Wednesday, February 22, 2017

The New NASA

David:
Growing up in the late sixties and early seventies, we were surrounded with the NASA space programs. It was an exciting time, and at least for me, inspired my love of science. Like many kids our age, we grew up with all sorts of space-related toys. And, we dreamed of space exploration and the future.


NASA's acting administrator, Robert Lightfoot, just released a letter to NASA employees letting them know he's exploring the possibility of adding human astronauts to the new Space Launch System (SLS) rocket to their flight in late 2018, a mission known as EM-1.  The capsule would orbit the moon and return to Earth, splashing down in the ocean. Originally, no astronauts were to be aboard. This is the first flight to test the new system to land astronauts on the Moon, and then Mars.

Lightfoot's tone represents a return to NASA's early days, when ideas were put forth that challenged the imaginations of America's youth. I find this to be very exciting news!

Doug:
You mean you find this announcement as exciting as all of the other projects that NASA has been doing since the 1960s?

David:
Yes, absolutely, but with the added urgency that has been supplanted by the glacial movement of projects brought about by the bureaucratization of NASA. The letter illustrates a new (or return to the old) mission of boldly moving forward. The moves they are contemplating advances their timeline for these projects by decades.

Doug:
Mixing politics and science is a bad move---for science. I'm tempted to support this move by Trump, because any support of science is, you know, a support of science. Maybe the Trump Administration is finally taking science seriously and supporting it? Let's take a look at your linked article: "NASA, heeding Trump, may add astronauts to a test flight moon mission." The new "excitement" is based on Trump wanting to get a human into space during his tenure:
“What I hear being discussed is the potential for sometime within the first Trump term being able to go and do an Apollo 8 mission" -- meaning a lunar orbit mission like the one performed by Apollo 8 in December 1968.
“This would be another precursor to ultimately landing. And I think sometime within a second Trump term, you could think about putting a landing vehicle on the moon,” Walker said.
 Ah, yes: scheduling the missions according to the 4-year presidential elections cycle. That makes complete sense. This didn't work when George W. Bush proposed a wild, exciting space program. It looked like what it was: a distraction. Walker (Trump's advisor) admits this.

David:
Yet the letter from NASA's acting director doesn't mention Trump as the impetus for his strategic plan. And while this article does mention Trump, it's really Congress who holds the purse strings for NASA's success.

Doug:
This is perhaps the best point that you have ever made: Trump cannot do any of his plans without the funding of Congress. Change Congress and you block the purse strings.

David:
This letter however, making promises for bold steps and a speedier timeline is what will entice Congress to fund these efforts. Trump can excite the public, and voters can then press their Congressmen, but ultimately, Congress needs to see it as a worthwhile expenditure.

Doug:
Egads, no! There is no way that the Republican-led congress will understand space exploration in terms of science. "Worthwhile expenditure" translates into: "what is in it for me?" That can only mean boondoggles for companies in their states, or re-election commercials.

David:
You're doing it again. You're making this into a partisan issue when it isn't. But since you've brought it up, let me remind you that it was Democrats that pulled the funding and ended the Apollo Program in 1975, and Democrats who have controlled Congress for 32 of the past 50 years. Democrats are the ones who have not provided funding for NASA and all of the science that goes with it. Yet now you claim they are the party of science, and it's greedy, stupid Republicans that are withholding the cash. Sometimes your partisanship is rediculous.

NASA has been wrapped up in politics since it's basic inception. Where would NASA be today without JFK's May 25, 1961 Speech before a Joint Session of Congress? That speech set in motion a frenetic space race through the 1960s that captured the imagination of Americans, Russians, and the rest of the world.

Doug:
Where would NASA be without politics? Probably in a much better position. They have been doing good science since 1968, but their budget ebbs and flows with political whim.

David:
Without politics, NASA would have no money, and therefore, would not exist. Why does it not surprise me that you feel a government agency, completely funded by taxpayer dollars, should not be supervised in any way by officials duly elected by the taxpayers. Oh, if only executive branch agencies could just be left alone to do whatever they want, and spend as much as they want, without Congress always badgering them or restricting them....

Doug:
Science directed by the hands of politicians is not science. And could be dangerous.

David:
Glad to hear you say that, as most climate science is government funded, both here at home and at the United Nations. It doesn't get any more politician-directed than that.

Doug:
The Republican Administration's "Sexy Space Projects" is dangerous for two reasons. First, this can be dangerous to the lives of the astronauts. But also, the politicalization of science hurts science. Ask Gore about how well his involvement in science has gone. Perhaps one can dismiss climate change, but that doesn't mean one should dismiss all of climate science. We need good, honest science done on all topics. Space science, like all science, shouldn't be a political football.

David:
But space science is funded by taxpayers. It needs to be timely to have an impact on the psyche of the public. If you set a goal, but then schedule the fulfillment of that goal to be decades away, you lose the public's interest. From a purely scientific model, that is fine. Sometimes science moves slowly. But to inspire (and to ensure funding) you need to have results that people can see.

Doug:
No! That is not how science should be treated. Science is not there for your entertainment. Science is not a TV show (even though I love "Mythbusters").

David:
But NASA is a government agency. It is funded and supervised by the government. It's goals and projects need to meet criteria that should be funded by taxpayers. This is not the same for all science. You need to separate the different sciences in this debate. Space exploration has always been too expensive for private funding, but that is changing.

Space travel is dangerous. As we've seen, more astronauts have died during the over-cautious period of the shuttles, than died during the exciting drive of the Mercury / Gemini / Apollo time frame.

Doug:
Wait... what lessons have you learned watching scientists and engineers develop space travel? Over-cautiousness kills?!

David:
Being overly cautious without improving your results kills your funding. Sometimes being overly cautious just slows everything down for no benefit (although that is the bureaucratic way). NASA (or Space-X) should not be haphazard and needlessly risky, but they need to make progress.

Doug:
A modest proposal: we need to sell the Republican Administration on the idea of sexy, exciting, bold projects that highlight other sciences. Perhaps we can turn supporting science into a reality-based TV show hosted by that bold President Trump? You know, that bold visionary that isn't afraid to risk human life, and isn't afraid to say that science takes money. Lots of money. Your tax dollars. It is tempting to support this...

David:
Perhaps you don't realize that NASA stands for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. They do space stuff. It's not their job to highlight other sciences. And it isn't the job of the Federal Government to highlight other sciences. That's the job of scientists.

Doug:
You missed my point. We need to make other sciences as sexy as NASA in order for the Republicans to think that they are worth the money. But you make a good point: why is Trump involved at all in highlighting this science?

David:
Again? How are we supposed to keep science from being politicized, when you keep politicizing it? And, I note that science took some great strides when Democrats had control of all of Congress and the White House during the first two Obama years. Or in the decades since Apollo 11.

Doug:
Sometimes Kellyanne Conway injects a non-sequitur to distract. Why would you even bring up Democrats science record from more than 6 years ago? But if you do want to talk about the accomplishments of US scientists during 2009-2011, I'd be glad to. But we're talking about Trump's use of NASA right now and how much money it will cost.

David:
Except that you've introduced criticisms of Republicans multiple times already during this blog like they are the sole obstruction to science in this country. Republicans should do this, Republican's are dangerous, Republicans have politicized science. And yet Democrats have exactly the same record of politicization and manipulation of NASA.

Doug:
Focus, Kellyanne! We are talking about exactly one thing: funding a NASA project based on Trump's campaign cycle. It isn't that complicated. Republicans are in control and they must own their decisions. They have to take responsibility for the dangers and the costs. And saying that "Democrats did it too!" is not even true. Obama never proposed a Sexy Space Program based on his election cycle.

David:
You're ranting all over the place about Republicans, and then tell me to stay focused on NASA. You're like a little puppy with a Trump tennis ball. We're not talking about campaign cycles. We're talking about NASA making some bold moves that should create great interest in space science, aeronautics, and astronomy.

But you're right, it will take a lot of money. Which brings us to more excitement in the world of space exploration: Space-X. The privately-funded program is also making great strides, and the partnership between NASA and Space-X could bring about more innovation in a much timelier fashion than if left solely to the folks at NASA. The funding is more secure.




Doug:
I am skeptical as to whether a joint NASA/commercial partnership will work. But if it fails, we'll still have NASA to pick up the pieces and continue with the science that they do even when they aren't in the political spotlight.

David:
Announcing a manned-Mars mission, and being able to complete a manned-Mars within a decade or two (rather than 50 or 60 years) would certainly keep the general public's imagination stoked, as well as the imagination of millions of children. If you really want kids to become interested in science, it helps to provide them with big, inspirational goals that can be accomplished while they're still kids. Putting astronauts back into space, both on the Moon  and Mars, would be a great way to accomplish this. And, it would likely generate large amounts of new science and products all along the way, just as NASA did in it's early years. I think we're looking at the dawn of a new breakout period of space science, at a faster pace than we've seen for awhile. That's good news in many ways, for lots of science, and for many kids around the globe.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!