		Site Map \| Contact Us \| Search:

JOIN

The Planetary Society Blog

By Emily Lakdawalla

The Sorry State of Science Politics in NASA

Aug. 28, 2006 | 11:32 PDT | 18:32 UTC

We need your help.
Please donate to support our blog, website, and podcast.

Weblog Archive

by Louis D. Friedman

"I don't blog," I asserted about six months ago. But then again, I also recall saying (sometime in the last century) "I don't do Windows -- DOS is good enough for me." Well, times change; and here I am. This is an experiment. We'll have to see what the reaction (mine and yours) is.

The resignation this month of three noted leaders in space science from the NASA Advisory Council is a disaster. It is the third blow to science struck this year by NASA. First the U.S. Administration presented a budget to Congress severely cutting back space science research and missions, including great exploration missions to Mars, Europa, and searching for terrestrial planets around other stars. Then, for no discernable reason, they announce that understanding the Earth is not a goal of NASA's anymore -- despite the fact that understanding the Earth has been one of the principal products of space exploration. And now the NASA Administrator says he does not want the considered advice of scientists about space science and exploration -- he wants it only about the decisions already made for the new exploration program focused entirely on the Moon and NASA's already decided architecture for it.

Click to enlarge >

Mars Sample Return
Artist's concept of a future Mars Sample Return mission. Credit: NASA / JPL

One forced resignation was of Wes Huntress, Planetary Society President. Another was Eugene Levy, the provost of Rice University. Charlie Kennel (who wrote the lead article in The Planetary Report last month) then resigned "for personal reasons." Huntress and Kennel are both former Associate Administrators of NASA, two of the very best who helped revitalize the Agency and set it on a direction of accomplishment in the 1990s.

Huntress and The Planetary Society (as well as I) are not just supporters of the Administration's Vision for Space Exploration, but we were also great and early supporters of Mr. Griffin personally. We lobbied for his appointment, and Mr. Griffin's leadership of a Planetary Society study two years ago was a sign of our alliance. But time, and Washington, change things. In my view, the Vision is now clouded and we are headed on a different path -- a path without any science guidance and one that will lead to no human exploration of other worlds.

The problem is not simply about budget priorities -- those arguments exist every year. It is not simply about the size of the NASA budget -- space enthusiasts always want it larger. It is much deeper; it is about the heart and soul of exploration, which is the fundamental goal of NASA. NASA has separated science from exploration, bureaucratically and in their development of missions. They dismiss the great robotic missions: Voyager, Galileo, Cassini, Mars Exploration Rover, New Horizons (past) and Europa Orbiter, Mars Sample Return, Dawn, Terrestrial Planet Finder (future) as only science. Whereas the Vision for Space Exploration strongly supported these robotic missions and the search for extraterrestrial life, the new NASA exploration program cut out half the research connected with the latter subject and all those future missions I just mentioned.

Why would they do this? If the Administration can't supply the funds for the Vision for Space Exploration goals, wouldn't just delaying them make more sense than cannibalizing the part of NASA that is working and has provided such valuable and exciting results to the world, and which was supposed to guide humans into the solar system?

I think I am beginning to understand why. In a little publicized speech last March, the President's science advisor, Dr. John Marburger, declared, "…we want to incorporate the Solar System in our [the U.S.] economic sphere…" and then went on say "The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program.…It subordinates space exploration to the primary goals of scientific, security and economic interests." Whoa -- what happened to exploration? What are the American economic and security interests in human exploration of the Moon and Mars? What happened to "we came in peace for all mankind?"

Click to enlarge >

Earthrise over the lunar horizon
Earth rose over the lunar horizon as Apollo 8 completed the first manned trip behind the far side of the Moon. The mission also returned the first live television coverage of the lunar surface, on December 24, 1968. Credit: NASA

Marburger has gone further. In testimony to Congress he asserted, "The greatest value of the Moon lies neither in science nor in exploration, but in its material ... The production of oxygen in particular, the major component (by mass) of chemical rocket fuel, is potentially an important Lunar industry." This is ludicrous -- we could probably not devise a more expensive way to make rocket fuel than by producing it on the Moon -- especially with oxygen which we do not know how to extract, or at what cost.

Paraphrasing John Kennedy, Mr. Marburger asserts "We go to the Moon and do these other things, for its oxygen."

I am beginning to think that the new interpretation of the Vision, and the new direction of NASA, is more ideological than visionary, more about extending our economic interests than anything to do with the public good and public interest in space exploration. This is why I feel we are fighting for the heart and soul of NASA (and space exploration around the world).

Maybe I am an alarmist; Griffin maintains that only the budget constraints have forced science cuts, and that he has to make them in order to get the new rockets built that will replace the shuttle (a goal we support). But then why all the anti-science rhetoric? Why these new policy pronouncements? And why, as asked above, cannibalize the science research and exploration missions that brought NASA such past glory?

In my next blog I will expand this discussion to the international arena and look at global activities and global implications. I emphasize that this blog is personal, not a position statement of The Planetary Society. We are discussing these issues and our Save Our Science campaign is focused on the just that -- overcoming the terrible cuts to science and exploration in NASA; not to the broader policy issues. Let me encourage your consideration and your comments. We have a Members Forum, which we encourage you use for broad dialogue and Society involvement. Or you can always e-mail me at tps.ldf@planetary.org.

Emily's on Twitter! »