Big Changes In Proposed U.S. Space Budget 522
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.
Trimmed? (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless, of course, they feel the military is their future.
How is this logical? (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh that's smart... (Score:2, Insightful)
Brilliant.
Re:Trimmed? (Score:1, Insightful)
bad news for science (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that the most astronomy that's going to get done in these next few years is astronomy by the Air Force, with satellites that are pointing down at the Earth, instead of up at the skies. There never seems to be a shortage of funding for those projects, even though diverting 1% of that money would probably save NASA and the US space research program.
Bush's Budget: Before and After (Score:1, Insightful)
We had budget surpluses, now budget deficits.
We had a 'peace dividend,' now we have the largest military budget.
We had a strong economy, now a recession.
We had a fair tax system, now a tax system favoring the rich.
We had an 'Alaska,' now we have a 'Drilled Alaska.'
We had a blow job scandal, now we have a 'jobs' and billions of $ scandal.
We had liberties, now we have virtually none.
Really not that bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
I didn't think it was as bad as could be, really. Losing the Pluto-Kuiper probe is a bummer, but there's still pretty strong (in relative terms for today's financial climate) support for basic science.
More to the point - Nuclear Propulsion - Hooray!. This is an utterly fabulous development, and I'm probably going to get flamed for saying so. It's still the truth, all the same. Decent nuclear propulsion is the only way to reduce the current long flight times around the solar system.
Re:Trimmed? (Score:3, Insightful)
To be honest, look at the strings the IMF and WTO have on their loans to developing nations. Unless suddenly the system has a change of heart, I firmly believe that the military has to be the future of where all the power is centralized.
Yes, it sounds like flame bait. I wish it wasn't this way, but as I see it from up here [canada.gc.ca], the multinationals (and I'm putting Canada in with the US here, so I'm not dissing) are setting themselves up for a rough ride in the future. It's simply a matter of where power resides. If we're determined to center it all on this continent
It's somewhat ironic, because the space program owes its successes (and failures
Re:That is exactly the plan (Score:2, Insightful)
With enough research and time we'll be able to overcome the limitations in technology which make this too costly.
Someday we'll be able to self-sufficient bases on other planets which pull all the energy, food, air and materials from the surface of that planet.
Do we want America, and it's values to be on that distant rock, or do we want another country with it's own set of values to be the one that survives the next catastrophic meteor/nuclear war/ice age/etc...
I think those are questions Bush should ask himself when cutting back on the budget.
Re:That is exactly the plan (Score:1, Insightful)
Check out space4peace.org [space4peace.org]'s website. Military vet Bruce Gagnon has done a lot of work on behalf of The Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space to bring awareness to the public. After you read his site, check out what more google [google.com] has to offer. He has done his homework and avoids zealotry.
Re:Deorbit the ISS. (Score:2, Insightful)
I can't believe you were modded up for that...
This forum isn't long enough to list all the things we now enjoy due DIRECTLY to advances made in space technology via development of things like the ISS, the hits AND the misses i.e. take your pick of Mars explorers that didn't make it. I know, that to those who know nothing of the ISS or other space programs other than it's a big money object floating in outer space, this insight may be lost, but believe me, your statement couldn't be more irresponsible.
I apologize, but I couldn't let that go.
Excuse to transfer funds (Score:2, Insightful)
Now he wants to give those same friends a huge tax cut with the idea that the will all run out and build factories to employ us all. Hah!
During the whole anthrax episode, five people died, and an additional ten got sick and recovered. Ten people got sick at a post office when a ream of copier paper was irradiated to kill anthrax.
Now Bush wants to spend an additional $11bn on anthrax.
How much do you suppose is in his budget for AIDS research (or cancer, or the slew of other diseases which kill many more people than anthrax has)? Certainly no $11bn.
Why can't these politicians ever have cronies in worthwhile industries? Because worthwhile industries don't have the money to bribe the politicians blue. Why not? Because worthwhile industries don't get kickbacks and deals from the gov't. Why don't they? Because they don't have buddies in the gov't. Lather, rinse, repeat...
Ultimately, there is no incentive for the companies that actually get funded to do anything except whore for more funding and pretend to spend what they already got while pocketing it.
Sigh!
Space for Profit (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not like it cannot be done, the main issue (and granted a huuuge one) would be to build the initial stations in space for handling of various extracted resources.
Hell there are 8 other planets in this solar system, why do we have to tear apart ours? There are some darn valuable resources up there, *taps lycos on the head* go get'em!
Seriously though, hhhuuuge startup costs, but scaled, not likely too much more then the initial startup costs of getting resources from the "New World" way back when.
I detect the odor of politics (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds like they can finally kill it (in the name of fiscal responsibility); outsource everything and absorb what remains of NASA into the military.
The emphasis on nuclear propulsion... hmm... There are a lot of very hot, very promising technologies out there just dying for research money. The one they single out sounds suspiciously like a barely disguised weapon's program. Be prepared for double-talk like: "defensive weapon" or "humanitarian bombing".
=brian
The best way to get shot... (Score:4, Insightful)
>> I firmly believe that the military has to be the future of where all the power is centralized.
A quote, forget from whom, but seems poignantly relevant: The easiest way to get shot is to carry a gun.
Bush seems the stereotypical spaghetti western cowpoke, speaking softly and carrying a big gun, and, in the spirit of late Hollywood arrivals, lusting after a bigger gun. I wonder who (in the figurative and collective sense) among us will get shot as a result of this.
NOT A BUDGET CUT!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
What NASA, and the rest of our federal government, needs to do is eliminate the sheer waste of money that is going on... Focus on products that produce science, not kickbacks (*cough* ISS)
waste of money (Score:2, Insightful)
budget priorities (Score:3, Insightful)
The federal government's most important priority is to maintain the infrastructure which makes the US possible. Things like operational costs of the three branches, minting money, foreign relations and maintaining a military (what good is all the other stuff if anyone can take it from us at whim?). In the middle area, you see things like HUD, Dept of Education, SSI, etc (stuff which they don't have a constitutional mandate to create but which people have become reliant upon). Way down at the bottom of the list, you'll find things like most of NASA, fluff research grants( did we REALLY need to spend $45k to find out how many people rinse their dishes before putting them in the dishwasher? ), etc. Things which are nice to have but aren't critical.
Now that you have your priorities, you only have a fixed amount of money to spend. An outside force has made it necessary to increase spending on one or several of your highest priority items. Nobody is going to die if NASA's budget gets reduced for a year or three to shore up our more important needs. If pure space research means that much to you, donate from your own pocket to one of the non-profit groups out there promoting research.
Re:Cut it to zero ASAP (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah and the wright brothers didn't have to
1.) accelerate to Mach 25
2.) deal with extremely dangerous and hard to handle fuels
3.) Figure out how to live in an incredibly hazardous enviroment of no air, extreme heat/cold, large amounts of radiation, micrometoriods, and oh yeah, You have to support a crew for 30 days also
4.) Wright brothers didn't have to maintain a 99.4% success ratio (Nasa ratio with the shuttle) otherwise their funding would be destroyed
5.) Deal with one of the most complex machines ever made in the history of mankind with somewhere around 12,000 moving parts and millions upon millions of possible problems
Is nasa perfect? Hell no they waste a shit ton of money. But don't just babble about how the commercial sector could somehow get it done better.. They won't. 99.4% seems like a pretty good succes rate to me. Oh yeah btw all of the shuttle matinence is outsourced to a private company.
Re:Presidents *Proposed budget* ?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting theory. It's not actually backed by anything in history, as far as I've ever seen, but interesting... I find it odd to assert that a conscript army would be more reliable, or more friendly to democratic institutions, than a volunteer one. The move toward volunteer armies has, in general, made armies more professional and less easily swayed to seize power for themselves.
I guess it's OK to worry about the potential for the American legions to declare a President -- something that had uncomfortable echoes ringing in my head during the oversea-ballot mini-debacle inside the 2000 general election meltdown -- but truth be told, the American army has proven remarkably resistent to the temptation of king-making.
Consider: During Watergate, every civil authority told President Nixon that he had to surrender his tapes, and he refused. The man controlled the world's most potent stockpile of nuclear weapons; a vast and effective intelligence apparatus; and millions of servicepeople looking to him as Commander-in-Chief. Some of those people were in the 101st Airbone and 82nd Airborne, elite strike troops; some were stationed quite near DC and the centers of power. It had to have crossed his mind how easily the armed forces of the United States could assume control, since -- NRA notwithstanding -- the American homeland is essentially demilitarized.
Yet, when the rubber met the road and the Supreme Court -- nine old guys in black robes -- told the Presdident of the United States, "Mr. President, you must surrender the tapes", Nixon didn't call in an airstrike; he didn't mobilize the troops; he didn't even huff and puff in that direction. Instead, he handed over the tapes. Why? Because Dick Nixon was such a firm believer in the smooth operation of justice? Nonsense.
He did it because he knew that if he issued those orders, they would not be obeyed. The American military really does see itself as properly subordinate to the civilian authority. They really do see their mission as to protect, not to rule. And why is that? Because at the heart they see themselves as citizens first, who happen to be serving. Not as some separate class called "soldier" with different priveleges and responsibilities, distinct from the general populous.
Think how astoning that is -- an army, a nation, full of modern-day Cincinatti. It boggles the mind.
Re:That is exactly the plan (Score:2, Insightful)
I must admit that I feel that these opinions are very obsolete in the face of space exploration on a lrge scale.
There are a few reasons for this
1) As Iain M. Banks (try amazon.com) says, any ship put into outer space needs to be either completely or almost completely self-sufficient. Otherwise it has a hugely limited range, and is next to useless.
2) There is a need for weapons in space. For one thing, a planetary asteroid defense would not be a bad plan, for another, no-one knows what is out there
3) development of weapon systems has traditionaly led to development of defense systems, and I think that defense systems can never be a bad thing.
4) And lastly, IMHO space exploration will benefit the entire human race, not just a particular geological sub-section. As before we will adapt. And we will benefit. However, there are some things that need to be sorted out first. little things like changing the planetary governmental system... (I personally feel that the UN should be made the Planetary Authority (no vetos) and all govern,ental science should fall under that umbrella (i.e no more wasting effort on designing new disposable wipes) with the previos national governments acting as "local authorities" I also feel that free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny)
Re:Maybe it's because NASA really sucks... (Score:2, Insightful)
Aaaarrrgggghhhh!!!!!
Huge amounts of SHITE in this previous comment. Bloddy heel, I'm Irish and I can spot all the hoes in these arguments!!!
first of all, any astronaut has to undergo special training. There is a reason that NASA traditionally selected jet pilots, y'know, and that's the 9 or so G's that astronauts experience. Training them is an expensive exercise, and should not be undertaken lightly (now the intersting research that suggestesd that women can handle more G's than men is another matter entirely)
On its own, this argument kills most of yhe previous one.
The accusation of "elitism" is spurious. You are heading for a "siumpsonesque" scenario where anyone above the average is a freak (thus lowering the average....)
Also, construction methods and control methods are way too complex to allow "Joe Punter" into space. Perhaps with molecular manufacturing and AI it will be possible to allow your average person into space, but at the moment, one really does need to be useful to the mission on hand, and tourists are barely popular on the surface of the planet!!!!
And lastly, it's so damn expensive to send someone into space that sending someone without a specific purpose is stupid and wasteful.
Re:In order (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm, seems good enough for the automobile.
I take those odds just to drive to work. I'll gladly take those odds if it'll get me into space.