Thumbs down on UK govt astros; thumbs up on private efforts [Update]

They are pure research missions, no direct use for corporations.

Posted by gravityloss at 02/14/08 04:57:52

Rees is just following in a long tradition of Astronomers Royal being grumpy old curmudgeons about human spaceflight. Van der Riet Woolley was saying similar things FIFTY YEARS AGO:-

"It's utter bilge. I don't think anybody will ever put up enough money to do such a thing . . . What good would it do us? If we spent the same amount of money on preparing first-class astronomical equipment we would learn much more about the universe . . . It is all rather rot"

Personally, I'm more interested in what the new Space Policy has to say about space technology R&D. From page 33 of the policy document:-

http://www.bnsc.gov.uk/%5Ca...

"The NSTP [National Space Technology Programme] will be a national programme to support the development of common space technologies and new services. It will identify emerging technologies and opportunities, and use R&D grants and prizes to enable technology development and knowledge exchange between commercial, Government and academic organisations."

Note the reference to prizes. British Centennial Challenges, anyone? ;-)

Posted by Stellvia at 02/14/08 05:42:19

When it comes to pure science, the value of human missions is questionable compared to the use of robotic technology. I've always had ambivalent feelings about NASA human spaceflight program and would rather the private sector do all of the lifting in that arena. Make it profitable or forget about it.

Posted by Haus at 02/14/08 07:49:00

Tomorrow will be the unveiling of project enterprise:
http://www.talisinstitut.de...

Posted by tobi at 02/14/08 08:34:46

"Ministers consider UK astronauts

The government is to launch a formal review into whether British astronauts should take part in the international exploration of space."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/...

...so not quite a foregone conclusion then ;)

Posted by Stellvia at 02/14/08 09:33:39

Stellvia - Thanks for the BBC article link.

Tobi - Likewise, I've been looking forward to finding out what the Project Enterprize plans are.

GravityLoss: "They are pure research missions, no direct use for corporations."

Well, of course, I'm aware of that. I'll note, though, that "private" includes organizations like National Geographic that have long funded pure research exploration. Many AMSAT and university research nanosat projects (e.g. Cubesats) have found funding outside of govt. sources. There is the Google lunar prize. If space transport costs come down by the factor of 10 or so, which I think is quite feasible to achieve, we could see much more private support for such activity.

Anyway, my point was simply that if Rees and other space science supporters use near term practical utility as the measure of whether to fund human spaceflight, the same measure can be used when judging whether to fund the particular esoteric activity that they happen to be interested in.

I often mention that the main reason Carl Sagan came to support human spaceflight was because he found a direct positive correlation between funding for the manned program and funding for the planetary science programs. The RAS report a couple of years ago that came out in support of a UK human spaceflight program made essentially the same argument. The public is more drawn to human endeavors and pure science activities benefit as part of an enthusiasm for space activities in general.

The $4B or so that goes to space science (not counting earth observation which is now easy to justify) is an anomaly of the Moon race days. Funding for, say, high energy physics in the US is currently around $800M. In terms of commercial applications, or lack thereof, there is no reason that space science should get five times more. It's just a relic of the high spending for space during the 1960s.

- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 02/14/08 10:29:16

"The $4B or so that goes to space science (not counting earth observation which is now easy to justify) is an anomaly of the Moon race days. Funding for, say, high energy physics in the US is currently around $800M."

With all due respect to Clark and this great website, this comparison is inaccurate and unfair.

First, the $800 million figure is only DOE funding. It neglects high energy physics funding from other federal agencies like NSF.

Second, comparing the funding for one subdiscipline in physics to the funding for all space science disciplines is highly misleading. A more appropriate comparison would be all DOE science funding to all NASA science funding, which stand at about $4 billion and $5 billion, respectively. Or a comparison of all astrophysics (~$1.5 billion) or high energy astrophysics funding (~$750 mllion) to high energy physics funding would be more appropriate.

"In terms of commercial applications, or lack thereof, there is no reason that space science should get five times more."

Space science is basic, not applied, research. No one funds it on the basis of commercial or other applications. It's about satisfying our innate curiousity about how the universe works, not curing diseases or creating jobs.

"It's just a relic of the high spending for space during the 1960s."

This is an illogical argument for which there is no evidence (and actually a lot of counter evidence). To claim that Mars rovers, Cassini, and Hubble are still living off the fumes of the Apollo budget a half century after Apollo funding peaked in the mid-1960s strains credulity. And in point of fact, the biggest space science missions, like Viking and Voyager, were only funded after Apollo funding started going down.

Moreover, this argument does a great disservice to the one part of NASA that actually been conducting space exploration since Apollo. British Royal Astronomer statements aside, we should support human space flight and exploration, civil or commercial, and fixing what ails NASA's human space flight programs, but it should be done without denigrating or defunding the one part of NASA that's actually been rolling back space frontiers these past few decades.

"I often mention that the main reason Carl Sagan came to support human spaceflight was because he found a direct positive correlation between funding for the manned program and funding for the planetary science programs."

This is also an inaccurate statement. Sagan never found or proved a positive correlation. In fact, the two program areas compete within the NASA budget and usually move in opposite directions. Again, Viking and Voyager, for example, were only approved after the Apollo budget was declining. And today, space science has seen nearly all the growth taken out of its budget to fund Ares I and Orion. Sagan was a great scientist, educator, and speaker, but he was not a good budget analyst or policymaker.

I'm all for human space exploration, but

Posted by J. Blow at 02/14/08 11:53:58

Edit: Delete that last sentence fragment.

Posted by J. Blow at 02/14/08 11:55:15

"[Carl Sagan] found a direct positive correlation between funding for the manned program and funding for the planetary science programs. ... The public is more drawn to human endeavors and pure science activities benefit as part of an enthusiasm for space activities in general."

The general public thinks that the space shuttle can fly to the moon, and that there's a hidden zero-gravity room at NASA. A few science enthusiasts at the Popular Mechanics-level of understanding know better, and they might have influence on NASA funding, but the idea that they prefer manned spaceflight isn't proven. The unmanned Mars rovers got a bigger public response than any recent manned mission. Photographs from Cassini and Hubble get regular play in newspapers and magazines (even if it's only because they're pretty) whereas, when was the last time a shuttle mission did anything newsworthy?

Also, calling someone a curmudgeon is not the same as explaining why they're wrong. I believe that taxpayers should prefer unmanned missions because they cost less and deliver more. If manned spaceflight has much to offer, then the private sector can try to make a profit by flying humans.

Posted by Ashley at 02/14/08 12:19:18

The view of the British government, and Europe in general, on human spaceflight shows why they are no longer superpowers. A nation which fails to take the lead in exploration is a nation on the decline.

Posted by WiseSpacer at 02/14/08 12:59:01

J.Blow
"With all due respect to Clark and this great website..."

Thanks, I welcome respectful disagreement and enjoy rational, informed arguments.

"First, the $800 million figure is only DOE funding. It neglects high energy physics funding from other federal agencies like NSF."

When I was in HEP, the NSF funding was a small fraction of the DOE funding and was falling. I don't have time to track down the NSF budget figures but I would be very surprised if NSF HEP support has grown much relative to DOE.

"Second, comparing the funding for one subdiscipline in physics to the funding for all space science disciplines is highly misleading..."

It's not misleading at all. HEP is a distinct basic science area that gets specific budget line funding. I am comparing it to another distinct, budget line basic science area - NASA's science funding outside of earth observation.

"...all DOE science funding to all NASA science funding, which stand at about $4 billion and $5 billion,..."

Most of that DOE funding is not basic science but applied such as in fusion, fission power, etc. Yes there is funding for, say, basic plasma physics but it is aimed towards supporting the fusion program.

"Space science is basic, not applied, research. No one funds it on the basis of commercial or other applications. It's about satisfying our innate curiousity about how the universe works, not curing diseases or creating jobs."

Of course, I know what basic science is and I personally support big increases in funding for it, especially space science. I think it is ridiculous that the NSF budget is not several times what it is now. However, your talk about "innate curiosity..." is exactly what I was referring to in my criticism of Rees statements. That is a subjective justification for billions of dollars in taxpayer money that is no more or less provably valid than that the claims of a supporter of human spaceflight who says it is man's innate destiny to open up the solar system to life and human settlement. The demand since the 1960s by many in the basic science community to "fund the object of my curiosity, not the other guy's wild dreams" has only served to undercut funding for all of these endeavors.

"This is an illogical argument for which there is no evidence (and actually a lot of counter evidence). To claim that Mars rovers, Cassini, and Hubble are still living off the fumes of the Apollo budget a half century..."

I was obviously not talking about actual money left over from that time but about how the baseline funding had been set so high. As with any government program, once a funding level is established, it usually stays there or grows.

Europe's funding for HEP is, I believe, still considerably larger than it is in the US. (CERN had enough extra funding to support Berners-Lee while if he had been at Fermilab he would have been told to either get busy on real-time data taking software or go find another job). Space science funding (and space in general), on the other hand, is considerably less. The reasons for that are historical, not because of relative wealth (The EU GDP is roughly the same as for the US).

"This is also an inaccurate statement. Sagan never found or proved a positive correlation. In fact,..."

He didn't write a paper proving this as far as I know but I saw him give a presentation in which he compared the funding for human spaceflight and for space science over a couple of decades. The correlation was quite obvious.

The RAS committee that recommended a UK human spaceflight program included Frank Close, a top-notch particle physics theorist who came to the committee with no particular interest in human spaceflight. He and the other panel members nevertheless came to a similar conclusion as Sagan did that a program that combines space science and human spaceflight is much stronger than one with only the former.

As I said above, I want to emphasize that I am personally a great supporter of space science and the basic sciences in general. My point is that I can no more prove they will "pay off" in the long run than I can for human spaceflight. There is a big degree of faith and appeal to precedent involved for both.

- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 02/14/08 14:26:59

Obviously we should eliminate all manned particle accelerators.

Posted by FC at 02/14/08 14:30:56

Ashley,

"The general public thinks that the space shuttle can fly to the moon, and that there's a hidden zero-gravity room at NASA. A few science enthusiasts a..."

One can look into the great maelstrom known as the general public, comprised in the US of 300M people, and find proof of just about any thesis one is making regarding their knowledge, opinions, beliefs, etc. Over the long term, some trends do show up, e.g. there is a general lack of interest and enthusiasm for science and engineering in the US. (Of course, there is great interest in technological products like ipods and in medical advances but not in the details of what is involved in such things.)

I remember in the aftermath of Bush's VSE speech that many of the negative Op-Eds made no distinction between manned and unmanned space projects: they were against all of it.

Yes, the Mars rovers got lots of attention initially but I would suspect that most people don't know they are still in operation. Science missions without pictures get little or no attention (except, when they do something dramatic like make a hole in the ground in Utah after reentry .)

Although shuttle missions, ISS spacewalks, etc may not be TV ratings bonanzas, I'm a bit surprised by just how much attention they still get.

A major theme of this blog is that human spaceflight will get a whole lot more interesting when launch costs are brought down. The fact that NASA isn't doing human spaceflight well at the moment isn't proof that it can never be exciting.

"I believe that taxpayers should prefer unmanned missions because they cost less and deliver more."

If one ran a poll with the question, "Do you think the US should spend $40B on unmanned planetary science missions over the next 10 years?" I suspect it would get a very low approval rating. What the missions are delivering may be of interest to you but probably isn't to a lot of taxpayers.

BTW: I would guess that most people believe the ratio of NASA funding for science vs manned programs is a factor of 1 to 5 or 10 when it is actually about 1 to 1.5 or 2 depending on what budget items you include.

"If manned spaceflight has much to offer, then the private sector can try to make a profit by flying humans."

Yes, the private sector is going to do that. However, with regard to government programs, one could make the contrary case that unmanned missions are important only because they lay the groundwork for human exploration and settlement of the solar system. The argument that the latter goals are the really important ones will be subjective but no more so than yours about the inherent value of scientific knowledge regardless of practical benefits. My original point is that undercutting each others programs only makes everyone's goals harder to achieve.

- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 02/14/08 15:39:17

"They are pure research missions, no direct use for corporations."

True, but then perhaps the interested agencies should contract the projects out to any interested commercial launch/spacecraft provider, paying only for data and only *when* it is delivered....

Posted by Frank Glover at 02/16/08 12:48:01

Your comment: Name: Website: E-mail:

Enter the string of characters appearing in the picture: Remember Me