This opinion piece is so full of logical flaws, one hardly knows where to begin. So, in no particular order:

- The "S" in NASA does not stand for "science." Where did people get the idea that science is (or should be) the primary job of NASA? It is not. "Expansion of human knowledge" is only one of the tasks in NASA's charter; others include development and improvement of space vehicles, and to seek and encourage commercial use of space (see http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html).

In my opinion, the myopic focus on unmanned science missions has only distracted from these more important goals. Further, even if science is all one cares about, pushing unmanned science missions at the expense of manned development is short-sighted -- once space travel becomes affordable and routine, much greater amounts of science will be possible at much lower cost.

- Ball's assumption that going to the Moon is more dangerous and expensive than flying the Shuttle is almost certainly wrong. There are lots of reasons that the Shuttle is so dangerous and expensive, which have been discussed at great length, but there is no reason to assume, a priori, that these mistakes will be repeated in the new launch architecture. Note that there is nothing inherently risky about spaceflight, or travelling to the Moon; it is currently risky only because we haven't done enough of it. Ball's solution, it would seem, would be to not do it at all -- one can only assume he rides a horse to work as well.

- Ball wonders how you justify an activity that has cost 14 lives and billions of dollars while generating "hardly anything" of value. This reflects a lack of vision on the author's part, not a lack of value. Early aviation cost far more lives, and in inflation-adjusted dollars quite a bit more investment, before air travel became routine -- but today it is a cornerstone of the world economy.

Yet the importance of air travel pales in comparison to the importance of space travel, because space travel opens up destinations that are currently not reachable at all -- while air travel, for the most part, merely made existing destinations reachable more quickly.

Ball clearly has the Earth-centric blinders that prevent him from seeing our planet as just one small world, in a system of many worlds rich in resources and energy. Our future can be one of increasing wars fought over dwindling resources, or global prosperity brought on by the abundant resources of space. Manned spaceflight is required for the latter. Exactly what scientific results are more important than that?

I have to say I vehemently disagree with the author of this column. The only reason for the space program at all is to put real live humans in space, not "science packets" of dubious value. While I certainbly agree that science is of utmost importance, when all is said and done, humans are what it takes, not some poorly programmed automaton unable to adapt to changing mission parameters. Mankind, in this case represented by NASA and the USA, must move into space. While I also disagree with the premise of the previous contrary view, I believe that space flight is, in fact, terribly dangerous and always will be. Until a commitment is made to make space flight routine, it will always be an inherently hazardous occupation. But MANNED space flight is the ultimate goal, anything alse fails to fit the bill-survival of the species. Knowledge is a wonderful thing, but in the end, what really counts is the ability to use it. Unmanned missions increase knowledge at the cost of experience and in the end, getting real people into space and giving them the opportunity to STAY there is all that matters. If anything, I am upset that this argument doesn't even address the "Earthocentricity" of LEO. Until we routinely put objects at 26,000 mile orbit, anything else is just engineering. What is needed is routine manned space flight-just what the ISSis all about. One way or another, getting out of the 11kps gravity well on a routine basis with real humans at the wheel is the ultimate goal. Until that happens, space travel is merely an expensive luxury. People, not machines, are the only thing that matters.

I expected vehement dissent to this article, and am happy that it is stimulating some discussion. I think that my differences with Joe and Scott are primarily ideological: I don't see human spaceflight as a particularly urgent goal. I don't object to it in principle, but it would have to be a lot more important to justify the current expenditure. "Resources and energy" aren't the issue at all – we're not going to lay a pipeline to Titan in time to avert an oil crisis, and wouldn't want to anyway (there's enough fossil fuel on our planet to cause environmental catastrophe, before we start siphoning it off from others). Sure, we might find mineral resources in asteroids – but those are not urgent needs compared to the need for fresh water and clean energy. And there is no good reason to think that such astro-mining would be better done by humans than robots in any case.

"Air travel pales in comparison to the importance of space travel"? Forgive me, but I don't have relatives on the moon, and it doesn't look to me like a terribly good place to sunbathe. And I hear the food is lousy. Seeing space in terms of just more "tourist destinations" means there is something seriously skewed about our attitude both to space and to travel.

"Getting real people into space and giving them the opportunity to stay there is all that matters"? Why? So many arguments like this seem to take it as a given that it's important to get humans into space. Scott seems to imply that this is something to do with survival of the species. If we can't survive on Earth, I'm not sure we deserve to do so anywhere. But in any event, I can't see that we're going to keep ourselves going from a moon base, if we can't even do it on a planet that has all we need.

No, NASA does not need to feel obliged to commit itself to science. But scientists have a right to complain when they see money being wasted in their name, as it is on the ISS.

I think it is a far nobler thing to spend our efforts trying to understand our universe, rather than trying to thrust ourselves upon it. Apollo was an inspiration, but Voyager, Magellan, Cassini-Huygens and Spirit/Opportunity are absolute wonders.

Philip -

Seeking "vehement dissent" by inflaming 90% of the space-interested public is extremely counter-productive. I can't think of a better way to devastate the space science budget in future years than to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, the manned space program. We would destroy our greatest justification and base of support in the beltway.

Why should Uncle Sam fund space science at its current levels if it gives up on manned space exploration? Our funding depends upon a tenuous mindset - a vision of a progressive future that leads somewhere. Snapping that thin thread leads directly to the failed model in the U.K. (which is evolving rapidly - see recent pro-spaceflight quotes by Lord Sainsbury and Stephen Hawking).

I'd rather see far less of this internal bickering and far more of a push to increase science AND manned spaceflight funding. Look at the cold, hard US budget numbers. NASA isn't even on the radar screen... less than 1% of the budget. Pathetic! The entire NASA budget ($16b) could be doubled without any meaningful difference in our nation's massive budget deficit (over $300b).

This is what we should be working toward. To this end, Mike Griffin needs our full support.

Unmanned space flight scores because the objectives of any mission can be easily defined (and costed) beforehand. The problem with manned space flight is that it hasn’t been thought through in terms of its potential long-term goals. As Phil Ball says, to say that it will put people on the Moon or Mars raises the question of what one would do once one gets there, that couldn’t be done more cheaply and safely by robots. “I don't have relatives on the moon, and it doesn't look to me like a terribly good place to sunbathe” says Phil. But what if he really did have relatives on the Moon? The point I am making is this – that the only worthwhile goal of manned spaceflight is for the long-term habitation of large numbers of people in space, such that they can do things that cannot be achieved easily from the Earth’s surface, and that space travel becomes as routine as air travel is now. However, were such a proposition placed before a politician, they’d be forced to say that nobody would buy into this scheme on the understandable grounds that the cost would be bottomless; the timescale beyond any number of administrations; the long-term gains nebulous; and the short-term gains nil. If the US administration has such goals in mind, it should be honest about them and say so. Until then Griffin is between a rock and a hard place, being forced to justify the expenditure of large sums of public money in the cause of ill-defined goals. And what administrator would ever want that?

Leave it to a Brit to criticize those "ugly Americans" and their space policy –- especially when they (the UK) have none to speak of themselves -- but they’re quick in asking the U.S. to save their collective bums at all cost when they ran into some problems with Germany in 1917 and 1940. . .

Seriously though, picking up on Brian Enke's comments of NASA representing "less than 1% of the (U.S.) budget", the American citizen, on average, pays between $4,000 to $8,000 dollars each year in taxes to the U.S. Government.

Out of every $1.00 (half a pound in the UK?) they pay in taxes:
$0.30 goes to the Military
$0.19 goes to pay the Interest on the National Debt
$0.20 goes to Health care
$0.07 goes to Income security
$0.04 goes to Education
$0.03 goes to Benefits for Veterans
$0.03 goes to Nutrition spending
$0.02 goes to Housing
$0.02 goes to Environmental protection
$0.01 goes to Job training
$0.11 goes to "All other expenses" that are too numerous to list here.

Out of “All other expenses,” less than 7/10ths of One cent of each tax dollar goes toward aerospace research, exploration and development in opening the Space Frontier!

So . . . for a little more than $50 a year -- roughly a dollar a week (certainly less than that daily visit to the Starbucks around the corner) -- some people believe we’re spending too much on Space.

Go figure.

I dont think there is a cause or need to be despondent. NASA has a long history behind it. The question is can it endure itself?

Explained Dr. Ralph W. Shrader, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Booz Allen Hamilton, "An Enduring Institution is one that has changed and grown in unswerving pursuit of success and relevance — yet remained true through time to its founding principles."

NASA should re-examine its founding principles. Within it lies the answer to many vexations.

Jim Spellman says "Leave it to a Brit to criticize those 'ugly Americans' and their space policy". Oh dear. Does this mean that we Brits aren't entitled to comment? That even if we don't put a smidgeon of our taxes into space research we have to keep schtum? Put up, or shut up? Perhaps We Brits shouldn't be so helpful to You Americans in your peculiar foreign policy decisions, either. As you say, go figure.

Mr Gee states: "Perhaps We Brits shouldn't be so helpful to You Americans in your peculiar foreign policy decisions, either."

And how well does "The sun never set" on the English empires of India, Hong Kong (and others) these days? How 'bout Prime Minister Chamberlain waving a piece of paper proclaiming "Peace in our Time -- or have you forgotten about Dunkirk and the Charge of the Light Brigade?

Getting back on track with the discussion at hand, the point being made is this: People spend vastly more sums of money sitting on their bums *watching* or betting on Manchester United or World Cup than what is devoted to space research and development.

It might give a few blokes a fleeting memory of a rousing 1-Nil score, but it doesn't change anything in the world -- whereas the efforts of NASA, and the international space community are trying to make some positive changes in people's everyday lives.

Mr. Gee is spot on in stating that "the only worthwhile goal of manned spaceflight is for the long-term habitation of large numbers of people in space, such that they can do things that cannot be achieved easily from the Earth’s surface, and that space travel becomes as routine as air travel is now."

However, Mr. Ball is wrong in his belief that "If we can't survive on Earth, I'm not sure we deserve to do so anywhere."

That's simply an "I-Give-Up" position -- much like what the dinosaurs did when pelted by a few space rocks eons ago, because they didn't have a means to defend or avoid their prediciment or eventual destruction (they didn't have a space program).

You're also going to have to face the fact that resources *do* eventually dry up and go away; It's one of the reasons why wars are sometimes fought. Invest in fuel cell or solar cell (aerospace) technology, and part of that problem goes away.

Here's a rather timely notice that just came across my desktop:

SPACE.com, Thu, 15 Jun 2006 3:55 AM PDT

Why Space Exploration is Important to the United States

A version of this essay was first presented by Michael F. Lembeck, Director for Northrop Grumman's Space Exploration Systems Houston Operations, at the National Society of Black Engineer's Annual Conference luncheon in Pittsburgh, PA this past April.

Is there anything common between NASA and AUTISM?

Search. The search for something unknown. The mystery of Autism is no less complex than the composition of Nature. If Nature includes the Cosmos then the data within NASA would provide the necessary ONTOLOGY to crack the mystery of AUTISM. Sounds like fiction, right? But truth is stranger than fiction. But truth always prevails.

I've been watching this discussion with some interest. (I won�t comment on the dodgy history being kicked around.) I've also been continuing the discussion privately with Brian Enke, who raised an interesting point about the need to keep the public on board, and has raised another one on NASA budgeting. Brian hasn�t persuaded me, but he�s given me food for thought, and I'm glad of the debate. (I've posted this exchange on my blog.)

Jim, I'm not making my criticisms as a Brit knocking the Yanks. I'm making it as a scientist concerned about the science. The very fact that I felt moved to comment on NASA, which isn't even my local space agency, is a reflection of the fact that NASA has done more than any other national or international space agency to open out eyes to the universe, and that scientists (and non-scientists) everywhere have reason to be grateful for the US space program. That's why we�d be saddened if it was derailed for political reasons. You�re right that it the US administration can do what it damned well likes with its program and has no obligation to consult internationally. But I can still voice dismay if I feel it. (The ISS is of course a lame duck for which the blame is shared internationally.)

Jim also mentions resources running out. Please, I keep asking but no one will answer: what energy resources are there on the moon? I�m all for fuel cells and solar cells - but since when did we need space technology for that? (Yes, yes, maybe space-based solar collectors will work, why not start investing in that? But do we need another moon shot for even that to happen? And please, don�t give me fuel cells as another 'space spin-off' - see below.)

But I'm glad you pointed me to Michael Lembeck's article, 'Why Space Exploration is Important to the United States.' Glad because it is a truly scary article, and so I suppose we do need to know that there is thinking like this within the US space program. Did I say 'thinking'? Sorry, my mistake.

The easy things first. Are there really still space engineers who believe that Velcro, Teflon and Tang are spin-offs from the space program? I'm not sure we�ll ever kill off this myth, largely because it is too useful as propaganda. Even so, I find it depressing to see it repeatedly recycled as fact.

Lembeck says it all when he comments that "Everyone believes that space exploration is a good thing, even if we can't fully explain why." That's about right - every �explanation� falls apart the moment you look into it. (Brian Enke�s pragmatic line is another matter.) But I�ve never seen one quite as hearbreaking as Lembeck's.

He says, a propos of the "early frontiers opened by Columbus and fellow explorers like Lewis and Clark" that "Most of our country�s over-the-horizon frontiers are now covered with parking lots. That's right, parking lots. Shopping mall parking lots. Filled with cars." And then you realize with rising disbelief and horror that in Lembeck's view this is A Good Thing. Yes, because "after we have the infrastructure to reliably get off the planet, we will make those inevitable discoveries on the moon. And those discoveries will be closely followed by opportunities for commerce. And more parking lots." That�s your grand vision, folks. Admittedly, the moon ain't paradise, but all the same, we�re going to pave it and put up a parking lot.

Bathos isn't the word. But there's worse, and scarily so. First, it seems that the ISS ended the Cold War and made us all buddies. But then the mask slips. Look, those Chinese have just put a man in space. "Are we now going to turn our backs and let them take the mantle we have carried proudly for the past 40 years?" Lembeck asks. You bet we�re not. Because of the ISS, �rival has become comrade�, and so what do we need to do now? Look for a new rival. I am deeply thankful that ESA, at least, sees China as a collaborator.

This, then, is Lembeck's justification for space science: "Tomorrow, new Teflons, Velcros, and Tangs will follow along with the other new discoveries enabled by NASA's transportation infrastructure. And they will ultimately be important because we can sell them. And protect our country with them." Inventing fictional spinoffs and selling them, protecting our country (from a base on the moon?) - oh, and putting up parking lots. Let�s (boldly) go!

RE: Resources on the Moon, per Mr. Ball's request

The loose lunar soil contains enough valuable raw materials for many potential and useful building products if one were to look at In Situ utilization.

For the uninitiated who may be reading this (as I'm sure Mr. Ball and Mr. Enke and others are already aware of), in its basic chemical composition, the moon can be broken down to roughly 42% Oxygen, 21% Silicon, 13% Iron, 8% Calcium, 7% Aluminum. 6% Magnesium, and 3% defined as "Other" (Source: Space Studies Institute; slide can be found at: www.ssi.org/assets/images/slide06.jpg)

These items are considered important metals and alloys; oxides for making glass, fiberglass and composite materials as strong as steel; ceramics; even cement and concrete.

Additionally, there are considerable volumes of valuable volatiles such as hydrogen, helium, carbon, nitrogen and neon which have been absorbed into the fine soil particles that could be "harvested" by heating up the material.

As a result, Lunar building materials can be used to expand the first human outpost on the Moon and eventually build larger, permanent settlements. The Moon’s natural resources also could allow one to build larger, cheaper space stations, laboratories, factories and tourist facilities in low Earth orbit, as well potential utilization of Solar Power Satellites to handle Earth’s energy needs without polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases.

All of this is possible because as Mr. Ball and Mr. Enke would tell you, it takes 20 times LESS energy to launch a given-size payload from the Moon’s lower-gravity surface to a destination in Earth orbit than it does to launch the same payload from Earth itself. Fuel expenditures, not distance, are the relevant factor.

Additionally, the Lunar Prospector mission of 1998-1999 may have provided some hints of deposits of comet impact-derived water ice in permanently shaded craters in both the northern and southern polar regions of the Moon -- water that could be used for agriculture and industry; cryogenic fuels for transportation on the Moon and between the Moon and Earth, or the Moon to Mars and beyond in our Solar System.

But perhaps from a purely "science"-driven prospect that Mr. Ball is concerned about (as I am), the placement of arrays of telescopes (visual or radio) on the far side of the Moon -- which would be shielded from all that "noise" generated by the Earth and its atmosphere -- could be a scientists and astronomers dream location for further exploration of the universe that the Hubble telescope has only given us a glimpse of.

Need more reasons? As alluded to earlier by Mr. Enke, see Steven Hawking's recent comments at http://www.nysun.com/article/34451 or http://www.khaleejtimes.com/CityHome.asp?xfile=data/citytimes/2006/June/citytimes_June84.xml§ion=citytimes&col=

Finally, there's some good news of sorts to report out of Washington, DC -- the House subcommittee approved a NASA budget for 2007 of $16.7 billion, $100 million less than that requested by the Administration. However, it restored $75 million (out of $330 million) of the funding that the Administration had cut from space science plans.

Now it's the Senate's turn to take a look at it and mark it up or down before it goes into committee to hammer out any differences between the House and Senate before it (hopefully) goes through final passage and the President's signature -- so we're not out of the woods yet (which means the public can still put pressure on their Congresscritters to see it our way in order to give NASA the adaquate funding it needs to do what it's being tasked to do).

More details can be found at: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.nl.html?pid=20100

At the risk of dominating this discussion thread before others have had a chance to digest the latest posting (not my intent; it's just the way events have transpired, due to time zone differences between the US and UK), here's another timely article from a good friend and colleague of mine that just hit the desktops both here and probably "across the pond":

What's the value of space?
---
One of the challenges the space community has grappled with for years is raising awareness of space programs with the general public. Jeff Foust reports on a recent forum that discussed the topic, but wonders if this is even the right debate to be having.

For more details, see: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/644/1

RE: Resources on the Moon, per Mr. Ball's request

I would like to add that in many ways Mendeleev's Periodic Table is a mirror image of the lunar soil with minor variations.

Palladium and platinum are the two most important sources of drugs to cure Autism

My country (the UK) effectively dropped out of directly funding space exploration in the 1960's. Projects such as the HOTOL spaceplane never made it past the 1980's budget cuts. I would hate to see the US similarly step back from manned space flight. However, we have to be honest about WHY we want to go to the Moon and beyond. What are the goals? Pure exploration is good, but probably not sufficient to justify the expenditure. Will colonising space produce a technological dividend that might address the issues piling up on terra firma? The energy crisis, the ruthless short-termism of most western governments, the list goes on. Can manned spaceflight help? If not, perhaps we should put our own house in order first.

The many things you folks are talking about, is what the International Space Agency (ISA) has been working on since 1990!

Ad-Asta! To The Stars!
In Peace For All Mankind!

International Space Agency, I.S.A.
International Space Administration
Founded in 1986 and Incorporated in 1990
Presently Seeking International Treaty Status
USA Registered Trademark & Copyright
1986 to 2007 - All Rights Reserved

Secure Website: https://www.isa-hq.com

Washington, D.C. Phone: (202) 917-0209

Omaha, Nebraska Phone: (402) 299-2799