Public Relations Steers
NASA, Not Science


Les Aaron Friedlieb


Why has the government once again revised NASA’s objectives and downplayed originally planned upcoming programs ranging from further explorations of Mars and programs aimed at the moons of Saturn and Jupiter in order to reallocate resources for return to a manned mission of the Moon?

We have seen this pattern before. Goals are set based on a desired result without consideration of what happened before or the preponderance of facts.

Former NASA officials and scientists who are willing to engage this subject have described this change of programs as a serious setback for NASA... They see little to be gained from redirecting assets to a return to the Moon as compared to the promise of new programs that could enhance our existing knowledge and understanding of the Cosmos.

Then why do it? Especially in light of the fact that robotic devices, which costs hundreds of millions of dollars less than a manned program, are capable of achieving what man can do more efficiently at lower costs while continuing to provide us with fresh insights and new information?

Clearly, this is more about the public relations benefits of a space program than the tangible benefits that can be derived
And the real scientific knowledge that can be gained.

It is the same kind of thinking that accelerated the Space Shuttle’s return to space irrespective of whether the insulation issues that plagued NASA before resulting in the explosion of the Columbia upon re-entry have been successfully addressed or resolved.

Clearly, it was more critical to the public’s perceptions to show our capabilities in Space than to protect our Astronauts. This is the downside of programs that emphasize desired outcomes over good science.

That kind of non-objective thinking might achieve a management goal, but having objectives that are set without consideration of the science involved and then trying to manage the facts to conform to a set of arbitrary objectives despite the presence of new information is a dangerous protocol.. If it seems familiar, it is only because this kind of unrealistic goal-setting without recourse to good science has become an unfortunate trademark of this government. We have seen it in the commitment to a $264 billion Star Wars program that doesn’t work, to attacks on stem cell research that could eradicate many diseases, and, more specifically, in the invasion of Iraq where a desired result superseded good planning or careful analysis.

The disdain of this government towards proven methodology and objective science for evaluating risk and deciding goals is clearly a dangerous precedent. Willful, non-objective decision making has gotten us into trouble before and unless corrected, will get us into trouble again.

For the time being, we hope that this government’s decision to plunge ahead with a Shuttle flight will not endanger the lives of this Shuttle’s courageous Astronauts who were led to believe that the problems of shuttle insulation had been successfully resolved.

At the very least, those who approved the program having known and understood the risk should be the subject of a very comprehensive investigation.


Les Aaron
The Armchair Curmudgeon