excerpt: But what makes NASA's human-spaceflight programme most unfortunate is that it consumes two-thirds of the agency's budget, and squeezes the scientifically useful things (such as the Mars rovers) that the agency does, and does well. That is likely to get worse with the budget reallocation that Mr Bush is proposing in order to pay for his plans. Last year, the House of Representatives' Committee on Science was warned that "the net impact of people on a spacecraft is to greatly limit its range and capabilities, without adding any value that can begin to compensate". The best estimate is that putting people on a spacecraft multiplies the cost ten-fold. But nobody has taken any notice.
*** A grand but costly vision Jan 15th 2004 >From The Economist print edition Publicly financed space-exploration should be about science not political grandstanding IN THE past week, plans for a manned lunar base, and a subsequent trip to Mars, were leaking from Washington, DC, almost as fast as air from the international space station. Was President George Bush testing the water to see if his bold vision would be a vote winner? If that was the plan, he would not have liked the response even before he announced it formally in a grand speech on January 14th (see article). Despite public delight at the success of the current robotic Mars missions, one of the earliest polls (by AP/Ipsos) on the idea of returning humans to the moon and then advancing to Mars suggested that most Americans think the money would be better spent domestically. As one of those polled so eloquently put it, "You can't have a war, cut taxes, have the economy in a garbage pail and spend billions going into space." The proposals actually turned out to be more modest than the rumours, though they do focus the efforts of NASA, America's space agency, even more heavily on human spaceflight than at present. They involve an "extended human presence" on the moon, in order to use it as a stepping stone for human missions to Mars and to worlds beyond. But even modest proposals in space can be costly. So although the big spending on these ideas is actually scheduled for the never-never-land beyond the possible incumbency of Mr Bush, it is still fair to question now whether they would be wise things to do. On the face of things, it does not appear so. Adding it up, human spaceflight has cost America more than just the lives of astronauts. The Apollo moon programme cost approximately $100 billion in 2002 dollars. The shuttle has cost about $150 billion since its birth in 1971, according to research from the University of Colorado. And the still-unfinished space station has cost $25 billion so far. Nor does anybody really know how much Mr Bush's proposals will end up costing, and the bitter lesson of the past is that it is unwise to believe the figure that is given at the outset. Tripling any such number would be a start. Realistically, a 10-15-year return-to-the-moon programme, if run by NASA in the usual way, would cost tens of billions of dollars. For this cash, Americans will get to watch a handful of people roam not very far on the lunar surface, and they will have the huge satisfaction of knowing they have returned before the Chinese make their first visit. As to the price of Mars and beyond, the sky is, as it were, the limit. Bottling moonbeams Thinking optimistically, it is just possible that all this flimflam is actually a cunning plan to scuttle the shuttle once and for all. NASA has resolutely clung on to this old, dangerous and costly vehicle. Part of Mr Bush's project involves ending the shuttle programme in 2010. Offering the agency the moon tomorrow -- complete with all the flashy new hardware required to get people and materials up there -- in exchange for a shuttle-retirement plan today would be a clever ploy. Plans for running around the moon could then be scaled back by future budget cuts. From the sound of it, though, Mr Bush means what he says, and his plans look like the latest in a long line of "bold visions" proposed to transform NASA. Ironically, it was an obsession with the moon which got NASA into its current mess. The original moon race was, of course, far more about ideology than science. Money was lavished on the moon-shot primarily to prove which system.communist and restricted, or capitalist and free.would prevail. NASA's victory seemed to answer that question. The riches of Apollo, however, are NASA's albatross today. The agency was built, and remains constructed, in a mindset of central planning in which it exists largely to spend lavish billions from government on uncommercial and unjustifiable projects. But bold government visions and expensive white elephants such as the shuttle and manned flights to the moon do little to advance human knowledge. Even many space enthusiasts now warn that only private enterprise will truly drive human expansion into space, and yet America's government keeps ignoring them. What might cause market forces to take up the mission? Tourism and entertainment are both possibilities. It may seem surprising, but there are large numbers of people who would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a trip into space. Two people, so far, have spent $20m, and another two are on their way. Film and television companies would also spend tens of millions if they could. One might laugh at the television concept "Stars in space", but people would watch it. More to the point, though, is that no one's government would be paying for it. My favourite Martian But what makes NASA's human-spaceflight programme most unfortunate is that it consumes two-thirds of the agency's budget, and squeezes the scientifically useful things (such as the Mars rovers) that the agency does, and does well. That is likely to get worse with the budget reallocation that Mr Bush is proposing in order to pay for his plans. Last year, the House of Representatives' Committee on Science was warned that "the net impact of people on a spacecraft is to greatly limit its range and capabilities, without adding any value that can begin to compensate". The best estimate is that putting people on a spacecraft multiplies the cost ten-fold. But nobody has taken any notice. The true space entrepreneurs in America, the people who are building realistic, privately funded spacecraft for tourism, and moon satellites for entertainment, have had no government hand-outs or incentives. They push on regardless. They are the pioneers most worth applauding. As for the fault in all this sorry mess, it lies as much with the blindness of the politicians that have directed NASA over the years as it does with the agency's reluctance to let anything, or anyone, else share its monopoly on space. Ideas and visions are two a penny. Finding the best way to advance knowledge of the vast complexities of outer space.to boldly go where no man has gone before intellectually rather than just physically.is the real challenge. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
