NASA's Plans for the Future 219
FleaPlus writes "ABC News, Pasadena Star-News, and Space Politics report on a recent statement by NASA chief Michael Griffin on NASA's plans for the future and how it will be reflected in their annual budget. Griffin has ordered preparations for one last shuttle servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope. He also plans to greatly accelerate development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle to have it ready when the Space Shuttles retire in 2010, stating that the CEV 'needs to be safe, it needs to be simple, it needs to be soon.' Some other highlights include $34 million for the Centennial Challenges prize program and the possibility of completing the space station with unmanned rockets after the shuttles retire. However, due to budget limitations, the cost of returning the Space Shuttles to flight, and over $400 million in Congressional earmarks, a number of other areas will see delays, including space station, aeronautics, and exploration research. NASA also plans on restructuring Project Prometheus to focus on developing space-qualified nuclear power systems for use in human and robotic surface operations, instead of a probe to Jupiter's moons." The Washington Post has a look at NASA's future as well.
Nukes are the way to go (Score:5, Insightful)
also people are studying nuclear engineering all around the world . its better these people are kept busy designing power plants for on earth and off earth applications than nuclear bombs. Just my opinion.
Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:2)
There are plenty of concerns to be taken care of with nuclear propulsion. I think it probably can be done safely and effectively in the long run, but having a Columbia or Challenger type incident with lots of radioactive material onboard is bound to make some people a bit queasy
Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:2)
Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:2, Insightful)
more speed = more fuel
more fuel = more weight
more weight = more money
more weight = a ridiculus amount of money to launch
thus to get more speed means a hell of alot more money.
Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:3, Insightful)
As currently designed, nuclear engines in no way enable faster travel to the outer planets. They just allow a lot of energy packed into a small space.
Voyagers 1 and 2 made the trip to Jupiter in a handy two years. Galileo did it in a little over 3. Cassini took about 4.5 years to get to Jupiter.
As planned now, the Prometheus reactor, if one is ever sent to Jupiter, is not allowed to use gravity assists. This means it will take about 8 to 9 years gi
Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:5, Insightful)
Nuclear power is on the other hand the road to freedom from oil dependence as well as the key to space. Take the example of a country like India which imports 70% of its oil. If even 40% which is used in power plants is replaced by nuclear power India would become a developed country instead of a developing one. Witness the French. As most of their electricity is nuclear generated they are not hostage to oil and dont need to get sucked into the middle-east. This gives them the advantage of taking the moral viewpoint on these issues instead of the national security viewpoint. People blame the neocons for starting the Iraq war but given the state of the US economy there really was no other option than to get control of some oil reserves. The same liberals who blast Bush about going to war in Iraq are the one shouting NAMBY when nuclear power is discussed
Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:4, Informative)
So I think they are still hostage... (who knows if opposing the war wasn't precisely part of it)
Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:2, Funny)
That's because when nuclear plants have accidents they don't just kill in the initial explosion. They can kill every day for hundreds of years.
It's estimated that it will be six hundred years before it is safe for people to live in some areas around Chernobyl. For a sense of scale, six hundred years ago people didn't know there were continents on thi
Chernobyl is the largest man-made disaster ever. (Score:2)
Holy shit! How can you say that? Chernobyl is the largest man-made disaster ever-- even the low estimates put the death toll well above the Bhopal Gas leak estiamtes.
By some estimates, Chernobyl killed hundreds of thousands [wikipedia.org] of people. There are no official death estimate because the government never released any figures and no other entity could go into th
Re:Chernobyl is the largest man-made disaster ever (Score:2)
Sure, taking the higher estimates of chernobyl (and there are some wild and improbably high estimates for Chernobyl) and the lower estimates for Bhopal would mean Chernobyl killed more. But then again doing the vice versa says that Bhopal killed more.
Wheras its true the Soviet cover-up probably means a larger actual death toll than the official estimates (which I am always surprised at how low they are considering the notoriety
Re:Chernobyl is the largest man-made disaster ever (Score:2)
Interesting. I've never heard of estimates that high. I'll research this stuff a little more, if I can stomach it.
Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:2, Interesting)
Truman used the Nuclear bomb not so that the US could occupy Japan, but because he wanted to end the war with fewer US casualties. But, nowadays a country using nukes like that will make the rest of the world very angry.
Nuclear power is on the other hand the road to freedom from oil dependence as well as the key to space.
While Nuclear power definately helps reduce oil consumption, oil is not burned in power plants
Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:2)
Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:2)
Thats true. The conventional bombing raids killed far more and destryed much more property than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki fircrackers(relatively speaking)
Yeah, but when conventional bombing raids stop, people stop dying. The 'firecrackers', as you so blithely describe them, have far more long-lasting effect.
Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:2)
But which kills more people overall?
Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:2)
Hardly a fair comparison, isnt it?
Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:2)
~40,000,000 - 70,000,000 people died in WWII now there where many causes but on this scale wiping out to minor city's is not that huge.(http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/How_many_soldiers_ w ere_killed_in_World_War_2 [faqfarm.com])
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in _World_War_II [wikipedia.org] to see how many people a single non nuke air raid killed.
Out of 28,410 houses in the inner city of Dresden, 24,866 were destroyed. An area of 15 square kilometers was totally destroyed, among that: 14,000 homes, 72 sch
Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:2)
Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:2)
That said...."Witness the French. As most of their electricity is nuclear generated they are not hostage to oil and dont need to get sucked into the middle-east. This gives them the advantage of taking the moral viewpoint on these issues instead of the national security viewpoint."
The shoveling of barrelfulls of kickback money on the oil-for-food pr
Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:3, Informative)
As far as the merits of the idea go, statistically each launch would give a few people cancer. You're not going to sell people on that idea unless there's an absolutely compelling need (the Big One is about to hit us, for instance).
Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:2)
NASA GUY: Today I'm unveiling our new manned space vehicle, powered by the Happy Fluffy Bunny Reactor Drive.
PRESS: Wow! That's pretty cool! How does it work?
NASA GUY: The Happy Fluffy Bunny Reactor takes radioactive elements and splits them, releasing radiation and large amounts of heat, which drives react
that rabbit's a killer! (Score:2)
I say rename it the 'Vorpal Drive,' and have at it. Tally-ho, to the stars!
Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:2)
The Real Reason Chemical Ship Can't Cut It (Score:5, Insightful)
The real reason we need to use something else to move about the solar system is that chemically fueled ships can't go fast enough.
We need to go from LEO to the Moon in well under a day, and to Mars in less than one month. Chemicals can't do that.
Chemicals are fine for launch to LEO, and there is no particular reason, I think, to launch nuclear ships from Earth's surface. Build and use them in space.
Re:The Real Reason Chemical Ship Can't Cut It (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The Real Reason Chemical Ship Can't Cut It (Score:3, Insightful)
### There were also ethical issues with launching such a vehicle from the surface of the earth; calculations showed that between 1 and 10 people would die from each takeoff from fallout. ###
Unless they got that problem solved you won't see those 8000000 tonns launch anytime soon.
Re:The Real Reason Chemical Ship Can't Cut It (Score:2)
I suppose it depends on what kind of spin the media puts on it...
I vote you for the fallout zone.... (Score:2)
Yet at the same time, the automobile accidents are something we try to reduce and we don't just shrug and say 'Hey, those 114 deaths don't matter! Let's tack on another 10!'
Oddly, I think that 1-10 more deaths in what most folk would percieve as an unnecessary event would b
Re:I vote you for the fallout zone.... (Score:2)
Re:The Real Reason Chemical Ship Can't Cut It (Score:2)
Perhaps on a cost-benefit analysis, a case could
Re:The Real Reason Chemical Ship Can't Cut It (Score:2)
Given the weight that they could transfer it really isn't that much, every once in a while people blow semself up with chemical rockets too. The problem is who dies? Surly not the once that are doing the launch, but some innocent people to which the wind ends up blowing the fallout and that is the real problem. And beside from the dead people you would surly do a lot of havok to a wide area and cause illness for lots of
Re:The Real Reason Chemical Ship Can't Cut It (Score:2)
As far as I know the problem with the depleted uranium wasn't that its radioactive, but simply that it is toxic. So shooting around with it and producing lots of uranium dust is not to good for health, while simply handling the stuff itself shouldn't be to much of a problem.
Re:The Real Reason Chemical Ship Can't Cut It (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, first, because we have no current or forseeable missions that require putting 8000000 tons into LEO.
Second, Orion is all talk. We have no way of knowing the damn thing would work as advertised.
Third, we'd have to abrogate several treaties, including the one that bans open-air nuclear explosions. Unless a hostile alien craft the size of the Moon has pa
Re:The Real Reason Chemical Ship Can't Cut It (Score:2)
Re:The Real Reason Chemical Ship Can't Cut It (Score:2)
What's your point? That you have a problem with reality?
When politics expresses the will of the people, that's called democracy. Got a problem with that?
Or do you think we should all bow down before the wisdom of the elite who agree with you?
Convince enough people to agree wth you and then "politics" will be on your side. That's how the world has always worked, and always will.
Stop blaming "politics" for your lack of persuasive abili
Re:The Real Reason Chemical Ship Can't Cut It (Score:2)
(I don't see "politics" as some kind of dirty game to be avoided. Politics is simply the way we all bargain, maneuver and compromise to advance our own best interests. That's the way people behavem because we all honestly disagree about what is good and what is right.)
So, if the majority of the people in the U.S. don't want atmospheric nuclear explosions, that's exactly what should happen. It's not someone's "purely pol
Re:The Real Reason Chemical Ship Can't Cut It (Score:2)
Misunderstanding isn't the issue. People are scared to death of nuclear weapons. That's a reasonable position to take. They're also very afraid of nuclear fallout; also a reasonable position. No misunderstanding there.
No politican dependent on the good will of the people is going to support something that scares them to death.
Orion, then, requires the atmosphereic detonation of a very large number of nuclear weapons. Even if someone believed they could
Re:The Real Reason Chemical Ship Can't Cut It (Score:2)
No, chemicals can't do that. Niether can any other form of transportation that follows the rules of physics as currently understood.
The real question is: Why do we need to go to the Moon in one day? And to Mars in a month? (And you do understand that the distance between the Earth and Mars varies by orders of magnitude on a regular basis...)
Re:The Real Reason Chemical Ship Can't Cut It (Score:2)
Because human exploration and exploitation of the inner Solor System cannot take place as long as it takes months and years to complete missions. Space travel isn't a mission of pure science and research; it isn't analagous to 19th century expeditions to the poles.
Even if that were the case, shorter missions dramatically reduce life support requirements, permitting additional cargo and payload, including research personnel and e
Re:The Real Reason Chemical Ship Can't Cut It (Score:2)
That's an unproven assumption, not the fact you treat it as.
Again, that
Re:The Real Reason Chemical Ship Can't Cut It (Score:2)
It is irrelevant to look for "facts" in this arena. There was no "fact" to compel Europeans to migrate to the Americas, but they still migrated.
People are free to do what they choose. We don't need to find "facts" to motivate us.
If people like you were running the show, we'd all still be hanging around the Olduvai Gorge chasing game because no you wouldn't see any "facts" justifying going somewhere else.
Re:The Real Reason Chemical Ship Can't Cut It (Score:2)
This says much about you.
Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:2)
The key bottleneck is Earth to orbit. It really doesn't matter what technology is used to get into orbit as long as there is high launch volume. Chemical rockets are good enough to fill that need and the real obstacles here are economic and political.
Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:2)
Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:2)
It is however an option in space, if the nuclear fuel is brought up to orbit in a rocket with established safety.
As far as the nuclear engineers -- that is a non-issue. If you think nuclear engineers are per se dangerous, then we should pay them to retrain themselves for other (hopefully physics related
Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:2)
Forget the Ramjet, I think you meant Scramjet ala the X-43.
As for Nuclear power, the problem is getting a nuclear power source that does not have tremendous shielding mass requirements. Something that produces gamma radiation only would be best (like positron/electron reactors). There are a few out there, but they need a lot of
Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm still not so sure about the Scramjet. The engine itself is a great idea, but the structural requirements are terrible. Even a minor flaw in the surface of the vessel would lead to catastrophe.
The grandparent probably has it right. If you use Jet engines to get to a higher altitude, the efficiency of nuclear thermal engines can take you the rest of the distance without having to go hypersonic in thick atmosphere.
Interestingly, the "best" solution may even be a ramjet engine. Since a nuclear engine can run on any fluid, what more efficient method exists than pulling oxygen from the atomosphere? And if you afterburn with hydrogen, you're going to get one hellva kick in the pants. (Alternatively, you can turn it around and heat the hydrogen while "burning" the oxygen")
Amazingly, we already have the engine to do this. Pratt & Whitney's TRITON [nuclearspace.com] engine is the perfect solution. As a "tri-modal" engine, it's capable of three modes of operation:
1. Low atmosphere afterburning for high powered launches.
2. Upper atmosphere and orbital transfer propulsion using pure hydrogen fuel.
3. Low fission rate "idle" mode which produces ~200 kW of power. (More than enough for onboard systems.)
The implications of this engine are staggering. Thanks to the tungsten clad design, it can be used anywhere without polution. Which means that we can have a single engine type that can not only produce massive thrust on takeoff, perhaps even produce the much covettd and highly efficient ramjet. (Rocket scientists love the idea of taking oxygen from the atmosphere, but don't normally want their rockets spending enough time in the lower atmosphere to make it worthwhile). But also an engine type that is highly efficient in upper-atmosphere and "space" areas. Plus, the craft can ditch heavy batteries and fuel cells in favor of drawing all its power from the engines. That power would even be available for electrical manuvering thrusters [wikipedia.org] so that the amount of propellant carried can be reduced. Thus some of the weight you pay for in heavier engines can be regained in reducing redudant systems.
If we're going to get a bird in the air in the near future that can get people to orbit cheaply and safely, nuclear is where my money is.
Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:2, Insightful)
Amazingly, we already have the engine to do this. Pratt & Whitney's TRITON engine is the perfect solution."
I didn't see anywhere in that article linked where it said that the oxygen would be pulled from the atmosphere. As long as no air is sent through the reactor, there will be no problem (and in the design linked LOX is sent downstream of the reactor). Once you send air
Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:2)
It's an engine, not a complete vessel. You'd need to add additional intakes to obtain the oxygen from the air, and then feed it to the afterburner.
Once you send air through a reactor the radiation released from the rocket will go up by orders of magnitude due to neutron activation of Ar-40 to Ar-41.
That's why I suggested that they could be switched around. Not only will fewer engine changes
Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:2)
Man with a plan (Score:5, Insightful)
Wonder who in the US bureaucratic nightmare pool is going to put a stop to his plans ?
Re:Man with a plan (Score:2)
"Licking ass of general public" is perhaps too much...but you get the idea
Re:Man with a plan (Score:2)
Ah, but with these sorts of things, doesn't "Good" typically mean "Full of features"? It seems that by going with simple they're trying to reduce the number of features. It seems quite possible to have something which is simple, cheap, and quickly developed.
Let's get this straight. (Score:5, Interesting)
Atleast the Russians will send you up if you're fit enough and loaded, NASA doesn't even do that.
So why would this plan be a good one?
Re:Let's get this straight. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let's get this straight. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yup. Everyone that has gone thinks zero-g is a blast; and the Earth looks pretty whizzing past at 8km/s. Facile? Maybe. Unique- definitely.
The more people that launch to there, the more facilities are needed, and the cheaper it becomes to use lunar resources than launch everthing from the Earth- it turns out that that is cheaper, but the startup costs are high.
Humanity doesn't gain anything and most people can't afford it anyway. Hell the launch costs alone are probably around $300k+ per person, and that won't go down without either a space elevator, nuclear rocket or a lot more space travel (and I mean a lot).
Actually, the space elevator probably doesn't work for humans because of the Van Allen belts, (but it might be good for cargo); but simply launching a LOT probably does.
Why does it matter?
Cheap energy (Solar Power Satellites), colonisation of other planets, reduction of CO2 production, exploration of the solar system. Basically launching a lot reduces the costs, and opens up space so that we can actually use it and go places other than the Earth. Is that bad or wrong?
And the only reason Russia is even sending ordinary peopel into space is because they're broke.
So what you're saying is that Russia is doing it to make money, and there is a market. And this is a problem because?
Re:Let's get this straight. (Score:3, Interesting)
"high" is an understatement. The ISS is around $100 billion in cost and has a weight of 1mil pounds. Quick calculations put the cost of sending the ISS into orbit at $10billion (and probably less), which is only 10% of the cost. Consider that for a second, launch costs aren't the bigg
Re:Let's get this straight. (Score:2)
Well, Bigelow has cheap space hotels in the pipeline, and there's a fair amount of capacity if the launch process can be streamlined.
Also it's in Russia; it's questionable if such a venture would even be profitable in the US.
So, are Nike shoes; they're profitable because they don't make them in Russia. That's why
Re:Let's get this straight. (Score:2)
Re:Let's get this straight. (Score:2, Informative)
If you have the tech to build a space elevator, dispersing the Van Allen radiation belts [space.com] is a cinch.
Even dispersing just the inner belt would be helpful: the Space Station could be then pushed into a higher orbit so it needs less frequent reboosting.
Van allen Belts (Score:2)
I wonder what effects the radiation from the van allen belts will have on the carbon nanotubes and the polymers to bind them in the "ribbon" for the space elevator.
It seems to me that having a sensive molecular structure getting bombarded by high energy particles is not a good thing. OTOH, if they put a big collection plate up, and hooked it up to a cable running down the ribbon, you'd have some zero pollution electricity
Wow,
Re:Let's get this straight. (Score:2)
Russia actually has plenty of spare money - so much that it decided to prepay its debts to the Paris Club ahead of time [mosnews.com]: Kudrin said Russia would transfer the first tranche of $13 billion to Paris Club members in June.
Re:Let's get this straight. (Score:2)
NASA Does Exploration, Not Charter Bus Services (Score:3, Insightful)
Meanwhile, don't forget the Russians are doing the tourist bit because they need the money, not because they're blazing a new trail for "ordinary people".
Re:NASA Does Exploration, Not Charter Bus Services (Score:2)
Really? I have no problem with genuine exploration, but I have extreme difficulty in understanding what exploration the ISS was all about. It's not like there's been thousands of new discoveries from the ISS. On the other hand check out Cassini.
Basically, for human flight, to put it extremely crudely, NASA should piss or get off the pot. The evidence of the Shuttle and the ISS is that NASA is not as good at it as the Russians. Rus
Re:NASA Does Exploration, Not Charter Bus Services (Score:2)
Replace "exploration" with "foreign relations and keeping Russian rocket scientists from going to hostile nations," and it'll make a lot more sense.
Re:NASA Does Exploration, Not Charter Bus Services (Score:2)
Meanwhile, let's explore the "exploration" the Soviets did before they went bust: build smaller and cruder version of ISS; use same 3-man capsule they used snce the 1960's to staff and supply that space station. ISS/Shuttle or Mir/Soyuz: no
Re:Let's get this straight. (Score:2)
If I understand correctly, Goddard invented the liquid-fueled rocket and developed the first true modern rockets, but China used rockets for a long time (many centuries) before that.
Second, why should it be NASA's job to send ordinary people into space? This sounds like a job for private industry (eg, the Virgin Airlines and Scaled Composites partnership)
Re:Let's get this straight. (Score:2)
No Hubble Mission Decision (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No Hubble Mission Decision (Score:2)
Re:No Hubble Mission Decision (Score:2)
Wait one darn minute... (Score:4, Funny)
You mean we trolled for no reason!?
If America and Russia only would cooperate ... (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kliper.html [russianspaceweb.com]
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/kliper.htm [astronautix.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kliper [wikipedia.org]
the maiden flight was originally planned for 2007-2008 if I remember that correctly (read it in a German aviation magazine (Fliegerrevue) some time ago), but as usual with such projects and russia: sadly they have no more money to complete it. Relatively little american money could have a huge effect here. But I guess national pride on both sides will prevent this from coming true.
regards, sqar
Re:If America and Russia only would cooperate ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If America and Russia only would cooperate ... (Score:2)
Re:If America and Russia only would cooperate ... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but that makes about as much sense as saying that the nations of the world should join together and build one common airplane. Design by committee generally doesn't work too well, especially if the design has to be made such that it siphons an appropriate amount of money into each of the involved countries.
Re:If America and Russia only would cooperate ... (Score:2)
Why? First off design-by-comitte rarely (if ever) works. Secondly, we no more need one type of launch vehicle than we need one type of car, plane, boat, or train.
Heck, right here in the US we already have a rough idea of how to
Going UP (Score:2)
Re:Going UP (Score:5, Insightful)
Cliff Notes for TFA (Score:5, Informative)
Key points.
Shuttle Dead in 2010. Before if possible.
ISS final configuration from a shuttle launch standpoint is being re-considered. This is perahaps the biggest driver of a 2010 retirement date. Current requirements mandate that pretty much as a minimum. Robotic launches being considered for completing delivery of components.
CEV developement cycle drasticly reduced. Operational no later than shuttle retirement. Translation: Sounds like if they can get CEV ready Shuttle will die then if a new final config is confirmed for ISS.
Step up Space Nuclear Power. It is a must for manned sapce exploration beyond earth/moon and for any kind of permanent moon outpost of any real scale. If we don't have it ready by the time the CEV is we will have to wait on it before doing much more than flags and footprints again.
Re-evaluate the decision to not service Hubble after RTF missions so that a more informed opinion on the safety risks invovled can be made. Key here really is the decision not to kill budgeting for keeping the service mission an option. (ie the cost is mostly in the parts development and testing, not launch). Thus NASA can't re-appropriate that money for use elsewhere in the budget until the decision is re-afffirmed after return to flight... OR they decide it is a reasonable risk after all at which point all money for anything other than de-orbit will be re-apportioned in the budget. Smart move for money by Griffon. Regardless it keeps the money in for FY 06 as we will most likely not complete analysis of the two RTF missions till after the end of FY'05. So that means the money can't simply be axed off the NASA budget, it can go somewhere else. At 350 million it isn't chump change to a budget starved program.
Keep some other political programs on life support (education etc...) to keep some senetors happy.
Rob Peter to pay Paul. In order to do anything NASA has to cut somewhere. The only major areas of funding are space science, manned space operations and ISS. Already covered that two are pretty secure. Space science fundign is increasing but existing programs are largely getting the shaft for now with a promise to get picked up on the back end. IE thats what it means to delay some programs till after meeting exploration goals in the short term. So my guess is the telescopes are going to take a hit and that is why they are going to re-consider Keeping Huble limping along to possible keep a gap from happening or at least moving the gap already planned a few years farther along.
NASA will bug congress to allow purchasing more Russian launch capacity. Nasa paid for Soyuz missions are about spent and right now we can't give the RSA any more for launches. Not played very large in the statement but that is a big issue in current ISS operations and one that needs to be addressed.
3rd Shuttle Blows up: What happens to Priorities? (Score:3, Insightful)
The CAIB gave clear direction on how to reform NASA. But their only Nobel Laureate Physicist (Feynman being long buried) gave a press conference to say that he does NOT believe that NASA can effectively change its "corporate culture."
I've praised Mike Griffin in slashdot, but he can no more change NASA's style than Eric Raymond can change Microsoft.
-- Professor Jonathan Vos Post
Funding is a Joke (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Funding is a Joke (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Funding is a Joke (Score:2)
I'd like to see some sort of theoretical figures for this. I _suspect_ you are talking out of your ass, but let's be sure, shall we?
There's nothing out in space that's going to magically bring in tens of trillions of dollars. Even raw minerals are not anywhere near the sum you're describing.
But, please, educate me.
-Erwos
Re:Funding is a Joke (Score:2)
Though if you want a potential real source of money? He3 is probably the best current candidate. Extrodinarily rare on the Earth it is by compariso
Re:Funding is a Joke (Score:2)
How about pumping all that money into fixing up earth? Heck, if we don't get it right on the earth, how to you expect to get it right on some mars colonnie, generation spaceship or whatever with much harder constrains?
The earth is good enough to serve mankind easily for a few million years, I have little doubt that we would even surrive a astroid hit without much problem, sure not all of us, but enough to not
Visionary Science or Good Politics? (Score:2)
Re:Project Prometheus (Score:2)
Re:Project Prometheus (Score:2)
Re:Err.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:They could do worse (Score:2)
It's not too bad a plan, athough I'd like to see more unmanned missions in the works.
Manned Shuttle missions are much more expensive than unmanned missions (e.g. using rockets instead of the Shuttle to launch ISS modules). Since somebody would rather fight a war on the other side of the planet, it looks like NASA has a lot of unmanned flight in its future. While I would rather privitize or flat out eliminate most of the federal government (yes, I am one of those crazy Libertarians), NASA is one of the ar