nasa goes wall street?
NASA is trying to protect its budget from finance wonks by talking like them.
Spirit and Opportunity, two sacrifices for the sake of science designed to last just three months in the middle of a radioactive, alien desert are going strong five years later. When we finally land on the red planet and establish the first Martian city, the rovers are guaranteed to be the center of attention in the first interplanetary space museum. So it almost feels like a sin to critique any praise of the tough little robots and the engineers who built and maintained them, but I have to take a deep sign and ask if NASA's Ed Weiler's comments about the mission's financials were a good idea.
The American taxpayer was told three months for each rover was the mission plan. The twins have worked almost 20 times that long. That's an extraordinary return of investment in these challenging budgetary times.
Return on investment? Really? Usually, when we say that there's a return on investment, there's some sort of monetary gain. NASA invested about $1 billion on the rover mission. How much cash did it make from its initial inlay? We've learned a lot about Mars and its past and did a lot of exploration that would've been impossible if the rovers gave out at their scheduled due date. If anything, the mission was very cost effective and an example that when NASA really tries, it can still do great things in space. But scientific knowledge isn't necessarily a way to measure a return on investment during a global recession when people care about cold, hard cash first and foremost.
All the evidence for water on Mars several billion years ago isn't going to help someone pay off credit card debt. Returns on investment measured by textbook knowledge and information for the far future sound bizarre to the average person. Worse yet, by trying it to tie it the recession, he seems to be indirectly pleading for the incoming Obama administration to take note of how cost effective their missions can be and not cut their budget or merge them with the Pentagon.
I understand that NASA's senior management is feeling under the gun and praying to whatever higher being they worship for the safety of their jobs. But using a scientific coup to make some sort of financial proclamation and applying business terminology to the fulfillment of curiosity at a challenging time isn't a good idea. Business is harsh, demanding and impatient for results while science and discovery are labors of love that can take decades to fully pay off. Mixing the two creates a major clash of cultures and is bound to leave one behind at the other's expense.
