now finding extrasolar planets almost daily - suggesting that planets are relatively common - and given that we fully expect that life arose through natural [not supernatural] processes, and since there is no reason to think those processes are unique to our planet, it is reasonable to expect that the universe is full of life.

Agreed, but there is a big difference between that and "all but a mathematical certainty". This question is big enough, we should not hyperbolize about it.

 

[mgb_phys]

"Charlie Bolden" is to be appointed NASA administrator.[/url]

Ex-military, ex-astronaut - so along with the cancellation of all the science missions recently, does this mean Nasa is going back to just being the USAFs PR dept?

 

[D H]

It's official: Obama has nominated Charlie Bolden to be NASA's new administrator, with Lori Garver to serve as his deputy.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Agreed, but there is a big difference between that and "all but a mathematical certainty". This question is big enough, we should not hyperbolize about it.

I think it is all but a certainty when we consider that there is no reason to think our solar system or planet are unique.

If I am walking along a beach and find a black grain of sand among the white grains, do we assume that there is only one black grain of sand, or is it all but certain that there are others?

I would also suggest that you look up the definition of hyperbole.

 

[Sarpedon]

It doesn't seem really clear what NASA's current goal is. They had the Apollo, went to the moon for political reasons and that was that. They got rid of basically everything.

Then they decided to build the space shuttle. And now they are going to retire it with no replacement. Again loss of knowledge and talent.

Now they have a project to make space travel much cheaper and safer. That's the goal. But all with old technology. The Constellation project it quite conservative. It doesn't have the flexibility of the space shuttle.

Then they want to go to Mars with a manned mission, which is costly enough to question why to do it.To me there seem to be two rought ways to go about. Either NASA does projects with the direct goal to advance science. Or NASA spearheads the development for technology to access space for the private sector.

Apollo and the space shuttle didn't have the space shuttle in their wake. In that case what is the point in accessing space? If we can't use exploit space then why go there? Just for tourism and romanticism? Or do we have to do all this so we can literally live on another planet, in 5000 years or who knows how long that will take, to ensure survival of mankind?

To me it seems science, exploration, etc is the only reason to be in space right now. There is talks about a base on the moon. If that's the cheapest way to build satellites to explore extrasolar planets in the far future, then that's worth the price. But that seems unlikely. In terms of pure science it seems quite stupid to just go to Mars "because it's hard". Sure, we want to know if there could have been life there. But it will be way more efficient to use robotics even for tasks that seem only possible by humans right now. Repairing Hubble was amazing, sure. But in the end it's just much cheaper to just build a new telescope and launch it rather than have a shuttle program specificially for this.

As for technology rerived from space programs. It's great and benefitial. But you can develop the technology we got from Apollo and the space shuttle without actually sending anything into orbit, which is much much more efficient.There seems to be no clear long term vision and longterm set budget. I heard that it's possible that the ISS can just be disgarded when the budget runs out. Apollo was basically a dead end. So is the space shuttle. And the same fate awaits ISS and the missions to moon and Mars. Space shuttle will soon be gone and we will just basically redo Apollo. And then ISS is no longer worth the money compared to the science output. Then redoing space shuttle seems pointless and a manned mission to Mars is again purely political. That will be a sad affair.

 

[mgb_phys]

It doesn't seem really clear what NASA's current goal is.

It's goal, like any other government agency, is to increase it's budget.

They had the Apollo, went to the moon for political reasons and that was that.

It was to demonstrate American technical superiority - or 'our Germans are better than their Germans'

Then they decided to build the space shuttle. And now they are going to retire it with no replacement. Again loss of knowledge and talent.

I've never been sure at what point they realized the shuttle wasn't going to do this and would be an enormous white elephant. But is was obviously between the airforce cancelling the shuttle pads at Edwards and the shuttle's first flight.

Repairing Hubble was amazing, sure. But in the end it's just much cheaper to just build a new telescope and launch it rather than have a shuttle program specificially for this.

Estimates are that Hubble cost 3x as much to build because of the shuttle launch. A combination of having to be manned flight certified and the storage costs of it sitting for 4 years after challenger. It is also in a highly sub-optimal science orbit in order to be shuttle reachable.

There seems to be no clear long term vision and longterm set budget. I heard that it's possible that the ISS can just be disgarded when the budget runs out. Apollo was basically a dead end. So is the space shuttle. And the same fate awaits ISS and the missions to moon and Mars. Space shuttle will soon be gone and we will just basically redo Apollo. And then ISS is no longer worth the money compared to the science output. Then redoing space shuttle seems pointless and a manned mission to Mars is again purely political. That will be a sad affair.

The purpose of the ISS was to fund aerospace companies (largely Boeing) in the wake of defence cuts following the end of the cold war , expect defence spending went up.
It's interesting that the Russians are planning to detach their modules when ISS is abandoned and use them as the basis of their next space station,

 

[Coin]

Estimates are that Hubble cost 3x as much to build because of the shuttle launch. A combination of having to be manned flight certified and the storage costs of it sitting for 4 years after challenger. It is also in a highly sub-optimal science orbit in order to be shuttle reachable.

The obvious inconvenience of shuttle deployment aside, hasn't being in a shuttle reachable orbit turned out to be useful since this means it can be repaired?

I mean imagine if we'd had no shuttle and just sent the thing up on a rocket, maybe it would have cost 1/3 as much but it still would have had the initial mirror problem.

 

[Sarpedon]

The space shuttle itself also costs money.

The only reason to have it repaired the way it was is to develop the technologies and skills to do so. And now that they have it, they just discard it.

 

[D H]

Estimates are that Hubble cost 3x as much to build because of the shuttle launch.

The purpose of the ISS was to fund aerospace companies (largely Boeing) in the wake of defence cuts following the end of the cold war

Oh, please. NASA's entire budget at the time was a paltry 0.5% of the total federal budget, much much smaller than the DoD's budget.

 

[D H]

There seems to be no clear long term vision and longterm set budget.

Federal agencies are not supposed to set their own long term goals. Setting long-term goals and budgets is the business of the legislative and administrative branches. Look at it this way: Do you want our federal agencies running amok? The lack of a stable budget is problematic for any agency that has programs that necessarily run longer than four years. The alternative is agencies running amok.

 

[mgb_phys]

The 'at launch' cost of Hubble was around $1.2Bn not including the cost of the shuttle launch. With operations and repair it was $3Bn by 1999, $6Bn and estimate to reach $10Bn by end of life.
These don't include the cost of shuttle repair missions, Nasa doesn't price shuttle launches anymore since they don't carry commercial payloads but were $500M for the last commercial launches and are now estimated at $1Bn/launch now.
The Planck mission cost $2.2Bn (2009$) including launch.

I worked with the people that build the ESA faint object camera. Some of the problems with HST+Nasa are discussed in the "The Hubble Wars"
There was a Nasa policy that the HST was a manned mission because it had to be astronaut serviced, some of these rules made sense - such as not allowing chemical propellents that might be a risk to astronauts working on it. But others included bans on using certain microprocessors inside an instrument because they weren't manned mission rated - so the processor wasn't tested and certified reliable enough to run the shuttle also meant it couldn't be used in anything the shuttle carried!

There were also lots of political problems (this was still the cold war) where everything technical about HST and the Shuttle were regarded as military secrets and dealing with Nasa was almost impossible for foreigners, remember HST was a joint project with the European Space Agency. I don't know how it's changed but when I last worked with them, 10 years ago, non-US astronomers weren't allowed into JPL, I could only go to meetings held at Caltech.

 

[mgb_phys]

There are some amazing engineers and scientists working for Nasa but it needs a reason to exist.
At the moment it's busy flying historical basketballs into orbit while it waits for the money to have a few square-jawed crew-cut (although this time probably more racially diverse) heroes to plant flags on bits of rock - this isn't a future.


Imagine if the west had been settled by Nasa
http://www.spacefuture.com/vehicles/how_the_west_wasnt_won_nafa.shtml

 

[D H]

If your vision of the future includes space science, that is the only future. Of all of the spacefaring nations, one decided that those square-jawed crew cut heroes are not a future. That nation did this thanks to persistent lobbying by that nation's pointy-headed space scientists. That nation, Great Britain, has no square-jawed crew cut heroes -- and hardly any pointy-headed space scientists, either. Their total budget for civilian space research is an embarrassingly small 0.04% of their total national budget, and almost all of that is shipped abroad to the European Space Agency.

Amongst the viable spacefaring nations, a key motivating factor for allocating monies to space research is that humans will follow. Take away that motivating factor and space science has to compete on its own merits. Compared to most other sciences, space science is very expensive. It ranks right up there with particle physics. The difference between the two is that politicians can see benefit coming out of particle physics research. They don't see the same bang for the buck with space science.