The LA Times (sorry, registration required) has another typically misguided editorial about the space program. Like much of the rest of the media, they remain mired in the Cold-War mentality, and can only conceive of space as being for "exploration" and "science." Accordingly, they continue to promulgate the tired and false dichotomy between man and machine.

Where Americans think NASA should go after the February explosion of the space shuttle Columbia depends on whether they're Star Trek people or robot people. Trekkies say NASA must not shrink from the poetic challenge of human space exploration, that the inspirational pull can't be measured by money. The robot people point out that unmanned craft do much more science for much less money, that there's sufficient inspiration to be had from probes now heading for Mars and Saturn or the James Webb space telescope, to be deployed in 2010...

...Both the space shuttle and the international space station, which account for 40% of NASA's budget, are dubious science. As Robert L. Park, a University of Maryland physics professor, bluntly said of the Columbia mission, "Nothing was being done on that flight that would have any impact on any field of science."

But where is it written that the only reason that we should expend taxpayer dollars on civil space is science? It's always assumed that it's so, but it's long past time to have a national debate on the subject, rather than continuing old and unresolvable arguments on that are based on flawed assumptions.

There is a little glimmer of hope toward the end, however:

Congress, as Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) suggests, should first require NASA to perform a detailed study of the costs and benefits of human space flight. This hard-nosed exercise should not quash the grander vision for space or the unimagined opportunities there. Might NASA find, for example, that entrepreneurs would take over programs it micromanages at a cost of billions?

I'm not sure that any entrepreneur in their right mind would want to do anything that NASA is currently doing, and I'm not sure what they mean by this, but I take heart that, despite their science-centric viewpoint, they're at least willing to use the world "entrepreneur" in a space editorial. It will be interesting to see what the editorial response is when an actual entrepreneur (like Burt Rutan, or XCOR, or Armadillo) actually puts people into space, with no help whatsoever from NASA.

I note an interesting change in the general perception of manned spaceflight in about 1986- 1987, when Challenger exploded. Before that fateful day, the main justification for Shuttle/Station was really space resource exploitation. The early 1970s fad was low cost and/or recoverable Shuttle-specific payload platforms, followed by industrial microgravity facilities in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Plans for solar power satellites and giant GEO "antenna farms" also made the front pages of SPACE WORLD and other magazines in the mid-1970s. All these plans assumed a robust partially or fully reusable space transportation system capable of high launch rates and low transportation cost. There was considerable commercial interest as well (SII "Industrial Space Facility", commercially developed Shuttle upper stages, McDonnell-Douglas' electrophoresis experiments, Spacehab, Fairchild's "Leasecraft" etc. etc..).
---
Since about 1987, NASA has systematically downplayed this aspect of the original justification for STS/ISS. The Shuttle no longer launches commercial or military satellites and mostly carries Shuttle-specific payloads only. The Space Station has also been transformed into a pure science lab (most of the other items on President Reagan's wish-list such as in-orbit servicing of spacecraft at ISS were deleted in 1987). If one looks at NASA's post-ISS interplanetary spaceflight planning since Challenger, one immediately notices how much more conservative the 1989 Space Exploration Initiative [ see http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/Station/Slides/sld049a.htm ] is, versus earlier ideas such as this 1984 plan for a lunar outpost [ http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/Station/Slides/sld036a.htm ]. The agency's lunar exploration plans used to be based on fully reusable low cost "space tugs" capable of supporting large bases of dozens of people. By 1989, those plans had been downscaled to four scientists visiting a tiny lunar outpost every six months... Despite this, the expected total launch cost was 50% higher than ten years earlier.
---
Within the space community, it seems the only real opposition today comes from groups such as the Space Frontier Foundation and other supporters of space tourism and cheap reusable launchers. But most space enthusiasts -- Robert Zubrin is probably the best example -- seem more interested in planetary exploration using existing (expendable) launch vehicle technology. The Mars Society people essentially want to return to the 1960s Apollo mindset. This conflict between "explorers" and "industrialists" is quite interesting. Yes, I know SFF's Tumlinson sees no conflict since NASA is supposed to move to the "far frontier" while private industry runs the "near frontier" space station & launch business. But I think it will be quite hard for SFF & Mars Society enthusiasts to agree on an appropriate strategy for (e.g.) expanding the International Space Station's capabilities to support future space activities.

MARCU$

I think the thought of flat out killing manned space flight, anywhere and everywhere and for all time, is one most people find a little daunting even the people who might be quite happy to see manned space flight killed off for, say, the rest of the century. As a result, the space policy discussion is littered with timid little bleats about "performing world class science" and "encouraging the next generation of explorers" -- essentially meaningless displays of piety toward a great secular religion,coming from people who wish to avoid making -- and taking responsibility for -- choices with large consequences.

Hoping that manned space flight is going to emerge with some blessing from that other 20th century secular religion --cost-benefit analysis-- is obviously more of the same thing.

--mike shupp
(another old-time aeronautical engineer)

I think the thought of flat out killing manned space flight, anywhere and everywhere and for all time, is one most people find a little daunting even the people who might be quite happy to see manned space flight killed off for, say, the rest of the century. As a result, the space policy discussion is littered with timid little bleats about "performing world class science" and "encouraging the next generation of explorers" -- essentially meaningless displays of piety toward a great secular religion,coming from people who wish to avoid making -- and taking responsibility for -- choices with large consequences.

Hoping that manned space flight is going to emerge with some blessing from that other 20th century secular religion --cost-benefit analysis-- is obviously more of the same thing.

--mike shupp
(another old-time aeronautical engineer)

See my blog for commentary on this subject.

Basically, we can get dozens or hundreds of Robot Explorers to do Science for the cost of a single manned mission. Robot exploration has been sadly neglected because of the ISS/STS leeching.

But we need to get off this rock ASAP. So we need manned missions as well, in the long term. That means doing them in the short-term, or Politics means we won't get funding for them ever - and likely not Robotic exploration either.

BTW Marcu$, thanks for the superb site. Any chance you'll be able to tidy up the few loose ends? Even with them, an invaluable resource.