Slashdot Mirror
Pluto Mission Apparently Cancelled
hey! writes "This just in at space.com -- new details of the Bush NASA budget.
It looks like the Pluto-Kuiper express has been cancelled -- possibly our last chance for centuries to get a closeup look at Pluto's atmosphere. As Jupiter moves out of position for gravity assist and Pluto moves further from the Sun it's atmosphere will begin to freeze.
My favorite line in the report -- ISS will get increased "consistent with a strategy of constraining space station cost growth." OK, they're talking about being pound wise and penny foolish, but you can't pass up an Orwellian straight line like that."
If the Administration hadn't expressed an interest in constraining budget growth of the ISS, I'd be worried.
Anyone want to post hard numbers on exactly how many billions of dollars the ISS is over-budget? How much of our "financial aid" to Russia has really been "please, take this bribe and keep Baikonur operating a little while longer"?
The ISS is hugely, massively overbudget. The Administration's expressed interest in constraining more costs is prudence, not Visigothism. Saying "this thing is already several billion overbudget, and we don't want to see it grow one dollar moreso" is a great deal different from saying "we're not going to give this the funding it needs".
While I'm adamantly in favor of the space program and long-term habitation in space, I'm not in favor of the idea (which some Slashdotters seem to agree with) that any level of funding is acceptable, and any constraint on funding is neo-Luddism.
Aliens on pluto are reportedly unhappy with the decision, as they can now not live up to a bet they made last year with the Martians to crash the probe. The Martians are said to be joyful over the news because pluto now has to change it's name to snoopy.....
________
Does anyone actually have a Java program designed to control air traffic, or for the operation of a nuclear facility?
[B]ut you can't pass up an Orwellian straight line like that.
Sadly it looks like they can. Science or the pursuit of knowlege is usually one of the first things to go in times of trouble. I am not an American, but I would hardly call the times in the U.S. "troubled". I fear that the constant downgrading of NASA is perhaps that warning sign of trouble.
There is simply too much "lack of caring" for scientific (or more specifically skeptical) thinking in North America, things like the "outlawing" of evolutionary instruction are, like the NASA "A Blueprint for New Beginnings" dangerous. Sure, the budget is 2% greater than 2001, but with the space station all the money is put towards that.
Expect to see even more "cheaper, faster" but not "better" space exploring craft in the future.
I have a bad feeling about this.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
- Gravity
- Been there
- Less complicated system
They could come up with some sort of dome that they use and have the shuttle transport and install it (it would be of a minimal size - bed rooms..). They just launch tons and tons of air canisters (enough for a few months) and then launch construction equipment.UPS Sucks
dimator writes:
... ), which has meant fierce competition instead of cooperation. Johnson, in particular, was run by the notoriously prickly George Abbey, who has just been bumped up to a non-job in NASA headquarters, after some 20 years (interrupted) of stubborn power.
>Space station program management would also shift from Johnson Space Center, Houston
>to NASA Headquarters in Washington under Bush's plan.
This is a travesty. "Washington, we have a problem." How stupid is that!?
Of course the Mission Control rooms at Houston's Johnson Space Center will remain right where they are. What is changing is that the JSC manager will no longer be virtually independent. One of the crippling problems with NASA over he years has been the feudal independence of the various centers (Houston, Marshall, Kennedy, Dryden, JPL
All this means is that Goldin is making sure nobody gets that powerful again anytime soon.
----
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
We have two many nuclear submarines going around in circles that really are not needed any more. How many times over is it necessary to destroy the Planet? We have enough power to destroy *all* life on Earth.
We have enough deterrants already, no need for more, why not pout this money into things that help humanity? Further the prospects of everyone on Earth, not hinder it with the chgance of total death. Can you imagine in 65 million years a new intelligence trying to figure out killed our species out? Was it an Asteroid? Nope. Oh my, it was there own weapons, they must have been primitive.
If you think that the threat has subsided, well it has to a point, but remember that in 1995 we came to within 2 minutes of Nuclear devastation due to a Norwegian weather rocket fooling the Russians into thinking that the US had launched a first strike against Moscow.
I am not saying we should scrap all the military assests, that would be silly, but we should cut back the white elephants and put that money into something more meaningful.
We have achieved more when reaching out exploring than we have any other way, in my ever so humble opinion.
StarTux
Estimated cost of national missile defense system: $ 60 billion.
In other words: The United States develop a "missile defense" system against "rogue states" which is known not to work. For this money, they could fly man three times to Mars and back. 'nuff said.
--
This particular budget cut is a travesty of magnificent proprtions. The celestial clock happens to be perfectly in tune with our technological advancement, to offer us this rare glimpse of our environment, as a species. To decide that we can't afford to redirect a few paltry resources to the task strikes me as narrow and crude. It's almost as if, as a species, we are too lazy to bother craning our necks a little to see what's outside the crib.
But it doesn't have to be this way. NASA isn't the only agency capable of sendiing the probe. in fact, maybe this feat could be accomplished on a voluntary basis? We have theories/plans for magical technology at our disposal, commercial support services to pester, potential launch capabilities and a wide variety of legal launch facilities around the world.
Consider: we have, just here at slashdot, the ears of a number of very technically capable individuals that might be persuaded to help create a Pluto Probe in an open sourced, ameteur manner. Corporate sponsorship would be soon to follow. Perhaps I haven't thought it out too carefully, but it is apparent to me that the potential to deploy a probe exists, despite the government.
::I will not moderate my opinions for your stinking karma
To quote the document which the Slashdot reference refers to:
To support a potential, future sprint to the planet Pluto before 2020, additional funds will be directed to key propulsion technology investments.
I think this is an excellent idea: The Deep Space 1 probe has already pretty much proven that ion drive works, and more interesting propulsion technologies exist on the drawing board. Not only the Pluto-Kuiper program will benefit from this (the Kuiper belt will still be there) but other probe programs as well (except maybe Moon probes, but they ain't that interesting anyway).
The whole budget thing seems to me like GWB is shaking a stick at NASA, saying that they must start to think about the commercialization of space, and to build more reliable stuff.
It isn't all bad, IMHO. It could be a lot worse.
This is insanely off-topic, but it's worth mentioning, because it comes up every time someone suggests we cut the nuclear triad to save mondo buckaroos:
Nuclear Forces Cost Virtually Nothing. In comparison to the conventional infrastructure, that is. Yes, the R&D for the B2, Ohio SSBNs, and Trident D5 were very expensive, but everything except the B2 pales in comparison what we're going to spend on the F-22, F-117, SeaWolf, and JSF.
Fundamentally, about the only significant cost-savings you can squeeze out of the Nuclear forces is not to build any more B2s (I think we have 1 scheduled for FY2002, at about $2B ). Cutting anything else is a tiny savings, since we've already done the research and paid for the hardware, and there is fundamentally very little there to begin with.
Yes, I'm very much for getting rid of the B2 force, and seriously cutting the MX/Minuteman deployments. But don't be fooled. These aren't going to save any significant money (doing both of the above might save a few hundred million/year, tops). Compared to the billions it costs to keep a single Carrier task force running, or an Armored Division prepped, this is peanuts. And remember, a huge amount of the military budget is personnel (pay, medical benefits, housing, et al), consumables (new ammunition, jet fuel, etc.) and R&D, all of which have very little to do with the nuclear forces.
If you're going to cut nukes, do it for strategic reasons. Don't be an idiot and think it will save any real money, though.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
According to NASA:
2000/09/13 - A NASA stop work order has been issued for The Pluto-Kuiper Express mission as currently envisioned. Further direction from NASA has been given to develop a new mission to reach Pluto before 2020.
Note that the date is last September, which is before the US Election debacle. To you Bush haters out there, please understand the facts of the situation before you immediately jump all over Dubya.
The US nuclear arsenal is less than 3,000 megatons of explosive yield. Russia's nuclear arsenal has been estimated to have a comparable yield. While this is enough, if properly targetted, to kill a large proportion of the humans on Earth, it isn't remotely enough to "destroy all life on Earth". As a point of reference, the eruption of Mt. St. Helens has been estimated to have released 450 megatons of energy.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
If you read the troll FAQ (sorry, don't have the link), you'll recognize this as a classic troll. First sentence is entirely reasonable, but, as the post progesses, it becomes more and more inflammatory. The closing line, "NASA is finally doing something useful.", is the closing barb...
If you don't believe me, check qpt's user info and look at his comment history. See how many -1's qpt has posted? There are also some 3's and 4's, suggesting that he's a pretty successful troll.
Just so I don't wander too far off-topic, I'll analyze and rebut one line:
Far too much effort is being wasted in superfluous programs that have no real chance of every producing a usable application.
Yeah, like quantum mechanics. Oh, wait, about a third of all technology invented in the past 50 years involves QM (directly or indirectly). Think semiconductors, high-temp superconductors, laser diodes...
And what the hell was up with those crazy Watson and Crick guys who were playing with a double helix? And that Newton guy...
I dare you to name a single scientific theory that's at least 50 years old and hasn't been useful.
I could go on, but it's just a troll. If you fell for it (as the moderators have), you should be ashamed of yourself.
snip
Highlights of 2002 Funding
snip
Did I read wrong, or is Bush actually INCREASING the budget for some majour programs? And privatizing space flight? There is strong support for the argument that privatizing space flight will send us forward by leaps and bounds, because of the increased funding, the increased safety requirements, and the increased interest (competition, etc).
Truth be told, NASA isn't getting enough. But when Bush actually increases their budget, rather than decreasing it like I feared he would, I think he deserves a little credit. True, some of the bazillion dollars given to military could have gone to NASA, but at least he increased spending on space stuff!
So don't be so quick to criticise Bush on this one; he seems to be doing NASA a favour this time.
Forager
student of animation and the fine arts
It really saddens me to see how the space program has gotten shoved in the background over the past decade or two. Sure, it's a horrendously expensive endeavor in the short term, but I can't think of ANY better long-term investment, with returns in technology, economic wealth (I'd wager there's gold - and things even more valuable - in them there asteroids), and essential resources (stick a big array of solar panels in orbit, and you've got insane amounts of free energy, forever). And with overpopulation and global industrialization progressing at their current rate, humanity better start thinking NOW about where it's going to go as a species once things start to get truly shaky, even if that's a century or two down the road. Getting lots of people off the planet, one way or another, looks like the best long-term option from my perspective.
In the short term, too, I think the space program has many benefits. It gives people something to dream about, and a way to express the pioneer spirit now that all of available land masses on earth have been more or less spoken for. When I was growing up, in the late 70s-early 80s, the space program was one of the first things to get me REALLY fired up about learning. Following the progress of the Voyager missions, the Mars probes, and the first Space Shuttle flights was utterly mind-blowing. I suspect that these interests had plenty to do with my getting interested in computers, which has proved rewarding in all sorts of ways. But then, a few years later, between the arms race of the cold war and the explosion of the Challenger, the U.S. cooled off on the space race, and hasn't regained the same momentum since.
There are plenty of arguments that money for the space program can be better spent. Not just on increased military spending and tax cuts for the rich, but for things like food and education. How can a nation spend billions building space probes when so many of its own people are going hungry, homeless, and without medical care? That's a sticky question.
But in the long term, I think that if anything holds the keys for humanity's long-term success as a species, it's probably the space program.
Note to President Bush: if you succeed in getting me that $1600 tax cut you've talked about, you can send my share to NASA. They've got much cooler things to spend the money on than I do.
All your mp3 are belong to us.
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
The Anti-Blog
To those of you bitching and whining: Instead of depending on Uncle Sugar for everything, why don't you organize an effort to privately fund a probe? If it's that important, you shouldn't have any trouble raising the funds.
Oh, I see, it's important, not not important enough to do anything personally.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
If we take all the proceeds from the "ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US" merchandise, we could finance NASA enough to get a human on Pluto.
;-)
Sorry Ed.