There are two sources on space policy who I wish that journalists covering space would remove from their rolodexes, or at least not have them at the top: John Pike, and Gregg Easterbrook.

Well, the latter has a piece in Wired that is typically infuriating.

Let’s start off with the very first paragraph:

Here is a set of rational priorities for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, in descending order of importance: (1) Conduct research, particularly environmental research, on Earth, the sun, and Venus, the most Earth-like planet. (2) Locate asteroids and comets that might strike Earth, and devise a practical means of deflecting them. (3) Increase humanity’s store of knowledge by studying the distant universe. (4) Figure out a way to replace today’s chemical rockets with a much cheaper way to reach Earth orbit.

Well, OK.

He starts off by poisoning the well. Obviously, since anyone who disagrees with his “rational” priorities is irrational, what’s the point in arguing with him?

Well, despite the fact that Gregg considers me irrational, I’ll dispute his priorities.

Ignoring the (in my opinion) irrationality of even his order, let us take them one by one.

(1) Conduct research, particularly environmental research, on Earth, the sun, and Venus, the most Earth-like planet.

OK. Even granted (just for the sake of the argument) that this is an important thing to do, why is it an important thing for NASA to do? Venus, OK (though it’s not obvious that we’ll really learn that much more about greenhouse from it that we don’t already know by spending a lot more money on it), but why earth? Why, for instance, isn’t this a job for NOAA? Has Gregg read the NASA charter? For that matter, has Gregg observed NASA’s general performance over the past half century since its inception? If this is his number one priority, why would he want NASA to do it? If something was important to me to happen, the last place I’d want to see in charge of it (particularly given the rest of Gregg’s fulminations) is NASA.

Yes, it involves remote sensing satellites, but so what? DoD does those. NOAA does as well (though it relies on NASA to help with program management, but there’s no intrinsic reason for that). Even the NSF could do it. All any government agency that wants data has to do is put out a bid for the data, and select a contractor to provide it. NASA no longer has any unique expertise in this.

Now, to go on to his second priority, looking for things that are going to hit us from beyond, I agree that this is an important function, and not just for the nation, but for the planet.

But again, why does he think that this is NASA’s responsibility? Once again, read the agency’s charter. If there’s any government agency responsible for protecting the planet against predictable natural events, I’d say that it’s the Army Corps of Engineers. I’m not (mind you) saying that the ACE is particularly good at this sort of thing, but at least it’s within its charter. I’d say that the recent fiasco in which NASA didn’t even want to let the public read its own report on the subject would be ample reason to not want the agency in charge of it.

So, let’s take on numero tres: Increase humanity’s store of knowledge by studying the distant universe.

OK. That’s nice. It’s even within the agency’s charter. But why is it number three? Why not number one, or number ten? He doesn’t say. Knowledge for knowledge’ sake is great, but how does one prioritize it even among other federal science activities (including the National Science Foundation, let alone the federal discretionary budget. let alone the entire federal budget)?

And last (and also, I agree with him, least), replacing chemical rockets. But I agree with him for different reasons than he might think. Gregg continues to suffer from the (to use a phrase from a former roommate and fellow space activist) “zippy whammo drive” syndrome. He has managed to delude himself that the reason that space access costs so much is because we use those crude chemical rockets.

Well, I’ve debunked that notion many times, but Gregg continues to not get it (probably because, among other things, he doesn’t read me).

So, what does he think that NASA is doing?

(1) Maintain a pointless space station. (2) Build a pointless Motel 6 on the moon. (3) Increase humanity’s store of knowledge by studying the distant universe. (4) Keep money flowing to favored aerospace contractors and congressional districts.

Well, he’s got the order wrong. Number 4 is actually Priority Numero Uno. And it’s absurd to think that NASA has a priority to build anything on the moon, given the architecture they’ve chosen to do so. They certainly show no signs of building the hardware necessary to actually get to the moon, given that they decided instead to spend all their money building a new unneeded launch vehicle and a capsule to get people into orbit without the Shuttle.

Of course, it’s reasonable to be upset that some of the earth observing missions have been cancelled, but that wasn’t because NASA wants to “build a Motel 6 on the moon,” pointless or otherwise. It’s because of specific architecture choices that NASA has made that are eating up all the available budget, and are bound to auger in, one way or another, as has been extensively discussed over the past few days.

For a sense of how out of whack NASA priorities have become, briefly ponder that plan. Because the Apollo missions suggested there was little of pressing importance to be learned on the moon, NASA has not landed so much as one automated probe there in three decades. In fact, the rockets used by the Apollo program were retired 30 years ago; even space enthusiasts saw no point in returning to the lunar surface. But now, with the space station a punch line and the shuttles too old to operate much longer, NASA suddenly decides it needs to restore its moon-landing capability in order to build a “permanent” crewed base. The cost is likely to be substantial