Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: BruceMoomaw Mar 28 2006, 01:41 AM

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1106

No word on HOW he'll restore them, though -- or how much.

Posted by: mars loon Mar 29 2006, 12:56 AM

Well this would be very welcome news indeed !!!

Hopefully logic is returning and the "evisceration" of science will be "eviserated" !!.

Posted by: BruceMoomaw Mar 29 2006, 01:14 AM

The alarming possibility is that he'll just pull the funds out of other areas of space science -- rather than pulling them out of Shuttle/Station. (At this point, the latter reminds me of the later appearances of the Master in the Doctor Who series, in which his seeming indestructibility ceased to be alarming and became merely irritating.)

Posted by: mars loon Mar 29 2006, 01:29 AM

yes that is my fear to. those possibilities were discussed at LPSC and Mary Cleave was quoted to that effect

Posted by: nprev Mar 29 2006, 06:16 AM

[RANT MODE]

I hate to sound all starry-eyed, idealistic, and unrealistic....but, dammit, why does science (defined in this tirade as pure research for the sake of acquiring abstract knowledge that invariably proves serendipitous) always have to fight for its very existence???

I think Sagan had the right idea: educate the public & thereby align priorities in public spending. I know that Bruce & other science journalists are doing their level best, and God knows we need them to keep on keepin' on, but we as a community need a charismatic figure of some sort or another marketing hook, distasteful as it may seem. To paraphrase the late & great: Who (or what) will speak for UMSF? Any takers? Any ideas??

[/RANT MODE]...mostly.

Posted by: mars loon Mar 29 2006, 04:38 PM

I do extensive public outreach to educate the public exactly as you describe, more then 8 different venues in March alone. I can say first hand that the public of all ages does respond positively

many are listed here:
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=1972

FYI: Cosmos is being rerun on the Discovery Science Channel with updated graphics. Last night (tuesday) the topic was mars, and the program holds up very well.

and yes, we scientists must promote the importance of scientific research to the public to maintain funding

ken

Posted by: mcaplinger Mar 29 2006, 05:04 PM

Quoted on NASAWatch: "It seems to me that instead of going away quietly with what we were given, we ought to be emboldened to ask for more," said Jill Tarter, SETI Institute.

Now that's a reasonable response. I don't know where the money is coming from either, but darned if the community isn't going to ask for even more

Posted by: BruceMoomaw Mar 29 2006, 05:28 PM

If they had either any gumption or any sense, they'd be screaming bloody murder about the vampiric waste of Shuttle/Station, instead of demanding that Congress provide still more funds to NASA as a whole.

Posted by: nprev Mar 30 2006, 06:20 AM

Well, as a lifelong spacefreak layman, I am truly grateful for your efforts, ML, and I know that you make a difference- thanks!

Still, to steal a quote from the excellent movie Bulworth, "We need a spirit...not a ghost". Mass outreach is essential to audiences that aren't even vaguely aware of UMSF in any way...which is, sad to say, the vast majority of the American population.

Carl Sagan was arguably the most influential public science educator in history, largely because he was the first to really leverage the formidable power of television. I strongly doubt that many (if not all!) of the planetary missions after Viking and Voyager would have flown without him & his media presence in the '70s.

We need his spiritual successor, now more than ever.

Posted by: BruceMoomaw Mar 31 2006, 02:13 AM

NASA Watch now reports that the funds have been un-restored: http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2006/03/nasa_reverses_a.html . Of course, this leaves open the possibility that Cowing's original report was wrong.

Posted by: GravityWaves Mar 31 2006, 03:19 AM

what ??

This budget is all over the place, when will we get an official word on this ?

Posted by: ljk4-1 Mar 31 2006, 02:04 PM

NASA Reverses Pledge to Restore Astrobiology Funding

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.nl.html?id=1109

"Reliable sources now report that at a Science Mission Directorate monthly
meeting at NASA HQ on Thursday it was noted that no additional funds will
be given to Astrobiology and that someone is going to have to go tell the
astrobiologists that the claim made by Dantzler and Pilcher is not true."


-- Statement by Michael Griffin before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on
Science, Depts of State, Justice, & Commerce, & Related Agencies

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.nl.html?pid=20118

"Thus, further delays in the CEV are strategically more damaging to our Nation's
space program than delays to these other science missions. I stand by my decision
regarding how to implement the priorities of the President and Congress within the
resources provided, and I will work closely with our stakeholders in Congress and
the scientific community to make sure they understand my rationale. Some of our
stakeholders will not agree with my position, but it is important for everyone to
understand the rationale. These are difficult decisions, but we must balance the
competing priorities for our Nation's civil space and aeronautics research
endeavors with the limited resources available."

Posted by: ljk4-1 Mar 31 2006, 04:19 PM

Commentary: Astrobiology Research Threatened at NASA

http://www.space.com/searchforlife/060330_seti_thursday.html

I sympathize with Griffin, but do not agree with the way the choices are being
implemented.

Posted by: BruceMoomaw Apr 21 2006, 01:34 PM

An April 4 NASA "Note to the Community" on "Funding for the Science Mission Directorate Research and Analysis (R&A) Program, including Astrobiology" ( http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/35497/RA_Note.pdf ):

"Astrobiology research funding is reduced in the budget for several reasons. It should also be noted that astrobiology experienced a rapid growth in funding several years ago. Prior to this reduction, the Astrobiology research budget was comparable to the astrophysics research budget and was almost double the heliophysics research budget. This reduction brings it more into balance with the rest of the research program. In addition, the lower flight rate for astrobiology related missions (e.g. fewer Mars missions in the next 5 years, delay for a Europa orbiter mission, delay for a Terrestrial Planet Finder mission etc.), plus the recognition that human exploration missions to Mars are further in the future than previously assumed, have reduced some of the urgency for rapid progress in astrobiology research. Astrobiology remains one of the larger disciplines and an important area of research in support of NASA’s program."

Posted by: ljk4-1 Apr 21 2006, 01:56 PM

How much further now? The 2030s weren't far and vague enough?

Maybe on my last day in the nursing home, I'll look up between all
my tubes and wires to squint dimly at my antique plasma TV screen
to see a human boot step off a ladder onto some reddish dirt....

...to be immediately grabbed by a mechanical arm and shoved back
into the spacecraft by the superior AI robots that were already there
conducting far more thorough - and much less expensive -
investigations of the Red Planet.

Posted by: ljk4-1 May 12 2006, 04:51 PM

My two cents: I can easily recall when mainstream astronomy considered
searching for exoplanets as too difficult and not a top priority. Some even
questioned if other planets even existed in any significant amounts.

That certainly changed in 1992 and especially in 1995, didn't it?

The same will happen with astrobiology when the first discovery is made.
But we can't find them if we don't search for them, can we?


What Griffin Thinks - and the Academy Says - About Astrobiology

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2006/05/what_griffin_th.html

Outspoken: Mike Griffin on the NASA budget, Nature: "Deep cuts to NASA
astrobiology - Griffin:

"I did think astrobiology was less important than traditional space science. It
had less intrinsic subject matter to it, and was less advanced. If the community
rises up and says it should be funded, we'll rethink it."

NASA Lacks Resources Needed to Sustain Vigorous Science Program, National
Academy of Sciences:

"The decadal surveys for astrophysics and for solar system exploration both
embraced astrobiology as a key component of their programs, with the questions
encompassed by astrobiology serving as overarching themes for the programs
as a whole."

Posted by: ljk4-1 May 15 2006, 07:14 PM

Saving Astrobiology at NASA

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.nl.html?id=1124

"Astrobiology emerged at a time when NASA was in a state of flux and ARC and
other field centers were faced with possible closure or drastic cutbacks. The
community that formed around this nascent program at ARC turned adversity
and uncertainty into opportunity and built a rich program out of that chaos.

Now tough times are here again. Take a hard look at astrobiology and don't be
afraid to respond to this challenge by looking at ways to make it more efficient as
well as more relevant to the President's stated vision."

Posted by: The Messenger May 15 2006, 08:41 PM

Yes, but the emphasis changed because of better telescopes, computerized search routines, and adaptive optics. Which is another reason IAOTO that in the future, credit for many of these types of discoveries should and will go to devices, probes and canned programs rather than the individual who happens to be at the helm on the day of discovery...and of course, which ever PI sticks his foot in the door the loudest

Posted by: BruceMoomaw May 16 2006, 01:41 AM

Remember that, even when Marcy and Butler started their search, it was regarded as a fool's errand by most other astronomers -- first because it was thought that we didn't have the technological tools yet to detect adequately small Doppler shifts in starlight (they themselves describe their discovery that an iodine-vapor cell could be used for that purpose as a sudden -- and delayed -- brainstorm); and second, because nobody expected giant planets to be orbiting so close to their suns that detectable Doppler-shift patterns could be detected in such a short period. The discovery of the first "hot Jupiter" came as a total shock to everybody, them included.

Posted by: centsworth_II May 16 2006, 03:33 AM

So is a program for finding Earth-sized planets in or out? And How far behind actually finding them will the ability to characterize their atmospheres be? I can't wait to see how many extra-solar terrestrial planets have Venus-like, Earth-like, Mars-like, Titan-like, or other atmospheres.

Posted by: BruceMoomaw May 17 2006, 04:33 AM

Kepler is still scheduled to make the first large-scale survey of stars for Earth-sized planets (although, if we're lucky, Earth-based telescopes and COROT may find a few earlier). SIM -- whenever it flies -- will make the first methodical search for such planets of nearby stars; but only TPF will be able to gather meaningful data on their atmospheric composition -- and TPF is clearly still a long way away, even if its funding problems clear up.

Posted by: edstrick May 17 2006, 08:38 AM

Also note that the european Gaia astrometric mapper <follow on to Hipparchus> is going to discover oodles of planets astrometrically, and brown dwarfs and asteroids and comets and...

Posted by: BruceMoomaw May 18 2006, 02:29 PM

Yes, but all the planets GAIA discovers will be giant ones -- its astrometric sensitivity for individual targets is only a very small fraction of SIM's, and even SIM will be limited to detecting planets with 2 or 3 times more mass than earth's. (But then, GAIA's function is radically different -- it is supposed to astrometrically map something like a BILLION objects, while SIM will focus with much greater sensitivity on a far smaller set.)