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.
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.
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.
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)?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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
Though I wonder how much is tied to not wanting to be left out of either the ESA or NASA projects.
