Posted on 03/14/2006 6:12:18 PM PST by NormsRevenge
HOUSTON, Texas - It was billed as an official NASA Headquarters briefing to space scientists—but turned into a powder-keg of emotion.
Frustrated researchers are demanding explanation as to projected NASA budget cuts, mission deferrals, and space agency decision-making that could derail solar system exploration plans.
The collision between scientists and top NASA officials took place March 13, here at the 37th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (LPSC), which began Monday and runs throughout the week.
Surgery, so to speak
On the hot seat was NASA Associate Administrator for Science, Mary Cleave. She advised a standing-room-only crowd of scientists that the NASA fiscal year budget for 2007 has been impacted by "budget liens in the shuttle program. And those liens needed to be covered."
Cleave said that there was no money left in aeronautics. "So we were the only ones left, so to speak." She emphasized that the pace of growth in space science has been reduced to cover the shuttle program.
"We're still going to grow compared to a lot of other agencies in the discretionary budget. We are extremely fortunate to still be growing," Cleave explained. "We're trying to build an executable program," she added, one that be accomplished on a schedule and given tight budget dollars. "We're going to have to do some surgery, so to speak."
Doing with less
Andrew Dantzler, director of NASA's solar system division in Washington, D.C., spotlighted the $1.8 billion budget number for solar system exploration in the newly issued space agency budget. That's a lot of money, he said, but he did note that past budget projections suggested a higher number.
"The fact is, it's sort of like stocks. At some point it doesn't triple every time," Dantzler said. "We had projected growth in the past. But this is more of a correction to that 45-degree-angle growth, if you will. It's a lot of money. If we use it correctly, if we use it smartly, we can do an awful lot."
Dantzler said that space scientists have been very successful in the past "with this amount, and less."
NASA: a 'science vacuum'
The response from space scientists attending the annual NASA briefing at LPSC was highly-charged. Several researchers characterized the budget reductions as the most serious threat to the space science community in a generation.
A concern—given that the NASA cuts are maintained—was the impact on the ability of researchers to "reduce" the science data gleaned from space missions, a process of sorting through data that's tagged as research and analysis. Other scientists told the NASA officials that the budget hits translate into letting go university talent—graduate and post-doctoral students.
One scientist characterized the NASA officials as sitting around a conference table at the top floor of NASA Headquarters in a "science vacuum," a comment that sparked applause from the audience.
"I don't understand why you're so angry," Cleave responded. "We come to work every day and we work hard. We really care about this program," she said.
The fury from the floor of the meeting was not kept within U.S. borders. Scientists from Europe also cautioned that the NASA budget is damaging international cooperation. Several projects, including the now-scuttled Dawn mission to asteroids, involve non-U.S. partners.
Train wrecks
One hot-button topic, for example, is a funding cut for a mission to Europa, a moon of Jupiter, with possible high value in term of exobiology. "The Europa line is gone because we don't have the money to do it now. We didn't say that we're never going to do it. It's just that we don't have it within this budget framework," Cleave responded.
"If you want to do Europa, the money is going to have to come from somewhere," Cleave said.
Cleave said that a new set of advisory subcommittees is being established at NASA. These new groups can help NASA discern what the proper budgetary mix should be, she said. "We may not have gotten this balance right. We're hearing we didn't get it right on R&A [research and analysis]. We will be talking to our science subcommittees," she explained.
Other scientists emphasized that there is no dialog between space researchers and space agency higher-ups to avoid the "train wrecks" apparent within the NASA fiscal year 2007 budget. "Perhaps these new NASA advisory groups may deal with that," William Bottke of the Southwest Research Institute, told SPACE.com.
"We all know they've got budget problems," said Glenn MacPherson, curator at the Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. "But there has been no consultation with the science community. The science cuts hurt everyone in this room."
As the "NASA night" at LPSC closed, one researcher added: "I hope you sense the mood of the audience and reason with us."
"The mood is really very obvious. It's not hard to sense," Cleave said. "We all really care about this program. We all work as hard as we can to maintain it. We really do."
NASA should be doing space exploration and space systems development. Science belongs somewhere else.
He specifically cited "data reduction."
Data reduction is when you pay someone to do data mining on the results of a very expensive expirament, so that the conclusions are obvious to the casual observer.
And yes, grad students do this for dirt, and we like it.
But I will strangle the next dang PhD who wines, "the millions are wasted, I have no one to reduce the data."
My typical response is, "You have a computer, a PhD - Why am I paying you?"
Yea. So you and I agree. I want moons, planets and fringes of the solar system....we've been given military payloads, a "multi-national" station and curators whining about jobs....
Personally, I think NASA should be spending the limited money on more solid science. Mechanics, many of the scientists would say.
Dump the Shuttle as soon as possible, and use far cheaper expendable rockets to build out the ISS to a useable, sustainable level. Then, on to the Moon base.
The Solar System exploration stuff is great, but do we really need to know what is in the soup of Europa this year? Come on, we still have to launch the space craft to get there from the most expensive, least efficient place possible, Earth Surface!!!
That's true. PhD students are chosen by their advisor to continue the research of the advisor. A PhD dissertation usually consists of only one specific contribution to the advisor's field. It is only through this process that the advisor can sign off on the dissertation as truly being a unique contribution to the field.
Contrary to popular belief, PhD students are not this pool of young fresh minds where a lot of the innovation comes out. LOL! They work on an extension of their advisor's research.
The piggies don't like it when their snouts get yanked out of the public trough.
Not all. I went to my advisor with a project that came out of my work prior to going back to school for the PhD. However, it really surprised my advisor that I had my own topic. He did agree with ith, though, and I carried it through.
Most graduate students don't have any idea for a project, so they're glad to get a project from their advisor.
Well, the military pays for much of the space program, and those other nations that make up the "multi" pay for a lot that NASA can't afford.
We all want the fringes of the solar system, but we haven't even crossed the fence to the moon next door in thirty years. We need to do that before we can visit the planet across the street.
Even a trip to Mars cannot pay the bills in the forseeable future. Only a base on our own moon can return concrete dividends in the next few decades, and even that only at the far end of that time span.
If your advisor is not familiar with the research behind your project, how could he confirm that it is original and a contribution to the field? He must have had some prior knowledge of your project and your project must have been related to his research in some way.
I have been told that it is extremely rare to have any earth shattering contributions in a PhD dissertation, so kudos to you!
"The piggies don't like it when their snouts get yanked out of the public trough"
The oinkers do squeal, don't they.
As for the best and the brightest, let 'em replace the high salaries scientific ignoramuses that are now "teaching" in our public schools.
Political Correctness, and idiot politicians.
That, and the fact that NASA failed to develop a rocket that ran on milk and/or butter.
Probably Foggy Bottom using NASA to fund detente-ish projects, too.
I'll be the last person to try to claim our current situation is exclusively NASA's fault. As you point out, it isn't. There was political gamesmanship involved. That doesn't excuse away NASA's portion of the blame though.
Here we are after spending about $80 billion of the $100 billion cost of what the one-worlder's affectionately call the "INTERNATIONAL" space station, and we don't even have a launch system that can take our people or supplies to it.
Perhaps I'm not the best and the brightest, but it seems to me that if you're going to purchase a vacation home in Mammoth, you might want to consider if you have a way to get the family members there, before you seal the deal.
Am I missing something here, or are they simply wishing I was?
I think that is the biggest problem. Doing basic research is great, but to what end? Science for the sake of science is great if there are wealthy patrons to chuck money at it. But we're talking tax dollars here, and there are other concerns that will hold sway if the argument ( read above ) isn't strong enough to convince people to part with their money.
Evos have taken over NASA.
We’re not exploring space; we’re looking for the “Origins of Life.”
http://origins.jpl.nasa.gov/index1.html
We’re spending billions of dollars to support the leading evolutionist’s pet projects.
“To explore the Universe and search for life.
NASA is a multi-billion dollar feeding frenzy.
I guess some of these boys will have to get a real job.
>Evos have taken over NASA.
Amazing, isn;t it, that scientists tend not to be superstitious about every old thing.
She emphasized that the pace of growth in space science has been reduced to cover the shuttle program....y'know, because 2006 is an election year, and cutting back a big visible project like the STS has an impact on a lot of jobs in various polities...
I know Mary Cleave. :-)
It wasn't earth-shattering, but it was sufficiently new that it qualified as "new knowledge." It was a new mathematical technique for separating a signal from noise. I recognized the need for it when I saw the shortcomings of the techniques in use in my work prior to going back to school. Unfortunately for me, it was soon superseded by even better techniques, so it sort of disappeared.
The moon and Mars seem to be their primary focus now.
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.