The Science Of Spending Billions

STATION NEWS

Getting Beyond An Earth Centric Space Program

is the fundemental mistake with ISS that it's cost was justified on the basis of direct benefits to Earth when the real mission of ISS should have been as a window to the moon and planets with an emphasis of space science and technology not earth science and technology?

part 3 of 3
Of the 32 defined research areas, the task force ended up recommending only one ("Biology-Inspired Microfluidics Technology") for flat-out termination. And, faced with ranking the remaining 31 at any of four different priority levels, it ended up cramming fully 15 into the "Priority 1" ranking without trying to compare their relative worth.

It said that it did so largely because NASA remains very vague on the extent to which it will attempt further human exploration with long-duration flights into deep space, to which some of the major Station fields of research -- but not others -- are connected.

Thus it was clear that NASA's Office of Biological and Physical Research ("OBPR"), after accepting the REMAP findings, faced a great deal of additional decision-making in actually ranking the 32 fields in any kind of reasonably detailed way, and deciding how much their funding should be cut for the new scaled-down Station.

It had to do largely based on the extent to which such kinds of research absolutely must be done on the Station, as opposed to separate Shuttle flights, other free-flying research satellites, or simple ground-based research. At the September Advisory Council meeting, NASA Associate Administrator Mary Kicza revealed the Office's newly detailed priority rankings of the 32 fields.

One thing that was immediately apparent is that NASA has decided to deemphasize "pure science" on the Station, and place more emphasis on (1) research specifically linked to future long-duration and deep-space manned space flights, and (2) space research with commercial uses. Of the 15 "Priority 1" fields listed by REMAP, only five are now slated by OBPR for "level or increased funding" with no possibility of cuts:

Radiation Health

Advanced Life Support

Organismal and Comparative Biology

Environmental Monitoring and Control

Propulsion and Power

The other 10 are set for either "level or [mildly] decreased funding":

Clinical and Operational Medicine

Physiology

Cell and Molecular Biology

Behavior and Performance

Kinetics, Structure and Transport

Fluid Stability and Dynamics

Phase Transformations

Energy Conversion

Condensed Matter

Fundamental Physical Laws

The last five, in particular, can be defined as studies in the physical rather than the medical and biological sciences.

Of REMAP's four "Priority 2" fields, OBPR has set one for level or increased funding: "Commercial Engineering Research and Technology". The other three are set for level or mildly decreased funding:

Human Factors Engineering

Developmental Biology

Fire Safety

Of REMAP's "Priority 3" fields, two -- "Structural Biology" and "Thermophysical, Physiochemical and Biophysical Properties" -- are to be phased out completely.

However, the other two -- "Biotechnology" (which of course has commercial applications) and "Radiation Protection" (relevant to long-term manned flights) -- will actually have their funding left level or increased.

Finally, of the eight fields REMAP relegated only to fourth place in priority, four will be completely cancelled (along with "Microfluidics Technology", as recommended by REMAP):

Mission Resource Production

Environmental Health

Evolutionary Biology

Materials Synthesis and Processing

- - and two more ("Extravehicular Activity Research" and "Biomolecular Technology and Sensors") will have their funding "significantly decreased". However, two more will actually have their funding left level or increased -- "Agribusiness" and "Advanced Materials", both of them commercially related programs.

This meshes well with the statement given to the Advisory Committee by Mark Uhram, director of the OBPM's Space Produce Development Division, who went to great lengths to describe the commercial applications of some space-based research and NASA's determination not to short the funding for this.

There are currently 15 "Commercial Space Centers" in the U.S. -- hosted by universities, and funded partly by NASA (about $30 million/year) and partly by interested industries (about $50 million) -- which have sponsored a total of 101orbital experiment payloads on the Shuttle and the Mir space station since 1994, with am 89% success rate and an average of about eight approved patents resulting per year. As Uhram points out, this indicates a clear market for many more such payloads on the Station.

The Advisory Council greeted this with great approval. Until then, former Senator Glenn in particular had been very vocally skeptical during the meeting toward NASA's plans for the Station, stating his serious doubts that Congress would be willing to continue funding it.

The Council's other members had been largely silent. After Uhram's presentation, however, Glenn and several other members said that, for the first time, they had been given a genuine and concrete argument to present to Congress in favor of continued Station funding.

It remains crystal clear, however, that justifying the Station to Congress at this point remains a very difficult task. The main thing it has going for it is simply that so much money has already been spent on it, making the government reluctant to cancel it on the grounds that if it does so, the money already spent will have been wasted.

At any rate, Gerstenmaier, Kicza, and the other NASA officials present at the Advisory Council meeting did firmly describe NASA's current plan to squeeze as much value out of the Station as possible within its serious fiscal limits.

By the end of October, NASA will have consulted with America's other international partners on its new plans, and will have made the final decisions about their nature and how to incorporate them into its next Fiscal Year budget request. What happens to the Station after that, is largely out of its hands.

Click For Part One Of This Three Part Report

Also see a special Spacelift report on the new NASA Administrator's vision for a new American manned space program at Spaceref.com

STATIONS AND SHUTTLES

NASA's Kennedy Space Center: Old, Worn Out And Cash Starved

Washington (AFP) Aug 22, 2002
Modern and cutting edge in the 1960s, NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida and the home of the US space program, is showing its age -- and as it slows, so does the space program, with NASA having to postpone launches because of failing equipment, which, in many cases, dates back to the Apollo program on the 1960s.

Thanks for being here; We need your help. The SpaceDaily news network continues to grow but revenues have never been harder to maintain. With the rise of Ad Blockers, and Facebook - our traditional revenue sources via quality network advertising continues to decline. And unlike so many other news sites, we don't have a paywall - with those annoying usernames and passwords. Our news coverage takes time and effort to publish 365 days a year. If you find our news sites informative and useful then please consider becoming a regular supporter or for now make a one off contribution.
SpaceDaily Contributor $5 Billed Once credit card or paypal		SpaceDaily Monthly Supporter $5 Billed Monthly paypal only

The content herein, unless otherwise known to be public domain, are Copyright 1995-2016 - Space Media Network. All websites are published in Australia and are solely subject to Australian law and governed by Fair Use principals for news reporting and research purposes. AFP, UPI and IANS news wire stories are copyright Agence France-Presse, United Press International and Indo-Asia News Service. ESA news reports are copyright European Space Agency. All NASA sourced material is public domain. Additional copyrights may apply in whole or part to other bona fide parties. Advertising does not imply endorsement, agreement or approval of any opinions, statements or information provided by Space Media Network on any Web page published or hosted by Space Media Network. Privacy Statement All images and articles appearing on Space Media Network have been edited or digitally altered in some way. Any requests to remove copyright material will be acted upon in a timely and appropriate manner. Any attempt to extort money from Space Media Network will be ignored and reported to Australian Law Enforcement Agencies as a potential case of financial fraud involving the use of a telephonic carriage device or postal service.