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."
> Want government to spend huge gobs of tax money in one of its unconstitutional agencies - not a conservative goal.
Liar. NASA serves to defend the nation, and national defense is Constitutional.
> think that the government and Al Gore created the internet
Liar. *YOU* are the one bringing up Gore. *YOU* are the one ignorign the fact that the Internet *was* invented by and for ARPA.
> Think that the government is what should be doing the research in the US
Liar. There's a definite role for governemtn R&D. But only an extremist zealot liek yourself woudl assume that that means that the role means *all* the research.
> You are a typical leftists
Liar.
> Conservatism is about LIMITED government
Including national defense. Try to remember that when you crawl back into your hole.
> the real difference between liberals and some self-described "conservatives" boils down to little more than the shape and size of their unconstitutional special interests.
Indeed. Many of these so-called "conservatives" want the government to do the unconstitutional... reneg on their requirement to defend the nation. Sad, sad little half-men.
I see you're following the democrat way. Trying to shout down the opposition. Calling me a liar. Well be happy, I'm done wasting my time on a statist douche bag like you. We'll conclude leaving it that you want to plunder your fellow citizens for some puerile space flight dream that you and your fellow space heads could never afford on your own. If space is so valuable then form your own company to explore it. You won't a because no one with a grain of sense would invest a penny in such a total waste of money and b you're too much of a loser to form anything. All you space heads, ecofreaks, etc. are about the same - wild dreams but want somone else to pay for them. You remind me of the New Orleans losers that we're still paying for hotel room for - on the internet looking for - not jobs but more ways to get more government hand outs. You and your ilk are the reason that government spends over half of the GDP today. You disgust me.
> Trying to shout down the opposition. Calling me a liar.
If you don;t like being called a liar... then perhaps you should not intentionally and wildly mischaracterize the other guys position.
>statist douche bag like you.
Case in point.
> plunder your fellow citizens for some puerile space flight dream
And another.
> no one with a grain of sense would invest a penny in such a total waste of money
And another (as Musk, Bezos, Branson, Allen, et al ably demonstrate)
> you're too much of a loser to form anything.
Another case in point. Pssst: how many winning corporations have *you* formed?
> You and your ilk are the reason that government spends over half of the GDP today.
And another.
>You disgust me.
*Imagine* my concern. A luddite who can't be bothered to do two seconds research or even tell the truth is disgusted by me. Probably disgusted by the fact that my stocks in private space companies are outperforming all my others...
I'm laughing all the way to the bank, chump.
I wasn't even going to bother repying to you, but the answer is: one
LOL. To infinity and beyond.
And it does what?
> LOL. To infinity and beyond.
You mock. But try to imagine US military aviation without the NASA (and NASA predecessor, NACA) research that went into it. Here's a hint: nowhere.
Sells IT services
Ah. So... since basic science research is supposed to be supported by private industry, and not the government, what percentage of your gross income is devoted to R&D? What do you focus on? Quantum computing? Holographic data storage technology? Genetic computing?
What high-risk science does your company do?
How do you propose we hold it?
Since countries like China are carrying on in space exploration, the argument can pretty easily be made that if we (the government) don't continue our own space program, we would be shirking our defense duties.
Even assuming China collapses into the stone age, space-specific research is still a defense priority. Basic science, carried out correctly, *always* has numerous unforseen benefits, most of which have defense applications. It would be criminal to allow the US to stop progressing. Also, the best way to assure that the United States cannot be destroyed is to make the United States unbeatable, and the best way to do that is constant expansion. And the Earth is full, noplace left to conquer.
A civilization either grows or declines. "Static" just doesn't really happen.
Treaty. The Treaty exists and the status quo is firmly in concrete existence. We can wargame what-ifs all day long, but the Treaty is still in effect.
http://spacedev.com/newsite/templates/subpage_article.php?pid=553
SpaceDev Closes $5.2 Million Financing
New and Existing Institutional Investors Fund SpaceDev
POWAY, CA –January 17, 2006--SpaceDev (OTCBB: SPDV) raised gross proceeds of approximately $5.2 million through the sale of convertible preferred stock and warrants to a small syndicate of new and existing institutional investors. The proceeds of this financing will be used to pay certain transaction expenses incurred in connection with SpaceDev’s acquisition of Starsys, to pay the cash consideration to Starsys shareholders, to repay certain outstanding indebtedness of Starsys and to fund the working capital needs of the combined company.
The percent that the companies I buy software and hardware from spend on their R&D. It's called capitalism. I spend my $$$ on the most cost effective products - if they want my money they spend a fraction of what I spend with them on R&D. Those fractions add up from small businesses like mine and fuel products that people actually want. The market place at work.
What high-risk science does your company do?
I'm not in that business, nor is appropriate for everyone to be in that business.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7133144/
Company fine-tunes space module plans
Launch set for early 2006 on Russian-Ukrainian rocket
Space entrepreneur Robert Bigelow has been making quiet inroads into the development of Earth orbiting inflatable modules. The privately built and financed habitable structures would be available for research, manufacturing and other uses, including lodging for future space tourists.
Bigelow Aerospace of North Las Vegas is eyeing launch early next year of Genesis Pathfinder spacecraft — a shakeout of systems to be used on a full-scale inflatable space structure dubbed the Nautilus, and now referred to as the BA-330.
Robert Bigelow, owner of the Budget Suites of America Hotel Chain, among other ventures, is investing his own money in the inflatable space module idea.
OOOOPS!!! There you go again!
>The percent that the companies I buy software and hardware from spend on their R&D.
And many of them benefit from government-funded R&D. Do you make sure to not do business with these companies? Or are you a hypocrit, railing against government R&D while nevertheless grabbing onto the bennies with both hands?
>> What high-risk science does your company do?
>I'm not in that business...
And then who is? Or do you simply see your role as that of the vulture?
> nor is appropriate for everyone to be in that business.
But it is, of course, appropriate for the governemnt to be in that business. It's appropriate Consitutionally, economically and ethically.
Because of the population implosion? How do they figure?
Not relevant. They'd benefit a lot more if they had the use of the money the government charged them for all of the horse crap "research" that it funds.
But it is, of course, appropriate for the governemnt to be in that business.
not really
It's appropriate Consitutionally, economically and ethically.
Another opinion of yours stated like a fact. To a statist there isn't anything that the government does that isn't "appropriate Consitutionally, economically and ethically" I read the constitution just the other day and I couldn't find anything about research (and don't give me that common good crap)
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.