The $13,000 bottle of water

Would you pay $13,000 for an 8oz. bottle of water? Even very good water?

Well, guess what, American taxpayers will pay that much, if NASA and its current masters have their way.

At least, according to Gregg Easterbook, writing in the latest (June 2007) issue of Wired, that's what former astronaut and Republican senator Harrison Schmitt estimated, at the rate of $26,000 per pound of payload delivered to the moon's surface. (Well, to be fair, it might be only half that if launch vehicle efficiency is improved.)

What's the point? Simply that the current NASA plans for a manned base on the moon could be an extravagant boondoggle at least a whole order of magnitude more expensive than its previous boondoggle, the International Space Station. Where, as Easterbook puts it, the main work of Space Station astronauts is taking each others' blood pressure.

Easterbook leads off his Wired article with a proposed list of rational priorities for NASA:

1. Conduct research, particularly environmental research, on Earth, the sun, and Venus, the most Earthlike planet.
   
2. Locate asteroids and comets that might strike Earth, and devise a practical means of deflecting them.
   
3. Increase humanity's store of knowledge by studying the distant universe.
   
4. Figure out a way to replace today's chemical rockets with a much cheaper way to reach Earth orbit.
   

This is in contrast to what Easterbook takes to be NASA's actual priorities at this time:

1. Maintain a pointless space station.
   
2. Build a pointless Motel 6 on the moon.
   
3. Increase humanity's store of knowledge by studying the distant universe.
   
4. Keep money flowing to favored aerospace contractors and Congressional districts.
   

Hey, maybe one right answer out of four's not so bad...

Easterbook's Wired article doesn't seem to be online yet, but an earlier one on the same general topic is here.

I don't entirely agree with everything Easterbook writes. For instance, in that earlier article, he disses NASA's Webb Space Telescope project, while speaking approvingly of the Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF). I happen to think that both projects are about equally worthy. Neither will directly affect our daily lives, but they will both importantly contribute to "humanity's store of knowledge".

Indeed, it was the TPF which started me thinking about these issues tonight, because I was rereading news articles about the recent discovery of the first potentially habitable Earthlike planet, orbiting the star Gliese 581. (For example, see here, here, or here.)

And especially I noted this: Search for Life Gets Serious. You see, the Earthlike planet at Gliese 581 was not discovered by American scientists using American instruments, but rather by Europeans, in particular a team of Swiss, French, and Portuguese, using the land based European Southern Observatory. The article just cited winds up with this observation:

The daily Tribune de Geneve also praised the scientists, but couldn't help taking a shot at the world's traditional leaders in the study of the cosmos-- the United States.

"American scientists recently estimated that the discovery of an exoplanet resembling the Earth would probably take 20 years," it wrote. "The Europeans didn't wait for them."

Mayor predicted that NASA's Terrestrial Planet Finder and the European Space Agency's Darwin satellite would make increasingly significant contributions in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.

That may be unfair. I can't recall offhand what American scientists allegedly made the indicated prediction, but obviously it was much too conservative.

Nevertheless, the race is on to discover Earthlike extrasolar planets, and eventually to detect signs of some sort of life on them. Already, a European-led space mission named COROT (see here, here) has detected its first extrasolar planet. In this case, the planet is a "hot Jupiter" that is not Earthlike. But COROT, which uses the "transit" method for detecting exoplanets, is expected to be able to detect smaller, rocky, Earthlike planets.

A much more ambitious European project, appropriately named DARWIN, and planned for launch about 2015 (only 8 years away), will be capable of detecting signs of life on Earthlike planets.

So what do NASA and the US have planned? First off, there is the Kepler Mission, planned for launch in 2008. It is designed to detect Earthlike planets, using a 1 meter telescope. Like COROT, it relies on the transit method for identifying exoplanets.

But beyond that, NASA plans are at present "up in the air". The follow-on to Kepler is named the Space Interferometry Mission (SIM). It was originally planned for launch in 2009, but according to its web page "The SIM PlanetQuest project schedule is currently under revision. An updated schedule will be published here when it becomes available." In other words, it's on indefinite hold. If/when SIM is launched, finding Earthlike planets is only part of its objective (being limited in this case to a search of about the 250 closest stars).

And beyond that is the Terrestrial Planet Finder. It is designed to detect both Earthlike planets as well as signs of life. Originally, like DARWIN, it was planned for launch around 2015. Unfortunately, like SIM, the project is currently on indefinite hold – while NASA fumbles around trying to figure out how, or why, to spend $13,000 to transport an 8 oz. bottle of water to the moon. And a few hotshot space jocks to fly along, so there will be someone there to drink the water.

Tags: extrasolar planets, NASA, space program

Read More >>

Beyond Einstein

Here's the second article in a series I'm going to do on NASA's advanced astrophysics and cosmology science program, which they've called "Beyond Einstein". The first in the series is here. It provides background on the Bush administration's lamentable intentions to delay indefinitely or even abandon most of the more advanced of NASA's pure science programs, including Beyond Einstein.

My purpose in writing about this is to stimulate interest in the program among that part of the U. S. public that pays attention to basic science, especially advanced studies of the universe at large. Because, you see, as a result of last week's elections, the character of the U. S. Congress is going to change significantly next year. There's reason to hope priorities can change. When NASA's science budgets are discussed in future years, we can advocate that Congress reinstate funds for the missions that make up the Beyond Einstein program.

The main purpose of this post is to present background information on the program. But of course, a few words need to be said first about what the Beyond Einstein program is. Fortunately, NASA's home page of the project does a really great job of providing both an overview and detailed background information. See especially the science page, the mission descriptions, and additional resources.

In a nutshell, the various missions together and separately will investigate four of the most mysterious phenomena that we know of in the universe: black holes, gravitational waves, dark energy, and cosmic inflation. These phenomena are grounded in Einstein's general theory of relativity. Yet there's a great deal we don't understand about each one – hence the name "Beyond Einstein".

This graphic from the project site sums it up (click for full-size image):



If you go to this page, you'll be able to click on individual parts of the graphic for more information. The items at the far left are space missions that have already been launched (except for GLAST, whose launch is scheduled for late 2007) or ground-based facilities (LIGO) that are currently working on different parts of the puzzle. Immediately to the right of those are two missions (LISA and Constellation-X) that are well-along in planning – but not yet approved and funded. They (as well as everything else to their right) are missions that were ditched, at least for the present, in NASA's 2007 budget.

LISA will use interferometry techniques, as does LIGO, to search for gravitational waves. But because the separation of the three observation points will be millions of kilometers, instead of a few thousand in LIGO, it will be vastly more sensitive. LISA should be able to detect gravitational waves resulting from supernovae or black hole collisions.

Constellation-X is to consist of four X-ray telescopes on a single spacecraft. It is a successor to previous space-based X-ray observatories, such as Chandra. Constellation-X will be able to study phenomena that are energetic in the X-ray part of the spectrum, such as physics in the vicinity of black holes and very hot gas found in large galaxy clusters.

The missions in the center of the chart are less far along in planning. Of the three, the dark energy probe appears to be farthest along. In fact, there are actually three possible designs in competition. In August, NASA authorized a comparative analysis of the three designs in order to identify the "best". Each of them will measure the effects of dark energy over the history of the universe by locating and studying 1000 or more Type 1a supernovae. They differ in the additional kinds of measurements they can make. However, the status of this mission (as well as the others discussed here) has recently been thrown into further uncertainty, as we'll explain in a minute.

The purpose of the inflation probe is to gather stronger evidence for the process of inflation that appears to have occurred beginning a mere 10^-35 seconds after the big bang. (As discussed here and here, back in March NASA announced that an analysis of WMAP data in fact gave preliminary evidence for inflation.) In addition, the probe will seek data that can discriminate among the many possible models which can describe inflation. There are different ways that the probe can study the problem, including a more detailed analysis of polarization in the cosmic microwave background, and a study of the evolution of large-scale structure in the universe.

The black hole finder, as the name implies, will be designed to locate and study black holes (both stellar-mass supernova remnants and supermassive black holes) in order to learn more about how they form and grow. As such, it will build upon work done by Constellation-X.

As for the two "vision missions", it's really too early for scientists and engineers to define them in any detail. Much will depend on phenomena that are better understood from the results of earlier missions, and most likely phenomena we don't even know of yet. Understandably, these missions (and certainly others like them) are decades in the future.

And this brings us to the latest news. It should be clear enough that there are plenty of overlaps and interdependencies among the various missions. The capabilities of later missions will depend critically on what we learn from earlier ones. After all, until 1997, no one seriously suspected that dark energy even existed. (And some experts still doubt its existence.)

Because of this, as well as because of the severe present constraints on NASA's science budget, The National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies has formed a committee – at the request of NASA and the U. S. Department of Energy – to conduct an assessment of the Beyond Einstein program. The first meeting of the committee was held last week (November 6-8). The agenda is here. Further information on the committee, including its membership and staff, is here.

This is the committee's task statement:

1. Assess the five proposed Beyond Einstein missions (Constellation-X, Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, Joint Dark Energy Mission, Inflation Probe, and Black Hole Finder probe) and recommend which of these five should be developed and launched first, using a funding wedge that is expected to begin in FY 2009. The criteria for these assessments include:

a. Potential scientific impact within the context of other existing and planned space-based and ground-based missions; and

b. Realism of preliminary technology and management plans, and cost estimates.

2. Assess the Beyond Einstein missions sufficiently so that they can act as input for any future decisions by NASA or the next Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey on the ordering of the remaining missions. This second task element will assist NASA in its investment strategy for future technology development within the Beyond Einstein Program prior to the results of the Decadal Survey.

As of right now, I haven't seen any accounts of what happened at the meeting last week. If anyone out there has some actual information about the meeting, or has seen reports of it, please let me know.

What I do know is that some people are pretty worried that the real purpose of this committee is to narrow down the Beyond Einstein program to just one mission, or possibly two, because of NASA's budget problems. This might entail not merely postponing other missions, but essentially killing them altogether. The problem is that, if some level of misson activity cannot be funded on an ongoing basis, then many researchers and their institutions will have to find other things to do, and it could be very difficult to bring teams back together when, or if, funding becomes available. See two posts here and here, from Steinn Sigurðsson for examples of the kind of speculation going around.

Oh yes, there is one other thing. Along with the announcement on October 31 (before the NRC committee meeting), that a final service mission will be flown for the Hubble Space Telescope, there were strong hints that other astronomy missions are on hold. The report on this printed in Science: Hubble Gets a Green Light, With Other Missions on Hold is available only to subscribers, but says at the end:

Griffin's decision means that NASA will spend most of its astronomy budget on three major missions--the Hubble servicing flight, construction of the James Webb Space Telescope, and the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA). Technical troubles, schedule delays, and cost overruns plague the latter two. But Weiler [director of NASA's Goddard facility] says that the Webb is back on track after a rough couple of years, while SOFIA--which Griffin initially canceled only to revive in July--is slated to begin operations in 2009. Those large projects leave little room for smaller or future missions. For example, NASA halted work earlier this year on the extrasolar planet-seeking Space Interferometry Mission (SIM) in order to cover SOFIA's cost overruns. Those pressures worry some astronomers, who fear that the three missions will limit new efforts.

"Is the astronomy program with just [Webb], Hubble, and SOFIA a good astronomy program? You betcha," says Weiler. Although he acknowledges that there is a gap in smaller missions for the next few years, he notes that the cost of building the Webb will peak in 2008 and then decline over the next 5 years. "The big issue now is what to do with that wedge."

The four leading contenders appear to be the Joint Dark Energy Mission with the Energy Department, a mission called Constellation-X that features a bevy of x-ray telescopes, the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna to study black holes and the early universe, and SIM. NASA had intended to fund all in this decade and the next, but budget constraints likely will make for a competitive race.

Make of that what you will, but it certainly doesn't sound too good.

On the other hand, it certainly looks like the task of the NRC committee is to select at least one of the Beyond Einstein missions. Further, NASA is going ahead with other new astronomy projects. In addition to GLAST (launches late 2007), on October 13 there was an announcement that the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer will be launched in 2009 to do infrared sky maps, which would capture both nearby planetary systems undergoing formation as well as very distant galaxies – news report, further information.

So here's the bottom line I see for now: The NRC committee will take a year or so to ponder the situation. They may pick one project to go forward with initially. (Betting seems to be on the dark energy probe, because of the involvement of the Department of Energy.) Other missions in the advanced planning stage (LISA and Constellation-X) may wind up on hold, or one may be slotted as well.

The important point: there is plenty of time to make the argument before the appropriate Congressional committees that the NASA science budget should be increased enough so that the Beyond Einstein program can go forward, without having to sacrifice planning that has already been done and disrupting teams that are already in place.

Fortunately, as a result of last week's elections, Congress will have new people in charge who should be inclined to place a higher value on basic science than those they are replacing.

Update 1 (11/13/06): According to a comment by Steinn, LISA and Con-X have been "approved", but only minimally funded.

Update 2 (11/14/06): Now Steinn says funding was cut off. In any case, they're going noplace fast at this point.

----------------------------

Additional information:

Beyond Einstein: From the Big Bang to Black Holes

This is a 110 page document you can download in PDF format, and it's very much worth the effort. It's profusely illustrated (full color) and describes all of the missions and gives a good overview of the underlying science. Only problem is it was published in January 2003. But the additional science that has been learned in the last four years mostly confirms the premises of the program.

----------------------------

Tags: astrophysics, cosmology, Beyond Einstein, black holes, dark energy, cosmic inflation, gravitational waves, NASA

Read More >>

NASA 2007 science budget

This is old news. The main purpose of this post is to provide historical references for something I'm going to write more about, and to give a general flavor of the controversy over NASA's science budget.

On February 6, 2006 the Bush administration delivered NASA's 2007 budget to Congress – and there were substantial cuts in the science programs. I wrote a little about that here, as part of a general discussion of a variety of NASA problems at the time. (See the section on "NASA's 2007 budget".)

You most likely don't want to plow through all these articles, so I'll just summarize. Some of the science missions that were cut back or eliminated from the budget included probes to Mars and Jupiter's moon Europa, and a telescope to search for Earth-like extrasolar planets (Terrestrial Planet Finder).

Two other missions, which I will write more about, involved advanced astrophysics: the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna to search for gravitational waves and Constellation-X to study black holes.

• NASA to divert cash from science into shuttle (2/7/06)
  
• Nasa spending to support shuttle (2/7/06)
  
• NASA makes hard cuts in research to preserve shoot for the moon (2/8/06)
  
• US space scientists rage over axed projects (2/16/06)
  
• Human spaceflight must come first, argues NASA (2/17/06)
  
• Budget Cuts Back Much-Promoted NASA Missions (3/2/06)
  
• Bush cuts carry consequences for science, experts say (3/2/06)
  
• Top US scientists fight for NASA science budget (3/3/06)
  
• NASA basic research loses funding (3/3/06)
  
• Bush's NASA cuts halts much research (4/4/06)
  
• Space agency's 2020 vision shortsighted, say Berkeley astronomers (4/6/06)
  
• NASA Chief Says Future Flights Will Force Cutbacks in Science (4/25/06)
  
• NASA chief defends budget cuts (4/26/06)
  
• NASA boss appeals to budget committee (4/27/06)
  
• Scientists To Voice Budget Concerns at NASA Advisory Council Meeting (5/1/06)
  
• Criticism of NASA science budget grows (5/4/06)
  
• Report says NASA lacks research money - also here, here (5/4/06)
  
• NASA's Reverse Thrust (6/1/06)
  

Tags: NASA

Read More >>