In my opinion it's not about whether or not NASA *has* the funding. It's a matter of return on investment for them. NASA is not in the business of performing quality scientific research or other unglamorous activities, no matter what their benefit to the public good is. NASA is in the business of self-preservation, accomplished by generating a steady stream of public relations propaganda centered around spectacular photos of astronauts floating in space, applying fresh duct tape to the latest leak in the ISS, or inspecting insulation tiles on the long-obsolete Shuttle for damage due to falling ice during liftoff. The taxpaying public goes, "ooh ahh, pretty pictures! Don't cut their funding," and the money-go-round continues.
Something as un-sexy as searching for killer asteroids does not lend itself to the sort of self-serving PR NASA is accustomed to generating. Much more to be gained to do all they can to extend the life of that deathtrap called the Space Shuttle.
To defend NASA for a second, their efforts in planetary and environmental sciences are money well-spent, despite the customary emphasis on more pretty pictures (which are admittedly awesome). However, the manned space program in its current form is a sham with no concrete long-term goals, only a near-term need to keep the $$$ rolling in on a year-to-year basis. The consequence of this lack of vision is that unglamorous scientific and technical projects which truely benefit the public good (e.g. asteroid hunting) will always receive the table scraps from the money pile, if anything at all.
Slashdot Mirror
In my opinion it's not about whether or not NASA *has* the funding. It's a matter of return on investment for them. NASA is not in the business of performing quality scientific research or other unglamorous activities, no matter what their benefit to the public good is. NASA is in the business of self-preservation, accomplished by generating a steady stream of public relations propaganda centered around spectacular photos of astronauts floating in space, applying fresh duct tape to the latest leak in the ISS, or inspecting insulation tiles on the long-obsolete Shuttle for damage due to falling ice during liftoff. The taxpaying public goes, "ooh ahh, pretty pictures! Don't cut their funding," and the money-go-round continues. Something as un-sexy as searching for killer asteroids does not lend itself to the sort of self-serving PR NASA is accustomed to generating. Much more to be gained to do all they can to extend the life of that deathtrap called the Space Shuttle. To defend NASA for a second, their efforts in planetary and environmental sciences are money well-spent, despite the customary emphasis on more pretty pictures (which are admittedly awesome). However, the manned space program in its current form is a sham with no concrete long-term goals, only a near-term need to keep the $$$ rolling in on a year-to-year basis. The consequence of this lack of vision is that unglamorous scientific and technical projects which truely benefit the public good (e.g. asteroid hunting) will always receive the table scraps from the money pile, if anything at all.