A “Values-Based Approach“? The question is — what are the values? I think he’s got it wrong:
Discovery is why a nation should go to space. It is what inspires all of humanity. It has been NASA’s only use of human spaceflight in the post-Apollo era that has returned value that is highly regarded by nearly all people in developed countries with free access to information. The synergy that once existed between human-assisted and robotic space exploration in the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) program is a blueprint for sustained deep space human-assisted exploration that can stoke the nation’s competitiveness in science, technology, and math toward realization of long-term financial and physical security.
That’s an opinion, not a fact. I would expect a scientist to think that science is the reason for human spaceflight, but most people don’t agree with him (or have even given it much thought). If it’s not for the purpose of developing and settling space, the amount of money we’re spending on it is unjustifiable.
Not all discoveries are scientific in nature. Discoveries may be scientific, technological, religious, artistic, military, legal, political, personal, or inter-personal.
The real question is why this should be limited to NASA.
Six American astronauts a year isn’t a space program, it’s a rounding error.
If space exploration is important, shouldn’t we enable everyone to explore space?
Edward,
Unfortunately the trend in science is going in the opposite direction, one of exclusion rather than inclusion. It used to be that any amateur could collect rocks, flowers, fossils, insects on government land outside of national parks. Now you need a permit for anything other than pictures and if you are not a “professional” scientist forget getting one. And folks wonder why kids are not going into science.
Tom, it’s worse than that. Once upon a time it was possible to be a scientist with only a B.S. degree. We’ve now upped that requirement to a Ph.D. We’ve even added postdoctoral “studies” to the requirement.
Let me give you two examples I personally know. I won’t give their names. Let’s just say they are women in the field of biology.
The older is 47. She got her B.S. at 22. Her Ph.D. at 29. That was followed by 6 years of postdoctoral studies. She gets her first “real job” at 35. She’s been working her tail off through all those years of school, but as a student. At age 38 she’s told she’s not a good team member. She’s now working as an adjunct. That’s a poorly paid part timer, usually with multiple positions.
The younger woman (by about a decade) followed a similar career path. Early in her postdoctoral studies, though, she walked out. Wonder why?
Chuck,
I am not surprised. A good friend of my got a Ph.D. in astronomy from a good research school, but after years of unemployment he considers himself lucky to be a high school science teacher. At least it pays his loans.
Big Science has become like Big Sports. A very few lucky ones get to the majors, the rest spend their time playing sandlot ball.
That is why I consider it almost criminal to recommend a career in science to kids. My twin daughters are in college. One is studying accounting, the other business administration. Both already have jobs at a major bank even though they are juniors. They also don’t have student loans as the bank helps with their tuition while I cover the rest.
A good friend of my got a Ph.D. in astronomy from a good research school, but after years of unemployment he considers himself lucky to be a high school science teacher.
And that is wrong, because…?
Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, was a high-school teacher.
There’s a scientist in my town who developed a semiconductor nanoparticle that kills cancer cells when exposed to certain wavelengths of light. She’s not a high-school teacher, though — she’s a high-school student.
You and Chuck seem to have the idea that people can’t do science unless they have a job at a university. That’s strange, when the cellphone on your hip has more power than a university supercomputing center from a few years ago.
Edward,
Anyone is able to do science, but as my post above noted, trying to get permits to collect and research on government owned land these days without having a Ph.D. and being at a university is nearly impossible.
Its one of the ways the rights of the individual as been eroded. Before public land meant that the land was opened for all activities to the public, no government permission needed. Now public lands mean closed to the public for most activities unless they get are one of the lucky few that get permission from the government to do it.
Most of the top scientists started as kids collecting insects, flowers, fossils, minerals, etc. Now most of those activities are banned unless they are under the close supervision of some group which pretty much kills any creativity or prospects for discovery that motivated them before.
Once upon a time it was possible to be a scientist with only a B.S. degree. We’ve now upped that requirement to a Ph.D.
Obviously, you’ve never attended a Maker Faire.
With the possible exception of national security (including weather), no government spending on space is “justified”.
If spaceflight were about colonization, the government wouldn’t, and shouldn’t, be doing it.
So, Trent, how do we get them the hell out of the way?
Ed,
Simple, Advocate for continued budget cuts for NASA, kill off NASA programs like COTS/CCP that have the potential to assimilate space commerce visions and work to get ISS deorbited so it stops competing with private plans for space habitats.
NASA was created to take manned space away from the military, for Cold War propaganda purposes. Now that the Cold War is over, can anyone tell me why we shouldn’t move it back to the military?
Edward,
Good idea, but government HSF will be given to the military only when you are able to take it out of NASA’s cold dead hand 🙂
I guess that’s one more vote in favor of a Space Guard.
Ed,
Yep, and you could pay for it by zeroing out the Budget for NASA, giving 2-3 billion to the NSF for a space science program and using the rest to fund a Space Guard on the condition it takes over NONE of the existing NASA facilities or programs.
BTW I nominate Gen. Worden as its 1st Commander 🙂
Yes, space as science has failed to sell beyond the science field for decades. Seeing space as merely science, rather than a new frontier for human expansion, is the reason the majority the public doesn’t care about the cost of space access, ISS, or what happens to NASA.
We can still die in the cradle.
Totally agree with your take on the article, Rand.