Joe Pelton has an editorial over at space.com about space policy. It contains the usual justifications (we need to save ourselves from the asteroids, etc.), but while I agree that there are questions that have to be asked, I'm underwhelmed by his:

Why explore space and why send humans into space?

Why does NASA spend the money it does?

Why does NASA use the resources it has the way it does?

What is NASA?s role in terms of education, health care, energy and job creation?

Why is there not more international cooperation in space activities?

Should the U.S. government, at all levels, not realize it needs to do a better job telling us why space and space research, exploration and applications are key?

Why the focus on NASA? This needs to be framed much broader--what is the role of the government, and of the private sector?

And what's the big deal about international cooperation? Why is this apparently a desirable goal, in and of itself? There's no good reason for it to be. We should cooperate if it makes sense, not just for cooperation's sake.

International cooperation seems to serve as a valuable propaganda tool as well as locking us into an expensive boondoggle.

Yea I thought the better title for that article would have been -- Why NASA? The Top 10 Reasons.

> International cooperation seems to serve as a
> valuable propaganda tool as well as locking us
> into an expensive boondoggle.

Well, it certainly gets harder for Congress to cancel a project if ESA or Japan is involved. For example, note that the Comet Rendezvous and Flyby probe was cancelled whereas Cassini/Huygens survived although NASA regarded the former Mariner Mk.II mission as being more important.
---
I doubt very much that Reagan's (then-) $8-billion Space Station project would have survived those six or seven "cliffhanger" votes in Congress, if Presidents Bush and Clinton hadn't played the "international obligations" card.

MARCU$

I doubt very much that Reagan's (then-) $8-billion Space Station project would have survived those six or seven "cliffhanger" votes in Congress, if Presidents Bush and Clinton hadn't played the "international obligations" card.

Yes, it would certainly have died in 1993 without bringing in the Russians.

And of course, that's another reason not to make such ventures international--it makes it difficult to kill them, regardless of how mindless they are...

> that's another reason not to make such ventures
> international--it makes it difficult to kill
> them, regardless of how mindless they are...

Well, I can understand why you feel that way about ISS. I regard Cassini as a good example of positive international collaboration, though. It will be a spectacular mission, if only the Saturn orbit insertion maneuver is successful.

MARCU$

I regard Cassini as a good example of positive international collaboration, though. It will be a spectacular mission, if only the Saturn orbit insertion maneuver is successful.

Yes, but it could have been done just as spectacularly if it had been US only. I wonder if it really saved any money by doing it jointly?

Anyway, as I said, I'm not intrinsically opposed to international cooperation, if it makes sense for some reason other than simply having international cooperation.

> it could have been done just as spectacularly
> if it had been US only. I wonder if it really
> saved any money by doing it jointly?

At $3 billion+, it is the most expensive American mission undertaken so far. Huygens costs about $400-450M (~30%) vs. $1400M for Cassini, and I believe ESA pays some of the operating cost as well.
---
The argument isn't that international cooperation "saves money". It doesn't. Rather, it permits the partners (even the U.S.) to launch bigger and more capable probes. Political "cut insurance" in Congress is also a useful thing to have, at least as long as the mission is scientifically useful. Again, keep in mind that CRAF was cancelled while international Cassini survived the early 1990s budget cuts.

MARCU$

The argument isn't that international cooperation "saves money". It doesn't. Rather, it permits the partners (even the U.S.) to launch bigger and more capable probes.

What's the difference? One can "save money" by building a smaller probe, or "save money" by getting someone else to help pay for it. Either way, we could have done it on our own if we were willing to pay the price.

And as has been pointed out, the "program insurance" aspect is a double-edged sword, saving good programs as well as bad...

> One can "save money" by building a smaller
> probe, or "save money" by getting someone else
> to help pay for it.

It's not quite that simple. For example, if one wanted to do a manned Mars mission, it would almost certainly have to be an international endeavor for the reasons given. There are some unmanned projects where even a bare-bones mission would be prohibitively expensive to politicians, without the international card.

The Space Station had to be an international venture because President Reagan reportedly insisted on having "America's friends and allies" on board while building a larger platform than the Soviet Salyuts.

MARCU$