Slashdot Mirror
Pluto Mission Back?
FortKnox writes "When the NASA budget cuts earlier this week came, the Pluto mission was killed. However, Space.com reports that NASA will attempt to make some proposals to Congress to get money for the project."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Under Bush NASA will be getting its first funding increase in the last seven years, even if the increase just keeps up with current inflation (more or less).
Now, yes, specific programs within NASA are being defunded in favor of OTHER specific programs. But the choice isn't between space exploration and tax cuts, it's between space exploration mission A and space exploration mission B.
Maybe Pepsi or Coke would pay for the whole mission in exchange for having their logo painted on the rocket at launch time?
:)
I would think that Disney should have first dibs on this particular mission
You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
Ok, instead of griping, please submit a business plan that shows why my fortune 500 company would make a financial gain out of sending a $500 million mission to Pluto. I eagerly await your response.
--
Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
Why Pluto?? Because within the next 15 years Pluto will have freezed over and we will not be able to obtain as much information about its surface then.
The X-33/34 space plane program however has no "expiration date" and NASA can resume that at any point in time. The Pluto opportunities however are slipping away.
I have a few interesting links to private projects, that might just show the path to commerce in space, such as tourism, mining and research.
Artemis Project - A private venture to establish a permanent self supporting community on the moon.
Space Frontier Foundation - Want to open up the new frontier for everyone.
Space Island Group - Among other things, they wish to creat low earth orbit commercial space stations.
The X Prize - A prize dedicated to boost the development of private space crafts.
Ok, this was probably off topic, but I guess that my point is, governments will probably not be able to finance all the space projects. There are not enough money. The private sector can do this. Competition is always good, and I think that it will some day make it possible for anyone to go into space.
I can see a possible future where a team of scientists at a university will send a mission to Pluto, mining companies establishing mines on the moon, you will go to the low earth orbit space hotel for your vacation. Ok, this is far in the future, but I think it will happen one day.
Will work for bandwidth
Without on orbit assembly capability -- I mean real work in space done by riggers who can do a day's work -- things have to be pre-assembled and taken up in big chunks, which means shuttle which means a BILLION DOLLARS A FLIGHT for 50,000 pounds or so. What we need is 20 million a flight for 10,000 pounds and that would be achievable but "there is no urgent need for that" because -- well because the stupid space station ate it all. The shuttle and the space station ate the dream. Make no mistake about that. Those monsters need to GO and be replaced by smaller, operations driven, flexible re-usable designs.
Note - original words not my own, original author linked in original message.
Nasa needs to get its act together. The Pluto mission makes sense based on orbital mechanics, etc.
but the rest of the program needs to be rethought. It has slid into boondoggle land instead of being as effective and efficient as it could be. I want them to do things right.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Space exporation can't be privatised because no direct financial gain can be expected from studying pluto's atmosphere :(
I'd love to sponsor the mission though. I am not rich, and I'm not good at organising things, but I'd absolutely pay a few hundred dollars or so to help save the mission to Pluto.
The heck with Pluto. I'd rather see them try to revive the X-33/X-34 Venturestar. The Spaceshuttle orbitors are getting a might bit crusty.
Because the Congress consists of elected representatives, while agency bureaucrats have a lot of vested interests in ongoing programs and may not appreciate the full range of national interests.
It may make you feel better to know that Congress has the power to cancel (or deploy) Defense programs as well.
Who do you trust more with your money? Elected people who are going to want to run again in 2 years, after they have spent your money, or NASA people, who have no reason to please you?
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Peer reviews cut out any of the really 'wayout' ideas, making conservative judgements that restrict the opportunity for scientific advance.
Firstly, peer review is hardly a new thing - the scientific community has *always* relied on peer review, as it's the best method we've found to date to sort out ideas that make sense from ideas that don't.
Secondly, while peer review may cut out a brilliant "way out" idea once in a while, it also cuts out the several hundred corresponding _idiotic_ "way out" ideas that were also submitted. This is an acceptable tradeoff.
In summary, I think that your complaints about peer review are misplaced.
Today you have to be able to show a profit (human genome) if you want to do big science, or indeed much science at all. Peer reviews cut out any of the really 'wayout' ideas, making conservative judgements that restrict the opportunity for scientific advance.
Maybe in 50 years time we will still be fixed to the earth, with technology that is only evolution of today's tech. All because we forgot that money isn't everything - nurturing the soul counts (and pays) too.
It's sick, but I keep thinking that the best thing that will happen to the space program is when a US astronaut dies in orbit or beyond. The holy grail of "never lost one in space" comes at the cost of redundancy, redundancy, redundancy.
Apologies, but screw that. In commercial aviation and particularly shipping, safety is secondary to commercial considerations. It's simply cheaper to kill a few stick jockeys every year than it is to run quintiple backups. NASA are obsessed with protecting an investment per astronaut that's so high that they refuse to quantify it, saying that it's too complicated to calculate (really!). Forget it, let's just start lobbing dozens of big dumb boosters up there carrying a couple of Homers and a trained chimp.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
As usual, spaceflightnow's article is more informative, has fewer banner ads, and is less sarcastic.
--
Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
I have a question as to why Congress should have the right to cancel any specific program. Why not give the whole of NASA a chunk of cash, and let them figure out what to do with it. I'm just guess NASA would have a better idea as to what to do with their money than Congress would.
I'll add a sig just as soon as I clean up this room...