The Washington Post has an editorial against the Vision for Space Exploration in general, and Mike Griffin's implementation plans in particular. As usual, there are unstated assumptions built in:

...we believe that the needs of NASA -- and the country -- can, at this point, be better served by continuing and expanding robotic exploration.

But what are those needs? They don't say. They think they know what they are, and assume that everyone agrees with them. But I can't think of any needs of mine that are met by sending robots to other planets. NASA obviously has some need to do so, because they do so, but clearly that doesn't satisfy the sum total of their needs either.

Once again, we have clueless pundits making policy pronouncements when we haven't had a national discussion or debate about what the purpose is of having a national space program and policy. Until that happens, it will continue to be driven by the needs for pork in certain congressional districts.

And of course it comes down to not doing it for the children.

I have a rule of thumb. When someone wants to pursuade me to do something 'for the children', I automatically support the opposite position becuase it is never really in the intrest of the children but simply a cheap debating tactic amed to pursuade the IQ challenged emotiacs in society.

" ...we believe that the needs of NASA -- and the country -- can, at this point, be better served by continuing and expanding robotic exploration.

But what are those needs? They don't say."

Upon further thought Rand, those needs are the piecemeal dismantling of NASA one interest at a time upon the altar of the false god of the welfare state. It is to feed the monster money. That is their need, they just want to use divide an conquer tactics because if they reveal their true agenda, they will unite their opponenet.

Better to pit them one against the other with false charity towards one and emnity toward the other.

Mike, the shortest critique of the "for the children" mindset I've seen was in Donald Kingsbury's "The Moon Goddess and the Son". One character says: "the Democrats would feed the seed corn to the hungry children".

Mike

I'd settle for dismantling NASA at the altar of my tax bill, but fiscal responsibility is apparently so last century.

So our only choices are, continue with shuttle, have shuttle-derived expendables, go back to using robots or not having a space program at all?

That _is_ a sure recepie towards waking up one morning and finding NASA's been cut from the budget...

I think what is sadder then the Washington Post anti-VSE editorial is the fact that the Washington Post is the voice of the Democratic Party's coventional wisdom.

Should a Democratic President assume office in 2009, I think it's fair to say she will kill VSE.

"But I can't think of any needs of mine that are met by sending robots to other planets."

Do you really want to stand by that statement, Rand? Were the Ranger and Surveyor lunar missions of no use in preparing for Apollo? If you head for Mars, are you going to disregard everything learned from probes there?

Beyond that, I find it very hard to believe that you yawn at, e.g., the Cassini images coming in...

"Should a Democratic President assume office in 2009, I think it's fair to say she will kill VSE."

I think it's fair to say VSE is already a zombie, based on the fiscal legacy being created by this Republican President.

Beyond that, I find it very hard to believe that you yawn at, e.g., the Cassini images coming in...

No, I don't yawn at them, but neither do I consider them satisfying needs. Desires, perhaps, but not needs.

Desires, perhaps, but not needs.

OK, by that standard we're down to the old (and only) money-makers: commsats and remote sensing. All space resources other than the geometry of orbit itself are so far in the future as to be discounted to nothing.

If what you're saying is that space science and manned exploration satisfy desires and should be presented and justified as such, I have no problem with that.

OK, by that standard we're down to the old (and only) money-makers: commsats and remote sensing. All space resources other than the geometry of orbit itself are so far in the future as to be discounted to nothing.

Errrr...no. I'm not sure what your point is here. Just because things are higher on Maszlow's hierarchy doesn't mean they don't make people a lot of money...

Quote from Monte Davis: "If you head for Mars, are you going to disregard everything learned from probes there?"

We will probably be to busy worrying about all those needs in regards to life support, food, and water -- you know, all those things that robots can't teach you. While we can't go so far as to just plain disregard all the information gathered by robotic missions, i.e. surface composition, atmospheric density, and temperature. There is just not going to be a lot of information gathered by a robot about what it will take to build a Mars colony. Ultimately, our aim should be focused on not putting all our eggs in one basket and about giving humans the hope that if they don't like the way life is managed on this planet then they can go to another and try to start up there own.

I'm not sure the Post is the voice of the Democratic Party. Sometimes it is. Some Democrats dislike the Post. That said, I think the editorial is appalling.

They cite education and health care as more pressing and deserving. Hmm, health care spending in the U.S. in 100 times the NASA budget. K-12 education is at least 25 times. What's the deficit these days? No matter what you think of NASA, contending it is depriving "worthier" endeavors of substantial funding is, at best, ignorant, at worst, fundamentally dishonest.

Criticisms of the health care industry and education abound in a wide variety of political groups. It's reasonable to think considerable improvements can be made in both without even touching NASA funding, whatever you think of NASA.

Rand, I just sent you and a bunch of other people an e-mail on this very subject. Respond, or not, as you see fit -- either here or elsewhere.

"Should a Democratic President assume office in 2009, I think it's fair to say she will kill VSE."

Only if they can't make the first launch
sometime just before her re-election campaign.