Hubble Upgraded; NASA's Future Not So Bright

jokrswild writes: "After 5 space walks and 172 million dollars, Hubble has been successfully redeployed. Hopefully it will be able to amaze us yet again in its abilities to capture the unimaginable." And Captn Pepe writes: "Space.com has a couple of articles regarding what the Congressional Research Service and what NASA's new chief administrator have to say about the space agency's future plans and prospects. The short version is, don't hold your breath for a Mars mission."

Comments

first post

[Anonymous Coward]

first AC post in space

fucking lameness filter costing me fp

fp!

[Anonymous Coward]

fp!

Damn the 20 second rule!

[Anonymous Coward]

I demand a first post!

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[hkhanna]

Space travel and starving kids are two completely separate things. Why again are these connected, and how does funding one detract from another? It's not like the U.S. government would or even could use those funds saved from no space travel to feed starving kids.

If I'm missing something, please, enlighten me.
Hargun

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[whoop]

Ok, so kids are starving to death as you speak, and you want to spend time posting on Slashdot?

Shyeah.

Procrastination

[mr. phantastik]

NASA: "Man, I know humans are going to need somewhere else to live eventually, but that won't happen for a while, so I'll chill out and work on that later..."

Re:Procrastination

[Bossofall]

The way recent events are going we are on the eve of our destruction. I think you are right, we don't have to think about it for a while; perhaps millions of years even.

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[Waffle Iron]

Ok, so kids are staving to death as we speak on this planet, and some people want to spends billions of dollars to conduct a gigantic geology experiment on Mars.

Kids are starving to death as we speak, and you're sitting on your ass reading slashdot.

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[jerryasher]

You fall into a trap when you engage in zero-sum games. Must it be "either or"? How come it can't be both?

If you save a buck from NASA's budget, do you believe this administration or this congress is going to fund UNESCO? Or do you kinda sorta suspect they are going to give that buck to a favorite corporate son?

Explorers.

[Renraku]

They truly have the heart of explorers. But there are still unexplored parts of our world. Like, the oceans. Not all of the oceans have been fully explored, as in, their floors.

Re:Explorers.

[omidk]

are you that old tanned dude from sea quest?

Re:Explorers.

[Atrahasis]

It always confused me that, given his fear of water, and his bad experience with that damned shark, he would captain a DSV....

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[ObitMan]

Kids are starving to death because they are not eating, not because there is extra-terrestrial scientific study being done.
It would take a small percentage of the NASA budget to get food to all these starving people. So the money being spent on "pointless" things isn't the problem.
What is the problem is the governments of these starving children that let grain rot on docks, use aid money for things other than food and medical supplies, or sell donated items that would aid their populace for weapons or luxuries.
Get of your High Horse and think for once before you spout any more of your liberal tripe.

Retiring Hubble

[Christ-on-a-bike]

The article says Hubble is going to be retrofitted once more and then retired in 2010. Would anyone like to fill me in on why it can't be kept going indefinitely?

Is there going to be a much better replacement, for example? I would have thought it economic to keep Hubble in space, even if it was superseded. Guess that shows what I know.

Re:Retiring Hubble

[Stripsurge]

Next generation space telescope is what you're looking for.

With the way cutbacks are being made, perhaps Hubble's life will be extended a bit longer while the NGST is put on hold for a couple years. I seem to remember reading something about Hubble being run at the same time as the NGST for a little while. Too lazy to look though.

I guess after a while the computers and other equipment eventualy break down over time because of all the radiation and junk. I realize that they built this thing with radiation shields and whatnot, but I don't think they stop everything 100% forever.

Re:Retiring Hubble

[NormalVisual]

One reason is that NASA hopefully will have the Next Generation Space Telescope up and running reasonably soon. Another reason is that the adaptive optics technology that is being used in the larger telescopes (Keck, Subaru, Gemini, etc.) lets these telescopes yield images that are on par, and many times better, than what Hubble can provide. The new optical interferometry system that the Keck telescopes use promise far better resolution than even that, and if something needs to be fixed, it doesn't cost a half-billion dollars to get someone there to fix it.

Re:Retiring Hubble

[RayBender]

The new optical interferometry system that the Keck telescopes use promise far better resolution than even that, and if something needs to be fixed, it doesn't cost a half-billion dollars to get someone there to fix it.

I don't know about that - have you ever tried to rent a car in Kona on the big island? A Shuttle launch looks cheap in comparison.

Seriously though, folks, as cool as interferometry and adaptive optics are (I work with that stuff, and it's AWESOME), there is still a need for space astronomy; some wavelengths don't penetrate the atmosphere and can only be seen from space, and for looking in the mid-infra-red there is too much background emission on the ground. In short, if you want to for instance see Earth-like planets around other stars you have to do both, i.e. interferometry (and/or adaptive optics) _in_space_.

As for retiring Hubble - space is a harsh environment. Things break and wear out. At some point it is cheaper to just build a new one.

Re:Retiring Hubble

[Anonymous Coward]

Over time parts of HST will wear out. Items such as reaction wheels and gyros have been replaced during each servicing mission. There is no more money in the budget for servicing missions after the next one. The one exception to that is that there is a requirement that HST be brought back down (in the shuttle). To many parts would survive reentry to just leave it in space. Once the NGST is working, as others have mentioned, the need for HST is unclear. The folks on the ground are also catching up. 8m+ on the ground, with active optics can come close to a bit over 2m in space.

atheists

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay so the hubble upgrade is a big win for atheists everywhere. But it looks like if the budget proposals hold out then NASA will have even less money for its anti-scripture agenda. It is good to have Bush in the white house.

Mars

[3141]

don't hold your breath for a Mars mission.

Unless it's from China.

Re:Mars

[qubit64]

That's probably true, however if the US sees China preparing a moon mission (how far along in space tech is China anyway?) they (the US) will likely increase spending in that area significantly. It's probably a good thing there's competition on earth because if the US didn't have any real competitors we'd probably never see any science funding.

Re:Mars

[3141]

Hear hear. I'm not sure all that much is known about where China is exactly - but I do remember reading somewhere that Canada was considering a Mars mission, and they certainly have the technology for it.

Or what about the European Union? So keen to be recognised as a real world power, a mission to Mars might do them some good, both scientifically and politically.

Re:Mars

[Mike1024]

Hey,

don't hold your breath for a Mars mission.

Unless it's from China.

Uh... I try to avoid holding my breath for an entire mission to mars even when it *is* from china.

-M

Re:Mars

[Hittite Creosote]

The Canadian mission is undoubtedly a robotic one (i.e. not manned). Since the EU has an unmanned mission on the way as well (Mars Express), then it's hardly surprising Canada has the technological expertise to do likewise.

Re:Mars

[Decimal]

> don't hold your breath for a Mars mission.

Unless it's from China.

In which case the U.S. will suddenly take an unexpected interest in space exploration, to get people there first.

Re:Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's hope so!

Pop Quiz

[cybermage]

Ok, let's say you're an elected member of congress. How would your constituents like you to prioritize the following:

A. Fight Terrorists
B. Fix Economy
C. Teach Our Children
D. Fight Crime
E. Cut Taxes
F. Reduce deficit/Debt Reduction
G. Explore Mars

Assuming you don't have enough money for everything, what do you leave out?

If you want NASA to go to Mars, I'd suggest you help the Chinese do it: The only thing that might sway congressional self-interest is competition. Nothing took the wind out of NASA's sails like the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Re:Pop Quiz

[ArsSineArtificio]

Ok, let's say you're an elected member of congress. How would your constituents like you to prioritize the following:
A. Fight Terrorists
B. Fix Economy
C. Teach Our Children
D. Fight Crime
E. Cut Taxes
F. Reduce deficit/Debt Reduction
G. Explore Mars

I would note that we know how to do E, G, and likely A. To paraphrase Buzz Aldrin, that means that we should attempt A, E, and G.

Re:Pop Quiz

[xmark]

OK, let's say you are Queen Isabella of Spain. Christopher Columbus comes to you with some high-budget whacko proposal to send a small flotilla to the "other side of the world" when no one even knows if there is another side of the world.

How do you prioritize the following?
1. Keep funding the war with the English.
2. Keep funding your own court and all of the sycophants whose political support keeps you in power.
3. Keep paying the Vatican tribute so that you can get your sorry ass into Heaven through papal dispensation.
4. Keep throwing bones (in the form of subsidized wine and cut-rate fish prices) to the starving peasants who constitute the single largest economic class in your fading country.
5. Keep slipping dough to support the pirates who make the Dutch mercantilists' lives hard and prevent you from totally ceding international trade to a bunch of guys wearing wooden shoes.

The more times change the more they stay the same.

Re:Pop Quiz

[Dr_EddieB]

There was a story floating around recently about a member of NSYNC paying to go into space as a 'entertainment trip' sort of thing. This could be used to pay for a mission to Mars without tax money. Many people, myself included, would be willing to kick in money to send the entire band of NSYNC into space, with the stipulation that they do not return.

Re:Pop Quiz

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, let's say you're an elected member of congress. How would your constituents like you to prioritize the following:

A. Fight Terrorists
B. Fix Economy
C. Teach Our Children
D. Fight Crime
E. Cut Taxes
F. Reduce deficit/Debt Reduction
G. Explore Mars

Assuming you don't have enough money for everything, what do you leave out?

That's easy. "Fighting Terrorists" is the military. They already had about a $400 billion budget to work with. Sorry, but if we can't kill a bunch of cavemen in Afghanistan with an armed forces with a $400 billion budget then we need to seriously rethink gathering up our toys and coming home because we've seriously overextended our supply lines.

"Fix Economy"? How the hell would you like them to do that? That's like asking them to pass a law to change the direction of the wind. The economy is a multi-trillion dollar living organism with intricate ties into nearly every other economy in the global marketplace. About the only person that has at least a minor influence to sway the direction of the economy isn't George Bush or Tom Daschle, it's Alan Greenspan. When it comes down to it, the Federal Reserve Board Chairman is the most powerful economic figure in the entire world. Thank god he's elected to 14 year terms. Besides, the economy is on the upswing.. Alan says so.

"Teach Our Children"... that's a good one. It's also a hopeless cause. Deciding on education and funding it belongs with localities not the Federal government. As history has shown, every time the Feds have thrown more money into the national education budget we've seen just about zero impact. When it comes down to it, money doesn't teach children, children wanting to learn does. If the children don't want an education then no matter how much money your throw at the problem you'll always fail. This is particularly hard-felt in the inner city schools where barely 10 to 20 percent of students pass basic skills tests mandated by many of the states as a requirement for graduation. These aren't bad kids and they certainly aren't any more stupid than their peers in suburban schools, but for some reason they continually lag behind these other schools. In many cases their budget is more than their suburban counterparts while getting radically lower scores. It brings to mind two cities in my area off the top of my head. One is a suburban school where the per-kid spending is about $7k/year. They achieved all of the state educational goals and scored an excellent for their school system. The urban school in the area also spends about $7k/year per student.. they scored 1 out of dozens of academic goals. That's pathetic. It's also the driving force for school vouchers in this area (Cleveland).

"Fight Crime". Another noble goal, but honestly, putting cops on the street is the responsibility of the local cities and counties. The Feds should only be concerned with inter-state crimes. If you want more cops on your streets, lobby your mayor or council to raise your property or income taxes in order to fund it. You'd be suprised what half a percent or one percent of your taxes can buy these days. My suburban city for instance has a decent tax rate, low crime, and tons of cops everywhere. I can barely drive down the street without seeing one or two of them sitting in a drive somewhere with nothing better to do than clock speeders. I'm glad to know though that they'll be there when and if there is a real crime in this city.

"Cut Taxes". Cutting taxes has been sorely overrated. I got my $300 early-rebate last year from the tax cut. Big fucking deal. It went into my bank account and was absorbed and gone before I knew it. Unless you're going to do something drastic like eliminate taxes them I'm not going to notice a couple hundred dollars a year more in my pocket. I already get back thousands in my refund which means I'm overpaying.

"Reduce Deficit".. yea, that goes hand in hand with cutting taxes... NOT. Pick one or the other, not both.

"Explore Mars". Finally something the Federal government can do. Space travel is clearly the role of the Federal government to fund. I wholly support it and think it should be a top priority. Exploration was the driving force behind establishing the greatest nation on earth (America!). If we stop exploring then we will die.

Re:Pop Quiz

[Anonymous Coward]

How about building an economic infastructure in the country. It was THE REASON for Spain's downfall from being a world power. Lotsa gold in the treasury but not doing any work.

Re:Pop Quiz

[nomadic]

Every reasonably educated person of the time period would have known the earth was round, and the "other side of the world" had already been visited, so the analogy doesn't stick.

The difference between Columbus and his contemporaries is that they had conflicting views of the size of the world. He thought it was one size, his opponents thought it was much larger.

And Columbus was wrong, and all the other explorers and geographers were right; the world WAS much larger than he thought, and if the Americas hadn't been there he would never have reached his original goal.

So to tell the truth, if Columbus had come to me for money in the 15th century, I would have turned him down, as his navigational calculations were completely off base, and the resources could be better spent on other things.

Don't pretend dumb luck was any sort of wisdom or visionary thinking.

Re:Pop Quiz

[Anonymous Coward]

My list goes:

C
B
F
D
E
G
A

I'd be willing to leave out E, G, and A. They're meaningless...

Re:Pop Quiz

[Alan Partridge]

ahh, you seem to have forgotten the "zeroth" priority there, which I shall call "space". ( . Steal Public Money and Give to Corporate Sponsors.) Of course, this priority is never actually detailed to the electorate even though it unfortunately consumes up to 66% of all available funds.

Re:Pop Quiz

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to give Mars to the Negroes. They can have Mars for their very own. Mugabe, H. Rap Brown, Michael Jackson, Al Sharpton, O.J. Simpson, Jesse Jackson, Kwaze Mfume, and all their brothers and sisters can go to Mars and start a whole new society just the way they want it without interference from anyone else. It will be called Negro Planet. All Negroes will be transported there to start a world of Negroes. Negroes will always be a problem here on Earth, but on Mars they will have a second chance, without anyone else to bother them.

Re:Pop Quiz

[jesterzog]

I can't say much for the rest, but most astronomers I know, me included, would put G first, as long as 'explore' doesn't necessarily mean 'colonise' or even visit. (Given they're astronomers I'm sure it's predictible so far.)

They would then proceed to slash the budget of the International Space Station which for the last few years has been a massive drain on space exploration funding for no obvious scientific benefit that can't be achieved more efficiently in some other way.

The main benefit of the ISS is for political and international relations, and that's the budget slice that it should be diverting.

Re:Pop Quiz

[Alsee]

I would note that we know how to do E, G, and likely A.

I think you left out F?
F. Reduce deficit/Debt Reduction

What we can't seem to figure out is how to prevent politians from (1) trolling for votes by lowering taxes (2) trolling for votes by spending more on new and/or popular programs (3) making up the difference in "future tax revenues when the economy booms" (4) Ohh! Look! Puppies!

-

Re:Pop Quiz

[Alsee]

I would like to give Mars to the Negroes ... All Negroes will be transported there

My first reaction was that this could be a good idea. We are already funding education with a sucker tax, why not fund space with a bigot tax?

-

Re:Pop Quiz

[Lumpy]

what do you leave out? that's simple...

C. Teach the Children.

If the schools remove the entire altheletic programs and put that money into important things like Reading, Writing, Math, and science FIRST and then everything else last... there would be enough to go around. Teaching kids how to actually READ how to write and speak a sentence without being a profanity fountian (Sorry, ebonics is not a real language... Oh how politically insensitive I am!) Plus not let any, yet ANY student graduate without passing basic calculus, a basic physics,chemistry and computing class. you would have better students. but no... today we graduate on a regular basis students that cant read, that cant even calcualte the volume of a coke can, or even understand basic physical laws... but they kick a football real good!

Teach the children is very low on the list. Force the schools to actually teach? that's high on the list.

Re:Pop Quiz

[Anonymous Coward]

I say go just for G. Fuck it all I'm so sick of being some puny one planet species.

Re:Pop Quiz

[aengblom]

remove the entire altheletic programs and put that money into important things like Reading, Writing, Math, and science FIRST

Don't let student graduate without Calculus, physics, chemistry, computing

This is beyond idiotic. Athletics (even if you don't like them) provides meaningful stress relief, keeps students in shape (huge health benefits). It's about teaching kids to stay fit throughout their lives--so they live longer and think better. Oh and MANY of the smartests, best students are great athletes and athletics help them get there. Finally, it keeps many students IN school who would otherwise drop out.

Your second idea is even worse (I'm assuming high school level here). Let's force students to struggle with corriculum they aren't going to ever understand. Some of what you mention is great, but it is bizarly limited to Math and Science. Everyone should take some science and some upper level sciences. But don't force people to spend half the curriculum in it when they aren't talented at it and don't enjoy it when there is something else equally valuable.

I don't know where I'd be if I couldn't calculate the volume of a coke can. Although I'd say it's about 16+x oz

Re:Pop Quiz

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, we'll just transport all the racist bigots to Mars. That includes about half the people you listed, along with you and others like you.

Six weeks of supplies should be enough.

Re:Pop Quiz

[Anonymous Coward]

BULLSHIT...

most of them are into sports that the school looks down upon or outright bans...

sorry but if you want to play fooball then PAY to do it. Oh and where is the classes on snowboarding, skateboarding, rollerblading? Except we have a fat-ass overpaid coach that only pushes FOOTBALLLLLLLL only real men play football and kick those geek asses...

Nope kill the stupid athelete programs and force the jocks to learn to read for once. Oh and let's start persecuting the damned jocks for once..

Re:Pop Quiz

[glrotate]

"Fighting Terrorists" -- I won't argue with you much on this one. I'd only point out that our military is 1/2 the size it once was while China's is getting larger by the day.

"Fix Economy" -- You are right the economy is a multi-trillion dollar living organism and as you know every organism needs food. Right now the economy is anemic. Both monetary policy (Fed Reserve) and fiscal policy (taxes and spending) should be employed to correct this. The Fiscal side, cutting taxes and increasing discretionary spending, says that we should run a deficit (as we are) in order to get more money out there.

"Fight Crime" -- Actually Clintons 100,000 new cops policy has been a tremendous success. In case you haven't noticed violent crime has been going down ever since the program started. I even saw the conservatives in England calling for a simmilar program over there. Sorry but the federal government CAN do a lot to fight crime.

"Cut Taxes" I agree the tax cut was too small. It should have been much larger. Cutting taxes is one aspect of "fixing the economy".

"Reduce Deficit" - Stupid idea at this point of weak growth. As we have seen the deficit will take care of itself once the economy picks up and people start paying more taxes.

"Explore Mars" -- Sorry but I don't see the need to conduct a multibillion dollar goeology experiment in space. What do we hope to gain? So we get there and find out the soil is really 32% Iron and we originaly though it was 31% Wowee! Or maybe we find out it had water 100 million years ago, good, next time I'm time travelling and looking for a glass of water I'll stop by Mars.

I'm just pointing out that the science being performed is mainly in the area of Geology, a rather pointless science except when it comes to looking for gold and oil.

Money spent going to Mars would be much better spent developing fiber optics, improving gasoline engines, learning how to build more efficient batteries, researching fusion... Sciences with a real payoff, not geology.

Re:Pop Quiz

[jwrogers]

You're displaying a funamental misunderstanding of the finances of high school athletics, just because you are biased against football players. Football usually pays for itself plus most other sports. If schools want to save money on athletics, then they KEEP football and ditch girl's volleyball and girl's softball. THAT would make a more logical argument, but won't help resolve your anger against coaches and football players, I'm afraid. As for me, I'd keep the athletics, because they are crucial in helping kids learn to handle stressful situations and become more well-rounded, which helps the country face a lot of new challenges that we are facing now.

Re:Pop Quiz

[kypper]

Ok, let's say you're an elected member of congress. How would your constituents like you to prioritize the following:

A. Fight Terrorists
Wow... like there weren't terrorists before. Don't tell me the United States government's desire for a blank cheque on war is truly a priority for anyone but them and their own self interests.
B. Fix Economy
That is not the government's job. They are supposed to regulate it, which they aren't doing.
C. Teach Our Children
...and when did teachers and parents stop existing?
D. Fight Crime
Finally, something remotely within their realm... wait, don't cops do this from municiple taxes?
E. Cut Taxes
Why don't they just improve services with the taxes they have, then cut them, instead of going on a roller coaster. Regardless, tax cutting isn't going to spend all of the money.
F. Reduce deficit/Debt Reduction
...they're doing this now? C'mon... don't tell me you believe that.
G. Explore Mars
Try putting this below "Personal Gain, Personal Debt to Corporations, Congress-wide vacation packages, etc"

Assuming you don't have enough money for everything, what do you leave out?
Well, in this case, I would suppose your brain.

Re:Pop Quiz

[Anonymous Coward]

... I sense a lot of angst in this one.

Re:Pop Quiz

[Anonymous Coward]

Cutting taxes does not have as huge an impact on the economy that people think. When the gov't spends money, the vast majority of it goes right back into American pockets. Anyway, Bush's tax cut amounted to about $600 per person. That will not boost the economy much. But it did horribly damage our budget.

Say if we took taxpayer money and spent 50 billion to buy planes from Boeing. That money boosts Boeing stocks. People who invested in Boeing make money. Also, since that boosts their business, Boeing employees get raises. Then, this extra cash helps the hurting Seattle economy, because the Boeing employees and investors buy stuff with their extra money. That helps merchants. Then the manufacturers that make the goods that the stores buy that the employees want get money themselves, boosting their stock, etc, etc, etc. (it's getting to sound like one of those kids stories :^) ) Don't think of taxes as taking your money. Think of it as money redistribution.

Taxes helped the economy during the Depression. They provided money for Gov't jobs with the New Deal.

Anyway, I don't think we should go hog wild and raise taxes. My main point is that tax money does go back into the economy. It doesn't dissapear into a black hole.
I want to make one last point: If taxes are cut, gov't services go down. Cutting taxes is fine by me. In Wa state, where I live, we voted to reduce license tab fees (one of the biggest sources of state revenue) to a flat $30 rate.
Of course this hurt the budget for the state and small local gov'ts that need state money.
Now people in Washington are bitching because they are seeing their small towns unincorporating because of budget problems, city utilities privatizing because of little funding, and jobs being lost because of reduced gov't subsidies. I have somthing to say to them: "You should of thought of that before you voted for the license tab reduction!!!!! If you cut taxes, you need to understand that the gov't services that you are used to will be cut!!! I dont get it. Some people think that the money for their gov't services magically comes out of nowhere.

Anyway, a trip to Mars is a great idea. Get NASA to save up some money for research by cutting out the useless 500-million-dollars-a-pop ISS and shuttle missions for a while. At this point, they are serving no usefull purpose. Use the money to develop an inexpensive space plane, like the X-42 scramjet plane.
When we space plane is developed, we can orbit anything for 1/10 the cost of using rockets! If we can orbit stuff that cheap, Mars Mission costs would be slashed dramatically.
We shouldn't worry about the ISS until we invent a way of getting to the space station for less than $500 million a flight!

Re:Pop Quiz

[Sven-Erik]

Good idea! But send them on an exploration of the Sun instead of them polluting Mars.

Re:Pop Quiz

[Suidae]

Enlighten us, explain how football pays for itself.

Around here (texas) its not uncommon for the athletics department to consume fully half of the entire school budget. Naturally I don't have a problem with teaching physical fitness, but I do have a problem with spending more on it than the rest of the school, particularly when program focuses on teaching students not how to stay physically fit, but instead makes a few top players high school football stars.

Judging by the average body fat percentage around here, the enormous PE budgets are extremely wasteful.

Re:Pop Quiz

[nanoakron]

Fighting terrorists....Hmm, you mean by:

1) Arming small 'friendly' nations to the teeth (like Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Indonesia, to mention a few)

2) Allow them to fight the war for you.

This is what George II recently revealed as his plan to fight the 'war on terrorism'. However, there are a couple of small drawbacks:

1) It's already been tried before (anyone remember the 'Cold War'?)
2) You dumbasses ended up putting groups into power like Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

I mean, the US seems to have forgotten all it learned from Prohibitionism in the 1930s when it comes to its modern drug policy, but when it comes to *ignoring* what it did only 30 years ago when trying to formulate modern foreign policy to fight terrorist groups, that's just plain stupid!

Someone once said, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

-Nano.

Re:Pop Quiz

[RayBender]

I think you're suffering from wishful thinking. If the space staion gets cut it won't be long before space science goes too - it's too small of a constituency to get serious funding. So as interesting as space science and astronomy is, you have to realize it's one very small piglet surviving on the leftovers of the public trough.

Without human spaceflight, and without senators from Florida, Alabama and Texas to guard NASA funding you'd be reduced to stroking the egos of billionaires like Bill Gates (and the Keck foundation, I admit).

Don't blame me - I'm an astronomer too. Just keep in mind how little most people actually care about FUNDING science, and be grateful for the funding we get.

Re:Pop Quiz

[Lumpy]

Woah.. you are way wrong.. tell me this.. Why does the "coach" usually get paid more than the CS teacher or the Physics teacher? Both of those teachers have a helluva-lot (tm) harder job. And then.. let's look at equipment.. If every dollar spen on the athelitic program was also spent on equipment for sciences and basic learning we would be over-equiped in schools and be throwing away computers/laptops/ not caring about glassware breakage in the chemistry lab, could actually afford to have student create complex projects in the Physics lab, etc.. but no. it doesnt happen

now let's look at the biggest issue. Teachure Tenure.. Most schools are burtdened with at least 3-4 teachers that desperately need to be ejected. Senility, apathy, and downright mean coupled with the wide spattering of anti-social (read that as a sphinter personality type) that have no business teaching and molding the minds of youth.

No the money is available.. if the Govt would force the schools to tell the PTA to shut up, the teachers unions to shut up, and actually do the job of education.. the resources are there. they are just mis-spent and wasted.. This is the american way in education, and why americans fail at the simplest part of life... education of the youth.

Re:Pop Quiz

[RedSynapse]

not let any, yet ANY student graduate without passing basic calculus, a basic physics, chemistry and computing class.

It may shock you to learn this but most people will never need to use calculus. Forcing people to waste time mastering something that bears no relevance to their life objectives will only result in more dropouts or simply an inefficient use of that person's time. If someone is seeking virtually any career outside of the sciences learning calculus will yield no practical benefit for them.

While I agree that there can be an overemphasis on athletic achievement in some situations (for example some college basketball coaches make more than the dean) I think that removing the entire athletic program would be bad for public health, (increased obesity and heart disease from a sedentary lifestyle ) and cause an increase in crime (idle hands).

Lets face facts, everyone is different, some people will choose to avail themselves of higher mathematical education, some will not. Similarly some people will choose to avail themselves of available athletic activities. Both have benefits to the individual. In fact I think you could make a stronger case for making gym mandatory until graduation rather than forcing everyone to take calculus. At least there is a clear benefit to every person to maintaining their physical health.

Of course I don't recommended that we do that, the whole point of high school is that this is where we begin to choose our own path in life. We need carpenters and writers and janitors and security guards and anthropologists just as we need nuclear physicists and microbiologists. If someone can find more satisfaction in being an interior decorator than a particle physicist then I say fuckin-a go for it. But to force that would be interior decorator to fret and waste time mastering something totally unrelated and unusable by that person is simply wrong and wasteful.

Re:Pop Quiz

[denzo]

Financially, football events maybe pay for PART of their cost, but is only a drop in the bucket; okay, now some of the less popular varsity players get to wear equipment that isn't falling apart on them, they can pay for the electricity to light up the statium during evening games, and a portion of the bus costs to take the players to away games (the school usually makes some sort of agreement, such as a 50-50 split in costs, with the football team... this is primarily why sometimes only football teams can afford busses for their players). This is basically the extent that home football game tickets "pays for itself." The coaches' salaries, some equipment, field maintenance, etc., is paid for by the school.

Besides the financial cost, which is only part of the concern of those who believe that sports are considered too important, is that psychologically, the school is built around the idea that popularity is equivalent to how much effort goes into the major team sports like football and basketball. Administrators want their school to look good to the community, and want the fame of having state-wide or national mention; basically, the school administration want an ego boost. All smaller events and activities hardly get any mention, such as during a principal's speech (how many times have you heard a principal congratulate a tennis team, or a group of architectural/mechanical drafting students who win at drafting competitions?).

And academically, sometimes the hiring process of teachers isn't exactly in the best interest of the students. Often, a school will look for math or science teachers who can double as a coach. Even if you get one of the greatest teachers of math, they will be trumped by someone will less math knowledge but knows how to coach football, basketball, wrestling, etc. Then we're all supposed to be surprised that students become disillusioned in their academics because their teacher cannot provide any practical examples of the subject they are teaching, because they have absolutely no experience in the field, except for those rare cases where they can describe how a football travels on a parabolic path.

I guess part of the reason that academics aren't stressed is that graduating students who move on to be successful in college and their future careers do not bring as much notice and attention to the high school, where a constant money stream and praise for a football team can immortalize the school's fame year after year. This, in my opinion, is unfortunate. Administrators are putting less faith into academic achievement and career success than physical achievement through sports (anybody seen the movie "October Sky?").

Re:Pop Quiz

[grytpype]

Of course, Columbus's mission was to find an alternate route to the Indes and its natural resources. As far as Columbus knew, he was going somewhere that Europe was already doing extensive business with. And the point of the voyage was mercantile, ultimately.

Re:Pop Quiz

[CaseyB]

Nothing took the wind out of NASA's sails like the collapse of the Soviet Union.

We just need to put a little of that old spin on a Mars mission:

"We must win this space race! We must reach Mars before the terrorists!"

Re:Pop Quiz

[Anonymous Coward]

A. Fight Terrorists
B. Fix Economy
C. Teach Our Children
D. Fight Crime
E. Cut Taxes
F. Reduce deficit/Debt Reduction
G. Explore Mars

Too easy. Fighting Terrorism and Crime are the only things on that list that are related to what governments are for.

The other items are all either inappropriate things for government involvement, or symptoms of government involvement in inappropriate things.

Re:Pop Quiz

[Anonymous Coward]

A. Fight Terrorists.. You mean get TV to highligh the word terrorist to allow you to fund your own unrelated pet project to reduce the freedoms of the common man.
B. Fix Economy.. You mean make excuses about stealing money from the common man. (taxes)
C. Teach Our Children.. You mean keep quiet about how the US spends the MOST $$ per child in public schools but gets a WORSE education when compared to other industrialized nations. (the problem is not $$)
D. Fight Crime.. eerm most crime is drug related, setup end the war on drugs and you can cut this cost dramatically.
E. Cut Taxes.. abosolutly, this is easy to do, get rid of welfare, the war on drugs, cleanup our education, and cutting taxes will actually increase revinue.
F. Reduce deficit/Debt Reduction.. see E

G. Explore Mars.. NASA is the ONLY government program in exsistance that has paid for itself. (est. $10 back for every $1 spent on NASA) because NASA funds R&D, this increases tech, and we tax the companies that make end products from that R&D. (where do you think carbon fiber came from? if we tax a company that makes anything elctronic, or high tech, we can thank our funding of NASA for the creation of these products)

it is a whole economy, not just a bucket of money, think bigger.

Talk About A Low Budget!

[GeekLife.com]

They must really be cutting back if they're recommending people holding their breath on the Mars mission.

Want to go to Mars? Go then!

[Crag]

If exploration of Mars or any other part of space is particularly important to you, go for it. Posting about it here probably wouldn't hurt anything, but you won't be any closer, either. There are people who have been to space, and they got there by taking those "small steps". They may have whined about lack of progress, who knows. Whether they did or not, it was their actual actions that got them (and viacariously, us) up there.

I value Space Exploration, but not enough to commit any resources to it. You're not going to convince me otherwise, but if you study, campain, raise money, found companies or support agencies, maybe you can make a difference and see your goals realized.

Thank you, NASA, for all you've done for us, and keep up the good work.

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[Anonymous Coward]

Starving kids sounds better than bigger guns which is where the money will actually go. Of course, if you look at it like a true Reaganite, then the money spent developing and producing those huge guns will go to corporations. Those corporations employ people who otherwise would be starving, along with their kids. Thus, the money IS going to feed starving children.

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ok, so kids are staving to death as we speak in this village, and some people want to spend valuable time planting seeds in the ground? Count me out!!"

duxup, honey,

[Anonymous Coward]

Bunny here, I just want to say I Love You sweetie!!! You are just too wonderful for words, and especially too wonderful for /., this shithole site, I'd just thought I'd show my appreciation for your luscious existance. A big *smoochies* for you. Love, Bunny Vomit.

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again we are shown that the Communist model of government is superior.

Let's have a nasa rider

[bmetz]

You know those stupid "would you like to give $5 to the so-and-so party?" lines at the bottom of the 1040? Well, why not have a "would you like to give $5 to the send-a-man-to-mars fund?" I'll pretty much die before I give a dollar to a politician so he can put my name on a "sucker to call when I need more money" telemarketing list but I'll gladly give money to a cause that means something on a historical scale like this.

Re:Let's have a nasa rider

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF is a 1040?

Re:Let's have a nasa rider

[shobadobs]

It's a tax form in the U.S.

Re:Let's have a nasa rider

[Andrew Coles]

It's called the Mars Society:

http://www.marssociety.org/

US donations are Tax Deductable.

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[Anonymous Coward]

Development in space is very related to alleviating overpopulation on earth. If you don't think we're ever heading out there, then I take it you think we're all going to kill ourselves off pretty soon. So why don't you help kill us off quicker?

Re:Want to go to Mars? Go then!

[ArsSineArtificio]

I value Space Exploration, but not enough to commit any resources to it.

You have some other definition of "value"?

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[Anonymous Coward]

YHBT

What will happen to the inventors?

[Anonymous Coward]

Many technological innovations have been taken from the space program. Will the scientist work elsewhere? Since now they won't be needed that much at NASA, unless the chinese need them. Will we still be able to get these to help such as more food and better ways to help those that need help?

The shipping cost is the killer

[UGG]

I believe shuttle missions cost about 500 million, so the total cost was closer to 700 million.

Re:The shipping cost is the killer

[LooseChanj]

Sort of. Most of the shuttle budget is just paying the army of people and maintaining facilities. You don't really save/spend any more money whether you fly 10 times a year, or only 5.

Re:The shipping cost is the killer

[MousePotato]

It doesn't HAVE to be; Shuttle launches are about $500+ million not including upgrades and other mission costs. Soviet launches (rocket and Soyuz capsule) about $15-20 million.

Ok, so they are not the same as far as crew count and payload. Considering how obscelenely expensive shuttle launches are I think we need to step away from the shuttles for a bit and look at the big picture. If we can't get launch costs down to small percentages of what they are we are screwed. The 25:1 ratio (say 20million per soviet rocket) we could buy launches from them; lots of them and get far better usage out of our $. The reusable launch capabilities of the shuttle aren't saving us any money. In the time the shuttle has been flying we haven't come up with any alternatives for manned launches.

Re:The shipping cost is the killer

[LooseChanj]

Love to know how you're planning on convincing Congress to spend them $'s on people other than the ones who voted for them.

Re:The shipping cost is the killer

[MousePotato]

You point out a classic flaw in our system of doing things. We should be spending our monies wisely not popularly. I don't know how to convince the voters. I don't claim to but I would love to see the look on some of their faces when they realize they could have ferried 75 to 100 people into space on soviet rockets for the price of one shuttle launch.

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[Anonymous Coward]

{BAE395BF-444F-4669-A009-76D7BF449247} This post is not redundant.

Yes it is, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=29240&cid=3137 091 was 2 minutes earlier

Just a point, but...

[anzha]

Just such a horrible thought! Making NASA accountable for what it spends!

After all look at the blazing fiscal successes of the International Space Station and it being able to come in under budget!!!

Or the success of the X-33...

Or X-34...

Or the X-30...

Or how about how the shuttle and how much it brought down launch costs just like they said it would...

Maybe there is a theme here, huh?

Perhaps when NASA learns some fiscal responsibility then we'll get our mission to Mars from them. And it's quite possible the wonderous big budgets of Apollo aren't EVER coming back.

In the mean time, it might actually be others who get there first. And, no, I don't mean other nations. John Carmack (yes, that John Carmack) is working on his one rocket company:here and Jeff Greasona nd crew are working on their own stuff here.

I might just wanna give them some competition myself...;)

Re:Just a point, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just such a horrible thought! Making NASA accountable for what it spends!
After all look at the blazing fiscal successes of the International Space Station and it being able to come in under budget!!!
Or the success of the X-33...
Or X-34...
Or the X-30...
Or how about how the shuttle and how much it brought down launch costs just like they said it would...
Maybe there is a theme here, huh?

You're kidding right? NASA *is* held accountable for what it spends which is why it's continually bean-counted into cancelling programs in the middle of their life. The space station is a giant mess specifically because NASA was forced into using it as a political chess piece. If the United States had built all the modules and launched it ourselves with no "help" from the rest of the world it would already be fully in orbit sending back scientific data from experiments. Our politicians, in their infinite wisdom, chose instead to make it a political tool in forging an olive branch with the Russians after the Soviet Union collapsed. Unfortunately what that turned into was the US Federal Government funding (directly and then later indirectly) the construction of the Russian built modules. When the Russian workers acted as direct contractors it worked fine and the one module was completely in good time. When we gave the money to the Russians to fund the workers themselves indirectly the next modules were delayed for YEARS because they funneled it away to other things! When the Federal Government stops trying to play global cop and prop up other governments with my tax dollars we'll be a lot better off.

Re:Just a point, but...

[nomadic]

Don't blame the politicians; there are plenty of scientists and engineers who should be held accountable, too.

If NASA had some vision, or even a PLAN for a Mars mission, I'd support them.

But they plan so far ahead into the future, that you can see that they're not doing anything of the sort.

Scientific data is valuable, but the amount that we have to spend to get even a tiny amount of data is ridiculous, and a never-ending supply of expensive satellites that collect the same data as their predecessors, only with minutely greater accuracy, is not necessarily the best way to spend the money.

They need more innovators and less cogs; more Freeman Dysons and Buckminster Fullers and less accountants, scientists, and engineers who are too scared to do anything revolutionary.

Re:Just a point, but...

[xanadu-xtroot.com]

Or the success of the X-33...
Or X-34...
Or the X-30...

What about the X-10?

:-)

Re:Just a point, but...

[Markus Landgren]

Perhaps when NASA learns some fiscal responsibility then we'll get our mission to Mars from them. And it's quite possible the wonderous big budgets of Apollo aren't EVER coming back.

Speaking of wonderous, the entire Apollo program cost $20 billion during its 14 years. That's a huge amount. To be precise, it's so huge that it's almost 6% of what the US military costs in one year.

Yes, I have heard about inflation, and while I am too lazy to compensate for it in my calculations I am willing to assume that maybe one year of Apollo costs 2% of the annual military budget instead of 0.5% as the figures above would suggest.

One idea that springs to mind is that maybe one could take a really tiny amount of money away from the military and do something as grand as Apollo. (Like go to Mars? Going there with 21st century technology should not be a lot more expensive than going to the moon with sixties technology.)

Now I am not a psychic, so I can't foresee the future. Maybe those 2% more stealth bombers and 2% heavier bomb payloads dropped on a Red Cross warehouse in Kabul is really exactly what America needs to save itself from terrorism. Or maybe it's not?

Re:Just a point, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, they need fewer Union Stewards.

Why do Trade Unions fester on government projects?

Re:Just a point, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

How is going to the moon going to save America from terrorism?

Oh, I see! We'll send them film clips of the moon landing to cheer them up!

Re:Just a point, but...

[stinky wizzleteats]

Just a horrible thought! Making NASA accountable for what it spends!

So, what, you're going to do a failure analysis of an enterprise involved with accelerating expensive and sometimes living things to escape velocity in aluminum tubes with chemical propellants?

One wonders how well your analysis would hold up when evaluating the government's efforts to do virtually anything else. I quite frankly would like to see you do better.

It is expensive to do things right in such a dangerous endeavor, and the primary reason for the much-publicized recent failures with NASA missions is exactly the same as the reason for the recent .com failures - bean counters who don't understand the effort and who fail to trust those who do.

As for the other /.ers who are bemoaning the human value of space exploration, I pose the following historical analysis. DaVinci, Newton, Archimedes, and Edison were known for innovation and advancing human knowledge. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Hilary Clinton were/are known for social concerns. You do the math.

Re:Just a point, but...

[Goldsmith]

Keep in mind, all of these private ventures into space are ONLY possible due to the "wonderous big budgets" which NASA has enjoyed in the past.

I agree that NASA needs to get it's act together fiscally, but don't sing the praises of other groups who come in after the basic (expensive) science and engineering are worked out. Those groups are cool in a different way; we still need someone to do the basic research.

Perhaps NASA would be better suited as an organization that coordinated and contributed to University research on basic space science and engineering only, letting private groups, China and Europe do that actual flying? The shuttles are getting quite old now. Of course it would help if corporations could figure out a way to make money off of space other than communications satellites.

Re:Just a point, but...

[Doctor Fishboy]

NASA is held publicly accountable for their research, but the military (who has n times the NASA budget) has had many more disasters.

Difference is, we don't get to hear about many of the military cock-ups - National Security, and all that.

Research is always going to have a certain fraction of experimental failure in it. It's the nature of the beast.

Re:Just a point, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's just point out that while the NASA space station designs stayed on paper and chewed up *billions* the Russians were up there flying on a fraction of the resources.

What makes you think that a space agency whose sole experience with space stations was how to crash one in Western Australia would have handled the ISS any better on its own?

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[Anonymous Coward]

The government is just thinking ahead, giving another place for kids to starve!

Re:Talk About A Low Budget!

[Anonymous Coward]

oh god, that was definatly a beer out of nose moment!

Mars mission?

[Loki_1929]

Actually, considering the budget a mission to Mars would have to work under, "holding your breath for a mission to Mars" might be precisely what is necessary. Although with the amount of money spent on fixing the Hubble, why can't we just teach an astronaught to breathe carbon dioxide? I should think the best solution here is to get one guy breathing O2 and exhaling CO2, and another guy breathing CO2 and exhaling O2. Wouldn't that be a pretty big budget savings right there?

Re:Mars mission?

[LesF]

What NASA actually need to do is leak some info to Bush about their latest Mars infra-red sweeps having picked up hidden terrorist bases.

Bush would then redirect his anti-terrorist budget towards getting troops and nukes over there as fast as possible.

Just a thought :)

Re:Mars mission?

[Astfgl]

Already got the CO2 inhaler/O2 exhalers - they're called "trees". Unfortunately, they don't breathe very fast, so you need quite a few of them to match up with one human.

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[British]

Just send the starving kids to Mars. That way, they technically wouldn't be a problem on OUR planet. :)

(waiting for appropriate mod-down)

Really Direct Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always liked this idea, taken to its logical conclusion. We could have a truly direct democracy if each taxpayer decided on his/her 1040 what percentage of his/her taxes would go to fund which program or agency.

As long as I'm being coerced to work 4 months per year as a slave of the Government( effectively, if not explicitly ), I should at least be given the choice as to how the extorted funds are to be allocated.

Re:Really Direct Democracy

[jerryasher]

Heh. What if Congress and your 1040 were like the Reality TV Show Big Brother? Each year at the bottom of each 1040 the audience could vote out one member of Congress.

Re:Really Direct Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

How about Hollings?

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[Anonymous Coward]

So kids are starving on this planet and their stupid parents keep popping out more? Most the countries in africa have a 3% growth rate. This is insane! I had a friend over there with a program that tried to pass out condoms. The locals laughed at him.

No wonder africa also has the highest AIDS rate. Sending food, money or birth control is not going to help. This is a cultural issue. Until these people stop CHOSING to overbreed the problem will NOT end.

It is not up to the US to try and be BIG DADDY. These people chose their lifestyle, they need to choose to end it. I would rather have money spent on expanding on the great things man can do, than supporting the worst that man can do.

Re:They couldn't even put...

[Alan Partridge]

nothing to do with America's pig headed refusal to give up on imperial units then? Can you spell I S O L A T I O N I S M ?

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[Afrosheen]

It would take a small percentage of the NASA budget to get food to all these starving people. So the money being spent on "pointless" things isn't the problem.

Isn't the real problem here Sally Struthers eating all the twinkies that are destined for Northern Africa or (insert starving nation here)? I never trust a fat person who claims to represent starving people. We all know who's getting the food in THIS case.

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[cadallin451]

That is such a foolish statement.

The potential benefits of such a mission should not be measured merely in the scientific knowledge we would gain (although that would be profoundly valauble moreso, than the lives of the kids IMO, and yes I'm a cold pragmatic bastard about such things, I would be perfectly willing to support my opinion that 99.99% of those children would never have accomplished anything anyway.) The true value is the sum of that knowledge plus the technology and science we would develop for the trip, which would doubtless be of incalculable financial wealth.

Re:They couldn't even put...

[I.T.R.A.R.K.]

Hey, I completely agree.
But then, I would because I'm not even American. =)

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Get of your High Horse and think for once before you spout any more of your liberal tripe.

Going off topic, but isn't it the conservatives who want to cut the funding from NASA (to privatize it)?

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[MarcQuadra]

The way I see it, in a our economy/society/country, greater demand generates much more wealth than a few politicians who pocket the money that would have gone to this. I think we have a government that put us between a rock and a hard place. We can either increase spending on things, or decrease spending and have the benefit got to the few. Sounds like time for a new political party.
I've been trying to say this for a while, but who votes for this?

1. pro-choice policy on abortion. (bad idea to put it first, eh?)
2. much smaller, more reasonable spending on millitary overhead, divert it to millitary R&D to get the MOST for each dollar we invest into security.
3. Simplify laws and rewrite for common-man language. Get rid of irrational bug-fix laws.
4. Cut back on federal laws, let states individualize. You want to be able to kill yourself, go to Nevada or whatever.
5. Make all laws have lifetimes of max 50 years, that way we can't have a bazillion laws, if it's not important enough to review after 50 years, let it dissapear.
6. laws written in a new heirarchical method, with hypertext (that's an XML project!) to prevent more important laws from being easily disarmed by unimportant or frivilous ones.
7. Focus on voting and civil service. Give voting citizens a tax break, or give them something to get them to vote!
8. Open government initiatives to keep our politicians honest. There should be real working people talking to senators and congressmen, a 'people's lobby' if you will
9. SIMPLE laws, we have 3000 gun-control laws now, and even more tax laws. why not have 20? Why not modularize and set lifespans on laws that shouldn't be permanent?

Alright, let me know what you think. I'll contact you.

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[Anonymous Coward]

You must have made mommy and daddy proud when you gradidated! Um hum! Hope the hole in your head gets better, because these logical road bumps are a bitch to traverse!

You, my friend, if you are in deed serious, are a frigging stupid bastard.

Bye bye now

And NASA's purpose is...?

[Moderation abuser]

Seriously. Privatise it. A massive government monopoly on space is a waste of tax payers money and is stiffling private enterprise.

With shrinking budgets NASA is just an albatross round the neck of space travel.

Re:And NASA's purpose is...?

[Hittite Creosote]

Yeah, privatising inefficient government monopolies always makes them more efficient. Just ask anyone who uses Britain's railways. The private company Railtrack made Enron look intelligent.

Re:And NASA's purpose is...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Arguably, Americans should already have learned. And by the exact same experience to boot! Witness Amtrack...

Re:And NASA's purpose is...?

[Dyolf Knip]

The difference is that private companies that shoot themselves in the foot to that extent are the exception while for government agencies (and monopolies) it's the rule.

Re:And NASA's purpose is...?

[Dyolf Knip]

I really don't think privatizing NASA would do any good. They'd still have the same people and managers and system of doing things. And everything they do is based on the fact that they don't have to make a profit. It would be years, if ever, before they could actually launch a shuttle and earn back the money spent on it.

NASA was formed because space exploration technology was so hideously expensive no private company would ever engage in it, right? The trick to privatizing space is to offer an incentive to the free market above and beyond the wealth available in space. A large reward for successful and cheap launches has been suggested before, but I'd love to hear other ideas.

Re:And NASA's purpose is...?

[Vaystrem]

Privatize nasa?

And exactly how much of NASA's work do you think has a direct finacnial benefit for any party.

NASA is largely a Pure Science organization, that's part of the problem with it trying to find funding but this is not necessarily a bad thing.

Congress " So what does that do ?"
NASA " It'll teach us things we never knew before."
Congress " Yes but can it pay for itself?"

Knowledge is so more important than the financial bottom lines, yes it is still important to be careful and as prudent as possible but Privitization of NASA? Give me a break, are you trying to kill Pure Science research?

Re:And NASA's purpose is...?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The difference is that private companies that shoot themselves in the foot to that extent are the exception while for government agencies (and monopolies) it's the rule.

I'm sorry, that's dogma, not fact. The fact is that when it comes to privatization of things that are properly government responsibilities (transportation, education, defense, law enforcement) foot-shooting is the rule, not the exception, and has been ever since Rome started hiring mercenaries because they would "do the same job at a lower cost" compared to the once-great Roman army. The cult of privatization ignores history in its attempt to divert our tax dollars into the pockets of corrupt fast-talkers who do a shitty job and pay themselves many times what any government bureaucrat makes.

Re:And NASA's purpose is...?

[Morrigu]

Privatizing NASA won't do a whole lot of good, as long as there's still some "official" agency that controls space access, competition will be stifled.

Until space travel is opened up to true competition, there won't be any growth. Did Espana only allow C. Columbus access to the New World? No, they sent over as many folks as they could, and other nations did as well.

Free markets and capitalist's greed have done more for exploration of new frontiers than anything else. The government's role should be limited to enforcing basic minimum standards ("Yes, you DO have a working life support system"), much as state governments enforce emissions and safety standards for cars & trucks, and to encourage further exploration & development.

Give tax breaks away to any company that gets ore mined from the asteroid belt back to Earth. Give away grants to fund the first Earth-to-Moon shuttle. Grant property rights to whoever sets foot on a previously unclaimed parcel of land on the Moon, Mars, the asteroids, anything that's worth money. Once you get the gold prospectors out there, the wives and equipment-sellers and infrastructure will follow.

Tough choice..

[Chicane-UK]

Well what do you do - I personally feel that manned exploration of space is very important. There is so much about it that we do not know yet - theres a lot to explore!

But I also appreciate that the planet has a million other issues they need to resolve - its no good pretending that they dont exist, whilst pumping billions of dollars into space missions. People are starving, we are destroying the planet rapidly, and our resources are running out..

Perhaps we need to look at what we are doing.

Re:Tough choice..

[RayBender]

It's not an either-or situation. Congress wouldn't say "OK, lets take the 14 billion from NASA and spend it on the poor starving children in Africa" (not to mention that now you'd have poor starving children of former NASA engineers). Think instead of NASA as a small (compared to other government expenditures) investment in knowledge, with a potentially large payoff that may benefit everyone on the planet. After all, NASA satellites monitor the ozone layer and El Nino events - raising awareness of environmental damage, and providing warning...

Canada

[xX_sticky_Xx]

Is not considering a Mars mission and certainly doesn't have the technology (or the money) for it. I don't know where you heard that from but it's just plain wrong.

Re:Canada

[3141]

Clearly, our sources differ.

Whaaa...???

[Anonymous Coward]

This troll caught so many biters how?

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[Com2Kid]

Wouldn't work, rememember people are stupid.

Washington state residents have voted TWICE in a row now to cut taxs seriously.

Ah oh yes one of our major bridges is now about ready to fall down and people are scrambling trying to find funding for it, enviromental production is being cut to shreads, education is being to shreads, and all in all the state as a whole is assfucked.

All because the majority of Fucktards out there thoguht that voting themselves lower taxs would "force politicians to cut back on government waste".

Bullshit the politicians just took the easiest route and cut back on funding for critical needs rather then actualy do anything more efficently.

If you want to change ANYTHING you HAVE TOO, and I repeat, YOU HAVE TO MICRO-MANAGE EVERYTHING THAT THE ROTTEN LITTLE BASTARDS(the politicians) DO.

Tell them that NO they CANNOT buy their copier paper from that supplier because that supplier is WAAAAY overcharging them and has been doing so for the last 20 some odd years.

Tell them that NO they CANNOT buy all of their number two pencils from Office Depot because a Pencil does not have to be name brand to write.

Be specific.

Oh, and forget about pro-choice, how about "manditory sterilization after the first kid."

Sounds good to me. School class sizes are WAAAAY to high.

Oh, and be more EFFICENT with Military R&D spending, we already spend royal ASSLOADS of money on Military R&D, it is just that a lot of that money is spent on 'pet projects' that were proven undoable quite a few years ago.

Of course some aeronautical company is making buttloads of money off of the continued research (or parts used in the research at least) of whatever project is being researched so thus the resarch dothst continue.

Suckly really really sucky.

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is called being an iddiot. And this does not help starving kids.

So whoever said "Ok, so kids are staving to death as we speak on this planet, and some people want to spends billions of dollars to conduct a gigantic geology experiment on Mars." take note that being a stupid moron posting or just making moronic comments does not help starving children anywhere, so please stop.

Maybe if I had a dollar for every time I read a stupid, thoughtless comment like this, and were to give it to a repuitable charity, then we would be able to help starving children everywhere.

We can only hope.

Re:Talk About A Low Budget!

[G-funk]

Hahaha :-)

Now what the world needs is for China to get their asses (halfway) to mars. That's the only thing that'll scare the shit out the US congress enough to get the good guys there first.

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[doooras]

so... what you're saying is politicians should get their supplies from Staples, right?

Re:Talk About A Low Budget!

[Anonymous Coward]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

That's so funny, man!!!

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[ObitMan]

you are right. I was referring to the "feed the children" aspect of his post.
"The Children" are usually brought out to demonize spending.

Said it before..

[Anonymous Coward]

...NASA has underdelivered for far too long. The media has been their puppet for keeping our hopes alive, but they have provided nothing but marketing hype for the last 25 years.

Stop believing that NASA is going to wow us again. It is just not going to happen.

Re:They couldn't even put...

[Anonymous Coward]

We already put a rover on mars that worked perfectly. I haven't seen you Eurotards putting a rover on mars. Shit, the eurotrash can't even put a man into space. Bahaha!. Weak-ass socialist bitches.

Uptime?

[Anonymous Coward]

The protocol required powering down and restarting Hubble for the first time since it was deployed from space shuttle Discovery on April 25, 1990.

Damn, damn almost 12year uptime

Re:Want to go to Mars? Go then!

[Crag]

I was using definition 3 from m-w.com:

"relative worth, utility, or importance <a good value at the price> <the value of base stealing in baseball> <had nothing of value to say>"

I value Space Exploration enough to post a comment on Slashdot. I value it enough not to fight against it. If I had more resources, then I would be willing to commit some of them.

Do you have an objection to my use of the word "value"?

Evolution and space

[Dollyknot]

Human beings are the most intelligent species on the planet? Who says so? Why human beings do! That is a bit of a coincidence, isn't it. We say we are different to other animals, well in one way we are spectaculaly different, that is the degree to which we have evolved the ability to change our surroundings to suit ourselves, other mammals are the other way round, they are evolved to fit their environment. In evolving our ability to change our environment, we have coincidently evolved the ability to create an environment. Taking this to be a fact, leads me to the question, why if we evolved this fantastic ability, we are using it to steal an environment. All the raw materials are out there, all we lack is the imagination to put them together .... yet.

Peter.

Mars or Bust.

[Schwarzchild]

Certainly going to Mars may not be popular with Congress or with the President but think about it in other terms. Putting an American on Mars could be a way to show the world and especially terrorists that America isn't going to sit on its laurels, that it will continue to innovate and explore.

We need something to cheer for or at least a place other than Earth to escape to.

Let's Explore Mars.

Re:Mars or Bust.

[GRH]

Although not new, have a read of this speech given by James Cameron to the Mars Society.

http://www.marssociety.org/cameron_one.asp

Okay, you people are all out of your minds, you know that. You do understand that Mars is really, really far away, and its really, really cold. And you can't breathe the air, which is so thin it would make your blood boil, so you're sort of freezing and boiling at the same time. And if you did go there, you couldn't come back for years. And it would cost millions of dollars per pound to get you there. And there's nothing there, anyway. We're talking about the same Mars, right? The Mars Society Mars.

Pardon me for being rude, but have you considered starting up, say ... The Fiji Society? You might get more members.

It's a great read.

Gov't Budgeting

[BDew]

Poor ISS.... I'm sorry, but you are wrong, wrong, wrong.

ISS has its financial problems, but these have NOT affected the exploration budget. Space Science has been increasing steadily during the ISS era. It is AGAINST THE LAW for the NASA Administrator to move money from the science programs into ISS.

The way the Congressional Appropriations system works, the odds are better that a cancelled ISS would help the Veterans Administration or the War on Terrorism than that they would stay within NASA. Congress just doesn't work that way.

Re:Gov't Budgeting

[cybrpnk]

Boy, oh, boy, moving money from science to ISS may be illegal, but I guaran-damn-tee you it has happened by the billions....

Re:Gov't Budgeting

[cybrpnk]

For example, like this...

Re:Gov't Budgeting

[Anonymous Coward]

This reference is to reducing funds for science onboard the ISS in
order to get the vehicle itself in shape. Reduction in science
output, the purpose of the ISS in the first place, is the major
problem caused by the cost overruns and is what NASA and its
contractors are trying very hard to fix.

This article does not say that the Space Science budget was impacted
by the ISS overruns, so it does not contradict what the previous
poster said.

By the way, cost overruns in multi-billion dollar engineering
programs are common. Especially when the funding levels shift over
time, the most fundamental engineering decisions are determined by
political criteria (thou shalt partner with the Russians and launch
it with lots of little shuttle flights rather than rebuild our heavy
launch capability first and do it with 3-4 large launches. Note
that we're just getting back to the enclosed volume SkyLab put up in
the early 70's in *one* launch on a Saturn V. Those decisions were
made by the administration above NASA's level.) It doesn't do for
the NASA administrator to point out frequent and similar cost
overruns in DoD's black budget.

Of course, this doesn't let NASA off the hook, and financial
controls should have been better and have to get better now. But
cost estimation for macro-engineering projects is an imprecise art
at best. Congress, unfortunately, doesn't let NASA keep a 40%
budget reserve for contingencies.

A manned mission to Mars

[NetSerf2000]

Honestly, I think that we should load all the terrorists and all the dumb ass politicians from around the world who are a bunch of low-brow rednecks and send them off to mar's so that they can settle their differences up there and leave the rest of the human race in peace...

Maybe just to make it interesting for the rest of us, send up about 50 camera's as well and a limited supply of oxygen and they have to fight for the right to be the last person breathing up there... and possibly get a free ride home...

That way, everyone left back here gets the best of all worlds...

Mars gets a manned mission,
We stop the fight against terrorism,

AND *shudder* for the reality tv freaks out there, they get the ultimate reality show of all time...

Ohhh... and as a side benefit, we also get rid of all those useless politicians who are just screwing up everything for everyone else...

*** I had a .sig, but I went and got a life ***

Re:A manned mission to Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

send them off to mar's

That's the worst use of an apostrophe I have ever seen.

What's It Called Where You're From?

[cybrpnk]

This is a 1040. US citizens fill one out every year and send it in to the Internal Revenue Service (our friendly government tax people) on April 15. Check here for the complete list of fun-to-fill-out IRS forms. US law says the IRS doesn't actually have to have your 1040 in their grubby little hands on April 15, just that when they DO get it, it had better be in an envelope postmarked April 15. This rule leads to all kinds of crazy stuff happening on April 15, with postal people dressing up in monkey suits and standing by specially designated drop points until midnight....

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[johnE68]

You know in the 1600's people over in Europe said that setting out in a sailboat to find a new world was pointless, because "the earth is flat!" Good thing ol' Cristobal didn't listen to them. Space travel and exploration is anything but pointless. In case you haven't heard there are quite a few "big rocks" out there that could hit the earth in about 30 years, I believe that is how dinosaurs became extinct, at least that's one theory. Where do you think they came up with the idea for Armageddon? It could happen. But there are plenty of reasons for exploring mars and other planets, they are untapped resources for ore, minerals, possibly even fuel, that we are running out of on this planet. Expand your mind, think "outside the box"!

OT (Re:Pop Quiz)

[fireant]

Every reasonably educated person of the time period would have known the earth was round, and the "other side of the world" had already been visited, so the analogy doesn't stick.

I agree with the first part, but I'm not sure what you mean by the second part. Do you mean that India had already been visited (what they thought was the other side of the world) or that the Americas had already been visited? I'm guessing you mean the former.

So to tell the truth, if Columbus had come to me for money in the 15th century, I would have turned him down, as his navigational calculations were completely off base, and the resources could be better spent on other things.

Heh, and you would have missed out on all the gold that subsequent expeditions returned. We thought riding our little dot com bubble was fun... Spain had a dot com bubble that lasted 100 years, of course, it too burst.

Re:OT (Re:Pop Quiz)

[Atrahasis]

Heh, and you would have missed out on all the gold that subsequent expeditions returned. We thought riding our little dot com bubble was fun... Spain had a dot com bubble that lasted 100 years, of course, it too burst Yes, but his logic still stands - Columbus predicted that he would be able to sail to India by travelling west. He was wrong. He found the Americas (which are on maps predating Columbus) and then all the gold started flowing. He was lucky. If the Americas hadn't been there, he would have starved to death befre he reached India, and there would have been no (monetary) return.

Where is the USSR if you need them?

[hoytt]

If the USSR still existed we would have been on Mars within 5 years.

Re:Where is the USSR if you need them?

[Dyolf Knip]

But only if the USSR was also trying to get to Mars.

NASA is missing the boat

[pigeonhed]

Currently I can look into the sky and see Stars and such for free. This is crazy. The RIAA business model could definately help them. Sue me if I attempt to look to the stars. Sue Telescope makers for helping me do this. Sue us all and make massive amounts of money for all the things you have discovered. ;-)

Re:NASA is missing the boat

[grytpype]

Slashtard bingo!

Open Source Mars Mission?

[Dan-DAFC]

Anyone want to start an open-source initiative to put a man on Mars?

Re:They couldn't even put...

[Atrahasis]

Why is holding onto one set of units or another isolationist? Is it not just that others want to impress there systems onto others? No I'm not American, I just don't see why everybody should be forced to use metric measurements.

overpopulation

[Tuxinatorium]

The population will inevitably expand until the death rate reaches equilibrium with the birth rate. Therefore, aside from a plague or a war, unless people are forced to have two children or less, population will inevitably expand until the starvation rate balances out the excessive birth rate. Feeding the poor without stopping them from multiplying like rabbits is completely futile, and perhaps counterproductive, because it means MORE people will starve to death in the long run. The food supply cannot be expanded indefinitely. So don't throw money away on just giving them food. First give them vasectomies, then teach them how to be self-reliant and make their own food and money. Our money really is better spent on space exploration than exacerbating starvation by foolishly attempting to stop it by just giving away food.

Re:overpopulation

[Hittite Creosote]

To some extent, that's an outdated Malthusian theory. Population doesn't inevitably expand, and you don't have to be particularly wealthy to have near zero growth (look at the population growth rate in Russia). Education is the key thing, not forced vasectomies. Educated people have less children, and educating women is the most effective way of cutting the birth rate. They are also quite capable of being self-reliant, the problem is they often don't get the chance. As for money, most of the money the third world makes goes straight to us in debt payment. They are growing cash crops to pay off the debt rather than feed their own people, and large amounts of money is creamed off by the kleptocracies originally backed by the west or the Soviet Union. But you are right about giving away food - that destroys the price of food in the country receiving it.

Re:overpopulation

[Gromit T. Dog]

The problem is not overpopulation it is a lack of education and generosity. You can fit everyone in the entire world in Rhode Island.

World Population: 6,210,804,902 (US Census, 11Mar02)

RI Sq Miles: 1045 (US Census)

1045 Sq Miles = 29,132,928,000 Sq Feet (5280^2*1045)

Each person would get 4.69 Sq Feet each, or a 2.17 by 2.17 foot area.

It would be tight but EVERY person in the world can fit in RI. This world can support many more people. It is our lack of education and educating others and our lack of compassion and generosity to others that causes the problem.

p.s.
US Sq Miles = 3,537,441 (US Census)
Everyone would get 1/3acre each in the US.

Re:Want to go to Mars? Go then!

[Anonymous Coward]

a good value at the price

So what you're saying is that getting Mars exploration for the price of a Slashdot post is good value, but any more cost makes it not worthwhile?

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[RootPimp]

give them something to get them to vote! Why? If people don't want to vote then forget them, they have no right to complain. It's not like you are doing the government a favor for voting...the incentive is a voice in politics...however small it may be.

thanks alot god boy george bush jr

[Anonymous Coward]

nasa is just a waste of time right god boy george
everyone knows god made the universe right god boy jr so why waste precious tax payers money on space exploration? lets kill nasa and send all of the funding to chuches in texas.

I enjoy working for nasa even though their are
7 layers of management every where you turn nasa
needs to be cleaned up better yet competed aganst
another american non government space agency.

Hubble Produces No Science

[PhysicsGenius]

I love science. I love big science. But science is more than pretty pictures. It is a process of creating, testing and destroying hypotheses to push our knowledge to the edge of the envelope.

The Hubble telescope does none of these things. Of course, neither does an electron microscope or a hammer--because they are merely tools. But when wielded by a trained, creative and insightful scientist they can help produce startling new theories that make our life better.

But the Hubble telescope isn't in the hands of trained, creative and insightful scientists. It is in the hands of bureaucrats and politicians who dole out a minute here and a minute there on whatever pet projects they happen to favor. When Scientist A creates a theory based on an observation made with Hubble, these chairwarmers refuse to let Scientist B use the 'scope to attempt demolish that theory for fear it will make Hubble look bad.

We obviously can't afford to make enough for everyone, so the only solution is to let no one have it. Decommission the Hubble!

Re:Hubble Produces No Science

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of the grants-writing grubs in academia are as bad, if not worse, than the buearacracy at NASA. I'm sorry, most of the great breakthroughs of the past were not made by lockstep 'scientists' in an academy. They were made by individuals who bucked a system.

Maybe we need to fund science LESS and see what creative people are capable of when challanged.

Re:Hubble Produces No Science

[Gromit T. Dog]

It is pretty plain that you don't understand the process of how proposals are handled. It isn't NASA that judges proposals or grants time on the Hubble. It is the Space Telescope Science Institute. A group of international scientists not government bureaucrats.

A little sour grapes, perhaps? Don't become bitter, use the energy to bolster your proposal writting skills.

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[Hittite Creosote]

The only reason those children would 'never have accomplished anything' is that countries that can't afford to pay for food certainly can't afford to pay for education. Since the US government doesn't seem too interested in paying for educating Americans anymore, they're hardly likely to want to spend it on educating others.

The space lottery

[Pelerin]

The analogy with Columbus fails on a couple of respects, like the risk vs. benefit calculation.

Columbus new that the risks in his mission were manageable, and the immediate payoff was high. (Of course, Spain went on to become a gold-based economy, importing pretty much all manufactured goods and got their clocks cleaned by British wool and things like that; quickly losing its world status, but that's another story). The risks of a manned Mars mission are unknown in some pretty important areas, all having to do with long-term exposure to space, for both humans and machines.

Consider the moon landing. 10 Apollo spacecraft came before the one that made it. One of those (Apollo 3) burned horribly on the launch pad. And thanks to Hollywood we all know that Apollo 13 also failed to reach the moon. That's 2 failures in 13 missions; a 15% failure rate, and only considering technical failures, since the risks in the human biology area for that kind of mission were understood reasonably well by then, thanks to a succession of manned orbital flights.

Now consider a Mars mission. We don't know what effects on human bodies (and minds!) will result from prolonged exposure to radiation and zero gravity for a mission that lasts that long, except they all look pretty bad. And while unmanned space probes have continued functioning for decades in space, they don't have life-support systems so we don't know what the risks are in that area either.

So it seems to me that advocating a manned Mars mission now is not very rational. We would simply be praying we get lucky, but the odds right now don't look very good.

We (the world, not just the US) need to know a whole lot more about what's involved before making any kind of vaguely rational decision to go to Mars. Use the Space Station to the max. Also put another one in orbit around the Moon for a few years. Learn what the glitches are likely to be and then decide.

Re:The space lottery

[cdipierr]

Woah there cowboy. The Apollo that burned on the launch pad was Apollo 1 in a pre-flight test.

After that they skipped ahead to Apollo 7, so there was no 2 through 6.

Of the 7 craft designed to land on the moon (Apollo 11 through 17), there was a single failure (Apollo 13) that showed that NASA equipment is built durable and that inginuity can solve very challenging problems.

Great for huble, sux for exploration.

[CFBMoo1]

I think it's great that Hubble is all fixed up. I also agree w/one poster about keeping it going till there is a better replacement. Look at the other probes and stuff we've launched that are still working today. Pioneer 10, Galileo, etc. I think it's only natural that we should keep Hubble flying as long as we can safely.

Regular service missions should extend it's life a little longer, especially since it's already had a heart transplant.

As far as NASA goes I think cleaning up wasted spending is important but not at the cost of exploration. Lord knows there might be a microbe or something on Mars that could cure cancer, aids, or some other nasty Earthly disease and it's just sitting up there waiting for us to get it. Or something could wipe out the entire population of Earth. We don't know though till we go there.

I also saw another comment that said the Chinese could go for Mars. Imagine that, reminds me of the day when the USSR was making a shot for the moon but America beat them to it. Perhaps it will take another challenging country to get America going again and we may ask ourselves afterward why we didn't take the initiative to begin with after finding something amazing.

Betting...

[CFBMoo1]

I'm willing to bet if we told George W there was oil on Mars. He'd be the first one to slap an Ion drive on an oil rig and launch it up.

Re:Betting...

[E-Rock-23]

And let me guess: Enron would be in charge of the drilling, ne?

Re:Betting...

[Anonymous Coward]

What's an 'Ion drive'? Can I buy one at the hardware store?

Or are you reading those comic books again??

Re:Betting...

[NDPTAL85]

A real honest to goodness Ion drive was used on a recent satelite probe that was sent to study a nearby comet. So STFU.

_You_ need to go back to school

[Anonymous Coward]

You must have not have taken any grammer classes.

Re:_You_ need to go back to school

[Anonymous Coward]

Give him a break, unless one is gung ho about the retention of grammar skills one will soon lose them to the slurry that spills out of the media and most people's mouths without mindful attention.

Re:_You_ need to go back to school

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, just trying to stay in the ethnic stylings of the slashdot race.. Slashonics.. anyone having troubles with it is a bigot racist!

Re:_You_ need to go back to school

[denzo]

You must have not have taken any grammer classes.

You must not have taken any spelling classes, because it's "grammar."

well then

[cybercuzco]

The short version is, don't hold your breath for a Mars mission.

We'll do it ourselves then. Click here.

GOOD!

[siberian]

I remember once, for no real scientific reason, NASA went to the moon. And like, we went multiple times and like we played golf and drove cars and stuff.

But then like, we stopped going you know. And like all that money was wasted and the manned space program like ceased to basically exist..

Meanwhile, the Russians has a more or less permanent outpost in orbit for the last 15-20 years for a fraction of the money we spent getting to the moon.

Nasa needs to slow down and take baby steps. Orbit, Moon then Mars. See Ben Bova's book 'Moon Base'. Being that NASA is the construct of a profit driven society each step needs to have a mid-term commerical value. This 'In 300 years people could live here if we radically develop new technologies that are as of yet unknown' speech is ridiculous. Lets make orbit and the moon profitable and jump from there.

Re:Canada's Mars Mission

[FreezerJam]

It was heard about here in a conference announcement from Marc Garneau and discussed on Slashdot.
And recently, it was pointed out that Canada does have critical exploration technology for drilling for samples.

A One Way Trip?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it dramatically decrease the complexity and cost of the mission if it were a one way trip? I.e. if one or more people volunteered, perhaps on the basis of a long term degenerative illness that did not incapacitate them in the next 18 months or so, to go and not return?

More to the point, would this be poliically acceptable?

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[Waffle Iron]

I hate race conditions. Nevertheless, the other post doesn't have my GUID.

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the either/or proposition?

The way to alleviate over population on earth is to become smarter in how we do things.

What does blasting a bunch of people out of the biosphere where there are NO resources for them to survive on have to do with it?

You just want to have your Star Trek adventure, and you've rationalized a reason why it has to happen.

We are one with the earth, we are just a part of it. Short of packing up a whole chunk of the earth before we head out, it's just not gonna happen.

There are way too many terrestrial problems for us to solve before we think about 'heading on out.'

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[Anonymous Coward]

Parents don't seem too interested in educating their children anymore (it's more fun to do bong hits or go to the evening beer blast). Education has never worked well when the parents aren't behind it somehow.

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever anybody comes up with a list of 'simplifications' that would make things work better, it seems like it comes from a point of view of naivity.

"We can just do this list of 9 big gargantuan changes and everything will be perfect!"

How fucking lame.

Mars? Who needs Mars?

[E-Rock-23]

People, it's been almost 35 years since we've been to the moon. 35 years! And now we don't want to even think about it? Now honestly, couple the ISS with something on the moon, and you've got a couple of waypoints to hit along the way to Mars.

It's a no brainer. Our destination right now MUST be the moon. And the goal should be colonizing the moon, pure and simple. Screw Mars. At least untill we go back to la luna.

If the technology of the 60s let us go for a visit, and relatively speaking our personal computers have more power in them than the Apollo units, isn't it LOGICAL to do what Stacey Keach did in Cheech And Chong's "Up In Smoke" and "Shoot The Moon?"

Call me crazy, but the moon seems like a better idea. Or maybe I am just a luna tic...

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[Anonymous Coward]

If people don't want to vote then forget them, they have no right to complain.

The hell with that. Now you're sounding like one of those cheesy people handing out leaflets and buttons at a booth.

Anybody who pays taxes has a right to complain, at whatever level they feel appropriate, until they stop being taxed.

There is more to politics than standing in a line at the voting booth. The voting booth may actually just be a diversion to keep people busy.

Re:They couldn't even put...

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a point.

I don't see why we aren't blaming those 'it's gotta be done in Metric' people for introducing a new system that muddles up the engineering.

There are more than a few of us who understand that the 'Imperial' system is based on human-scale measurements evolved over centuries. A 'cup' makes sense, because it's a unit scaled to human consumption.

What the fuck is a milli-litre? It's just an abstract unit from the 'we will renumber everything' people in the French Revolution. What a crock of shit.

Re:Want to go to Mars? Go then!

[Anonymous Coward]

Some might make that arguement. They're possibly not wrong.

I am sorry, you've watched way too many Star Trek episodes, and you're just furious that you can't go there.

Perhaps the key is to recognize that those were imaginary television programs. They were made up!

Radiation

[Anonymous Coward]

They found high levels of radiation on the surface of most of the planet. They are going to have to deal with this unless they don't expect to come back.

My troll...

[TrevorB]

OK, a couple years back (too far back for my user page to remember), I made a post about how great the past NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin was, how he had managed to keep NASA going and doing wonderful things while having to dig through miles of endless beurocracy. I got slammed from another poster as to how he had kept NASA back, how we could have been doing so much more.

So now NASA has O'Keefe. The guy who can stand up for minutes to talk about the future of NASA and not mention the word "space" once. Now we're wondering if humans really need to go up to LEO.

Booyah. :(

You could claim Goldin got NASA into this mess with bugetary problems, but I think any multi-government project is bound to be over-time and over-budget. And I think some of the cooler stuff, missions to Mars, return to the Moon (also never landed on by people in my lifetime), or even more robotic exploration of our own solar system become questionable under the lens of proper fiscal management.

Oh well. Go China. I'm serious. I'm watching for their next Shenzauo launch with great anticipation. The Chinese should be proud...

Re:They couldn't even put...

[Alan Partridge]

what the fuck are you talking about? Metric = Si units. What would you rather we use than Metres, fucking hand-spans? The Romans were great and all, but Metric makes sense EXACTLY because it ISN'T human-scale. The rest of the universe, mathematics, physics etc etc couldn't really give a shit about human-scale in case you hadn't noticed. Imperial might be great for cooking and carpentry, but they're a total liability for science and engineering.

Re:They couldn't even put...

[Atrahasis]

I blame metrication for falling mathematics ability in young 'uns. Anybody can count on their fingers...but it takes thought to count in 16's,20's,8's, etc.etc.

Metrication led to the removal of base math from the curriculum, and therefore led to dumbing down. The problem is that once the kids stop thinking, they lose interest, so ability falls even further, which leads to the government lowering standards to try and make the results look better, which leads to even more kids losing interest.

Then you have the ridiculous case of the english greengrocer who was fined for selling bananas by the pound. OK, fair enough, the Europeans who visit England might not want to have to learn Imperial units for when they holiday in the UK, but what about the aging population IN BRITAIN who have used Imperial uinits all their life and end up buying too much/too little of something because they aren't used to the system? Yes they can learn metric units, but why the hell should they have to?

Then you gave the companies who are making money by making their pound tins of food weigh 400g for the same price, cheating everyone out of 2oz of produce. Might not sound like much, but every 8 cans that are sold at 400 grams makes another can to be sold. You have to buy 8 cans to get what you used to get in 7.

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[danro]

Yeah, stupid stupid human nature...
Stupid, stupid africans who try to get enough kids surviving to adult age to care for them when they are to old to work.
Stupid, stupid people that choose to be poor, black africans when they could have choosen to be born by rich white parents in the US/EU.
And how utterly stupid of them not to be completly independent of their culture, I am sure that you would do much better than them in the same situation.

They are like us, no better, no worse.
Just different context.
Get it!

I shouldn't get so agitated, I guess you were just trolling anyway, fool.

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[Dyolf Knip]

Let me get this straight. Some people are living very poor life styles. This life of theirs currently involves, among other things, having as many kids as they possibly can, regardless of the available food supply. And then you rant about how it's wrong to demand that they change in the face of the obvious need to do so.

But, and here's the good part, you also want us to take our money and force them to lead better lives. Even ignoring the hypocracy of that suggestion, if you honestly think that is a good idea, I have this bridge I'd like to sell you.

Let me ask you this. Parents are over there having too many kids and then not being able to feed them. If we come over there and do nothing but give them food, without making it clear to them why they were in this predicament in the first place, what are they going to end up with? Another generation doing the exact same thing. They either have to stop having so many kids or start growing more food. We cannot support their entire population ourselves and it is insane of you to suggest otherwise.

Risk vs. Budgets

[Tablizer]

(* They need more innovators and less cogs; more Freeman Dysons and Buckminster Fullers and less accountants, scientists, and engineers who are too scared to do anything revolutionary. *)

Revolution involves risk, and politicians don't like to deal with that. They often want to pay a fixed amount for a known risk rather than pay a little more to test something that may save much more money in the long run only if it works.

One thing I think NASA has done a poor job at is clarifying the tradeoffs of risk-taking.

If things like Aero-braking had failed, then NASA would have gotten a royal whipping and chewed out. They get slammed much more when something fails than if it works. There is no congressional investigation to praise them for Aero-braking.

BTW, what have Dyson and Fuller done to make space exploration itself cheaper-better-faster?

Re:Risk vs. Budgets

[nomadic]

Revolution involves risk, and politicians don't like to deal with that. They often want to pay a fixed amount for a known risk rather than pay a little more to test something that may save much more money in the long run only if it works.

And neither do engineers apparently.

BTW, what have Dyson and Fuller done to make space exploration itself cheaper-better-faster?

I'm not saying they did anything for space exploration in particular, but that's irrelevant.

Saying we need more Christopher Columbuses in NASA doesn't mean we actually want the 15th century Genoese explorer.

Both of these men have come up with interesting, innovative alternatives to the engineering and scientific problems they've looked at; they thought (before a generation of marketdroids appropriated the term) "outside of the box".

And a lot of decision makers at NASA are engineers and scientists. I just get a little sick of this whole "blame the politicians because the techies are just too c00l to criticize" attitude on slashdot.

Re:Risk vs. Budgets

[Tablizer]

(* And a lot of decision makers at NASA are engineers and scientists. I just get a little sick of this whole "blame the politicians because the techies are just too c00l to criticize" attitude on slashdot. *)

Would you rather be stuck on a remote island with 100 politicians or 100 geeks?

Re:Risk vs. Budgets

[nomadic]

Would I rather be stuck on an island with 100 antisocial, arrogant techheads, or 100 dishonest, power-hungry politicians? Hmm...whichever group had the largest subset of attractive females I guess.

Re:Risk vs. Budgets

[Winged Cat]

Would you rather be stuck on a remote island with 100 politicians or 100 geeks?

I'd take the one more able to build radio gear, rafts, and whatever else would help us get off said island and back to civilization.

Going nuclear

[Brian Stretch]

NASA goes nuclear

A new effort for NASA boosted by the White House is a nuclear power and propulsion initiative.

Both NASA and the DOD have each studied nuclear reactors for spacecraft power generation, the CRS report notes. Under the Bush White House, nuclear power and propulsion work is being rekindled.

"Although nuclear devices have advantages over other types of power and propulsion in terms of the amount of energy they produce versus their size and mass, some environmentalists oppose launching nuclear material into space. They worry that a launch accident, or an unintended spacecraft reentry, would spread radioactive material over Earth's population. Thus, the decision to reinvigorate NASA's program -- which would be conducted with the Department of Energy -- is expected to raise controversy," the CRS report states.

NASA work in the nuclear power arena is also being tied to outer planet exploration.

By using nuclear power and propulsion, NASA's O'Keefe has stated that spacecraft sent to such locales as Europa -- a moon of Jupiter -- and to distant Pluto, could get to those targets faster, and operate for longer periods of time.


YES! Before we can actually do a manned mission to Mars, we need a way to get there in a shorter amount of time. At least on this issue, NASA has its order-of-operations straight. When propulsion and other basic issues get nailed down (keeping the crews alive, etc), then we can make our grand plans for exploration.

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[spike hay]

Washington state residents have voted TWICE in a row now to cut taxs seriously.

Yeah, I live in Yakima, WA. Those idiots!

Initiative 695 made all license tab fees go to $35 per year.

Quite a few shortsighted idiots in Washington thought this: "Hey, I pay 200 dollars for my tab! This is going to take it to $35. Wowee!! I don't know where the money for roads, local governments, and subsidies for my job will come from, but who cares, $35!!!"

People seem not to understand that if taxes are cut, the gov't won't be able to provide all the services their used to.

But anyway, no matter how much food we give to africa, a many will still be starving. Just think of what happened in Somalia. Corrupt gov'ts and militias take the food and the people still insist on having a lot of kids. Do you know that there is an average of 6.5 children per woman in Nigeria!! If you live in a famine and drought-stricken nation, you should know that there is not enough food for everyone to have 6 kids!!!!

NASA's budget is tiny compared to our oversized military. They spend a billion dollars on every friggin' stealth bomber! And bush wants to buy 45 more stealth bombers! A series of missions to mars (using the inexpensive Mars Direct plan) would only take 20 billion dollars. That's less than half the cost of Bushes' recent order of stealth bombers! We could easily cut military spending by 1% and that would give NASA plenty of money.

Re:Pop Quiz~

[Anonymous Coward]

I might be totally off the wall with this idea, so feel free to shoot me down if I'm wrong. Wouldn't it make sense to combine the functionality of a space station with moon exploration? That is to say, put the space station in an eliptical orbit where it would both come close enough to the earth to be accesable with the space shuttle, but also intercept the orbit of the moon. It then could be used as a "shuttle bus" to the moon. I can't see why it would be much of a problem the equip it with the equivilent of a space shuttle which would be suited for lunar take off and landing. It seems to me that over the long run, this would be a very cost effective way to facillitate moon exploration, since once the space station was in orbit, the only costs incured would be travel from earth to the space station, when it's close to the earth, and from the space station to the moon, when it's close to the moon. Unless there's something counter-intuitive at work here, it seems it would be simple enough. What would be necessary to move something like the ISS into such an orbit? Ideas?

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[Tablizer]

(* You know in the 1600's people over in Europe said that setting out in a sailboat to find a new world was pointless, because "the earth is flat!" *)

Technically, that was not the primary reason for refusing Columbases earlier offers. Most scholars of the time agreed that the Earth was round. They just did not think the trip would be cost effective because of the distances and risk involved.

And, Columbas did *not* find India and gold trade. The economic benefits to Spain were more indirect (but real) than anticipated.

The point is that you don't know until you actually try something, and that it is hard to anticipate the actual benefits of pure exploration.

IOW, don't look for gold, just look period.

NASA's Real Problem

[CryptoJones]

I have worked at one of NASA's field centers for over a year and a half. I was amazed, when I first started workin there, how many managers there are. There are at least three managers for every employee, which are mostly reduant anyway.
If we ever want to anywhere with NASA, we need some type of Management reform. Hopefully, that's where O'Kefee will come in.

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[danro]

Ok, I can see what you mean.
But that doesn't mean that I agree with you. Let me point out a few flaws in your reasoning.

Let me get this straight. Some people are living very poor life styles. This life of theirs currently involves, among other things, having as many kids as they possibly can, regardless of the available food supply. And then you rant about how it's wrong to demand that they change in the face of the obvious need to do so.

You mean like all of us living in the west, straining the worlds resources like, 20 times more per capita than the average african?
I am not saying that they are living a sustainable lifestyle, but think about this before you accuse me of hypocrasy.

Let me ask you this. Parents are over there having too many kids and then not being able to feed them. If we come over there and do nothing but give them food, without making it clear to them why they were in this predicament in the first place, what are they going to end up with? Another generation doing the exact same thing. They either have to stop having so many kids or start growing more food. We cannot support their entire population ourselves and it is insane of you to suggest otherwise.

I agree with you that the solution is not just to give them food and money.
I would suggest a fair chance of competing with us in the "free market" for a start. If the US/EU changed our protectionist policies in the areas where 3:rd world countries could actually compete with us, maybe they could get their own economy to work.

I have this bridge I'd like to sell you.

Sorry, I am not interested in your bridge.
You really shouldn't buy things like that, it is usually a scam you know... =)

Note however that im an not calling you "insane". That is bad manners, and not very mature.
People can actually have opinions that differ from your own without being insane.
Ever thought about how the ones that used to put their "insane" opponents in an asylum were mostly communist dictators?

Fedex or UPS

[Anonymous Coward]

I predict that Fedex or UPS will be the first visitors to Mars. They can do almost anything! Seriously.

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[spike hay]

Here's what we do to get to Mars:

1. We need an inexpensive space plane. To get research dollars, stop the ISS and shuttle progranm. Right now, they arent' doing anything usefull, and the shuttle costs $500 million a flight.

2. Use the money we saved to fund the X-42 program. This is a spaceplane that uses a scramjet engine to reach about mach 15, then uses a rocket engine for the rest. It will reduce lauch costs to under $1000 dollars a pound. Which is a factor of 10 improvement over the shuttle.

3. Now that we got our spaceplane, research the mars mission. Research a good engine suitable for the mission. Like the VASIMR hydrogen plasma engine, which is under development. It will get a specific impulse of 30,000 seconds compared to 500 seconds for the shuttle's engines. That would allow cheap interplanetary voyages anywhere in the solar system, using very little fuel. Using these engines, you could get to Saturn in less than a year. It would also allow slow intersteller trips of around 1% the speed of light.

4. Anyway, now that we have the suitable tech to get to Mars, we can do it. You can have maybe three launches of 50 million dollars each to launch the parts for the spaceship. You could then assemble it in orbit. Then you go on your merry way to Mars, get there in 2 months, stay for a month, and come back.

A VASIMR-powered spacecraft can be reused. After the Mars mission, it would just have to be refueled and resupplied, and it could be sent out again on another mission to Mars or even Saturn or Jupiter, with the addition of extra fuel tanks.

Read about the VASIMR here

Re:Want to go to Mars? Go then!

[LooseChanj]

>I value Space Exploration, but not enough to commit any resources to it. You're not going to convince me otherwise, but if you study, campain, raise money, found companies or support agencies, maybe you can make a difference and see your goals realized.

That's the damn problem, we're *not* committing any resources to it. The money spent on NASA doesn't even register on a pie graph of the federal budget. The US spends roughly twenty times as much money on welfare than we do on NASA. (NASA's budget is about $14 billion.) And the manned spaceflight budget is only a little over a third of that. (About $5 billion.)

Military and entitlements are over a trillion.

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[Dyolf Knip]

You mean like all of us living in the west, straining the worlds resources like, 20 times more per capita than the average african?

To be sure, we are using natural resources more than a 3rd world nation, but that's not really the issue here. The problem is that they are straining their own resources; ie how much food they can produce. Cheap space access in particular would help alleviate our impact on the environment, suggesting that we dedicate even more effort to that end.

I would suggest a fair chance of competing with us in the "free market" for a start.

It might work, it might not. In any event, it affects NASA's funding requirements not even a little bit, which was the topic of the parent.

Note however that im an not calling you "insane". That is bad manners, and not very mature.

I do apologize; I had thought your post was a response by the thread parent, the one who opined that as long as there is any suffering in the world we should do anything and everytyhing to correct it, regardless of whether it would be effective. Thinking that using all of NASA's funding to try and feed the Third World would definitely be insane. It'd be a striking example of the "Give a man to fish, teach a man to fish" maxim.

In any event, I stand by my previous post. So many people like to say "It's their culture not to practice any safe sex whatsoever" even though it is one of the things keeping them in a state of famine and general misery. They might not like to use condoms, but if they want to get anywhere they're gonna have to start, as well as consider implementing a number of other techniques relating to technology, government, and general way of life which we in the West have found to be far more successful.

For instance, imagine a society which considers anyone with blue eyes to be ineligible for any kind of employment. If they then find themselves having a manpower shortage, causing severe economic problems throughout the land, it is stupid for them to continue discriminating on the basis of eye color. It would be even more stupid for other, wealthier nations to start shipping in brown-eyed laborers. It doesn't solve the problem, it just staves it off for a little while so that in the future, even more people will be affected when it resurfaces.

Ever thought about how the ones that used to put their "insane" opponents in an asylum were mostly communist dictators?

Very true, but just because I think an idea is foolish doesn't mean that it is correct. And if ever there was a stupid idea, shutting down our own programs just to raise funds to bail out some other nation's perpetual foulups is one of them, especially when they will continue to do so.

Mars ... First try to duplicate the Moon mission .

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be kiddin'.

Under the current work place safety regulations,
even a Moon mission would be out the question.

Toon Moene.

Well

[xX_sticky_Xx]

Since the parent was referring to manned missions I assumed that's what you were talking about. Still, I do stand corrected.

Why don't they do something useful

[kberg108]

Like figure out out to mine the shit out of the asteroid belt. Don't you know why they (the governement / corporations) keep putting money into space living it's not to go to mars it's to create a new industry mining the shit out of space. As soon as nasa told somebody that with new telescopes they could diffuse enough light from telescopes they could tell the compisition of asteriods and that one of them may be made of pure gold thats when astronomy and space exploration started to get more money. Keep doing stuff like that and you'll get the right people to care ie(the ones with money). going to mars as no atraction to econimists.

Basic Research

[gorehog]

In response to all the economic geniuses who believe that running a government is simply a matter of making a profit...

1) I rate research that results in new industry VERY HIGHLY on the economic scale. So what if it is expensive in the short run? So what if doing things for the first time is expensive and ineficient. NASA is not a business! They are a research group. Like DARPA. Yet, no one dares say that we should close DARPA although it spoends money out the wazoo. IMHO we need to spend more money on research, less on corporate welfare for the Airlines, Car Companies, and Enron's

2) Privatize NASA? We need more public funding of Basic Research, not less. Just because I cannot tell you now all the benefits of a specific piece of research does not mean that research should stop. Thinking like that killed the Super Conducting Super Collider. Thinking like that has killed Stem Cell Research. But it has only killed that research in the US, maybe in North America. Continue to pull funding from research and researchers will go to Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America. Kill NASA? Then the Russians, ESA, and the Japanese will have national space programs and not us. Like that idea? Privitize research? Why? So Boeing and Mcdonnell Douglas are forced to waste time and resources replicating the same discoveries?

Government has a few basic responsibilites. It ensures the security of it's citizens. It collects funds to maintain itself. It is responsible for the economy the citizens select. A major part of that economy is research. Check your history. Research leads to strong economies and happier peolpe. Otherwise you end up like Spain or France.

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[Thing 1]

The true value is the sum of that knowledge plus the technology and science we would develop for the trip, which would doubtless be of incalculable financial wealth.

In addition, there's the value that the new technology can bring to the problem of starvation.

If we end up succeeding with nanotechnology in the timeframe it takes to go to Mars (which looks like a very real possibility; I estimate 5-20 years), then we can use nanofactories to produce enough food for everyone -- without the problem of food distribution. We still have the problem of distributing the factories, but that's a one-time problem, not a continual one like starvation is currently.

Re:They couldn't even put...

[I.T.R.A.R.K.]

Wrong again. I'm not from Europe either.
Man, give up while you're ahead. ;)
You're making an ass of yourself.

Time for SPACE LINUX!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thousands of programmers willing to work for free... getting us to mars and beyond.

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[danro]

Ok, I guess I should have changed the title of my post. I might be slightly offtopic here... I am not against space travel, or the NASA.

In the long run, space exploration is the only way to increase the long term chance of survival for mankind. It is stupid to be dependant on any one planet if we don't have to.

But other than that I suppose we just have to agree that we disagree.

Cutting taxes.

[glrotate]

The issue is stimulating the economy. On the fiscal side this can be done through cutting taxes, or increasing spending, or some combination of the two. Cutting taxes does raise output, by how much depends on a variety of factors. People generaly save part and spend part of any income left after taxes. The fraction spent is called the marginal propensity to consume or MPC. So if your income went up by $10 and you spent $7 and saved $3 your MPC would be .7 .

Ok now since a a dollar earned by me results in me spending MPC*$1 someone will get that MPC*$1, that person will spend MPC*MPC*$1 which someone else will get and spend MPC*MPC*MPC*$1. After a little Math you can see that this is a geometric series and that the total income earned after 1 new dollar is 1/(1-MPC) . This is called the multiplier.

The alternative is to increase govt spending. This can work too, the only problem is that if the government has to run a deficit to pay for it they will have to borrow. The goverment is borrowing from the same pool of money that every one else is, meaning the Demand for money increases meaning interest rates go up. This can lead to crowding out of public borrowing, meaning it is harder for companied to get the money they need to expand their operations.

However sometimes running a deficit is a good thing. It was a stupid idea for the government to think that the budget should remain balanced during the Depression. If there was ever a time for the government to spend like mad, that was it.

The reason towns and states are having such a difficult time is because the economy is so weak. Unemployed people pay 0 taxes, and people making less than they used to pay less taxes. The states got caught up in the late 90's bubble just like everyone else. The thought that the good times would go on forever, and that they could spend all sorts of money, instead of saving the money for a rainy day.

My problem with the people who want a Mars trip is that they are being dishonest. There is no great science to be discovered, it's really just an ego trip for Star Trek fans.

I compare it to the sky scraper craze of the 60's and 70's. Would it be cool to keep on building skyscrapers to 150 200 300 stories? Sure. But after the Sears Tower we asked: "What's the point of this again?" and we realized there wasn't one other than ego. $10 Billion dollars is alot to spend on an ego trip to mars. I'd rather the government bought 150,000 corvettes and we could all zoom around racetracks.

Re:Pop Quiz~

[cybrpnk]

What's necessary would be to move ISS from 17,000 MPH (it's current Earth orbital speed) to 25,000 MPH (Earth to moon escape speed). This sounds like only a 50% increase in current speed but energy goes as the square of the speed so we would have to DOUBLE the current kinectic energy of the space station to send it to the moon. This is probably do-able using ion drive thrusters if there was some REALLY REALLY COMPELLING reason to do so - it wouldn't be easy.

However, the PROBLEM comes in that if we did this, the station would be making once-per-week trips thru the Van Allen radiation belts and exposed to raw solar wind / flares during the moon-half of the voyage, none of which it was designed to withstand and which would fry the crew and electronics pretty damn quick. People don't realize just how much protection from space radiation the Earth's magnetic field gives at an orbit of 200 miles or so, and how bad things get above that altitude. In a hurry.

Another problem is the logistics of carting the fuel up to allow back-and-forth transitions from 17,000 MPH to 25,000 MPH to allow crew and supply transfers. If you do the math, it ain't pretty and we sure can't afford to do it routinely at the $10,000 per pound the Shuttle costs.

PLUS when we included the Russians in the ISS program we put it in this weird (57 degree inclined) orbit that the Russians can get to with their far-north launch sites and it is the worst possible orbit (just about, a polar orbit is the dead worst) to suddenly make a break for the moon....

Nice idea, tho. I think we should be doing lunar exploration too.

That's not the part of the definition I was using.

[Crag]

I quoted the dictionary entry literally. "a good value at the price" is one of three ways of using the third meaning listed on m-w.com. I was not using it that way.

In any case, for _me_, getting to Mars is only worth the "price" of a Slashdot post. The fact that I was talking about _my_ values was implied by the fact that I can't know what anyone else thinks, even if they tell me.

There is no absolute value. A hamburger is not worth $1. A Big Mac _is_ worth $1.99 to _me_, and therefore I choose to buy them sometimes. Value judgements are made by individuals for themselves, and when applied to others arguments ensue.

Many confused people have such a horrible problem with the concept of value and worth. They think everyone must "value" thinks equally: human life, individual liberty, "the greater good" (a nebulous concept at best), entertainment, privacy, safety, image, whatever. These confused people think that if someone doesn't place the same priorities on things as they do, then the person is "selfish" and the confused people think themselves "rightious". I'm over-generalizing for brevity.

In my original post I hoped to inspire those who place high value on Space Exploration to act on that valuation, rather than projecting it on those with different priorities.

It's not _the_ problem, it's _a_ problem.

[Crag]

I would prefer not to spend any of my money on either defense OR NASA. It's not that they aren't important to me, but that there are other things which are more important to me right now, like not getting kicked out of my appartment.

I don't want these decisions made for me, "for my own good."

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[Dyolf Knip]

In the long run, space exploration is the only way to increase the long term chance of survival for mankind. It is stupid to be dependant on any one planet if we don't have to.

In this, we are in perfect and total agreement.

Re:Pop Quiz~

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, good! I've got the attention of someone who knows what they're talking about. OK, the ISS itself wouldn't be suitable for such uses. Do you think it would be feasable to design a space station that could be used as such? (Proper radiation shielding, proper orbit, etc.) Other than the unsuitability of the ISS itself, what are the obsticals to accomplishing this? And, while you have pointed out that it would still be more expensive than a routine shuttle flight, would it be more economical than sending spaceships directly from the earth to the moon ala Apollo? It would seem to me, that over the long haul, you would gain some efficiancies by having such an infrastructure in place. Or am I all wet about that, too?

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[csbruce]

In addition, there's the value that the new technology can bring to the problem of starvation.

I see little reason to believe that there is any shortage of food right now. It's just that there is no will, and frankly no particular reason, to hand it out to all of the poor people in the world. Feeding them today pretty much guarantees that you'll need to feed them tomorrow. The only way forward for these people is economic integration with the rest of the world. But, of course, their bullshit-regime governments are too corrupt for that to happen, and the Western leaders don't see point in lining the pockets of corrupt third-world dictators. This merely funds wars which mean more suffering, not less.

Also, the looney left doesn't want to inflict the problems of corrupt corportations on people in the third world. They'd rather watch them starve to death while complaining that the western world in more interested in space exploration.

Radiation...

[cybrpnk]

Well, that's a real interesting question. We know next to nothing about radiation and a Mars mission, in fact the one instrument that got knocked out on the latest Mars orbiter was the radiation meter that was supposed to give a baseline reality check for a manned mission. Better luck next time getting that data, I guess. Solving the radiation problem is the hidden agenda for manned 21st century spaceflight that people don't even realize is a problem. The Apollo capsule had enough "shielding" to make a single back-and-forth trip thru the Van Allen belts because it was designed with sturdy walls to be a re-entry capsule. Even so, during Apollo they had to keep the sun under continuous observation and they were prepared to abort a launch if there had been a big solar flare, which is what causes short-wave radio communications and bright auroras on Earth every so often and would KILL an Apollo crew deader than a doornail if they were running a mission at the time. There was actually a contingency plan - I kid you not - that if a solar flare started after a moon landing, the guys on the moon could cover the LEM with dirt for shielding and wait the flare out before coming home - too bad, the guy orbiting the moon had no chance at all. Check this out...it includes the following quote: "...as an example the August 1972 flare, which it says could have subjected an unshielded astronaut to 20,000 REM in 14 hours....The 1972 flare took place between the Apollo 16 and Apollo 17 lunar expeditions. Had it occurred during an Apollo expedition the astronauts would have been incapacitated immediately and dead within hours or days...."

20,000 REM in 14 hours? 500 REM kills half the people exposed and leaves the survivors sick as dogs, 1000 REM kills everybody. How the hell do you shield against something like this? Very good question. You just about can't protect "the whole ship" because the shielding mass is just too great to lug around. Most concepts for Mars missions include something called a "storm shelter" concept which usually winds up being a coffin-sized hideaway in the middle of the mission water tanks. The closer you look the worse the problem becomes. THere's a lot of talk also about using superconducting magnets to set up a mini-magnetic field around the spacecraft (just like Earth's) but no hard engineering on just what it would take to get the job done....

The difference between StarTrek and reality is profound. Routine spaceflight to the moon is likely to always be a mad dash to /from the shelter of Earth's magnetic field to a shelter covered with moondirt. Guess wrong, get fried. All of these orbiting hotel concepts haven't done their homework. Space is a BRUTAL environment. It's worth going there anyway.

Re:Radiation...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugh! you're right, I hadn't realized the radiation issue was such an insurmountable problem. I guess we won't be seeing any "space bus" in orbit anytime soon. Not on today's technology, anyway, although generating a magnetic field around the spaceship sounds like a promising idea. Anyway, thanks for your replies and the link.

Re:Evolution and space - HA HA

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, how do you decide what to eat for
breakfast? You don't want to DISCRIMINATE between
frosted flakes and froot loops, do you?

Another point to consider...

[way2slo]

Exploration is not usually done by "governments", espcially in the past. It's impractical in the short term. There will always be the arguments of "Why spend money on that when we need to fix all these other problems?" But, exploration gets done, none the less. How? Private enterprise. People spend their own money, or borrow it, to do the exploration in hopes to find riches. Treasure hunting. That is what it will take for us to get to the Moon again, and Mars for that matter. Someone will have to have a vision, an idea, on how to make a fortune by going to Mars or the Moon. Right now, there seems to be nothing there that will make the trip worth it. You would spend far more money than you would gain. However, that will not always be true. One day, it will be worth it, for one reason or another. We just have to have patience and wait for that day to come and have the courage to act when that day does come.

"it takes thought to count in 16's,20's,8's,"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep.

That's why you mongrels of UK Descent use old fashioned measurements, just because itt blocks imports, allow a local fabrication of tools, another layer of complication for international exchange.

That's always the problem, I mean when it doesn't come from you, when you US don't have the copyright for it, you don't use it.
You prefer to impose a less efficient tool, but that YOU control...

Let's say the Credit Card with embedded chip is in use for YEARS in EU. And your stupid "Please sign the ticket here" system is just a security boar...

Metrics. simple base 10 system. Very easy. I mean even you can do it ...

If base 16 or 8 is more efficient, prove it. If you cannot just shut up and switch.

Same for the rest. an upstart nation with it's history still smoking around it's back should see the advantage of evoluting fast, if possible with a little more respect.

And; to the Guy who made a statement about french revolution and new rules and mesurements, please remember that it's the French Revolution that is really the start of Republican thinking. Even Democrats come from that point :)

So ?

Re:"it takes thought to count in 16's,20's,8's,"

[Atrahasis]

If base 16 or 8 is more efficient, prove it. If you cannot just shut up and switch

Feet and inches are certainly better suited to efficient everyday use.

See here for an Australian account of why imperial units are better for day-today use.
See here for a Dutch one.

The Imperial system is reproduceable.
The metric systems premise is to be based on the length of the arc from the north pole to the equator (1 metre = 10^-7 of the length of the arc) Only trouble is that the arc isn't uniform OR constant. And their measurements were off by 30 metres. Try and reproduce the metric system, and you might have some trouble.

How would you feel if I insisted that you speak English, under pain of a fine or a prison sentence for non-compliance?

Oh, and while you're thinking about that, try and measure out 1/3 of a metre.

security boar... - Is that like a guard dog? £100 fine.
evoluting - Now at least the last one was amusing, but this isn't even a word : £500 fine.

Referring back to the guy who was prosecuted for selling bananas by the pound, he was prosecuted on the idea that the 1972 European Communities act overrules the 1985 Weights and measures act. How can a law be overruled by one 13 years its predecessor? Surely then the 1972 EC act is countermanded by the 1963 weights and measures act?

Metrication has been forced on the UK population without any consent - the metric system has in this way set itself up as the enemy of democracy.
The only argument for exclusive metrication is a unified international system. When I go to a metric pub, I could ask for a half-litre/500ml of beer. Or I could ask for a pint, and get less than a pint. Or I could come up with a word which means "half-litre". But that wouldn't fit in with the standardized system, would it?

If efficiency is your goal, and you'll never reach it worshipping the metric system, then why not make language more efficient. Get rid of unnecessary verbs - you only ever need to say "more" or "less" "something". We'll use plus and minus, shall we? So "very stupid" becomes plusstupid, "extremely stupid" becomes double-plus-stupid etc. Now we can rid ourselves of the those nasty, inefficient antonyms, through negation. So double-plus-clever becomes double-plus-un-stupid. And we can get rid of synonyms too - how many different ways do you need to say the same thing? "Stupid" has in excess of a dozen (hehe) synonyms - out they go - we don't need them. Likewise "clever".

So the word-phrase "double-plus-un-stupid" covers what normal English could have an inefficient 144+ phrases for ("extremely" has ~12 synonyms, as does "clever") Remove the "un" and you've covered the same number of opposite phrases. We can take out unnecessary and inefficient qualifiers such as pronouns and conjunctions too. I'm going to go with my mate Orwell here and call this Double-talk. Why not take it further? "double" is such an inefficient way of saying "double" after all - why not replace it with a particular syllable - say "oo". We can leave "un" as it is - its quite efficient. "Stupid" has two syllables - we'll make that "stoo" to make it more efficient. So we've managed to get "extremely clever" to the syllables "oounstoo".

Thought apes stupid - plusunright. Apetalk doublepluseffective.

They call it the Red Planet

[Anonymous Coward]

All in the subject.

What this constituent wants...

[clary]

Ok...so I am probably not a Congresscritter's typical constituent, but here goes...

A. Fight Terrorists

Yes, let's do it. I won't even whine (much) about my taxes being spent for this purpose.

B. Fix Economy

Yes, let's do it. Stop all industry subsidies. Lower tariffs and other trade barriers. Decrease tax rates and regulation. We can argue over the revenue impact of decreasing tax rates, but the other measures won't break the bank.

C. Teach Our Children

Not a government job, especially at the federal level. Eliminate the Department of Education and save money.

D. Fight Crime

Let's do it. The first thing to do is to free up resources to fight real crime by stopping the War on Drugs (tm). Overall, use less taxpayer money.

E. Cut Taxes

Of course. ;-)

F. Reduce deficit/Debt Reduction

Let's do it. Let's save money by only funding those cabinet-level departments we really need. Let's see, Defense yes, State yes, Justice yes...um, surely there is another cabinet level department we need. When I'll think of it I'll post again.

G. Explore Mars

Hmm. Cool program, but not something I would want to be a federal program, unless it was related to defense.

Dammit, that means I posted all this for nothing, doesn't it...

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[Winged Cat]

Funny .sig, in that context. ^_-

OT: Good lord, what kind of moderation is this?!

[Crag]

I did not compose the parent to be flaimbait. It's a simple request that people stand by their words. I hoped it would be inspirational. Bleah.

Re:Manned space travel is pointless.

[Winged Cat]

Probably a corporate son that's been hungry for a bit, so they can claim it's a "starving child". ^_-

Re:Talk About A Low Budget!

[the_consumer]

They don't call it the "Red Planet" for nothing.