Tonight ABC News said that they were only budgeting $12G for the entire program. Only $1G was new money for NASA, the other $11G would come from reshuffling NASA's budget.
See: http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/
My immediate impressions was that this is a zero sum game. The unmanned mission consituencies (roboteers and planetologists) are going getting screwed for the manned mission consituencies.
---
Personally, I do not think its true that manned space flights have a low research value. They have a relatively low return in terms of pure planetology and allied sciences. Afterall, like the commenator said the primary goal for any manned space mission is bringing the crew back alive.
That doesn't mean that manned space missions have a low technology return. It
does mean that the technology return from manned space exploration gets
concentrated in furthering the science and technology of human space travel
and habitation -- which must really suck if you happen to be a planetary
science person.
I happen to be a planetary science person, and my reaction is "It's about bloody time!"
(Actually, my reaction is more like "It was about bloody time to be at this point -- seriously planning more lunar expeditions, building a moon base, going to Mars, etc. -- 30 years ago.")
There Is One Paragraph In The Introductory Chapter Of The Text About Space Flight And How Mars Is 200 Times Further Away Than The Moon And I Talked For About Two Hours On The Subject Tonight Maru
-- Ronn! :)
Ronn Blankenship Instructor of Astronomy/Planetary Science University of Montevallo Montevallo, AL
Disclaimer: Unless specifically stated otherwise, any opinions contained herein are the personal opinions of the author and do not represent the official position of the University of Montevallo.
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
