 |
 |
||
 |
|
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||||
 |
The Planetary Society WeblogGuest Blogger: Lou FriedmanAugust 28 - September 3, 2006
|
||||||||||||
 |
Louis Friedman co-founded The Planetary Society and has been its Executive Director for more than 25 years. Prior to that he was an engineer at the AVCO Space Systems Division and then worked at JPL, where he was involved in planning Mariner Venus-Mercury, the Grand Tour (which later became Voyager), Venus Orbital Imaging Radar (which would later become Magellan), a never-realized Halley Comet Rendezvous Solar Sail, and JPL's Mars program. Lou is a native New Yorker, raised in the Bronx and passionately committed to his hometown baseball team, the New York Yankees. |
The Sorry State of Science Politics in NASA
"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.
 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?"
 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.
Hurricane Season (Globally Speaking)
When setting summer vacation schedules, our little office joke was "nothing will happen in the second half of August -- everyone will be on vacation." But as unpredictably as a tropical storm, two hurricanes struck: the abrupt resignations of three science advisors from the NASA Advisory Council and the demotion of Pluto as a planet by the International Astronomical Union.
Pluto's problems were terrific, in my view, creating a maelstrom of public interest in arcane subjects like the gravitational influence of planets, evolution of orbits, relationship to other celestial objects, etc. The Society decided not to take its own position (although almost everyone in the Society, including board members and staff has one.) We decided that whatever you call them, all new worlds should be explored. We have a lot up on our website about the Pluto controversy, including a poll and a New Horizons time capsule to be opened when the spacecraft reaches Pluto.
 Pluto and Charon
Artist's conception of Pluto and its satellite Charon. Credit: NASA |
Even more than being an education about planetary astronomy, the Pluto naming
controversy is a real education about science. Many people expect that science
is like religion -- truths and dogmas should be immutable. Alternatively, many
seemed to want a government-like authority to be the final arbitrators, instead
of 400-500 people who showed up at a meeting in Prague. The qualifications
for being a card-carrying member of the International Astronomical Union are
actually rather vague, and their authority is even vaguer. The scientific process,
although rigorous in many ways, is very non-rigorous about authority. Ideas
like consensus, convention, and community help determine what is and is not
accepted in science. For those who worried (or pretend to worry) about confusing
young people about what a planet is, I think it is better to learn about how
science handles new data.
Of course, the suggestion I like best is that The Planetary Society should decide. (Joke!)
Meanwhile, the Save Our Science campaign and the continuing 2007 budget battle to add science funds to the Appropriations bill now before Congress, are keeping us engaged. Simultaneously, we are looking ahead to the 2008 budget, which the Administration will begin working on in the next few weeks. That die will be cast behind closed doors in the Office of Management and Budget next door to the White House.
On a positive note, NASA has begun seeking international cooperation in their Vision for Space Exploration. Our Board member, John Logsdon, is working closely with NASA in this effort and spent much of the last year traveling to other countries discussing opportunities. NASA Administrator Michael Griffin is about to begin a one month overseas trip to Russia, Japan, Europe, and China for talks that we hope will lead to greater international participation and cooperation in space exploration.
I think international cooperation is crucial, not just to the conduct of space exploration but for public support for great (expensive and difficult) goals, such as sending humans to other worlds. Even the space station proposed by President Reagan in 1984 went nowhere until it became an international venture involving Europe, Japan, Canada, and Russia. Grand space ventures need broader political and popular support than simply serving space interests (no matter how enthusiastic they are) and this is where international cooperation becomes significant. Making it an international venture can give the Vision for Space Exploration legs on which to stand beyond the current Administration. If its basis of support is narrow, then it is likely to be rejected by the next Administration.
International cooperation does not require any nation to give up its national objectives for lunar missions. In fact, for the first orbiters, simple coordination of existing plans would be helpful. But later missions, with landers, rovers, and other surface operations, could benefit greatly from joint planning, and costs could be reduced for individual nations if they share the more ambitious plans. Their national objectives could still be met, and in fact exceeded as more could be accomplished with possible less investment by each of the participants. Each would also advance their own capabilities and roles to participate in the grand adventure of sending humans to Mars and into the solar system. The Society has proposed an International Lunar Way Station as a step to this end. We also seek international cooperation and development of Mars sample return.
 Credit: Courtesy Jake Maule |
The Society itself also has to become more international. We have always had
an international outlook, and our membership is global, but our operations still
center in the U.S. With Japan, China, Russia, and India all now preparing missions
to the Moon, Russia picking up interest in Phobos Sample Return, and Europe an
active planetary explorer, this is the perfect time to extend Society activity
around the globe. In the past 15 months, I visited Russia, Europe, China, and
Japan; and plan to go to India later this year, to work to that end. Our goal
is to get members active in many countries and increase the Society's outreach
globally. We have begun exploring options with members in other countries to
translate our web pages and other information.
Planetary exploration, requiring a relatively small fraction of national resources from a few countries, is an optimistic counter-balance to many other global influences. Exploring other worlds helps create a positive future. That is its relevance and that is the rationale for international cooperation in its conduct.
To the Moon, But Not to Stay
Monday, in my first blog, I said that this was an experiment for me, and I would judge by the reaction to it. Well, I've received lots of reaction: pretty much falling neatly into two categories -- very positive and very negative. The only ones that annoyed me were the ones that completely missed the point and simplistically labeled me as "science" vs. "exploration," or "manned" vs. "unmanned." (I use the old sexist terms in quotes when wanting to graphically refer to the old debate.)
We (and particularly me) support human space exploration and particularly support the Vision for Space Exploration as first proposed by the Bush Administration.
My major concern is where the Vision for Space Exploration will be on January 20, 2009. What sustains it beyond a Presidential term? Griffin, to his credit, recognizes this problem in at least one way; and is rushing to get the CEV built as quickly as possible -- sadly, not as quickly as he really would like.
By the way: congratulations to Lockheed Martin for their big win with the CEV contract.
But, getting the rocket built -- as important as that is in allowing us to free ourselves from the shuttle -- is not enough to sustain the program. There has to be a compelling political reason to go to the Moon and Mars. White House Science Advisor John Marburger asserts that nationalistic economic and security interests of the United States could provide it -- maybe for some things in space, but certainly not for human space flight. No economic or security advantage has ever been found for human space flight. (Just ask the Department of Defense and Council for Economic Advisors if you don't believe that).
Remember Space Station Freedom? -- even it could not be sustained until it became an International Space Station.
The Moon will, starting next year, be an international destination. Actually -- starting tomorrow night!
SMART-1, the European low thrust technology lunar orbiter, is scheduled to impact the Moon tomorrow night (Saturday), U.S. west coast time (approximately 5:42 am Greenwich Mean Time, Sunday). There is some chance it could hit the Moon one orbit (5 hours) earlier at 00:37 GMT if its orbit is low enough and just happens to pass over a high lunar mountain. SMART-1 has been a very successful mission, and congratulations are due to the European Space Agency which is having an incredible run of successful (knock on wood) planetary missions: SMART-1, Mars Express, Venus Express, and Rosetta.
 SMART-1 at the Moon When a spacecraft orbits around the Moon, it is doomed by the law of gravity. Tugs from the Sun, the Earth, and irregularities in the Moon itself, all disturb its orbit. Sooner or later, any lunar orbiter will impact the Moon surface unless it has enough fuel left to escape the lunar gravity. By the time SMART-1 had settled into its operational orbit around the Moon in March 2005, its exeprimental ion engine had only 7 kilograms of propellant left (bottled xenon gas) out of the 84 kilograms available at launch. This fuel allowed orbital boosts, but was not sufficient for a Moon escape. Credit: ESA -- AOES Medialab |
Some are hoping
to see the impact or some evidence of a plume from SMART-1's plunge. Amateurs
will try, but most likely it will be visible only with large telescopes. Nonetheless,
celebrating spacecraft encounters is a tradition, and I think I will bring a
bottle of wine down to The Planetary Society where we will maintain a connection
to the European Space Operations Center and to project scientist Bernard Foing
who has led much of this mission. We'll keep the blog updated with news of about
the impact.
The Moon is a stepping stone into the solar system. China, Japan, and India will go there in the next couple of years as they prepare to follow Russia, the U.S., and Europe with robotic missions into the solar system. The U.S., and now it appears Russia, will go there first with robots and then with humans -- as they prepare to send humans to Mars. Will we become bogged down on the Moon for decades as we did in Earth orbit -- or will we (as the Vision for Space Exploration, as well as the European Space Agency's Aurora roadmap clearly states) go there as a stepping stone to Mars? I clearly hope so -- I want to know if humankind is or will be a multi-planet species.
We congratulate the SMART-1 team on a successful mission. And, looking further out, we congratulate the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter team for concluding its aerobraking into Martian orbit this week and the Mars Exploration Rover team who just passed their second winter solstice on the surface of the planet.
[ what is this? ]