• OPINIONS
• PAST SUCCESSES

browse projects: Apophis Mission Design Competition Asteroid Impact Mapping System Catalog of Exoplanets Drive a Mars Rover Extrasolar Planets Transit Search International Lunar Decade International Year of Astronomy 2009 LIFE Experiment: Phobos Mars Climate Sounder Team Website Messages from Earth Observing Earth Pioneer Anomaly Planetary Microphones S.O.S: Save Our Science! SETI Optical Telescope SETI Radio Searches SETI@home Shoemaker NEO Grants Solar Sailing Space Advocacy Space Information Stardust@home Target Earth Visions of Mars

browse space topics: 2001 Mars Odyssey Asteroids and Comets Cassini-Huygens Chandra X-Ray Observatory Chandrayaan-1 Chang'e 1 Compare the Planets Dawn Deep Impact Earth Extrasolar Planets Genesis Hayabusa (MUSES-C) Hubble Space Telescope Jupiter Kaguya (SELENE) Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) Mars Mars Exploration Rovers Mars Express Mars Global Surveyor Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Mars Science Laboratory Mercury MESSENGER Moon Near Earth Objects Neptune New Horizons New Horizons Digital Time Capsule Past Missions Phoenix Planetary Analogs Planetary Exploration Timelines Planetfest 2008 Pluto and Charon Pluto Top Ten Postcards from Venus Private Missions Rosetta Saturn Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence SMART-1 SOHO Space Imaging Spitzer Space Telescope Stardust Trans-Neptunian Objects Ulysses Uranus Venus Venus Express Voyager Weekly Planetary Radio Trivia Contest

Opinions:

Manned or Unmanned? NASA's Flying Blind in Space

Shuttle missions killing science, space exploration

Click to enlarge > Louis Friedman, Executive Director

An Essay by Louis D. Friedman
Published in the Houson Chronicle
February 25, 2006

WILL it be "manned or unmanned" exploration of space?

I use the politically incorrect "manned" and "unmanned" in stating the question because, sadly, I think we have returned to the bad old days of arguing about and competing between the two. This was, for me, the worst part of this month's House Science Committee hearing in Congress on the proposed NASA fiscal 2007 budget.

Over the past decade there has been a growing realization in NASA that robotic exploration and human exploration were part of a continuum in the space program: That exploration occurred with a mix of humans and robots working together; sometimes with humans on Earth and sometimes with humans themselves going to other worlds. This cooperation was recognized in the Clinton administration's short-lived Human Exploration and Development of Space program, and then again in the Bush administration's Vision for Space Exploration, which may also end up short-lived.

The brilliance of the Vision proposal was its emphasis on science. Science must guide exploration on Earth and in space. The Vision called for a robust exploration of the solar system, including Jupiter's moons, the outer planets and for a search for extraterrestrial life. It even called for observing other star systems, looking for Earth-like planets. The Moon-Mars destinations for the human space flight program were to be conducted with robotic precursors and extensive robotic assistance.

And the Vision mandated the early retirement of the shuttle by (not in) 2010 and new vehicles to send humans beyond Earth orbit.

But this year the administration proposed 16 more shuttle flights, and to pay for them, it raided the space science budget and wiped out most of the major mission plans for the future. It also raided the cupboards for the seed corn research. Analysis programs are being massively cut, affecting universities and research institutes all over the country.

Optimistically, 16 more shuttle flights will take four years, but more likely five to six years based on realities of the aging three-orbiter fleet. And that is if nothing major goes wrong, an unlikely expectation. The financial famine will exacerbate, and further trips to the cupboard can be expected. The human spaceflight program likely will become just another rocket program; but the transition probably will be slowed. This is an investment in the past, not the future.

I know there is an argument that the shuttle is necessary to complete the International Space Station. But is the shuttle the only way?

NASA and the international partners steadfastly refuse to look at alternatives. Alternatives based on our future plans in human space flight may be more sensible (and cheaper) than those based on our past plans in human space flight.

At the budget hearing, where Congress and the administration had their first opportunity to interact on these issues, we heard questions and answers about the priority of human missions and the anger of the science community over (in NASA's words) science having to pay the bill for the shuttle. For the last few years, most scientists were supporting the Vision and the redirection of the human space flight program. Now they are not. The scientific underpinnings have been pulled out, and everyone will fight over the rubble to get what they can salvage.

To me, this is the saddest result. The vested interests in each of the human and robotic programs are now fighting each other, and exploration will be the loser. I can live with my favorite planned science mission delayed a couple of years, or with a delay of a few years in some scientific study I am interested in. But, the effect of the budget cuts is much bigger than that. The budget forces us down another path, the one made of quicksand labeled "shuttles' financial needs." These cuts to science attack the head (and eyes) of our exploration program, and leave us headed down a path without our Vision