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.
Sound like Bush (Score:2, Interesting)
Presidents *Proposed budget* ?? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Sound like Bush (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
not all bad (Score:3, Interesting)
The missions to the outer planets, I think, are very important and should receive full funding. They may not be very efficient, but travel to the outer planets takes so long and is subject to so many constraints that we really need to get these projects going now. It's a shame that they are being cut.
Nuclear propulsion in space is a hot potato because it's potentially dual-use. If this research is conducted completely openly and in an international framework, then it may be acceptable. Otherwise, it will be perceived as simply a way for the US to militarize space and put nuclear technology into space, and, domestically, it would be little more than a ploy for transferring NASA funds to military research.
Re:Trimmed? (Score:5, Interesting)
Many things that were too expensive for NASA were developed by the USAF.
Examples
The SpaceLab was simply the final name for an Air Force Manned Orbital Lab.
Shuttle's cargo bay was designed around the size of the spy sats.
NASA is the civilian arm of Space exploration and development while the real interesting stuff is being done in black projects by the Air Force who has the real budget.
I'm of the opinion that the real advances will come out of Air Force spending. Examples.
707 - That was designed as a military tanker to replace the K-97. Only after the USAF bought it did the airlines buy it.
747 - Was designed in the CX project that the C-5 won, then Boeing pushed it for a commercial aircraft.
Many of the advances in materials and propulsion technology come out of the Air Force because they have the money to spend.
The engines on a CRJ-70 aren't evil because they were developed for the A-10 and S-3. It's just an offshoot.
Nuclear propulsion research? (Score:3, Interesting)
Apparently, there were plans to build a high-atmosphere sky base above the USSR during the cold war using this technology. Makes you wonder just what our government is capable of.
Cut it to zero ASAP (Score:2, Interesting)
The Wright Brothers (or pick your own early aviation pioneers)did not require a 15,000 man ground support crew to fly.
Lindbergh made a solo flight from the US to Paris so he could win a $25,000 prize.
If Bush really wants to get into space (and yes, the military does - they are not really stupid) he should get Congress to set up a series of prizes. Five billion tax free for the first resuseable spacecraft to make three round trips to the vicinity of the ISS in a thirty day period carrying say three people and two tons of cargo on each trip.
Rather than controlling the development of spacecraft, the government should just promise to buy a bunch of them that meet a certain price performance criteria. And, if Bush with his noted tendencies towards such things can not make it happen, it will probably happen somewhere else (India, China, Japan - hell maybe even France - (those arrogant little snots still miss Napoleon))
pluto campaign = false campaign (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course they did. That mission was never presented as an 'either-or' scenario, where funding would be drawn from some other budget to pay for the mission-- because no congressman wanted to appear as 'anti-science'. A true campaign would be to ask us plebes 'which of the following missions do you want see funded? a) Mars b) ISS c) Europa d) . . .
I applaud the fiscal responsibility in this new budget. The reality of the situation is that we are at war, and money is tight. Nothing is stopping these scientists from going to Tokyo, London, Paris, or Moscow to plead their case for the mission.
Re:That is exactly the plan (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:bad news for science (Score:4, Interesting)
More and more of our space exploration is taking place in the outer system, with only the occasional lunar mission (been there, done that) and two or three high-profile Mars missions. Everything including the asteroid belt and out are beginning to get the treatment that Venus and Mars got in the past decade (and as a result we know more about the surface of Venus than we do of the earth itself!)
However, because of the distances involved (Venus and Mars are a mere stone's throw away), all of these missions will require a lot of time and a lot of fuel. The more fuel you use to put the probe on its way to its destination, the less the probe can do. While the ion drive has a lot of promise and will probably continue to be researched, it's just not a near-term solution to this problem. On the other hand, there's nuclear propulsion.
As the Planetary Society pointed out, nuclear propulsion has been studied before (NERVA [astronautix.com] and Orion [astronautix.com]are the two most famous), has decades of research already there waiting to be used, and promises a near-term solution to deep space propulsion (if not launch vehicles). Combine this with the fact that the United States is the undisputed leader in the field of nuclear propulsion, and I can't help but see big results coming soon.
As an example: When I submitted the article, I was disappointed with the umpteenth cut of Pluto-Kuiper Express. But the Planetary Society take reminded me that, with the prospect of nuclear propulsion, there isn't anywhere near the pressing need to launch it immediately to make it to Pluto in time. Putting a nice liquid-fueld fission engine (for example) into the plan means that we aren't forced to launch "something, anything" now and can take the time to refine the probe before launching it.
So long as the anti-nuke folks don't kill the proposal in Congress, we've just taken a big step towards putting a person on Mars.
Pluto/Kuiper probe - should ESA take it on? (Score:2, Interesting)
It would seem to me that, particularly with the heavy-lift capability of the Ariane 5, that ESA should grasp the nettle and send its own probe out to Pluto, thus gaining a march on NASA. It is, after all, the only planet not to have been visited by a probe and considerable positive PR for ESA could be made out of that. It would also be a symbol of Europe's growing technological strength vis a vis the US.
How about it, ESA? All the other firsts for visiting planets have been done by the US or the USSR; here's your big opportunity!!!
Re:Deorbit the ISS. (Score:2, Interesting)
The failure was a political one, nothing more, and since the missions were run on a shoe-string budget there really wasn't much new in the way of science: the instruments were all left over from Mars Observer.
IMHO, the Europa and Pluto missions really need to fly. Nuclear propulsion is definitely more important, but find somewhere else to cut!
Re:That is exactly the plan (Score:2, Interesting)
What's so important about the survival of our species? (an honest question, I've never really thought about it much myself)
Re:That is exactly the plan (Score:3, Interesting)
> On the other hand the survival of our species would only be perpetuated by a permanent move into space.
I agree. However... the administration (regardless of which party is in power) is more interested in keeping the stock market high so they can get re-elected.
American politicians govern to optimize the next election's returns; American businesses manage to optimize the next quarterly report. There ain't no long-term perspective, let alone a long-term plan.