Moon-Mars mission goes full throttle; red flags fly

But Bush's vision may not have the support it needs

Detroit Free Press 02/22/05
author: Robert S. Boyd
(c) Copyright 2005, Detroit Free Press. All Rights Reserved.

WASHINGTON -- NASA is racing to carry out President George W. Bush's costly vision of sending humans back to the moon and then on to Mars -- despite the federal budget squeeze and doubts in Congress and the scientific community about the plan's wisdom.

It's been a little over a year since Bush announced the plan, and NASA has already awarded 118 preliminary contracts for the project. It's requesting fresh ideas from industry and universities for a large new spaceship, called the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), in three years.

But the $15-billion cost for the CEV is just the start of the project's cost. And even some of the project's allies are balking at its price tag and headlong pace.

NASA is "trying to do too much at once," said Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Science Committee, a strong supporter of the space agency. He protested that NASA is barreling ahead even though Congress "has never endorsed -- in fact, never even discussed -- the vision."

Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., the committee's senior Democrat, said, "I think NASA is headed for a potential train wreck." He worried that the Moon-Mars plan is gobbling up money for other scientific ventures.

Some space agency officials also express concern. The cost and complexities of the Moon-Mars project make this "a time for sobering up," Michael Meyer, NASA's lead scientist for Mars exploration, told a National Academy of Sciences committee in Washington this month.

The CEV is supposed to take over from the aging space shuttles and carry astronauts "to the moon, Mars and beyond," as NASA officials like to say.

By this summer, two aerospace teams will be chosen to construct competing prototypes of the CEV. A final version will be chosen by the end of 2006, with the first unmanned flight scheduled for 2008.

...

The administration has asked Congress for $3.2 billion for the second year of the Moon-Mars project. That's a 23-percent increase from its first-year kitty of $2.6 billion. Bush wants total NASA spending to grow just 2 percent to $16.5 billion for the 2006 fiscal year, so other NASA programs are getting cut.

...

Meanwhile, scientists worry about the project's impact on other endeavors, such as astronomy, physics and climate change.

The exploration project has already doomed plans to prolong the life of the successful Hubble Space Telescope. A mission to detect Earth-like planets around other stars has been postponed for two years, until 2012.

Some space science missions have been delayed indefinitely, such as one to explore Jupiter's moon, Europa, which might support life beneath its icy surface, and another to study the mysterious dark energy, a sort of anti-gravity, which is forcing the universe to expand.

The National Academy of Sciences, a scholarly group that advises the federal government, has called dark energy the most important question in physics and astronomy today. The Europa mission was the priority of the astronomical community's 10-year plan adopted in 2001.

A panel of National Academy experts, headed by Yale University astronomer Megan Urry, sent a letter to NASA, dated Feb. 14, saying the long-term impact of the Moon-Mars project on astronomy and astrophysics "is not entirely clear, but short-term changes are already having an effect, and there are community concerns that serious problems lie ahead."

The American Association for the Advancement of Science said the president's vision will "require steep cuts in aeronautics and earth science funding and the cancellation of a proposed Hubble servicing mission to pay for NASA's ambitious space exploration plans."

Meyer, NASA's Mars scientist, told the National Academy committee: "The goal of sending humans to Mars needs more definition. What are humans going to do on Mars? We have to protect Mars. Do we want to send astronauts with all their dead skin cells and bacteria? We don't want to contaminate the planet."

Stuff like this really burns me up.

"...despite the federal budget squeeze and doubts in Congress and the scientific community about the plan's wisdom."

Using the "scientific community" to support an apparent agenda that the whole scientific community could never, ever agree on amongst themselves. I won't even get into the sum technical knowledge present within congress. Congress isn't exactly known for its scientific acumen.

The scientific community has many agendas. Most of those agendas are to support the research that they individually are currently engaged, and to get as much money as possible for that research. They traditionally cut down the funding base of other projects to do this. You can always find a scientist who will agree that something is bad or too expensive or not worth pursuing. Just look to a field of science that competes for the same pool of money.

It makes me sick, because any time somebody presents a plan or a vision of what they would like to accomplish, somebody cries out, "no - that will hurt my funding!" Of course, they don't quite say it that way. Then the press gets in there, and a scientist is a scientist and they start making it seem like the project has no validity - it doesn't really matter which project it is either. Although, the press does seem to have a few favorite programs.

We, the U.S., need vision. We need a plan. The scientific community could care less. They will never work together if left to themselves. Their lives depend upon fighting for the money they need to work. If the executive branch (i.e., the President and his appointees) puts forth a plan, to help further fund scientific and engineering endeavors - they should be supported. No one else is going to do it (least of all congress). And we do really need a vision. Because right now, the U.S. can't see where it is going...