Slashdot Mirror
Big Changes In Proposed U.S. Space Budget
Guppy06 writes: "CNN has this article on some of the effects of Bush's budget proposal would have on the space program. To make a long story short, funding for the manned space program is being trimmed (there's talk about outsourcing the shuttle program) and some high-profile missions to the outer solar system have been cut (say good-bye to the Pluto-Kuiper Express). On the flip side, nuclear propulsion research is getting a boost. Love it, hate it, some big things seem to be in store." The Planetary Society has their reaction to the budget proposal. And because it's been submitted several times: the ISS suffered a computer outage but all is well now.
I don't know why presidents proposed budgets get so much press. Presidents don't really make the budget congress does.
Until our children are no longer molded into castrated sheep democracy remains a fake and a danger. -A. S. Neill
The missions to the outer planets, I think, are very important and should receive full funding. They may not be very efficient, but travel to the outer planets takes so long and is subject to so many constraints that we really need to get these projects going now. It's a shame that they are being cut.
Nuclear propulsion in space is a hot potato because it's potentially dual-use. If this research is conducted completely openly and in an international framework, then it may be acceptable. Otherwise, it will be perceived as simply a way for the US to militarize space and put nuclear technology into space, and, domestically, it would be little more than a ploy for transferring NASA funds to military research.
The Military and NASA have always worked hand in glove.
Many things that were too expensive for NASA were developed by the USAF.
Examples
The SpaceLab was simply the final name for an Air Force Manned Orbital Lab.
Shuttle's cargo bay was designed around the size of the spy sats.
NASA is the civilian arm of Space exploration and development while the real interesting stuff is being done in black projects by the Air Force who has the real budget.
I'm of the opinion that the real advances will come out of Air Force spending. Examples.
707 - That was designed as a military tanker to replace the K-97. Only after the USAF bought it did the airlines buy it.
747 - Was designed in the CX project that the C-5 won, then Boeing pushed it for a commercial aircraft.
Many of the advances in materials and propulsion technology come out of the Air Force because they have the money to spend.
The engines on a CRJ-70 aren't evil because they were developed for the A-10 and S-3. It's just an offshoot.
Don't tell me Bush is thinking of bringing back Project Orion. It's almost a good idea, except for the bad PR and the possible nuclear contamination. Not that I'd object to Bush getting some bad PR, of course.
Apparently, there were plans to build a high-atmosphere sky base above the USSR during the cold war using this technology. Makes you wonder just what our government is capable of.
If people could get off of the Earth and into space, then they would be beyond control of Earthly law. Beyond control of the military. Beyond control of the wealthy elite that currently runs things on this world. They see no easy money in space, and no reason to open space any further. How could they possibly keep humanity enslaved here on Earth if humanity had any means of escape? Face it - we've "languished in low-Earth-orbit for the past 30 years" for a reason. Those currently in power wish to remain in power. They wish to preserve the status quo.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Actually, after reading the take by the Planetary Society, I'd have to say that (ignoring the chunks taken out of the manned space program) this is the most space-friendly proposal I've seen for a while now. And it all revolves around the nuclear propulsion bit.
More and more of our space exploration is taking place in the outer system, with only the occasional lunar mission (been there, done that) and two or three high-profile Mars missions. Everything including the asteroid belt and out are beginning to get the treatment that Venus and Mars got in the past decade (and as a result we know more about the surface of Venus than we do of the earth itself!)
However, because of the distances involved (Venus and Mars are a mere stone's throw away), all of these missions will require a lot of time and a lot of fuel. The more fuel you use to put the probe on its way to its destination, the less the probe can do. While the ion drive has a lot of promise and will probably continue to be researched, it's just not a near-term solution to this problem. On the other hand, there's nuclear propulsion.
As the Planetary Society pointed out, nuclear propulsion has been studied before (NERVA and Orionare the two most famous), has decades of research already there waiting to be used, and promises a near-term solution to deep space propulsion (if not launch vehicles). Combine this with the fact that the United States is the undisputed leader in the field of nuclear propulsion, and I can't help but see big results coming soon.
As an example: When I submitted the article, I was disappointed with the umpteenth cut of Pluto-Kuiper Express. But the Planetary Society take reminded me that, with the prospect of nuclear propulsion, there isn't anywhere near the pressing need to launch it immediately to make it to Pluto in time. Putting a nice liquid-fueld fission engine (for example) into the plan means that we aren't forced to launch "something, anything" now and can take the time to refine the probe before launching it.
So long as the anti-nuke folks don't kill the proposal in Congress, we've just taken a big step towards putting a person on Mars.
> On the other hand the survival of our species would only be perpetuated by a permanent move into space.
I agree. However... the administration (regardless of which party is in power) is more interested in keeping the stock market high so they can get re-elected.
American politicians govern to optimize the next election's returns; American businesses manage to optimize the next quarterly report. There ain't no long-term perspective, let alone a long-term plan.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade