Why can't scientists accept a cut? The universe isn't going anywhere. I would propose **more** science cuts until such time that STS is outof our hair. The reason we are stuck with it is due to lack of funds and hosility on the part of anti-human spaceflight crowd who would love to wreck VSE. I spoke to Professor Wdowiak at UAB about the need for heavier launch vehicles before Spirit and Opp were hardware. Like many, he expressed absolutely no interest in Launch Vehicles--just his payload.

A lot of scientist hated the Soviet Chief Designers--but the wisdom of Korolov and Chelomei prevailed, and we have R-7 and Proton. These were to be man rated craft--and they acted as force drivers and have been used for robotics.

During Dan Goldin's era we had plenty of robotic probes, and a lame X-33 program. I support Mike Griffin, in that he will keep things in house and finally give LV advocates their rightful place within NASA. I am fed up with the academics.

CEV will make jobs, but some may also be lost

Is NASA in Outer Space?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040100022.html
Not After a Surprise Round of Budget Cuts

I just don't see that science per se has ever been in the driver's seat at overall policy at NASA, much less anything affecting human space flight programs, even in the Goldin era (whose pronouncement on one ocasion that it was all about science was just plain funny). Every time I write Senator Shelby to point out that even in Alabama, it's not just about jobs in Huntsvile, I get the form letter about how he's always been in favor of NASA funding for jobs in Huntsville...

The space-science community didn't all that much care whether Saturns were followed by winged Saturns, shuttles, Novas, or magic pixie dust (I recently interviewed Nancy Roman, head of space science for most of NASA's first 20 years, about this). Looking back, they should have - because she said it was pretty obvious at her level that George Mueller was blowing smoke about the economics of the shuttle program, and that was when it was first being pitched to Congress. She could see it, the Soviet analysts could see it and concluded it must have a significant "black" element... But hindsight is 20/20, and everybody was so used to whiz-bang advances looking like whiz-bang advances. I'll confess, I was in tears beside the runway at Edwards the first time Columbia came home, convinced the new day had dawned.

Stil, in the present climate in which Griffin sometimes seems like the Grim Reaper through all of space science - even if all those cuts stick, which would take us a decade or more to make up if we lose a generation of young scientists with no missions to work on - what he's planning looks a lot more like Huntress's description "Apollo on food stamps" than a robust infrastructure. Can serious heavy lift be developed for the R&D pipeline amount that would be freed up? It would at least be nice if SOFIA, SIM, NuSTAR, Constellation-X, and who knows what Europa mission weren't to die in vain.

By the way - as a history question, what scientists didn't care for Korolev and Chelomei's approach? I never read that any were asked, aspecially in advance. There is a lot to be written, some of which has been, on how different launch systems influenced approaches to building payloads, not all good on either side.

is that it seems to be the only orginisation devoted to space exploration
what the world should do is get together and form a space program to better the WHOLE of mankind...
don't leave it up to one country, they may be rich but they wont be for ever!
(please note: this was not ment to sound insulting)

__________________
DragonFire
My new site where i am saving all useful research on a variaty of different subjects
http://www.dragonfire-id.com

This reads as an editorial and not an article. The writer is clearly angry about the science cuts, and particularly Europa.
I see the same theme among many scientists involved... "I think my goal is the most important". They are ALL important. NASA is burdened with having to weigh those not only against the budget, but against each other.
"Given the stakes, and that NASA receives almost $17 billion a year for the specific purpose of exploring the cosmos"
WRONG: There are very few parts of it's original charter that does any kind of differentiation between Aeronautics and space.
According to the "National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, Public Law #85-568"
"not to mention that the agency's own mission statements emphasize the search for extraterrestrial life"
Emphasize? I can't even find mention of it in the above mentioned document.

"In fairness to agency Administrator Michael Griffin, he has been put in the impossible position..."
That's my point.

"But since only six months ago he said that "not one thin dime" would be taken..."
Perhaps he was premature in making that statement before reality set in. Probably one of the big issues with the way NASA is set up. Without making claims (which are usually best case scenerios) they probably won't get the funds they need. Then since the best case is not reached, they are looked upon as failures.
Who's fault is that? Just about everyone involved... And I blame the lack of support and understanding of the public as the root cause (even if it's not the largest cause)

Congress should direct the agency to restore its science programs, and it should establish a firewall protecting them from the fiscal demands of crewed spaceflight
That's the problem, that's who's messing things up (somewhat at the direction of the populus)

"Yes, let's send human beings into deep space again."
I'm not sure if the moon is deep space. (at least in my mind it's not)

I guess I'm most angry about two things.
1) He implies that it's all NASA's fault even while admitting some of the issues are out of thier control.
2) He doesn't understand what NASA is.

Otherwise, I am in agreement on his frustration level. I just disagree with the premise that he is basing it on.

Edit: spelling and formatting

NASA's Vision Statement:

To improve life here,
To extend life to there,
To find life beyond.

From the 2002 NASA Vision and Mission Paper NOTE: PDF file.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

What I stated was what NASA is here for, and what the government, or the people have declared what it is there for.
This vision and mission is what and how NASA intends to fit within its directive.
Having said that, I still see no emphasis in the vision and mission, although I do see some references.
In the vision...No indication of emphasis on any portion.
In the Mission, and 3 pages of explaination of the mission... I see "Are we alone?" as the only reference. And you can probably stretch "How did we get here" to be included.
And, these are among two other concepts that have nothing to do with ET.

You can Nostradomisize it all you want to indicate emphasis. Missions and visions are usually written vaguely to allow some wiggle room in what they are doing.

Edit to add:
I'm not saying that the search for ET should be ignored, I just don't see official "emphasis". I do get a little irked when people think that the sole purpose of NASA is for space. There are "Have to dos" and "It would be good to dos". Unfortunately, the latter can only be considered at the cost of the former. And, although NASA can establish the latter, they can not do anything about the former. So is ET a "Have to do"? No, not according to NASA's directive. But, according to it's vision and mission, it is a "It would be good to do".

"...The space-science community didn't all that much care whether Saturns were followed by winged Saturns, shuttles, Novas... Looking back, they should have..."

And that is my point. They don't care about LVs.

They are happy to ride Atlas V now that the Air Force paid for it--but imagine if it had to come from NASA funds:

Dan Goldin--- "We will cancel some of these Delta II missions for awhile--but wait until MRO makes them obsolete."

Scientists----- "BOO!"

You see--they'll help you eat the LV cake but won't help you bake it.

And you need HLLV if you want to soft land anything of value on Europa--something the Griffin bashers don't have the sense to understand.

"What he's planning looks a lot more like Huntress's description "Apollo on food stamps" than a robust infrastructure."

What if I called MRO science on food stamps. I don't appreciate Huntress smarmy language. What has he launched? Why do people even listen to him? He was against VSE and OSP. He just has it in for manned spaceflight these days.

Better young folks go without jobs than older LV designers die off before we can get other LVs built. or do you want us to wait another 40 years before we get new LVs --while the scientists get one probe after another? By now all the planets have spacecraft sent to them. Pluto and Mercury will get craft, and Saturn and Jupiter had their orbiters, and we have had no new manned spacecraft in 25+ years? Please! Its time the robot people took a hit for a change.

" Can serious heavy lift be developed for the R&D pipeline amount that would be freed up? It would at least be nice if SOFIA, SIM, NuSTAR, Constellation-X, and who knows what Europa mission weren't to die in vain."

Listen to me. They aren't going to die. They will just have to wait until a long overdue shuttle replacement is made. The universe isn't going anywhere.

"By the way - as a history question, what scientists didn't care for Korolev and Chelomei's approach? I never read that any were asked, aspecially in advance. There is a lot to be written, some of which has been, on how different launch systems influenced approaches to building payloads, not all good on either side."

Roald Sagdeev seemed to have issues with Glushko because he and the other chief designers were interested in getting the rocket built first--science being farthest from their minds.

You have to get the longboat fixed before you build an oceanographic vessel--and that is where we are in rocketry. We are trying to get ther longboats figured out and here a scientist wants a flip ship already!

Now let me ask you this?

When the Venus probe goes in orbit, how much press do you think the payload specialists will get? A lot.

And the folks who built the R-7? None at all?
Glushko's name will not even be uttered.

Its time LV folks ran things awhile--no matter how much that chaps Huntress' tuckus.

Just one thing to add to publiusr' precisely controlled rant

Given the amount of unmanned probes at or near their destinations which will provide data for several more years now is the perfect time to switch development money over to new launch vehicles. Once they finish examining all the data from the current generation of probes there will be many more mission targets with much more difficult requirements. More instruments, greater power, longer duration and faster communication rates, new destinations etc etc - meaning they have to be a lot heavier than current generation probes eg MER vs MSL.

But we are at the limit of launch capabilities now so if we don't develop more capable LV's now we aren't going to be able to do the science of tomorrow. This doesn't even take into consideration all the scientific missions we want to do now but can't because limited launch capabilities. Landing a MER by airbags on a flat plain is fine, but if you want to get to Valles Meridiani forget it. Which is a shame because thats the one place most Mars scientists want to look at.

Publiusr's point about the Delta II is also well taken.. the scientific community is reaping the benefit of the military expenditure. That's how it should be of course, what else is military research good for? Except it will never happen for a heavy launch vehicle because the military doesn't need one and likely never will!

The point is that the trains don't run unless you maintain the track. And if you want to go somewhere new you either walk or lay a new track down.
At the moment the human space programme is walking, mostly in circles, and largely without tangible benefit for most of the human species. Only when we lay down some decent tracks will the space programme become something that will do for the human race what railroads did - truly expand our horizons.

I heard rumors that MSL might be delayed

Thank you. If only the folks in Congress could read this...