Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

NASA's Science Mission Aborted

Researchers are dismayed as science projects and climate satellites are slashed to pay for the space station and shuttle.

By David Chandler

Monday, June 26, 2006

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

Scientists and educators around the country are growing increasingly concerned about ongoing budget cuts by NASA that seem to go deep into the very areas the space agency says it wants to emphasize. Among the cuts, revealed over the last few weeks, have been the scaling back of Earth-sensing and astrophysics satellites, educational projects, and engineering tests.

A computer art rendering of a satellite in NASA's Explorer program that traveled one million miles from Earth to study cosmic phenomena. The Explorer program has been cut back severely. (Courtesy of NASA.)

Jackie Hewitt, director of MIT's Kavli Center for Space and Astrophysics Research, says that the NASA cuts have been affecting university-level research -- with potentially dire consequences for the next generation of space research. She points out that the Explorer program, a set of relatively low-cost science missions that included such successes as a cosmology satellite called WMAP, has been "reduced almost to nothing." Such programs have been essential, she says, as a training ground for new space scientists, and eliminating them "is just not sustainable. If NASA wants to stop doing space science, that's what's being set up. Is that what the nation wants?"

NASA budget cuts over the last few months have also struck spending for astrobiology programs, meant to learn about life in the rest of the universe; a new program called Beyond Einstein, aimed at learning about dark energy; and the cancellation or cutback in other research satellites, including one called NPOESS, designed to gather more information about the Earth and its climate.

At MIT, another space research project was slashed recently, the Space Nanotechnology Laboratory, which Hewitt says is not only important for technology development but also crucial for applications such as future X-ray telescopes for astrophysics research.

According to Hewitt, who is also a member of the National Research Council's Space Studies Board, which put out a report last month raising the alarm about the impacts of NASA's science cutbacks, says that "labs have been closing left and right, people are going off and working for other organizations," which would make it difficult for some programs to be restarted even if funding gets restored in the future. "We're losing expertise," she says. Yet there has been relatively little backlash, because "we have not had a sudden catastrophic funding cut that's closed a center. I would describe it as more of an erosion."

Congress is currently going through the process of marking up the NASA budget request for fiscal 2007, and last week the House voted to reinstate $75 million of the $400 million in cuts from scientific research that the administration had proposed. The cuts -- despite NASA boss Mike Griffin's promise just six months ago that he would cut "not one dime" from NASA's science programs -- were the result of a continuing shift of resources toward the beleaguered space shuttle, now set to launch on July 1, and to the space station, whose reason for being is increasingly in question.

Comments

  • another Bush "achievement"
    The problem is far bigger than it seems at first sight. The hidden damage lies in the fact that, restarting a research program always takes a very long lead time, until the necessary know-how is built up, the right people are brought in, and the kinks are worked out. Basically it takes years for a research program to get some real momentum. When the program is terminated, all this system comes crashing down, and you cannot restart it next year by just supplying funds. It will take NASA close to a decade to recover what this moronic administration has destroyed :(
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (xyz)
    06/26/2006
    Posts:1
    • goodbye science, hello warfare
      I agree with "xyz". Some have suggested that the space shuttle and space station function primarily as military launch and spy platforms. So, when push comes to shove, basic scientific research takes a backseat to what's really important to this administration - war.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Slimlemon)
      06/26/2006
      Posts:1
      • National Prestige
        I disagree totally. This administration sees the important fact that space-faring nations are turning their attention towards the moon. By some 50 years after Apollo, more than a few nations will be in the position to launch serious moon programs. Can the US sit by and let this happen, with no capability itself to reach the moon? If it wants to be a leader, it cannot. If it does, it will no longer be leading...
        Rate this comment: 12345
        Guest (DJE)
        06/26/2006
        Posts:1
        • DJE responds wisely to name calling...
          Gear up boys, you've been drafted...with xyz and slimelemon at the front, we'll save big bucks.

          For you see boys: we're at war!
          We have been attacked...over and over...and finally one man has the bone to fight back...and listen to you guys cry about it. Money...
          It's the Soldier, not the reporter
          who has given us the freedom of the press.

          It's the Soldier, not the poet,
          who has given us the freedom of speech.

          It's the Soldier, not the politicians that ensure your right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness...and your right to make fools out yerselfs...;)))
          So, here's to victory and the Peace that will come for our kids' future. Try to be American...yea right.
          Rate this comment: 12345
          Guest (MEnoch)
          06/26/2006
          Posts:1
          • more sacred cows in the manger
            years ago, I ran into a couple of kids (young voters) who "knew" that all national debts were caused by NASA spending. I explained, patiently, that NASA spending has repaid itself many times over, and that it is just a tiny fraction of our budget. They called that confirmation of their beliefs. I do not argue with fools any more. there are ALWAYS fewer dollars to spend than there are projects on which to spend them. the excess of wonderfull projects is because of human creativity; the lack of research money is called reality. the same people crying for tax dollars are among those who have bellowed for a space station and a return to the moon. we can shoot for only one moon at a time. fortunately, the moon will always be there.
            Rate this comment: 12345
            Guest (kitk)
            06/26/2006
            Posts:1
        • it's the scientists not the soldiers
          I disagree with DJE, that soldiers are somehow the foundation of the nation. I totally respect the soldiers, because they put their lives on the line - there are very few other job descriptions which include death in them. Enough said.

          But on the practical side, every nation has soldiers ready to die for their country, so then what makes the USA stand out? It is our unparalleled science and technology, and all of that is based on basic science programs. That knowledge gives us the edge over our enemies, and this shortsighted administration is killing that process of knowledge creation.
          Rate this comment: 12345
          Guest (xyz)
          06/27/2006
          Posts:1
        • National Prestige or Incompetent Government?
          How much "prestige" can we afford? Exporting "democracy" seems to be taking a big chunkof our budget right now, along with creating a police state with "balck" funds.
          Rate this comment: 12345
          Guest (Ex-astronomer)
          07/10/2006
          Posts:1
    • Mandatory Faith
      Does any one know if bush established a faith-based initiative group at NASA like he made mandatory in all other fed agencies?
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (GoLinux)
      06/28/2006
      Posts:1
  • What else do you expect
    from an administration that has shown itself hostile to science. If all just stopped reading them science books and started (selectively) quoting from the Bible there wouldn't be any need for science funding now would there? And don't forget guys we've got a $438 Billion military budget and a $300 Billion misadventure-in-Iraq budget to fund!
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (srinivas nedunuri)
    06/27/2006
    Posts:1
    • srinivas won't enlist
      Does your 'repeat' mean that you won't fight for freedom...that it's OK with you that 9-11 occurred?...that it's OK with you Clinton wouldn't fight back?  Or that he gave serious missle technology et al to China et al because America is too free?  Does it mean you suffer from Algorist Global Mis-consumption?  Yes?  Take a couple Elian's and then call his Mother in the morning.  How do you spell "Always Wrong"?  D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T!
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Menoch)
      06/27/2006
      Posts:1
      • snivelous
        In fact, you are the very reason we are at war...Osamma loves you.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        Guest (Menoch)
        06/27/2006
        Posts:1
  • Cake & Eat It Too.
    We do not have to give up national defense OR exploration. Funding is an act of priorities. A manned progam increases cost exponentialy and adds nothing. We can both explore and attack/defend remotely.

    Both jobs can be done well by Brave Little Toasters.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Robots 4 Ever)
    06/27/2006
    Posts:1
  • AWOL leadership
    Either the president's advisors are idiots, or he isn't listening, or his plans are truly nefarious. He has initiated a program that requires vastly funding than the space agency has. So the Exploration Initiative will fail, but it will destroy NASA's scientific crown jewels in the process. If I were a terrorist trying to damage the nation's scientific and technical capabilities, I couldn't come up with a better plan.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (rocket scientist)
    06/28/2006
    Posts:1
    • Exploration is Science
      The threads above seem to have misinterpreted what I meant. The current issue is manned vs. unmanned scientific exploration. Both are needed. However, to get the manned exploration "up on its step", extra funding is needed. This will of course mean the unmanned scientific community will suffer. Strategically, however, if we neglect the manned exploration, then we risk being overtaken by other nations. Not a threat, just a fact, just take a look what China, India and Europe are planning these days...
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (DJE)
      06/29/2006
      Posts:1
      • thread this
        Manned space flight (in todays Update) is in good hands:the private sector...toasters are nice but they don't have babies.  Let's go live on Mars or others. And leave global squaking to the PCers left here on Earth.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        Guest (Menoch)
        06/29/2006
        Posts:1

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Tiny Devices Use Light to Grab Cells
Technology Review November/December 2009

Current Issue

Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map
The United States has vast supplies of this cleaner fossil fuel. But how should we use it?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.