Following President Bush's announcement of his plan to conquer the moon and Mars, NASA cut budgets intended for the study of dark energy and global warming. Astronomers are already warning of the end of the golden age of space exploration
After President Bush ordered the US space agency to direct most of its resources to the study of the moon and Mars, including launching manned missions to both destinations, the agency began to drastically change its scientific priorities. NASA is delaying missions and cutting budgets allocated to missions unrelated to the programs announced by the president.
NASA's decision to cancel the shuttle flight intended to maintain the Hubble Space Telescope, a decision that means the telescope will cease to operate, has focused a lot of attention. But alongside the abandonment of Hubble, the weight of entire research fields in NASA's budget planning for the coming years has decreased significantly, and many scientists fear for the future of space exploration.
Two missions that were nicknamed "Einstein Beyond", which aimed to study black holes and "gravitational waves", were postponed - one for two years, the other for a year. The launch of spacecraft that were supposed to investigate the "dark energy" that is hypothesized to accelerate the expansion of the universe, has been postponed to an unknown date. Also, about 1.2 of the 4.5 billion dollars allocated for a research program on the interaction between the sun and the earth was cut. The importance of this research was emphasized the previous summer, when as a result of a series of solar explosions radiation was emitted that could disrupt radio communications and possibly even endanger astronauts.
Despite Bush's promise to expand research on global warming, about $XNUMX billion has been cut from the budget earmarked for Earth research over the next four years. The cut delays by two years the launch of a satellite that was supposed to measure the amount of precipitation around the world.
According to NASA officials, the budget for the new research programs will not be taken from the agency's science budget. They add that NASA's science budget will increase by 41% in the next five years. "No mission has been canceled," said Dr. Edward Wheeler, who is in charge of scientific research at the agency. "In some cases, the rate of increase in the budget was reduced."
In the interview, Wheeler detailed a list of prominent studies that received considerable funding in the new budget: "Probe B Gravity", a satellite with a budget of 700 million dollars designed to test Einstein's theory of gravity, which was launched a few weeks ago; the James Webb Space Telescope, Hubble's successor, to be launched in 2011; Kepler, a satellite to search for Earth-like planets outside the solar system, to be launched in 2007; and a spacecraft that will bring a sample of rocks and soil from Mars in 2013, a mission that Dr. Wheeler described as "a dream come true for Mars researchers."
But the changes in scientific planning are causing anxiety among astronomers and members of Congress. Sherwood Buellert, a Republican member of the House of Representatives from New York who serves as the chairman of the White House Science Committee, said in a recent speech that the president's new initiative raises questions. "Will the funding of this initiative instead of other programs advance science or harm it?" Buellert asked.
Many astronomers say they foresee the end of a golden age, when researchers could use impressive instruments like space telescopes and sophisticated satellites to study the light coming from the centers of distant galaxies. "The golden age is in danger," said Dr. Michael Turner, a cosmologist from the University of Chicago, "I'm very tense."
Dr. Leonard Fisk, a professor of space science at the University of Michigan and chairman of the Council on Space Studies at the National Academy of Sciences, which helps determine the order of priorities in the field of space exploration, said that the emphasis on manned missions has disrupted NASA's order of priorities. Fisk said that NASA's research areas are now divided into two groups: areas with "yes" written next to them, and areas with "no" written next to them. "Many of us feel that this demarcation does not make sense," he said, "Space exploration includes much more than wandering around the solar system."
Dr. David Spergel, an astronomer at Princeton University and a member of NASA's Science Advisory Board, said the impact of the Bush initiative on the agency's scientific research is mixed. Dr. Spergel mentioned NASA's recent achievements, such as the landing of space vehicles on Mars. "I think this success was due to the fact that NASA invested resources in the mission based on its scientific value. I'm afraid that when they assessed the tasks included in the new initiative, the question they asked was "does this support the president's plan?" And not "is this excellent science?"
In the letter sent this month to Dr. Wheeler, all the members of the advisory committee agreed. "NASA must not withdraw from the place close to the scientific summit it has reached due to too narrow an interpretation of the term 'space exploration,'" wrote the astronomers. "We strongly recommend that 'science of the highest quality' remain the guiding principle."
Even astronomers expected to profit from the budget changes say they don't know how to treat them. Dr. Reta Bibb, a planetary researcher from the University of New Mexico who heads the Planetary Research Committee at the National Academy of Sciences, defined the new research program as "very undefined."
Dr. Bibb said that in the coming years the new program will have little effect on the exploration of Mars using robots, which was formulated based on a "very solid and realistic road map" prepared by scientists. In January, Bush said that in order to finance the new research program, he would increase NASA's budget by 20% in the next five years, and transfer 11 billion dollars from other programs. Stopping the launch of the space shuttles in 2010 will free up about 5 billion dollars a year.
Many astronomers are especially afraid of the cuts to the Einstein program, which together with the imminent loss of the Hubble Space Telescope will leave them without the means to trace the origins of dark energy, which Dr. Turner called "the most serious question in science." Indeed, in a report published last week by the National Science and Technology Council, the study of dark energy is in first place in the order of priorities when it comes to the study of the physics of the universe.
According to Dr. Adam Rees, an astronomer from the Space Telescope Institute, "If dark energy is such a big mystery, why isn't it part of NASA's budget?"
Dr. Wheeler said that as an astronomer he fully agrees with these concerns, but as a public office holder he must consider budget constraints.
By Dennis Overbey New York Times, published in "Haaretz" and Walla News!
י
