A well-written essay (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/science/space/09essay.html) and attending impassioned comments at the New York Times.
I agree with the central theme of the piece: Apollo was a crash program meant to one-up the Soviets, but it was also immensely inspirational -- we can learn from both aspects. We don't have a Great Enemy to justify spending ~1% of GDP on a race, but we have to do better than missions that only satisfy PhDs.
So, what should budgetary priorities be? Unmanned scientific missions for sure, but I would add:
1. A tiebreaker in favor of inspirational and culturally significant scientific missions, like the Mars landing and Hubble. One idea would be robotic missions to search for life on outer moons.
2. A research program to address the technical issues of manned space flight, rather than rehashing 60's technology.
There should be a way to move into the future without replaying old glories or simply paying lip-service ...
no subject
I agree with the central theme of the piece: Apollo was a crash program meant to one-up the Soviets, but it was also immensely inspirational -- we can learn from both aspects. We don't have a Great Enemy to justify spending ~1% of GDP on a race, but we have to do better than missions that only satisfy PhDs.
So, what should budgetary priorities be? Unmanned scientific missions for sure, but I would add:
1. A tiebreaker in favor of inspirational and culturally significant scientific missions, like the Mars landing and Hubble. One idea would be robotic missions to search for life on outer moons.
2. A research program to address the technical issues of manned space flight, rather than rehashing 60's technology.
There should be a way to move into the future without replaying old glories or simply paying lip-service ...