Slashdot Mirror
NASA Priorities Out of Whack?
amerinese writes "Just last week, we saw a story on NASA reconsidering the fate of the DAWN mission, another reminder of the space agency's budget woes. Gregg Easterbrook over at Slate.com argues not only is the budget a little short, but NASA's priorities are all wrong. From the article: 'For at least a decade, it's been clear that the space shuttle program is a clunker. Nonetheless, NASA's funding remains heavy on the shuttle and the space station, while usually slighting science. This year's proposed budget for fiscal 2007 takes the cosmic cake.' Is NASA just not thinking creatively enough?"
Whilst I agree with the vast majority of this article, the planet finder project should be given a much higher budget, study of the earth should have a much higher priority, I think the author leaves the Near Earth Object study a little low on the list, I would think this should be at least number 2 on the list of priorities, first save the Earth from itself the study of moisture is important so this is fine, second save the Earth from a huge chunk of rock eliminating mankind, from there on down yes cool study other object in our solar system, study possible locations for other life out there.
Additionally I am not sure about the moonbase, until we get a definitive answer on the question of if water exists on the moon I don't see the point in building a base there, really we should be putting a lot more focus on studying the moon, what rare minerals can we find, is there any water anywhere that can be used to fuel spacecraft travelling further than the moon. These questions can all be answered with probes and possibly robotic landers we should be putting more effort into studying in this way before we even consider sending people back let alone building a base there.
I am interested in the study of the universe, I am curious about development of galaxies and black holes but I am more interested in protecting our species from an extinction level event either from us damaging the planet or from an asteroid wiping us out. It seems like NASA is really just trying to get popular support here. For the unknowing masses building a moonbase would seen really impressive, having mankind walk on the moon again would be a great advertisment for NASA, "hey look guys we still got it". Given the set backs they have experienced in recent years I can kinda understand their reasoning to feel like they need the public behind them again, but I think a report saying we have found a way to save the Earth would be a lot better for their publicity than a report saying we have some guys bringing more rocks back from the moon.
GeekServ Unix Consulting Services (http://www.geekserv.com)
I'm not surprised, although I think they still manage to be more fiscally responsible and sensible than the rest of the US government as a whole. Barring the money sink that is the space shuttle and international space station (why do we still need this? Oh yeah, politics), they've had really successful projects. Just take the recent Mars rovers for a high-profile example.
People see shuttle launches on TV. And most will, at least, not protest the money being spent. But they might get pissy about billions vanishing into a black hole of government science whose results they cannot watch on TV. NASA's prioritization is, at least to some small degree, a slave to public opinion. Yet another reason why privitization of the emerging space industries will be helpful. Then, at least, informed people with money can set priorities as opposed to politicians who just want to get elected.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
Thank goodness the folks at Slate have a better understanding of NASA's purpose than I do: I have a hard time figuring out where "environmental and climate research" is derived fomr "the National Aeuronautics and Space Administration." But then again, I've always been bad at figuring out acronyms.
TANSTAAFL
So, is finding aliens, a la Alien, sexy?
This guy's the limit!
And a huge chunk of it is spent on bureaucractic bullshit. Paying admistrators, and their secretaries, and their benefits, and their health insurance, and remimbursing transportation costs, and federal audits, and enviromental impact surveys, and nasa.gov, and PR, and ...
Another chunk of it goes into funding existing missions. We STILL have to keep paying for Voyager if we want anybody listening to it. For every probe that's out there, we have to pay for the earthbound hardware that listens to and talks to it, the talent that knows how it works and can troubleshoot problems, and the scientists on the publi dole who analyze what we get back.
That leaves some money leftover for NEW missions. Some that money goes into paying private contractors to build parts, some goes into research into new technology, some goes into upgrading and maintaining he shuttle fleet, some goes into the ISS. Some goes to foreign governments. Russia doesn't launch our astronauts for free.
How many probes could we launch with all that money? We could have probes flying all over the solar system. We could have fundamental research into remote robotics.
I imagine that with $13 billion we could launch thousands. There'd be no money leftover for building the ones we launch next year, though. Or paying for the crews to maintain the ones we launched last year.
There is no reason that through mass production, NASA couldn't be launching thousands of probes a year. If you're launching that many, they don't have to perfect. Launch 10 of them at every target, hoping five will end up working.
Sure there is. A probe costs hundreds of millions of dollars to build. Even at a mere $100 million, $13 billion is enough to build only 130 probes, to say nothing of paying for launch, maintainance, and scientific analysis.
NASA needs to completely change their culture and use some intelligence for a change.
I suggest that it is your intelligence, in this case, that needs some looking into.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
Here's an experiment: Find out what state NASAs big dollar items come from. Then look at who is on the committe that controls the NASA budget and what state they are from. Look for correlations. After that, we can talk about priorities at NASA.
If a bunch of engineers and hard scientists got together and decided how to spend NASA's budget most effectively, we'd see only automated missions. The data gathered would be wonderful, it would be efficient, and their budget would be cut in half the next year by Congress.
Manned exploration is the sizzle that sells the steak. You have to keep a manned program going to keep the short-attention-spanned taxpaying pinheads interested in space. If space is just drones and bots flying off to take soil samples and collect space dust, the money will get diverted to a subsidy to study how pet monkeys could be used to deliver nuclear warheads to a target or some other stupid Pentagon project.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Why spend all that time and treasure putting telescopes so far from humans and then spend even more time and treasure putting humans RIGHT NEXT to the damned things?
... sure, vibrations and dust are natural events there, but humans add more.
If you think having telescopes on the far side is good because it is out of the way of human pollution, then why for heaven's sake do you want to throw human pollution back into the mix as close as that?
The vibrations from human equipment, outgassing, dust raised
Good god almighty.
Robots would have to do 99.999% of the work anyway. What would humans add to either the construction or maintenance?
Infuriate left and right
No, but finding aliens, a la Species is.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
One of the arguments given for completing the ISS is that other nations have contributed to it, and it would not be in good faith for the US to stop working on it.
How much for us to just buy them out? I suspect much less than the cost of completeing it.
While there are points to be made about how the shuttle is a bad choice for space flight and science isn't getting the funding that's needed, this author clearly doesn't understand all the benefits of manned space flight. I mean seriously, saying that the moon is only interesting to geology postdocs? That all people do in space is to take each other's blood pressure? He clearly lacks ANY knowledge of the science and innovations we gain by reaching new frontiers. One of his references is to a radical writer's article that thinks Apollo missions stopped off it orbit before going on to the moon and fails to understand the concepts of where to get fuel, where to stage equipment and where to practice somewhere relatively close by. Now, not only are blogs spewing crap but "news" sites are too.
One can easily argue our national priorities are considerably out of whack. Easterbrook argues there are better places to spend the money than the projects which have been proposed. He might be right. But it's easy to argue that the proposed projects do have value.
A moon base might not help Mars exploration. But a moon base can begin the process of using lunar resources to support both exploration and human needs on earth. There's more to space than scientific exploration.
The James Webb Space Telescope might focus on the distant universe and questions of esoteric value. Planet finding, on the other hand, will have little real impact on humanity as well, at least in the near future. Both projects do have worth, however.
Of greater interest to me is comparing NASA funding to other things our society does. Back in October the Washington Post proposed canceling Bush's Vision for Space Exploration, and cited the need for health care for poor children as a worthier alternative. What few people recognize is that health care spending in the U.S. is 100 times the NASA budget. Health care spending is also increasing annually at multiples of the NASA budget. If poor children aren't getting decent health care, that's the fault of the health care industry, not NASA.
NASA, while far from perfect, does appear to be struggling to improve and is making some progress towards that end. It would be nice if other American activities -- for example education -- showed the same kind of work at improvement.
"Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- B. Franklin
Also writes a weekly column on NFL football during the season.
Best Slashdot Co
OT: your sig
From the evolutionary position this is easy to explain. Meat is very, very dense calorie wise compared to veggies. When you're a human being struggling to get enough food for survival for, say, the last 10 million years, and your lifespan averaged less than 30 years, meat was extremely good for you. The heart clogging problems with the fat and cholesterol don't kick in until your average lifespan hits 40+ (how many people die of heart attack due to over-eating meat before 25?), and even then, the odds that it will impact your likelihood of reproduction are small. The bottom line: meat is bad for your longevity, not your reproduction, and for your ancestors it was very good for their reproduction.
Given the number of women advocating vegetarian lifestyles, it could be argued that given another 10,000 or 100,000 generations, the preference for meat taste will go away.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
That's a recent, but not the most egregious case of near-sighted budget failures within NASA. All the science programs are being gutted, despite them having been the most successful and cost effective programs in the current space sector. Dawn stood out because it would have returned a mere $30 million to the coffers, the bulk of the $370 million budgeted for the mission having already been spent. Obviously you have to get your $30 millions here and there if you want to save a few billion to increase spending for the manned spaceflight program, however, it looked farcical to throw away $340 million already spent and a mission within months of launch in order to get that particular $30 million.
Dawn may have stood out in that regard as an obvious budgetary foul-up, but its indicative of a culture within NASA of administration that appears to be pandering to the short-term will of elected politicians rather than medium to long term human goals. There's necessity there of course, in that the survival of much of the public science in NASA is in the hands of the politicans, but we currently appear to be throwing the baby out with the bath water. When you cancel a science program, you not only lose the science that you fought to get funding for, but you send a message back to the bean counters that they spent however many billions of dollars on projects that never came to fruition. If you want to build central governmant distrust of science funding, this is a good way to do it.
Wow. You clearly have no idea of the realities of the situation, yet you feel free to make wild claims about what you think can be done with NASA's money.
Let's see... $13 billion... of which most goes to the manned-missions right off. So that's ISS and the shuttles getting the bulk of the money. Research for aerospace stuff gets another reasonably heafty share. In fact, when you get down to it, the solar system exploration budget is around $2 billion, total. That goes to fund research, build new missions, and support existing missions.
In reality, missions are very expensive and mass-producing parts doesn't fix that. Every single mission has to be launched, which is a huge fraction of the total expense right there. Fuel isn't going to get a lot cheaper through the wonders of mass-production. Neither is the man-power needed to plan the details of each mission and to work out and check things like the trajectories. (I'm periphrially involved with selecting an extended tour on a mission right now. It's complicated to say the least.) And modular components only work if the modules are sufficiently useful to a broad number of missions. This is generally not the case, as it turns out. Every mission has specific goals and requirements that almost always demand a new suite of designs. (Check out the latest Mars missions; the new objectives have caused their instruments to be VERY carefully and specifically designed.)
And to put $13 billion into perspective: that's a few percent of what the war in Iraq has costed so far and around 1% of what it will ultimately cost us. In fact, that's the price of about 7 stealth bombers. Which were easier to mass-produce than interplanetary missions, incidentally.
Your intuition for the money here is dead wrong. I'm not saying NASA is above reproach; it very much so is not. (I can spend days ranting about how much they waste time and money.) But if you want to help solve the problem, you'll have to understand the situation first.
Easterbook just doesn't get it. Earth observation is nice, but it can be done with existing technology - commercial space satellites, high atmosphere observation balloons and planes. It doesn't require the scientific and organizational might that NASA embodies. The moon base does have uses. Firstly, there is the study of human phisiology in space. Second, there is the construction of telescopes and sensors of various types to give us a much better understanding of space. Third, is the mining of HE3 (heavy helium) for propulsion purposes. Fourth, is a platform for other space operations. It is going to be expensive. No doubt.
I agree that the space shuttle is a problem. But I don't understand why he brings up the two disasters seen on TV. It is as though he thinks that the real disaster was the PR problems which resulted. If that is the case, he is only making it worse. What we need is a redesigned shuttle. The Shuttle is out of date. There are new technologies that could be harnessed to make it better. In addition, there is the very real problem that the shuttles wear out. They may be reusable, but that doesn't mean they are going to last forever.
I want to see more funding on long term programs, the far-out stuff like NERVA, anti-gravity, and the like. These are the kind of programs that NASA was chartered for.
Only if having a point of view is biased. Being human we all have our biases of course, and these naturally (mis)inform our viewpoints. But this doesn't license you to throw around the accusation of "bias" every time you see an opinion you don't like, because to be fair you'd have to tell the entire world including yourself to STFU.
No, the only behavior that merits this charge is the practice of bias.
Consider the following statement:
A hypothetical example of bias would be if the Earth monitoring missions had moved to a different agency, say, EPA, Mr. Easterbrook knew it, and chose not to mention it. Or if the programs had been phased out and replaced by more cost effective ones. In that case you can justify calling the article "biased".
This kind of bias is the sophisticated liar's lie; when you mislead by leaving out context, you can lie without actually saying anything untrue.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
http://naccenter.arc.nasa.gov/NASAMission.html
Additionally, they've got this mandate from Bush to try to get to Mars ASAP, building a moon base first, which could use up their entire budget right there.
Beyond all of that, they feel they have to be careful to keep the public interested, or that their funding will be cut. Surveys have shown that most people are primarily impressed with human space flight, and I'm sure there's pressure on NASA to maintain manned missions even if they're just bread a circuses, and they could get a lot more science done for the money without them.
So I agree that $13 billion should be enough for NASA to accomplish an incredible amount more than they do, but not "should be enough" and isn't because they're all incompetent, but "should be enough" and isn't because they can't spend it on the important things for one reason or another.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
$13 billion sounds like a lot, until you consider that the Pentagon has a FY 2005 budget of $401.7 billion, which is 30.9 times greater than the NASA budget (and doesn't include the cost of the Iraq war). I personally believe that NASA's budget should be tripled or quadrupled. They should also streamline management to get better work done more efficiently. Space science is one of the few branches of science that is so prohibitively expensive and technically challenging that a concerted national effort.
Unmanned space probes are cool, no doubt, but manned space flight is where it is at. We have to learn how to live off planet. There is a whole universe that, absent any proof of intelligent life, is ours for the taking, and using NASA to create some orbital mirror of satellites with which we can watch ourselves flex is boring. I don't fund NASA so some scientist who can't get a job making a cool product can do a thesis, I do it so that I can be inspired, and yes, manned space flight is inspiring.
I like the Space Shuttle. Yes, we can rail on about how it didn't meet its goals, how it was overhyped, but stop for a moment and look at what it actually is and does? It's practically a space station in its own right, it is so big. It launches like a rocket, lands like a plane, can bring back stuff in a fairly roomy cargo bay and has a cool robot arm. It's turned the notion of in-space assembly from the stuff of science fiction into ho hum routine. Before the space shuttle, we didn't even know if we could build a human space habitat. Sure, we could launch one, but build one? And we've done it.
I wish that we could build a newer shuttle, and, I wish we could send it to the Moon. I understand that CEV is better built for that. But, when they launch that CEV, look around inside, and compare it to the shuttle. The new CEV will have less room than the old shuttle.
BIG IS BETTER
This is my sig.
13 billion. You say that as though it's an astronomical sum. To you and I, who measure things in hundreds or maybe thousands of dollars, it is. To the federal government, whose budget is in the trillions, and who can run deficits with near impunity, it's less than pocket change.
13 billion is less than 0.7 of the total federal budget. It's practically nothing. And it's one of the few government agencies that can actually produce real, tangible, ROI in terms of technology developed, not to mention the advances in our understanding of the universe, which can't be measured in dollars and cents.
Contrast your precious 13 billion to what else the government blows money on -- 553 billion on military expenditures (not counting veteran's benefits which account for another 76 billion). We've dropped 250 billion in just a few years on this Iraq war. Nearly 80% of the national debt is military related, and the interest alone nears 353 billion dollars. Per year.
And you're saying NASA is overbudgeted?
Yes, they could do a lot more if they funneled money into R&D for mass production, modular probes, fast cheap and out of control. But 13 billion is not really a lot to play with for a program that is, by its very nature, expensive. With mass production, you could possibly lower the manufacture costs per probe, but what about the not-cheap task of actually launching them, designing new ones, administration overhead, on and on?
When you think about all the stuff we have today that is a direct result of the space race, 13 billion is not asking a lot, and is far from being the most bloated of government spending.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
The article's author seems to be arguing that NASA's main priorities should focus on areas of earth science. While I agree that earth science is important, I have to wonder how much NASA should even care about that stuff -- they are an aeronautics and space administration after all.
If I was head of another government department with a strong mandate for earth sciences (NOAA), I'd only want NASA's help to get some of my earth-pointing satalites up there and keep them flying -- and to stay out of the way beyond that.
The President names the head of NASA, the head of NASA sets the tone and agenda for the whole organization. Very rarely does the head of NASA not fall into line with the President's space policy (if he has one). Congress approves or disapproves the plan set forth under the direction of the NASA administrator. Thus the focus of the space program is directly traceable to the President's thoughts and goals in this area.
In addition to sending men to the moon/Mars being a good sound bite for the general public, manned missions tend to be heavily oriented towards a Florida/Texas locale with a subsequent influence on their economies. Considering the obvious interest our current President has in those states, it's one more reason (not the only one), this administration has focused on manned missions.
We need to find a better balance between manned and unmanned missions for NASA, I think the pendulum swings a bit too far in either direction sometimes, and now is one of them. They really do have a symbiotic relationship, and we have need of both. Apart from that, it's time to put the shuttle down and work on our next manned vehicle more seriously - there's no good reason to keep those things flying anymore, send one to the Smithsonian and call it a day.
Between the ISS and Shuttle ops, 40% of the budget goes to Lock-Mart and Boeing just to keep the ISS' lights on. Then 25% for technologies to support the Moon/Mars plan.
The remaining 35% ($5.3 bil) for space science can only go so far. Got existing missions to support/complete. Plus, this Administration ain't too hot on Earth science missions. The data returned tends to include a lot of climatology data they don't want to hear about, so it's cheaper to not collect the data in the first place, rather than twist researchers' arms after the fact.
Luke, help me take this mask off
Anyone who is in the "know", knows what NASA's primary object is.
7 6973948865
If not, view this video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-90803696
We are in a race against time against catastrophe. This planet is a death trap that history (as attested in the fossil record) has shown time and again in mass extinctions, supervolcanoes, tsunamis, asteroid impacts, ect. The only way we are going to survive long term is to establish manned colonies and spread out in the universe, and we are behind schedule! Our manned space program is not a frivolous waste of time and rescources. What better science can be done by a rover that cannot be done better by a trained geologist on site? No rover or probe sent to the moon ever did a better job than the apollo astronauts, whose scientific accomplishments are often glossed over or ignored. Plans are afoot to construct a huge array of antennas on the lunar farside making the most awesome radio telescope ever concieved, but It WILL NOT get built without MANNED spaceflight! It is hyperbol to suggest that science funding is being permanently cut. The manned program needs more rescources NOW to re-establish capability to leave earth orbit (that we foolishly discarded 35 years ago after spending billions to develop it! At the same time They must finish the space station to meet international obligations and only the shuttle can do the job. This is only a temporary situation. The Shuttle WILL be retired in 2010, and after the CEV and associated boosters are developed their operating costs will be far lower than the shuttle. More of NASA's budget will then be available for a more robust science program. And as I have said, you will not be able to beat the science that can be done by astronauts, on site. But the most important thing is, in the wake of NASA's scientific explorations establishing infrastructure, private concerns for mining, construction, tourism, what have you, will follow, and the first space colonies will get started.
Here's the problem. NASA has a budget measured in billions, yes, and it has seen steady small increases in recent years. The problem is that NASA has been asked to do 50% more things with a 5% budget increase, and the mandate is for manned efforts to return to the moon and Mars. NASA does has been slashing budgets for space science. Those of us who value NASA's support of space science are crying about the budget because it has been cut year after year. You might as well ask what's the problem with the US budget every year when so much income comes in? Anytime your needs outstrip your income, you have a budget problem, no matter the absolute number on that income.
Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
Nice find! Here are the goals of the 2006 NASA strategic Plan. I think it is very interesting only one has anything to do with our own planetary system. The overall theme appears to be space dominance and aerospace technology.
Strategic Goal 1: Fly the Shuttle as safely as possible until its retirement not later than 2010
Strategic Goal 2: Complete the International Space Station in a manner consistent with NASA's International Partner commitments and needs of human exploration.
Strategic Goal 3: Develop a balanced overall program of science, exploration, and aeronautics consistent with the redirection of the human spaceflight program to focus on exploration.
Sub-goal 3B: Understand the Sun and its effects on Earth and the solar system.
Sub-goal 3C: Advance scientfic knowledge of the origin and history of the solar system, the potential for life elsewhere, and the hazards and resources present as humans explore space.
Sub-goal 3D: Discover the origin, structure, evolution, and destiny of the universe, and search for Earth-like planets.
Sub-goal 3E: Advance knowledge in the fundamental disciiplines of aeronautics, and develop technologies for safer aircraft and higher capacity airspace systems.
Sub-goal 3F: Understand the effects of the space environment and human performance, and test new technologies and countermeasures for long-duration human space exploration.
Strategic Goal 4: Bring a new Crew Exploration Vehicle into service as soon as possible after Shuttle retirement.
Strategic Goal 5: Encourage the pursuit of appropriate partnerships with the emerging commercial space sector.
Strategic Goal 6: Establish a lunar return program having the maximum possible utility for later missions to Mars and other destinations.
As someone who is closely involved in the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), I find the way that Easterbrook chooses to pitch it against Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF) quite peculiar. He thinks that looking for the first galaxies that formed in the Universe with JWST is esoteric, which in some senses it may well be, but searching for planets around other stars with TPF is, for all practical purposes, equally so. Both goals are, nevertheless, very exciting and inspiring.
In fact, JWST is a general purpose observatory in much the same way Hubble is, and will enable a very broad base of astronomy, from cosmology at high redshift in the early Universe, all the way back to the formation of planetary systems in our own Galaxy, and to the study of objects in the Kuiper Belt of our own solar system. Again, practically speaking, these are all esoteric and yet you only have to look at the public's fascination with the enormous number of astonishing discoveries that Hubble and other astronomical telescopes have made to realise that such things play a vital role in our philosophical understanding of our part in this vast Universe.
With regards the idea that JWST is somehow NASA's spolied child, keep in mind that the US astronomy community identified it as its number one priority in the most recent Decadal Review of the National Academy of Sciences, along with the European and Canadian communities: NASA is following through on this outside recommendation. Of course, there are grave problems in the NASA space science budget and no-one likes to see missions cut or delayed, and yes, there have been cost overruns on JWST (albeit largely due to non-technical issues outside the JWST project's control), but it's simply wrong to believe that NASA has somehow made its difficult decisions in a vacuum.
Most astonishing though is Easterbrook's naive assertion about gravy train aerospace contractors building the JWST: just who, exactly, does he think is going to build TPF? A couple of University of Podunk astronomers and a dog? TPF is, if anything, even more technologically challenging than JWST and can only be built by many of the very same aerospace contractors: it's bonkers to think otherwise.
Finally, on naming the former Next Generation Space Telescope after James Webb, while, I remember very clearly the moment that was announced by NASA and yes, it was a bit of a shock. All the same, it's important to remember that Webb put in place much of NASA's space science program at the same time as running Apollo, so his credentials are respectable at the very least. In any case, get over it: let's get the JWST done and launched, and answer some of those fascinating esoteric questions.
You've fallen for the Average lifespan fallacy. human being have never been prone to just 'dropping dead' at 30. death under 60 has always been due to 'disease' or 'accidents' or 'at the hands of your fellow human' what made the average lifespan 30 or so years for so long throught human history was infant mortality. durring some of the most culturally backwards times in human histories babies have had less than a 1 in 3 chance of survivng their first year of life. now you take one person who lives to 60, one who lives to 1 year of age, and one whop died at 20 of the plauge and you get an 'average' lifespan of 30 years. well, sure statistically you had a 66% chance of not making it to 60 years of age, but i'm not so certain the people who died at one year of age were even aware of the problem ;)
the single biggest factor in prolonging human lifespans has been in the 'saving' of infants from diseases and death in child birth from being in the uterus backwards being unable to be safely delivered through natural childbirth. Go areound ask your friends how many were delivered by Cecarian section? nearly every one of them would havesuffocated int heor own mothers womb, unable to be delivered. some midwives were practiced in 'turning' the babies, but that is a risky procedure to both mother and child, which is why nowadays we just cut the mother open and take the baby out.
The fallacy in your argument is that somewhere along the course of human evolutiuon people mysteriously didn't live past 30 years of age, which has never been true, ancient chinese and other cilvilizations writings speak of people living much longer than 60 years even without any 'modern' medicine to help them along the way. the average may have been 30, but that was not a typical age to die even then. BTW, meat was generally not in the buudget of the 'common worker' who hasd to susist of cheper grains. and as such the erarliest history of heart disease are in the aristocratic ruling classes who could afford to eat meat daily, instead of on 'sunday' (if they were that lucky) the primary exception were fishermen, etc, however fish has none of the negative heart health effects that 'red meat' does.
with the exception of the plains indians who had easy access to bison meat, enough to preserve for 'year round' consumption very few early civilizations had easy access to red meat. cattle are very expensive and wasteful creatures to raise, they consume roughly 39 times their selling weight in grasses and grains(over their life time). what's more 'profitable' 39 lbs of grains or 1 lbs of 'red meat' although with cattle you can pretty much ground up the entire plant into cattle feed, wheras humans would only eat 'the grain' so that does change the picture, since one can sell 'the grain' to humans, and 'grind up the plant' for inclusion into feed, and still wind up ahead. having both many lbs of grain and many pounds of cattle to sell.
The 'preference' for meat taste is actually an addiction to the chemicals that eating meat produces in the body. so no without 'genetic alteration' this trait will not go away, yes people can learn to live without meat (how many centuries did the japanese go without any access to red meat? having only fish and rice and fruits and vegrables?) but as has been shown by the 'modern' japanese taste for burgers and beefbowls, this trait does not go away simply because a culture rejects or has no easy access to red meats.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html