Jack Schmitt is exactly right. The Planetary Society Roadmap is an attempt to appease the new Obama Administration because of a fear that it will not support the USSEP(VSE). This is wrong. If The Planetary Society wants to accelerate Mars & Phobos exploration, it should call for increases in NASA spending & a shift to the Direct 2 Launch System. These changes will enable accelerated lunar & Mars exploration. Increased international space cooperation is an excellent idea--but not as a substitute for new lunar exploration. There are many mysteries on the Moon yet to be investigated!!

He had me until his head-in-the-sand paranoid conspiracy theory on global warming.

When this showed up in my email this morning, via Jack's cc to a lunar list he and I belong to, I cheered.

And all of this assumes that sending people to the Moon or Mars is somehow necessary in the first place. Based on the economic situation of the US and world I find that a very tenuous proposition.

Bravo Mr. Schmitt.

Exploration is ALWAYS necessary and in our best interest, no matter the economic conditions. The moment we shunt our passion to explore is the moment we digress as a species.

Side note: Global Warming is a joke, especially in light of the current cooling that's occurring, and the fact that we have not been studying this long enough to jump to such a hysterical conclusion, such that government needs to regulate more of my life. If it were illegal to profit from the "green" movement, I wonder how strong it would actually be?

I also disagree with his dismissal of human contributions to climate change, but the hysteria-paranoia and funding angles are dead-on. Even the most well-meaning Global Warming adherents I know are excited about the opportunity of finally controlling the American lifestyle, bending it to their vision. And the misanthropic wackos at the other end of the spectrum are postively gleeful at getting even more socialism with GW. I also work in a science-based field, and just like the case Schmitt makes with the NAC, my management cynically tacks GW onto everything we do in hopes of getting more money.

The US Space Program has squandered so many chances by abandoning the stepwise approach of the Russians, and going for the sexy, pie-in-the sky approach. I hope Schmitt's letter gets some attention.

Yeah, I was agreeing with him for the most part until I got to the rant about global warming being a government conspiracy. If I understand it correctly, he's saying "We don't know for sure whether global warming is anthropogenic, so we need to not do research into global climate change, and give up on doing comprehensive Earth observations," a good way to make ensure that we don't get any observational data to prove or disprove it.

Huh? If we don't know, that means we need to more Earth observations and measurements to confirm or disprove the theory, not that we need to stop doing research and measurements.

Jack Schmitt hit the nail on the head. I can tell you I was inspired by him as a kid and he continues to inspire -- his is a true example of free independent thought, something in short supply these days. As for some of the other reader comments -- First, I would say Jack Schmitt is in as good a position as any in the IPCC to judge the health and status of "climate change" science. So, he's "paranoid" because he disagrees with the orthodoxy on this issue? Right or wrong, I call that good science. So drop the Stalinist mind control. Second, he "assumes that sending people to the Moon or Mars is somehow necessary in the first place" for the same reasons I do -- Building on the experience of Apollo and ISS, we have the technology to get off-earth for the first time in human history and thus provide insurance against catastrophe. We need to do that as well as follow Rusty Schweickart's lead in figuring out how to stop planet-killer asteroids. Sure it's expensive, but not so much compared with the 700+ billion bail-out plan. Sometimes you have to think beyond the end of your nose. I would argue that our 30+ year self-imposed limitation of human activity to LEO has lulled the public into thinking space exploration is routine at best or irrelevant at worst. The result is that the US is relinquishing its leading role in space exploration because we're not educating the generations who a) care and b) have the education to keep us in the lead.

Jack's the Man!

I agree with ALL points of his rationale. Doubly so on AGW and his stance regarding it.

The dissent with AGW is not so much on it being a 'government conspiracy', but rather it is an ideological bent on the part of 'true-believer' researchers that humanity can effect such changes that they propose. The fact that these 'true believers' have found a willing source of government largess to latch onto is not evidence in itself that government developed the conspiracy.

Feast your eyes on Hansen's agregious LYING and HYPING of October's temperature record - he substituted a month of repeated data from September for October, then pronounced this October the hottest in 114 years. The responsible thing would be to admit that the normal data channels were suspect for the time period, but that did not fit Hansen's agenda.

**AGW is as real as the Flat Earth, and just as institutionally entrenched.**

As for the entirety of TPS's current position, it is fearful pandering to the incoming president, and smacks of high cowardice. If I were Dr. Schmitt, I'd resign, too.

I'm sorry, but science is about measurements, observations, and data.

When somebody says we shouldn't do measurements, we should stop doing observations, and we don't want data, this is not science.

"Accelerating research into global climate change through more comprehensive Earth observations" is exactly what we should be doing if there's doubt about the causes of global warming. (And, I'll add, more comprehensive observations of the atmospheres of other planets, too-- we learn about atmospheric and climate science by studying all planets, not just the Earth.)

Right on Jack! Thank God there are still men who will stand up for what is right and take on the waste that our K-12 education system has been since the 70's.

Bravo Jack! Especially about Global Warming. There is no consensus dispite what the Al Gore crowd would like us believe. The earth has been warming or cooling since it was created. Long before humans appeared on scene and started using fossil fuels. NOAA and other groups already monitor
earth. This should not be part of TPS platform. It does sound like pandering to Obama administration. TPS should be concerned with Space program advancing past low earth orbit. Nothing wrong with going back to the moon as long as it is a starting point and not the ending point.

I thought he was making some good points, many of which I agreed with, until this:

"You know as well as I, the "global warming scare" is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making."

Huh? Where did that come from, and how did it get into this particular argument.

I don't want to turn this into a political discussion, because Mr. Schmidt made so many good technical points, but that last statement was just too over the top. We have now seen the anti-global warming argument go from "environmentalists and liberals hate capitalism" to an assertion that it is all a "political tool to increase government control".

Oh please. Spare me. If you want to argue that global warming is not being caused or influenced by mankind's activity then cite some scientific evidence, I'm sure there is a lot of it subject to different interpretations.

But to assert it is all part of a conspiracy .... heck, the only thing he left out was an assertion that the Planetary Society is helping the UN take over the world.

Having known Jack from the time he was hired out of graduate school to work on a program I was funding at the USGS Flagstaff, AZ, I consider him a friend and colleague. I hope he reciprocates the feeling. I have great admiration for all he has done since that time, however, recently I have come to disagree with some of his positions.

First, let's get what appears to be a bone of contention with his letter out of the way. Let's call what is happening to Earth's climate by its correct name, CLIMATE CHANGE. As we know, Earth's climate, north and south of the equator, changes on an annual cycle, and deviates from a mean on regular, longer cycles that are well known but not well understood. How much the change from the mean is due to anthropogenic inputs is arguable. Certainly the IPCC reports have not closed the case, in my opinion. And most importantly, how much of the world's resources should be dedicated to reducing anthropogenic inputs has not been calculated on a reasonable cost-benefit basis.

Now to the important questions Jack raised for human space exploration. Based on all I know, Jack is correct. We do not have the capability to send humans to Mars and won't for far into the future. Anyone who believes that NASA will be provided sufficient funds in the foreseeable future to develop the needed technology is smoking something I have never inhaled.

My major disagreement with Jack is the need to use the Moon as a stepping stone to get to Mars. I don't believe the case has been made that it is required to first build a outpost on the Moon to have the required expertise to eventually send humans to Mars. If anything, outposts on the Moon will delay sending humans to Mars or other important destinations such as asteroids.

Why is this so? Because returning to the Moon, or learning more about climate change on Earth, or cataloging NEOs, or restoring the past glory to our aeronautics research program, or anything else NASA does, all come out of the same pot and the pot will not grow very much in the foreseeable future. We have major economic problems that I defy anyone to say how or when they will be resolved.

If you haven't read the April GAO report on the Constellation program you should. GAO predicts that just completing the program, not including Ares V, will cost $230 billion. That number does not include building a lunar outpost or other associated costs. Mike Griffin two years ago estimated that to get astronauts back to the Moon by 2020 would cost a little over $100 billion. Do you sense a disconnect with reality?

So let's be satisfied for the near future with robotic exploration of Mars and the rest of the solar system which, after all, is human exploration. For Mars, let's get behind robotic sample return which, right now, we can't afford. Let's be realistic!
.

"The Planetary Society Roadmap is an attempt to appease the new Obama Administration because of a fear that it will not support the USSEP(VSE)."

Oh come on - domt' play the Obama blame game - you can't say the Planetary Society would bet on who won the election.

A few points:

1. Saying that Helium 3 is a money-maker is bad economics and bad math that doesn't pass the smell-test. Is there demand today? How much would it cost to return 1 g back to Earth, including the cost of the infrastructure to find and extract it? What is the cost of building a manned moonbase to extract helium 3 compare to developing other techniques to synthesize it on Earth? Do we know enough about fusion to know that helium 3 would be the fuel of choice? If fusion requires a manned moonbase factory, would other sources of energy be more economical?

2. You can do great science at the moon, but: a. Robots can do it much cheaper than astronauts, and b. Lunar science wasn't deemed that important by the community relative to other science targets in the solar system before VSE... I am skeptical that it isn't a priority now simply because there is money for it rather than because it is has more value than science at comets, trojans, Mars, Europa, Titan, etc.

3. One person's opinion isn't enough to set science priorities anyway... it needs to go through a formal process like the NRC Decadal Survey. If you're right, you should be able to persuade them.

4. Global Warming is real. Deniers of this tend to be the sort that like "Of Pandas and People". Global warming doesn't mean that everywhere gets hotter every year... it just means that the average global temperature is increasing. There is too much evidence of warming from too many sources to make a credible denial of global climate change.

5. Human cause of global warming is still not iron-clad, but there is a lot of strong evidence that human activities are a major contributor to Global warming. (look here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/climate-changes-2001/scientific-basis/scientific-ts-en.pdf and here: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/index.htm for supporting detail)

6. There are past global warming events in the geologic record, but a. most of these were not as rapid. b. the rapid ones led to mass extinctions c. the last major warming event was when most of the coal was created as carbon was removed from the atmosphere... putting it back in the atmosphere could be expected (at first order) to return us to something similar to that climate.

7. If you don't think that human activity leads to global warming, why oppose the miniscule part of NASA's budget that it would take to make the observations that could refute global warming? This data will lead to science that will enable rational government policy. In absence of the data, the policy will be decided by lobbying and whoever shouts the loudest.

8. Saying human spaceflight is motivated by science is a fiction that ignores the superior science vs. cost achieved by robotic spacecraft. Human exploration should be driven by goals that require humans (e.g. Commercialization of Human Spaeflight, or Learning how to Colonize Mars, etc)

I'd argue this dismissal of the significant human contribution to global warming is a low point in his career, and quite frankly a slap in the face of climatologists worldwide who would definitely disagree with his position. It's a shame that he ties this so strongly to semantic definitions ("consensus"?) much like agenda-driven and ideologically blinded deniers would, and to strictly american politics. It's called global warming, not american warming. No shortage of scientists and governments elsewhere in the world obviously disagree completely with the so-far maintained position of the current US administration of turning a blind eye to environmental protection, and my thinking is they're hardly all stupid. There is no "conspiracy" or "scare" in that sense. And I have to admit a bit sadly, this is not the Jack Schmitt that I know either.

"Feast your eyes on Hansen's agregious LYING and HYPING of October's temperature record - he substituted a month of repeated data from September for October, then pronounced this October the hottest in 114 years."

An embarrassing mistake...but not lying. What evidence do you have that Hansen *personally* and _deliberately_ repeated data to bolster his point of view??

Bill Anderson posted: "So drop the Stalinist mind control."

Oh great...that's all we need now is a Joe McCarthy to join the global warming debate. So now anyone who supports GW is a communist? Please!

Schmitt is too kind in saying that the Planetary Society has "gone back to being more political than rational"; it has always been much more political than rational. I had hoped that Carl Sagan's demise would be good for the Society, but it didn't seem to make any difference.
Nothing could make the Society's dishonesty more obvious than its pandering to the global warning hoax. One post says that "we need to more Earth observations and measurements to confirm or disprove the theory" (sic). In fact, there has never been any doubt that the "theory" is false. Of course, there is no way to tell whether Gore, or Hansen, or any other given supporter of the "theory", is ignorant, irrational, dishonest, or some combination of the three...not that it matters.

He's a cranky old conservative with outdated, insular views (like some of the posters above :-P ). I'd love to see an INTERNATIONAL Mars mission!! [From an exasperated 38-year-old female :-)]

Most of Dr. Schmitt's points make sense. But not his position on "global climate change" (aka Global Warming.) Certainly more research and observation are needed -- the moreso if, as Dr. Schmitt believes, the current consensus is based on flawed research.

But I don't want to see this discussion sidetracked into yet another GW rant, especially given the previous, unfortunate comment. So I'll close here.

Being an astronaut is a pretty elite club so his opinion holds weight, being an astronaut that has landed on the moon is an even more elite club.

I agree with him over Buzz. Let's hit the moon, we can do it with budgets we are likely to get.

"...I can no longer support the society in its goals as they seem to have gone back to being more political than rational."

But it appears that even Jack recognizes the value of being political:

"This strategy would leave deep space activities, exploration and resources to others, i.e., China, India, maybe Russia, for the indefinite future. I believe that would be major step in initiating the decline of America's global influence for freedom and the improvement the human condition."

I recognize the value of being political too, but Jack makes a poor (arguably none at all) argument. Maybe he would support spending NASA's money directly for what's deemed to be the best way to influence freedom and improve the human condition.

This next quote makes me long for the days when teflon was used to justify space spending:

"You know as well as I, the 'global warming scare' is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making."

Lou, Jim and Scott may know, but it sounds ridiculous to me. Same category as saying terrorists kill people because they hate freedom. I bet Jack has a picture of Bush hanging in his bedroom.

I agree with him 100%. Logically thought out.

He should be the next NASA Chief Administrator replacing Griffin the idiot.

GL wrote:
'If I understand it correctly, he's saying "We don't know for sure whether global warming is anthropogenic, so we need to not do research into global climate change, and give up on doing comprehensive Earth observations," '

I also disagree with Jack's comments regarding AGW, except I think GL has interpreted his comments incorrectly. I think Jack is not suggesting research should not be done on AGW, but that such research should not be part of TPS activities - a position with which I agree.

Much as I admire Dr. Schmitt for his accomplishments, he's got to know that those icecaps aren't vanishing because Harry Potter waved his wand. The Earth is warming up. Also, a lot of the Earth observing satellites we currently have in orbit need to be replaced. I know that there are several GAO reports reporting on the dangers in delaying those replacements, especially the NPOESS.

How anyone who supposedly is scientifically 'literate' can insinuate that global climate change is a scare tactic is frightening! I have a lot of respect for the things that Jack Schmitt has accomplished, but his pronouncements on climate change are ill-considered and not based on scientific reality. It diminishes him....

I had also given great thought to not renewing with the Planetary Society because of their latest flip flop.

Constantly new discoverys are made that indicate that there are larger natural forces beyond our wildest dreams of ever being able to control. More cosmic rays striking earth creating more clouds, because the solar wind is diminished for instance.

Always new things are learned. We do not have all the puzzle pieces, and likely will not in our lifetimes.
What frightens me, is when healthy voices of scepticism are attacked viciously, namecalling like "deniers". That is not science and people who should know better engage in it.
Shame.

I want space organizations to support getting humans out of earth orbit and moonbound! And it should be a number one priority right now with an incoming admin above all else.
Holding them to their campaign promises of supporting human return to moon.

My membership money and future donations would be better spent at NSS is my thinking now.

You got to love a stand up guy like Jack! But more likely than not a hack will take his place.
Wait and see.

I was somewhat surprised that Mr. Schmitt attacked public education and global warming in his response to TPS statement. That seemed out of place. Global Warming is a complex issue that should not be dismissed easily. I do not know the whole answer, but I suspect that a combination of human and natural factors are at work in changing our climate.
His comments on public education seem to buy into the grand conspiracy hysteria that for some reason teachers and school are deliberately "dumbing down" our kids. Has he ever taught in a public school?
I agree that TPS made a bad move politically on this one, but Mr. Schmitt brought other issues into it that he had no business doing so. He politicized in ways he should not have.
Shame on him and shame on TPS!

Brent

Why did we send an idiot like that to the moon? Did he not look out the window and see the fragile ecosystem we live in? How can you possibly believe that humans can pour hundreds of billions of tons of pollution into the atmosphere each year for decades and not have an effect on the global climate? Do you seriously think that we can take hundreds of millions of years of biomass stored in the earth's crust, dig it up/pump it out, burn it, and eject the by-products into the atmosphere with no effect? And at the same time we destroy, through deforestation, the ecosystem's ability to process billions of tons of that pollution every year as well. We are burning the candle at both ends and the evidence is everywhere that we are having an unnatural effect on our surroundings. But I guess it's easier to believe that there is a global government conspiracy to enslave us all through a socialist-driven environmentalist war against capitalism using scientists as the front-line warriors. Give me a break!!!

One thing is for sure, we won't be going to Mars in mine, your kids, or your grandkids lifetime. NASA will spend all of its budget for the next 20 years just getting back to the moon. It is going to take over $200 billion just to repeat the accomplishments of Apollo and another $1 trillion to build a minimal moon base. Don't laugh, $100 billion for ISS in LEO and we didn't have to gently land it on the surface of another celestial body. Going to Mars for an Apollo-style mission would cost trillions. Bush 41's SEI is looking like a bargain at only $500 billion.

Once again, I sure hope that Dr, Schmitt is under consideration as a candidate to be the next NASA administrator.

A lot of the criticism of the roadmap here and on other sites is on the focus on Mars rather than the Moon. Personally I don't have a preference over Mars, the Moon, asteroids, or L-points. They are all useful and important destinations scientifically and economically. What matters is how the effort is done. If it's done in a way that encourages the commercial space sector to create new space businesses, it's good. If it's done in a way that just serves NASA's interests (in the Shuttle/Ares sense), it's not worth the tax money. If in the process space infrastructure that's useful beyond the NASA program is created (propellant depots, tugs, low cost space access, you name it), it's good. etc...

So, I don't have a stake in the Moon vs. Mars argument. However, it seems to me that the roadmap hardly favors Mars over the current NASA plan anyway. The current plan consists of the Moon followed by Mars. The roadmap consists of Lagrangian points, possibly followed by the Moon, and then NEOs, and then Mars. It seems that Mars is still the last thing on the list, so it's a strange reason to dislike the roadmap. In fact the roadmap seems to encourage vigorous robotic Moon exploration and technology demonstration, including commercial efforts, while we build the next human transport vehicles, so we can better assess what to do with humans there, if anything. That sounds like a good idea to me.

In favor of the original pre-roadmap plan, commercial modules (like Bigelow ones) were cited as part of the transportation system to get to Lagrangian points. That in itself is a big point in its favor, as it may help start an important space industry. However, I don't see it in the roadmap, so the favorable point can't be credited.

Another big point in favor of the plan is that it gets something useful - Lagrangian point human telescope servicing missions - done early (at least according to the roadmap's claim). The multi-decade wait for useful results is a crucial problem with the Ares/Orion plan. Not only does it apparently give useful results earlier, but it may give Ares/Orion something useful to do, so it doesn't become a political necessity for Ares/Orion to politically crush any commercial ISS crew transportation services.

Of course TPS encourages robotic missions across the board, which I consider a good thing.

On global climate change and Earth observation, I just don't see any controversial statements in the roadmap. The only consensus it mentions is that NASA's Earth science budget has been whacked in recent years, which is true. On climate change itself, it just says we should get more NASA science missions up to study it. That sounds like a good idea to me, especially if it's done in an efficient manner that enhances our national economy and security (i.e. using EELVs and/or new commercial launchers, hosted payloads on commercial sats, smallsats, suborbital Earth observation, etc). Obviously the science is quite relevant to NASA's mission, whether understanding planets in general, developing space technology, etc.

It would have been nice for the roadmap to mention Dr. Schmitt's "Big Blue Marble" photo when using the term "big blue marble" to describe the Apollo 8 "Full Earth" photo.

In criticism: I think the roadmap is weakened by relying too much on Ares and friends. It may wind up sinking with those overly-expensive systems. I also would have liked it to emphasize the "entry-level" innovations in the smallsat and suborbital areas. Finally, it should be more specific in encouraging commercial space - crew and cargo to orbit, commercial space infrastructure of various types, and lunar landers.

Be more careful when characterizing Mr. Schmitt's position on global warming. I believe he questions the cause - not the reality of climate change.

Regardless, don't let the global warming comment sidetrack away from the other valid and eloquently communicated points.

The reason Dr. Schmitt tied AGW and public school educational performance into the mix is because one is non-sequitur, and one is not.

AGW is a HOAX. The scientific data shows that not only is the climate variable even to prehistoric times, but this is not even the warmest period in the last century. We're in a cooling trend right now, and have been for about a decade. Some of you hang breathlessly onto the greatest fraud perpetrated in modern times, in some vain hope of being right, instead of being ACCURATE. TPS or any other space advocacy and educational group has no business taking a stand on a scientific issue that is as inbred as any royal blueblood line, and just as contentious.

As for educational standards, we are predominately cranking out two things in this country as a product of the public school system: Underachieving test-taking machines and dropouts. I saw nothing in Dr. Schmitt's comments denoting a conspiracy to generate these products, but just a factual statement regarding the low quality of our schools for teaching the skills required to further the exploration of space.

You guys are reading a great deal into what was written, and refuse to see the content laid bare within.

I don't know why Jack is that concerned about TPS statement on global warming. When budgetary realities intrude and the TPS has to make a choice, it will come down on the side of Mars exploration in a nano-second.

I don't agree with Jack's position on this anyway (it is, BTW, one of the areas he agrees with Buzz on). Jack sees conspiracies where they don't exist and ignores bias where it's real and extremely well funded (the oil and coal industries, to start).

Arnold gets it. Why can't these guys who walked on the moon.

Seems like the people who are bashing Dr. Schmitt about his Global Warming statement didn't really read what he wrote. Let's dissect it, shall we?

As a geologist, I love Earth observations. But, it is ridiculous to tie this objective to a "consensus" that humans are causing global warming in when human experience, geologic data and history, and current cooling can argue otherwise.

On each point is correct. A) He's a geologist and a trained scientist. He's no dummy, and has seen the same data that's out there. B) He's right there are most certainly data out there that CAN ARGUE against global warming. There is no UNANIMOUS agreement that all the data PROVES Global warming.

"Consensus", as many have said, merely represents the absence of definitive science.

Unarguably true.

You know as well as I, the "global warming scare" is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making.

Is he wrong? Are people not 'scared' of global warming? Are not laws and policies being written that are being used to increase government control, say regulate carbon emissions? Regardless of your belief in climate change, he is once again unarguably correct that people are scared and that government is going to be stepping up it's control.

It has no place in the Society's activities.

It's the Planetary Society, not Audubon Society. Is saying that we leave the earth stuff to the earth professionals and the space stuff to the space professionals such a bad thing?

Dropping in a position ( whether negative or positive ) on climate change ? What a great way to completely derail any thoughtful analysis on his positions about space.
Just look at the comments in this thread, nobody even bothers to analyse his position on need for heavy lift, lunar science or anything else in his letter.

Dr. Schmitt's letter is as much a part of the problem as the Planetary Society's idiotic "roadmap," and both show the space advocacy community hasn't outgrown its childish territorial battles. Until it does, it's more hinderance than help. NASA doesn't need a scientist, engineer, or astronaut as administrator. It needs a con man who can talk congress and the administration into providing the money necessary to achieve whatever goal concensus builds for the space program. The fact that the space advocacy community can't come up with such a concensus is discouraging.

The Planetary Society has been political for decades. Back when Carl Sagan was around, it was used to push for anti-manned space flight (ie robots can do things better).

Regarding the Moon vs Mars, one concern I have of going to Mars instead of the Moon is that it may very well become like Apollo. Once you do it, you stop and retreat. IMO, going to the Moon has presents the opportunity to begin setting up the infrastructure for a sustained presence in space.

If Obama is not for VSE, what is he for? Obviously we can't keep flying the shuttle forever. So unless his plan is to fly the shuttle forever what does he plan to do after shuttle?
We can't stay in low earth orbit forever can we? Constellation is in place and going forward. Obama has pledged extra money to expedite that program and I read that an extra 2 billion a year will close the gap from 5 to 3 years.
It seems like Planetary Society plans on going to Mars, just not the moon, so I would assume Constellation will still be the main player in that as well since that was what was taking us to Mars also.
What do you insiders think Obama will do? There are only two programs in place now (shuttle and constellation). What does he plan to do with them?

Another example of The Planetary Society playing politics: They used to follow in the footsteps of the SETI old guard, namely Sagan, Oliver, Drake, etc., who favored Radio SETI over Optical (lasers, infrared), even though laser pioneers like Charles Townes was promoting Optical SETI around the same time that Drake was doing Project Ozma in 1960.

I have documented how TPS has changed its tune about SETI over the years as the SETI old guard has changed:

http://www.coseti.org/tps_00.htm

A combination of a warming attitude towards Optical SETI (because we can do it now, as if supposedly advanced alien cultures could not), the fading away of the old guard, and the loss of their Project BETA radio telescope in 1999 (due to a wind storm which they failed to report to the TPS membership until word got out through other channels) has turned TPS totally around regarding Optical SETI, so that they now have one of the world's largest Optical SETI Observatories right near where Project BETA used to be.

http://www.planetary.org/programs/projects/seti_optical_searches/

Note the lack of news items since last year, but there is a link for sending money. The least they could do is send regular reports to the membership.

Yes I am glad TPS is doing something about Optical SETI, but I want to record to show that just a decade earlier, they were NOT for Optical SETI and argued against it for reasons that turned out to be far more political than technically correct.

>"Consensus", as many have said, merely represents the absence >of definitive science.
>
>Unarguably true.

Really? Since when is "consensus" a synonym for "discredit"?

The big argument of Moon v. Mars is merely a proxy for worldviews in collision, particularly in regard to The Planetary Society and their agenda. The Moon and Mars constituencies (not exclusively, but largely) have different paradigms in mind about what makes up the goals of spaceflight. I discuss this in detail on a post at my new blog, here:

http://moon.airspacemag.com/

Until now, I have had a ton of respect, and even awe, for Jack Schmitt, and for what he has accomplished. When I read his letter, that respect came to a screeching halt with his comments on climate change. In days when we're nearing the time that a Northwest Passage will exist year-round, for a scientist of his pedigree to be in denial of the thermal impact of a world population more than doubled since my birth in 1956, along with sharply increased industrial thermal output and greenhouse gas emissions, is an embarrassment. The PS should graciously thank him for his service and cut the cord for good.

From the reactions here to Dr Schmitt's comments on AGW you'd think he had spoken ill of someones' religious beliefs. Oh, wait....

For some people who post to this forum, as for most people on the political left, anthropogenic global warming has become a religious dogma. Like any other religious dogma, it isn't founded upon reality, and is in fact immune to disproof.

But this is a side issue, and has nothing to do with Schmitt's main points...with which I, for one, am in general agreement.

I agree that AGW is a religious dogma to these commentors. Just look at the global warming believer's crazy hysterical claims like "if GW isn't human caused, wouldn't getting more data be a good idea?"

Meanwhile, the sane and rational AGW skeptics are countering with well-reasoned arguments like "greatest HOAX ever committed!!!" and "massive comspiracy," and the AGW believers just don't seem to want to seem the ironclad logic in that.

"I agree that AGW is a religious dogma to these commentors. Just look at the global warming believer's crazy hysterical claims like "if GW isn't human caused, wouldn't getting more data be a good idea?""

You think gathering data specifically to shore up a theory with demonstrable, real-time flaws is a good policy position for TPS? Really? Do you really think that Dr. Schmitt said not to gather environmental data? Really? Re-read what he wrote, he said no such thing.

"Meanwhile, the sane and rational AGW skeptics are countering with well-reasoned arguments like "greatest HOAX ever committed!!!" and "massive comspiracy," and the AGW believers just don't seem to want to seem the ironclad logic in that.""

The only ones throwing the word 'conspiracy' around are the AGW acolytes, not those of us who keep pointing out the foolishness of AGW. I cop to using the term 'hoax' however, because the presentation of the information is achieved with all the aplomb of a snake-oil troupe. I also call it a hoax because of the logical holes in the measures the AGW folks want to impose on Western industry and in fact, all of Western society. The work 'hoax' fits hand-in-glove with the reality of the situation.

AGW is disingenous, self-flagellating, and entirely too judgemental of a society it does not agree with.

Anyone who wants to discuss Dr. Schmitt's position on global warming can go here:

www (dot) freerepublic (dot) com/focus/f-news/2133937/posts

(I munged the URL because I don't know this list's policy on outside links.)

So far, it's mostly skeptics there. If you believe in global warming, prepare to be flamed.

We can't send humans to Mars until we know for certain that there are no living things there. Many things point to a biosphere in Mars like the methane gas leaking, the existence of vast amounts of water and good conditions in the soil.

That is why we must go on exploring Mars with automatic, biologically clean machines. We can sterilize them but we can't sterilize a human. Humans would contaminate completely the planet with earth microbes.

And a last point against humans is that we must bring them back, exposing the whole planet to contamination from possible mars bacteria. This last point can have potentially catastrophic consequences that should never be ignored.

Regardless of if you are a "true believer" in anthroprogenic global warming or not, it really has no place in terms of promotion of spaceflight elsewhere in the Solar System.

Simply put, this is a distraction from the main goal: Making us a spacefaring society. Anything that takes us off this goal is something that should legitimately be jettisoned.

Kudos to Harrison Schmitt for making such a bold statement here on top of his very excellent commentary about returning to the Moon. This is so needed, and to have the "Mars First" crowd try to scuttle efforts to return to the Moon like those in favor of only robotic exploration of the Solar System at the expense of killing of manned spaceflight deserve to get questioned hard here.

I have already a huge amount of admiration to Mr. Schmitt, and this only reinforces my opinion of him. For somebody who has actually been to the Moon and performed mineral surveys there, his opinion on this matter certainly should be something that carries more than a little bit of weight on this topic. His trip to the Moon certainly shouldn't have been nor should it be the last one there.

Dr. Schmitt is a true Renaissance Man. Scholar. Scientist. Senator. Statesman. He speaks from a lifetime of experience in several different fields, all of which place him in a very unique position to comment on our future in space, the problems associated with global warming and our politicized public school system in the United States. Let's examine each of these briefly:

1) Dr. Schmitt has spent most of his life involved in the exploration of space -- even during his time in the United States Senate. He started his career at the USGS under the late Gene Shoemaker. He then played a key role in planning the science for the Apollo missions, as well as conducting that science himself during Apollo 17. He has continued to take an active role in the space sciences ever since. Thus, I would say Jack Schmitt is more than qualified to assess what is the best course for NASA's future. I also think he is far more qualified than Al Gore (for example) to talk about global warming -- even if Mr. Gore won an Emmy, an Oscar and the Nobel Prize. (But he never earned a doctorate in the geosciences, did he?) So who are you going to believe?

2) If global warming (climate change) is natural (as is global cooling), then the politicians and global warming zealots are wasting billions of hard-earned tax dollars to stop something that is caused more by the Sun than by SUVs. (Of course, global warming has become 'big business' for some people -- including Al Gore.) If we were to spend some of those tax dollars (and private sector investments) on pursuing the possibility of using Helium-3 mined on the Moon in terrestrial fusion plants, we'd be developing the most eco-friendly energy system ever devised. Dr. Schmitt wrote a book on that subject called RETURN TO THE MOON. But the global warming advocates have apparently never read it as they never mention Helium-3.

3) As a friend of mine (a retired department chair at the University of Chicago) likes to say, "Today's college freshmen know everything about political correctness, global warming and self-esteem. But they don't know a damned thing about history, science, economics, art or literature." Which is pretty much what Dr. Schmiit said (perhaps based on his experience as an adjunct professor at UW-Madison).

In short, I would take Jack Schmitt's word over Al Gore's any day.

Too bad The Planetary Society sides with the man who "invented the Internet" rather than a man of courage and integrity whose background lends itself to evaluating what is science and what is not far more than any lifelong politician.

Remember ... Galileo was challenging the "consensus" view 400 years ago. And he was right!

William Mellberg

Mr. Schmitt is completely correct about AGW; that whole issue is a fraud:

http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080206/OPINION02/802060308/1113/LOCAL08

period.

Besides, according to the U.N. World Meteorological Organization, there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade. Harrison is right. The problem is that goverment bastardizes science. By holding out grant money to those who can best scare the idiot political class (would a scientist continue to get funding if his data showed there wasn't a coming catastrophie, it skews the objectivity needed in science. The public suspects this "global warming" stuff to be simply a cash cow for scientists who wouldn't get funding otherwise.

Let's take the top 50 climatologists, and tell them they have a free ride. Surely the world could support that many. No more worrying about where their next meal is coming from. Then turn them loose to do research, and see if after 25 to 50 years of research, they still support global warming.

We've only been at this science game seriously for about 400 years. As much as we know, those with any sense know we have a long, long way to go.

Carl Sagan said it best himself: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Scientific "consensus" (based on getting grant money) is not extraordinary evidence.

While I'm in general, not total agreement, with Harrison Schmitt, I do think that he makes a point which he did not state.

I've been a member of the Planetary Society for years, and do not remember once a time when it asked the membership what its collective opinion was on a particular issue.

I would like the Society to post statements of proposed positions for the Society for the membership to comment and vote on. I do not like the Society leadership establishing it's own position, and promulgating that as the Society's position, without membership input. The latest position may or may not have been politically motivated, but it's not satisfactory if it even could be. Obviously Schmitt was either not involved in the leadership discussion, or the Society was remiss is not expressing a contrary statement of disagreement

What do you people think