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'm sorry, there aren't any trimmings left. They're seriously digging into the budget. I wish the politicians would wake up and maybe put some money into our future instead of the military.
Unless, of course, they feel the military is their future.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
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
President Bush seems to forget that pure scientific research has been the most productive driver of American prosperity in the last 200 years. So many of the technologies we enjoy today are a result of research that, at the time of funding, could not be directly justified. Hopefully, universities and research institutions will be able to get through this budget crunch time intact, but the blow to students and scientists seeing their field attacked may be much more severe, I'm afraid.
I think that the most astronomy that's going to get done in these next few years is astronomy by the Air Force, with satellites that are pointing down at the Earth, instead of up at the skies. There never seems to be a shortage of funding for those projects, even though diverting 1% of that money would probably save NASA and the US space research program.
as privatizing airport security.
Here is a space.com news article which details exactly that. The US military does believe that space is their future, and they want to control it. There's talk about creating a new space force division, though for now it looks like the air force will control space missions for the near future. Given this one may ask, why are they killing off manned flight? I think it's because they realize that automated systems, not manned flight, is where both terrestrial and space flight is going. Humans have far too many physical limitations which automated systems don't share. Everything from very limited acceleration to supporting basic biological needs go against the requirements for "controlling space". To further this policy NASA (along with whatever scientific projects are ongoing and/or planned will be eviscerated.
Cheers,
--Maynard
I didn't think it was as bad as could be, really. Losing the Pluto-Kuiper probe is a bummer, but there's still pretty strong (in relative terms for today's financial climate) support for basic science.
More to the point - Nuclear Propulsion - Hooray!. This is an utterly fabulous development, and I'm probably going to get flamed for saying so. It's still the truth, all the same. Decent nuclear propulsion is the only way to reduce the current long flight times around the solar system.
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.
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 I could trust the Bush administration to have a legitimate interest in science and nuclear-based propulsion, I would be happier about this budget-shuffling. The ISS has been a slapped-together fiasco, a victim of politics and bureucracy - a perfect example of what NASA and space exploration shouldn't be.
Nuclear-powered probes have been used for, literally, decades. It's actually something of a misnomer to call the Voyager, Cassini, et al probes "nuclear-powered". "Decay-powered" might be a better term, since their energy source is radioactive decay generating heat. Putting nuclear-powered rovers on other planets might be a good idea, allowing rovers to run longer. I wonder how much longer Sojourner and Sagan Memorial Station could have run with a decay-based backup. Of course, there is always a concern about radioactive materials being exposed to the environment; not much of a problem in interplanetary space, something of a problem if the probe is on a planet suspected of having life.
The point of decay-powered power generation is to run electricity-based devices for long periods of time at distances from the Sun too great to make solar generation effective. If the Bush report refers to nuclear reaction-based power generation and propulsion, I'm a bit lost. The best reason to use nuclear-powered engines and generators would be to support manned flights that require much energy for life support, emergency power, pushing along its own bulk, et al. There's also the issue of fission- vs. fusion-based generators and engines.
Perhaps I should find a copy of the report, but that one little bit rubs me wrong. The Bush administration seems hell-bent on reviving Cold War-era defense programs that were never actually proven, and dropping or evading weapons treaties, some of which dealt with the development of nuclear technology for space use. I just can't shake the feeling this is a wedge to finally move the nuclear race into Earth orbit; one proposal mentioned by Sagan in 'Cosmos' was Project Orion, a propulsion system based on the detonation of fusion bombs.
I'm pretty sure it's paranoia... but it's a nagging feeling, and it creeps me out.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
We gotta start making some MONEY up there damnit.
It is not like it cannot be done, the main issue (and granted a huuuge one) would be to build the initial stations in space for handling of various extracted resources.
Hell there are 8 other planets in this solar system, why do we have to tear apart ours? There are some darn valuable resources up there, *taps lycos on the head* go get'em!
Seriously though, hhhuuuge startup costs, but scaled, not likely too much more then the initial startup costs of getting resources from the "New World" way back when.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
>> I firmly believe that the military has to be the future of where all the power is centralized.
A quote, forget from whom, but seems poignantly relevant: The easiest way to get shot is to carry a gun.
Bush seems the stereotypical spaghetti western cowpoke, speaking softly and carrying a big gun, and, in the spirit of late Hollywood arrivals, lusting after a bigger gun. I wonder who (in the figurative and collective sense) among us will get shot as a result of this.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Do ANY of you people manage your own money? The budget is NOT CUT. What they've done is reduced the rate of increase. Yes, from the first paragraph, NASA is getting what it got last year, plus $500 million MORE.
What NASA, and the rest of our federal government, needs to do is eliminate the sheer waste of money that is going on... Focus on products that produce science, not kickbacks (*cough* ISS)
Write to the President and your Congressional delegates and tell them about it!!!
. html
f m
Their staff is there to listen to your comments and respond to them. They do take your voice into account.
They like email more than letters since the anthrax scare.
Here's a like to this years budget in HTML and PDF: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2003/index
Send your comments to the President at this address: president@whitehouse.gov
Find your Senator at this page: http://www.senate.gov/senators/senator_by_state.c
And find their email address here: http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.cfm
You can find, then write to your Representative here (this is very slick): http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Please, please, please take a more active role in the direction our national technology policies take. Keep an eye on http://www.eff.org/alerts/ for issues of which you should be aware. If we don't do it as technology professionals and enthusiasts, no one will.
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
The federal government's most important priority is to maintain the infrastructure which makes the US possible. Things like operational costs of the three branches, minting money, foreign relations and maintaining a military (what good is all the other stuff if anyone can take it from us at whim?). In the middle area, you see things like HUD, Dept of Education, SSI, etc (stuff which they don't have a constitutional mandate to create but which people have become reliant upon). Way down at the bottom of the list, you'll find things like most of NASA, fluff research grants( did we REALLY need to spend $45k to find out how many people rinse their dishes before putting them in the dishwasher? ), etc. Things which are nice to have but aren't critical.
Now that you have your priorities, you only have a fixed amount of money to spend. An outside force has made it necessary to increase spending on one or several of your highest priority items. Nobody is going to die if NASA's budget gets reduced for a year or three to shore up our more important needs. If pure space research means that much to you, donate from your own pocket to one of the non-profit groups out there promoting research.
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
There seems to be a lot of fear about the new budget killing off science and killing off the manned program. Think about what is being done here for a moment:
In the unmanned space programs, missions are being put on hold so that nuclear propulsion technologies can be dusted off and put to practical use. This would cut down on mission time, and in doing so allow us to get probes to their destinations faster, and possibly with more power when they get there. That would have the net result of 1) cutting down on the money spent monitoring the probes during their cruise phase and 2) potentially extending their time at their destination spent gathering science. If you look at it from a business perspective, this makes sense-you want to invest money in the project for a gain (in this case, knowledge).
Aside: would be nice to see them develop a general purpose class of probes that they could basically shotgun to the outer planets (and unlike the Voyager probes, orbit their destinations). That may be more practical with this propulsion and power system. Any thoughts? Probably not going to happen until NASA has enough cash and confidence from the White House. No time soon.
Now, on to the manned space program. The Shuttle and ISS costs are way, way out of line. Take a look at the findings from the commitee last year. They're expecting its going to cost many more billions of dollars to finish the ISS in the plan which was comitted to. This on a project that is already considerably over budget, and suffering from numerous technical, engineering, and managerial problems (eg incompatable water purification systems, maintenance panels with the procedure for replacing the panel on the inner side where it can't be read while you're reinstalling it, and so on). If those costs aren't brought under control, it could easily swallow up the more productive unmanned program. The shuttle program is very much in the same boat, since the shuttles cost a huge amount to launch, and are only just barely reusable (they have to rip out large parts of the propulstion system, and refurbish the shuttle between launches, at a huge cost). I would be much happier to see them put yet more funding into developing a next generation system, but first getting the current manned space program under control is important.
If the costs aren't brought under control, and new technology developed, it is very unlikely we will even have NASA in a decade. It is very hard pressed to keep the budget it has when there are other programs (such as fighting this little war thing we have right now) are getting the lions share of the money available. Like anything else, a little wise long term investment could reap huge benefits (such as a better unmanned program that allows us to have many more probes in operation, including the much needed additional communication equipment). It would be great to see some long term planning that results in a return to the Moon, or a solid plan to go to Mars. That will require that the NASA administration take the initiative and plan out a program that won't break the budget, and that NASA also earn the confidence of Congress that money invested won't become part of another horror story of misused funds. Its a hell of a challenge, particularly for a government program, and I would be interested to see NASA step up to it.
Hmm, seems good enough for the automobile.
I take those odds just to drive to work. I'll gladly take those odds if it'll get me into space.