NASA Task Force Recommends Radical Changes

darrellsilver writes: "As reported at the nytimes (free reg, etc) here and msnbc here, an independant task force initiated in July by the now resigning Dan Goldin concluded this week that "radical changes" need to be put into place if the space station is to continue functioning. The full report in PDF format is available from NASA here." We've reported on this before but we didn't have a link to the report itself. Budgetary woes have already taken their toll on the station and this report is recommending even more cuts.

Comments

About Time!

[augustz]

I'm tired of the $2 billion/year ego project that the ISS is. I'd go back to really good 100 million buck science projects, and fund 20 of em a year, or 5 bigger and 12 smaller ones. I suspect a few scientists would agree. And that's basically what the report comes down to. No good science looks like it'll be getting done any time soon.

People forget that it takes foundational science to do sexy science, and there are TONS of really worthy and interesting projects that get sidelined by sex appeal.

Even the dreamers should realize that ISS does much less to get folks on mars for example than real good focused R&D here on earth. NASA has a horrendous record in cost control, timeline estimates, and it is about time they paid the price. Redirect all that money to folks who'll use it well untill NASA get's its house back in order.

Man on mars (one way trip to start) is definatly cool, but let's take a pause to do some real science for a while, say 5 years, then see where we are.

Sure, this'll get modded down by all the NASA lovers but all these blind science geeks need to realize something. Unless you allow stuff to fail you never will evolve. Basic evolution in action.

That's something the miliary for example, which refuses to admit huge procurment mistakes time and again, has never has got. They can't admit a mistake and end up chasing down dumb roads to the tunes of billions.

Re:About Time!

[augustz]

Point me to these research breakthroughs.

"The station program is expected to cost about $25 billion to develop and build"

If you gave me that kind of money I could come up with some research breakthroughs of my own. Realize that even on the scale of large science, and not sure how large a level you work on, that is some SERIOUS money.

And including shuttle costs this stuff approaches $100 billion.

Christ, pick up any science news letter and you'll see folks getting much larger bang for the bug across science, including astronomy and space research.

The articles you linked to undermine you point, include higher cost numbers, and repeat the question of the quality of science that will be done on the ISS going forward.

NASA hasn't enough, so give even less

[Inez{R}]

There is something in this analysis that strikes me as odd.
1) Apparently, the NASA did not have enough money these last years, and solved this by pushing costs to the future.
2) The solution suggested for this problem is giving them even less money. Strange.
If you look at item 1, you would think that giving them *more* money, or more time on the current budget, would be a logical solution. At least, give them the same amount as before and allow for some time to reorganize their management.

Of course, budgetting is a real world issue, so just doing the logical thing is not always feasible. Spending for ISS has been going down for some time, even before the current maybe-recession and the attacks on Afghanistan. But even though wars costs lots of money, a wise government would not stop spending money on all research. Imagine when they would have said in WWII "we're at war, we don't have time for this research on atoms". The outcome could have been way different from what it was.
And on a side note, wouldn't you be giving the terrorists more credit than they're due? They are already disrupting normal life, which is surely one of their targets.

Inez{R}.

Re:NASA

[BDew]

Either you have a very skewed definition of space science, or you are merely an idiot. Apollo did very little in space science, which is why I am leaning towards idiot. But, with full knowledge that this is a troll, here we go.

"we spend as much on NASA as we do."

NASA spends 14 billion a year, in total. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/guide 02.html#Table_2_4). ISS is about 35% of that. But, if you look at the table, you will notice a surprising list of things we spend more money on: Veterans' Affairs, and Transportation, for instance. We spend TWICE on HUD what we do on NASA. Same with Education, and HHS gets 3 times as much. I am not arguing that NASA should be equated with any of these agencies, but just pointing out how insignificant the NASA budget really is.

Or, for a more influential stat, divide 14 billion into 1.6 trillion, and figure out the percentage of the annual budget that goes to NASA.

"Around the world, people starve and die of diseases that would be cured by a quick trip to an American doctor."

OK, more math: Assume half of the populations of China and India (probably a significant understatement) have problems that could be easily remedied in the United States. So, that's 1 billion people. If you can find a way to get them to the States, or provide continuing American quality medical care, for FOURTEEN DOLLARS A PERSON then more power to you, but you are missing your calling posting on slashdot. And this totally ignores the mess that is sub-Saharan Africa.

People starved and died before NASA, and they will continue to after NASA is a memory. That is LIFE. The United States ALREADY feeds the world. U.S. Pharmaceutical companies, love them or hate them, medicate the world. These facts are only true because of the research dollars the U.S. gov't has spent. Now, I'm no biologist, but I have heard from quite a few that there is potential in creating medicines in zero-g environments that will revolutionize medical care. I think that possibility might be worth .8 cents of the tax dollar.

"We haven't done anything of significance in space since the moon landings, and we won't in the near future, either."

This doesn't make much sense, frankly. Apollo brought us back some moon rocks, and we learned about lunar geology and some about the space environment and how to survive in it. Within the past 2 years we have discovered evidence of water oceans on Europa and, possibly, Ganymede and Callisto. Since 1990 we have discovered evidence of the movement of water on the Martian surface, we have discovered planets around other stars, imaged black holes, etc. Hubble, Chandra, and a whole host of smaller projects have made significant advances in our understanding of the universe. I haven't even gotten into NASA's Earth Science and Solar Science Programs. In the near future, Cassini/Huygens will get to Saturn and we will learn what is going on on Titan, including gathering evidence for or against the possibility of life in the atmospheric soup.

What of any of this is insignificant? Or is space science itself insignificant, which you don't say.

"Commercial interests will eventually take over..."

This part of this sentence I actually agree with, though the idea of a private concern building Hubble is so ludicrous that is doesn't even deserve comment. If we kill NASA in the near future, commercial interests will never take over. Period. The cost of space activity is too high for anything besides communications sats. This cost will not come down without a significant amount of research money being spent. Sure as hell the industry is not willing to spend those dollars, even if they were equipped for it. Without NASA, no one would do it, plain and simple.

Well, I hope this actually makes you think, though I doubt it. Idiot might have been a bit strong in the first paragraph, but I don't think you've actually put any time or effort into this opinion, so you merely sounded like an idiot instead of actually being one. I apologize.