David Acheson has an editorial in today’s WaPo that is, as is usually the case in such editorials, based on a false and unexamined premise–that the only reason that NASA exists (at least the space side of it) is to do science.

…is manned flight necessary to NASA’s scientific mission?…

…NASA and the president would do well to take advantage of the shuttle’s inevitable downtime to have a senior scientific panel independent of NASA consider America’s scientific goals in space and whether they need to be served by manned spacecraft…

…Manned flight devours the NASA budget and starves the unmanned missions, which are far more capable in space science, all for reasons that seem to stem from the mystique of the astronaut program….

…It is time to take a mature, unemotional look at where manned spaceflight came from and where it is going, and with what technology and at what cost. Then either set it on a new path, with technology we can trust, or turn toward unmanned space science.

(emphasis mine)

The story never changes–it’s the old, “let the robots do it” argument, that never seems to pale to its admirers, and they’ll ultimately win as long as we grant their premise that science is the raison d’etre of space. Because of course, if this premise is correct, the manned space program indeed can’t be justified at current costs, and we should indeed shut it down.

But as I’ve pointed out many times, here and elsewhere, we need to stop looking at space as a reserve for scientists, and start thinking about it as a place for all potential human endeavors. Only then can we determine whether or not we should have a “manned space program,” and what form it should take.