Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Hubble Upgraded; NASA's Future Not So Bright 242

Posted by michael from the one-hundred-seventy-two-million-cheap dept.
jokrswild writes: "After 5 space walks and 172 million dollars, Hubble has been successfully redeployed. Hopefully it will be able to amaze us yet again in its abilities to capture the unimaginable." And Captn Pepe writes: "Space.com has a couple of articles regarding what the Congressional Research Service and what NASA's new chief administrator have to say about the space agency's future plans and prospects. The short version is, don't hold your breath for a Mars mission."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hubble Upgraded; NASA's Future Not So Bright More

Hubble Upgraded; NASA's Future Not So Bright

Comments Filter:
  • NASA: "Man, I know humans are going to need somewhere else to live eventually, but that won't happen for a while, so I'll chill out and work on that later..."
  • They truly have the heart of explorers. But there are still unexplored parts of our world. Like, the oceans. Not all of the oceans have been fully explored, as in, their floors.

  • Retiring Hubble (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Christ-on-a-bike ( 447560 ) on Sunday March 10, 2002 @02:37AM (#3137107)
    The article says Hubble is going to be retrofitted once more and then retired in 2010. Would anyone like to fill me in on why it can't be kept going indefinitely?

    Is there going to be a much better replacement, for example? I would have thought it economic to keep Hubble in space, even if it was superseded. Guess that shows what I know.

    • Re:Retiring Hubble (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Stripsurge ( 162174 ) on Sunday March 10, 2002 @03:23AM (#3137179) Homepage
      Next generation space telescope [nasa.gov] is what you're looking for.

      With the way cutbacks are being made, perhaps Hubble's life will be extended a bit longer while the NGST is put on hold for a couple years. I seem to remember reading something about Hubble being run at the same time as the NGST for a little while. Too lazy to look though.

      I guess after a while the computers and other equipment eventualy break down over time because of all the radiation and junk. I realize that they built this thing with radiation shields and whatnot, but I don't think they stop everything 100% forever.
    • One reason is that NASA hopefully will have the Next Generation Space Telescope up and running reasonably soon. Another reason is that the adaptive optics technology that is being used in the larger telescopes (Keck, Subaru, Gemini, etc.) lets these telescopes yield images that are on par, and many times better, than what Hubble can provide. The new optical interferometry system that the Keck telescopes use promise far better resolution than even that, and if something needs to be fixed, it doesn't cost a half-billion dollars to get someone there to fix it.

  • Mars (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 3141 ( 468289 ) on Sunday March 10, 2002 @02:42AM (#3137118) Homepage
    don't hold your breath for a Mars mission.

    Unless it's from China.

    • Re:Mars (Score:2, Insightful)

      by qubit64 ( 233602 )
      That's probably true, however if the US sees China preparing a moon mission (how far along in space tech is China anyway?) they (the US) will likely increase spending in that area significantly. It's probably a good thing there's competition on earth because if the US didn't have any real competitors we'd probably never see any science funding.
      • Hear hear. I'm not sure all that much is known about where China is exactly - but I do remember reading somewhere that Canada was considering a Mars mission, and they certainly have the technology for it.

        Or what about the European Union? So keen to be recognised as a real world power, a mission to Mars might do them some good, both scientifically and politically.
    • Hey,

      don't hold your breath for a Mars mission.

      Unless it's from China.

      Uh... I try to avoid holding my breath for an entire mission to mars even when it *is* from china.

      -M
    • > don't hold your breath for a Mars mission.

      Unless it's from China.

      In which case the U.S. will suddenly take an unexpected interest in space exploration, to get people there first.

  • Pop Quiz (Score:5, Informative)

    by cybermage ( 112274 ) on Sunday March 10, 2002 @02:43AM (#3137120) Homepage Journal
    Ok, let's say you're an elected member of congress. How would your constituents like you to prioritize the following:

    A. Fight Terrorists
    B. Fix Economy
    C. Teach Our Children
    D. Fight Crime
    E. Cut Taxes
    F. Reduce deficit/Debt Reduction
    G. Explore Mars

    Assuming you don't have enough money for everything, what do you leave out?

    If you want NASA to go to Mars, I'd suggest you help the Chinese do it: The only thing that might sway congressional self-interest is competition. Nothing took the wind out of NASA's sails like the collapse of the Soviet Union.

    • Re:Pop Quiz (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ArsSineArtificio ( 150115 )
      Ok, let's say you're an elected member of congress. How would your constituents like you to prioritize the following:
      A. Fight Terrorists
      B. Fix Economy
      C. Teach Our Children
      D. Fight Crime
      E. Cut Taxes
      F. Reduce deficit/Debt Reduction
      G. Explore Mars

      I would note that we know how to do E, G, and likely A. To paraphrase Buzz Aldrin, that means that we should attempt A, E, and G.

      • Re:Pop Quiz (Score:1, Offtopic)

        by Alsee ( 515537 )
        I would note that we know how to do E, G, and likely A.

        I think you left out F?
        F. Reduce deficit/Debt Reduction

        What we can't seem to figure out is how to prevent politians from (1) trolling for votes by lowering taxes (2) trolling for votes by spending more on new and/or popular programs (3) making up the difference in "future tax revenues when the economy booms" (4) Ohh! Look! Puppies!

        -

    • Re:Pop Quiz (Score:4, Insightful)

      by xmark ( 177899 ) on Sunday March 10, 2002 @03:01AM (#3137145)
      OK, let's say you are Queen Isabella of Spain. Christopher Columbus comes to you with some high-budget whacko proposal to send a small flotilla to the "other side of the world" when no one even knows if there is another side of the world.

      How do you prioritize the following?
      1. Keep funding the war with the English.
      2. Keep funding your own court and all of the sycophants whose political support keeps you in power.
      3. Keep paying the Vatican tribute so that you can get your sorry ass into Heaven through papal dispensation.
      4. Keep throwing bones (in the form of subsidized wine and cut-rate fish prices) to the starving peasants who constitute the single largest economic class in your fading country.
      5. Keep slipping dough to support the pirates who make the Dutch mercantilists' lives hard and prevent you from totally ceding international trade to a bunch of guys wearing wooden shoes.

      The more times change the more they stay the same.
      • Every reasonably educated person of the time period would have known the earth was round, and the "other side of the world" had already been visited, so the analogy doesn't stick.

        The difference between Columbus and his contemporaries is that they had conflicting views of the size of the world. He thought it was one size, his opponents thought it was much larger.

        And Columbus was wrong, and all the other explorers and geographers were right; the world WAS much larger than he thought, and if the Americas hadn't been there he would never have reached his original goal.

        So to tell the truth, if Columbus had come to me for money in the 15th century, I would have turned him down, as his navigational calculations were completely off base, and the resources could be better spent on other things.

        Don't pretend dumb luck was any sort of wisdom or visionary thinking.

      • Re:Pop Quiz (Score:3, Insightful)

        by grytpype ( 53367 )
        Of course, Columbus's mission was to find an alternate route to the Indes and its natural resources. As far as Columbus knew, he was going somewhere that Europe was already doing extensive business with. And the point of the voyage was mercantile, ultimately.

    • Re:Pop Quiz (Score:5, Funny)

      by Dr_EddieB ( 565432 ) on Sunday March 10, 2002 @03:13AM (#3137170)
      There was a story floating around recently about a member of NSYNC paying to go into space as a 'entertainment trip' sort of thing. This could be used to pay for a mission to Mars without tax money. Many people, myself included, would be willing to kick in money to send the entire band of NSYNC into space, with the stipulation that they do not return.
    • ahh, you seem to have forgotten the "zeroth" priority there, which I shall call "space". ( . Steal Public Money and Give to Corporate Sponsors.) Of course, this priority is never actually detailed to the electorate even though it unfortunately consumes up to 66% of all available funds.

    • I can't say much for the rest, but most astronomers I know, me included, would put G first, as long as 'explore' doesn't necessarily mean 'colonise' or even visit. (Given they're astronomers I'm sure it's predictible so far.)

      They would then proceed to slash the budget of the International Space Station which for the last few years has been a massive drain on space exploration funding for no obvious scientific benefit that can't be achieved more efficiently in some other way.

      The main benefit of the ISS is for political and international relations, and that's the budget slice that it should be diverting.

      • Poor ISS.... I'm sorry, but you are wrong, wrong, wrong.

        ISS has its financial problems, but these have NOT affected the exploration budget. Space Science has been increasing steadily during the ISS era. It is AGAINST THE LAW for the NASA Administrator to move money from the science programs into ISS.

        The way the Congressional Appropriations system works, the odds are better that a cancelled ISS would help the Veterans Administration or the War on Terrorism than that they would stay within NASA. Congress just doesn't work that way.

    • Re:Pop Quiz (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Lumpy ( 12016 )
      what do you leave out? that's simple...

      C. Teach the Children.

      If the schools remove the entire altheletic programs and put that money into important things like Reading, Writing, Math, and science FIRST and then everything else last... there would be enough to go around. Teaching kids how to actually READ how to write and speak a sentence without being a profanity fountian (Sorry, ebonics is not a real language... Oh how politically insensitive I am!) Plus not let any, yet ANY student graduate without passing basic calculus, a basic physics,chemistry and computing class. you would have better students. but no... today we graduate on a regular basis students that cant read, that cant even calcualte the volume of a coke can, or even understand basic physical laws... but they kick a football real good!

      Teach the children is very low on the list. Force the schools to actually teach? that's high on the list.

      • Re:Pop Quiz (Score:2, Insightful)

        by aengblom ( 123492 )

        remove the entire altheletic programs and put that money into important things like Reading, Writing, Math, and science FIRST

        Don't let student graduate without Calculus, physics, chemistry, computing

        This is beyond idiotic. Athletics (even if you don't like them) provides meaningful stress relief, keeps students in shape (huge health benefits). It's about teaching kids to stay fit throughout their lives--so they live longer and think better. Oh and MANY of the smartests, best students are great athletes and athletics help them get there. Finally, it keeps many students IN school who would otherwise drop out.

        Your second idea is even worse (I'm assuming high school level here). Let's force students to struggle with corriculum they aren't going to ever understand. Some of what you mention is great, but it is bizarly limited to Math and Science. Everyone should take some science and some upper level sciences. But don't force people to spend half the curriculum in it when they aren't talented at it and don't enjoy it when there is something else equally valuable.

        I don't know where I'd be if I couldn't calculate the volume of a coke can. Although I'd say it's about 16+x oz

        • Woah.. you are way wrong.. tell me this.. Why does the "coach" usually get paid more than the CS teacher or the Physics teacher? Both of those teachers have a helluva-lot (tm) harder job. And then.. let's look at equipment.. If every dollar spen on the athelitic program was also spent on equipment for sciences and basic learning we would be over-equiped in schools and be throwing away computers/laptops/ not caring about glassware breakage in the chemistry lab, could actually afford to have student create complex projects in the Physics lab, etc.. but no. it doesnt happen

          now let's look at the biggest issue. Teachure Tenure.. Most schools are burtdened with at least 3-4 teachers that desperately need to be ejected. Senility, apathy, and downright mean coupled with the wide spattering of anti-social (read that as a sphinter personality type) that have no business teaching and molding the minds of youth.

          No the money is available.. if the Govt would force the schools to tell the PTA to shut up, the teachers unions to shut up, and actually do the job of education.. the resources are there. they are just mis-spent and wasted.. This is the american way in education, and why americans fail at the simplest part of life... education of the youth.
    • Ok, let's say you're an elected member of congress. How would your constituents like you to prioritize the following:

      A. Fight Terrorists
      Wow... like there weren't terrorists before. Don't tell me the United States government's desire for a blank cheque on war is truly a priority for anyone but them and their own self interests.
      B. Fix Economy
      That is not the government's job. They are supposed to regulate it, which they aren't doing.
      C. Teach Our Children
      ...and when did teachers and parents stop existing?
      D. Fight Crime
      Finally, something remotely within their realm... wait, don't cops do this from municiple taxes?
      E. Cut Taxes
      Why don't they just improve services with the taxes they have, then cut them, instead of going on a roller coaster. Regardless, tax cutting isn't going to spend all of the money.
      F. Reduce deficit/Debt Reduction
      ...they're doing this now? C'mon... don't tell me you believe that.
      G. Explore Mars
      Try putting this below "Personal Gain, Personal Debt to Corporations, Congress-wide vacation packages, etc"

      Assuming you don't have enough money for everything, what do you leave out?
      Well, in this case, I would suppose your brain.

    • Nothing took the wind out of NASA's sails like the collapse of the Soviet Union.

      We just need to put a little of that old spin on a Mars mission:

      "We must win this space race! We must reach Mars before the terrorists!"

    • Ok...so I am probably not a Congresscritter's typical constituent, but here goes...

      A. Fight Terrorists
      Yes, let's do it. I won't even whine (much) about my taxes being spent for this purpose.

      B. Fix Economy
      Yes, let's do it. Stop all industry subsidies. Lower tariffs and other trade barriers. Decrease tax rates and regulation. We can argue over the revenue impact of decreasing tax rates, but the other measures won't break the bank.

      C. Teach Our Children
      Not a government job, especially at the federal level. Eliminate the Department of Education and save money.

      D. Fight Crime
      Let's do it. The first thing to do is to free up resources to fight real crime by stopping the War on Drugs (tm). Overall, use less taxpayer money.

      E. Cut Taxes
      Of course. ;-)

      F. Reduce deficit/Debt Reduction
      Let's do it. Let's save money by only funding those cabinet-level departments we really need. Let's see, Defense yes, State yes, Justice yes...um, surely there is another cabinet level department we need. When I'll think of it I'll post again.

      G. Explore Mars
      Hmm. Cool program, but not something I would want to be a federal program, unless it was related to defense.

      Dammit, that means I posted all this for nothing, doesn't it...

  • Talk About A Low Budget! (Score:5, Funny)

    by GeekLife.com ( 84577 ) on Sunday March 10, 2002 @02:46AM (#3137125) Homepage
    They must really be cutting back if they're recommending people holding their breath on the Mars mission.
    • Hahaha :-)

      Now what the world needs is for China to get their asses (halfway) to mars. That's the only thing that'll scare the shit out the US congress enough to get the good guys there first.

  • Let's have a nasa rider (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bmetz ( 523 ) on Sunday March 10, 2002 @03:00AM (#3137143) Homepage
    You know those stupid "would you like to give $5 to the so-and-so party?" lines at the bottom of the 1040? Well, why not have a "would you like to give $5 to the send-a-man-to-mars fund?" I'll pretty much die before I give a dollar to a politician so he can put my name on a "sucker to call when I need more money" telemarketing list but I'll gladly give money to a cause that means something on a historical scale like this.

    • Really Direct Democracy (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I've always liked this idea, taken to its logical conclusion. We could have a truly direct democracy if each taxpayer decided on his/her 1040 what percentage of his/her taxes would go to fund which program or agency.

      As long as I'm being coerced to work 4 months per year as a slave of the Government( effectively, if not explicitly ), I should at least be given the choice as to how the extorted funds are to be allocated.
  • I believe shuttle missions cost about 500 million, so the total cost was closer to 700 million.

  • Just a point, but... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by anzha ( 138288 ) on Sunday March 10, 2002 @03:07AM (#3137162) Homepage Journal

    Just such a horrible thought! Making NASA accountable for what it spends!

    After all look at the blazing fiscal successes of the International Space Station and it being able to come in under budget!!!

    Or the success of the X-33...

    Or X-34...

    Or the X-30...

    Or how about how the shuttle and how much it brought down launch costs just like they said it would...

    Maybe there is a theme here, huh?

    Perhaps when NASA learns some fiscal responsibility then we'll get our mission to Mars from them. And it's quite possible the wonderous big budgets of Apollo aren't EVER coming back.

    In the mean time, it might actually be others who get there first. And, no, I don't mean other nations. John Carmack (yes, that John Carmack) is working on his one rocket company:here [armadilloaerospace.com] and Jeff Greasona nd crew are working on their own stuff here [xcor.com].

    I might just wanna give them some competition myself...;)

    • Re:Just a point, but... (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Just such a horrible thought! Making NASA accountable for what it spends!
      After all look at the blazing fiscal successes of the International Space Station and it being able to come in under budget!!!
      Or the success of the X-33...
      Or X-34...
      Or the X-30...
      Or how about how the shuttle and how much it brought down launch costs just like they said it would...
      Maybe there is a theme here, huh?

      You're kidding right? NASA *is* held accountable for what it spends which is why it's continually bean-counted into cancelling programs in the middle of their life. The space station is a giant mess specifically because NASA was forced into using it as a political chess piece. If the United States had built all the modules and launched it ourselves with no "help" from the rest of the world it would already be fully in orbit sending back scientific data from experiments. Our politicians, in their infinite wisdom, chose instead to make it a political tool in forging an olive branch with the Russians after the Soviet Union collapsed. Unfortunately what that turned into was the US Federal Government funding (directly and then later indirectly) the construction of the Russian built modules. When the Russian workers acted as direct contractors it worked fine and the one module was completely in good time. When we gave the money to the Russians to fund the workers themselves indirectly the next modules were delayed for YEARS because they funneled it away to other things! When the Federal Government stops trying to play global cop and prop up other governments with my tax dollars we'll be a lot better off.

      • Don't blame the politicians; there are plenty of scientists and engineers who should be held accountable, too.

        If NASA had some vision, or even a PLAN for a Mars mission, I'd support them.

        But they plan so far ahead into the future, that you can see that they're not doing anything of the sort.

        Scientific data is valuable, but the amount that we have to spend to get even a tiny amount of data is ridiculous, and a never-ending supply of expensive satellites that collect the same data as their predecessors, only with minutely greater accuracy, is not necessarily the best way to spend the money.

        They need more innovators and less cogs; more Freeman Dysons and Buckminster Fullers and less accountants, scientists, and engineers who are too scared to do anything revolutionary.
    • Or the success of the X-33...
      Or X-34...
      Or the X-30...

      What about the X-10 [x10.com]?

      :-)

    • Just a horrible thought! Making NASA accountable for what it spends!

      So, what, you're going to do a failure analysis of an enterprise involved with accelerating expensive and sometimes living things to escape velocity in aluminum tubes with chemical propellants?

      One wonders how well your analysis would hold up when evaluating the government's efforts to do virtually anything else. I quite frankly would like to see you do better.

      It is expensive to do things right in such a dangerous endeavor, and the primary reason for the much-publicized recent failures with NASA missions is exactly the same as the reason for the recent .com failures - bean counters who don't understand the effort and who fail to trust those who do.

      As for the other /.ers who are bemoaning the human value of space exploration, I pose the following historical analysis. DaVinci, Newton, Archimedes, and Edison were known for innovation and advancing human knowledge. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Hilary Clinton were/are known for social concerns. You do the math.

    • Keep in mind, all of these private ventures into space are ONLY possible due to the "wonderous big budgets" which NASA has enjoyed in the past.

      I agree that NASA needs to get it's act together fiscally, but don't sing the praises of other groups who come in after the basic (expensive) science and engineering are worked out. Those groups are cool in a different way; we still need someone to do the basic research.

      Perhaps NASA would be better suited as an organization that coordinated and contributed to University research on basic space science and engineering only, letting private groups, China and Europe do that actual flying? The shuttles are getting quite old now. Of course it would help if corporations could figure out a way to make money off of space other than communications satellites.
    • NASA is held publicly accountable for their research, but the military (who has n times the NASA budget) has had many more disasters.

      Difference is, we don't get to hear about many of the military cock-ups - National Security, and all that.

      Research is always going to have a certain fraction of experimental failure in it. It's the nature of the beast.
  • Actually, considering the budget a mission to Mars would have to work under, "holding your breath for a mission to Mars" might be precisely what is necessary. Although with the amount of money spent on fixing the Hubble, why can't we just teach an astronaught to breathe carbon dioxide? I should think the best solution here is to get one guy breathing O2 and exhaling CO2, and another guy breathing CO2 and exhaling O2. Wouldn't that be a pretty big budget savings right there?

  • Before the slew of posts going on about how space flight and exploration is just a waste of money you should take a look at this [thespaceplace.com].

  • Seriously. Privatise it. A massive government monopoly on space is a waste of tax payers money and is stiffling private enterprise.

    With shrinking budgets NASA is just an albatross round the neck of space travel.

    • I really don't think privatizing NASA would do any good. They'd still have the same people and managers and system of doing things. And everything they do is based on the fact that they don't have to make a profit. It would be years, if ever, before they could actually launch a shuttle and earn back the money spent on it.

      NASA was formed because space exploration technology was so hideously expensive no private company would ever engage in it, right? The trick to privatizing space is to offer an incentive to the free market above and beyond the wealth available in space. A large reward for successful and cheap launches has been suggested before, but I'd love to hear other ideas.

    • Privatize nasa?

      And exactly how much of NASA's work do you think has a direct finacnial benefit for any party.

      NASA is largely a Pure Science organization, that's part of the problem with it trying to find funding but this is not necessarily a bad thing.

      Congress " So what does that do ?"
      NASA " It'll teach us things we never knew before."
      Congress " Yes but can it pay for itself?"

      Knowledge is so more important than the financial bottom lines, yes it is still important to be careful and as prudent as possible but Privitization of NASA? Give me a break, are you trying to kill Pure Science research?
  • Well what do you do - I personally feel that manned exploration of space is very important. There is so much about it that we do not know yet - theres a lot to explore!

    But I also appreciate that the planet has a million other issues they need to resolve - its no good pretending that they dont exist, whilst pumping billions of dollars into space missions. People are starving, we are destroying the planet rapidly, and our resources are running out..

    Perhaps we need to look at what we are doing.
  • Human beings are the most intelligent species on the planet? Who says so? Why human beings do! That is a bit of a coincidence, isn't it. We say we are different to other animals, well in one way we are spectaculaly different, that is the degree to which we have evolved the ability to change our surroundings to suit ourselves, other mammals are the other way round, they are evolved to fit their environment. In evolving our ability to change our environment, we have coincidently evolved the ability to create an environment. Taking this to be a fact, leads me to the question, why if we evolved this fantastic ability, we are using it to steal an environment. All the raw materials are out there, all we lack is the imagination to put them together .... yet.

    Peter.

  • Mars or Bust. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Schwarzchild ( 225794 ) on Sunday March 10, 2002 @07:06AM (#3137446)
    Certainly going to Mars may not be popular with Congress or with the President but think about it in other terms. Putting an American on Mars could be a way to show the world and especially terrorists that America isn't going to sit on its laurels, that it will continue to innovate and explore.

    We need something to cheer for or at least a place other than Earth to escape to.

    Let's Explore Mars.

  • A manned mission to Mars (Score:5, Funny)

    by NetSerf2000 ( 557252 ) on Sunday March 10, 2002 @07:38AM (#3137474)
    Honestly, I think that we should load all the terrorists and all the dumb ass politicians from around the world who are a bunch of low-brow rednecks and send them off to mar's so that they can settle their differences up there and leave the rest of the human race in peace...

    Maybe just to make it interesting for the rest of us, send up about 50 camera's as well and a limited supply of oxygen and they have to fight for the right to be the last person breathing up there... and possibly get a free ride home...

    That way, everyone left back here gets the best of all worlds...

    Mars gets a manned mission,
    We stop the fight against terrorism,

    AND *shudder* for the reality tv freaks out there, they get the ultimate reality show of all time...

    Ohhh... and as a side benefit, we also get rid of all those useless politicians who are just screwing up everything for everyone else...



    *** I had a .sig, but I went and got a life ***

  • The space lottery (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Pelerin ( 33247 ) <rru@nOSpaM.pelerin.net> on Sunday March 10, 2002 @09:39AM (#3137652)
    The analogy with Columbus fails on a couple of respects, like the risk vs. benefit calculation.

    Columbus new that the risks in his mission were manageable, and the immediate payoff was high. (Of course, Spain went on to become a gold-based economy, importing pretty much all manufactured goods and got their clocks cleaned by British wool and things like that; quickly losing its world status, but that's another story). The risks of a manned Mars mission are unknown in some pretty important areas, all having to do with long-term exposure to space, for both humans and machines.

    Consider the moon landing. 10 Apollo spacecraft came before the one that made it. One of those (Apollo 3) burned horribly on the launch pad. And thanks to Hollywood we all know that Apollo 13 also failed to reach the moon. That's 2 failures in 13 missions; a 15% failure rate, and only considering technical failures, since the risks in the human biology area for that kind of mission were understood reasonably well by then, thanks to a succession of manned orbital flights.

    Now consider a Mars mission. We don't know what effects on human bodies (and minds!) will result from prolonged exposure to radiation and zero gravity for a mission that lasts that long, except they all look pretty bad. And while unmanned space probes have continued functioning for decades in space, they don't have life-support systems so we don't know what the risks are in that area either.

    So it seems to me that advocating a manned Mars mission now is not very rational. We would simply be praying we get lucky, but the odds right now don't look very good.

    We (the world, not just the US) need to know a whole lot more about what's involved before making any kind of vaguely rational decision to go to Mars. Use the Space Station to the max. Also put another one in orbit around the Moon for a few years. Learn what the glitches are likely to be and then decide.

    • Woah there cowboy. The Apollo that burned on the launch pad was Apollo 1 in a pre-flight test.

      After that they skipped ahead to Apollo 7, so there was no 2 through 6.

      Of the 7 craft designed to land on the moon (Apollo 11 through 17), there was a single failure (Apollo 13) that showed that NASA equipment is built durable and that inginuity can solve very challenging problems.

  • Great for huble, sux for exploration. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CFBMoo1 ( 157453 ) on Sunday March 10, 2002 @09:43AM (#3137657) Homepage
    I think it's great that Hubble is all fixed up. I also agree w/one poster about keeping it going till there is a better replacement. Look at the other probes and stuff we've launched that are still working today. Pioneer 10, Galileo, etc. I think it's only natural that we should keep Hubble flying as long as we can safely.

    Regular service missions should extend it's life a little longer, especially since it's already had a heart transplant.

    As far as NASA goes I think cleaning up wasted spending is important but not at the cost of exploration. Lord knows there might be a microbe or something on Mars that could cure cancer, aids, or some other nasty Earthly disease and it's just sitting up there waiting for us to get it. Or something could wipe out the entire population of Earth. We don't know though till we go there.

    I also saw another comment that said the Chinese could go for Mars. Imagine that, reminds me of the day when the USSR was making a shot for the moon but America beat them to it. Perhaps it will take another challenging country to get America going again and we may ask ourselves afterward why we didn't take the initiative to begin with after finding something amazing.
  • The short version is, don't hold your breath for a Mars mission.

    We'll do it ourselves then. Click here. [marssociety.org]

  • OK, a couple years back (too far back for my user page to remember), I made a post about how great the past NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin was, how he had managed to keep NASA going and doing wonderful things while having to dig through miles of endless beurocracy. I got slammed from another poster as to how he had kept NASA back, how we could have been doing so much more.

    So now NASA has O'Keefe. The guy who can stand up for minutes to talk about the future of NASA and not mention the word "space" once. Now we're wondering if humans really need to go up to LEO.

    Booyah. :(

    You could claim Goldin got NASA into this mess with bugetary problems, but I think any multi-government project is bound to be over-time and over-budget. And I think some of the cooler stuff, missions to Mars, return to the Moon (also never landed on by people in my lifetime), or even more robotic exploration of our own solar system become questionable under the lens of proper fiscal management.

    Oh well. Go China. I'm serious. I'm watching for their next Shenzauo launch with great anticipation. The Chinese should be proud...
  • NASA goes nuclear

    A new effort for NASA boosted by the White House is a nuclear power and propulsion initiative.

    Both NASA and the DOD have each studied nuclear reactors for spacecraft power generation, the CRS report notes. Under the Bush White House, nuclear power and propulsion work is being rekindled.

    "Although nuclear devices have advantages over other types of power and propulsion in terms of the amount of energy they produce versus their size and mass, some environmentalists oppose launching nuclear material into space. They worry that a launch accident, or an unintended spacecraft reentry, would spread radioactive material over Earth's population. Thus, the decision to reinvigorate NASA's program -- which would be conducted with the Department of Energy -- is expected to raise controversy," the CRS report states.

    NASA work in the nuclear power arena is also being tied to outer planet exploration.

    By using nuclear power and propulsion, NASA's O'Keefe has stated that spacecraft sent to such locales as Europa -- a moon of Jupiter -- and to distant Pluto, could get to those targets faster, and operate for longer periods of time.

    YES! Before we can actually do a manned mission to Mars, we need a way to get there in a shorter amount of time. At least on this issue, NASA has its order-of-operations straight. When propulsion and other basic issues get nailed down (keeping the crews alive, etc), then we can make our grand plans for exploration.

Slashdot Top Deals

The herd instinct among economists makes sheep look like independent thinkers.

Close