The science community should advocate for an aggressive human spaceflight program while at the same time defending its programs from being the source of money for it, according to Dr. Lennard Fisk, immediate past Chair of the National Research Council’s Space Studies Board (SSB). Dr. Fisk is a Distinguished University Professor of Space Science at the University of Michigan.

Arguing that space and earth science programs as well as human spaceflight programs need to be “transformative” to warrant funding, Dr. Fisk said:

“What posture then should the science community take relative to human spaceflight? The first posture is of course a defensive one. We may recognize that human spaceflight needs more money, but we have transformative goals of our own, and we do not wish to be the source of that money.

The second posture is an offensive one. We need to recognize that the current human spaceflight program is a drag on the reputation of the agency, and therefore on us, and offers little advantage to us. We should thus be advocates for a more aggressive human spaceflight program, which is capable of transforming our society, our economy, and our future. A human spaceflight program that is an essential component of our foreign policy, our economic future, and the inspiration of our people. And if such a program develops, there will be opportunities for synergies, and mutually supportive capabilities, and all this will be advantageous to us.”

Space and earth science programs like the Hubble Space Telescope, planetary exploration missions, and studies of the Sun and the Earth have transformed human understanding of our planet and the universe, he said. The Apollo program similarly was transformative, but the current human spaceflight program is not: “It is unlikely that the human spaceflight program will ever rise to the scientific transformational standard that we impose upon our robotic scientific program.” But he believes there are transformations that can come from the human spaceflight program that are geopolitical, economic, and inspirational.

Dr. Fisk spoke at a January 14 symposium jointly sponsored by the Universities Space Research Association (USRA) and George Washington University’s Space Policy Institute (SPI) entitled Human Spaceflight and the Future of Space Science. These two components – sometimes described as warring factions – of the space community often are at odds.

A decision to reduce space and earth science funding by $3.1 billion over 5 years in the FY2007 budget exacerbated tensions. Many space and earth scientists believed that science programs were being robbed to pay for President George W. Bush’s “Vision for Space Exploration” to return humans to the Moon by 2020 and then go on to Mars. In September 2005, then-NASA Administrator Michael Griffin promised that he would not take “one thin dime” from science programs to pay for the Vision, but just a few months later the Bush Administration released NASA’s FY2007 budget request with its cut to science funding. Dr. Griffin repeatedly pointed out that he also had to reduce funding for the Exploration program by $1.5 billion, but that did not calm the scientific community.

The reductions for both science and Exploration were necessitated by funding requirements for the existing space shuttle and International Space Station programs, which had been underfunded in NASA’s budget forecasts.

Attempts to improve relationships between scientists and human spaceflight advocates have been ongoing by some of the leaders of those communities. The recent selection of Dr. Laurie Leshin – a space scientist – to be Deputy Associate Administrator of NASA’s Exploration Systems Mission Directorate may be another step in that direction.

A Rasmussen Reports poll of 1,000 adults conducted January 13-14, 2010 showed a drop in public support for space program spending compared to a May 2009 poll by the same organization. In May, 44% of respondents favored cutting back on space spending. The new poll shows that 50% want to cut back. The question did not indicate how much funding NASA receives or how it compares with other government programs, it was simply: “Given the state of the economy, should the United States cut back on space spending?” Of the 1,000 adults polled, 50% said yes, 31% said no, and 19% were not sure.

When asked about their impression of NASA, 18% were very favorable, 46% somewhat favorable, 13% somewhat unfavorable, 7% very unfavorable, and 16% not sure.

Two questions were asked about whether current goals should include sending people to the Moon or Mars. About one quarter of the respondents said yes (27% for Mars, 26% for Moon), about half said no (50% for Mars, 52% for Moon), and the rest were not sure.

Respondents were roughly evenly split on the fifth of the five questions — whether the space program should be funded by the government or the private sector. On that question, 35% said by the government and 38% said by the private sector. The rest were not sure.

The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. More information is available on Rasmussen Report’s website, which describes itself as an electronic media company specializing in polling. The company stresses that it is independent because it “cannot be hired to conduct a poll for anyone,” earning money instead from “advertising, title sponsorships, subscriptions and content.”

Senate Commerce Committee staffer Jeff Bingham told a symposium on human spaceflight and the future of space science that legislation is being drafted in the Senate to enable and enhance research on the International Space Station (ISS). Among other things, the legislation would extend the space shuttle program until a U.S. alternative is available.

Bingham stressed the need to extend ISS operations beyond 2015 in order to make effective use of its scientific capabilities, and to have two ways to get crews back and forth to the ISS, not just one as will be true once the shuttle program is terminated. He pointed out that the Columbia disaster proved the wisdom of having a second transportation system – Russia’s Soyuz spacecraft. Without it, he said, the ISS would have been lost. If Soyuz becomes the only crew transport system for many years, which is the current plan, ISS astronauts would be vulnerable to a Soyuz mishap. What would happen, he queried, if there was a Soyuz accident while returning some ISS crew members, but other ISS crew members were still aboard the station. Their only way back to Earth would be another Soyuz spacecraft and they would be stranded there until the causes of the accident were known and corrected.

Bingham expressed skepticism about whatever plan is proposed by the Obama Administration because in his view it is being developed by the same mid-level White House staff – particularly at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) – who came up with the Bush policy of terminating the shuttle and the ISS. As for where the money will come from to keep them going, he implored the audience to “not drink the OMB Kool-Aid that we have a zero sum budget.”

Bingham explained that when or if the legislation will be introduced is up to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), for whom he works, and other Senators.

The January 14 symposium was sponsored by George Washington University’s Space Policy Institute and the Universities Space Research Association.

Todd Halvorson has an article in Florida Today this morning laying out what he believes will be President Obama’s plan for the human space flight program. It sounds very much like what Andrew Lawler published in ScienceInsider several weeks ago following the meeting between President Obama and NASA Administrator Bolden. Halvorson dismissed Lawler’s story days later in his blog, quoting White House press officials as saying that the meeting was “informational not decisional” and Lawler’s story was “speculation.”

Today, Halvorson repeats most of what Lawler said the Obama plan will be:

• extend International Space Station operations to 2020,
• boost NASA’s budget by a $1 billion,
• rely on the commercial sector to take cargo and eventually crews to low Earth orbit (LEO),
• accelerate development of a heavy lift launch capability, and
• lead international expeditions into interplanetary space (which sounds like the Augustine commitee’s “Flexible Path” option)

Florida Today called this a “dynamic plan” for human space flight.

As we reported earlier, a $1 billion boost to the NASA budget for FY2011 would merely pay for the expected operations of the space shuttle for six additional months. The Augustine committee stressed that it was unlikely the remaining shuttle flights could be completed in FY2010 and estimated that it would cost $1.1 billion in FY2011 to finish the program. It also estimated that extending ISS to 2020 would cost an additional $13.7 billion.

Although $1 billion not only sounds like a lot of money, it is a lot of money, it is not nearly enough to move forward with a “dynamic” human space flight program.