Space Log
Comment
centeright
Mr. Leopold clearly lays out his political leanings in this peace by focusing ...
Carlos1966
The comment appears to me to be transparently one sided. Here are some contrary ...
Space Log: What we can, can't afford
George Leopold
11/19/2010 11:57 AM EST
You have undoubtedly noticed that the U.S. national debt is Topic A in Washington.
It’s telling that many of those politicians screaming loudest about federal budgets deficits were silent on the issue for most of this decade. Now that many have taken up the Fox News-driven narrative that we are spending ourselves into national bankruptcy, the predictable posturing has begun. Earmarks are out. No government program is safe, the politicians declare (unless it’s in their district).
I have heard many fair-minded folks argue that the new Congress with its Republican House majority and growing GOP strength in the Senate will change the way Washington works. Perhaps, but don’t bet your pay check on it.
The so-called fiscal conservatives have recently moved during a lame-duck session of Congress to cut off debate and perhaps scuttle extension of the START treaty with Russia. Opponents say the strategic arms agreement, an extension of a similar agreement signed by President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1991, lacks provisions for modernizing U.S. nuclear forces and could prevent development and deployment of anti-missile defenses.
Those nuclear weapons left after U.S. and Russian ratification of the START II treaty should be properly maintained and secured. The U.S. does not need to modernize a nuclear force that has become a costly anachronism in the age of asymmetrical warfare. Furthermore, a deeply indebted U.S. simply cannot afford to build and deploy a new anti-missile system while it fights a war in Afghanistan with no end in sight.
Besides, even the global nuclear strategist Richard Nixon realized that missile defenses are destabilizing (a nation that could defend against a strategic missile attack is more likely to use its strategic weapons first), which is why President Nixon signed the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
We do not need and can no longer afford new nuclear weapons. The U.S. can barely afford to maintain its current arsenal, which for better or worse we must do.
Our foremost national security responsibility is to the men and woman fighting in Afghanistan.
There are numerous examples of where federal spending can be cut. The pain should be distributed equally, but the political reality is that those with K Street connections will again win out in the coming budget showdown.
In the spirit of compromise, I am prepared to give up something I consider vital to American science and technology: manned spaceflight. We are pioneers in exploring the solar system. But we are broke.
Until such time as we get our fiscal house in order, NASA should concentrate on less expansive unmanned exploration of space by making greater use of robotic systems. In this way, we can continue gathering knowledge about the Earth and the solar system while improving the performance and reliability of robots.
If designed properly, these systems will continue to deliver the biggest scientific bang for the buck.
What I propose is of course anathema to the U.S. space lobby. Too bad. Human space exploration, like many other U.S. programs, will be a pay-as-you-go enterprise unless and until we fix our budget mess.
What would you be willing to give up?
|
|
|
|
|
lcovey
11/19/2010 3:40 PM EST
I totally agree about both, especially NASA. Having the Ames Laboratory just down the road I have a chance to often meet with entrepreneurs working on space-related startup tech and I know the biggest concern is that whenever NASA cuts come, it's the robotics and satellites that take the biggest hits. they need to turn that paradigm around. We need human involvement in the issues of this planet right now.
Sign in to Reply
Duane Benson
11/19/2010 7:00 PM EST
Over the last few years, I've head a lot of comments, written and verbal, about the decline of the US space program. "We went to the moon in 1969 and have been stuck in low Earth orbit since." I've heard that if we don't go back to the moon and on to Mars, we'll be ceding our technical leadership to China or someone else with "more vision" that we have.
Yes, manned space exploration is special, and when appropriate, should be on our space agenda. But, why should we feel compelled follow in what is basically a publicity stunt when we actually did the same thing forty years ago? We can't lose the manned race to the moon because we were there FORTY YEARS AGO.
And if you think that we have wasted those forty years doing nothing of value or stuck in LEO, consider that we not only have robots on Mars, but we have robots orbiting Mars that have taken pictures of our robots on the surface as well as of one of our robots in descent for landing. Yes, we have taken pictures of our Mars explorers taken by our Mars explorers. Who else can even come close to that?
If that's not enough, we have explored Saturn and Jupiter. We have Hubble which changed astronomy forever. We have probes so far out that they are leaving the Solar System. We have one on the way to Pluto. We have landed on an asteroid.
By postponing our maned exploration for a while, as you suggest George, we are not ceding any bit of our space leadership. We're simply plowing on into the future by doing things far more advanced and far more valuable than just repeating something that was world-leading forty years ago.
Sign in to Reply
george.leopold
11/22/2010 11:01 AM EST
Agree, Duane. The manned flights are about national prestige, which is why China is gearing up its manned program as a way to flex its muscles on the international stage. The real science and discovery are being done by our magnificent machines that are exploring the solar system. My sense is that many of NASA's suppliers understand that they need to provide components that will allow for even greater machine autonomy and reliability. There are a range of new probes in the pipeline that will continue to push the boundaries of space exploration.
Sign in to Reply
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/poconoarmchairreview
11/26/2010 8:55 AM EST
I don't think it's about prestige. I think it's about gaining and holding territory--territory that has vast amounts of Helium3 that can be mined for energy.
Sign in to Reply
Silicon_Smith
11/26/2010 12:40 PM EST
On that note, is it neccessary to have human presence to gain and hold a territory? I think Manned missions are show-off.
Sign in to Reply
Robotics Developer
11/22/2010 4:54 PM EST
At the risk of starting down a hole I might suggest that instead of cutting NASA's budget we consider serious cuts in: foreign aid, federal education, grants, subsidies, etc. It seems to me that we could save billions by reducing or eliminating everything not directly supported by the US Constitution. While that may also include cutting NASA (not being listed in the US Constitution) I would say that the NASA program supports national defense and should be supported. Likewise, government support for some technology development outside of space might fall under the general heading of "good for the country" and might be a reasonable use of federal dollars. In order to preserve and protect the country federal funding for alternate energy, more efficient engine technologies, food/medicine development all might be appropriate. What is not is false economies driven by federal subsidies or mandates. I would strongly encourage those who are called to be the leaders to consider losing the wasteful programs and expenditures and keep the programs that produce like: NASA, energy, etc. At the federal level and below, we should require prudent use of those funds; robotic/remote exploration of space is a great example of more bang for the buck.
Sign in to Reply
Bob Virkus
11/22/2010 5:48 PM EST
For the next few years it might be difficult to get funding for even robotic missions. In the meantime, it might be use to spend invest in science/technical/engineering education so that, when we do have the nerve to explore again, there will still be the bright minds to build the stuff. The loss of institutional knowledge in space technology is significant and is only getting worse.
Sign in to Reply
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/poconoarmchairreview
11/26/2010 9:07 AM EST
Invest in science/technical/engineering education? My wife is investigating going back to school. During the process, she found out that the National Science Foundation is trying to pay students to go into those subjects. They just need C averages, and they're in.
C averages!? Oh, that's right. They're going to work at NASA. "That Cassini working yet? No? Oh, well." "Hey, was that miles or kilometers?"
Sign in to Reply
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/poconoarmchairreview
11/26/2010 8:59 AM EST
To me, NASA looks like a shell that is being used to funnel vast amounts of money to a few cronies. I mean, they missed a fly-by opportunity of Titan this month because of reliability problems on their probe. I guess that's why they want to privatize so much.
Sign in to Reply
Bob Virkus
11/26/2010 11:30 AM EST
C averages being acceptable doesn't surprise me; sad as it is. Students are bored out of their skulls at school where they don't do anything. The have a steady diet of pablum which they regurgitate on their standardized tests.
Today's high school curriculum doesn't seem to offer or promote engineering as an option. Maybe science/technical/engineering programs can actually give students something to do, to build things, to experience the joy of discovery and to offer a career.
Sign in to Reply
Carlos1966
11/29/2010 9:52 AM EST
The comment appears to me to be transparently one sided. Here are some contrary opinions:
The nuclear weapons we possess are extremely important in keeping us safe in an increasingly dangerous world. Developing and testing (for real - not in simulations) newer, more advanced ones is essential to preserve our nuclear capabilities. Passing this knowledge on to a new generation before the old one is entirely gone is most easily done by designing newer/better weapons.
Manned space flight is crucial to our maintaining leadership in space. We should revive the old and new Orion projects. There is obviously plenty of money in the Democrat budget for destroying useful older vehicles and subsidizing the purchase of newer ones (foreign and domestic). How about giving NASA the money it needs for both manned and unmanned programs? How about establishing a permanent lunar base using the water at the poles that we've recently discovered? How about using the moon as a jumping off point to the rest of the solar system with space ships powered by nuclear external combustion engines?
Sign in to Reply
centeright
11/29/2010 8:42 PM EST
Mr. Leopold clearly lays out his political leanings in this peace by focusing exclusively on military spending and dismissing the value of a program that reached its height in the turmoil of the 60's and was crippled by the "strategic vision" of Nixon (You are kidding, right?). Let's neglect his comments on the destabilizing nature of ABM's except to offer up the description that MAD is like two parties trapped in a room full of gasoline each making more and more matches. Leopold then valiantly offers to defund manned exploration -- and development which is the part we keep neglecting -- of space, yet he completely ignores the true source of our budgetary problems that also got their start in the 60's, namely medicare and medicaid as well as social security which started 2 decades earlier. Manned exploration of space is a pittance compared to these voracious behemoths.
So here's my pain: raise the retirement age to 70 for anyone under the age of 60 tomorrow and index it to life expectancy going forward. As to manned spaceflight, well, continue to fund the program but stop using it as a congressional jobs giveaway with facilities spread across the country to ensure a sufficient number of congressmen and senators have a vested interest to fund it. Perhaps turn the funding into well defined X-prizes with significant milestones and truly incentivize the private sector to solve the system and logistical problems. Finally, understand that space is not just about making pretty pictures for postcards and magazine covers or to provide data so some grad student can write their thesis or get their government grant. Space is about holding the strategic high ground and restoring a frontier and all the benefits that come from that to a nation that has grown complacent, indecisive, risk-averse, and simply timid.
Sign in to Reply