Posted on 01/16/2006 9:53:39 AM PST by Paul Ross
Aviation Week & Space Technology
Griffin Tells Astronomers To Lower Expectations
By Frank Morring, Jr.
01/14/2006
LOOKING TO THE STARS
Astronomers in the U.S. can still look forward to a human servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope next year, and perhaps to big observatories on the far side of the Moon some day.
But for the most part, the funding outlook at NASA for space science is tight as the agency shifts its focus to sending humans back to the Moon, meaning near-term priorities like searching for Earth-like planets around other stars will slip, and it will take longer to begin answering new questions like "What is dark energy?"
"NASA simply cannot accomplish everything that was on our plate when I took office last April," Administrator Michael Griffin told the American Astronomical Society (AAS). "In space-based astronomy, as in other areas, we will have to make tough trade-offs between maintaining current missions--of which there are 14 ongoing--and developing new capabilities."
Griffin drew applause when he reminded his audience that he reversed a decision by his predecessor not to send another space shuttle mission to service the Hubble telescope, which continues to produce important new discoveries.
But he cautioned that the final Hubble servicing mission, tentatively scheduled before the end of next year, will be launched only "if at all possible." And he said bluntly that there is no way from an engineering standpoint to mount a robotic servicing mission, as former Administrator Sean O'Keefe opted to do, that could do more than deorbit the telescope safely before it is expected to become uncontrollable.
The fate of the Hubble--and a lot of NASA's other programs--will depend on White House funding decisions due for public release with the Fiscal 2007 budget next month. Griffin conceded, "I do not know in all its details what it will contain," which suggests a debate is still underway within the Bush Administration on how to cover a shortfall of at least $3 billion in the shuttle program (AW&ST Nov. 7, 2005, p. 40).
"By any measure, one would have to say that the growth of science in NASA has been in the 5-7% range, annualized, over the last decade or so, and that's all been great," Griffin said. "We're in a budget environment now where that level of growth can't be maintained, although science at NASA will still have growth."
SOME OF THAT GROWTH will be absorbed by the James Webb Space Telescope, the top space mission in the U.S. National Academies' decadal list of astronomy priorities. Terming the $1.5-billion shortfall in available funding for the mission "under-costing" rather than an overrun, Griffin said his agency has a better handle on the cost of the deep-space infrared observatory. Launch of the Webb telescope has been slipped from 2011 to 2013 to cover the extra cost without hampering its ability to peer back to the earliest galaxies in the Universe, and penetrate closer dust clouds to watch star formation within.
Under questioning from AAS President-elect J. Craig Wheeler of the University of Texas, who collected queries from members, Griffin said the problems with the Webb observatory will force a delay in starting the Space Interferometry Mission (SIM) and its successor, the Terrestrial Planet Finder, both National Academies priorities designed to find Earth-like extrasolar planets.
Griffin noted that President Bush's human-exploration directive has raised concerns in all of the communities of scientists who use NASA systems in their work, and vowed to do what he could to keep the disruption to a minimum.
"Our cost estimates for returning astronauts to the Moon are conservatively structured to achieve our goals within budget," he said. "Also, while we certainly are not claiming cost savings that have not been proven, we very much intend to find ways to reduce the cost of the exploration program through improved technology, commercial involvement and international partnerships."
And in the long term, he said under Wheeler's questioning, astronomers may some day find the Moon a better place to conduct their business than Earth orbit or the L-2 Sun-Earth Lagrangian point where the Webb observatory is bound. The Moon's far side offers a much quieter environment for radio telescopes, and many types of sensors could be laid out in arrays on the Moon for higher-resolution imaging than is possible on Earth.
"I would argue strongly with those who assert that human spaceflight is inimical to science," he said. "Our scientific initiatives go hand in hand with our extended reach into the Solar System. It is not our desire to sacrifice present-day scientific efforts for the sake of future benefits to be derived from exploration.
"A stable platform like the Moon offers advantages in the engineering aspects of astronomy that are hard to obtain in space."
His views on using the Moon as an observatory notwithstanding, Griffin ducked a question from Wheeler on whether it would be worthwhile for U.S. astronomers, working through the National Academies, to reconsider their priorities in light of the new possibilities raised by the exploration initiative, or by recent discoveries.
"I think the astronomy community has to decide for itself whether the priorities have changed enough to warrant doing a decadal survey in an off year," Griffin said.
One thing pushing astronomers to change their priorities is the discovery of a mysterious force driving the expansion of the Universe at a rate that appears greater than can be explained by what is visible to telescopes like the Hubble and the most advanced ground-based instruments. The force, dubbed dark energy, was confirmed after the astronomy priorities for this decade were set. A National Academies panel created for the job stopped short of recommending that new priorities be drafted.
INSTEAD, THE PANEL called for "balanced" planning of future astronomy missions, with a greater role for the U.S. Energy Dept. and greater use of Explorer-class space missions. And it cautioned that slips in programs growing out of the exploration initiative could "adversely affect NASA's ability to generate the kind of transformative science that is the hallmark of the past decades."
NASA is already working with the Energy Dept. to draw up a Joint Dark Energy Mission, for which concepts are due in March. Among them is the SuperNova/Acceleration Probe (Snap), a two-meter space telescope (see artist's concept) that would continue detailed measurements of the Type Ia supernovae that provided evidence the Universe is expanding more rapidly than thought.
But with the science budget already squeezed, and the possibility of more budget cuts in the offing, it is unlikely that new starts like Snap will be funded, regardless of the science they produce. Indeed, senior astronomers like Wheeler, are worried they won't be able to fund graduate students today who will be called on in the future to make sense of dark energy and other new questions.
"We're all holding our breath, waiting to see what the budget's going to be," Wheeler said. "The budget for NASA is probably not going up. The budget for the science division is almost certainly not going up. The question is whether it will go down."
> Feel free to open up your personal resourses to make your dream come true.
I do. They're called "taxes."
> There isn't any private space industry, lunar colonies, manned mars station, because there isn't any benefit to it.
Uh-huh. And how much money did the US governemtn spend on Alaska and the Louisiana Purchase? How much money does a young couple spend on a baby?
Short-sighted luddism does not become a conservative. Leave that for the DUmmies.
> Unfortunately, we can't do that to the NASA managers, so they persist like all governmental agencies sucking their share of the lifeblood out of the ecomonomy
An impressive display of ignorance. NASA is the one agency that more than pays for itself. You want to do away with NASA? Fine. Watch your taxes grow and your military and technological base fall behind.
I do. They're called "taxes."
The profound economic ignorance demonstrated by this statement simply leaves me speechless except to say taxes aren't your personal resources.
Uh-huh. And how much money did the US governemtn spend on Alaska and the Louisiana Purchase? How much money does a young couple spend on a baby?
Total non-sequitors. Alaska and the Louisiana purchase had demonstrable value at the time. At the time New Orleans wasn't a rat hole of welfare parasites. Space has nothing but radiation, rocks, ice, gas, and most of all vast distances and "astronomical" transportation costs.
Are you seriously comparing spending money on a baby to having your money robbed at gunpoint to fuel someone else's fantasy in space? Totally irrelevant I suggest you attend dragoncon. It's a lot cheaper and most of them realize that it's fantasy.
And don't get me started on all fo the so-called innovations at NASA. NASA innovates just like any other government agency the maximum cost for the minimum result. Unless you think that really large rocket engines are a real boon to our society which you probably do
> Alaska and the Louisiana purchase had demonstrable value at the time.
And so does space exploration.
> Space has nothing but radiation, rocks, ice, gas, and most of all vast distances and "astronomical" transportation costs.
Yes. The Universe, in other words. You ignore it at your, and your childrens, peril.
> Are you seriously comparing spending money on a baby to having your money robbed at gunpoint to fuel someone else's fantasy in space?
No. I'm comparing the costs and potentials of a baby with the costs and potentials of exploring the universe.
> Unless you think that really large rocket engines are a real boon to our society which you probably do
Wow. How do you manage to get through a day with that astonishing level of ignorance?
I'm just going to sit back and gloat, knowing that those who oppose manned space exploration are at the lowest level of understanding of just what's going on in the world.
Sorry to be a heretic to your religion, but the fact is that space exploration is a waste of money. Something that I don't have a problem with as long as it's the space heads' money that is being wasted. But Like all good socialists, space heads think that their own pipe dreams are so important that the ignorant masses (ie those who don't think the way that they do) should be forced to support their space fantasies.
You really should try dragoncon there are a lot of people there who think like you do. You would probably like it.
> the fact is that space exploration is a waste of money.
Let us know when you want to debate honestly.
LOL Now anyone who disagrees with you is dishonest. You don't want debate; you want agreement. Waste your own money on NASA. Hell, you probably believe NASA's press releases about how great they are. How many tries did it take for them to get a couple of rovers on Mars two rovers for 5 tries or something like that wasn't it? And now we know that Mars is made of rocks and dirt. (but really exciting rocks and dirt)
> Now anyone who disagrees with you is dishonest.
No. thosewho say dishonest things, like "the fact is that space exploration is a waste of money," are dishonest.
> How many tries did it take for them to get a couple of rovers on Mars two rovers for 5 tries or something like that wasn't it?
WRONG. Three rovers launched, three rovers landed, three rovers successful.
If you can't even be trusted to deal with simple, basic facts like this, any other opinion you express on the value of space exploration is in serious doubt.
The Space Elevator has the largest potential for expanding human civilization. In fact, it is the first real step in that direction while silly trips to the moon and back to gather pretty rocks and take pretty pictures is mostly pointless. Until we conquer our gravity well and can practically and economically lift the necessary heavy equipment and materials into space, human civilization will not expand even to our moon. Construct the Space Elevator and you open up the entire it solar system to the first nation with the vision to construct it. No one will ever catch up to that nation in terms of exploiting space.
Then we can get to the good stuff like constructing a Dyson sphere or ring.
And if China is the first to construct a space elevator (see my previous post), we're in big trouble.
The first people to construct a space elevator will be the first people to establish a stable base at the lunar pole.
> The Space Elevator has the largest potential for expanding human civilization.
The SE is a *tool*. It is not a goal.
> silly trips to the moon and back to gather pretty rocks and take pretty pictures is mostly pointless.
True. That's why nobody is seriously discussing "silly trips to the moon and back to gather pretty rocks and take pretty pictures is mostly pointless." Those who are not completely ignorant are discussing the moon as a source of vast income, specifically in the energy market, and secondarily tourism and eventual colonization.
> Then we can get to the good stuff like constructing a Dyson sphere or ring.
Not for several thousand years, probably, if then. Ringworlds are beyond any known or even conceived structural material (tensile strengths *millions* of time stronger than nanotubes needed), and of course the "Dyson Sphere" is not what Dyson described (and not is it feasible).
But it would be about a million times cheaper to get the anorthosite into space where we want it if we mined it and luanched it from the moon to orbiting construction stations.
> The first people to construct a space elevator will be the first people to establish a stable base at the lunar pole.
The first people to construct a space elevator will be the first people to discover true vulnerability to hostile fire.
I'm aware of the timeframe involved with even starting a Dyson Sphere. However, it is a direction into which we may want to take a step.
> I'm aware of the timeframe involved with even starting a Dyson Sphere.
A Dyson Cloud (a more accurate description than "Sphere," as "Sphere" implies a solid shell) can be begun right now, with a lunar metals infrastructure. O'Neill colonies are the first step.
Wrong. Not counting the early failures the more recent ones are:
1 Polar lander failed
2 climate observer failed (orbit only)
3 observer failed (orbit only)
So one lander and two orbiters failed in the last six NASA missions to Mars Ie those to mars since 92. I didn't notice the taxpayers getting any of their mony back. Now at a cost of about $300,000,000 each not counting the infrastructure burden I'd say those "purty pitchers" of Martian rocks and dirt came at quite a cost
>>WRONG. Three rovers launched, three rovers landed, three rovers successful
>Wrong. Not counting the early failures the more recent ones are:
1 Polar lander failed
2 climate observer failed (orbit only)
3 observer failed (orbit only)
You continue your long trend of dishonesty. You original inaccurate line was: "How many tries did it take for them to get a couple of rovers on Mars two rovers for 5 tries or something like that wasn't it?"
None of the three failures you mentioend were rover missions. The rovers we've launched have *all* worked.
And if you're going to persist in calling me a liar, then you won't object to my calling you a liberal douche bag who wants to spend other people's money on something that he just "knows" is good for the collective.
Yes, the cloud is a better description. O'Neill colonies are a step along the way as is the exploitation of the resources of the moon and captured asteroids. But, in order to accomplish this we need the right tool - a space elevator. A worthy goal is the construction of that tool.
Hubble is old tech and hardly worth the trouble. Instead of trying to keep the Space Shuttle, the ISS, and the Hubble flying another year, another decade, we should accept the situation and move on. New hardware is already in procurement and is far more capable than this junk. Any funds dropped on these white elephants merely slows development of the new generation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.