Part 6 in our “Uncover DSCOVR” series featuring science writer Mitchell Anderson
Like any government body, NASA has to decide where is best to spend it’s finite resources. These decisions aren’t easy but they are essential to ensure that the funds entrusted by the taxpayer are allocated in a coherent and thoughtful way.
Lets start with the ISS. Conceived as a joint effort by many countries to have permanent presence in space, it has become a boondoggle that is quite literally out of this world. By 2010, the ISS will have eaten up over $130 billion dollars. That cost itself is remarkable, but more remarkable still that the ISS has lost large parts of it planned science program.
A perennial justification of orbiting astronaut housing such as the ISS is that they can be used as laboratories for the growing of novel crystals and proteins in microgravity. Yet in 2000, the National Academies of Sciences reported that, “the enormous investment in protein crystal growth on the Shuttle and Mir has not led to a single unique scientific result.”
The American Physical Society also recently reaffirmed its statement originally made in 1991 that “It is the view of the American Physical Society that scientific justification is lacking for a permanently manned space station in Earth orbit.”
Undeterred, this month NASA
will deliver a new module to the ISS
– at a cost of $2 billion – making it as big as a five-bedroom house. Dr. Robert Park,
a physicist from the University of Maryland and long time critic of the scientific utility of the ISS
, commented wryly, “astronauts can now do nothing in twice as much space.”
In the words of NASA brass, the decision to cancel DSCOVR last year was due to “competing priorities”.
Lets do the math.
To put the cost of one of the those competing priorities in perspective, the ISS at $130 billion is roughly 1,300 times what it cost to build DSCOVR, and 13,000 times larger than what it would cost to launch and operate the now-completed DSCOVR themselves – something that Dr. Park has stated is “the most important thing we could be doing in space right now”
In actuality, the cost to NASA
of launching DSCOVR
now is approaching zero since it appears that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA
) has found outside funding
to take over the mission. Strangely, NASA
as yet seems to feel that it is more cost effective not to hand DSCOVR
over to another US
government agency and instead keep it in storage at roughly $1 million per year.
Next week: DSCOVR vs. putting a human on Mars.