From [Bill Williams 7 March 2004 12:20 PM CST]
Among the Economic threads was an assertion by Bill Powers that going to Mars wasnt going
To cost a damn thing. As the implications of going to Mars emerged one of the costs of the
Mars program was maintained for the space telescope Hubble. And, former astronaut John
Glenn argues that,
"I think this kind of thing is wrong. It just pulls the rug out from under the scientists," said Glenn. "I think
they are just sort of scratching their heads, wondering why they put their faith in NASA."
I think the article below presents at least a hint that if the Mars mission becomes NASAs principle priority there will be some very real costs.
March 4, 2004, 9:51PM
Ex-astronaut, top scientist question deep space strategy
By MARK CARREAU
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle
President Bush's strategy for human exploration of the moon and Mars drew fire Thursday from former
Mercury astronaut John Glenn and others who say the cost will jeopardize other popular research
efforts.
Glenn, who became the first American to orbit the Earth in 1962 and later a U.S. senator and
Democratic presidential aspirant, was among two dozen experts in aerospace who spoke in Dayton,
Ohio, before a two-day session of the President's Commission on Moon, Mars and Beyond.
The commission was established to advise the White House on how to carry out the missions.
Both the 82-year-old former astronaut and Lennard Fisk, a former NASA scientist, offered support
but questioned whether NASA would be forced to abandon small research programs in order to pay
for an expensive deep space exploration initiative.
Without scientific paybacks from research in biotechology and medicine aboard the international space
station, NASA could find itself with little long-term taxpayer support, Glenn warned the nine-member
commission.
A final shuttle mission by astronauts to upgrade the 14-year-old Hubble Space Telescope already has
been canceled, and plans for a mission to study solar activities have been postponed since Bush
unveiled his strategy in mid-January.
"I think this kind of thing is wrong. It just pulls the rug out from under the scientists," said Glenn. "I think
they are just sort of scratching their heads, wondering why they put their faith in NASA."
The exploration strategy calls for NASA to complete assembly of the 16-nation space station by 2010,
and end its involvement around 2016. American explorers would return to the moon by 2020. Their
next destination would be Mars.
The president's strategy is intended in part to give NASA's new focus.
"Focus is OK, but if there are casualties in your focus, then you have to decide if the focus is really
OK," said Fisk, a University of Michigan professor of earth sciences who led a recent assessment of
U.S. space policy for the congressionally chartered National Research Council.
"You need a healthy science program because the science program produces results for NASA that
people want to see," Fisk testified. "The broader science program is what creates in people's minds the
idea that things are happening in NASA that are good things. If you want to wait for 30 years for things
to happen on the moon, no one may notice."
Bush plans to kickoff the funding for the new exploration by increasing NASA's budget by$1 billion
over the next five years, and re-allocating another $11 billion over the period from other agency
programs.
While the commission cannot change White House strategy, its members could urge Bush to seek more
money or postpone some of the milestones to sustain more of the small research activities.
March 4, 2004, 9:51PM
Ex-astronaut, top scientist question deep space strategy
By MARK CARREAU
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle
President Bush's strategy for human exploration of the moon and Mars drew fire Thursday from former
Mercury astronaut John Glenn and others who say the cost will jeopardize other popular research
efforts.
Glenn, who became the first American to orbit the Earth in 1962 and later a U.S. senator and
Democratic presidential aspirant, was among two dozen experts in aerospace who spoke in Dayton,
Ohio, before a two-day session of the President's Commission on Moon, Mars and Beyond.
The commission was established to advise the White House on how to carry out the missions.
Both the 82-year-old former astronaut and Lennard Fisk, a former NASA scientist, offered support
but questioned whether NASA would be forced to abandon small research programs in order to pay
for an expensive deep space exploration initiative.
Without scientific paybacks from research in biotechology and medicine aboard the international space
station, NASA could find itself with little long-term taxpayer support, Glenn warned the nine-member
commission.
A final shuttle mission by astronauts to upgrade the 14-year-old Hubble Space Telescope already has
been canceled, and plans for a mission to study solar activities have been postponed since Bush
unveiled his strategy in mid-January.
"I think this kind of thing is wrong. It just pulls the rug out from under the scientists," said Glenn. "I think
they are just sort of scratching their heads, wondering why they put their faith in NASA."
The exploration strategy calls for NASA to complete assembly of the 16-nation space station by 2010,
and end its involvement around 2016. American explorers would return to the moon by 2020. Their
next destination would be Mars.
The president's strategy is intended in part to give NASA's new focus.
"Focus is OK, but if there are casualties in your focus, then you have to decide if the focus is really
OK," said Fisk, a University of Michigan professor of earth sciences who led a recent assessment of
U.S. space policy for the congressionally chartered National Research Council.
"You need a healthy science program because the science program produces results for NASA that
people want to see," Fisk testified. "The broader science program is what creates in people's minds the
idea that things are happening in NASA that are good things. If you want to wait for 30 years for things
to happen on the moon, no one may notice."
Bush plans to kickoff the funding for the new exploration by increasing NASA's budget by$1 billion
over the next five years, and re-allocating another $11 billion over the period from other agency
programs.
While the commission cannot change White House strategy, its members could urge Bush to seek more
money or postpone some of the milestones to sustain more of the small research activities.