Opinion: Paul, this mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
Not since Frank Gorshin and some other guy played the black/white, white/black haters on Star Trek have space people been as fired-up as they are over Paul Thornton’s Opinion Daily ‘Space program lunacy.’ And some of the rage is warranted: Our gaffe in the original story about the connections and lack thereof between NOAA, NASA and the QuikSCAT satellite has been corrected, and we apologize for the error. Paul knows he’s made some very poor decisions recently, but he can give you his complete assurance that his work will be back to normal. He’s still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
Wendy Dunham gives Paul a Gopher State whuppin’:
Yeah, and I can write an article that reports what NASA actually HAS done for the Earth that would blow this article out of the water. Obviously, a good word smith can spin a story like this any way you like, talk about the million dollar toilet, etc, focus on the seeming wastes, but if you dug down into the facts and saw all the stuff that HAS come from NASA that is improving the real world (and it’s a lot more than pens that write upside down or Tang), that list that would eclipse any further ‘what have they done’ articles. Dig, people, dig, The truth is out there. Wendy DunhamMinneapolis, MN
Eric LP notes that the budget for NASA is even smaller than Eric LP’s last name:
But NASA’s idealism is seriously endangering the world’s ability to track its own changing and more dangerous climate. Indeed, one of the most popular complaints about space exploration is that it wastes billions of dollars that could be better spent on problems here. With global warming an increasing threat, NASA has a chance to prove what it has long asserted — that a space program provides practical benefits to Earth-bound humanoids. Yeah, we could spend it here on earth, like in Iraq! you know the money would be going towards Iraq if any was available. Global Warming? GET REAL!!!!!!!! Bush doesn’t even think Global Warming is man made. What the hell? We do need to address GW. But, the budget for NASA compared to Iraq is like a drop in the bucket. The whitehouse doesn’t even have GW in it’s vocabulary.... Meanwhile we are at 9 TRILLION with a ‘T’ in debt... Housing market is taking a dump.... Uh....... We are still sending bush blank checks so that he can do what he wants. Let’s pull this into perspective a bit eh? I’d much rather see money spent on Science and Research... It’s gonna take a lot of it to fix the GW problem. Problem is where are going to find the scientist? I guess you didn’t get the memo... Science and Math is uncool... No one wants to look like a dork / geek in school anymore... They all want to be football hero’s and lawyers.... Who has time to be scientist or a computer programmer / engineer? Those are low paying jobs and get you no where fast. So back to your dream... While I think we should have a moon base... I think we should be spending the money on a shuttle replacement.... Lets just be happy they don’t take all the $$ away and send it to Iraq...
Bruce Bales says Mars ain’t the kinda place to raise your kids:
YES! Get NASA back on track toward important things, like Earth. If Mars and deep space need to be explored, it can be done much more economically with robots like the Rovers. A one-way ticket costs only a fraction of a round-trip ticket. Spend the money on understanding weather and global warming. Bruce BalesAndover, KS
Dr. Irv Loh uses the old blame-Ryan-Seacrest trick:
Opinion LA: As a product of the Sputnik era who educationally benefited from the paranoia that resulted, I could not agree more with Mr. Thornton’s assessment. The cost of redundancy in manned space exploration multiplies the cost to achieve similar benefit with unmanned vehicles, and results in the unavailability of those finite resources for the other projects to which he referred. Planet earth and all of her inhabitants are in dire shape, and although there is little drama to match manned exploration, we need to refocus our attention to things that truly matter. Similarly, the tax dollars going out of this country on folly could be so much better spent on obtaining healthcare for our citizens and refurbishing our transportation infrastructure. Yet none of this will occur until Americans wake up and start to pay more attention to who’s at the helm of this country than who’s winning on American Idol. Irv Loh MD Thousand Oaks, CA
C.P. Shields turns on the light on his miner’s helmet and finds some of the overlooked riches of space:
Where to start; A lot of good has come out of the space program, that being said we need to spend our money a little better. 1) I would take 50% of the NASA budget and contract with scaled composites for a new lift vehicle. 2) More probe work (Remote probes are producing valuable scientific data and it is the part of NASA worth keeping and funding). 3) Partnerships with other nations (except France, I just hate the French) in manned missions. Justification: Well here’s one: Ore processing and off planet mining, we can do unsafe processes that would contaminate our atmosphere but not in the vacuum of space and ship processed metal and zero G products earth side and another Medical research drug production in sterile zero G environment. and last why not reach for the stars? [email protected]
And speaking of out-of-this-world riches, Brian Topping writes to us from that great city to the north, with greetings for all earth people:
Greetings, I just read Paul Thronton’s opinion about the space program and noted his observation of the apparently misguided trip back to the moon. I also used to think this was lunacy until I saw something on PBS that was talking about the Helium-3 content of moon rocks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3 has a pretty good spread of the information. What bothers me immensely is that Bush didn’t say anything about this when he was signing all that crap with so much fanfare. What was he thinking? That people were too stupid to understand that the moon might be an excellent fuel source? Or was he hiding something about the program so it could be privatized once the government got the program set up? This latter point may be the bigger story. Peace, Brian Topping San Francisco, CA
Redondo Beach’s own John Insprucker says don’t blame the rocket men; it’s just a job, five days a week:
I read Paul Thornton’s opinion article about the need to have NASA change its focus from manned spaceflight, partly because ‘the future of the space agency’s network of aging weather satellites that monitor weather patterns such as hurricanes is in serious jeopardy.’ Mr Thornton uses the QuikSCAT satellite as an example of an earth-observing capability that is limping on its last legs with no replacement. I believe Mr Thornton focused on the wrong Government agency. He overlooks that it was NASA that quickly got the QuikSCAT satellite built and launched in 1999, after the Japanese ADEOS satellite failed in 1997 attempting to prove the new technology. And for a satellite that was to have a 2 year life (not 5 years as the author wrote), NASA has managed to stretch it to 8 years! Sounds like a great return on a $93 million dollar mission. NASA successfully did the pioneering work -- demonstrating a new capability to measure the earth’s environment from space, providing valuable data for hurricane monitoring, and doing it at a fairly low cost (as satellites go). Now Mr Thornton takes NASA to task for not having a replacement. He focuses on the wrong agency. Why would Mr Thornton expect NASA to continue to build and launch similar satellites, now that the technology is proven? Instead, he should write his article asking why the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration doesn’t have a replacement. After all, NOAA (and not NASA) is in charge of the United States Government weather satellites. Opinion writers often make the mistake of blaming NASA, instead of the Government agencies that actually have the job (but are less well known). I believe Mr Thornton has pointed his finger at the wrong agency. Rather than help shape the debate on how space should impact our daily life, he side tracked the debate into a discussion of ‘Space Program Lunacy’. John Insprucker Redondo Beach
Bill Cline thinks his spaceship knows which way to go:
You’re obviously confusing NOAA with NASA. NOAA is the agency that is charged with monitoring weather patterns and controlling the hurricane tracking satellites not NASA. Another attempt by a so called newspaper ‘space expert’ to put down NASA. Bill Cline NASA Contractor
And in a rare doubletip, Wendy Dunham comes back to answer her own challenge of finding the tons of neat stuff NASA has done:
John Kennedy’s 1963 goal to put a man on the moon resulted in an unforeseen cascade of amazing technologies to be developed as a result, including the microelectronics and computer revolution. Assuming one is interested in learning what they have done or what has spun off of their research and development, here is a short list: ‘NASA Plan Need a Little Spin’ - Article:http://www.bu.edu/sjmag/scimag2005/features/NASA.htm ‘Despite the gimmicky reputation of NASA spin-offs, space exploration has a definite track record of producing useful technologies. One out of every thousand U.S. patents belongs to NASA. The agency holds over 1,400 aeronautical patents alone. Anyone with a computer can license and develop any of the 14,000 items currently cataloged online in the NASA technology database (technology.nasa.gov).’ ‘NASA Tech Briefs - Engineering Solutions for Design & Manufacturing: - Websitehttp://www.techbriefs.com/ ‘NASA Technology Innovation’ - Website:http://nctn.hq.nasa.gov/innovation/index.html ‘NASA TechFinder - Bringing Technology from NASA to the Marketplace’ - Website:http://technology.nasa.gov ‘Space.com - NASA Spin-offs: Bringing Space Down to Earth’ - Articlehttp://www.space.com/adastra/adastra_spinoffs_050127.html ‘NASA SPINOFF’ - NASA Scientific and Technical Information (STI) Website:http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/ Wendy DunhamMinneapolis, MN P.S. Just because you only see A + B = C does not mean that is the end of the alphabet. You find what you seek. If you want to prove NASA is a waste of time, you will succeed. If you want to discover what they have contributed directly and indirectly and via spin-offs, you will succeed.
From Maryland’s finest university, Prof. Carlos E. Del Castillo gives a huzzah:
Dear Mr. Thornton, Thank you for your editorial about NASA. Best regards, Carlos Carlos E. Del Castillo Ph.DOcean Remote Sensing GroupThe Johns Hopkins University
An unnamed citizen says you don’t know the half of it:
Paul, Your Aug. 22 editorial is interesting, but the situation at NASA and NOAA are even worse than you portray in so many areas. If you would like to hear more about the situation, I will be at the LAX Marriot Late Monday through Wednesday. I cannot be an attributable source, but I can provide plenty of corroborative sources and material. Contact me at this email if you are interested in discussing this further. If nothing else, lets share a drink at the hotel. Concerned DOD and NASA contractor
In a letter with the subject line ‘Paul Thornton and his tiny brain,’ Angeleno Daniel Roberts gives a Charles Nelson Reilly-esque ‘Ta Ta!’
To the Editor, Mr. Paul Thornton opined yesterday that manned spaceflight is worthless and we should concentrate our space efforts on Earth and only Earth. Yes sir Mr. Thornton we certainly all bow to your superior, um, stupidity! Imagine Christopher Columbus being told, ‘Ta Ta Mr. Columbus. We’ll only spend enough money so you can trade up and down the coast of Spain and nowhere else!’ When one looks at the trillions of dollars (yes trillions Mr. THornton, your a researcher, check it out!) we have spent on welfare in this country over the past 40 years 100 billion dollars to expand our knowledge of the solar system is a paltry sum and indeed worth it. Humans exploring the solar system is far more inspiring than anything anyone can imagine. We can send human explorer to other world and study the Earth at the same time. Mr. Thornton gives readers a false choice. Sincerely, Daniel RobertsLos Angeles
From UC San Diego, Karthik Balakrishnan proves that it all comes out in the wash:
Dear Paul Thornton, Your article ‘Space Program Lunacy’ makes some interesting points that unfortunately seem to be on some rough footing. --QuickSCAT: Bill Proenza was removed from his position after half of the NHC signed a letter protesting his leadership and effectiveness. Among the charges? That he overblew the issue of QuickSCAT. --Budget: Yes, NASA spends only $1.4 billion on EOS (far too low), but the entire NASA budget is only 0.7% of the entire federal budget. That is, for every dollar you spend in taxes, less than a penny goes towards NASA. If EOS is really a priority, Congress should increase the funding for the Earth Sciences Directorate of NASA. --Benefits for Earth: All too often, the public expects some finished product when they think of contributions to humanity as a whole. When you look at published scientific and engineering papers that come out of the manned space program, then look at the areas where those papers are cited, you begin to get a very good picture of how space research helps life on Earth. You -- like the average American -- probably don’t care about the contributions that engineers working on the Space Shuttle have made to nonlinear stochastic dynamics and controls; the average engineer working for Honda does. And you probably do care about the effectiveness of your car’s ABS and stability control systems. Likewise, I doubt you care about the contributions that NASA engineers have made to the field of composite structures, but engineers at Boeing and Airbus do -- and you want your 787 and A380 to stay in the air without cracking. You probably don’t care about the phase locked loop, but engineers at Motorola do -- and you want your cell phone to pick up a clear signal wherever you are. You probably don’t care about methods for optimizing robotic manipulator trajectories, but a Biomedical engineer does -- and you want your doctor to have the most accuate laproscopic tools available. The beauty of the space program (both manned and unmanned) is that it is so complex and multidisciplinary that any progress necessarily improves the state of the art in hundreds of fields. More often than not, these improvements come in the form of algorithms or methods that the average engineer in industry uses to improve products that are used by the average American. You see, an electrical engineer working for the space program is still an electrical engineer, still attends IEEE conferences, and still publishes in IEEE journals. Through this interaction, electrical engineering work done at NASA then benefits other electrical engineers. While the work may not directly benefit the average American in its raw form, the work does get transferred into industry and does ultimately help humanity. Regards, Karthik BalakrishnanAerospace Engineering
From the Lone Star State, James Hoelke says: a billion here, a billion there, you’re still not talking about serious money:
I recently read Mr. Thornton’s editorial entitled ‘Space Program Lunacy’. I appreciate his point about Earth science seemingly getting less money than needed. However, I would like to point out a few things that Mr. Thornton fails to mention. One, NASA’s main charter is to study space and aeronautics. Earth science has been lumped into NASA for some reason because it uses satellites. Earth science doesn’t really belong under NASA simply because it uses satellites. It would be better situated under NOAA which studies Earth science as its main responsibility. Perhaps Congress will make a smart move and align Earth science research under an agency that is focused on that topic. Second, NASA’s overall budget of $16 billion per year doesn’t represent a major drain on the federal budget. 16 billion dollars out of a multi-trillion dollar budget is less than 1%. This seems a prudent investment of the nation’s money into research and technology. Climate change is hardly the only threat to this planet. If an asteroid hit tomorrow, global warming’s effects will pale by comparison. NASA is the only federal organization that could deal with such a threat. Third, blame Congress for science not getting more money for Earth science. If it was a true priority of the Congress, more money would be allocated. To date, however, it has not done so. Although some think otherwise, it is the responsibility of Congress to pass laws and fund the government, not the President. Sincerely,James HoelkeJunior, University of Texas at Arlington
And finally, James Campbell says in space no-one can feel the weather getting hotter:
Reading the opinion piece regarding the lack of suuficient Earth science in NASA’s planning/budget: I’m thinking that the current administration’s ignoring of the global climate issues is behind NASA’s lack of emphasis on monitoring climate from space. Plus, it’s not as glamorous as deep space flight, and as pointed out, the manned program is eating up a large fraction of funds. The next administration needs to get going on the climate issues, in many arenas, but not least in space. The current presidential candidates ought to think carefully about this; in my opinion, global climate is a real issue worthy of significant political action. James Campbell
As always, keep those cards and letters coming. More on NASA and manned flight in Blowback next week.