I assume he meant it as a joke, and I took it as such, but then I read this on Peter Woit’s blog
”
The New York Times today in its Science Times section has a very interesting article by Dennis Overbye entitled China Pursues Major Role in Particle Physics. It tells some of the history of particle physics in China, describes the BEPC accelerator in Beijing which has just had a luminosity upgrade, and discusses the role China may play in future accelerator projects, especially the ILC. A US physicist who sometimes works at BEPC, Frederick Harris, is quoted as saying “The rate China is growing, this is something they could contemplate hosting in 10 years.” Perhaps the future of high-energy frontier accelerator projects really will be in China.
“

Everything I have heard from within NASA is that JWST is delayed due to terrible mismanagement and technical problems — not funding issues. They are over $4B already anyway! Talk about one project stealing all the funds from other astrophysics missions…

And I disagree that a separate science-from-space voice in D.C. would have better results than a unified NASA voice where science is part of the constituency. Because, as Sean said, NASA has to fight against NIH or Dept. of Transportation or Homeland Security as well, at that level, having as powerful a lobbying organization (ie. NASA in it’s behemoth glory) probably serves us better. A smaller niche lobby group would be less likely I think to fight against the “big boys” at the OMB level. And then that means that science just has to fight to claim it’s fair share of the NASA budget (against the Moon, or aeronautics engineering) instead of against congressional budget issues (homelessness, education, terrorism).

The leadership of a separate administrator should bring the budget fight for space science at the level of Congress, under a separate mandate. The politics in DC is such that only this way could deliver a better priority and funds allocation irrespective of NASA big-ticket woes or successes. There should not be an increase in bureaucracy - the same bunch of people will be working under a different mandate and budget more finely tuned to science.

For example, NASA recently pushed back launch date of the James Webb Telescope for 2 years as a result of struggling with the costs of the Moon exploration program. Under a separate agency and mandate, this telescope will be designed and constructed under a different priority, budget, with the flexibility to select launch contractor and launch date.

Our fantasies about living on low gravity worlds are just that, ungrounded and unrealistic. Much better to spend NASA money on Hubble and its progeny.

The times we are in now have more than two space capable nations. Shared technology would lower the cost of a lunar base. The Apollo Program ended with the US & USSR on the same mission.

2024 is almost 2 decades away. The balance of World Power will shift by 2024. Apollo was a fast track program. This newest lunar mission program is a slow track plan. The American people are not going to buy into this slow plan. Moreover, it is the American taxpayer, after all, who foots the bill for new foot prints on the lunar surface.

Personally, I certainly must step aside for Sean and other more qualified opinions, but while I have also been very strongly against a mission to Mars, nearby asteroids, etc. (The machines do it better!) I think a moon base could provide the infrastructure we really need to begin a more practical exploration of space.

After all, outlandish ideas such as a space elevator are really just a means to create a cheap way to get into space! If we had a moon base, would we not significantly cut the expenses of all future missions (manned or otherwise?)

A base could eventually create its own probes or rockets. Or maybe an enormous space telescope that does not have all those issues of an atmosphere as dense as the earths!

This is all relatively speculative, I admit. But it seems to be a step we must undertake at some point…

Cheers,

NM

Japan used to have three separate aerospace agencies: the National Space Development Agency (in charge of heavy-lift rockets, satellite and ISS development, and training astronauts), the Institute for Space and Astronautical Science (mostly space science research, including X-ray astronomy satellites), and the National Aerospace Laboratory. In 2003, they were merged into a single agency, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, at least partly in the hopes of achieving greater efficiency. Perhaps this will turn out not to be a good idea, but it indicates that at least one country that had experience with multiple, separate civilian space programs decided it wasn’t such a good idea.

As Sean points out (#20), none of the NASA-related budgetary work takes place in a vacuum. In addition to the sort of thinking that might go on within OMB, the decisions on funding both NASA and NSF in the House take place in an appropriations subcommittee that considers NASA, NSF, EPA, Housing and Urban Development, and the Veterans Administration.

http://www.stsci.edu/institute/center/information/streaming/archive/AERM

I’ve already put in proposals to do astronomy from the moon in fact, as part of the Constellation program. I don’t think the moon’s ideal by any means for most applications, but it’s not bad for some.

the science community (not just astrophysics, et.al) need to get a much more coherent strategy together to deal with the Mars/Moon initiative (the Vision, or, as I sometimes call it, the Hallucination). About half the people at this conference whined that the Moon program was stealing all their science money (partially true, but, that doesn’t help a damn thing), the other half tried to argue that if we’re getting a free ride there anyway, let’s make the best of it. (but be careful not to be tricked into paying your way to the place you didn’t want to go to anyway).