Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News NASA direction to be reviewed

  1. May 9, 2009 #1
    Via the Uncertain Principles blog, the NYT reports:
    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 [Broken] 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.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. May 9, 2009 #2

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  4. May 9, 2009 #3
    Sorry..
    but, What is The Big One?
     
  5. May 9, 2009 #4

    mgb_phys

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    What is NASA for?
     
  6. May 9, 2009 #5
    The "big one" is privately funded though.
     
  7. May 9, 2009 #6
    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.
     
  8. May 9, 2009 #7
    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.
     
  9. May 9, 2009 #8
    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).
     
  10. May 9, 2009 #9

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

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


    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.


    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.


    You've been watching too many movies.

    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."
     
  11. May 10, 2009 #10

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Are we alone in the universe?
     
  12. May 10, 2009 #11
    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.
     
  13. May 10, 2009 #12

    Pyrrhus

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    :smile:
     
  14. May 10, 2009 #13

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
    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.
     
  15. May 10, 2009 #14

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Fortunately, this review is not going to get into the human spaceflight versus unmanned spaceflight imbroglio. It's goal is to
    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.
     
  16. May 10, 2009 #15

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  17. May 10, 2009 #16

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    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.
     
  18. May 10, 2009 #17

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2009
  19. May 10, 2009 #18

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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?
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2009
  20. May 10, 2009 #19

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This is the NASA mission statement

    http://naccenter.arc.nasa.gov/NASAMission.html [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  21. May 10, 2009 #20

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: NASA direction to be reviewed
  1. Peer review reviewed (Replies: 5)

  2. Google NASA (Replies: 2)

  3. Is this the End of NASA? (Replies: 12)

  4. NASA Lightsaber (Replies: 1)

Loading...