Pluto Mission Apparently Cancelled 199
hey! writes "This just in at space.com -- new details of the Bush NASA budget.
It looks like the Pluto-Kuiper express has been cancelled -- possibly our last chance for centuries to get a closeup look at Pluto's atmosphere. As Jupiter moves out of position for gravity assist and Pluto moves further from the Sun it's atmosphere will begin to freeze.
My favorite line in the report -- ISS will get increased "consistent with a strategy of constraining space station cost growth." OK, they're talking about being pound wise and penny foolish, but you can't pass up an Orwellian straight line like that."
WOW! (Score:1)
I'm all for the ISS... (Score:1)
Pluto's cool, but I'd only give up the ISS if they found some sorta gravity-locked twin planet system orbiting each other
Politcal Motivation: On (Score:1)
By giving the ISS more money, He can puff up his chest/ego by stating "I helped keep the ISS afloat by giving it more money." It'll sound real nice to the sheeple in 4 years when he tries to stay in office.
ISS expenses (Score:5)
Anyone want to post hard numbers on exactly how many billions of dollars the ISS is over-budget? How much of our "financial aid" to Russia has really been "please, take this bribe and keep Baikonur operating a little while longer"?
The ISS is hugely, massively overbudget. The Administration's expressed interest in constraining more costs is prudence, not Visigothism. Saying "this thing is already several billion overbudget, and we don't want to see it grow one dollar moreso" is a great deal different from saying "we're not going to give this the funding it needs".
While I'm adamantly in favor of the space program and long-term habitation in space, I'm not in favor of the idea (which some Slashdotters seem to agree with) that any level of funding is acceptable, and any constraint on funding is neo-Luddism.
this just in (Score:5)
Aliens on pluto are reportedly unhappy with the decision, as they can now not live up to a bet they made last year with the Martians to crash the probe. The Martians are said to be joyful over the news because pluto now has to change it's name to snoopy.....
________
This makes me sad. (Score:5)
Sadly it looks like they can. Science or the pursuit of knowlege is usually one of the first things to go in times of trouble. I am not an American, but I would hardly call the times in the U.S. "troubled". I fear that the constant downgrading of NASA is perhaps that warning sign of trouble.
There is simply too much "lack of caring" for scientific (or more specifically skeptical) thinking in North America, things like the "outlawing" of evolutionary instruction are, like the NASA "A Blueprint for New Beginnings" dangerous. Sure, the budget is 2% greater than 2001, but with the space station all the money is put towards that.
Expect to see even more "cheaper, faster" but not "better" space exploring craft in the future.
I have a bad feeling about this.
Talk about useless... (Score:2)
Ya, great plan (Score:2)
This is a travesty. "Washington, we have a problem." How stupid is that!?
--
Who cares about spending? (Score:1)
Re:One step at a time (Score:1)
Insightful? Or funny? (OT) (Score:1)
Bad for the space program .. (Score:2)
Pluto, by contrast, has a massive bang for buck: a few hundred million to visit an obscure and beautiful place on the edge of human consciousness. People appreciate probes too: just look at Sojourner and NEAR.
[/rant]
this is the future calling... (Score:1)
Re:This makes me sad. (Score:2)
If you're talking about Kansas, they outlawed the requirement that children be taught evolutionary theory; they did not outlaw the teaching of evolutionary theory. I understand that this is Slashdot, and hard fact as opposed to propaganda is like Kryptonite to the vast majority of the viewing audience, but please.
I fear that the constant downgrading of NASA is perhaps that warning sign of trouble.
How much did it cost to make the Keck Observatory?
How much did the Hubble Space Telescope cost?
What about Mars Pathfinder?
NEAR?
Now... how many billions of dollars overbudget is the ISS? How many Pathfinders, Hubbles, Kecks, Hipparcos and Chandras haven't been launched, haven't been built, haven't even been designed, because the ISS was slurping up so many billions that it left nothing else for other projects?
We live in a world of finite resources. If the ISS is gobbling up more than its share of resources, then either (a) it should be cut back to its proper share, or (b) it should be done away with altogether.
I'm fully in favor of long-term habitation of space. But the more I hear about the ISS, the more I think the ISS isn't the right way to do it.
Damnit! This isn't insightful! Funny, maaaybe! (Score:2)
This post isn't insightful. Some moderator has mistaken this for a thoughtful, considered statement balanced between two extremes.
Just to dissect this post a little:
When considered rationally, it's obvious that funding support for the ISS is much more important than research about the atmosphere of Pluto.
I doubt anyone can rationally argue the merits of one over the merits over another. Both sides have merits, and the powerful thing about science and research is that you don't know the value of those merits until it is tied in with other bits of knowledge.
Again, this isn't something one can judge except in hindsight. I can agree with the logic that we can't afford to send a probe to Pluto, I can't agree with the logic that the knowledge gained won't 'ever be relevant in any practical sense.'
Argh, I'm just pissed. Apologies to the readers who have to see this rant ^^
Geek dating! [bunnyhop.com]
Re:One step at a time (Score:2)
Engineers, OTOH, apply the results of pure science and produce new technology.
Besides, it's not like science has been lax in providing the engineers with discoveries... this century has only seen the greatest growth of technological development in history.
Of course, none of this has anything to do with G. W. Bush. The space station has always been a public relations operation, as has the space shuttle and most of the rest of the manned space program (the technological spin-offs were just pleasant side-effects). You can't really blame George, though- he is just following the popular conception of what the space program is supposed to be. The ISS doesn't really provide the next step toward the moon or Mars- it's more efficient for a Mars mission to head out directly to Mars, rather than stop off at the ISS, but how is a politician supposed to know that when his science advisors are probably in favor of the PR operation?
Re:Talk about useless... (Score:2)
PS> If anything goes, its the NBA. You're not TOUCHING the NHL!
I can make my point better because I italicize! (Score:1)
Re:ISS expenses (Score:2)
--
Re:This makes me sad. (Score:1)
We're going to entering a new Dark Age of superstition, fear of the Dark and things that go bump in the night. And we may end up with very powerful technology that no-one understands anymore. The Age of Thought could well be neding and the Age of Technological darkness could well be beginning.
If we do not destroy ourselves in years to come they will wonder at this incompetence...This turning away from Science to turning back the clock.
StarTux
Easy solution (Score:2)
Re:Ya, great plan (Score:1)
Why didn't they do a lunar station ? (Score:3)
- Gravity
- Been there
- Less complicated system
They could come up with some sort of dome that they use and have the shuttle transport and install it (it would be of a minimal size - bed rooms..). They just launch tons and tons of air canisters (enough for a few months) and then launch construction equipment.management means management (Score:3)
>Space station program management would also shift from Johnson Space Center, Houston
>to NASA Headquarters in Washington under Bush's plan.
This is a travesty. "Washington, we have a problem." How stupid is that!?
Of course the Mission Control rooms at Houston's Johnson Space Center will remain right where they are. What is changing is that the JSC manager will no longer be virtually independent. One of the crippling problems with NASA over he years has been the feudal independence of the various centers (Houston, Marshall, Kennedy, Dryden, JPL
All this means is that Goldin is making sure nobody gets that powerful again anytime soon.
----
I can see it now!... (Score:1)
One scrapped nuclear Submarine would pay for it. (Score:4)
We have enough deterrants already, no need for more, why not pout this money into things that help humanity? Further the prospects of everyone on Earth, not hinder it with the chgance of total death. Can you imagine in 65 million years a new intelligence trying to figure out killed our species out? Was it an Asteroid? Nope. Oh my, it was there own weapons, they must have been primitive.
If you think that the threat has subsided, well it has to a point, but remember that in 1995 we came to within 2 minutes of Nuclear devastation due to a Norwegian weather rocket fooling the Russians into thinking that the US had launched a first strike against Moscow.
I am not saying we should scrap all the military assests, that would be silly, but we should cut back the white elephants and put that money into something more meaningful.
We have achieved more when reaching out exploring than we have any other way, in my ever so humble opinion.
StarTux
Re:Politcal Motivation: On (Score:1)
Re:I'm all for the ISS... (Score:2)
Mars, Europa, or Titan might be more interesting targets from a personal point of view, but chances of getting there anytime soon look dim. Rationally, even there, I'd prefer detailed 3D imagery and scientific analysis brought back by unmanned probes, rather than wasting money on the ISS and other publicity stunts.
If you want to experience unexplored nature, go into the oceans: cheaper, far less explored than earth orbit, and a lot more interesting. And if you want to actually experience getting close to space, climbing a high mountain gives you a more immediate experience.
US Space Policy (Score:4)
Estimated cost of national missile defense system: $ 60 billion.
In other words: The United States develop a "missile defense" system against "rogue states" which is known not to work. For this money, they could fly man three times to Mars and back. 'nuff said.
--
all is not lost! (Score:4)
But it doesn't have to be this way. NASA [nasa.gov] isn't the only agency capable of sendiing the probe. in fact, maybe this feat could be accomplished on a voluntary basis [fsf.org]? We have theories/plans for magical technology [usra.edu] at our disposal, commercial support services [newtechnologyinc.com] to pester, potential launch capabilities [spaceflightnow.com] and a wide variety of legal launch facilities [spacemarkets.com] around the world.
Consider: we have, just here at slashdot, the ears of a number of very technically [slashdot.org] capable [slashdot.org] individuals [slashdot.org] that might be persuaded to help create a Pluto Probe in an open sourced, ameteur manner. Corporate [aol.com] sponsorship [fryselectronics.com] would be soon to follow. Perhaps I haven't thought it out too carefully, but it is apparent to me that the potential to deploy a probe exists, despite the government.
Re:ISS expenses (Score:1)
At an average cost of around *$600 million* (this is for a bad year, but you get the point) the shuttle is most definitely not cheap and reusable. The cynic inside whispers that the ISS has been hijacked to provide a reason for existence for the STS.
I remember reading that most of the space station could be sent up in a single Energia or Saturn V size rocket. It seems to me that spending part of the $100 billion devoted to the space station to develop a large capacity rocket would offer a much greater return on investment that the equivalent number of shuttle runs.
The Saturn V's [or whatevers] could be used to send heavy stuff to mars [hab modules, anyone?] and I am sure other uses could be found.
And cancelling the pluto probe seems silly -- 200 million is only noise in the federal budget and is a small part of the yearly NASA budget too.
We can't only concentrate on low earth orbit -- planetary scientists need something to study!
Re:Ya, great plan (Score:1)
Lawyers
Apart from their propensity to bill by the minute, I can't see how this will improve program management.
Of course it could be a wonderful way to kill off the space station by having dozens of lawyers arguing (and billing).
Re:ISS expenses (Score:1)
But, when it comes to many military projects then you will not have any accountability, even if it fails miserably, or is politically way too sensitive to even attempt and ends up being scrapped after they spend way more than what was ever spent on ISS.
Lets cut spending on military projects first. NASA's budget does not even show up as a blip on the Washington budget, yet they are being crucified. Something is seriously WRONG here! Even grants for medical research is being cut...
StarTux
Free market for Space (Score:1)
Stuart Eichert
Re:I'm all for the ISS... (Score:1)
You should've read the article, because... (Score:1)
While in general I don't like Bush, (acually, loathe would be a better word) his head seems to be in the right place with NASA, although this still has yet to be proven in reality.
---
Re:ISS expenses (Score:1)
Please also remember that although the Russians were overbudget and late (which we hear a lot about), wasn't that rather conveniant for NASA who also had contractors delivering late/over-budget?
Oh, I think if you looked at the figures, you would find that Baikonur can put up payloads a lot cheaper than the shuttle can. Unfortunately, we are stuck with the shuttle fleet with a lot of development costs to ammortize over its lifetime.
Re:One scrapped nuclear Submarine would pay for it (Score:1)
The Jet Engine? Nope, invented in the 30's
The Rocket? Nope, again invented in the 30's (and maybe before).
All War did was make governments actually listen to the scientists, not something they do in Peace.
So, yes scrap a Boomer (as I believe they are the most expensive).
Unfortuantly Bush has already announced he wants to cut Scientific research so that everyone can have their Tax break.
>but seriously, in todays world.. where we >are reverting to a cold war like situation
I would not call the Iraqi's that great a threat, and the Chinese do not seem to want war...So who is the Cold War threat? I see no Russia type country under Despot like Stalin.
Re:One scrapped nuclear Submarine would pay for it (Score:1)
Re:I'm all for the ISS... (Score:1)
Something good in this. (Score:2)
However, this seems to have some good details.
More money on space-based propulsion research (solar-electric and nuclear) and 'more robust' Mars explorers, for example. These are both quite important things. A big advance in propulsion could lower the cost of all solar system exploration and open up new possibilities. I'd really like to see some more succesful Mars missions like the Pathfinder.
I think the Pluto-Kuiper mission could not give much valuable information, when compared to the Europa Mission and Solar Probe. The Solar Probe was also cancelled. IMHO the Europa Mission is the most important of these three.
Re:ERG! (Score:2)
Re:Why didn't they do a lunar station ? (Score:2)
1. A lunar spaceship (like the Eagle)
2. More fuel (a trip to the moon doesn't come cheap)
3. Wouldn't provide the ubiquitous zero-g environment to crystalize proteins and make novel compounds
4. Food shipments to the Moon (more expense)
5. Moonquakes
Don't focus on theoretical work, eh? (Score:1)
Far too much effort is being wasted in superfluous programs that have no real chance of every producing a usable application. For centuries,
the common man has supported the scientific elite in their search for 'knowledge', and now I think its time that the debt be paid back. Rather
than focusing on theoretical work, it is time for scientists to submit to their natural social role of technology providers.</i>
<p>
Heh. It's worth noting that theoretical work is invariably useful. Because when you prove that something exists in theory, (or disprove it even, which is equally useful) it usually ends up that it exists in reality, just not quite as neatly. This is especially true of physics and mathematics. Take Einstein's theory of general relativity... seventy years later, we're *still* finding neato things that prove that his theoretical work is practical reality. A hundred years from now, we'll be doing things with it that the man on the street will be able to use. Like quantum computers or funky rocket ships and stuff.
<p>
Oh btw... science isn't about providing technology or service to the general public. It's about satisfying curiosity. It's engineering that puts science to work for the general public.
---
Re:ISS expenses (Score:1)
Re:Presidential Pork! (Score:1)
On the bright side... (Score:1)
What I would love to hear is this: "We dedicate ourselves to place a permanent human colony on another World by the end of the decade". Guess I am a Space romantic
what i never understood is (Score:1)
Still a chance for Pluto... (Score:5)
To support a potential, future sprint to the planet Pluto before 2020, additional funds will be directed to key propulsion technology investments.
I think this is an excellent idea: The Deep Space 1 probe has already pretty much proven that ion drive works, and more interesting propulsion technologies exist on the drawing board. Not only the Pluto-Kuiper program will benefit from this (the Kuiper belt will still be there) but other probe programs as well (except maybe Moon probes, but they ain't that interesting anyway).
The whole budget thing seems to me like GWB is shaking a stick at NASA, saying that they must start to think about the commercialization of space, and to build more reliable stuff.
It isn't all bad, IMHO. It could be a lot worse.
Re:ISS expenses (Score:1)
Rather than acceept this simple and relatively inexpensive approach, which additionally would have given the U.S. a working heavy-lift launcher design using in-production parts, Vice President Gore and the House Space Subcommittee chairman George Brown (D-CA) ordered NASA to ignore the technically superior solution in favor of the current (losing) plan instead.
And Gore was supposedly the smart one?
Re:I can see it now!... (Score:1)
I agree (Score:1)
I agree. It is really time to pay back. Consider the following theoretical work:
quantum mechanics is completely incomprehensible to a layman. Still, it has some quite useful applications, e.g. all modern computers. Without transistors, building a coffee machine or a microwave owen would be quite a trick.
electrodynamic theory is another good example of theoretical work. Design of AC devices would be almost impossible without it.
Of course, some engineers have done a hell of a work to apply these theories to real life.
Perhaps we all should pay back to scientist and engineers. After having developed all the hardware needed for slashdot, do scientist and engineers deserve something better than trollish posts advicing how they should do their work? That they allowed the stuff to be used for internet suggest that they actually don't.
Re:ISS expenses (Score:1)
And he's called for a doubling of NIH funding, not a cut.
Re:One scrapped nuclear Submarine would pay for it (Score:3)
This is insanely off-topic, but it's worth mentioning, because it comes up every time someone suggests we cut the nuclear triad to save mondo buckaroos:
Nuclear Forces Cost Virtually Nothing. In comparison to the conventional infrastructure, that is. Yes, the R&D for the B2, Ohio SSBNs, and Trident D5 were very expensive, but everything except the B2 pales in comparison what we're going to spend on the F-22, F-117, SeaWolf, and JSF.
Fundamentally, about the only significant cost-savings you can squeeze out of the Nuclear forces is not to build any more B2s (I think we have 1 scheduled for FY2002, at about $2B ). Cutting anything else is a tiny savings, since we've already done the research and paid for the hardware, and there is fundamentally very little there to begin with.
Yes, I'm very much for getting rid of the B2 force, and seriously cutting the MX/Minuteman deployments. But don't be fooled. These aren't going to save any significant money (doing both of the above might save a few hundred million/year, tops). Compared to the billions it costs to keep a single Carrier task force running, or an Armored Division prepped, this is peanuts. And remember, a huge amount of the military budget is personnel (pay, medical benefits, housing, et al), consumables (new ammunition, jet fuel, etc.) and R&D, all of which have very little to do with the nuclear forces.
If you're going to cut nukes, do it for strategic reasons. Don't be an idiot and think it will save any real money, though.
-Erik
Project was scuttled pre-Bush... (Score:5)
2000/09/13 - A NASA stop work order has been issued for The Pluto-Kuiper Express mission as currently envisioned. Further direction from NASA has been given to develop a new mission to reach Pluto before 2020.
Note that the date is last September, which is before the US Election debacle. To you Bush haters out there, please understand the facts of the situation before you immediately jump all over Dubya.
Re:One scrapped nuclear Submarine would pay for it (Score:3)
The US nuclear arsenal is less than 3,000 megatons [osti.gov] of explosive yield. Russia's nuclear arsenal has been estimated to have a comparable yield. While this is enough, if properly targetted, to kill a large proportion of the humans on Earth, it isn't remotely enough to "destroy all life on Earth". As a point of reference, the eruption of Mt. St. Helens has been estimated [binghamton.edu] to have released 450 megatons of energy.
Re:US Space Policy (Score:5)
Estimated cost of national missile defense system: $ 60 billion.
President Bush accidently shooting down the Shuttle while playing aboard a US Nuclear Submarine: Priceless.
Power to destroy *all* life on Earth (Score:2)
YHBT. YHL. HAND. (Score:5)
If you don't believe me, check qpt's user info [slashdot.org] and look at his comment history. See how many -1's qpt has posted? There are also some 3's and 4's, suggesting that he's a pretty successful troll.
Just so I don't wander too far off-topic, I'll analyze and rebut one line:
Far too much effort is being wasted in superfluous programs that have no real chance of every producing a usable application.
Yeah, like quantum mechanics. Oh, wait, about a third of all technology invented in the past 50 years involves QM (directly or indirectly). Think semiconductors, high-temp superconductors, laser diodes...
And what the hell was up with those crazy Watson and Crick guys who were playing with a double helix? And that Newton guy...
I dare you to name a single scientific theory that's at least 50 years old and hasn't been useful.
I could go on, but it's just a troll. If you fell for it (as the moderators have), you should be ashamed of yourself.
NMD (Score:2)
My guess is that it's really aimed at taking China's ICBM's out of the game if there's a confrontation over Taiwan, but even that doesn't make sense (smuggled-in weapons render the world's best NMD system useless).
So, can anyone point me to a well-thought-out justification for NMD that convinces me to do something other than encourage my government to tell the US government to go jump when they ask to use the Australian bases for this (not that my encouragement will make a lick of difference, but . . . )
Nice research. (Score:2)
f*** Pluto (Score:2)
For some reason I am looking more forward to a tax break than I was the Pluto mission....
Re:US Space Policy (Score:2)
Then there's the small matter of all the ballistic missile batteries China has built and aimed at Taiwan...
New Line Tech and Privatizatizaton Key (Score:2)
While I am neither a propulsion scientist nor a molecular chemist, it does seem likely that setting themselves a tangible goal for next generation propulsion systems is good.
Likewise, it will make a lot more sense (of course, maybe too much worrying about "sense" when we should be thinking "pushing the envelope") to colonize the moon with nanoscale technology in perhaps 20 years.. this apparently passes up the human dramas that marked the world's space exploration efforts, of great adventure and risk on the bootstrap limb of history.
I'm pretty worried about cutbacks made in the first months of 2001 as it shows the new President of the United States, and his constituency by and large, do not share this sense of wonder or focus on learning as a species, of self-evolution. If they did in an organic, willful way I'd think people would feel an overwhelming urge to encompass the entire solar system and out to the Oort clouds in the sweep of an arm and say, We have been there and it is ours to give to our children.
It seems inevitable that no matter how much or little NASA may be doing, a contracting economy and provincialism require NASA to provide evidence of belt-tightening as well. My hopes are that the science and fiction on which we feed ourselves here makes itself true by realizing a manifest destiny kind of story in the first half of the twenty-first century.
It seems evident that the way we are teaching each other to think through Slashdot and similar media (well it looks that way surfing at 3..) must have a significant effect on the way this story unfolds, through philosophy, attitude to technology, political voice, and "Can do" spirit. I think some of this must be present in space entrepreneurs. They must be intent.
I'd say that in our networked lives that reach around the world to share information while at the same time, drilling down at solving the problem at one's own feet in gritty software code, we're playing an important part of building the foundation for this future and we must not imagine that we are not involved. Let intellect and vision lead our vacillating planet! How old do you intend to be when you call the Moon?
Re:ISS expenses (Score:2)
Sounds a bit like fuzzy math, doesn't it?
Don't worry (Score:2)
Re:One step at a time (Score:2)
-Shakespeare The Merchant of Venice
Re:US Space Policy (Score:2)
NMD is the single stupidest boondoggle on the government's plate right now.
Why go to pluto? (Score:2)
Woah people, why is this bad? Sure if supplies and engineering talent was unlimited we should send something to pluto. They are not however. Supplies are finite, and other then it is there, there is no compelling reason to go to pluto.
Everyone has their own ideas of what to spend money on. Personally I want to spend my own money as I see fit. What will going to pluto gain us that we don't have already? What is on pluto that we need to go study? So far it just looks like a "because it is there and this is the best time for the next few hundred years" arguement. I've been looking at a new linux laptop, and a tax cut would help me get it. (Now I agree that over the all the people in the US the pluto mission isn't very significant, but a billion here and a billion there and soon you are talking real money which is significant over the population of the us.
Re:One scrapped nuclear Submarine would pay for it (Score:2)
(Sorry, my evil left hand typed that).
Nuclear Winter is more like Nuclear Fall. . . . (Score:2)
Several points:
- The TTAPS study has been fairly discredited as an over-simplistic analysis. .
.
- Specifically:
- It assumes far longer "hang times" for atmospheric particulates than observed reality
- It assumes far higher levels of small particulates than found in observed reality
- Worst of all, it was a one-dimensional static analysis
- In short, it was great copy, but lousy science.
- The most likely outcome of a massive nuclear conflict would approximate that of the Thera Explosion or Krakatoa: one season with a short, cold summer, primarily in the Northern Hemisphere, where, oddly enough, 90+ % of the targets are. .
.
There's an interesting page on Nuclear Winter, Nuclear Summer, and other variants here [the-spa.com].Mind you, I saw things from two perspectives: as a student geologist from the early 1980's, and as a Strategic Air Command Bomber Crew member in the mid- and late-1980's. . .
Up in arms (Score:3)
snip
Highlights of 2002 Funding
snip
Did I read wrong, or is Bush actually INCREASING the budget for some majour programs? And privatizing space flight? There is strong support for the argument that privatizing space flight will send us forward by leaps and bounds, because of the increased funding, the increased safety requirements, and the increased interest (competition, etc).
Truth be told, NASA isn't getting enough. But when Bush actually increases their budget, rather than decreasing it like I feared he would, I think he deserves a little credit. True, some of the bazillion dollars given to military could have gone to NASA, but at least he increased spending on space stuff!
So don't be so quick to criticise Bush on this one; he seems to be doing NASA a favour this time.
Forager
Re:Project was scuttled pre-Bush... (Score:5)
This definitely has the fingerprints of the beltway mandarins all over it. For one thing it's so early in the GWB adminisgtration for any of these kinds of projects to appear on his radar screen. However, even if it somehow did, I expect that it would not be revived. Combining the Bush tax cut and deficit reduction plans, there's simply no chance for a program like this. This is a man who when asked what his favorite book growing up was, drew a blank.
This is not a Democrat vs. Republican thing, it's a people who believe in basic research and exploration vs. people who are interested in short term financial issues. Maybe those folks are more practical, but I'd hate to be those people who don't look up at the milky way and wonder how all our creations, from Shakespeare to the stock market, could arise from the dust of stellar explosions.
Greatness in a nation doesn't arise from constant juggling marginal benefits, but from acts of daring and imagination. The Portuguese were entirely right, by their own way of looking things, to send Columbus packing. It was Spain that became the great empire.
Re:I'm all for the ISS... (Score:2)
Get the space program off the back burner! (Score:3)
It really saddens me to see how the space program has gotten shoved in the background over the past decade or two. Sure, it's a horrendously expensive endeavor in the short term, but I can't think of ANY better long-term investment, with returns in technology, economic wealth (I'd wager there's gold - and things even more valuable - in them there asteroids), and essential resources (stick a big array of solar panels in orbit, and you've got insane amounts of free energy, forever). And with overpopulation and global industrialization progressing at their current rate, humanity better start thinking NOW about where it's going to go as a species once things start to get truly shaky, even if that's a century or two down the road. Getting lots of people off the planet, one way or another, looks like the best long-term option from my perspective.
In the short term, too, I think the space program has many benefits. It gives people something to dream about, and a way to express the pioneer spirit now that all of available land masses on earth have been more or less spoken for. When I was growing up, in the late 70s-early 80s, the space program was one of the first things to get me REALLY fired up about learning. Following the progress of the Voyager missions, the Mars probes, and the first Space Shuttle flights was utterly mind-blowing. I suspect that these interests had plenty to do with my getting interested in computers, which has proved rewarding in all sorts of ways. But then, a few years later, between the arms race of the cold war and the explosion of the Challenger, the U.S. cooled off on the space race, and hasn't regained the same momentum since.
There are plenty of arguments that money for the space program can be better spent. Not just on increased military spending and tax cuts for the rich, but for things like food and education. How can a nation spend billions building space probes when so many of its own people are going hungry, homeless, and without medical care? That's a sticky question.
But in the long term, I think that if anything holds the keys for humanity's long-term success as a species, it's probably the space program.
Note to President Bush: if you succeed in getting me that $1600 tax cut you've talked about, you can send my share to NASA. They've got much cooler things to spend the money on than I do.
All your mp3 are belong to us. [prmsystems.com]
Re:Politcal Motivation: On (Score:2)
Gore, at least, might have been enough of a geek to see the value in less sexy projects like the Pluto probe, rather than just the big-name Mars and ISS projects (although I think those are important, too).
And whether or not NASA's new approach of doing it on the cheap was a result of budgetary constraints or not, I can't really say, but regardless it certainly seems to me a very practical and cost-effective way of surveying the solar system.
Re:the source of the problem... (Score:3)
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
So raise the money (Score:3)
To those of you bitching and whining: Instead of depending on Uncle Sugar for everything, why don't you organize an effort to privately fund a probe? If it's that important, you shouldn't have any trouble raising the funds.
Oh, I see, it's important, not not important enough to do anything personally.
--
Evolution is scientifically useful (Score:2)
For instance, in the human genome, only a portion is known to code for proteins. Although some of the remaining junk DNA may, in fact, have a biologically significant role, much of it does not.
It follows, from evolution, that since the biologically insignificant DNA will not code for genes, a mutation in a portion of junk DNA, will not, in general, deleteriously affect the physiological health of the resulting organism. Since no deleterious effects ensue, it follows that the reproductive success of the organism will not be affected by this mutation. One can then use data about the composition of a segment of DNA to locate putative genes.
It is well known that the amino acid composition of proteins in determined triplets of bases. It is also well known that there is considerable redundency in the genetic code-- there are 20 amino acids, and 64 possible combinations of 3 bases (A,C,G,U/T). Some amino acids are only coded for by one codon, others by two, three, four or six codons.
Take Alanine, for instance. Four possible codons exist, GCU, GCC, GCA, and GCG. The last base is esentially redundent. (This sort of redundency is a major motif of the genetic code.)
Now suppose that a protein contains alanine at a certain point. The gene will code for that specific amino acid at that point, with the codon GCG. Suppose that a mutagen comes along, and changes one base to a Thiamine.
Thus, the new gene contains either TCG, GTG, or GCT. The first codes for Serine, the second for Valine, and the third for Alanine. The first and second mutaions will cause the "wrong" amino acid to be incorporated in the protein, possibly impairing that protein's function. The third codes for the correct protein.Thus, DNA is partially third position redundant. In many cases, the third position is not contrained by evolutionary pressures, since a mutation at that point will not affect reproductive success. Hence, that mutation may be transmitted to offspring.
Now, a lingering problem in genomics, is that proteins may be coded in six different reading frames-- three different frames for the positive and negative strands of DNA. If one can incorporate the fact that the third position of some codons is not evolutionarily constrained, one can use that knowledge to devise algorithms for gene finding.
Re:ISS expenses (Score:2)
Re:US Space Policy (Score:2)
The best way to avoid nuclear holocaust is to just learn to be nice and be liked by people. Unfortunately the US is adamant in being an asshole in many cases. And the chickens come home to roost...
Re:ISS expenses (Score:2)
Of course, there are a number of people who believe that the ISS is a wasteful use of scientific funding, and could never be justified on a peer-reviewed basis, and a numer of people who believe that the "just being in space" is an admirable goal. The former will argue that a reduced ISS, even if it is not justified on the basis of science, is still a waste of money. The latter, satisfied by a "show the flag" NASA, will be content by big flashy missions of no scientific value...
wtf, Bush wants to increase funding (Score:2)
Granted, not by much (about a 2% increase for each) but remember this is an increase over arch-liberal Clinton's budget numbers. If an increase over democrat-level spending isn't enough, I don't know what is.
By the way, this is consistent with both Reagan's and G.H.W.'s support for the space program...
Re:One scrapped nuclear Submarine would pay for it (Score:2)
We have enough deterrants already, no need for more, why not pout this money into things that help humanity? Further the prospects of everyone on Earth, not hinder it with the chgance of total death. Can you imagine in 65 million years a new intelligence trying to figure out killed our species out? Was it an Asteroid? Nope. Oh my, it was there own weapons, they must have been primitive.
I can tell you were never in a submarine...
Before you go announcing we have too many submarines, answer me these questions:
- What is the expected number of submarines to be lost upon beginning of hostilities?
- What is the expected number of surviving subs who will recieve launch orders?
- What percentage of those subs will launch?
- For each launching sub, how many missles will it get off?
- For each launched missle, how many warheads will reach their target and detonate?
Now, based on that consider this fact: you must insure the final number is sufficient to destroy the enemy for deterance to work and insure that many missles are on station at all times. To do this you have X submarines.Right now we do that with 18 Tridents, At any given time two will be in for long term maintenace, leaving 16. Four to six of those will be inport turning over crews . That means about 11 subs cover this need. If you take away two you decrease that by nearly 20%, which will lead to about 25% longer cruises for the remaining crews.
Right now a boomer run is normally about 90 days, with my shortest having been 83 and the longest I remember any one doing being 113. You are saying we should bump this up to around 113 normally and probably move the record to 130 days. While Tridents are hotels compared to the old 616/640s I served on, I still would not want to do >100 days deployed on one (believe it or not, astronauts on the ISS have more contact with the outside world than a boomer's crew).
Unless you wish to contend that deterance is no longer needed, you should think about the issues driving the number of warheads and launch systems in place instead of just falling back on the "we can destroy the world X times" arguement about force size. It is more complex than that.
Herb
Re:Bad for the space program .. (Score:2)
Yes, and no. The ISS is not just bad for the space program; it is bad news for all science. The billions that go for this could be spent in so many other ways that would produce greater benefit for almost any field of inquiry on space or on earth. While I don't doubt that there was some Cold War thinking go on in the original design of the space station, a lot of it was also NASA and other governmental officials wanting to do meat in space ASAP. Truth to be told, probably 95% of all taxpayers don't understand most of the science that is funded by the US government, but everybody understands a Teacher in Space. Now, I am not by any means against space exploration, manned or un-manned, but everybody on slashdot probably understands the huge costs involved with premature deployment of any technology. Indeed, that was the most compelling argument against the Superconducting Supercollider: in a few years, we could probably drastically reduce the cost of the apparatus. A similar argument was brought forth against the Human Genome Project: the expectation was that this would take years longer than it did, but the HGP was more likely to create the tools for its own boot-strapping, which is what happened.
If, instead of blowing cash on the ISS, we instead declared this decade the decade of Genomics, Materials Science and Robotics, we could probably leap far ahead of our current schedule to achieve the real goals of Space Science, with much smaller likelihoods of killing astronauts and creating a PR disaster (for all science) in the process.
A new way to fund NASA... (Score:3)
Sorry Ed.
Re:ISS expenses (Score:2)
Actually, the administration recently announced that its budget proposal for this fiscal year would include no additional spending over what was agreed to by the Congress and the Clinton administration last year.
Re:Talk about useless... (Score:2)
Good example (question about the SSC) (Score:2)
Doing it with modern liquid nitrogen superconductors would probably be much cheaper.
---
Re:US Space Policy (Score:2)
If a megaton H-Bomb goes down on the US, you'll lose much more than just a city. Unfortunately, this risk cannot be reduced by military means.
--
Re:Talk about useless... (Score:2)
Romanes eunt domus (Score:2)
"people called Romanes, they go to the 'ouse?"
--
Re:ISS expenses (Score:2)
Canceling CRV means either limiting the ISS crew size to three, or buying Soyuz vehicles on a regular basis to provide a capability to return 6 crewmembers. Which do you think is cheaper: a few CRV's or a bunch of Soyuzs'? There are already concerns that three crewmembers are not adequate to assemble/run ISS and do enough science. And you can forget about 7 crew. We've got a lot invested in CRV, now is no time to stop that program.
Canceling Prop Module means more and continued dependence on Progress tankers, which are already moving to the right schedule wise. Who do you think will pay for that, and can the Russians produce enough Progress', Soyuzs' and their boosters to meet ISS needs - at any price? They are already slipping the SPP, which will result in even more propellant being needed because the SM must maintain roll control without the advantage of the moment arm the SPP would provide. We obviously need PM, and we need it to be refuelable from the Shuttle, as was the original plan. We can't afford to waste dedicated Shuttle missions to bring up fuel.
Canceling CAM kills the best potential source of useful science next to the Lab. We know that 1G is good and 0G is bad for the human body. The CAM could tell us if there is some fraction of a G that is acceptable, which will in turn tell us much about long term colonization of the Moon and Mars; and how to design future space stations and vehicles for travel through the Solar System. Presumably, there are also other benefits to having the CAM.
By the time they get done cutting these things out, just what will be left? What will it be able to accomplish?
If we're really serious about building ISS, we ought to use a tiny fraction of the budget surplus to fully fund station. That's all it would take.
--
Re:ISS expenses (Score:2)
Right, actually. And I'm a Republican! (Score:2)
As for being fair, his fairness was highly evident. Admirably so.
I hope that when the tables are turned, I can be half as fair.
Re:Politcal Motivation: On (Score:2)
You're assuming that Bush thinks like Clinton.
The Summer of '69 Student Government and their Suede/Denim Secret Police has finally left the building (along with most of the furniture, but hell, small price to pay). It'll take a while to get used to the idea of a government being run by adults. In time, even you will adjust!
Re:Why didn't they do a lunar station ? (Score:3)
The moon may become useful for planetary exploration. There are two approaches for going to Mars, there is Dr. Zubrin's Mars Direct approach, and there is the stepping stone approach. The first is to just go to Mars, do not go to the moon, do not build a station there. The second approach is to first go to the moon, and get some experience building in a low-g enivronment. From there use the moon station as a stepping stone to other planets like mars.
Personally I think that the Mars direct approach is what is needed right now, and then we should come back to build the stepping stone. I feel this way because I have little faith in the American people to keep interest in going to Mars while we sit on the moon. After the public becomes interested in space exploration again, after going to Mars, convince them that building the stepping stone on the moon is necessary. Build factories on the moon and then launch larger vehicles from the moon and its smaller gravity well. etc...
Depends where the money goes. (Score:2)
"deterrants"
"why not pout this money into things "
"chgance"
"Can you imagine in 65 million years a new intelligence trying to figure out killed our species out? "
"it was there own weapons"
"military assests"
Frankly, if the funds are diverted from NASA's excessive spending and into basic education then I have no problem with a few cut-backs. ;)
The REAL jabber has the /. user id: 13196
Re:ISS expenses (Score:2)
CAM is the small module that will berth to Node 2's zenith port. Part of the internal volume of the CAM is a centrifuge that is big enough to hold 2 standard ISS racks.
While we normally tend to think of centrifuges as places to subject experiments to much more than 1G, the CAM in a microgravity environment can also spin slowly to create, say, 0.5G.
We already know that microgravity is bad for people. No amount of excercise and nutrition will offset all the negative effects like bone loss, muscle deterioration, or fluid imbalance. But we don't yet know if humans or other living things can get along well in a fractional gravity environment.
Collecting new data points between 0 and 1 G's will help immensely in figuring out what would happen to living things in a long term expedition to Mars or the Moon.
--
Re:YHBT. YHL. HAND. (Score:2)
You have been trolled. You have lost. Have a nice day.
I wuv you, Google.
--