I haven't (yet) commented on the American Physical Society's little screed against human exploration, but the membership should be embarrassed over this. Keith Cowing is being threatened with a slander suit (why slander? Why not libel--it was published on his web site?) for criticizing it.

I think that they need to get someone for their public affairs office who knows how to actually deal with the public. Professor Lubell is not as bad as this guy (yet), but he shows promise. And now I suppose he'll send me a threatening email, too.

"(why slander? Why not libel--it was published on his web site?)"

Simple Rand, this was the APS showing they were dumber than J. Jonah Jameson. See the the first Spider-Man movie for more info.

This is the second time NASAWatch has been threatened with a lawsuit in under a month. He's on a roll...

Brent

Let me make a limited defense of the APS report:

APS is a member service organization dedicated to physical scientists. As such their orientation is towards science, not towards developing a spacefaring civilization. History shows unambiguously that large NASA manned spaceflight programs exceed their budget, and the shortfall is typically made up by cutting pure science programs. The report is absolutely correct that to this point the major advances have been made by unmanned craft, and the science return from the manned program has been extremely cost ineffective.

From the point of view of science, opposition to the Moon-Mars program makes perfect sense. With a probability approaching 100% it will overrun its costs, and place high science return robotic missions in jeopardy. The vast majority of TTM readers believe that human exploration is not only an end in itself, but also that if done properly it will yield science return far above that of robotic probes. I share this view. However, given the realities of past efforts, it's clear that this is a very optimistic outlook. Past performance has been underwhelming to say the least (again, emphasizing that this is from a science driven perspective). The optimistic view is justified by analogies to other areas, and I believe these are good analogies, but looking at the raw historical data of NASA's past performance in delivering science bang for the buck using manned vehicles suggests that the onus is on those who believe manned flight can produce quality science at reasonable cost to prove their case.

Tha appropriate response to the APS report is IMO to point out that
(1) Moon-Mars is about a hell of a lot more than science return for the buck. It's also about laying the foundations of a true spacefaring civilization.
(2) The reasons for poor science performance of manned missions in the past (in terms of bang for the buck) has a lot to do with the way the programs were structured, rather than any intrinsic problems with manned space science.
(3) The Moon-Mars program contains elements which will mitigate some of the reasons for poor performance in the past.
(4) APS can be and should be involved in trying to move the program in a more efficient direction, and mere opposition to a popular and politically well supported program is not an effective way to do this.
(5) APS should try to protect the robotic exploration budget, not by attacking Moon-Mars, but by attacking structural inefficiencies within NASA that lead to damaging cost overruns.
(6) APS can and should endorse manned spaceflight as a tool for science, and should work with NASA to improve the science yield of manned spaceflight.

The APS view is consistent with their science orientation and with historical data. Unfortunately it also reflects certain widely held assumptions about spaceflight (for example that it is intrinsically expensive, and that the objective of spaceflight is primarily science) which are rejected (correctly, IMO) by the alt-space community. That said, the onus is on those who reject the dominant paradigm to make their case for its replacement (that's us, folks). Just being right isn't enough to effect political change. You also have to show the people in power that you are right, and work actively to create an environment in which the dominant paradigm's flaws are unambiguously revealed. In other words, deliver the goods and the misconceptions will crumble.

APS is just the latest in a long string of advocates of robots to the near if not total exclusion of humans. I agree with them that the additional science gathered by humans is probably not worth the cost. But I argue the goal of space flight should be colonization. We should give forward instead of toasting the Pilgrims.

Did anyone else notice that they placed preserving the sanctity of Martian life higher than human visits?

"In addition to the cost and risk of deploying humans on Mars, a negative impact on the
astrobiological goals must also be considered. Inevitably sending astronauts to Mars will
contaminate the surface with terrestrial life forms and thereby compromise a prime target
of the exploration program, the search for life on another solar system body. As part of
the NRC study proposed here, it is important that there be a scientific assessment of the
knowledge relating to present or past life that should be acquired by robotic means before
an astronaut landing is undertaken. The results of this analysis would be relevant in
defining the appropriate time frame for landing humans on the surface."

I don't think we should delay human arrival or exploitation to preserve Martian life. Mars is a great place to live. Why leave it fallow?

I agree entirely with Andrew's elegantly cogent and comprehensive statement. I only wish every agency arguing their point of view in a national debate made their case in as reasoned and even-handed a way as the APS does.

The essence of the APS position is, as Andrew points out, that they take as an article of faith that spaceflight is principally or entirely about research into physics. For example, on page 7 of the full report:

Space Science has arguably been the single biggest rationale for continued support of NASA.

And there's the rub. If you agree with this statement, then you probably agree with the APS. However, many people do not agree (consciously or not). They see a national effort in space as having a lot, if not more, to do with national prestige or adventure, entertainment, or paving the way for export of our private endeavors to outer space. In such cases, one will disagree with the APS.

I don't think there's much to be gained by the space-science and the human spaceflight people cannibalizing each other. That kind of infighting can only weaken both in the face of the real opposition, which is that large segment of people who believe in neither space science nor human spaceflight.

There is, after all, no big reason why we as a nation cannot afford both the space science the APS wants and as much human spaceflight as rabid NASAphiles want. We're talking less than 1% of the Federal budget in either case. It doesn't have to be a zero-sum game.

That said, I think Rand's main point had to do with the petulant and ill-informed e-mail that Michael Lubell sent to Keith Cowing. In this I agree entirely with RS that the membership of the APS, e.g. me, should be embarassed by this unprofessional action by its Director of Public Affairs.

While Keith certainly can be annoying, Professor Lubell's response was wholly out of line. The threat of a lawsuit for slander is ludicrous. Keith is entirely within his rights in offering his opinion about the merits of the APS's public report and about the tenor of their public behaviour in the past. He does not have to 'get his facts straight', as Professor Lubell concludes his unfortunate e-mail. Keith is under no obligation to be correct in every opinion he ventures. He is only under the considerably lesser obligation to not maliciously smear the APS with statements he knows or should know are false and damaging, and which in fact cause damage. Proving that he did not meet this minimal standard would be exceedingly difficult, and I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell the APS could prevail in Court.

Indeed, were the APS itself, or Professor Lubell himself, to be forced to meet the very same standard -- if each was held liable for any and all error in what they say with honest conviction and innocent intent, I expect they'd be forced to fall silent.

Profesor Lubell relies on his First Amendment rights to opine forcefully against human spaceflight. To argue that Keith Cowing has any less right to argue the opposite case is unbecomingly hypocritical, and should be beneath the dignity of an officer of a respected professional organization.

> The essence of the APS position is, as Andrew points out, that they take as an article of faith that
> spaceflight is principally or entirely about research into physics.

A claim for which there is no historical justification, going back to John Kennedy and his recently disclosed statement about Project Apollo, "I'm not that interested in science."

> While Keith certainly can be annoying, Professor Lubell's response was wholly out of line. The
> threat of a lawsuit for slander is ludicrous.

To me, the whole thing is rather amusing. Both sides are accusing the other of one-sided coverage. You can't buy irony like that any more!