Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Pluto Mission Back? 56

Posted by Hemos from the do-it-now dept.
FortKnox writes "When the NASA budget cuts earlier this week came, the Pluto mission was killed. However, Space.com reports that NASA will attempt to make some proposals to Congress to get money for the project."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pluto Mission Back? More

Pluto Mission Back?

Comments Filter:

  • I thought spacecraft were white for a reason -- doesn't it help them not burn up?

    Besides, if anyone is going to sponsor them it should be Red Bull.

  • Don't you realize that you have just hit upon The Answer? We just need to devise a good hoax that makes Pluto look like a military threat. The rock will have a swarm of spy satellites orbiting it within a few years.

    After their photos and sigint don't turn up anything, the military will realize that it was all a hoax, and then we FOIA the data to get it to the scientists.


    ---
  • Yes, commercial aviation and shipping cost lives in the name of profits, but that's the point, there's a profit to be made. Where's the huge trade contract with Mars or Pluto? Where's the jumbo mining consortium lining up to send a mission to the asteroid belt? When space becomes a business (as it will, everything does, and private companies start launching privately trained and employed astronauts, you'll see the safety margin drop. And yes, the rate of progress will probably skyrocket.
  • Under Bush NASA will be getting its first funding increase in the last seven years, even if the increase just keeps up with current inflation (more or less).

    Now, yes, specific programs within NASA are being defunded in favor of OTHER specific programs. But the choice isn't between space exploration and tax cuts, it's between space exploration mission A and space exploration mission B.
  • Heinlein had the right idea: a private corporation would be better able to send things into space. No hassles from a bloated government, no begging for money, and you get to have kiosks on every corner of the moon! Grand, ennit?


    Geek Culture killed my dog/
    and I don't think it's fair...
  • There are no NASA cuts. There is a reallocation of what NASA is spending its money on, but the budget for NASA as a whole is essentially unchanged

    And if the record of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization is any indication, the "so-called 'missile-defense' program" will have plenty of space spinoffs -- both the DC-X and Clementine were SDIO projects, after all.
  • So what you're saying is we should let the mining companies rape and pillage other planets before they finish the job here??
    I agree that money makes the world go round and would probably also make the rockets go up and down, but I'd rather have a LunarDisney than unregulated mining on other planets/ the moon. I imagine environmental disasters there would be a. common, b. very difficult to repair.
  • Once again, Space.com shows up a day late (Nasawatch.com [nasawatch.com] reported this a day earlier), with misleading headlines ("Pluto mission saved"), and a misleading, incomplete article (see spaceflightnow.com [spaceflightnow.com] article).

    I swear, Space.com is looking more and more like they are graduate students at the Bill Gates School of Business.
  • Maybe Pepsi or Coke would pay for the whole mission in exchange for having their logo painted on the rocket at launch time?

    I would think that Disney should have first dibs on this particular mission :)
  • Unfortunately, it looks like BOTH the Pluto and the X-33/34 missions have been canceled [canoe.ca]. I guess NASA doesn't have enough money for either of them. I wish they could have made at least one of these two work - I'm much more interested in this stuff than the ISS.

  • This remark seems to openly admit there is no way to profit from the mission (or from space at all even). Well, if there is not -- I'm glad its abandoned. But in all likelyhood, there is.

    Perhaps, if the expected reward was sufficient, some company may try... I mean, say, 50 years of exclusive rights for mining the planet or something.

    But NOO!. Our hearts would bleed if some enterprenuaral type gets to PROFIT from space exploration. Remember the ruccus caused by the advertisements placed on a rocket? God forbid Nike will paint the Moon -- better never go there at all (again, that is)...

    Before business (the much hated BIG BUSINESS, first of all) gets into this, the attitudes have to change. Then -- may be. There will, of course, be some spectacular flops (a'la Titanic), but overall this sort of thing is something to be done by private interests...

  • That's the whole point--Pluto is the only planet we haven't visited.

    And while we could all sit here for hours and argue back and forth about why we'd rather see a mission to Pluto or more Mars missions or a new space shuttle or moon colonies or whatever, the fact remains we no next to nothing about Pluto and Charon.

    I for one want to know, just so I can get it off my mind before I pass away. Space.com, for example, has a link from the story to another story about the status of Pluto as a planet. Maybe if we actually spent some time figuring out what the heck was going on out there we wouldn't be arguing about these things.

    Finally, the mission isn't just about Pluto, it's about Pluto and the Kuiper belt. There are tons of reasons to be interested in that area of the solar system aside from Pluto--like it being a mysterious source of icy rocks that get hurtled toward us, causing us to come up with grandiose plans involving nuclear warheads and laser beams in an attempt to prevent our extinction.
  • I'd trust the NASA people more. For one, they have a better technical understanding of the situation, and they still have to please the public or else they would face budget cuts.

  • Environmental disasters by what standard? There's no biosphere to disrupt. The worst that can happen to the "environment" on the moon is violations of the aesthetic taste of Jean-Jacques Rousseau-style romantics.

  • Re:privatize (Score:3)

    by FTL ( 112112 ) <slashdot@neil.fras[ ]name ['er.' in gap]> on Saturday March 03, 2001 @02:34AM (#387902) Homepage
    > I think that space exploration should be privatized...

    Ok, instead of griping, please submit a business plan that shows why my fortune 500 company would make a financial gain out of sending a $500 million mission to Pluto. I eagerly await your response.
    --

  • Re:Why Pluto? (Score:3)

    by James Foster ( 226728 ) on Saturday March 03, 2001 @02:44AM (#387903)
    Why Pluto?? Because within the next 15 years Pluto will have freezed over and we will not be able to obtain as much information about its surface then.
    The X-33/34 space plane program however has no "expiration date" and NASA can resume that at any point in time. The Pluto opportunities however are slipping away.
  • Bend Over and Spread Em!
  • > A mission to Pluto would be good...
    > but I would prefer to see Uranus.

    Been there, done that. Voyager 2 visited Uranus [nasa.gov] in 1986. Indeed all the major bodies in your Solar System have been visited, with the exception of Pluto and its moon Charon.
    --

  • > Anyways, why are they going so far out? If I were NASA, I think I'd concentrate on Mars. It's
    > close, and if we work on it, it could be habitable by people!

    So why not concentrate on the moon? It's even more close than mars.

    Or the earth? Hey, the earth is already habitable!

    Well, NASA does *science* and if they don't send out a probe to pluto in the next few years they'll miss a oportunity since pluto will be a) frozen and b) large part's will be "in the dark" for two centuries.

    Mars can wait, Pluto can't.
  • Some of us didn't vote for Dooby Doo.

    More than some, actually more than half 8)
    Still Internet isn't developed well enough. Infact there are way too many idiots out there that couldn't manage to get enough salt in their heads. From those I'll spare the old-fashioned people that have their own personal legacy reasons.
  • Amen to that.
  • Does NASA and and other gov space agencies in other countries have a future? Maybe it is time for the private sector to take over soon, to commercialize space. In the "private sector", I include foundations, corporations and also universities (although the unis would ofcourse only take care of the science part).

    I have a few interesting links to private projects, that might just show the path to commerce in space, such as tourism, mining and research.

    Artemis Project [asi.org] - A private venture to establish a permanent self supporting community on the moon.
    Space Frontier Foundation [space-frontier.org] - Want to open up the new frontier for everyone.
    Space Island Group [spaceislandgroup.com] - Among other things, they wish to creat low earth orbit commercial space stations.
    The X Prize [xprize.com] - A prize dedicated to boost the development of private space crafts.

    Ok, this was probably off topic, but I guess that my point is, governments will probably not be able to finance all the space projects. There are not enough money. The private sector can do this. Competition is always good, and I think that it will some day make it possible for anyone to go into space.

    I can see a possible future where a team of scientists at a university will send a mission to Pluto, mining companies establishing mines on the moon, you will go to the low earth orbit space hotel for your vacation. Ok, this is far in the future, but I think it will happen one day.

  • see the post here [slashdot.org].

    a full on hobbyist effort could accomplish the task.
  • As noted earlier [slashdot.org],

    Without on orbit assembly capability -- I mean real work in space done by riggers who can do a day's work -- things have to be pre-assembled and taken up in big chunks, which means shuttle which means a BILLION DOLLARS A FLIGHT for 50,000 pounds or so. What we need is 20 million a flight for 10,000 pounds and that would be achievable but "there is no urgent need for that" because -- well because the stupid space station ate it all. The shuttle and the space station ate the dream. Make no mistake about that. Those monsters need to GO and be replaced by smaller, operations driven, flexible re-usable designs.

    Note - original words not my own, original author linked in original message.

    Nasa needs to get its act together. The Pluto mission makes sense based on orbital mechanics, etc.

    but the rest of the program needs to be rethought. It has slid into boondoggle land instead of being as effective and efficient as it could be. I want them to do things right.

  • While on the surface one might think NASA cutbacks are do to tax cuts, have you seen Bush's proposed millitary spending? No cuts there! Between one thing and another billions and billions more are going in that direction. And of particular note, while space exploration and scientific study is taking a back seat, the so-called "missile-defense" program is getting increased funding of another 20 billion dollars to millitarize space. With more likely to come as the feasability of this program (or lack thereof) becomes more apparent.

  • Sponsoring (Score:3)

    by rve ( 4436 ) on Saturday March 03, 2001 @03:00AM (#387913)
    Space exporation can't be privatised because no direct financial gain can be expected from studying pluto's atmosphere :( I'd love to sponsor the mission though. I am not rich, and I'm not good at organising things, but I'd absolutely pay a few hundred dollars or so to help save the mission to Pluto.
  • NASA didnt get a cut, the actualy got a 2% bugdet rase. And money to the Military is to get them off of food stamps.

    Sanchi
  • Maybe Pepsi or Coke would pay for the whole mission in exchange for having their logo painted on the rocket at launch time?
  • I don't follow the X series developments too closely, but I recall seeing a program on it recently expressing some deep concerns about it's viability. It seems like "single shot to orbit" became a mantra withoug looking at the obvious that multi-stage always has cost savings(less dead weight to orbit). Perhaps multi-stage reusable might be more cost effective and reasonable next step.

    I also find it a bit odd that we ship a lot of stuff up using human based g-force limits when it would be far cheaper to shoot small high-g pellets that get assembled on orbit! I mean you freeze a kilo of water and blast the thing at 150g's it don't care much when it gets melted on orbit.


    Now talk to me about that space elevator thingy!!
  • They just canceled the X-33/-34 project mainly becouse of cash problems...

    TO make some cash, NASA should invest more in tourism and mining. This may also result in increasing interest in space. Right now, we can't go, just see fancy images, so most people don't care. If you could book a week for $5000 people would, NASA would get cash. If you could mine Helium-3 of the moon, titanium and other interesting stuff, loads of cash might start falling in from the private sector.

    For now, the X-Prize [xprize.org], and notably Starchaser [starchaser.co.uk] is my favourite space program, as these folks have passion for putting people up there, the way we should.


    - Knut S.

    PS: I know the scientific value of a Pluto mission, and nothing is more important to mankind than science, but getting us out there is an investment in further expansion of missions like that to Pluto, as we would have to make cheaper toys to get us out there, that woulkd benefit all space technology in the end....
  • "too bad that most companies are just interested in the net and whatnot..."

    Isn't there some company that is trying to move the internet into space?
  • It's important to realize that while NASA is not technically getting a budget cut, its funding certainly isn't increasing. It's just decreasing less quickly. There are some interesting details on the budget changes at NASA Watch [reston.com]. The budget "increase" is 2%, but the compounded inflation [neatideas.com] for the last seven years appears to be about 14% (GDP based) (IANA economics expert, so my calculation could be off, but you get the idea). So you see that while the budget did increase by a few hundred million dollars, the amount of money they have to work with has been steadily declining.
  • The heck with Pluto. I'd rather see them try to revive the X-33/X-34 Venturestar. The Spaceshuttle orbitors are getting a might bit crusty.
  • Accounting for inflation, Nasa's real budget is lower.

  • Congressman: "So, this planet, Pluto, how far away is it?"

    NASA guy: "3.7 billion mile... err!! ::ahem:: 5.9 billion KILOMETERS, from the Sun."

  • Or even better yet, submit an essay on why my tax dollars should go for a mission to pluto, rather than for putting food on my table, braces on my kid's teeth, or even go out to bowl. It's my money and I don't want it spent on a mission to pluto.

    On the question of whether or not a company wants to waste it's money? I don't care, though I must admit I won't be buying their stock anytime soon.
  • Because the Congress consists of elected representatives, while agency bureaucrats have a lot of vested interests in ongoing programs and may not appreciate the full range of national interests.

    It may make you feel better to know that Congress has the power to cancel (or deploy) Defense programs as well.

  • Under Bush NASA will be getting its first funding increase in the last seven years, even if the increase just keeps up with current inflation (more or less).

    This is rubbish, as I have posted previously. [slashdot.org] Clinton increased NASA's budget by 4.8% for FY 01, and that was NASA's first real budget increase in recent times.

  • Who do you trust more with your money? Elected people who are going to want to run again in 2 years, after they have spent your money, or NASA people, who have no reason to please you?


    ---
  • Who cares about a frozen ball of methane, anyway? We should focus on gradually working our way out.. I think Nasa should be sending rovers to Mercury and Venus within the next 10 years.. Pluto has value, but I'd be more excited to see through a rover's eyes the surface of our neighbors.

    Of course, I'm not a scientist, and am just looking for good content on TV.

    Thanksokbye

  • Link it, man, link it:

    The story questioning the ontological status of Pluto [space.com]

    And we haven't yet visited 2000 EB173 [cbsnews.com], isn't 2000 EB173 good enough for you?
  • Peer reviews cut out any of the really 'wayout' ideas, making conservative judgements that restrict the opportunity for scientific advance.

    Firstly, peer review is hardly a new thing - the scientific community has *always* relied on peer review, as it's the best method we've found to date to sort out ideas that make sense from ideas that don't.

    Secondly, while peer review may cut out a brilliant "way out" idea once in a while, it also cuts out the several hundred corresponding _idiotic_ "way out" ideas that were also submitted. This is an acceptable tradeoff.

    In summary, I think that your complaints about peer review are misplaced.

  • Cool! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Pluto mission is good. I love Disney stuff!:)
  • We need more scientific things like finding out what is on Pluto. I mean nobody really knows anything about it so why not find out. We really do have to do it now or lose the chance for it for a few hundred years becuase plutos atmospehere will freeze as it moves further away from the sun and it would take far too long to send anything towards the planet at that distance.

    Lord Arathres

  • Retreat from the future (Score:3)

    by sane? ( 179855 ) on Saturday March 03, 2001 @02:07AM (#387932)
    Has anyone noticed how society has progressively cut back on the big "why am I here" type science.

    Today you have to be able to show a profit (human genome) if you want to do big science, or indeed much science at all. Peer reviews cut out any of the really 'wayout' ideas, making conservative judgements that restrict the opportunity for scientific advance.

    Maybe in 50 years time we will still be fixed to the earth, with technology that is only evolution of today's tech. All because we forgot that money isn't everything - nurturing the soul counts (and pays) too.

  • That's the current trend.

  • privatize (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I think that space exploration should be privatized... too bad that most companies are just interested in the net and whatnot... perhaps we will return to space someday...
  • Who wants to explore space anyway, its like so empty and stuff.

    We need to focus on the things that improve quality of life for all of humanity, like a tax cut for the pharmaceuticals and bogus missle defense contracts for our friends in aerospace. If we dont cut every last penny from NASA's budget, we wont have trillions to spend on the important stuff. Right guys?

    On a serious note, if someone could figure out a way to tie space exploration to moneyed interests, a lot more progress could be made. Im sure the oil companies would love to mine helium-3 from the moon, or mine asteroids for rare metals. If only we could trick them into staying there. And taking all their laywers with them when they leave.

  • Dead easy. They sell Pluto rock toi gulliable people. Or they could just pretend to go to Pluto and sell normal rock at a huge price...

  • I hope this subject doesn't turn into another on again, off again story that keeps reversing itself every other week, as Mir did. Speaking of which? Isn't it supposed to come down sometime this month?
  • Or, they could have their logo painted on the moon! for all eternity! *grins*
  • I'd much rather have them keep the X-33/34 space plane program funded than a trip to Pluto! It would be much more useful, both scientifically and commercially.

    I guess there's a bit more of a time constraint with the Pluto deal though, so maybe they're just figuring on delaying the space planes a short while since it's not really feasible to delay the Pluto trip and still do it any time soon..

    Fear my low SlashID! (bidding starts at $500)

  • It's sick, but I keep thinking that the best thing that will happen to the space program is when a US astronaut dies in orbit or beyond. The holy grail of "never lost one in space" comes at the cost of redundancy, redundancy, redundancy.

    Apologies, but screw that. In commercial aviation and particularly shipping, safety is secondary to commercial considerations. It's simply cheaper to kill a few stick jockeys every year than it is to run quintiple backups. NASA are obsessed with protecting an investment per astronaut that's so high that they refuse to quantify it, saying that it's too complicated to calculate (really!). Forget it, let's just start lobbing dozens of big dumb boosters up there carrying a couple of Homers and a trained chimp.

  • Better link (Score:3)

    by FTL ( 112112 ) <slashdot@neil.fras[ ]name ['er.' in gap]> on Saturday March 03, 2001 @02:27AM (#387941) Homepage
    As usual, spaceflightnow's article [spaceflightnow.com] is more informative, has fewer banner ads, and is less sarcastic.
    --
  • Hang on, let me get my gloves....

    OK, let's see:
    Two gerbils (living)
    One coke bottle (empty)
    Pair of sunglasses (polarized)
    Copy of TeenBeat magazine (bookmarked)
    One box Quaker's Instant Grits (fortified)

    That's about it, it's pretty dark. Wait a minute... it's all stars!

  • I have a question as to why Congress should have the right to cancel any specific program. Why not give the whole of NASA a chunk of cash, and let them figure out what to do with it. I'm just guess NASA would have a better idea as to what to do with their money than Congress would.

Slashdot Top Deals

Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.

Close