# News NASA direction to be reviewed

1. May 9, 2009

### Coin

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. May 9, 2009

### 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.

3. May 9, 2009

### Maged

Sorry..
but, What is The Big One?

4. May 9, 2009

### mgb_phys

What is NASA for?

5. May 9, 2009

### waht

The "big one" is privately funded though.

6. May 9, 2009

### 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.

7. May 9, 2009

### Cyrus

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.

8. May 9, 2009

### TheStatutoryApe

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).

9. May 9, 2009

### D H

Staff Emeritus
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."

10. May 10, 2009

### Staff: Mentor

Are we alone in the universe?

11. May 10, 2009

### TheStatutoryApe

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.

12. May 10, 2009

### Pyrrhus

13. May 10, 2009

### 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.

14. May 10, 2009

### D H

Staff Emeritus
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.

15. May 10, 2009

### 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.

16. May 10, 2009

### D H

Staff Emeritus
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.

17. May 10, 2009

### 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
18. May 10, 2009

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
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
19. May 10, 2009

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
This is the NASA mission statement

http://naccenter.arc.nasa.gov/NASAMission.html [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
20. May 10, 2009

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
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

21. May 10, 2009

### mgb_phys

$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

Last edited: May 10, 2009
22. May 11, 2009

### Staff: Mentor

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.

 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.

Last edited: May 11, 2009
23. May 11, 2009

### D H

Staff Emeritus
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.

24. May 11, 2009

### mgb_phys

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

25. May 11, 2009

### WhoWee

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.