Some years ago, when I started to cover the increasing space activity at my neighbors' place "up the road" part of my reasoning was that I was just plain tired of day-to-day politics and the same old sh.. stuff taking up so much column space. To reuse my very highly re-used Shakespeare line, “it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, yet signifying nothing.” Dropping all but the occasional references to pending laws and other day to day politics made working here more bearable.
Now we find ourselves in the position that those day to day politics stories are grabbing space headlines.
The first big example story today traces back to NASA's budget proposals that
were revealed last week (second story here). The budget news was that while the overall department budget was cut
by 20 percent, or $5 billion from an overall total of about $25 billion.
What people were upset about is that the cuts seem to be centered on the
agency's Science Mission Directorate, which oversees all planetary science,
Earth science, astrophysics research, and more. A 66% cut to
astrophysics; a bigger cut than that to heliophysics; a greater than 50
percent cut to Earth science; and a 30 percent cut to Planetary science.
The second big story traces back to the questions about keeping the SLS, and all of the Artemis program questions. In particular, Lunar Gateway. The Lunar Gateway is a very complex subject partly because it has been changed so many times that it's probably (my idea) too late and too over budget to save. That combination of words might well apply to the entire Artemis program.
A realistic way of looking at the budget issues is the way most people think and talk about budget cutting is "they can cut anything they want except my favorite programs." No, we all need to cut something we'd rather not cut. I crossed that bridge mentally before the last shuttle flight in 2011. When the bosses want to cut some total number of dollars out of the budget, their tendency is to cut the smallest number of big dollar programs. The talk last Friday was about cutting the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope. Today, Eric Berger at Ars Technica switches to talking about the money spent on the James Webb Space Telescope.
The JWST cost $10 billion, spread over many years, not just a few.
However, it is difficult to put a price on advancing our species' understanding of the natural world and the wide Universe we're swimming in. And Webb is doing an amazing job of that.
In 2009, NASA launched the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer, or WISE, mission to make infrared observations. This was the latest in a line of space-based infrared observatories, and it cost about 3 percent as much as the Webb telescope. [BOLD added - SiG]
To compare the 2009 WISE with the JWST, take a look at this photo of a planetary nebula called NGC 1514 (NGC is the New General Catalog, one of a few standard international catalogs of deep space objects):
Two infrared views of NGC 1514. At left is an observation from NASA’s
Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE). Credit: NASA, ESA, CSA, STScI,
NASA-JPL, Caltech, UCLA, Michael Ressler (NASA-JPL), Dave Jones (IAC)
The Webb image is absolutely more usable than the Wise image. Berger completes this by saying:
Today's photo concerns the planetary nebula NGC 1514. In 2010, using the WISE telescope, NASA project scientist Mike Ressler discovered "rings" around the planetary nebula. Now, thanks to Webb, the rings—which are likely composed of small dust grains, heated by ultraviolet light from a white dwarf star—can be seen clearly. And, oh my, they're spectacular.
The clarity in the Webb photo, compared to what came before, is remarkable. So, is seeing the Universe in a new light worth $10 billion?
Part of the reason NASA is in a budget crisis now is because of bad decisions made in the last 20 years - like the Lunar Gateway - and the proverbial "chickens coming home to roost." Seems to me some neat missions are going to have to be dropped. We can hope the leadership won't be totally stupid, I'm just not sure I see reasons to believe that can happen.
Thing about the Lunar Gateway is that it isn't needed in lunar orbit, especially if we go with HLS from Earth orbit to the Moon and back. But it could be part of a station in lunar orbit, or Earth orbit or it could be sold to a private company at a loss and never darken NASA's halls again.
ReplyDeleteThat's the thing about a lot of the current NASA manned programs. They need to be looked at for actual viability (would you really want to ride in an Orion capsule that has a heat shield with issues but NASA says it's 'good enough'?) Same with SLS, is it viable in the long run and is it safe? (no, not viable, safety is still in question.)
I'm not saying cut research, because that's what NASA should be doing. Spending money on research. Not on boondoggles from the 70's, which if you scratch SLS that is exactly what you find, updated 60's tech brought into the 70's and then made 'new' by using new layers of paint...
Yes, there will be some 'good' programs cut. Just like there were good and great programs cut in the bloodbath of the early 70s. We're still trying to recover from that mess.
If NASA is bereft of ideas, they could gussy up a Starship with the tools to make a one-way mission to Europa and explore the hell out of it, helping SpaceX get the Starship system functional and reliable along the way. And maybe throw in a couple of Optimas robots to play a game of golf.
ReplyDeleteI've said it, and said it, and said it ad nauseum:
ReplyDeleteSLS. MUST. DIE.
And, you can quote me.
The type of bureaucracy that produced SLS must die.
DeleteJust one of the many elements of what nasa has become that need flushing, sad to say,
DeleteI'm old enough to remember when NASA was truly great and not DIE ideologically locked... err DEI? ==...
The part about cutting the budget that nobody else is saying is that they're cutting the wrong part of NASA. Keep the science budget and cut the manned spaceflight out. Maybe just keep that only for helping train the private sector folks - like Isaacman and the two SpaceX engineers who flew with him on Polaris dawn, not to mention the Axiom crews.
ReplyDeleteThe good news is that this might be the "Washington Monument Strategy" wherein the bureaucracy threatens that important programs will cut first - which implies that they at least *know* what is actually important.
DeleteThe Wise, Webb and Roman telescopes are duplicative. Wise and Roman are wide field, they take panoramic pictures, they are not designed to zoom in. The $10 billion Webb telescope is designed to zoom in. For $10 billion, the United States could have bought 100 SpaceX launches; payloads for those launches is up to you and cost extra. The US bought the Webb telescope and you got some pretty pictures. Magic mushrooms can give you pretty pictures and cost $15 a gram.
ReplyDeleteIt was proven 100 years ago why central planning and tax funding is not a good way to do things. There is no exception in libertarian theory for roads, armies, police, courts, orbital telescopes, or planetary exploration. Ending government funding for your favorite program is a good thing, it means the bureaucracy which never wants change is no longer holding it back.
ReplyDeleteI agree, mostly. I would zero NASA and most government agencies. I would prefer straight roads so I would allow for eminent domain purchase of land. And I would fund a military command and control function, but let the states deal with militias for manpower. I would keep federal command and control of nuclear assets.
DeleteNASA has always been a jobs program for the South, Centers are scattered hither and yon to maximize the number of Congressional districts getting those sweet tech dollars. Why is the Manned Spaceflight Center in Houston? That was LBJ's price for getting his support.
ReplyDeleteManned spaceflight has moved to the private side, time for NASA to let it go and focus on exploration. Having reliable heavy lift from Starship can help cut NASA's costs in a number of ways: first, they don't have to engineer every gram possible out of the vehicle. Second, more weight allows redundant components. Third, having a reliable schedule means you can build a probe on a reasonable schedule then launch it, no more storing it in cleanroom conditions for years waiting for a launch vehicle.
Lunar Gateway is hopelessly too complex when paired with the SLS. Now, as a stand-alone paired with Starship (if it can be refueled in orbit)? Maybe.
ReplyDeleteThe one predictable thing about NASA since the mid-1970s, is that they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure that, inside a darkened room, there sits a full-on retard, in the Big Chair, running the whole sh*tshow like a latter-day Ernst Stavro Blofeld.
Nothing else explains NASA for the last 50 years so handily.