Rep. Bill Posey Introduces 'Back To the Moon' Bill 562
MarkWhittington writes "In an attempt to rationalize and give focus to NASA's human space flight program, Rep. Bill Posey, Republican of Florida, has introduced a bill that will direct the space agency to send astronauts back to the Moon with a goal of permanent habitation of Earth's nearest neighbor."
Umm... (Score:4, Insightful)
How does this advance the Republican goal of balancing the budget?
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is local politics. Need to keep the money flowing into NASA to keep the constituency happy, regardless of your party affiliation. Plus NASA's budget vs. the entire budget is close to nothing. Just like that recent budget "cut" the republicans were bragging about was like less than 1% savings on the entire budget. I guess you could say the victory is that it didn't go up, but whatever. Still seems pretty crappy.
Re: (Score:2)
This is local politics. Need to keep the money flowing into NASA to keep the constituency happy, regardless of your party affiliation. Plus NASA's budget vs. the entire budget is close to nothing. Just like that recent budget "cut" the republicans were bragging about was like less than 1% savings on the entire budget. I guess you could say the victory is that it didn't go up, but whatever. Still seems pretty crappy.
Exactly. NASA's budget [wikipedia.org] has generally been less than 1% of the national budget for well over a decade. Even if you cut all of NASA, is wouldn't have equalled the number of billions claimed for the most recent budget cut. NASA's budget was never was truly huge either, peaking at 4.4% during the Apollo era. I think people have historically overestimated just how much money is currently spent on NASA, all things considered.
That being said, this is not what we need at the moment. When NASA achieved the moon
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Since a "socialist" got elected to office. Economics are not the Republicans' strong suit. They worship the guy who slashed taxes so much in the early 80s that he had to go back and reraise them almost every single year he was in office, but a Democrat wanting to let George Bush's tax cuts expire to help bring down the deficit they caused? Oh hell no.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you by any chance referring to the same democrat who signed off on extending them, presumably because he believes (as did Bush) that it will help the economy?
Might it be fair to now refer to them as the "Obama tax cuts"?
Let's go to the moon.. NO.. MARS!!! (Score:3)
Fool me once... (Score:2)
Oh ya... it's getting close to election time again. This is just the first gentle tug of it's grandstanding gravitational pull into the singularity known as US elections.
Fool me once...shame on you! Fool me 8 or 9 times, shame on me.
Re: (Score:3)
You overestimate how interested in politics we Americans are. In general, people just like to have an opinion, and it's usually an uninformed one. That's not interest in politics, that's interest in ignorance and believing what we want to believe...and not even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because most of us don't want to know something that goes against what we believe so we don't inform ourselves. If it rocks our world-view, then that's baaaad...that's the liberal media agenda attacking our go
What a surprise! (Score:2, Insightful)
On Spending (Score:4, Insightful)
Trying to be ambiguous as to not divert the discussions focus, but spending on an endeavor that will ultimately benefit the entire nation as well as be a boon to science seems like a better use of funds than programs heavily favoring a specific subset of the nation. (Take that how you will, I have no particular program in mind.)
Unfunded mandates (Score:3)
I'm guessing it's like the last 'humans should go the moon and then to mars' effort ... a mandate with no funding attached.
The folks from Florida complain because they're seeing the shuttle program shutting down, and don't know what to do ... but because of the requirement to keep the shuttle going, and no funding to cover it, many other NASA projects were shut down years ago to cover the costs.
Yes, there should be requirements to do interesting things, and that helps to drive people, but getting humans int
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, if we need to be pedantic, then I could say the first commercial launch vehicle ferrying any meaningful satellite to space (non nano hobby projects, like Sputnik for example.)
$270M is just step 1 of the incentive funding, and it's already 4.5% of $6B.
There needs to be a gradual transition from the present NASA to any self-sufficient privatized programs. Already in the Houston area, NASA contractors wear badges marked "HO", and remark "it means I work for whoever pays me." Programs shift from be
Re:Unfunded mandates (Score:4, Informative)
Many of the top "new" aerospace companies are already siphoning off the cream of the crop from many of these companies, including operations in Houston. That talent isn't going to waste, and I'd have to agree that there is a deep talent pool which does need to pass on the lessons learned from one generation to another. That is indeed a huge issue, so I don't want to minimize that.
Still, those involved with the manned spaceflight program at NASA have a dismal record of getting anything accomplished, where the last new design to actually make it into space has been the Space Shuttle, started in the Johnson administration and approved during the Nixon administration in terms of real funding. If the experience of nearly a dozen failed launcher projects is lost, it could even be said to be a good thing after a fashion. Something is certainly missing from what needs to happen as the object of the whole exercise, getting people into space, seems to be lost completely anymore. If the same worker bees keep shifting around from one nameless company to another, perhaps the whole system needs to be rethought.
I'm also going to acknowledge that there ought to be a transition after a fashion, as radical moves can throw out the baby with the bathwater. The question is more in terms of how gradual, and what it really means in terms of a privatized spaceflight system in America. Merely becoming another contractor to NASA doing what was done by government employees isn't really privatization, as opposed to a company who sell spaceflight services to NASA as a customer but also sells those same services to many other people who are not even government agencies. More significantly, private companies don't have to "spread the wealth" by putting offices in key congressional districts, but rather make the decision in terms of where to locate facilities based upon hard economic decisions to remain profitable.
The U.S. federal government is hitting a brick wall in terms of finances, and the train wreck is going to do far more than take out NASA. For myself, I wish that America had the money and the political will among the politicians in DC to be able to continue to fund NASA as it has for decades, and perhaps even go up to the 1960's levels of funding. Unfortunately cold hard reality is such that NASA is going to be an easy target with a weak constituency ripe to be wiped out in a budgetary compromise.... especially when programs like Head Start, Medicaid, and Social Security are also going to be hammered hard. If T-bills lose the AAA bond rating quality, expect that to get much worse before it gets better.
Re: (Score:2)
If I look at the US income, it looks like the problem is not the spending (despite the incredible ridiculous huge military budget) it is an income problem. The imbalance between ownership and tax is in no Western country that big. You really should start to tax the rich. Or run your country into the ground. Right now US politics have chosen to do the latter.
Or cut spending. As I see it, the crowd that wants us to increase taxes is currently outspending revenue by 10% of US GDP (that is, the 2010 US GDP in current dollars is roughly 15 trillion USD, while the current deficit (for FY 2011) is estimated as of January to be roughly 1.5 trillion USD). There have been similar deficits for the previous two fiscal years. I don't understand why fiscal responsibility is such a difficult to comprehend topic.
But why should I let taxes rise when the purse holders oversp
Re: (Score:3)
I find it rather odd that Americans pay significantly less tax than most westerner's and spend significantly more time time complaining about it.
Keep in mind that US citizens also pay local and state taxes. For some locations, such as New York City, the tax level can be comparable to the heavier taxed parts of Europe. Second, most US citizens have lower expectations about what they want out of government and hence, much less interest in funding US government at say, EU levels. Needless to say, these expectations are met.
Finally, I notice that a good portion of the developed world has been experimenting with unusually high taxes for a few decades.
a better name... (Score:3)
"To the Moon, Alice!"
One of these days... One of these days... (Score:4, Funny)
Look at the co-sponsors - Oink! (Score:2)
All the co-sponsors have major NASA operations in their states. Rep. Rob Bishop has repeatedly tried to save ATK Technology in Promontory, UT, the exclusive manufacturer of the solid rocket boosters used in the space shuttle program and the biggest employer in his district.
Re:Look at the co-sponsors - Oink! (Score:5, Informative)
The largest employer in his district is the Weber County School District, but otherwise I'd have to agree with your position on Rob Bishop. The guy is a sell-out, and is partly responsible for a $3 billion earmark (nearly the only one in the current budget) for the "SLS" launch system (often dubbed the "Senate Launch System") to essentially restart under a new name the Ares V project.
It is useful to note that the ATK plant was in his Utah State House of Representatives district before he was elected to his current seat in Washington, thus has a rather cozy relationship with the people in that company as well as many neighbors who work for them as well.
One legitimate issue that needs to be addressed is in terms of how to keep domestic production going for the Ammonium Perchlorate [wikipedia.org], which is a vital chemical needed for general defense purposes. That is the primary chemical used in solid rocket boosters, and is used for most of the ICBMs in the arsenal of the United States (as well as the missiles in submarines). Right now, those missiles aren't being built, so there is a need for at least somebody, somewhere, to be using this chemical so that the factories making this rocket fuel can keep going for when the ICBM fleet needs to be refurbished for the next generation (the fuel is unstable and does need to be replaced periodically).
My personal solution to the problem: Rather than disguising a NASA program as something other than a make-work jobs program to keep the factory workers at these chemical plants employed, why not simply get into the business of making 4th of July fireworks and literally give these "missiles" to every city in America for their annual celebrations? $3-$4 billion would make a whole lot of fireworks, and it could at least be enjoyed for pure entertainment purposes by most Americans if they want to see their tax dollars literally burned up every year. You could even keep rocket developers busy, where they would be able to "test fly" their designs on a regular basis. That is much more to say that to have a bunch of rocket developers design a vehicle that will never fly due to an eventual shift in priorities, political parties, and mismanagement that usually accompanies most NASA rocket development projects.
Re: (Score:3)
Rob Bishop is rated as "the most conservative representatives in the U.S. House" and is one who constantly calls for fiscal responsibility and decrying earmarks of other members of congress as being wasteful. I call that hypocrisy at the very least.
If Bishop was running on the platform of "bringing the bacon home to Utah" (as his fellow member in the Utah delegation, Orrin Hatch, did for his 2006 re-election campaign), it would be a bit more understandable. Sadly, he complains when others do that kind of
This is just a money grab (Score:5, Informative)
(3) The 111th Congress, in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010, called for the development of a heavy lift capability of greater than 130 metric tons consisting of the Space Launch System (SLS) and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) to pursue exploration, yet fell short on explicitly stating a clear destination.
(4) The 112th Congress has reaffirmed this commitment to the development of a heavy lift capability.
A few months ago a senator from Utah tried to get NASA to stop looking for alternatives to the SLS (such as SpaceX) by citing the 130 ton requirement. Now they're trying to pass a new bill with stronger wording to force NASA to spend money on the SLS, which happens to be built in their states.
Would be even more impressive... (Score:4, Insightful)
... if he didn't have a purely selfish agenda because it would just happen to directly benefit his state/district economically long before we'd even get there, and even if it gets cancelled later and we don't.
Two birds, one rocket. (Score:2)
Here's an idea, we can launch all of our seniors to the moon and get rid of our Social Security and Medicare spending deficits. Call it "Use Space to Make Space" program. Maybe redefine AARP as the "Astronaut Association for Retired People."
why (Score:2)
in order to promote exploration, commerce, science and United States preeminence in space
Translation: "to restart the space race, bring in jobs to my home state, and billions of dollars in spending to defense contractors."
Re: (Score:3)
Translation: "to restart the space race, bring in jobs to my home state, and billions of dollars in spending to defense contractors."
I realize this is /. and is, therefore, reactionary to anything with an (R), but is it possible, even a little bit possible, that this Congressman really supports technological research? Could it be possible that he is more knowledgeable about such things precisely because he is from Florida and is therefore better educated about the United States' space program (being genuinely concerned for his constituents)? Is it possible that his motives are genuine and not simply political?
Oh, wait. This is slashdo
From a Republican? (Score:5, Funny)
A socialist like Kennedy wanting to get to the moon by a socialist government program, I can understand. But a Republican? Surely we should just wait until GE or Boeing just picks up and goes with private money and objectives. It will be much more efficiently run, and no taxpayers will be robbed to give a (literally) free ride to socialist astronauts.
After reading all my Pournelle and Niven in the 70's, I've been waiting 40 years for the power of free enterprise to get me a ticket on the Pan Am Space Clipper. I'm not sure what the hold-up is; probably, the corporations are still too highly taxed.
Re: (Score:2)
Too subtle...
You are an idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Only by dropping SLS (Score:3)
Hey, why not? (Score:3)
We can just issue more negative-returning debt to pay for this. We're already trillions in the hole, so let's see just how much debt it takes to destroy an economy.
Or, as Rep. Bill Posey likes to think of it... (Score:5, Insightful)
...the "Federal stimulus for Florida's 15th congressional district to get Bill Posey re-elected" bill.
Great! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
Unlike the Democrats, right, who are totally busy solving that deficit problem? US seems to be screwed either which way.
Re: (Score:3)
If a Democrat had presented this bill the majority of Slashdotters here would be fauning over how this would stimulate the economy, create jobs and advance science. But since the political partisanship here is so pathetic, it's clearly some type of evil corporate money grab.
This site is about as useful for political commentary as a toilet is.
waste of money (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it's clearly a troll. But the research in closed environments and recycling for space flight have already borne fruit, as have the materials research in lightweight alloys and ceramics used for space flight. Information solar radiation, weather monitoring, and terrain and oean mapping have already paid off the space program costs, including manned spacef flight, by huge factors. Increased communications from the satellite networks have also more than paid for space flight.
Technologies within reach but
Using Money Wisely? (Score:3, Insightful)
Screw it: Get politics *OUT* of space exploration. (Score:3)
Step 1: Mandate that NASA's mission is pure "research and exploration science"
Step 2: Open up the floodgates for private use of space.
Step 3: Remove *ALL* government mandates on NASA other than the four words articulated in step 1.
Step 4: Let NASA do its thing.
End result (hopefully:) We see NASA do pure science, for science sake (robotic missions to planets, asteroids, etc,) we see NASA do supported-by-cheaper-commercially-viable-companies manned exploration. No more "this Senator says he has to have 20 jobs, so we subcontract this minor part out to an incompetent vendor, this Representative says she has to have the bragging rights of this subcomponent being in her district" and so-on and so-on.
Atlantis shouldn't be at KSC, Enterprise shouldn't be in NYC, and Endeavor shouldn't go to CSC. Those are all purely political decisions. Get politics out of NASA, it has caused decades of harm as it is.
You know times are tough when (Score:3)
You know times are tough. Usually when an election come near the politicians begin talking about missions to Mars.
Re:A better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
How about paying the government deficit that is about to default in a month so humans can habitat Earth first
Because if man is to survive as a species, we must leave this planet. To leave this planet, we must advance the state of the art. To advance the state of the art, we must spend money on human space exploration/colonization.
Deficits will never go away, and neither will the fact that the sun will eventually incinerate the earth.
Re:A better idea (Score:5, Interesting)
How about paying the government deficit that is about to default in a month so humans can habitat Earth first
Because if man is to survive as a species, we must leave this planet. To leave this planet, we must advance the state of the art. To advance the state of the art, we must spend money on human space exploration/colonization.
Deficits will never go away, and neither will the fact that the sun will eventually incinerate the earth.
I agree that we need space exploration but as an Australian I am not going to demand that it be funded by US taxpayers. The fact is that Mercury, Gemini and Apollo were funded by the cold war and this funding is long gone. It was gone in the early 1970s and its not coming back. Fortunately a lot of good research and development was done in the 1950s and 60s. Launches are cheaper and more reliable now. Maybe the gap has been closed and exploration money can come from private sources. I think that is the only way space exploration will get beyond flags and footprints.
I hate to say it but nationalism and religion were the drivers of exploration in the past. Maybe this will happen in space.
Re:A better idea (Score:5, Informative)
Nope. Outer Space Treaty makes it impossible to recover the costs of exploration, since you're not allowed to actually claim anything up there as belonging to you.
Note also that the relevant government is required by that Treaty to authorize and provide supervision to any private party going into space from their soil.
For that matter, any activity in outer space can be blocked (at least temporarily), by ANY signatory to the Treaty at their discretion.
Re: (Score:3)
Then we are not, realistically, going anywhere.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Would you rather the Moon and other celestial bodies be carved up by megacorps?
Yes. I want a Solar System so valuable that business is willing to invest serious money in its exploitation. It's the kind of universe in which humanity has a future.
Re:A better idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me rephrase the issue (Score:2)
Would you rather have them down here carving up the earth, or up there making money in space. Space is big...really big so big that
even greedy corporations cant use it up for a very long long long time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the current greedy business model we have down here has a bright future.
And that's the thing that routinely is ignored. The so-called "greedy" business model works because it gives a channel for so-called "greedy" people to contribute to society in a meaning and positive way. The future is indeed brighter.
The so-called "multinational" (the label which includes any business that operates in two or more countries) will have to buy space-based goods and services to support its claims and it'll have to come with profitable enterprises (which contribute to society) with which to
Re:A better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Recent evidence would seem to suggest that said greedy people do not wind up contributing in a meaningful way, but instead wind up finding every edge case they can to try to skim off the productivity of others.
Re: (Score:3)
As opposed to sitting here while governments bask in bureaucracy? Say what you will about commercial interests, unless there is a war on commercial interests have been the driving force of many discoveries and innovations, not governments.
Re: (Score:3)
Business is better at incremental innovation, not so good at disruptive innovations like computers, the atom bomb, the internet (all funded by govt). Biz is too focussed on next quarter's shareholders' report to invest enough in the long-term R&D that creates truly disruptive innovations. So govt should deficit-spend if necessary to keep the disruptive innovations coming, which can then be turned over to biz to improve incrementally and bring to the masses. Synergy! As long as we keep advancing knowledg
Re: (Score:3)
That's been a fact ever since Einstein declared that the universal speed limit was C.
Then we should try C++.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Flagless Ship in the middle of the ocean. Solves that issue.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Nope. Outer Space Treaty makes it impossible to recover the costs of exploration, since you're not allowed to actually claim anything up there as belonging to you. "
Thankfully most countries with desirable launch areas aren't signatories of that treaty, rendering that null and void.
Re: (Score:2)
Like the USA? Russia? China? India? France? Germany? UK?
While there may be countries with "desirable launch areas" that haven't signed, everyone that's ever actually put something in orbit has signed it.
Re: (Score:3)
None of the listed countries come even close to desirable launch areas. Essentially the best location for launch is at equator.
The point being made is that private interests could build a space center in one of the equatorial countries in Africa or Central America. While unrealistic in current political and financial climate, it would be doable, and they would even have a meaningful advantage over existing launch sites because of location allowing for less energy needed per launched tonnage.
Re: (Score:3)
They were represented by their governments (USA and UK), and have done absolutely not a thing in space without their government's sign-off.
Re: (Score:3)
They were represented by their governments (USA and UK), and have done absolutely not a thing in space without their government's sign-off.
So Virgin Galactic suddenly closes shop in the US and reopens as a corporation based out of Nauru. And the GDP of Nauru quadruples overnight. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless it's a hotel/rec center, and you charge beau coup bucks to allow others to spend time in your facility.
Re: (Score:3)
Note that the Outer Space Treaty only requires that a signatory nation announce at least a year in advance that they are going to withdraw from the treaty. If the political will is there to have a country like the United States to claim extra-terrestrial real estate, it can easily happen and no other signatory nation can do a thing about it.... shy of going to war over the issue.
If the technology exists to be able to mine an extra-terrestrial body or do anything else in space, it can be done. Besides, com
Re:A better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Because if man is to survive as a species, we must leave this planet. To leave this planet, we must advance the state of the art. To advance the state of the art, we must spend money on human space exploration/colonization.
Deficits will never go away, and neither will the fact that the sun will eventually incinerate the earth.
If your worried about the sun going nova, then take a couple of deep breaths and relax. We've got time. Although I strongly support the space program, we would do better as a species if we realized that we're NOT getting off this rock anytime soon and we'd best spend some energy keeping what we've got habitable.
Supporting the space program could be done without materially increasing the deficit (NASA takes up some tiny fraction of the US budget at present). But it really bugs me when congresscritters put up stupid bills like this one. You get all sorts of earmarks and pork embedded in it, you get NASA (or whatever organization) pulled in all sorts of usually contradictory ways. You get things changing from year to year. If someone came up with a bill that funded NASA with x% of the Federal Budget for 50 years, maybe I could go for that but the current bill is just grandstanding and appeasing his constituents.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Earmarks just direct the funding to specific sources, which is the point of having a representative, it's doesn't increase funding at all.
So the point of having representatives is to make sure the government cannot complete its mandated missions efficiently? What you describe is what we call an "unfunded mandate", and we in the civil service dread those like the plague. It means that we don't get enough money to do our jobs properly because half of our "budget" is directed toward boondoggles in one state or another.
The trouble with earmarks is they all too frequently result in "We will give you $20 million to do a $30 million job that woul
Re: (Score:3)
The representatives decide WHAT the agencies need to accomplish to improve society. That's their job. They know what their constituents want, they know what the societal and economic impact of certain objectives are (or at least they're supposed to), so they decide what goals need furthering--better health care, better technology, better financial regulation, etc.
The agencies decide HOW to do it. That's *their* job. They don't just blindly do whatever Congress says. They know the specific details of t
Re: (Score:3)
Liar.
Here is a paper from 15 years ago from the University of New South Wales.
The above summary shows that energy payback times for modules incorporating thick silicon cells are, at worst, of the order of six to seven years and possibly less than three years. Since warranty periods of 20 years are routinely offered on such modules[ ] it is clear that the embodied energy should be easily recovered.
I'm willing to bet the efficiency has increased.
http://www.csudh.edu/oliver/smt310-handouts/solarpan/pvpayback.htm [csudh.edu]
Heres another source: (pdf warning)
Energy payback estimates for rooftop PV systems are 4, 3, 2,
and 1 years: 4 years for systems using current multicrystalline-
silicon PV modules, 3 years for current thin-film modules,
2 years for anticipated multicrystalline modules, and
1 year for anticipated thin-film modules (see Figure 1).
With energy paybacks of 1 to 4 years and assumed life
expectancies of 30 years, 87% to 97% of the energy that
PV systems generate won’t be plagued by pollution, greenhouse
gases, and depletion of resources.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf [nrel.gov]
In short you are a liar in at least the solar panel area.
Re: (Score:3)
How about paying the government deficit that is about to default in a month so humans can habitat Earth first
Because if man is to survive as a species, we must leave this planet. To leave this planet, we must advance the state of the art. To advance the state of the art, we must spend money on human space exploration/colonization.
Deficits will never go away, and neither will the fact that the sun will eventually incinerate the earth.
Why must we leave the planet? Nothing is going to happen to it. The Earth is a lot tougher than we are, and will be here for a long long time, so "man is destroying Earth" isn't a reason. Are you betting on the mother of comets or asteroids hitting?
As far as deficits not going away, uh, yes, they can. It's just a matter of will. In fact, I say to you that, one way or the other, deficits are going away soon. Because either we're going to get our fiscal house in order and cut our budgets, or we're simply goin
Re: (Score:2)
Other than vaporize when the Sun goes red-giant, you mean?
There really isn't a good reason why humans should not outlive the planet. Or the Sun, for that matter.
But we can't do the former without moving into space, and we can't do the latter without moving on out to the stars.
Re: (Score:3)
GP's concern with a nova or supernova seems to me to be displaced - but I am betting on that mother of all asteroids. Somewhere out there, I'm quite certain that there is a rock on a collision course with the earth. It may or may not be large enough to "destroy the earth" - but it doesn't need to be that big to "end life as we know it" on earth. There is evidence of previous rocks, one of them in Siberia, one in the Gulf of Mexico, that were truly devastating, with global implications. Other less devast
Re:A better idea (Score:4, Interesting)
a rock on a collision course with the earth. It may or may not be large enough to "destroy the earth" - but it doesn't need to be that big to "end life as we know it" on earth.
And yet, even after surviving an asteroid impact sufficient to destroy "life as we know it" or a full-on nuclear war, what remains of Earth will still be a million times more habitable than Mars.
We simply don't need colonies in space to ensure the continuance of the human race. If going all survivalist is what lights your fire, just build a sealed bio-dome in a mineshaft in Texas. It will be orders of magnitude cheaper, you'll get free oxygen and dirt to start with, and as a bonus, you'll get to find out whether it's even possible to build a self-sustaining colony. And if that answer turns out to be "no" (as it did for Biosphere 2 [wikipedia.org]), you can jump out the escape hatch without needing a working billion dollar rocket and a nine-month wait.
Space is not magic fairy dust which will make unworkable science or uneconomic technology spring into life. If sealed colonies in a can are possible, they're possible right here on Earth, for cheaper.
Re: (Score:3)
The colony is attainable in the near future - like the next 50 years. All that is required are funds, and people willing to endure some hardship. We had the means to put people on the moon about 40 years ago. Larger, more modern rockets could be built, capable of lifting materials up there to build a habitat inside one of those many vents. Supplies will be a problem at first, of course. Initially, all food, all water, all atmosphere, everything will have to be lifted. But, given only a few dozen peopl
Re:A better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
The Earth is a lot tougher than we are, and will be here for a long long time, so "man is destroying Earth" isn't a reason.
If you mean that the pile of crushed metal is still 'technically' a car sure we aren't destroying the earth. We are destroying the environment we absolutely need to survive. That's pretty much what people mean when "we're destroying the earth".
Re:A better idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Just so you know, the US isn't going to default its debt. Thats silly speculation from the conservative press thats led to a bit of nervousness from some isolated quarters because the statuatory debt limit is being reached.
But its just a debt limit, its got nothing to do with defaulting what so over, because pushing the default button would nuke the economy and the whitehouse knows it. It simply won't happen.
The US economy is still held to be a low risk of defaulting, simply because it doesn't need to, as it can just go austere instead. Or raise the limit.
Of course austerity is going to suck, because spending cuts wreck economies that are slumping, but life goes on.
If you ask me, its about time the US pulled out of a few wars and cashed in that peace dividend.
Re: (Score:3)
ha! the human race is doomed to this star system, we as a species will never get beyond this solar system, its a HUGE waste of money & resources & manpower to even try,
Re:A better idea (Score:4, Insightful)
That's right! Man will never fly! You tell them!
Re: (Score:3)
Because if man is to survive as a species,
Yeah, but there isn't a need for hurry with that. Earth isn't getting wiped out anytime soon and even if, we neither have found another habitable planet nor the technology to get there. Toying around on the moon won't change that.
If you are worried about survival of mankind at this point in time it would make a hell of a lot more sense to build a few huge underground bunker so that you have some protection against an asteroid.
That whole "lets get to the moon for mankind survival" talk always feels for me li
Re: (Score:3)
Because if man is to survive as a species, we must leave this planet... the sun will eventually incinerate the earth.
I'm not sure you've thought this through.
Sure, on a timescale of millions of years, the sun will burn out - and the only solution will not be just to leave the planet, but the entire solar system, which would require either some form of faster-than-light physics breakthrough, or a generation ship. Living on which would require developing ecological sustainability skills because it will have very limited resources. Those pesky Greenies! They've infiltrated even our shiny Space Future!
Meanwhile, on the same t
Re:A better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Not all world changing events come from above...
Re: (Score:3)
SHRINK: Why were you up in the tree?
YOSSARIAN: Because I don't want to fly any more missions.
SHRINK: Hmmm. But we're at war fighting against a danagerous and ruthless enemy.
YOSSARIAN: Well, while I'm getting shot at here, there are lots of guys back home, going out with girls, drinking and having a good time, and I don't see why I shouldn't too.
SHRINK: But what if everyone felt that way...wh
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So you want to go back into space? the top tax rate MUST go back to 90%
This is a non sequitur. What's government going to do that has anything to do with space? Never mind that I, at best, advocate a vast cutback in government spending, including space activities. Those "rich" are going to have to be the ones (they'd be the only interesting examples anyway) investing not government.
Instead what we are gonna have is a full on collapse, we will be NO different than the PIIGS in Europe, mark my words.
And the PIGS (I'm excluding Ireland out of a sense of optimism that they'll figure out cause and effect of their bank bailouts) are that way because the "rich" aren't pulling their fair share? Rathe
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL? You do realize money is a pretend construct that we don't need to live.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is much much worse than just not paying for things.
The government holds much of the world's wealth in bonds and the tax payers end up paying for it on interest. If it defaults we could expect a 16% interest like Greece and many Grandma's 401ks and even your home mortgage will be effected. This is because the banks have money in bonds paying for the deficit and will have to raise rates and deny loans to people and businesses that hire if they lose money. Your 401k may even have companies that have a certa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No one is going to be unable to inhabit earth just because a government runs out of it. Worst comes to worst you can just grow some crops and hunt some small game. You're not going to fall over dead just because you're $10 trillion in debt. Unless someone murders you over it, I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Or: (Score:3)
Or AARP, or AIPAC, or NRA, or SEIU or AFLCIO etc. Yes, those are nonprofits and or unions, but I don't think that was what you were implying.
Just have money or organzation that can help with elections and they'll listen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How much is "quite a bit", and how does it compare with their budget? If you're going to speak authoritatively, then you should be able to provide some numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Although it is futile to respond to a classical straw man argument, I do want to respond in this particular case:
Where is you sense of wonder, a desire to go someplace different or do something that nobody else has ever been before?
Where is it that we can go which will inspire humanity to do something new, something different, and to bring new ideas into nearly all discussions?
Going into space, and in particular sending people (not just robots) to visit other worlds and to find new places to explore is some
Re: (Score:2)
no, I don't think we will have learned our lesson by then
Even if we make our existence on Earth perfectly sustainable, the sun will eventually go red giant.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if we make our existence on Earth perfectly sustainable, the sun will eventually go red giant.
Just a tip - DON'T use this as an excuse not to balance your checkbook.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"we're multiplying like hell"
More than enough reason to explore and colonize space. You should look at a culture in a petrie dish sometime. The organisms consume all the resources available, then start producing the very poisons that will kill off the culture. That's us. We're over crowded already, and it's only going to get worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)