NASA Panel Says ISS Cuts Hurt Science

medcalf writes: "The AP reports that the International Space Station, as proposed, is incapable of doing much meaningful scientific research, and that NASA should thus stop characterizing the program as 'science-driven.' Factors listed in support of the recommendation are insufficient crew, lack of certain vital equipment and insufficient resupply missions. Makes me proud of spending $30 billion in tax money -- hey, isn't that about enough for a manned Mars mission? Perhaps a reevaluation of our goals in space, and what we are prepared to risk for the money, would be in order?" The AP article is summarizing the conclusions of a 23-member panel, which finds the current aim of a "core-complete" station too slender a justification of the past and current expenditures in the name of science.

Comments

i am keeping my fingers crossed for china

[lingqi]

As somebody has already pointed out, and most of us can deduce with some thought -- one of the primary reasons why we are not on mars yet is because of the lack of immediate return.

At *best* a manned mars mission, or any important space-endeavor (say, moon-base) will be so costly time-wise, it will way overshadow a politician's limited term, and they won't give a damn about it. to make it worse, even if we did any of these (moon base / mars mission), the politicians have little to show for it except the "we did it" and that isn't helping.

i am sure they can come up with something clever, of course, if they ever wanted to: "look everyone, we the US, even under terrorist threats and in the post 9-11 world, can still acomplish grand tasks like _______" but they won't. because they can do the same thing by passing some cheesy law about corporate fraud and whatnot and achieve similar effect.s

back to the topic: china, on the other hand, does not have this problem of limited administration. (unless they get overthrown someday, which for the good of the world, i hope not) and with the US getting new fighters and national missle defense etc, going to space would really give them an edge.

which is good... because as soon as a threat comes up, the US will hopefully get in gear and haul ass. otherwise, well, chinese moon-base as it is, humanity as a whole does not really suffer.

on the other hand - i can see one way to make this work within the US, though unlikely: if one party (say, democrats) decided, *as a whole party*, that going to space is something they want to do, then maybe it can be done. it will need some seriously intricate conditions to work out, but can work out none-the less. this is hoping that we as citizens (not only slashdot, now) actually cares about this going to space deal, and republicans (for example) does not jump in the bandwagon -- because if they did, then "going to space" is no longer an exclusive propaganda-machine, and the actual execution will likely get diluted.

last small note: Bush asked congress for 40billion to fight the "war on terrorism", by the way. to put things in perspective in a little bit. over budget as ISS may be, it's a better 30b spent than certain other places where money is going.