If there were no Manned Space Program where would the Money go?

[jshore]

It’s an ugly time at NASA, where wars are breaking out as the manned space exploration programs squeeze money from real science. Here is an article in the news section of Science describing the situation, although non-subscribers probably won’t have access to the whole thing. Here is an excerpt from the article:

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin this week read the riot act to the outside scientists who advise him, accusing them of thinking more of themselves and their research than of the agency’s mission. Griffin’s harsh comments come on the heels of the resignation of three distinguished scientists from the NASA Advisory Council (NAC), two of whom have questioned Griffin’s plan to dramatically scale back a host of science projects (Science, 12 May, p. 824).

“The scientific community … expects to have far too large a role in prescribing what work NASA should do,” Griffin wrote council members in a blistering 21 August message. “By ‘effectiveness,’ what the scientific community really means is ‘the extent to which we are able to get NASA to do what we want to do.’”

The outside engineers, scientists, and educators on the council traditionally offer advice on the agency’s policies, budget, and projects. Placed in limbo for nearly a year after Griffin took over as NASA chief in spring 2005, NAC was reorganized this spring under the leadership of geologist Harrison Schmitt, a former U.S. senator and Apollo astronaut who is very enthusiastic about President George W. Bush’s plans to send humans back to the moon and to Mars. Schmitt replaced Charles Kennel, director of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, California, who resigned last week from his post as chair of the council’s science committee. Two other NAC members–former NASA space science chief Wesley Huntress and Provost Eugene Levy of Rice University in Houston, Texas–resigned last week in response to a direct request from Griffin that they step down.

…

Both Levy, a physicist, and Huntress, an astrochemist now at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, D.C., say they support human space exploration but fear that science is now taking a back seat after years of a careful balance between human and robotic efforts.

[E-Sabbath]

You’re right. How dare people expect NASA to abandon science for mere space exploration. It’s not like that’s what the agency was upgraded from NACA to do or anything…

[Tully_Mars]

@Ravenman

The issue of retirements isn’t relevent: that’s a question of demographics, and it doesn’t show whether fewer people studied science before Apollo, greater numbers in the aftereffect of Apollo, and fewer again once Apollo was over. The issue of retirements at NASA strikes me as not any substantially different than the Baby Boomer retirement that will affect dozens of other businesses, government agencies, and Social Security.

I thought about this some over the weekend and I think I have to agree with you. In fact, I wonder if the decline may be more related to the second generation post-WWII not emphasizing science and math as much as the first post-WWII parents (if that makes sense).

I’m still think were facing a crisis in technical education. I’m not a huge favor of manned space exploration at the expense of un-manned, but there’s no denying that manned exploration captures the public’s imagination. Perhaps if NASA were to glamorize their unmanned programs a little more, the would serve to better capture the imagination of youngsters.

[Ravenman]

Tully Mars, I also intended to say earlier that your point about H1Bs is right. There’s also certainly a connection between the astounding growth of the hi-tech industry and the growth of foreign workers, too.

I don’t doubt for one second that exciting things like moon missions makes science more appealing to kids. But then, lots and lots of things are appealing to kids, and I simply question whether whiz-bang amazing acheivements, even in the name of science, have a lasting impression on children.

@Shagnasty

If we could just find something motivational from NASA, 4 - 5 years prior to that, we might be able to show something.

What makes you so certain that only NASA can be responsible for more students studying engineering? Why do you say that this isn’t responsible for inspiring so many more students to be engineers or scientists during those years?