Mars Rovers Facing Budget Cuts [Updated] 327
BUL2294 notes a CNN article reporting that the Mars Rovers program at NASA is facing budget cuts of $4 million for this year and $8 million for fiscal 2009. This will mean job cuts; and in all likelihood Spirit will be put in "hibernation mode," to be reactivated when or if future funding becomes available."
Update: 03/29 20:02 GMT by KD : NASA has rescinded the memo to the JPL threatening budget cuts, and is now saying that no rovers will be shut down.
Update: 03/29 20:02 GMT by KD : NASA has rescinded the memo to the JPL threatening budget cuts, and is now saying that no rovers will be shut down.
Re:Sad day (Score:1, Informative)
But what do you expect? Trillion dollar wars have to be paid for somehow. Bush and Cheney might have said that they'd just put it on the credit card and we'd never have to worry about it but that is simply not the case.
Call your Congressman (Score:5, Informative)
Get their info here [votesmart.org].
Explore Mars? Or waste the money in Iraq? (Score:2, Informative)
Selling one is more feasible than you might think. (Score:5, Informative)
The Planetary Society [planetary.org] immediately comes to mind as a serious buyer. They launched the Cosmos 1 Solar Sail [wikipedia.org] on an all-private budget of $4M. The mission failed due to hardware problem (hey, it really is rocket science), but it proved that private charitable organizations are quite capable of raising $4M for space exploration.
The Planetary Society was also instrumental in getting the word out (and raising funds to rescue the data) regarding the Pioneer Anomaly [planetary.org].
More important than the funding angle is the political one, but the Planetary Society has worked extremely closely with NASA over the past 30 years. The collaboration has been sufficiently close that they've actually flown hardware on the ill-fated) Mars Polar Lander [planetary.org]. The Society's work with NASA on Spirit and Opportunity goes all the way back to when the rovers were named [planetary.org] in the first place, as well as the calibration target" [nasa.gov] for the rovers' cameras.
In other words, $4M isn't just a business possibility, the handover of a rover from NASA to the Planetary Society is a political possibility too.
Re:Sad day (Score:4, Informative)
Don't you love people who purposefully don't quote your stuff, then present arguments in an attempt to sidetrack you?
Original statement by poster and my reply:
Now notice the deception:
Never made that claim.
However, I will be happy to demonstrate just one way that the space program (specifically remote sensing - you know, the stuff that the Mars Rovers are an extension of) has improved the lives of 6.5 billion people:
Without decent remote sensing capabilities (spy satellites) allowing real-time verification, the cold war would have turned into a hot war. Glowing in the dark might be "cool", but it sucks when your half-life is cut down to hours.
Remember - some of the shuttle missions were military spy satellites. These missions helped end the cold war, since the USSR couldn't keep spending at the same pace, and ultimately lost the "militarization of space race."
Continuing to develop rovers into semi-autonomous or even autonomous vehicles would be one step towards workable von Neumann machines. There are lots of practical uses for a working von Neumann machine right here on earth
Re:Sad day (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Simple solutions for NASA (Score:5, Informative)
No more. The US National debt is now $9.4 Trillion. Our debt is increasing by $1.6 Billion dollars every single day. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ [brillig.com]
The National debt was around $5 Trillion when Bush took office. As noted above, it's now approaching $10 Trillion. He has basically doubled it during his two terms. So, yeah, we would still be screwed without the war but we are especially screwed with it.
And 4,000 Americans are really screwed - they're dead. And another 30-40,000 suffer from various levels of injuries up to missing limbs, missing eyes, missing parts of their brains, extreme disfigurement, etc.
Any other comments are superfluous.
Re:Simple solutions for NASA (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Maybe Next Year? (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps YOU should look at NASA's budgets:
NASA budget: 1997: 14.358 Billion
NASA budget: 2007: 16.250 Billion
This is not an "inflation-adjusted" figure. Over the last 10 years, NASA's budget has grown by a total of 13.177%. Over those same 10 years, inflation totalled 27.23%. (and that's only using the "core inflation" figures that don't take into account housing, food, or energy).
Adding a billion still leaves it short by $2.017 Billion.
Re:Sad day (Score:4, Informative)
As an actual economist, I can't stand people that pull numbers out of their asses and talk like they're some kind of "authority" or that some crap they read is an "authority." Anyone that ACTUALLY understands economics would know that there is no such thing as "knowing" the "real" rate of inflation and that the CPI is the best indicator of inflation we have; there are versions of the CPI that DO include energy expenditures.
The reason that the traditional CPI does not include energy is because of the speculative nature of energy prices and 1) they change too often to be measurable with accuracy (on a monthly basis) and 2) it is assumed that the cost of energy will be picked up by cost increases in all other goods, thus energy costs would have a multiplicative effect on the CPI, which will make it less accurate and less useful.
Thanks for playing. Go home.
Re:Sad day (Score:3, Informative)
The CPI is released in several forms. It's usually reported in the news as either the overall CPI index (which includes food and energy), or the CPI less food and energy (sometimes referred to as the "cold and hungry" CPI). Neither is anywhere close to 10-12%. See for yourself [bls.gov]. Overall inflation, at an annual rate, based on the last 3 months is 3.4%. Based on the last 12 months, it's 4.4%. Without food and energy, these numbers are 2.4% and 2.3%. Inflation is up from its relatively low values in the last couple of decades, but still far away from the early 80s [stlouisfed.org]. Also, many economists believe that the CPI in fact overstates inflation. Why? People will substitute from goods which became relatively more expensive to those which haven't. To the extent that the basket of goods that the Bureau of Labor Statistics uses to calculate CPI doesn't take this into account, it will make inflation seem larger than the average person will really feel.
The CPI is supposed to measure what typical households buy, but if you can only pick one rate of "inflation", it's usually the most reasonable. Even if you were to argue that NASA spends a great deal of its budget on fuel (which I highly, highly doubt), that fuel is not directly petroleum-based. The solid rockets are based on ammonium percholorate [wikipedia.org] (according to this [wikipedia.org]). The shuttle itself has engines based off of liquid hydrogen and oxygen [wikipedia.org].
Re:Sad day (Score:1, Informative)
From Wikipedia:
Velcro: The hook-loop fastener was invented in 1945 by Swiss engineer, George de Mestral.
Tang: The original orange flavored Tang was formulated by General Foods Corporation in 1957.
Microwave Oven: Cooking food with microwaves was discovered by Percy Spencer while building magnetrons for radar sets at Raytheon.
Internet: DARPA, i.e. Us Military.
Really I don't know why studying rocks on Mars is that important. What we need is more research into clean renewable energy. That would solve the terrorist problem(no more easy oil money), world hunger, global warming, benefit the first(probably the most since we use the most), second and third worlds and possibly bring world peace.
No doubt someone will try to make up some bullshit that studying Mars climate will help us study Global warming or some other line of BS. My answer is no it won't. And even if it did, its a little like trying to figure out why your house is on fire, instead of working on putting it out.
Re:Sad day (Score:4, Informative)
Price of gasoline 10 years ago: $1.04.
Price of gasoline now: $3.27
They exclude energy from the inflation calculations for just that reason - it affects the cost of everything, and it's HUGE.
Then there's housing: http://therealreturns.blogspot.com/2007/06/median-and-average-house-prices-in-usa.html [blogspot.com]
It was a lot worse on the coasts, where price increases of 15 to 30% per YEAR were the norm.http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/2005/0624.html [financialsense.com]
As for the "it is assumed that the cost of energy will be picked up by cost increases in all other goods" - when calculating the CPI, they substitute goods preferentially so as to lower the calculation, as well as "adjusting" the price of a good downward!!! if it's better than last year's model...
andReal inflation has been understated since 1986, when they changed the way it was calculated. Anyone who says they believe the "official" CPI is a fool or a liar.
Umm, check that again (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Simple solutions for NASA (Score:3, Informative)
The surpluses where caused by two main facters that will never be repeated soon. First was the Roth IRA conversion which allow regular before tax IRAs to be converted to after tax IRAs so we took a future tax payment and allowed it to be spread across 4 years. The second thing is the Tax breaks on capitol gains which spurred movement on long held investments. Going from a top marginal 39% federal rate to a 15% lead to investors cashing out sooner then later which also led to the market rally which ended with the dot com bust. The later did more harm long term then good. We have yet to see the effect of the IRA conversion which the next administration will start dealing with.
It sounds good to say string them together, and if making appropriate cuts in spending where behind it was the actual cause, it would be a good plan. But the current policy seems to be wait until something bad happens, use a gimmick like the last time we had a balanced budget and surplus, then let it ride. At this stage, massive cuts and increased taxes (something that would crash the economy harder then a speeding car hitting a brick wall) is about the only way to get another temporary surplus.
Re:Simple solutions for NASA (Score:3, Informative)