From the NY Times of 26 Apr 2006:
Quote:
NASA Chief Says Future Flights Will Force Cutbacks in Science
The ability to send humans into space after retiring the space shuttle is such a high priority for NASA that some space science must be sacrificed to help pay for it, the agency's administrator, Michael D. Griffin, said Tuesday.
The gap between retiring the shuttle in 2010 and flying a new manned vehicle by four years after that must be narrowed to prevent long-term damage to the space program and national security, Dr. Griffin said before the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Science and Space.
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas and chairwoman of the subcommittee, and Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, the ranking Democrat, repeated their concerns that the United States could sacrifice its leadership in space if it were to lose its ability to transport humans while other nations continued to do so.
|
The United States had long since lost leadership in unmanned launching, in part, because politics rather than science created the Space Shuttle. Most all productive science is in unmanned space operations. World leader in launching is the French - Arlene series. Russians also provide in increasing share of reliable launching. The US has recovered some business with a Boeing launch system from a ship in the Pacific. But American space budget is politically driven by 'man in space' mostly for political pride rather than for science and the advancement of mankind.
As noted in other threads, ISS does no science. That $8billion project - that has now cost more than $80billion - does no science AND requires constant maintenance by humans using a fleet of manned transport systems.
NASA has a severe problem. No manned launch vehicles for four years to keep ISS in orbit. Again, Russia will provide the only reliable, necessary, and useful solution: Soyuz spacecraft. An Apollo like craft that does manned transport more reliably, at less cost, with many useful features the Space Shuttle cannot provide such as an emergency escape system for the ISS.
NASA budget is mostly spent on a manned space program that do near zero science. Virtually all science occurs in a minor part of NASA's budget - that now may be cut further for 'less productive, higher cost, and politically hyped' operations. These same operations somehow distorted into national security.
Quote:
|
The Bush administration has requested $16.8 billion for NASA's 2007 budget, including $5.3 billion for space science. But the science budget would stay about even for the next four years, reducing financing for science by $3 billion so the money could go to human spaceflight.
|
Posted previously are numerous basic earth science research and weather forecasting programs that will be canceled:
Perverting science for politics
Is this because George Jr's administration fears realities of global warming? Or only because his legacy justifies a man on Mars? Either way, advancement of mankind is not his agenda. Even Mars Rovers had difficulty getting additional financing when the Rovers performed long beyond what was expected. Mars Rovers do science - without presidential glory. Man on Mars is for the greater glory of a president - who desperately craves a legacy like Kennedy. Does he fear we will instead remember that George Jr condemned Hubble Space Telescope - the most successful science project in NASA's history. We should.