Playing the Science Card

Editor’s note: Paul Hertz, Chief Scientist for Science Mission Directorate, told a NAS meeting this morning that NASA’s Lunar Exploration program “is not science driven”. He said this three times. Yet a chart he presented said “It is essential that NASA adopt the very strongest science program possible for the Moon right from the outset because advocated weak science would be questioned and could jeopardize the entire lunar program”. The NAS panel repeatedly questioned Hertz on this seeming inconsistency i.e. that while the lunar program is not driven by science NASA seems to want to get the science community to support it because of its science content. This of course reflects the problems Mike Griffin has with reconciling science and exploration.

What Mike Griffin *Really* Thinks About NRC’s Space Station Report

“The next step out is the Moon. We’re going to get, and probably already are getting, the same criticisms as for ISS. This is the “why go to the Moon?” theme. We’ve got the architecture in place and generally accepted. That’s the “interstate highway” analogy I’ve made. So now, we need to start talking about those exit ramps I’ve referred to. What ARE we going to do on the Moon? To what end? And with whom? I have ideas, of course. (I ALWAYS have ideas; it’s a given.) But my ideas don’t matter. Now is the time to start working with our own science community and with the Internationals to define the program of lunar activity that makes the most sense to the most people. I keep saying — because it’s true — that it’s not the trip that matters, it’s the destination, and what we do there. We got to get started on this.”