# How China could advance space science **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 18, 2005, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-china-could-advance-space-science/326731 "2005-10-18T11:11:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-china-could-advance-space-science/326731/41 "2005-10-19T13:37:15Z")
It’s a bizarre OP from you **SM** because of the hostility to a position you don’t hold, obvious distortion of facts (16 Billion a year is not planned to be spent on this Mars trip, it represents the budget allocated to NASA) and of course the odious idea of effectively executing a person to remove a motivating factor in the US’ Moon, Mars and Beyond program. That’s the heart of your OP, though it took a while to get here. By having China reach Mars first, you’re suggesting that the US would then scrap their manned spaceflight program and devote the funding to space sciences. None of which actually follow the other. You’ll have noticed that the USSR did not abandon their human spaceflight program following the US moon missions. You’ll also note that the funding for space science (~5.5 Billion out of NASA’s 16 Billion) already matches the budget allocated to all the funded groups under the NSF (~5.5 Billion). So saying that the space sciences are starved is ridiculous. If NASA removed its human space flight (~6.7 Billion) under what scenario could it be applied to space science and not either eliminated from budget spending or subsumed by other departments? Ultimately it seems to me that it comes down to your view that basic science, in this instance space based science, has an intrinsically higher value that that of applied science. That’s a separate discussion, but it’s not a position I share. I blame my iron ring. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-china-could-advance-space-science/326731/42 "2005-10-19T14:12:27Z")
> [@Grey](#): > > It’s a bizarre OP from you SM because of the hostility to a position you don’t hold The position that the search for xenobiological life and evidence confirming cosmological explanations for our universe is “abstract crap”? Yes, I am hostile to that position, since I consider that it constitutes _ignorance_. > [@](#): > > obvious distortion of facts (16 Billion a year is not planned to be spent on this Mars trip, it represents the budget allocated to NASA) Of course I appreciate this - that’s why I said that it had been earmarked for the VFSE (not specifically a manned return Mars mission), and even then only as an example of what kind of sums are allowed while other research sums are not. But a manned return Mars mission would be so expensive that there isn’t even a figure for it yet, and I can’t cite budget numbers which don’t yet exist. > [@](#): > > and of course the odious idea of effectively executing a person to remove a motivating factor in the US’ Moon, Mars and Beyond program. I retracted the execution idea - we’re now discussing an effective _euthenisation of a willing participant_. Who am I to argue with someone who _wants_ to die like this (especially given the heroism of those who _have_ died for space exploration, in which the certainty was merely replaced by grave risk)? > [@](#): > > By having China reach Mars first, you’re suggesting that the US would then scrap their manned spaceflight program and devote the funding to space sciences. Not in _toto_ - after all, those zero-g experiments on the ISS are still useful, and various satellites still need maintenance. But the hugely expensive long distance programs, just to further test something we designed and tested on Earth? Yes, they can go, IMO. > [@](#): > > If NASA removed its human space flight (~6.7 Billion) under what scenario could it be applied to space science and not either eliminated from budget spending or subsumed by other departments? Again, I’m not advocating that no more humans be launched into orbit, just that we don’t specifically need to put them on the moon or Mars. The sums I’ve seen thrown around don’t convince me that these specific destinations would be cheap. And as I’ve already said, my position is that their cancellation _should_ mean more for unmanned missions, but it’s hardly up to me to show that it ultimately _would_. > [@](#): > > Ultimately it seems to me that it comes down to your view that basic science, in this instance space based science, has an intrinsically higher value that that of applied science. I’m all for applied science - I’m an applied scientist. But the manned return Mars mission would just be taking that applied science we did on Earth and _putting it somewhere really inconvenient_. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-china-could-advance-space-science/326731/43 "2005-10-19T14:48:23Z")
Nope. The hostility I’m mentioning is > [@SentientMeat](#): > > We’ve had plenty of threads discussing manned spaceflight, in which I have argued that it’s a waste of money which could be spent genuinely trying to explain our existence. > > Because manned vs. unmanned space missions are both still space budgets. The former would do nowhere near as much as the latter to explain our existence. At least I take it as low level hostility, at least with this OP that by killing the drive for human spaceflight, space sciences would benefit. Only I see no indication that a reduction in human spaceflight would add any money to space science, or any other science field for that matter. > [@SentientMeat](#): > > The position that the search for xenobiological life and evidence confirming cosmological explanations for our universe is “abstract crap”? Yes, I am hostile to that position, since I consider that it constitutes ignorance. It is not ignorant to be _more_ interested in human spaceflight than first generation stellar formation. You’re confusing that position, or at least linking it, with the anti-intellectual crowd. It does not necessarily follow, and I have yet to see, that a _preference_ for human space flight indicates a desire to remain ignorant of the results from space science. If there is information to that effect I would have to revise my position of course. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-china-could-advance-space-science/326731/44 "2005-10-19T14:56:46Z")
> [@Grey](#): > > I see no indication that a reduction in human spaceflight would add any money to space science, or any other science field for that matter. But I trust you recognise that it is legitimate for me to suggest that it _should_, me not being a member of the US Senate and all. > [@](#): > > It is not ignorant to be more interested in human spaceflight than first generation stellar formation. You’re confusing that position, or at least linking it, with the anti-intellectual crowd. I responded to _Epi_\*'s “abstract crap” characterisation, and said precisely nothing of those who _are_ inspired by unmanned space science - I think it’s you who are confusing or unjustifiably extrapolating _my_ position. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-china-could-advance-space-science/326731/45 "2005-10-19T15:01:50Z")
Of course you can suggest. I simply don’t see how it can happen. Since I seem to have misunderstood your target, though I’m not sure how many anti-intellectuals are pro-space in any shape or form, I’ll drop it. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-china-could-advance-space-science/326731/46 "2005-10-19T15:02:42Z")
I just find the whole idea of waiting a prolonged period for some guy to expire whilst under the constant observation of a curious public unbearably creepy. “Well, Ai Guo, it’s been a great couple of years, but tomorrow your oxygen runs out. So I guess you’ll be dead. Any thoughts?” “I wanna liiiiiiiiiive!” [off mic]“Does he ever get tired of saying that?”[/off mic] ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-china-could-advance-space-science/326731/47 "2005-10-19T15:15:17Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > I responded to _Epi_\*'s “abstract crap” characterisation, and said precisely nothing of those who _are_ inspired by unmanned space science - I do hope you are not thinking that position is a characterisation of ME or my opinions, but realise that I am merely setting up a hyperbolic characterisation of people that think that spending tax money on something they don’t even begin to understand is bad. It may be poor form, but I don’t think any science is crap, though I am aware of many people that do. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-china-could-advance-space-science/326731/48 "2005-10-19T15:23:34Z")
[Quick tangent (from an Earth based observatory)](http://xxx.lanl.gov/list/astro-ph/new) 🙂 > [@](#): > > astro-ph/0510508 [abs, ps, pdf, other] : > Title: A ~ 7.5 Earth-Mass Planet Orbiting the Nearby Star, GJ 876 > Authors: E. J. Rivera, J. J. Lissauer, R. P. Butler, G. W. Marcy, S. S. Vogt, D. A. Fischer, T. M. Brown, G. Laughlin, G. W. Henry > Comments: 49 pages, 16 figures, 1 electronic table > > ``` > High precision, high cadence radial velocity monitoring over the past 8 years at the W. M. Keck Observatory reveals evidence for a third planet orbiting the nearby (4.69 pc) dM4 star GJ 876. The residuals of three-body Newtonian fits, which include GJ 876 and Jupiter mass companions b and c, show significant power at a periodicity of 1.9379 days. Self-consistently fitting the radial velocity data with a model that includes an additional body with this period significantly improves the quality of the fit. These four-body (three-planet) Newtonian fits find that the minimum mass of companion ``d'' is m sin i = 5.89 +- 0.54 Earth masses and that its orbital period is 1.93776 (+- 7x10^-5) days. Assuming coplanar orbits, an inclination of the GJ 876 planetary system to the plane of the sky of ~ 50 degrees gives the best fit. **This inclination yields a mass for companion d of m = 7.53 +- 0.70 Earth masses, making it by far the lowest mass companion yet found around a main sequence star other than our Sun**. Precise photometric observations at Fairborn Observatory confirm low-level brightness variability in GJ 876 and provide the first explicit determination of the star's 96.7-day rotation period. Even higher precision short-term photometric measurements obtained at Las Campanas imply that planet d does not transit GJ 876. > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-china-could-advance-space-science/326731/49 "2005-10-19T16:16:26Z")
Back on [topic](http://www.ras.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=847&Itemid=1) > [@](#): > > In summarising their findings, the Commissioners state: “We find that profound scientific questions relating to the history of the solar system and the existence of life beyond Earth can best – perhaps only - be achieved by human exploration on the Moon or Mars, supported by appropriate automated systems. The above is from a report commissioned by the Royal Astronomical Society (UK) on whether or not the UK should consider becoming involved with human spaceflight. The members of the report panel are > [@](#): > > The Chair of the Commission is Professor Frank Close OBE, Professor of Physics and Fellow at Exeter College, Oxford, where his research interests are in the quark structure of matter. He was formerly the head of the Theoretical Physics Division at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire. > > Dr. John Dudeney OBE is Deputy Director of the British Antarctic Survey. He has served on or been involved with a number of international committees and bodies, both scientific and non-scientific, and has made around 20 trips to Antarctica. > > Professor Ken Pounds CBE FRS is Emeritus Professor of Space Physics at the University of Leicester. He was President of the RAS 1990-1992 and Chief Executive of the UK Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC) 1994-8. Though I wonder how much is tied to not wanting to be left out of either the ESA or NASA projects. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-china-could-advance-space-science/326731.md?page=2)