Big Changes In Proposed U.S. Space Budget

Guppy06 writes: "CNN has this article on some of the effects of Bush's budget proposal would have on the space program. To make a long story short, funding for the manned space program is being trimmed (there's talk about outsourcing the shuttle program) and some high-profile missions to the outer solar system have been cut (say good-bye to the Pluto-Kuiper Express). On the flip side, nuclear propulsion research is getting a boost. Love it, hate it, some big things seem to be in store." The Planetary Society has their reaction to the budget proposal. And because it's been submitted several times: the ISS suffered a computer outage but all is well now.

That is exactly the plan

[maynard]

Here [space.com] is a space.com news article which details exactly that. The US military does believe that space is their future, and they want to control it. There's talk about creating a new space force division, though for now it looks like the air force will control space missions for the near future. Given this one may ask, why are they killing off manned flight? I think it's because they realize that automated systems, not manned flight, is where both terrestrial and space flight is going. Humans have far too many physical limitations which automated systems don't share. Everything from very limited acceleration to supporting basic biological needs go against the requirements for "controlling space". To further this policy NASA (along with whatever scientific projects are ongoing and/or planned will be eviscerated.

Cheers,
--Maynard

Recycling waste.

[Christopher Thomas]

There are aleady theoretical ways to recycle toxic waste into to fuel and stuff that is safe inside a decade but its illegal to do any research on real radio active waste in most counties thanks to Greenpeace. One of the thigns that the University of Missouri's reactor used to make was fake radio active waste that could be used for research.

There's no such thing as "fake" radioactive waste.

Greenpeace probably objects to manipulating waste with plutonium in it, because they fear (correctly) that facilities that do this could produce relatively pure plutonium for weapons. Unfortunately, the radioactive waste from conventional power plants contains plutonium.

There are several good arguments against reprocessing large amounts of radioactive waste. One is safety - it's a lot harder to keep a reprocessing plant safe than it is to keep a nuclear reactor safe, because your fuel is no longer stored inside oxide pellets, and it's being moved through many equipment rigs instead of sitting in one fuel frame.

The other argument is that, by nature, reprocessing plants produce substantial amounts of (relatively) pure radioactive materials as output. If stolen, several of these would be useful in weapons (whereas the waste in raw form isn't).

In summary, I tend to agree that reprocessing plants are probably not worth the headaches they raise.

Lastly, you can't just magically make radioactive waste non-radioactive. That's not the way radioactivity works. You _can_ separate it into its component elements. Some of these can be used as fuel, but will produce radioactive waste in turn. Some of these will be inert or almost inert - these can be buried without raising *too* much of a stink. But the rest is still dangerously radioactive. You can put it back into a reactor and hope it turns into something else, but a) this won't get rid of all of it (some will just get worse), and b) The vessels you hold the waste in in the reactor will become radioactive, and you're back to square one.

It's an interesting problem, with no easy solutions (though some acceptable compromises).

So you do/don't like the budget?

[foo fighter]

Write to the President and your Congressional delegates and tell them about it!!!

Their staff is there to listen to your comments and respond to them. They do take your voice into account.

They like email more than letters since the anthrax scare.

Here's a like to this years budget in HTML and PDF: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2003/index. html

Send your comments to the President at this address: [e-mail]

Find your Senator at this page: http://www.senate.gov/senators/senator_by_state.cf m

And find their email address here: http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.cfm

You can find, then write to your Representative here (this is very slick): http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Please, please, please take a more active role in the direction our national technology policies take. Keep an eye on http://www.eff.org/alerts/ for issues of which you should be aware. If we don't do it as technology professionals and enthusiasts, no one will.

Re:So you do/don't like the budget?

[Aexia]

I used to handle mail for a House office. I would suggest FAXING the letter. We responded to e-mail but I know many other offices ignore it. It can't hurt to do it though. Snail mail takes longer and there's the anthrax problem.

Faxes, however, get there instantly and are typically treated exactly like mailed letters. It also gets the office's attention if their fax machine is constantly spitting out letters on a topic.

Be respectful in your tone of voice. Being bitchy is a surefire way of getting the letter chucked.

Include your address and only send the letter to your senators and your one representative. No address means the letter gets chucked. And sending it to anyone else just means the letter gets referred to the office you should've sent it to in the first place... assuming it doesn't get tossed.

In most cases, you'll receive a non-committal response in a few weeks and your rep won't even know about your letter.

However, if a lot of constituents are sending individual letters, the issue will likely be brought up with the Congresscritter.

Military funded research eventually trickles down

[LM741N]

For a good example, check out the MIT Radiation Lab series of books for the work that was done during WW2 and eventually spawned a huge amount of the technology we use today. Used your microwave oven lately? e.g. Another example, Gallium Arsenide integrated circuits used to be the bread and butter of military applications, now they are used in most cellphone handsets, WLAN cards, etc.

Think about it

[Watcher]

There seems to be a lot of fear about the new budget killing off science and killing off the manned program. Think about what is being done here for a moment:

In the unmanned space programs, missions are being put on hold so that nuclear propulsion technologies can be dusted off and put to practical use. This would cut down on mission time, and in doing so allow us to get probes to their destinations faster, and possibly with more power when they get there. That would have the net result of 1) cutting down on the money spent monitoring the probes during their cruise phase and 2) potentially extending their time at their destination spent gathering science. If you look at it from a business perspective, this makes sense-you want to invest money in the project for a gain (in this case, knowledge).

Aside: would be nice to see them develop a general purpose class of probes that they could basically shotgun to the outer planets (and unlike the Voyager probes, orbit their destinations). That may be more practical with this propulsion and power system. Any thoughts? Probably not going to happen until NASA has enough cash and confidence from the White House. No time soon.

Now, on to the manned space program. The Shuttle and ISS costs are way, way out of line. Take a look at the findings from the commitee last year. They're expecting its going to cost many more billions of dollars to finish the ISS in the plan which was comitted to. This on a project that is already considerably over budget, and suffering from numerous technical, engineering, and managerial problems (eg incompatable water purification systems, maintenance panels with the procedure for replacing the panel on the inner side where it can't be read while you're reinstalling it, and so on). If those costs aren't brought under control, it could easily swallow up the more productive unmanned program. The shuttle program is very much in the same boat, since the shuttles cost a huge amount to launch, and are only just barely reusable (they have to rip out large parts of the propulstion system, and refurbish the shuttle between launches, at a huge cost). I would be much happier to see them put yet more funding into developing a next generation system, but first getting the current manned space program under control is important.

If the costs aren't brought under control, and new technology developed, it is very unlikely we will even have NASA in a decade. It is very hard pressed to keep the budget it has when there are other programs (such as fighting this little war thing we have right now) are getting the lions share of the money available. Like anything else, a little wise long term investment could reap huge benefits (such as a better unmanned program that allows us to have many more probes in operation, including the much needed additional communication equipment). It would be great to see some long term planning that results in a return to the Moon, or a solid plan to go to Mars. That will require that the NASA administration take the initiative and plan out a program that won't break the budget, and that NASA also earn the confidence of Congress that money invested won't become part of another horror story of misused funds. Its a hell of a challenge, particularly for a government program, and I would be interested to see NASA step up to it.