Dear Science,
With the last shuttle flight off and soon to be done, are you going to miss the space shuttle program? Is this the end of NASA?
Sad Grounded Nerd
Science can vaguely remember, in the fog of his youngest memories, the launching of the first space shuttle. Even more clear are the memories of the Challenger disaster. Another memory comes from visiting the Kennedy Space Center and seeing the shuttle slowly roll out to its launch pad. Science is wistful about the shuttle, but not all that sad about it going away.
The space shuttle, at its best, offered dubious value for the scientific data generated. The same goes for the (still flying) International Space Station. Both projects have their positives—stretching technology to accomplish truly difficult tasks, and providing some real moments of exploration and adventure. But as machines for generating scientific data—data that tell us more about our world, ourselves, and our universe—they’re both busts.
If Science were asked to pick the finest scientific moment of the shuttle, it would have to be the launching, and subsequent servicing, of the Hubble Space Telescope. The shuttle brought a revolutionary new instrument into orbit and kept it functioning. Among a vast list of discoveries, the Hubble has located extrasolar planets and peered into the earliest moments of our universe.
The investigation of the Challenger disaster was another strong moment for Science and the shuttle. Led by (the kickass American physicist) Richard Feynman, this investigation carefully teased apart the chain of events leading to the disaster. We learned a bit about how to run large, complicated projects more safely.
The end of the shuttle is by no means the end of NASA. The data generated by NASA’s unmanned programs have mattered much more than the manned programs. The Pioneer space probes have left our solar system—the first physical objects made by humankind to do so. The Voyager probes (also still operating after nearly four decades) gave us our first detailed look at the outer planets of our solar system—beautiful images along with hard data that we continue to use today. These two are beyond our solar system and helping us understand interstellar space. The Mars rovers have given us amazing glimpses into the history and death (and maybe life) of the red planet. The earth observation satellites tell us about climate change, our oceans, and how land use is changing around the globe. Though inherently less sexy than the space shuttle, these little nonliving objects tell us so much. Funding and nurturing these and similar projects is what matters to Science and for science—not the shuttle.
Robotically Yours,
Science
Send your science questions to
dearscience@thestranger.com.
Science:
You need to read your Bible, young man. That’s all you need to know about God’s Universe.
@1 Now now, just because you are incurious and lazy doesn’t mean Science has to be.
@2: Your filthy “Science” may say the ratio of circumference-to-diameter of a circle is 3.14159…blah…blah…blah, but I say that’s Satan talking. Good, salt-of-the-Earth, God Fearin’ Americuns know it’s 3.0 (I Kings Ch. 7 23-23). And God may have fine-tuned the universal constants just so, but 3.0 it is for circles and that ain’t no rounding error. So keep your filthy Sodomite science where it belongs — deep-down in the shame closet!
I’m pretty surprised at how very little has been said at the end of Shuttle’s life about Shuttle’s military career.
The cargo bay wouldn’t have been big enough for Hubble if the Shuttle hadn’t been a military vehicle. For that matter, it may never have made it off the drawing board if the Pentagon hadn’t wanted it, and badly.
Every military mission was top secret, of course, so we may not know whether or not it was a military success in Science’s lifetime, but its very existence had strategic implications; for starters, no-one else could put anything secret in low orbit without spending precious, precious mass on adequate self-destruct systems.
You didn’t say anything about the house trying to cut astrophysics from NASA’s budget!
Please write your congresspersons. Via Garth Illingworth:
Hi Folks:
The House Appropriations Committee today released the fiscal year 2012
Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill.
NASA loses nearly $2B in total of which $431 is lost from NASA Science and
terminate JWST. The Space science part:
“$4.5 billion for NASA Science programs, which is $431 million below last
year’s level. The bill also terminates funding for the James Webb Space
Telescope, which is billions of dollars over budget and plagued by poor
management.”
Note that the money is LOST COMPLETELY from Astrophysics and Space Science.
It is for deficit reduction. This is as expected. Every time an astronomy
program has been terminated or reduced over the last few years,
Astrophysics has lost the funding. Terminating JWST would the same –
Astrophysics loses all the funding. Yet this termination would go beyond
what has happened over the last few years – the funds would be lost to
Space Science and NASA also….
This is not the last word. The House Appropriations Subcommittee will
consider this bill tomorrow. And the Senate will also have a separate bill
on NASA funding. However, in the present climate this step puts the
centerpiece of astronomy’s future at great risk.
JWST and Astrophysics has entered a very dangerous zone.
The impacts are numerous if JWST is terminated:
1) termination is very damaging for future astronomy and astrophysics
scientific productivity and for the pre-eminence of US science;
2) termination would result in no observatory-class mission to carry out
broadly-based research when the current Great Observatories reach
end-of-life;
3) termination undercuts the Decadal Survey process since it was the top
ranked program in the prior 2000 Decadal Survey, and it is identified
numerous times in the 2010 Decadal Survey as a foundational program for
future astrophysics research;
4) termination of JWST, as the natural successor to Hubble, would result
in the loss, once Hubble fails, of a very large part of the remarkable
public interest that astronomy has enjoyed;
5) termination would eliminate a major source of inspirational science
education and outreach results, particularly for the interest in STEM
(science, technology, engineering and math) that comes from the high
profile HST and JWST science results;
6) termination would reduce the strength and visibility world-wide of the
US science program, not just astrophysics;
7) termination would reduce US credibility as an international partner
given the Canadian and European partnership on JWST and their substantial
contributions to the program;
8) termination of JWST, following on from the termination of the SSC
(Superconducting Super Collider), would send the message that the US is
relinquishing leadership in major science projects — it will be very
difficult to start any other major science project or mission;
9) termination would eliminate the broadly-based research funding for the
community that results from the Great Observatory-class missions if none
are operating, and greatly reduces opportunities for undergraduate,
graduate and post-graduate education;
It is essential that we make our voices heard.
It is particularly crucial that we each act quickly and email, fax or call
our local House Representatives and also contact our Senators.
The loss of JWST will affect us all. It will damage the prospects for
Astronomy for a decade or more.
Please use any of these points in your own words and any other good
arguments that you can think of…
Please distribute widely to your department members and colleagues.
@3: Mediocre attempt at trolling. Still, I was amused. 3/10
@7: You need to get right with Jesus, Mister. The trolls will have plenty of time to amuse you while you’re roasting in Hades forever!
Science: one aspect of the shuttle you haven’t mentioned is inspiring a new generation of scientists and engineers. I remember the Apollo program and how inspirational that was to me. It is sad that the USA is ceding its lead in space technology, the costs of which are dwarfed by things like the financial bailout, which certainly inspires no one, except perhaps Wall Street