Why Does the US Have a Civil Space Program?

BDew writes "The Presidents of the National Academy of Science and the National Academy of Engineering have commissioned a study on the Rationale and Goals of the US Civil Space Program. In short, the Academies are asking why the nation has a civil space program (including human, robotic, commercial, and personal spaceflight). The study is intended to provide a strategic framework for the nation's activities in space that can provide consistent guidance in an increasingly interconnected world. The members of the study committee are interested in the views (positive or negative) of the general public, particularly those people with a scientific and/or technological interest."

Re:Let's rephrase : scientists say, kill manned sp

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked at the National Academies for a year, and I've never seen such a disorganized, confused, and visionless organization in my life. There were no less than 5 IT departments managing their web site(s), none of which was answerable to the others, and no CIO or central IT management. We had a database driven web site with a crumbling database and I spent most of my year telling them it was critical we fix it before it died, they decided to put the effort into CSS and graphics instead. More relevant here... I had an executive director tell me, and I quote, "Our reports don't matter, what matters is that we have them." The Academies are in theory one organization, but in reality it's 4 divisions that operate like warring principalities, and what little theoretical high level unifying management there is mostly seems to be disinterested. Each of these principalities is run by an executive director, so one of them saying "we exist only to exist" is incredibly sad. The Academies were apparently once a prestigious academic institution, but it seems now they're just a floundering Beltway Bandit - except they aren't trying to make any money even, it's a nonprofit.

Re:Why has already been answered

[NullProg]

NASA was formed to explore space as a peaceful endeavor, not as a conquest.

Bullshit. Your confusing your Federation/Starfleet history with NASA.

NASA was created because Sputnik scared the shit out of everyone.
http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/index.html [nasa.gov]

  The Sputnik launch also led directly to the creation of National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). In July 1958, Congress passed the National Aeronautics and Space Act (commonly called the "Space Act"), which created NASA as of October 1, 1958 from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) and other government agencies.

Enjoy,

Re:argument for a civil program

[Animats]

For example, the helium-3 surface deposits on the moon could provide a energy source far greater than that of fission or conventional power generation.

That's space PR bullshit.

• We don't know how to build any kind of fusion reactor that works.
• Fusing He-3 is harder to do that fusing deteureum. It's potentially cleaner. Maybe.
• The density of He-3 on the moon is very low. A big fraction of the Moon's entire surface would have to be strip-mined. Deutereum, on the other hand, is easily extracted from water.

Certain molecular structures only form in the absence of a strong gravitational field. It could provide for advances in building materials, or allow for the development of quantum devices that may not be possible to produce terrestrially (or be prohibitively expensive) en masse.

Nobody has ever found anything worth manufacturing in space. NASA has tried. For small things, gravity isn't that big a deal. For big things, lift capacity is too expensive. Some early shuttle flights carried an electrophoresis apparatus to try to make some drug, but it turned out to be easier to do that via genetic engineering. Almost all the the "science projects" currently on the ISS are related to space flight as an end in itself. There's currently something up on "biological macromolecular crystals", but in fact, those can and are grown on the ground.

Re:Something I would ask

[Nebu]

What is the real use of getting a man to Mars or another planet other thean bragging about it for the next 70 years? Somehow, some people are in favor of a manned space program. The question is, what is the tangible benifit of sending people to the moon/Mars/Jupiter/Proxima Centauri?

"Sending people to the moon" had a lot of prerequisites. These prerequisites include:

• Developed by NASA
• • memory foam (used in your mattresses)
  • home insulation (not exactly invented by NASA, but they changed it from adhoc hacks into an actual science and engineering discipline)
  • Satelitte Dishes
  • GPS
  • Laser thermometer
  • Invisible braces
  • Joystick controllers
• Improved by NASA
• • MRI
  • quartz clocks
  • smoke alarm
  • Water purification systems
  • Automobiles
  • cordless tools
  • Thermal gloves and boots
  • Shock absorbing helmets
  • Lithium Batteries
• Found new uses by NASA
• • velcro
  • kevlar

And many, many more (see http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at_home.html [nasa.gov], http://spaceplace.jpl.nasa.gov/en/kids/spinoffs2.shtml [nasa.gov], http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/5-8/features/F_Spinoffs_Extra.html [nasa.gov] etc.)

"Putting a man on mars" is simply an easy-to-define milestone. The real benefits are too long to lists.

Re:Let's rephrase : scientists say, kill manned sp

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing to keep in mind is the outer space treaty (aka Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies), signed by the United States which says:

States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the Moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.

Re:Something I would ask

[TapeCutter]

"defining what Bush's Vision for Space Exploration meant"

It meant: stop looking at Earth's environment [nytimes.com].

Re:The End of the World

[Bruce Perens]

Where have you been for the last 8 years? There is nothing righteous about our power.

Re:Let's rephrase : scientists say, kill manned sp

[FleaPlus]

It should also be noted that the "Obama militarizing NASA" story that was on slashdot a few days ago was complete bollocks. The EELV launchers were partially subsidized by the Air Force, but are entirely owned by Boeing and Lockheed Martin. NASA's used EELVs in the past to launch things like the New Horizons mission, and I don't think anybody claimed that this was somehow militarizing the exploration of Pluto. This article explains things well:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/media-botches-story-on-obamas-nasa-plans/ [pajamasmedia.com]

The only problem with this is that -- unless they are talking about some other vehicles, and if so, it's hard to imagine what they are -- the EELVs aren't "military rockets." Their development was subsidized with Air Force funds, but they were developed with Boeing and Lockheed Martinâ(TM)s money as well, and they are commercial rockets, available to the military, commercial users, and NASA. There is no need to "tear down a barrier" for NASA to use them, as evidenced by the fact that NASA is already using them. For example, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter was blasted to orbit and off to Mars with an Atlas V/Centaur over three years ago.

There is NASA resistance to using EELVs, but not because they are "military rockets." It's because they are seen as a threat to the agency's -- or more specifically, administrator Mike Griffinâ(TM)s â" desire to develop a new NASA-only vehicle, called Ares 1, and perhaps later, the larger version of it, Ares 5. If the EELVs become viewed as viable launchers for the human missions, the case for the Ares, already weak -- particularly considering its extensive development teething problems â" becomes much weaker, perhaps to the point at which the program dies. (It should be noted that five years ago, prior to becoming NASA administrator, Dr. Griffin, who is apparently desperately attempting to hang on to his job, had no problems with using EELVs for crewed spaceflight.)

Most overlooked item

[code_rage]

I am surprised the following report has not been posted or submitted to /.

Future of Human Spaceflight [mit.edu] (16-page PDF)

The MIT Space, Policy & Society Research Group took a step back from the "do this" / "no, do that" debate and examined the very questions being posed by the National Academy of Sciences.

The above link has a 16-page document that examines the reasons for a human spaceflight program. The report is compelling, challenging and thought-provoking.

Give it a read!

They also didn't pay much for "space pens"

[NotQuiteReal]

Fisher sold Space Pens [snopes.com] to NASA for $2.95 each.

In perspective

[Enahs]

In terms of the Federal government's budget:

Department of Defense: 52%
NASA: 0.5%

Gee...yeah...cutting NASA will save LOADS of money.