NASA Think Tank to be Shut Down 132
Matthew Sparkes writes "NASA will likely shut down its Institute for Advanced Concepts, which funds research into futuristic ideas in spaceflight and aeronautics. The move highlights the budget problems the agency is facing as it struggles to retire the space shuttles and develop a replacement. The institute receives $4 million per year from NASA, whose annual budget is $17 billion. Most of that is used to fund research into innovative technologies; recent grants include the conceptual development of spacecraft that could surf the solar system on magnetic fields, motion-sensitive spacesuits that could generate power and tiny, spherical robots that could explore Mars."
% of $17B/yr That is Wasted? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it is 0.1% loss that is $17m/yr. So what is with shutting down a program that may yield opportunities for far greater savings and benefits over time?
I suspect more efficiency program work would do better for NASA.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can anyone think of anything that the US government is spending money on that it shouldn't?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I can think of about $100bn/yr expense that has been going on far a couple years
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The irony of war, waste and lost lives, is that the technologies which have been developed in Iraq & Afganistan by the U.S. & its allies from surveillance, guidance, sensors, weapons, language analysis, tactics and human psychology of urban conflict have resulted in abilities and knowledge which will help the industrialized world immensely in being able to find, monitor, stop a
Re: (Score:2)
If we would actually apply the lessons we learn, we wouldn't have wars anymore by now, we can develop all those techniques in a peaceful setting by scientist that would actually create it with a good cause in mind, not by an oppressive government that is just going to use it to survey, guide, sense, analyze their people and weaponize
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Compared to the first half of the 20th century, the last 60 years have been a cake walk.
I think I agree with the rest of your comment. The only dire threat to our national security right now is he proliferation of nuclear weapons. Obviously we should strive to minimize terrorism as well, but Muslim extremists haven't a pr
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, sort of. There are several factions battling for control of Iraq. The one we created, and are propping up, and to whom we handed Saddam for execution after capturing him, is the one that executed him. So in that sense "we" didn't do it. Even if you absolutely accept them as the legitimate government of Iraq, it's 100% clear that he never would have been executed without US actions, and almost as clear that Ahmadinejad w
Re: (Score:1)
On the bright side, we could annex, er... liberate, them then.
Three words:
New Housing Boom!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, Iraq was really on the brink of taking over the world...
Sure, they were just about the most liberal and secular Muslim country in the world, but you know, as soon as they'd taken over, BAM! Islamic law everywhere!
You can't lump Afghanistan and Iraq together. The two couldn't possibly have been more differ
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a problem with your cute little theory: the U.S. military alrea
Weapons technology... (Score:2)
'light', 'rapid fire', and 'accurate' tend to be mutually exclusive in the weapons world. The only way to sorta get all three* is to reduce the power of your shots.
The lighter the weapon, the more recoil felt. The faster you fire, the less time you have to stabilize the weapon before the next round fires. The combined effects tends to have any rifle pointing into the sky after a burst. The M16A2 is 'burst mode' for this very reason. It fires three shots with each pull of the trigger, becau
Re:% of $17B/yr That is Wasted? (Score:5, Funny)
Are you trolling for replies or seriously asking that question?
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
It's brinksmanship (Score:5, Insightful)
No member of Congress is going to begrudge $4 million. It's a drop in the bucket. The average Senator and congressman earmarks more than that for their many pet local projects.
This is a pale shadow of what NASA used to represent: the scientific might of the world's most advanced country, boldly striding into space while the world watched in awe.
Today NASA just exists to keep its patchy old 1970s era shuttles flying, pouring billions into dead end maintenance efforts while the truly innovative efforts are moving to the private sector if not completely to other countries.
Frankly I think the U.S. has lost its will to explore space. Now everything needs to be justified by short term gain. The can-do, beat-the-Soviets mentality that drove us into orbit in the '50s and 60s seems to have been replaced by crass (and ignorant) focus on the bottom line. Of course, those early efforts resulted in massive technological advances, but today everything has to be directly and obviously profitable to even the stupidest politician before it gets any funding.
Let's vote out the war and vote in a $1 trillion increase in science budgets. That's my pet solution to the whole NASA problem.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Someone else on the thread
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This has als
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, by developing an alternative launch-recovery system for people that's within an order of magnitude for a cargo shot of similar mass on one of the more economical disposable rockets in cost we'd be able to recoup the cost of development rather quickly.
After that we'd be able to use the savings to do things like bui
Can somebody give us a list... (Score:5, Interesting)
I see the value of research for research's sake, but you've got to come up with things that have a practical use once in a while, even if by accident, otherwise that value goes away...
I'm not saying this lab hasn't come up with such things, but if they have, what are they and why aren't some of them listed in the story summary?
Re:Can somebody give us a list... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Can somebody give us a list... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.niac.usra.edu/studies/ [usra.edu]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's a damn good list!
Re:Can somebody give us a list... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would that be important?
If we're looking for ways to do things better 50, 100, 200, 1000 years from now, why would we care about short term "...technologies...that have made it into practical use"?
Jim
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What I'm asking is whether they have done any basic research that has led to practical technology, not whether they themselves have produced anything practical. It stands to reason that if they're doing valuable work than this would happen now and then, and if not then they're not really providing the benefit you describe.
Just because basic science is useful doesn't mean we shouldn't expect some results eventually. I want to know what technology t
Re: (Score:1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_(drink) [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velcro [wikipedia.org]
I cant find the Wikipedia page that lists things NASA actually invented...
(besides some obviously specialized robots and moon-landing movie studios
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
How long has this lab been around?
Really!! May I be the first.... (Score:1, Funny)
Also known as 'meteorites'. Exploring doesn't mean you have to phone back home!
NASA is dropping the ball... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
NASA used to be a organisation which looked to the future and developed new and astonishing technologies and dared to dream large. There is little left of all this nowadays...
No, NASA is not dropping the ball. They are planning to go back to the moon, live there and then on to Mars. NASA *is* doing big things. For one the ISS is a big thing although, it seems small to you it will be very helpful in the long run to know how to build and assemble a space station that is livable for many months at a time. FFS we're *living* in space. How is that not a big deal?
NASA does what they can with the funding they receive. George W. Bush is doing cut backs on the NASA program so they
I live outside the USA - please help me understand (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess I'm asking:
* where the money is going instead? To different NASA projects or to other state projects outside [stable economy]
* is there less money overall? [shrinking economy]
* is the budget determined by the President or the Senate?
* how frequently are these budgets determined? - how soon could all this budget shrinking really be turned around?
* is there consensus on the role of NASA, or is there variation between Democrats and Republicans?
* if there had been less spent on Defense [say Iraq war], would that have been allocatable to NASA? Sometimes budgets are drawn from several pools... e.g. Road Tax in Australia is only spent on roads.
Re:I live outside the USA - please help me underst (Score:5, Insightful)
NASA budgeting has little to do with politics or even practical realities. NASA continues to try and thrive on the glory days of its leap to the Moon, even though the first landing was almost 41 years ago now. Whenever things are going bad, the President (choose any one you like) will announce plans for NASA to do something to make America proud and continue our long tradition of space exploration. However, not even Presidential boosterism can keep Congress from continually whittling away NASA's budget, to the point where it becomes a competition for money between the manned program (see as costly, inefficient, and dangerous) and the unmanned programs (see as cheap, flexible, and low-risk). Inevitably, the bulk of the budget goes to the manned program and some promising probes and instruments are shelved for lack of funds.
Now, I am a firm believer in the need for both the manned and unmanned programs. The fact is NASA is underfunded, and those funds could certainly come from somewhere else (DoD for example), but the bottom line with the American people always is, what's in it for me? Now, there a legion of examples of technology spun off from NASA applications, but those are not the kind of things that the everyday citizen is impressed with. And unless you are a Star Trek fan, the idea of exploration for exploration's sake is a dim memory, best left with Lewis & Clark. The sad fact is, unless NASA can come up with something stunning, that captures the imagination of Americans again, as the Moon landings did, this is just another stage in the deterioration of a proud agency that once carried this nation's pride to a new frontier.
First landing - Note (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Whoops... faulty math... good thing I don't work at JPL...
Re: (Score:2)
If NASA could come up with something like warp [wikipedia.org] or hyperspace fold [wikipedia.org] drive or some other type of effective interstellar travel then that would certainly be stunning, but we will not get there but cutting the funding for all pure research and development entirely. The program should continue to receive some fundi
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I live outside the USA - please help me underst (Score:2)
Re:I live outside the USA - please help me underst (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
From your link it seems like NASA's budget has remained steady. Most of the problems lie within NASA itself, which is bleeding massive amounts of money on ISS & Shuttle programs.
The US economy is still growing, however, the rising cost of debt, the war in Iraq, and Social Security are putting massive pressure on the government budget
based on what gets votes mostly... (Score:2)
A Moonshot was a us versus them, it gained votes because supporting it was politically smart.
The shuttle at first was also a grand idea, the program being spread over so many states to make it even more politically viable.
The space station was exciting how Reagan imagined it, it ne
Re: (Score:1)
Instead we have 80-90 year old Senators and Representatives who lost touch with society and how it works in the 1970s. This isn't representation, it's a farce.
Re:I live outside the USA - please help me underst (Score:1)
NASA will spend it on other things. If NASA does not spend it, Congress will decide they didn't need it in the first place, and NASA's budget will shrink. Es verdad, that's how it works: spending is the only way to keep a budget!
The United States economy has been growing well since the end of the dotcom bust/Clinton Recession.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:I live outside the USA - please help me underst (Score:2)
Presumably other NASA projects, according to what I read
* is there less money overall?
It is rare to find the US government spending less money overall. Money "not going to NASA" is going elsewhere.
* is the budget determined by the President or the Senate?
The Senate holds the purse strings in the US government.
* is there consensus on the role of NASA, or is there variation between Democrats and Republicans?
It var
Shooting a good horse (Score:5, Insightful)
This makes about as much sense as shooting a perfectly good horse while you're riding through the middle of the desert.
NASA has been charged with getting back to the Moon and on to Mars and frankly needs all the innovative ideas and thinking they can find. So what do they do? Shut down the people who dream up advanced concepts! It's sad enough that they are going to try and go back to the Moon using souped-up Apollo-era technology, which I predict is a prescription for disaster, but they are not even giving themselves a fair chance of coming up with a better alternative.
My pride in and belief in NASA wanes more with each passing year.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not NASA that's the problem, but the current "brain" sitting behind the oval office. You know, the same one that got a minority of the popular vote in the last 2 elections?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The funny thing? Until the shrub ran for office, I was a staunch Republican that would have said you're insane for even implying that I'd ever support a Democrat. Democrats be da deevil, ya no. (weak Waterboy reference)
Not Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
Not exactly. They feed $500M to SpaceX and Kistler to develop real-working rockets that can deliver to ISS. And yes, the money is contingent on success. Invoking private industry to develop the next generation of vehicles is the way to go.
It's sad enough that they are going to try and go back to the Moon using souped-up Apollo-era technology, which I predict is a prescription for disaster
As an aerospace engineer, I'm glad they are reverting to the apollo 'stack' concept. It is safer than the shuttle, in theory, and let's face it - the shuttle never reached its full potential as a 'space truck': dropping off and retrieving satellites. It only really efficiently used the payload bay during the construction (and continued construction) of ISS. All those missions where they just brought along a few pallets of experiments - think of all the wasted mass that was accelerated to orbit. The new system will compartmentalize equiptment from people, allowing for better scaling and efficiency. And better failure modes, using existing hardware with a proven track record (and failure modes that have been documented and corrected).
Re:Not Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
> Not exactly. They feed $500M to SpaceX and Kistler to develop real-working rockets that can deliver
> to ISS. And yes, the money is contingent on success. Invoking private industry to develop the next
> generation of vehicles is the way to go.
Building a rocket to go to the space station is not an advanced concept.
Building a space elevator using carbon nanotubes...that's advanced. Magnetic field drives...that's advanced. Solar sails, antimatter engines, gravitational drives...all advanced.
The whole point of research like this is to look for major leaps in science, technology, and engineering. The third-party space industry is concerned with profit, mainly by repeating what NASA and the military have been doing for about a half century. Maybe in thirty years they'll be in a position to concentrate on research like this...but I don't think SpaceX is concerning itself with warp drive just yet.
The NIAC, and the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics group before it, are about pushing for the future, not just resting on our chemically propelled century-old technological laurels.
Re: (Score:2)
Entirely agree. The space station as a whole is a huge expenditure of resources to learn pretty much nothing. We've been to low earth orbit a few times already.
"Building a space elevator using carbon nanotubes...that's advanced. Magnetic field drives...that's advanced. Solar sails, antimatter engines, gravitational drives...all advanced."
All *fictional*. With the possible exception of solar sails, based on my understanding of thos
Re: (Score:2)
>> drives...that's advanced. Solar sails, antimatter engines, gravitational drives...all
>> advanced.
> All *fictional*. With the possible exception of solar sails, based on my understanding
> of those "technologies", they are not at a point where time might be usefully spent on
> them by engineers as opposed to SciFi writers.
It is not necessarily true that currently fictional technologies are unlikel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
An aerospace engineer should be aware that while the stack concept removes some failure modes that the Shuttle has - it adds several of it's very own. Starting right at launch, the LES can fail when needed. When you start the re-entry phase, you face the problem of dropping off the parts no longer needed. (You can either drop too early, or fail to drop on time. The Soyuz has had
Re: (Score:2)
Starting right at launch, the LES can fail when needed.
Versus the shuttle
When you start the re-entry phase, you face the problem of dropping off the parts no longer needed. (You can either drop too early, or fail to drop on time. The Soyuz has had both happen.) Parachutes can fail to deploy and have no backups, and your landing braking system (rockets or airbags
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't 'defend' yourself - you exposed your ignorance even further.
For instance the nonsensical claim about not delivering or servicing satellites since Challenger - ever heard of Magellan? Hubble?. Or the nonsensical claim about landing in water, given that the recovery mode for Orion is land. Or the dammfool claim about 'packing a backup parachute'. etc... etc...
You haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Who's theory? I assume you've done a fault tree analysis? In comparing other launch systems with the shuttle, I've found that the theoretical differences in safety are fairly insignificant. Don't give me the "it's got an escape system" if you're not going to talk about what flight envelopes it can be used in (That capsule wasn't designed to separate in atmosphere and once it d
Re: (Score:2)
Even neglecting the escape system, you have a system that is, in theory ( theory == it is all speculation now, we haven't flown one, much less enough to do a statistical analysis. But we can look back at our forefathers
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
that is a ridiculous statement on a number of levels. There are only two or three spaceship configurations that work. One is aerodyne, like the space shuttle. Another is capsule-based, which just happened to have been used by Apollo, but was also used by every other US manned space program, by every Russian manned program, and by the Chinese. To call it "Apollo era" is like poo-pooing the wheel because it's "cave man era."
It
NASA spends that much on receptions (Score:5, Insightful)
this idiotic decision is beyond pathetic.
if NASA is going to shut down research for political suckup stunts like mars, they might as well shut down, and let the chinese colonize space.
Penny wise, pound foolish (Score:5, Insightful)
4 million sounds like a very small amount in the grander scheme of things. Choices have to be made. I understand this. But isn't the entire point of NASA to do research? The very core reason it exists?
Maybe I only hear about the success stories that come out of think tanks. Maybe most of them squander away money in futile pursuits. As a previous poster mentioned, I would like to hear what they have accomplished in the past.
Re:Penny wise, pound foolish (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems applicable here, too.
NSF (Score:1)
It seems to me that Science and Innovation belong to the National Science Foundation.
National Aeronautics and Space Agency should focus exclusively on applying science developed elsewhere to advance Aeronautics or Space applications.
Re: (Score:2)
It hasn't produced... (Score:1)
It's not the end of research or innovation, eventually a new group will be formed to replace it. And if it doesn't produce, it'll be gone too.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the end of research or innovation, eventually a new group will be formed to replace it. And if it doesn't produce, it'll be gone too.
Who is going to...... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
4 mill? (Score:1)
Eating our seed corn (Score:2)
This is another example of the Government deciding to defund something because either: a) it doesn't result in immediate tangible product (though the comment that mentioned "Tang" cracked me up), b) it doesn't benefit some Congresscritter's re-election drive, c) it doesn't provide a way for someone in Government to give a handout to a constituent who's looking for a Federal contract, or d) the think tank is located in a Democrat's district.
This administration wants to privatize everything that Government
Re: (Score:2)
Ob. bash.org quote... (Score:2, Funny)
<bovril> it collects data about the surrounding environment, then discards it and drives into walls
I wonder: (Score:1)
Time to toss manned missions (Score:2, Insightful)
NASA is about buracracy, not science. (Score:3)
NASAs Future? (Score:1)
It appears to be all over for this group anyway. With a budget of $4 million, they have barely enough staff
Civilization reference (Score:2)
What happens when you stop trickling funds into your scientific research? You wind up moving your gunpowder wielding infantry across the continent on a railroad while your opponent drops a nuke on your capital city, flies a helicopter out to drop paratroopers on your cannon and launches a colonization ship to Alpha Centauri.
Don't these scientists, politicians and business people play games to lear
Lisp in the headline? (Score:2)
NAthA Think Thank to be thut Down.
Oth, nothes! The think thank is thunk!
Thomebody thave them, pleathe think of the thuttles, or elthe Thoviet Ruthia will thut you down!
Thalp savthe them!
Let that be a lesson (Score:2)
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ [nasa.gov]
zerg (Score:2)
End the fucking war already!
Re: (Score:1)
There is no excuse for the US going soft on the Middle East and all of their
religious terrorism harboring.
Bring our troops home and put the Middle East back into the stone age.
NASA, studying advanced concepts? (Score:1)
to be replaced by the new George W. Bush Institute for Simplistic Concepts.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I always felt I was a moderate. As I get older and learn more, I'm beginning to believe I'm a Goldwater Conservative. Today that makes me a Liberal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you seriously hope or believe that someday we will leave the earth as a species and "colonize space"? Do you thin
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Parent is correct. Besides, by the time we can go to mars-- robotics and computers will surpass whatever benefits of having people in space. Including research in regard to human travel; so it can be done when it doesn't cost so much.
Its no surprise nerds would have trouble restraining themselves from excessive tech.
Re: (Score:2)
It would have been vastly cheaper to have designed for partial earth assembly and partial automated and remote controlled assembly in orbit. No food, water, oxygen and pressurization, toilets, sleeping areas, human instrumentation interfaces, etc. In fact, the ISS would have been far smaller and cheaper, easily offsetting the R&D and manufacturing costs you claim. The ISS has cost a fortune largely because humans need to survi