The Future of NASA 714
fishbonez writes "According to this article, the President's new space exploration initiative parallels his military strategy for space. The article doesn't directly say that NASA will become an integral part of the military plan but clearly that conclusion could be drawn without the need for a tinfoil hat. We have already seen that Hubble will be allowed to expire prematurely as a result of this new initiative. Is the re-allocation of funds within NASA really for getting to the Moon and Mars? Or is it just a cover for shifting toward military space applications? If true, how badly will NASA's scientific mission be effected if it becomes a conduit for giving research and development money to defense contractors?" UPI has a lengthy piece covering the development of the new space plan.
We own the moon (Score:5, Funny)
No, we don't! (Score:5, Informative)
"Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."
See it here [greaterearth.org].
Re:No, we don't! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, we don't! (Score:5, Insightful)
Which has, of course, nothing to do with the fact that a lot of people don't trust America or Americans. It has absolutely no relation with terrorist attacks on US targets all over the place.
Nopes.
That's just jealousy.
--
Mirror Inc.
My $87 Billion Space Program Proposal (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course this won't happen, which to me boggles the mind, as the boon to the economy and the world would be tremendous.
Re:No, we don't! (Score:4, Insightful)
IL doesn't mean anything since no one has the balls to back it up. and when you talk about space: anyone out in space is going to be in the same league and therefore the same position as the USA so they wont be arguing against property rights either. the only ones arguing will be those nations that dont have the ability to go out there.
Re:No, we don't! (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you know why nobody does anything, it is because Antrartica holds no strategic importance. Scientific, yes, but politically and militarily it is not worth it.
Space on the other hand is a whole different ball game, militarily, it has more strategic importance than any military base on earth.
For example, if a CIA spy is caught in China, it results in a huge political crisis, but there is no reaction to a US spy satellite overlooking Chinese territory. So the job is done without any negative political effect.
The same goes for a Chinese or Russian spy satellite overlooking US territory. Space technology will represent the next arms race.
Re:No, we don't! (Score:3, Funny)
--Liberally adapted from Treasure of the Sierra Madre
We can own buildings on the moon... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We can own buildings on the moon... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually The Outer Space Treaty (according to fas.org) "was the second of the so-called "nonarmament" treaties; its concepts and some of its provisions were modeled on its predecessor, the Antarctic Treaty. Like that Treaty it sought to prevent "a new form of colonial competition" and the possible damage that self-seeking exploitation might cause."
As long as US don't deploy strategic weapons on the moon who cares? As long as the moon is open to other countries for harvesting, science and recreation you can build the next Disneyland there if you want. Just stick to the signed and ratified [fas.org] treaties like other civilised countries.
Re:No, we don't! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:World government? (Score:3, Funny)
a human
Re:No, we don't! (Score:5, Interesting)
Have you noticed, per chance, that virtually all earthly nations were formed by some sort of violent appropriation and/or occupation?
Well, how on, ummmmmm, earth, do you think the future nations of the solar system are going to be formed?
Or do you expect that in all the human universe only the earth will have nations and conflict and all the rest of it will be one, big, happy, rainbow coalition commune?
KFG
Re:No, we don't! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:No, we don't! (Score:4, Interesting)
In fact, it is in the US 'pressing national interest' not to break the treaty. Because if the US breaks it or discards it, the treshold for others, like Russia and China, to do likewise is severly redused.
Article IV
States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.
The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortification, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.
Read the first paragrah again - the treaty forbids the deployment of nukes in space. If this treaty don't hold, what is to stop the Ruskis and the chinks to launch several satelites with huge nukes and have them in orbits putting them right over the US? Think EMP, virtually zero reaction time attacks and blackmail... do the US goverment want that to happen? I seriously don't think so. Despite all the stupid stuff politicans do all over the world, they are usually good at not putting themself in a situation where they are at the mercy of someone else.
Re:No, we don't! (Score:5, Insightful)
The US has an excellent record of keeping treaties. We even exited the ABM treaty according to the terms of the treaty.
The reason the senate has been so active in NOT ratifying Kyoto, is precisely BECAUSE the US adheres to treaties.
Find some other reason to hate America.
The real future of NASA (as I see it) (Score:4, Interesting)
First, NASA is to become more of a publicity tool whose true merits are sidelined by the need for good press. We've already seen this in the failure of NASA management to save Columbia by having it dock with the ISS until another shuttle could launch and with the failure of NASA management to prevent the Challenger launch to gain reputability with then-president Reagan. Perhaps the whole show should be run by engineers and the head of NASA made a 20-year Congressional appointment as a way to solve the problem. If nothing else, the shuttle should be either overhauled or replaced outright over the next 20 years as it was never able to live up to its original promises anyway.
Second, NASA will be the place for the military to test new high-altitude and orbital equipment. Air Force personnel are already working on a shuttle capable of deploying teams of people anywhere in the world inside of 12 hours while the "Star Wars" project or an equivalent will be deployed against potential threats from nations possessing limited quantities of intercontinental ballistic missiles. Other exotic military technologies and observation/communication equipment will be deployed using NASA to get around the existing military treaties or just to replace outmoded technology.
Re:The real future of NASA (as I see it) (Score:5, Interesting)
We've already seen this in the failure of NASA management to save Columbia by having it dock with the ISS until another shuttle could launch...
I thought that this wasn't a real option simply on account of the different orbital inclination of the Columbia mission and the ISS? (I'm not sure I'm using the right terminology. I mean the angle of the orbital plane and the equator.)
The ISS orbits on a fairly large inclination. This allows craft from the Russian launch facilities to reach the station easily. Nearly all flights (other than ISS missions) from the Kennedy Space Center orbit at a shallower angle.
It is relatively easy to adjust your orbital altitude in flight, but large changes in inclination require a lot of energy. I doubt that the shuttles manuevering thrusters would have been able to perform the large adjustment of inclination.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Technology is inherently bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe when you tree huggers finally realize that there will never be peace and love the world over, only then will you finally come to terms with the world as it really is.
Technology will be used in evil ways. However, it will also be used in ways that are amazingly good.
Have some faith.
Re:Technology is inherently bad (Score:5, Insightful)
If you manage to completely automate the manufacturing process, and improve renewable energies then everything should theoretically become cheaper. Throw humanity in the equation and you have 1984.
Re:Technology is inherently bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Only after the last tree has been cut down,
only after the last river has been poisoned,
only after the last fish has been caught,
only then will you find that money can not be eaten.
(Cree indian proverb)
Re:Technology is inherently bad (Score:4, Insightful)
NASA is dying... Bushcraft Confirms (Score:5, Funny)
Another
Space
Army
Makes perfect sense. Bush loves spying.
Re:NASA is dying... Bushcraft Confirms (Score:5, Funny)
China's military plans (Score:3, Insightful)
They must surely have plans as well, but we never hear anything about them -- no news, no speculation -- nothing.
Re:China's military plan? Human Wave Attacks! (Score:3, Interesting)
"We don't hear much about China's space program because they're ~20 years behind us"
This maybe the case, but,
1. Can you remember the moment when Japan stopped building nasty horrible automobiles and started producing some of the worlds finest?
2. It's been 30 years since any of you boys went to the moon, so, by your calculation, they're already well capable of getting there on their own
Re:China's military plan? Human Wave Attacks! (Score:4, Informative)
Things in space exploration have been so slow, or at least so unspectacular, during last 20 years, that we're often forgetting that it took only about 10 years from the first American in orbit to the first American on the Moon... And that was with nobody having done it before, with 1960's technology and with much less general data on the moon than today. I'd imagine it'd be quite possibe for China to get a man to the moon in 5 years. Technically possible at least, financially might be a different matter...
We have to worry then... (Score:5, Interesting)
About the Hubble, IIRC, the "official" decision to abandon it is more because of the reduced shuttle fleet (not worth risking the few shuttles left) and the upcoming better space telescope. The latest Bush space plan has little to do with the Hubble... or that's what they say.
It Will Never End (Score:5, Funny)
Culture of Empire vs. Culture of Exploration. (Score:5, Insightful)
Turning NASA from an Exploring agency to an empire-building agency is evil, pure and simple.
This was supposed to be a nation dedicated to freedom and increasingly we're becoming the most frightening and dangerous regime on earth. Our civil liberties have been strip mined, and we're saddled with a government we can't trust and may not be able to get rid of.
We started as Athens, and now we're rapidly heading towards Rome. What a lousy, bloody, stupid waste of the potential of a great nation this Bush has wrought.
I'm tired of the Democrats, and I'm tired of the Republicans. The libertarians show promise, but the Libertarians suck. The greens are a good idea, bu the Greens are fascists, and Nader is a basket case.
We need fundamental fixes: to admit that the Limited Liability Corporation was a grave error, or at least that the Constitution has proved inadquate in it's current for to keep such beasts under control, for starters**. We need to find a way of representing out views outside the follow-the-herd thinking of conventional political parties, so that intelligent debate, healthy scepticism and scientific fact get a fair hearing in the political arena.
NASA really once was our crown jewel: an essentially peaceful effort put the first human being on the surface of another world. Yes, there were nationalistic reasons for doing it, but we did it in peace, and we did it for everybody.
To see it militarized when there is no credible space-related threat to the safety or liberty of Americans is anathema.
I don't know what we can do to reverse this corruption of our ideals, but I hope somebody else does. How's about using this thread to think about that.
(**) The Bill of Rights would have contained a clause banning the formation of corporations, had not the states of the time had adaquate anti-corporate legislation themselves. In hindsight, this may have been the most critical error the Framers made.
Re:Culture of Empire vs. Culture of Exploration. (Score:3, Insightful)
Limited Liability makes jobs possible. Business needs to be able to make mistakes. Investors do not make day to day decisions in the business, so they should not be punished for day to day mistakes. They are only punishable for what they have invested, nothing else. If investors were liable for any potential thing the business does, they would not invest nearly as much. This spells bad news for economic growth, w
Re:Culture of Empire vs. Culture of Exploration. (Score:5, Interesting)
In a nutshell: companies are taking too many risks in areas like biotech, handling of toxic chemicals, and consumer safely. They're using the unlimited protection afforded them by the government in ways which harm us all.
Abraham Lincoln on Corporations [commondreams.org]
"As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."
Now, does this sound familiar to you? It is modern America. Yes, we've got very used to the economic benefits of limited liability. However, the policital cost - individual voters losing control of the political process to big money is simply unacceptable.
It's time to rein in corporate power and put people back in the driver's seat.
Math Geeks (Score:4, Funny)
At New York's Kennedy airport today, an individual later discovered to be a public school teacher was arrested trying to board a flight while in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a setsquare, a slide rule, and a calculator.
At a morning press conference, Attorney general John Ashcroft said he believes the man is a member of the notorious al-gebra movement. He is being charged by the FBI with carrying weapons of math instruction.
"Al-gebra is a fearsome cult," Ashcroft said. "They desire average solutions by means and extremes, and sometimes go off on tangents in a search of absolute value.
The Militarization Of Space (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact remains that the militarization is space is virtually inevitable - if not by us, by someone else. One of the reasons for the Chinese Shenzhou manned-spaceflight program is to put electronic and optical intelligence platforms in orbit. The rear section of the Shenzhou orbiter is left in low Earth orbit where it can be used for photographic and electronic surveillance. Just as our space program lead to more advanced space-based intelligence platforms, the Chinese are doing much the same.
What's more worrying is the threat of satellite hunter-killer devices. Imagine if someone developed the technology to knock out the GPS grid - both our military and our economy would suffer greatly.
We can't naively assume that space will only be used for peaceful means, and if we don't take the initiative in ensuring that we have adaquate countermeasures we take on significant risk.
On the other hand, the process is going to be slow. Space exploration is very expensive, and only a major power can afford significant investments in space. We're not going to see al-Qaeda or even North Korea develop a sat-killer any time soon.
Chances are we'll see a new space race between the US and China, with the moon being the primary goal for both. The technological advancements from such a race will be as important as the advancements we got from Apollo. New materials, new energy source, new biotechnology are all potential spin-offs from space exploration.
Rather than fear increased space travel, we should be welcoming it. Yes, there will be a military presence in space, but the benefits of space exploration far outweigh the risks.
Re:The Militarization Of Space (Score:5, Funny)
I meant to say I welcome American militarization of space. Only the Americans can do it, only the Americans can be trusted not to abuse the power. If it were China or Russia, I'd be much more scared because they've both shown no compunction about killing millions of their own people. I shudder to think what they would do to the rest of us.
Re:The Militarization Of Space (Score:4, Insightful)
He's also free to vote the bastards out of office.
How come nobody ever says "You're always free to vote" or "You're always free to state your opinion." or what about "a diversity of opinions and the freedom to express them is a vital part of a health society."
Or do you believe that our democracy is so fragile that it cannot withstand any dissent? That's not what the First Amendment says.
Captain Midnight, the original sat-kill (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know about that -- Captain Midnight [textfiles.com] did a nice number on a satellite with little more than the right opportunity. My apologies for the comparison, as Captain Midnight was certainly not a force of evil like those two entities, but the point stands to say -- you don't have to put a bullet through a satellite to kill it.
The very truth... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is such a shame that those who don't take these kinds of initiatives put themselves at risk because if NO ONE took the initiatives at all, there would be no risk. I often wish that was how the world worked. Instead we get the endless cycle:
Country 1: We have to build it first or we will be at risk.
Country 2: Look Country 1 is building them, so we have to build them also to keep up or we will be at risk.
Country 3: Well, if Countries 1 and 2 are building them then we can't be left behind.
Country 1: Uh-oh. Countries 2 and 3 are building them, so no we need to build more and better ones or we will be at risk.
Country 2: What's that? Country 1 is building more?? Well, fire up the factories. We need more too.
Country 3: Us too!!!
Country 4: Hey guys. I have an idea. How about none of us build any of them and there will be no risk.
Countries 1, 2, and 3: *Simultaneous Laughter*
Country 1: Now...where were we? Oh yes, BUILD MORE!!
Countries 2 and 3: US TOO!!!
ad infinitum
*sigh*
Re:The Militarization Of Space (Score:5, Insightful)
The simple fact is that most of the world's people are quite content withouth space being militarized, and the only people who long for weapons can be divided into 2 categories:
1) The agressors, and
2) Those who feel a need to defend themselves from (1)
As recent world history has shown us, despite all the scare-mongering over 'Weapons of Mass Destruction', the real agressors come from the country that makes and sells more weapons of mass destruction than all the rest of the countries combined. And for those interested in the competitors, Israel and the UK come a distant 2nd and 3rd.
I'm not implying by this that Americans are inherintly evil or backward ( as they imply of their enemies ). The US is simply the pinnacle of the world's capitalist empire, and as such, is the most glarying obvious example of what capitalism is really about: profit at any cost.
And that's why the US targets societies with different value systems to it's own for conquering and assimilation: as examples of alternatives to capitalism, they are the biggest threat to the US goal of total global military domination. Don't think that's what the plan is? Check out http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmeri
Re:The Militarization Of Space (Score:3, Funny)
I consider all of them heroes. They are the Minuteman of this era. They will do anything to protect America and to ensure that those who threaten it are destroyed. There is nothing wrong about that at all.
If you're not with us, that is.
Re:The Militarization Of Space (Score:3, Interesting)
There was a very good reason why W insisted that the inspectors check all the universities. It is where they bulk
Wrong w.r.t. Israel. (Score:3, Informative)
Then there's the nuclear capability of Israel.... can't imagine where that came from.
Maybe you need to work your imagination a little harder.
Israel's capabilities are the result of both its having a high-skilled personnel fleeing Europe and its cooperation with France (first) and South-Africa (later).
In fact, the US tried to deter the Israelly efforts from the start.
Israel gained nuclear capabilities inspite of the US efforts.
Re:The Militarization Of Space (Score:3, Interesting)
America doesn't "imply" that enemies are evil, they go ahead and put them in the Axis of Evil.
Capitalism: It's not profit at any legal cost, it's profit at any cost so long as you can get away with it. Enron for example. Not that this is anything new; Machiavelli spelled it out explicity about half a millenia ago.
Being opposed to the neoconservative doctrine doesn't make you a socialist. Neocons are mostly ab
Re:The Militarization Of Space (Score:5, Insightful)
X-33 (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't true! (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullcrap. (Score:3, Interesting)
I forgot-The system is at Edwards AFB (Score:3, Informative)
Lots of He3 but... (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, I'm generally in favour of space exploration - especially if we can send some of our polliticians out on non-return trips ;)
In fact, the sooner we open up this new frontier to the point where our chompin'-at-the-bit youngsters can get off planet before they ruin this one for the rest of us, the better.
Dear governments of the world - please let those who would sacrifice their lives on a less than 50/50 chance of success in this venture have a go at it. Our fore-fathers had about the same chance when opening up new territories here on Earth - and the energy accumulated in the recent generations is chafing enough that it is causing the rest of us grief.
Re:Lots of He3 but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Lots of He3 but... (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_0
They said there is about 70 tons He3 per million tons of regolith.
That comes in at concentrations that would be a nice gold or platinum deposit on earth (about 1.75 oz/ton He3), but is a very low concentration for anything other than a precious metal. The extraction temp quoted in the article is 800C (1470F) and would require a lot of energy. This would require very large solar panels and MANY trips to get them up there.
No, you are not going to fabricate solar panels on the moon.
Then there is the distribution of He3 in regolith. If it only occurs in the top few inches of regolith, you need the kind of equipment that can mine only that portion. Otherwise you dilute the ore feed and end up treating material devoid of the resource at great cost.
Then you have to deal with removing the gasses that come off in addition to H3. Water and O2 woudl be useful, but F, Cl and the other volatiles typically found in rocks and regolith would be a problem.
Assuming we come up with a feasible fusion reactor, it looks like it will be cheaper to deal with neutrons than import a clean fuel from the moon.
Napkins (Score:3)
That just takes out all the romanticism (Score:5, Interesting)
Now compare that with launching missile pads up into space. It's just not the same. I mean if I wanted to do Military stuff, I'd want to fly a fighter jet, or something...not monitor space weapons we'll never use from the ground.
NASA's recruiting potential --;
Re:That just takes out all the romanticism (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because you were a kid. You're an adult now. You understand more. And you're probably much more cynical. Your world view has shifted dramatically.
The program you are all sentimental about was part of a pissing contest between two superpowers holding guns to each other's heads. That doesn't really fall in line with the whole concept of discovering new things and making friends with aliens.
Heck - during the 60's, American culture couldn't even hold on to the "making friends with aliens" idea. SciFi flicks of the era started with aliens being our friends and possibly saviors. Then Hollywood latched on to the idea that aliens might not be friendly. Aliens became all manner of monster and mennace. Mix in a bit of Red Scare and you got Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
Back to reality.
Why did the US get so upset over Sputnik to begin with? It doesn't take much imagionation to see the military aspects.
Don't get me wrong. I think the space program is more than military application. But the military aspect has always been there. Whether you recognized it or not.
Face it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Face it (Score:3, Insightful)
-- Build space weapons to make Bush's buddies rich?
-- Or do real science that enriches mankind?
I have a sinking feeling science is going to lose out.
Re:Face it (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly. I mean - we keep doing this kind of thing. What the hell was the use of constantly sailing to this "New World" place? I mean - ships already hit the shoreline once. All this colonization and exploration crap. Worthless. History's superpowers should have been more worried with building ships to sail further.
am a bit curious (Score:3, Interesting)
(1) Whoever goes to the moon next - should find the flag left behind the astronauts (right?)
(2) It is kinda early to worry about, but how will extra-planetary real estate be organized? First come first serve? (yah, a lota land rite now - but what about the next 50 yrs or more)
Assimov comes to mind, he painted this horrific image of colonies on other planets - looking down on earth and earthlings - and finally milliniums later - refuse to believe that life originated on a single planet.....
As we plan for the future, we don't look far enough into the future (nucleur weapons and global warming being immediate examples)
Hubble Schmubble (Score:5, Insightful)
Hubble is a Cracker Jack toy compared to whats on the books right now. Letting Hubble fall into obsolescence is a _blessing_ in a way, since it paves the way for newer, better (interferometer!) telescopes to go into the mix.
Besides, it's not like we're at a loss for data. Hubble generated enough data to keep researchers busy for decades. Let it burn up, as far as i'm concerned. Make way for the bigger and better.
Cheers,
Re:Hubble Schmubble (Score:5, Insightful)
The James Webb telescope isn't scheduled to go up until 2010. Hubble is expected to fail between 06-08 without maintenance. Also, Hubble has capabilities (particularly UV detection) that no other currently planned telescope has. They are not replacements, but companions.
The other thing that needs to be brought up is that O'Keefe said only 40 million will be saved by not fixing Hubble. Over 200 million has already been spent on developing the new instruments and the replacement parts (batteries, gyros etc) for it. The astronauts want to volunteer to fix it, safety concerns be damned, and the proposed rockets to maneuver it safely through the atmosphere (so it comes down in the ocean) are likely to cost more than the shuttle mission.
Hubble is a unique resource (and a piece of history) that IMO should be kept operational for as long as possible, and then be brought back to the Smithsonian. Sure we have lots of data to analyse, but why shouldn't we keep making new discoveries and learning about the universe we live in?
There aren't any replacements (Score:4, Insightful)
It's also there and it's working right now. Hubble has proven itself to be reliable for longer than a decade, which is one of the best possible guarantees that could be hoped for in space. Throwing it away to invest entirely in something not yet proven is a big gamble. The cost of keeping Hubble working for a few years longer is quite low compared with the overheads of designing, building and launching entirely new projects.
Of course it'd be great to have future projects in due course, but suggesting that Hubble has "generated enough data" is a very shallow viewpoint. There are never a shortage of applications for people to use it -- big telescope time is hard to get. There are also $200 million instruments that were designed and built for the next Hubble mission that will now never be used. The James Webb Space Telescope, for example, which is still in a relatively conceptual design phase, also doesn't obsolete Hubble. They're designed for quite different things.
In any case with George Bush's massive "reallocation" of funding within NASA, this is one of the shakiest times for this type of genuine scientific project. Don't be surprised if the JWST and other similar projects are also scuttled in the near future in favour of the politically popular but scientifically dubious goal of getting more human ballast into local space.
No offense (Score:5, Informative)
What other reason would the figurehead for PNAC (earlier post on them here [slashdot.org]) have for announcing an enhanced space initiative when the biggest problem his administration is facing is budgetary concerns?
When this was first announced the first sentence out of my lips were "Oh fuck, here comes the militarization of space." Just so we can establish a Cringely-esque track record, when I saw the WTC collapse the first words out of my mouth were "Oh fuck, there go our civil liberties" (and Patriot II was just passed under our noses this last month).
This should come as a surprise for absolutely nobody save foreigners just chiming in. I suggest picking up Perle's new book for a roadmap of what we'll see this administration try and pull if they get elected next term (and they probably will).
--Ryvar
Helium 3 & Fusion (Score:5, Informative)
Thus, a moon base by 2020 would have absolutely no connection to this in my mind. Frankly, you aren't going to get any militaristic benefit from going to the moon, other than cowing other countries into submission. And we should already be able to do that through other means...
All this, of course, is not to say that I don't support going back to the moon - I do, for scientific reasons - but as a military objective, this whole helium 3 thing is silly right now.
Every heard of the Carlyle Group? (Score:4, Flamebait)
Space technology has been on the fringes of their interests. However, if you want to figure out the real motivation behind this latest space deal, look to see what the Carlyle folks have been buying lately. These guys only think with the brains in their hip pockets.
By the way, Poppy Bush and his friends are major participants. Saudis like the royals and Bin Ladins used to be big players in the group, too, but they were persuaded to get out. Looked bad, you know.
Re:Every heard of the Carlyle Group? (Score:5, Informative)
hubble was on ice anyway (Score:3, Insightful)
But really, what's wrong with the militarization of space? Almost all the sci-fi tv shows dealing with space, yes, the ones you know and love, are populated by military folks: star trek, babylon 5, stargate sg-1, battlestar galatica come to mind. The only space show I can think of that didn't have the military as primary characters was firefly, which died an unfortunate (and probably premature) death.
Let's face it, the military are the only ones who are crazy enough to spend billions for a strategic position. No sane commercial enterprise is going to spend that much to build a space beachhead, because there's no ROI. If commerical enterprises can leverage off of the military infrastructure, well, that makes it a bit more acceptible from an ROI point of view.
Specious assumption (Score:5, Insightful)
That said I wouldn't argue that a build up of the manned space program could be a cover for taking the high ground in space. Control of the skies is what gives the US such a commanding advantage in wars these days. Certainly a reason the US is none too happy to see Europe launching Galileo its own GPS system.
I won't debate whether this makes the US evil or not, but it could be seen as prudent in maintaining a lead militarily. To expect China to remain to peaceful purposes only in space may be a bit naive. At this point I don't support nor condemn US space initiatives. I wait to see if this all turns out to be political rhetoric. We all rejoiced in the science and progress of the Apollo era, but without a cold war to drive it there would have been slower progress in space. Now that the world has become a more dangerous place again, we may see such programs again. A boon for science, but with a cloud inside the silver lining.
Re:Specious assumption (Score:5, Informative)
Just wanted to clarify this. Columbia was the only shuttle with a large enough cargo bay to fit Hubble inside it. This is only a problem when you want to bring it back to earth safely (although IIRC Columbia was used to launch Hubble, but that's not a problem anymore).
It's probably not the only reason for cancelling the service mission, but a shuttle can't reach the ISS from Hubble's orbit. Thus no lifeboat if something goes wrong (besides sending up another shuttle). Never mind that this has been the case for all (5-6?) previous Hubble missions.
The answer should be obvious... (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a rhetorical question, right?
Of course this is just a cover for shifting towards military space applications. Bush, like any modern elected federal politican, doesn't listen to the people -- he listens to the media corporations and the corporations that bankrolled his election (that would be most of the big ones, for anyone who cares to ask).
Because of this, Bush will do whatever is in the interests of those corporations. One of those interests is to make sure the U.S. remains on top militarily, because the U.S. can't sieze the assets of other countries (e.g., Iraq) or credibly control the actions of other, smaller countries without a strong and influential military.
As difficult to defend against as the U.S. military is right now, it will be completely unstoppable if it manages to gain and retain control of space. Space-borne gun platforms simply can't be touched by anything any third-world country can produce, and producing the required equipment would probably bankrupt many of them. That makes such platforms impossible to defend against.
Now that China and India have shown some initiative in their quest for space, Bush and the corporations that back him want to make sure they can never challenge U.S. military authority. That requires that the U.S. take over and control space in Earth orbit at the very least. Hence the rush.
It goes without saying that a number of the U.S. corporations that back Bush will also benefit from the lucrative contracts that will be given to them for all of this. Contracts paid for by everyone who pays U.S. income tax. Contracts paid for at gunpoint.
If the U.S. develops a manned presence on the moon and elsewhere, it will be a military presence only, at least until corporations figure out how to make it profitable in the short term to be there.
Frankly, I don't think we'll get to Mars prior to a U.S. economic collapse due to the long term consequences of the "jobless recovery" we're currently in. That means we won't get there at all.
The Dumbing Down of the Space Program (Score:5, Funny)
PowerPoint dumbs down another presentation
Hubble (Score:3, Insightful)
It ALREADY is military! (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Most of NASA's contractors are also defense contractors (Lockheed, etc.), so, it is obvious that _any_ increase in NASA's budget will lead to some defense contractors getting more money.
2. Many of the astronauts are air force officers, since the skills needed to pilot a space craft and a fighter plane are similar. (Chiefly, the ability to stay conscious at a high # of G's)
3. The _original_ space program and the Moon Mission were intended to show the Soviets US tech was better. If the new program competes with the Chinese, it will be the same situation with only the names of the countries changing.
Re:It ALREADY is military! (Score:3, Insightful)
So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Permanent base on moon (Score:4, Interesting)
The costs of both the space station and a moon base would not be that different from one another. Though the moon base would have allowed for much larger living quarter, plant life for primary oxygen supply. Further plant life could have been that of vegtables and other garden eatery. Exercise room, A real bedroom
Plus this would have allowed for daily sampling, atmospheric tests, and a wide variety of other scientific tests that the previous short lived manned mission to the moon could not have provided due to time constraints.
With the recent issue of the space station losing air pressure due to a leak (I beleive was in the living quarters), could have been potentially deadly. While a moon base could have a stock of oxygen and food that is never touch that would last as long as they needed until help could arrived. If the space station were to lose air at a high rate or have severe structural damage.. hwo long do you think it would take to get there? Answer... Too Long!
The flow will be both ways (Score:5, Interesting)
In the past, for example, shuttle development costs grew as a result of military requirements. Let's hope that this will not happen again.
The general approach should be modular. For example, much of the data architecture, flight software, crew protection, and engine technology could be designed as modular components that plug into an overall standard. The military and NASA would then assemble their own spacecraft while benefiting from shared development costs and manufacturing overhead.
Those who wish to keep the military out of space have their heads buried in the sand. Today, a vaccuum of power exists in space because no country as of yet has the capability to project its power there. It would be foolish for the US not to strive to project power into space while we have an advantage. Because wheter we do or we do not, nations that decry our military efforts today will themselves grab for power when it is within their reach tomorrow. Treaties and regulations do not pacify conflict. Historically, they have only served to codify and legitimize balance of power and pervasiveness of justice that prevents conflict. When no such balance exists, using treaties and accords to contain conflict is like trying to wrap up fire with paper. Witness, for example, the Mideaster peace process.
Somehow I'm just not buying it .... (Score:3, Insightful)
Militarisation of space - one option (Score:5, Insightful)
As it is now, space seems a bit like the wild west - noone cares who they fly over, or what's orbiting above them, or whatever.
Likewise we should develop a method for dividing up the moon, mars etc. that is not based on present capabilities but on the likelihood that one day any nation will be capable of utilising these resources. Or better yet put them all under the total control of the UN, as things too big for one nation to claim for itself.
I'm not a US basher, but just because the US is powerful right now doesn't mean it should have total rights to everything it finds in space. I mean, by that logic the US itself would still be part of France and Britain.
Personally I wish there were more collaborative space exploration. Instead of 3 countries/consortiums sending a probe each to Mars, we could have a probe to Mars, one to Europa, and one to Venus.
On a political note [not for moderation]: America, the rest of the world is praying that you wake up and dump Bush this year. It may be 50:50 in the polls in the States, but from outside your continuing refusal to realise that he is a dangerous, incompetent, scheming, money grabbing, corrupt fool is increasingly alarming. Mod -100000 for flamebait, but that's how it is. Please realise though: I love the US, I just wish someone would drive it in the right (or should that be centre-left) direction.
Re:Militarisation of space - one option (Score:4, Informative)
For example, there's no chance that we could put a space station in geosynchronous orbit. So if China decides they don't want us to do any space station research, we'd have no way to develop it.
Re:Militarisation of space - one option (Score:3, Interesting)
Because the first satellites were launched by the superpowers, and other countries didn't want to argue with them. There was actually some talk of dividing space up like this at the time, but when the USSR launched Sputnik, the US decided not to complain about it flying over. After all, the US wanted to fly its satellites over the USSR too.
Technically, some geostati
Re:Militarisation of space - one option (Score:3, Interesting)
Not everyone is proud of that touch of legal genius.
Legislation has no meaning without enforceability. That is a fact of politics and a fact of life.
Aerial space can be legislated because it is both enforceable and has a direct reason to be enforced:
- It is clearly viable that
General Comments... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's on the record as being re-allocated for those purposes, so that seems like a redundant question. I supose you're asking "is that their real purpose"? Perhaps a longer-term perspective would ask the question of, what is the purpose of getting to the Moon and Mars, besides "exploration"? Historically, exploration has had economic, security, and political motivators. This is just more of the same, it appears...
Or is it just a cover for shifting toward military space applications?
Same argument. When Columbus sailed the ocean blue, and the King and Queen of Spain underwrote his voyage, don't you think that people complained that the government was using that voyage as a cover for shifting towards military nautical applications? Of course they did... Ever heard of the Spanish Armada? Spain succeeded in developing it's military nautical applications... war galleons, collonies in the americas, gold, etc. etc. Of course, they later lost control of most of it, but at the time it was simply an investment which later paid of in terms of economic, political, and military applications...
If true, how badly will NASA's scientific mission be effected if it becomes a conduit for giving research and development money to defense contractors?
Maybe none at all. There is a "science of war" after all... Take the Atlantic Research Corporation, for example... They conducted scientific research into the area of solid-fuel rockets... Pretty serious scientific applications, all things considered. Also very serious defence, political, and economic research as well. All things considered, NASA's scientific mission could possibly be improved if they could develop a new line of shuttle replacements that could also serve defence applications... And the armed services have a repuation of having equipment which works pretty well, now-days... You never know when some extra terrestrial object or species is going to start landing on our chunk of rock... Better be ready...
Why, exactly, the *fear* of China? (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps I am missing something. (Namely, ignorant of a huge modernized navy China has been hiding somewhere or something.)
I'm trying to imagine a war with China happening realistically. (Which seems unlikely unless one or both countries end up with idiots/nutcases in charge.)
I'm trying to imagine the US and China getting into a full balls-to-the-wall war, and the rest of the world just standing back and not getting involved. That's really hard.
I'm trying to imagine a scenario where China tries to invade the US, somehow transporting troops over the Pacific Ocean without getting picked off by US forces en masse. Where China doesn't have to worry about Japan sitting off its coast, India, Pakistan, Taiwan breaking away, internal rebellion happening while troops are diverted, Islamic rebels in the western provinces, even Russia and former Soviet states along its north border. Unless China has a magically unsinkable troop transport capable of carrying a few dozen million troops, I have problems seeing this happening.
I'm trying to imagine a scenario where the US invades China successfully. I keep imagining China just shrugging and saying, "We surrender -- make us part of the US!" and, a decade later when the US goes bankrupt from struggling with dealing with a population five times its size over seas, a multiplicity of languages and ethnic groups, etc., China quietly return to what it had been doing.
I can't see either side waging a war and succeeding (they might 'win', but that's different from being able to survive a victory.) The economic impacts, both local and globally, would be immense. Now, I can see a nuclear exchange, or a mutual destruction potentially happening (successfully, for certain definitions of success), but I can't see a conventional war working out.
This doesn't mean that military defenses aren't needed -- the scenarios above presupposes neither side has become easy pickings, but as is, the cost in waging a war seems far, far more than any unlikely gain.
The battlefield seems more likely to be in the economic arena at this point than the military. Yah, we need a strong arm to keep the cost of any military action high, but outside of stupidity or insanity, I'm not sure why fear is necessary.
Maybe someone can explain to me how China is a threat, militarily? (Outside of a nuclear exchange, which even then I am pretty sure the US holds a noticeable fire power edge. I've not heard a damned thing about any Chinese subs with nuclear missiles. I guess they have some(?)) Is there some battle plan by which they can just pop over on this side of the Pacific without worrying about Japan, India, Russia, Australia, the Pacific Fleet, and much of the rest of the world? I mean, I'd assume they would have to give the US some warning by taking out Japan, South Korea, etc. etc. first.
It just doesn't seem to make sense. Some amount of caution seems reasonable, but fearing China militarily seems to be overstating things. Regardless of the size, I just haven't heard anything about their ability to get their forces anywhere outside their borders.
Should be "affected", not "effected" (Score:3, Informative)
If true, how badly will NASA's scientific mission be effected (wrong! should be "affected") if it becomes a conduit for giving research and development money to defense contractors?
This usage note for the reference manual for the word affect [reference.com] indicates the "effect" and "affect" have different meanings:
Usage Note: "Affect" and "effect" have no senses in common. As a verb "affect" is most commonly used in the sense of "to influence" (how smoking affects health). "Effect" means "to bring about or execute": layoffs designed to effect savings. Thus the sentence These measures may affect savings could imply that the measures may reduce savings that have already been realized, whereas These measures may effect savings implies that the measures will cause new savings to come about.
SDI offensive? (Score:3, Interesting)
So, I'm not surprised that this would be another attempt to militarize space. However, it is not inevitable. Maybe the spy satellites are inevitable, maybe conventional weapons proliferation is inevitable, but there's nothing predetermined about putting offensive weaponry in space. An offensive satellite isn't something that happens without a huge amount of infrastructure. It's not something that happens in secret -- even if the US wants to do it, we still have to make up a story (this case in point).
asteroid threat (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:asteroid threat (Score:3, Interesting)
With the military, it is often said that they are preparing to fight the last war very well. The US military is particularly noted for this.
Other examples can include hurricane preparation, earthquake & fire codes, and more, although in most of these cases the situation does actually work out due to the fact that these natural disast
Perhaps it's really about energy..,, (Score:3, Interesting)
Seems this is about new energy sources.
The WOT was about wresting control of dwindling oil reserves (check 'Peak Oil' on google)
First Afghanistan to get access to central Asia reserves, then Iraq to start things off in the MidEast (Syria looks like a follow-up)
There is an energy crisis coming, and we can't avoid it with biodiesel, solar/wind/hydro or reducing usage. The population density & rate of increase of our species is only sustainable because we've tapped stored bio-energy in the form of oil. Super-concentrated plant energy...
What happens when it runs out?
Yes, I know about switching to shale oil, coal, etc etc etc. Won't last 5 years at our current rate of consumption.
And China? They want to industrialize too.
Once that country picks up the pace, we'll see a face-off just like you'd see at a drying-up watering hole in Africa, two packs of lions fighting to the death over a 2-foot puddle of mud.
The US is clueing into the fact that if we get off this rock in the next 10-15, there's a chance to sustain our rate-of-growth. Simple as that.
It must be stated... (Score:3, Funny)
*sigh*
NASA and the Military, two peas in a pod (Score:5, Insightful)
YES! FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, YES! Manned space exploration was a top priority for NASA since its inception and creation. The point was "putting a man on the moon". That is why NASA was founded! Then we had run-ins with Carter and Clinton, where that vision was fogged by poor administration and judgement. It took a great president, Ronald Reagan, to see the Space Shuttle project to completion and to put NASA on track for the future (SS Freedom, 2nd gen shuttle, Space Launch Initiative, Moon Bases, Man on Mars) He knew we didn't have the time nor the technology to go to Mars yet, but that was still the unltimate goal, a "when we're ready" kind of thing. Then George H.W. Bush happened. He rolled back the programs, but he did not completely destroy them, he cut things down to a bear minimum. Clinton destroyed them. I remember hearing that Dan Goldin thought exploration through robots was just as good as human exploration. Growing up in Langley AFB (the NASA facility is intgrated with the base), I got to hear directly what the NASA engineers thought of Clinton back in '94-95, and it wasn't pretty. Clinton killed the programs created during the 80's. He didn't do it directly, he (through his direct control and the appointment of Goldin) just cut their funding to below minumum levels, so he could write it off as "NASA's fault, not the administration's". We need another Reagan to get us back on track. We've found him- He's George W. Bush. NASA's mission is once again manned exploration.
Or is it just a cover for shifting toward military space applications?
NO! NASA and the military (primarily the US Air Force) work together because they research the same things. The applications of that research differ, one is a civilian organization, and the other is a military one. The AF had an interest in the Venturestar program, a single-stage to orbit (SSTO) craft would be wonderful. It would be mobile, easily, safely, and cheaply launched. They could build a good number of them, give them different jobs (like mounting a laser on one). NASA is actively engaged in the Airborne LASER project. The AF loans aircraft to NASA all the time. Heck, the only reason I got to see an SR-71 and F-117 regularly in flight in the early 90s was because of the NASA research facility attached to the Air Force Base. NASA explores aerodynamics and aerospace. The Airforce is an aerodynamics and aerospace power, see the connection? When NASA develops an aircraft (e.g. the forward-swept wing, X-29), the AF would like to know the results of it for use militarily. Any way you look at it, NASA and the military both have the same research goals.
If true, how badly will NASA's scientific mission be effected if it becomes a conduit for giving research and development money to defense contractors?
It's not true, and NASA's money goes directly to NASA. If the military and NASA work together, it is good for NASA becase NASA gets the boost of military funds, not the other way around. Every joint development project is funded by NASA AND the military until NASA can't use it as research anymore, at which point a NEW military project based on the results of the NASA/military one would be created. (NASA is a civilian agency, and is more or less transparent in where its money goes, unlike the military)
NASA is not an agency of 'progress for the sake of progress'. It is an agency dedicated to improving mankind. The safe voyage to the moon and back was more important than exploring the moon. A Moonbase could produce fuel. The ultimate result is not "the moon is composed of this % of that and this % of this" It's, "we can use this to make that which helps us in the end." The important thing is not the science itself, it's how it's used. President Bush sees that. Clinton did not.
Re:NASA and the Military, two peas in a pod (Score:5, Insightful)
So many stories that get told, all in the interest of hopeing that it is true.
As an ex-nasa engineer, I can tell you that some of what you say is true, but your political spins are way off base.
The decay started with Nixon. He is the one responsible for the shuttle. Carter was mostly handsoff but also low budgets. But, it was Carter that started much of the research that carried the 80's. It was in 1977, that DOD started a serious program about radiation abaeyence (which has usefulness to us) with the goal of a stealth aircraft. In fact, it was the main reason why the B1 was canceled by him. But it was still mostly ignoring us.
Reagan was actually worse. More money seemed to flow, but not really. It was in the support of the military, not for NASA. Yes, a number of inititives were taken, but they were not really funded. In fact, it was more political than anything. So many projects with no real increase. We lost the challenger and that was a hard hit. But a lot of that was bad management from up top. Simply more politics (which it would appear was in ivolved with the columbia than is known).
As to the 2'nd gen shuttle, well, it was dead before it started. It was mired in politics for a decade. One thing about the venturestar was that it only had 4 years.
About the only thing from Reagan that was useful was the begginning of the space station. Had we taken the low-budget approach of skylab, we would probably have several stations up there. Instead, between Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, it has become a bit of a nightmare. It now holds us back.
Bush really did not help us.
Clinton was not bad, but he changed the focus. He did cuts, but then again he was not doing that much.
Now we have a president who is aksing the agency to do more, but is really not providing funding. O'keefe has been a nightmare inside of there. Total demoralization. He has been a top down guy who if you say one bad word about the president then you will be shot. At least under Goldin, we could critize the president for being stupid at times.
What Bush says would be useful, but the politics is horrible, the funding will more likely be along the same line as "No children left behind" (none), or along the line of Iraq (oh, we will give haliburton 100 Billion to build this; No real worry if they do not do a thing).
Do we need a leader? Yes. Was it in Reagan? No way. Is it in this Bush? I am guessing that he will do it the same way that he was in military; AWOL and just doing a political stunt..
War in space (Score:3, Interesting)
Everybody knew that, in a traditional conventional war, controlling space would be one of the keys to controlling the battlefield down on earth. Of course everybody thought about putting nuclear missiles into orbit, even as early as kruschev's days, because orbital missiles would be almost impossible to provide early warning against. But, apart from many science fiction stories based on that premise, no one ever did it. The danger of said missiles falling out of orbit by accident was very real, apart from which such missiles would be be very vulnerable to first strike counter measures from the other side.
However, the Bush administration has seen the obvious direction of China's space effort, and to a certain extent India's as well. China's space agency is fully integrated with the military, much the same as NASA is (although neither nation advertises this fact). China has stated that they plan to put a man on the moon in the 2015 to 2020 time period and China's military has expressed interest in developing methods of destroying satellites in order to deny the enemy the advantage of communications and navigation in time of war.
In terms of national prestige it would be an obviously huge boost to China's image to be able to land on the moon, and I cannot a nationalistic US President such as Bush allowing such a feat to take place without the US getting there first. However the the budget allocated for this endevour is almost certainly too small, and will stretch the US economy if a permanent manned moon base is implemented. Apart from the national prestige there is no real benefit to the national economy and given that a future US government might just see this as a waste of money and resources.
But I can see the US and China getting involved in a ridiculous race in space in both arms and to the moon that will benefit neither in the long run as the modern Chinese government is obviously not given to costly foreign military adventures and will simply go at a pace that it can afford as opposed to the US tendency to want it all and now.
Not only this but presumably, given that Russia unexpectedly recently renewed the lease on its Baikonur launch base in Kazakhstan, it could very well be that a nationalistic Russia under Putin might want to get in on the act. And what about a future nationalistic India?
I find it both sad and a testimony to nationalistic stupidity that only the military and nationalistic pipe dreams get such priority in an area which could finally break down the barriers of space.
We come in peace, for all mankind (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't forget that bit.
I would have been very sorry to see America turn its back on preeminence in space. It accomplished great things and probably will again.
But here's the thing. Apollo may have begun as a techno-military tour de force, and sure it was intertwined with nuclear delivery systems, and phalloidal to boot. But it changed. As the project neared the goal it dawned on people everywhere, as well as the ones actually doing it, that this was really happening, and it was a step up, and the human condition had changed.
By the time Armstrong stuttered out the historic words and set the plaque down, it was too great a matter to be only America's possession: it was America's gift. There was just no other way it could be.
I've been saying to friends lately, Look, for some time to come, space is going to be owned by the USAF. But that doesn't mean I've forgotten the gift. And you shouldn't either, because it's your inheritance and one day you'll be proud to pass it on.
Nice troll... (Score:4, Insightful)
If the US breaks those treaties unilaterally, what right does it have to castigate others if at some point in the future they too decide that legally binding agreements don't matter to them either?
Shouldn't the US lead by example? Shouldn't it honour its agreements and stick to its word? How can you expect other nations to respect and trust the US if it doesn't reciprocate that respect and if it betrays that trust?
Oh, and of the three nations you chose to name, one's a US ally now and the other's more concerned with protecting its borders from its neighbours than it is with finding new enemies half way around the world.
That leaves China, which as I pointed out just recently, exports more good to the US than anywhere else, so why you think they'd try to threaten their biggest trading partner (and military counterpart) is beyond me.
Re:Nice troll... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, I remember that too. Pity your government doesn't. That's why China has the "most favoured trading nation" status, because you being able to buy a cheap DVD player is more important to your government and big business than pissing off a nuclear power that has the world's biggest army and the world's biggest air force by making
Re:Nice troll... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, but I'm not the one suggesting that my country should nuke them if they so much as blink, am I? I'm the one simply pointing out to you that human rights abuses, such as those you mentioned, don't mean a thing when it comes to how nations regard their allies or trading partners.
And your government doesn't trade or cooperate with either nation [Saudi Arabia and Pakistan], right?
Again, my nation's relationship with those countries is little different to that of the US, but I'm not blind to the fact that these nations have almost identical stances to human rights as the Taliban did in Afghanistan. But, somehow, when we want to go to war with the Taliban, we use their human rights record as partial justification, playing up the morality angle as much as possible, whilst somehow failing to castigate Saudi Arabia and Pakistan for the very same things.
I'm able to recognise the hypocrisy of this situation - which is what I was pointing out to you - and condemn it accordingly: why can't you do the same?
Once you start the "country X is evil because of Y" (as you did when you brought up the human rights issue) it's hard to stop because, frankly, there's barely a nation on this planet (including the US and its allies) that isn't guilty of some heinous crime or another.
Re:China, Russia and India (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a bit hard pushing around a nuclear power. That's why the US is treating North Korea with kid gloves: they're shit scared that the madmen who run North Korea (leaders who let their own people starve are madmen) will nuke Seoul, thereby taking out South Korea's capital, a large chunk of its population and its economy and the 35-50,000 US troops permanently based there.
Perhaps you should pick up a history book sometime? Or take a geopolitics class? Who know, you might actually learn something about how the world works.
It's people like you that make people elsewhere look at Americans as arrogant assholes. Do yourself (and your countrymen) a favour: shut your mouth, educate yourself and try to look at other societies and cultures as something other than ICBM targets.
Re:bushniks (Score:3, Insightful)
They have stolen or bought as much modern tech as they could get their paws on, and are very much competitors. Both in space economically.
Re:Who Needs Hubble When We Have a Base on the Moo (Score:3, Interesting)
You're making as much sense as a japanese vcr instruction manual. How on earth (or moon, for that matter) is a base on the moon cheaper? The distance is bigger, so that shipments there for replacement parts etc. are much more expensive, and you can't as easily direct your telescope on something because that stupid rock keeps on rotating. It's not only less cost-effective, it's just stupid. And btw, I doubt they'll do it anyway (a telescope on the moon). They appear to have abandoned all scientifically inter