President Bush's Money For Space Cometh 619
citanon writes " The Washington Post reports that
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has delivered, via the omnibus spending bill passed
Nov. 20, the President's full budgetary request of $16.2 billion dollars for NASA as a part of his
Vision for Space Exploration. Despite earlier reports that NASA's
budget will be cut, DeLay, whose congressional district now includes the Johnson Space
Center, was able to deliver the full budgetary request without any debate. NASA now has "enough money to forge ahead on a plan that would reshape U.S. space policy for decades to come."
Despite this early victory, questions regarding the full cost of the program remain unresolved. It is also unclear whether the NASA
bureaucracy will be able to rise to the challenges posed in the initiative and which current projects will suffer as a consequence."
No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:5, Insightful)
To continue beating a dead horse, how exactly are we going to go about paying our debts? Are we just assuming we're going to have another decade like the nineties any day now? Are we just assuming that the rest of the world will happily keep throwing money at us for as long as we want them to? Hell, does anybody even care that we're flinging ourselves into insolvency? Does anybody even bother trying to comprehend what the consequences will be when China decides to quit investing in us? Does it strike anybody that China might, y'know, have ulterior motives?
Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:5, Insightful)
Or the $200 billion in subsidies that oil companies get from the federal government, while renewable energy R&D in the entire US gets ~$280million
Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite wild numbers from people like Zubrin ("Yeah, we'll send multiple manned missions to mars, plus precursor missions, for the cost of developing a single nuclear reactor that we're going to need!"), the real costs of developing (and most critically, *testing*) a massive radiation-resistant space-borne liferaft designed to keep many people alive in isolation for most of a year (something we have trouble doing even on the surface) while flinging it toward a planet that's eaten about half of the spacecraft that have been sent to it throughout history (the Soviets had even worse luck than we did) using To-Be-Determined-But-Undoubtedly-Complex) engines, with a descent/ascent module, base, mini-refinery, etc, is not a simple task.
NASA took over 1% of our nation's entire GDP for a decade to get a small brief manned mission to the moon. The Soviets never got people to the moon and back, despite having an extensive program (it was largely cut back after we succeeded, but they did work on it for as long as we did). The Chinese recently scrapped their planned moon mission because the numbers coming back for the cost of it were just too high (and Chinese space tech is relatively cheap). We're talking about the moon here; the problems concerning a trip to Mars that takes almost a year are an order of magnitude greater.
I'll back the parent, of course. The money we spent on Iraq is enough to get us to Mars and back. And other things we could do with that money concerning space are equally staggering (it's enough for simultaneous development of 10-20 large reusable launch vehicles to replace the shuttle, let alone one!). It's enough to fund any of the proposed "modern wonders of the world" (such as a transatlantic tunnel, a bridge across the Bering Strait, etc). The amount of "pure science" that could be conducted with that money really boggles the mind (materials science: nanotubes, anyone? Space: probes that make JIMO look like toys; etc). And we haven't even gotten started on the "humanitarian" things that could be done with that money (medicine, aid, etc). Or finally modernizing our transportation infrastructure.
Our sense of priorities as a nation are all wrong.
Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:3, Insightful)
Hold yer Horses! The $400 billion to pay for Iraq was borrowed money. Are you saying we should borrow money to do all of those wonderous things leaving future generations to pay for what we did? If so, technically the government could do all those things independantly and reguardless of what happens in Iraq. Personally I'd much rather have just not borrow money it in the first place.
Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, we should if the expected benefit is greater than the amount borrowed plus interest.
Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:3, Funny)
Didn't we outsource that already?
Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:3, Insightful)
The rosy rhetoric and big promises came right about the start of the Presidential race. Big promises and rosy rhetoric being very easy to make and do, while actually spending the money is something of an afterthought. I assure you all the aerospace workers were voting on the rosy promises of long term employment, and exciting edventures going where no man has gone before, and not the realities involved with funding or doing it.
"There are NOT 1000s
Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:3, Insightful)
False. NASA's budget was around 15 billion dollars for the previous several years.
> in the age where amateurs without aerospace
> degrees with teams of less than ten can make
> it to space for five million bucks
SS1 took a "minimum" of 25 million dollars, and was far more like an aircraft than a spacecraft. I discuss this in detail over at "Why SpaceShipOne Never Did, Never Will, And None Of Its Direct Descendants Ever Will, Orbit The Earth"
http://www.daughtersoftiresias.org/m
Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:5, Insightful)
His actions and policies are anything but conservative.
I'm a lifelong republican, but I didn't vote for Bush in 2004. I think he's the worst thing to ever happen to the republican party.
Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but then again, the average "conservative" is anything but conservative.
Over the past century, US government (especially federal) has enjoyed nearly exponential growth in terms of both revenue and power over the people.
Over the past century, US government (especially federal) has been dominated by two political parties: the republicans and the democrats.
Now, if the republicans really were practicing "conservative" politics over this period, don't you think they would have countered the democrats ability to expand government, resulting in a government which neither grows much nor shrinks much over time?
After all, the republicans and democrats have dominated US politics together. Neither party has dominated exclusively, or anywhere near enough to tip the scales significantly in one direction, right? So how exactly did this near-exponential growth occur, if not because both parties favor expansion of government?
Conclusion: The republians stand for continuous expansion of government, both in revenue and power over the people -- NOT limited government as they publicly claim. The two parties may differ slightly on how to expand government, but in general, history proves -- quite neatly and cleanly if I might say -- that both parties stand for continuous expansion of government.
Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:3, Interesting)
Not only that, his mis-directed overspending goes unnoticed by the general public, and they end up loving the guy and voting him in for a second term.
Definitely the most dangerous type of politician. He makes costly mistakes that cost lives, vast amounts of money, most of our support in the world, considerable damage to the environment, and the people love him.
Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:2, Interesting)
Sorry, there aren't any conservatives in America. Only Reaganites. There's a couple libertarians but they're extremists and laughably marginalized.
Your best bet is going to probably be to elect more centrist-conservatives like Bill Clinton, Al Gore or John Kerry. But, unfortunately, this isn't too likely either, since the DLC is likely not going to have nearly as much power within the democratic party after the d
Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:5, Interesting)
Excuse me, a quick check of US deficit history [cbo.gov] shows that 11 of the last 12 record deficits (1975, 1976, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1991, 1992, 2003, and 2004) occurred under Republican administrations and only 1 under a democrat (1980), so maybe the problem is that we have elected too many "conservatives". It's absolutely astonishing to me how Democrats have become the party of fiscal responsibility.
I think the reason for this is that conservatives dramatically cut government revenue through heavy tax cuts saying "you can spend the money better than the government" but then the government keeps spending the money anyway.
Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:3, Interesting)
Iraq is costing almost 2 billion a day... So in 8 days more money is spent than NASA's entire budget! And while I do support the Iraq war I don't believe the US
Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:2, Insightful)
It costs $2 million per day. That's a lot, but not as much as you purport it to be. Secondly, a stable middle east is foundational to the survival of the western world and thus space exploration. If we are attacked by terrorists again and the economy tanks again as it did after 9/11, who's going to pay for the NASA budget?
Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadly, 2 billion seems like the correct figure.
Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:3, Insightful)
Hazardous duty pay for the troops for being in a war zone. Medical costs for those injured. The large number of bombs and ammo (I think you are underestimating this aspect of the cost. How many rounds do you think are shot off in training everyday? How many are shot off when trying to retake a city with 10,000 troops?). The huge cost of the upkeep of the equipment (especially in the desert). The cost of transporting huge am
Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:5, Insightful)
The costs of the war are reported in supplemental appropriations bills. These are bills that don't show up in the budgets Bush sends to congress - they're *additional* bills that come after the fact, and grant a certain amount of money *in addition* to what the military normally gets during peacetime (which, BTW, Bush has raised as well, significantly). The normal military budget also doesn't include supplementals like SDI.
Here's a nice page on the subject:
http://costofwar.com/
Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:5, Informative)
Temporary occupation of Iraq: $1 billion to $4 billion per month [about.com]
177 mill per day [usatoday.com]
Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:4, Insightful)
Whatever other failings GWB may have, funding space exploration is one priority he did get right.
Debt (Score:5, Insightful)
US Debt [zfacts.com]
US Debt as a percentage of GDP was falling when the US first went to the moon. So the USA really isn't in the same situation as it was then. Add to that a very weak dollar which might encourage less lending, and things aren't looking that great. Debt isn't just bad in the short term, it's expensive to maintain and difficult to get rid of.
The US is doing this at a time when other countries like the UK are cutting back their debt as much as possible to limit interest payments. Here's a similar graph for the UK
UK Debt [statistics.gov.uk]
Now I'm no economist, and this obviously isn't the only economic indicator which is important, but it looks kind of scary given the expensive war that the neo-cons have taken on all alone, and the others they still appear to be planning (Iran springs to mind). Perhaps this is the dawn of a new era of faith-based budgets.
The kicker - it is FOREIGN HELD (Score:3, Insightful)
It's All Part of the War on Terror (Score:5, Funny)
Carl Rove: Where's the President now?
Aide #1: Umm, I think he just went to make a press statement about the increase in NASA's budget...?
Carl Rove spots unused, filled syringe lying on table
CR: Oh God! You forgot to give him the injection!
Scene: White House Press Conference
President GWB: Thank you Americans and members of the Press. The exploration of the Outer Spaces is an important initiative in these dangerous and uncertain times. We have enemies abroad and ih our homes. We have enemies visible and indivisible. Enemies that wish to do us harm, and enemies that don't.
Pauses, blinks.
That is why I am giving my authorization to increase funding to the Nationalized Air and Space Association, because we need to bring the fight to the enemy. Right now, we don't have a man on the Mars. This is embarrassing! We've been to Mars and by God we ought to stay there! In the days since my father ended the Cold War, we've relaxed our posture on the Space Chase, but now a new enemy is on our doorstep. He's in our backyard, too because he climbed over the fence without asking.
dramatic pause. squints at audience.
My friends, now isn't the time to fall behind and ignore these things--we must act. We must bring the fight to the enemy whenever and wherever he appears, be it in Omaha, Wisconsin or on the Mars. We cannot wait until he has the advantage and saps our precious vital fluids while we sleep.
(Carl Rove is seen edging towards the President)
Now, you may think that with our current deploymentization in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Ko-Rea we can't sustain a fight for Mars. But I'm telling you, it's not about the numbers--we have smart weapons, smart troops, and smart ideas on how to Win the Peace on Mars, by winning their hearts and minds. You see, they envy our freedom and our way of life. They envy our precious vital fluids and we...
Carl Rove moves behind the President and plunges a syringe into his buttocks.
Thank you, that's all I have to say...
Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:3, Insightful)
Then a Republican wins the seat again and we go through this stupid process
Re:I disagree (Score:3, Informative)
Or are you referring to the al-Mada list, one of many bogus documents pushed by Chalabi&Pals?
Re:I disagree (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll be sure to tell the Poles, Aussies, Brits, South Koreans and Japanese that they don't count as part of the international community.
While you're at it you could tell the British Government that half of their population disagreed with their support of the US led invasion of Iraq... no, hang on. Don't bother, we've already tried.
Al.Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:5, Informative)
I'll bite: an embedded, real-time, mission critical, digital computer built with integrated circuits, used to navigate the CSM and land the LM, dubbed the Apollo Guidance Computer.
If you look at histories of Integrated Circuits, or Computers in general, you'll see that the Apollo Guidance Computer comes up again and again. The AGC is considered to have a made critical contribution to digital technology and laid the groundwork for the very computer you're using to read this.
Why?
1) Bleeding edge technology. While transitorized flight control systems had been used on missiles before, the AGC had two firsts: it was both digital and used integrated circuits, specifically a whole lot of NAND gates. Prior to this, flight computers used discrete components, and were analogue at heart. The AGC also pioneered the computational architectures used to support hard real-time operation, essential if you want to trust a microchip to control a chemical plant, or car brake system.
2) Establishing a market. The AGC's development poured a lot of money into a field that many manafacturers were not exactly clamoring to get into [see point 3]. In the early days, the AGC was responsible for purchasing something like 40% of the global IC output. This helped drive investment into making more complex ICs (early circuits only had a handful of components, and yields were appalling): in other words, the development of the AGC, driven by the demands of the space program's incredibly tight operational requirements, helped kickstart Moore's Law.
3) It made the IC acceptable. Modern techno types, raised on digital technology, forget how much suspicion there was about IC technology initially. One big reason was reliability: with discrete components, every component could be tested individually and operating characteristics established. With ICs, engineers were being asked to swallow little black boxes that they couldn't test in the same ways they had for decades. An entire profession felt threatened. People presenting IC technology were known to face angry crowds of engineers at conferences. When NASA pulled off the Apollo landings using a digital computer, it was the end of this dissent. In fact the AGC proved the general case of digital control technology: previously analogue technology was still seen as the gold standard.
4) Commercialization: The AGC moved the IC from an exotic military component to a civilian technology. In part this was due to providing a large market for IC technology itself, but also because NASA was a civilian agency it allowed the technology to be more easily disseminated. (both because of fewer restrictions on NASA workers and because NASA technology was more palatable than nuclear missile technology)
Good places to read about this are:
http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/vs-mit-apollo-gu
(which includes one of the excellent History of Computing articles from Dr. Dobbs)
Microchip by Jeffery Zygmont
A History of Modern Computing by Paul E. Cerruzi.
Calculating the money generated and saved by the ubiquity of digital control technology and the IC are left as an exercise to the reader.
Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:3, Insightful)
The last thing we need to do with the current public education system is spend more money on it. The public education system spends a lot of money on per student basis and the facts show that money != better public education.
Someone needs to step up and actually fix the system before spending anymore money on it. A good starting place would be classroom discipline.
Fixing education starts at HOME! (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I believe a large part of this is that we have adopted Day Care as "the standard model" for the family in this country, and there's a larger-than-ever number of single-parent households. I won't say that single-parents can't do a good job raising kids. Nor will I say that you can't raise good kids where both parents work. And finally, I won't say that a full-time stay-at-home Mom (or Dad) is a guarantee of raising good kids.
But IMHO, it's a matter of statistics. Being a parent is HARDER if there's just one of you. Imbuing kids with proper values is HARDER if you have surrendered control of your child to the low-cost day care provider for the work day. (Actually, that "low-cost" may be part of the problem.) Not that these things can't be done, but they're HARDER.
As long as you have more capable people taking on these extra challenges, things work. But once it becomes the general model for society, things start breaking down. Schools are the canaries for this class of problem.
BTW, I won't disagree that "more money != better public education," but I disagree with the corollary that many like to make, that better public education doesn't need more money. More money might be part of the solution, but only part. IMHO the more important part is better parenting.
Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:2, Insightful)
Besides the return value on money given to NASA is tremendous. Where do you think the initial research for microwaves, MRIs, and countless other technologies original came from? That's right money for NASA has tremendous implications for spinoff technology.
If you want to cut spending (and we should), why not start with "P
Ever growing deficit (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, I must've been dreaming.
Seriously, just wait until interest rates go up and they try to borrow more $ to pay off the current massive debt.
Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, really, you -shouldn't- have. (Score:5, Informative)
You've had trade deficit since early 70's.
That means that in 3 decades every single year, you have liven either by what was saved before hand or on debt, as a nation, not just goverment. There is difference between goverment in debt to corporations and individuals inside the country or being in debt to other countries banks.
There is big difference of havin 50% more imports than exports. Consumerism ends when foreign banks stop lending your country. Expect lower salaries, higher taxes and economy thats ruins, while rest of worlds hates you at same time, for not paying your debts on time, and your actions in close past.
On the other hand. Nasa money goes to internal economy which is good for you. Bad news is that the internal economy will move that money out of country.
2000$ per person per year. Is the rate your nations debt growing towards other nations.
Re:Apocalypse in 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1... (Score:3, Insightful)
That is my point. Right now, the government is still able to afford paying interest (and even this is open to discussion, given the current government debt), but it will be unable to pay the principal when the 30 years are up.
Whether the US government does default on its debt, or whether it prints so enough money to technically avoid bankruptcy that is becomes worthless
Re:Apocalypse in 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1... (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this really a good thing for NASA? (Score:3, Insightful)
What space program? (Score:2)
It would be nice if they'd find a way to repair or replace the Hubble Space Telescope, though.
Why this instead of stuff like the X prize? (Score:5, Interesting)
compared to what we are talking about here-and the commercial implications appear to be far more substantial-and the organzation of the expenditure is such there was minimal risk. Republicans are supposed to believe in free markets and competition. What are they scared of here?
I think the US needs a good, innovative commericial space program it it wants to be viable economically. There is lots of money to be made in space-and the US will need lots of money to keep up with its interest payments. That isn't the drive I see behind the latest Bush proposal.
You answered your own question (Score:4, Insightful)
Governments must invest money in risky projects, R&D, which may or may not be profitable in the long term. On the other hand, commercial space program wants to be profitable in short term.
Re:Why this instead of stuff like the X prize? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not both? Some money for the big risky projects (Mars), and other funds for the possible commercial portion.
Money Has to Come From Somewhere (Score:3, Insightful)
Faith based space exploration (Score:4, Funny)
We can't afford NOT to do this. (Score:5, Interesting)
Senator McCain clearly labeled many pork-barrel projects in several speeches. Pork Projects [cnn.com]
Failing to fund NASA is failing to fund the future of our civilization and our economy. We exercise such short-term thinking at our own peril.
Re:We can't afford NOT to do this. (Score:3, Interesting)
The only thing this is funding is jobs for Tom DeLay's constituents and fat checks for aerospace contractors. And it's sort of a stretch to call ant farms in space the "future of our civilization."
Re:We can't afford NOT to do this. (Score:4, Funny)
Is it ok if we just call it the "future of civilization" rather than the "future of OUR civilization"?
Our prospective space-ant overlords are very appreciative of the funding and support.
Re:We can't afford NOT to do this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We can't afford NOT to do this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes you get a culture evolving at an organisation that precludes them from getting anything done. The Shuttle was, and is a big mistake- they originally sold it on the grounds that it would be able to launch every week (even when they knew it wouldn't- and the record shows that they didn't even bother building the facilities needed to do that, the NASA leadership knew it wouldn't be able to launch once a week, it was just the only way they could sell the program).
A lot of the problems in the manned program is lack of good leadership- Von Braun was very well respected within NASA, whilst he was in the loop everything more or less worked. Once he left the big trouble started.
If Bush can actually stand up to the plate for the plan, that might work. However, Bush isn't exactly my or pretty much anyones idea of a space leader, and his term in office won't see the program completed... Political instability is probably going to kill any chance of success anyway.
If you like that... (Score:5, Insightful)
the President's full budgetary request of $16.2 billion dollars for NASA as a part of his Vision for Space Exploration.
And if you like this idea, just think that the cost of the iraq war could have paid for 15 of these. *sigh*
It's all well and good..... (Score:2)
Mark my words, five years from now, over half the things that this budget sets forth as worthy goals will have somehow gone aglimmering. Sigh.
yup (Score:2, Funny)
Re:yup (Score:3, Insightful)
Private Industry could do this better. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Private Industry could do this better. (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot Response (Score:5, Funny)
Oh... wait..., Bush is backing this? What a terrible idea.
I wish they would just finally tell us... (Score:3, Funny)
That all the monkeys we sent up into space came back SUPER INTELLIGENT!
Re:I wish they would just finally tell us... (Score:3, Funny)
16 Billion now build that space elevator! (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't care spit about sending a single person anywhere else in our solar system. I want us to be sending dozens or hundreds of people out there into space and not really just to another plant. Before we can do that though, we need a cheap space delivery system.
The new space race (Score:4, Interesting)
With the previous article [slashdot.org] here on Helium 3, it would seem that the moon should be our next destination, and probably the best launching pad for a Mars mission.
Biggest Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
How to spend the money? (Score:2)
Dose anyone out there have the shirt, or rembere the cost to get nothing done?? was it 2Billion way back then or something outragiouse??
Funky budget (Score:2)
On the scale of Uncle Sam though, I could just keep running the debt forever and then print more money as I go, looking worryingly at the exchange rate of the dollar on TV from time to time until the whole scam blows in my face like some giant economy-wide internet bubble.
In short, with the US deficit the way it is, there is no
Current projects suffering (Score:4, Informative)
the Constellation-X [nasa.gov] x-ray telescope, successor to Chandra: postponed indefinitely
the LISA [nasa.gov] gravitational wave antenna: postponed indefinitely
the Explorer program, which launches small, often university-designed missions like WMAP (cosmic microwave background), HETE (gamma-ray bursts), and SWIFT (just launched!). Funding for future missions is on hold.
Not to mention that the National Science Foundation just got a few-percent funding cut.
Re:Current projects suffering (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact it is worse than this -- one astronomer I know tells me that it looks like *all* funding for astronomy in the NASA budget may go away.
Besides missions like Hubble, Spitzer, Chandra, Swift, Con-X, LISA, GalEx, FUSE, etc. etc. etc., NASA funds science investigations by astronomers through various programs. If the money from these programs goes into Mars exploration, that will have a major detrimental impact on our nation's
Permanent Republican Revolutionary Party (Score:3, Insightful)
What will it really cost?
What NASA programs will be cut to fund it?
How will other science agencies be affected?
Welcome to the United States of Mexico.
Re:Permanent Republican Revolutionary Party (Score:3, Insightful)
I know you're just making a joke, but the United States of Mexico is actually the full name of Mexico.
More important than solving energy problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
1. reducing money paid to terrorist supporting countries such as Saudi Arabia.
2. paving the way for future inventions
3. preserving mother nature and reducing pollution.
4. saving money to be used on more basic things like food and homes, improving people's lives immediately.
Sure, it is less glamourous than space exploration, but it could be something that has a much more practical impact in the US dominance (economically, politically, militarily -- those tanks and jets consume lots of energy -- etc.) on Earth. I still can't believe that with the number of brainiacs the US attracted over the years, there is no concerted effort to solve this problem.
Re:More important than solving energy problem? (Score:5, Funny)
Our scout units have reported that the Chinese and the Indians are both working on these Wonders, devoting the output of their largest cities. You and I both know that our industrial output, measured in shields, cannot compete with theirs.
The long-term path to victory is clear, my friends. We must build Improvements on a city-by-city basis in order to solve the energy problem. Most of our cities have a Granary and an Aqueduct now, which is a good first step. I recommend a Factory to boost production, followed by a Recycling Center and a Power Plant in each city. This will both reduce pollution and increase industrial output, allowing us to build ever more military units and product ourselves from ever-more-frequent Barbarian uprisings.
Once we have adequately defended ourselves, we can turn our industrial output toward the most important goal: building Modules for the starship that will someday take our descendants to Alpha Centauri and allow us to win The Game. Scuttlebutt has it that our scientists have almost completed the research necessary to build a Propulsion Module for our starship!
(Ignore this post if you've never played Civilization.)
And where is this money coming from? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this really consistent? (Score:4, Insightful)
What I find interesting is that there are suddenly a lot of comments saying how this is silly, and a waste of money. If the comments were primarily focusing on the destructive or impractical requirements that come along with the funding, I could understand, but a surprising number seem to be complaining about the funding itself.
That's interesting to me, because if memory serves, slashdotters on average tend to bemoan the lack of funding for space-related ventures, rather than the amount of money that is being wasted on them. I don't like Bush much, and he's certainly screwed up the budget in a lot of areas, but it confuses me when people criticize him for increasing funding to NASA, or the NSF, or NIH, when similar increases would probably be praised in a candidate that people liked a little bit more -- and I'm quite certain that if Bush actually cut funding for NASA, slashdot would be in an uproar over it.
Criticize him for an unjust war, or for counterproductive goals in space research, but the funding itself is a good thing as far as I'm concerned...
The real objective: Militarize space (Score:4, Insightful)
It will be easier to sell the militarization of space if it can be explained as "defense". Once the U.S. establishes a base on the moon, then it obviously has to be defended. And, of course, defense means space-based first-strike weapons.
I doubt that Bush cares about Mars at all. But, getting funding for Mars exploration is easier than getting funding for establishing a military moon base. The $16B of exploration funding will be followed by $300B of "space defense funding".
Space: Already Militarized (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just paranoia. ICBMs are decades old and for all intents and purposes, we (and the Russians) have already maxed out the concept of space-based weapons. Remember that a big leg of thier journey goes through space.
The cost issue (Score:3, Interesting)
1. If they raise taxes beyond what most people are willing to pay, the system will collapes.
2. If they don't and they go bankrupt, 90% of my services are intact.
3. I really don't mind driving on gravel roads.
Trojan Horse (Score:5, Interesting)
For decades, I've been eager for more a more ambitious commitment to space exploration. But I'm convinced that the Bush program is a Trojan horse--a veiled attempt to eliminate NASA.
It shuts down current working programs in exchange for promises of distant future projects. Those future projects would require enormous levels of funding for decades to come, in spite of ruinous deficits, through good economic times and bad, through many presidential and congressional elections. I don't think any honest observer believes that that long-term financing will be delivered. Certainly the Bush Administration has done little so far to drum up public or political support for such a long-haul effort.
It's beyond Bush's power to deliver on his long-term promises, but it's within his power to destroy much of the useful work NASA is doing today. That's just what he's doing.
This is a Bad Thing (Score:3, Informative)
What's wrong with this is not the amount of funding or anything of that nature -- it's the grandly stupid and misguided "Moon/Mars Initiative" that Bush is pushing and that the idiots on the manned space side of NASA are leeching on to.
1. Without very clearly articulated and well thought-out plans for how we're going to tackle a serious challenge like Mars, it won't happen. Current contractors like LockMart, Boeing, Orbital, etc., are chock-full of incompetent people. NASA's manned space side is perhaps even more full of them. They are incapable, and I mean this in all seriousness as someone who has worked in this industry, of developing soundly engineered ideas and solutions to the problems of this kind of space travel.
There are certainly people who have thought very hard about the best ways to tackle these problems, but they will be roundly ignored. This includes people like Robert Zubrin, Buzz Aldrin himself (Ph.D. in Astronautics), and so on. The contractors will be listened to when they say "we can't do that," the umpteen layers of poorly run and managed NASA manned space folks will believe them because most of them long ago stopped being able to solve hard technical problems, and people will die trying to make some of this happen (literally: don't expect Columbia to be the last disaster of its kind).
2. While many manned space people are having wet dreams about gaining some more money and a new space "vision" (no matter how poorly thought-out or articulated), *real* programs that have *demonstrated success* have been cut. Remember reading here a few weeks ago about the Mach 10 Hyper-X program? You know, the one that after 40+ years of scientists and engineers trying to get a free-flight hypersonic scramjet experiment properly funded and run, came up with roaring success? Guess what? Once Bush broached the Moon/Mars "initiative", the X-43 follow-on programs were cut. Those groups have already disbanded. There is anger on the Air Force side since I think X-43C (maybe B, I don't remember which of the two) was supposed to be a joint project.
A poster above pointed out existing NASA space programs that will suffer or are currently suffering. I'm not sure which is worse -- stopping *real* progress and frustrating the very people who have demonstrated success, or deluding the American people that we are on track to recreating Apollo-level achievements on a large scale and setting us up for a larger, even more wasteful, and incompetent manned space side of NASA.
Don't get me wrong -- this is not an anti-space exploration rant. Going to space is one of ventures that had grand and wonderful repercussions for society. This is an anti-stupidity-in-aerospace rant.
That those Americans seriously interested in our heritage and progress in the aerospace realm are not aware of just how incapable the U.S. aerospace industry (as a whole) has become is a great national tragedy. (E.g., do you *really* believe Boeing when they say the 7E7 is "20% more efficient?" Hint -- without *serious* changes in engine architecture, burning "20% less fuel" is, as Ralph would say, unpossible.).
DeLay (Score:3, Funny)
Awesome! (Score:3, Informative)
But, who is going to do this research if our schools aren't funded because No Child Left Behind was gutted, and there is a growing, unchecked movement to replace science with pseudo science (ESP, Paranormal, Creationism)?
Seems like the money would be better spent improving the quality of the future. I'd rather see $10b of that 16b be spent patching up the $10b shortfall from NCLB.
Wow, I'm way offtopic...
Hopefully t/Space will get a contract (Score:5, Informative)
According to their page: Our core mission requirement is to enable prompt, affordable, safe and sustainable lunar exploration and development by the largest possible number of Americans, both in person and via telepresence.
Under our approach, government incentives focus exclusively on top-level goals, with technology and operational choices left to the private sector. The government incentives will be matched to specific top-level needs, but the "invisible hand" of market forces will shape choices as they flow down multiple supplier chains. Incentives will be structured so that several companies in each major area have an opportunity to win this support. With this competitive industrial base, two major processes become possible:
* Market forces will continually launch new products that replace established goods and services (the "creative destruction" that Joseph Schumpeter [Austrian economist 1883-1950] identified as the key element of capitalism). Poorly performing systems will be killed off quickly via competition rather than via burdensome NASA reviews or Congressional intervention.
* Capability gap analyses will be performed by dozens and ultimately hundreds of companies on a continuous basis. As happens now in all competitive industries, the successful companies will be those who listen closely to their customers and accurately predict their future needs - in other words, capability gap analysis by multiple independent profit-seekers.
Commercial firms will create and own infrastructure that offers services that overlap in many cases. The overlaps found in a competitive private space economy will provide the resiliency now lacking in single-string solutions such as the Space Shuttle and Space Station, for which there are no ready alternatives. While functional overlaps are viewed as inefficiencies in centrally-planned systems, in a market-based system they drive costs lower (by reducing monopoly power and spurring innovation) and accelerate schedules (by eliminating single-point bottlenecks among suppliers and spurring competition).
If I understand correctly, tSpace's plan is to design an overall space architecture, and have companies compete for different components, whether they be launch vehicles, space station life support modules, or lunar landers. Many of these components will also be available commercially, keeping the price down and the reliability high.
I highly recommend reading through their presentation [nasa.gov]. The things they show in their are incredible. Here's a few of their points:
Safety results from design choices, not oversight
* Attempting to produce safety by inspection, quality control, documentation, meetings, etc., is ineffective and costly
* The right choices include a robust and resilient concept, vehicles with ample margins and reserves, and high flight rates using smaller vehicles
Flight history determines if a vehicle is "human rated"
* Requires hundreds of flights for statistical validity
* "Determination-by-analysis" is just an estimate
Cost is an object
* Expensive systems have too few units built to give resiliency to the architecture, and/or high operating costs lead to unsafe low flight rates.
Re:But, why? (Score:2)
Burning the money could help keep inflation down, by decreasing the number of dollars in circulation. And we could probably heat a few city blocks for the winter with the fire.
Fun concept (Score:2)
There are MANY reasons that we should colonize outer space.. From asteroids, diseases, war, terrorism, etc, etc. Its like the old eggs in the same basket saying.. Although the Earth is a rather big basket.....
Re:Fun concept (Score:2)
Re:But, why? (Score:2)
Re:But, why? (Score:5, Insightful)
So was air travel before it became a crux of today's economy.
So was the internet before it became a crux of today's economy.
So lets just *try* and look a little farther into the future than *your* vision, k?
Re:Quick! (Score:2, Funny)
Easy;
There's oil in that thar Mars.....
We know Marvin has WMD's (P-38 Space Modulator)
Mars must be attacked before Mars Attacks us.
Mars is a "Red" planet....
Re:NASA has little time (and money) (Score:2)
Re:NASA has little time (and money) (Score:3, Funny)
Nothing an e-book that says "don't panic" on the cover and a towel can't solve...
Re:NASA has little time (and money) (Score:5, Insightful)
True, if by thousand, you mean billion... (Score:3, Insightful)
We have several billion years before our sun burns out. The more immediate threat is obviously an asteroid, a comet, or mutual annihilation.
Your post does illustrate the fact that we can always be said to have our eggs in one basket, but that if the basket is big enough, that's OK.
Re:You're joking, right? (Score:3, Informative)
You ignorant little (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't another "Black or White" issue where you accept it and be happy or don't accept it and shut-up like you Bush fanatics expect.
As others have stated, this is a democracy. A government representative of its peoples. Anything Bush gives me is a coal and to you is a diamond. It doesn't mean "I'm wrong in your right". It means i perceive things differently and that i consider this a joke - Especially coming from Tom DeLay of all people.
It is completely disrespectful and i
Re:You spiteful little... (Score:3, Insightful)
As others have pointed out, that money would be much better spent on other, actual scientific work. Why not just give NASA the cash and allow them to prioritize their own work. Or do you really think George and Co. are more qualified to do so?
Look, this is a simple ploy by Bush to not look like a complete asshole in the eyes of history. I sincerely hope it will not work.
Re:Show me the Advanced Propulsion System (Score:3)
However, we have plenty of tech to do everything we need to do some badass manned exploration of our solar system... The problem is it would cost a shitload
First thing we need to do is build a LARGE (few hundred met