Slashdot Mirror
Space Exploration Act of 2002
orn writes "Rep. Lampson introduced a bill (pdf) (H.R. 4742) to the House on May 16th for a human space exploration initiative. I haven't heard a peep about it from the popular press, just a few articles on various space sites: SpaceRef's, the Planetary Society's, the Mars Society's. If you're interested in the sort of thing (and you live in the U.S.), contact your representative and let them know! While you're at it, figure out how to get the popular press aware of this..." On a related note is a story dicussing the controversy over whether the Moon should be developed, which seems a little premature to me.
We can get a cleanup crew to erase "CHA" off of it.
With its absence of atmosphere, temperature extremes and such, it would be prohibitively expensive to develop the moon. Furthermore, to transport building materials roughly 250,000 miles has to be difficult.
For that matter, why don't we develop Antartica as well? At least it has an atmosphere, and in parts, some wildlife.
I am the evil aardvark!
Here.
...The time to declare the Moon a scientific preserve is BEFORE there are serious vested interests trying to develop it.
We already have some litter and junk up there... it took less than thirty years for junk orbiting Earth to become a serious problem.
I am sure there are corporations reading "The Man Who Sold The Moon" right now and wondering whether Heinlein's scheme for putting a visible corporate logon on the Moon is feasable.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
the bill is just a political move designed to funnel money into Johnson space center.
Sending humans to an asteroid is not a "logical step" before going to Mars. It's much harder to land on an asteroid than on Mars. It's just as hard or harder to get to an asteroid as Mars... plus, it's really hard to stop at an atseroid as you have little gravity to help you capture into orbit at an asteroid, at mars you have gravity and an atmosphere..
Other things in this bill are silly too...
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a manned mission to Mars... but this bill is just a political trick, it specifies too many details designed to funnel money to the right places.
What will make it happen is if there is money to be made by doing it. Otherwise no amount of lobbying and whining will make it happen.
The old saying, show me the money... that's what'll work.
And as for developing the moon? The first question that comes to mind is will the telco's have a flat rate for evening and weekend calls? Cuz I sure as hell ain't payin' $9.95 a minute to talk to my relatives on the moon, and I don't wanna sign up MCI MOON friends and family either...
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
That's just what we need, a bunch of money-hungry real-estate magnates cutting down all the trees on the moon and polluting all the pristine streams and rivers with their construction runoff.
Not to mention all the wildlife that is displaced by this kind of thing. And why? I mean, sure, housing may be more affordable further out, but the commute is always worse...
Phil
While you're at it, figure out how to get the popular press aware of this
Easy: explain to journalists that, if space travel really takes off, they stand to bag some of the best press junkets ever.
The bill is a really good idea, unfortunately, it HAS to be kept quiet to succeed. Contact your representatives, yes Get your friends to contact their representatives, yes. Shout it from the rooftops, put it in the paper, get it on the nightly news, unfortunately, no. If the screaming whining masses find out there is a bill being proposed that actually involves spending money on something OTHER than doubling their welfare check, or throw the cash down some other bottemless pit of no-returns for society, all hell will break loose. To ensure the bill passes, make sure that your congressmen and women and vile creatures only hear heaps of praise and support for this.
...when my immediate reaction to hearing about a new, potentially very cool bill is to wonder how long it will be before the likes of Adam Schiff tacks on a digital rights management/copy protection rider.
"Astronauts will turn to music and movies for diversion during long space flights... we must act now to prevent rampant IP theft on the space stations and deep space ships of the future!"
Silly, I know... I don't normally wear a tinfoil hat, but nothing suprises me lately.
In most cases, unmanned exploration is cheaper, safer, and the better research tool.
However, human missions in space are a lot more exciting to the non-science community, and when it comes to getting funding, Congress doesn't care as much about good science as it does about good publicity.
So we underfund non-sexy stuff like supercolliders, oribiting telescopes, etc and yet we're always willing to dig deep to shoot John Glenn back up just for old times' sake.
Well, there's really nothing sexy about John Glenn, but hopefully you get the point.
--
Long-term effects of Bush deficits
The Moon would make an excellent staging area for interplanetary trips.
1) The low gravity offers tons of advantages, including a way to simulate, say, the gravity on a moon of Jupiter.
2) The low gravity also allows boosters to be much smaller since they don't need to escape earth's atmosphere/gravity, and thus cheaper.
3) You can build much bigger things in 1/6 G since you've got 1/6th of the forces to deal with.
4) more volatile and thus more powerful fuels can be used because in the lack of an atmosphere, the threat of explosion is much, much lower.
Just some thoughts.
We can strip mine the other planets later
That is Bush Sr's Space Exploration Initiative? Bush Sr went to NASA and wanted to do something exciting in space. NASA came back with a hugely expensive proposal. Bush Sr *KNEW* it wouldn't get through Congress and only lukewarmly supported it. As predicted, Congress smacked NASA telling them 'uh uh no!'
We all love the idea of space exploration and colonization (or at least most of us here at slashdot do), but NASA really needs to have some fiscal and technical responsibility in order to do this.
re X-33: choosing the one with the niftiest tech and not one that had the best chances of success (MacDAC's proposal)
X-34: forcing the FastTrac engine into the program and killing it that way when the engine fell behind schedule. X-38: where NASA designed the thing and then told the contractor's 'build this now' instead of simply saying, 'We have a requirement for a vehicle to do this, that and the other. Build one and we'll buy it.'
ISS: NASA admits it doesn't have a handle on the costs here, not the least due to the fact that their accounting sucks rotten eggs.
While I would LOVE to see the NASA's logo on the Mars lander and the ole Stars and Stripes planted on Martian surface, the new administrator ahs his work cut out for him already cleaning up NASA. Throwing more money at NASA RIGHT NOW might be a bad mistake. After we see whether or not NASA has been cleaned up, oh yes indeed, go for it.
Before though might be a less than wise idea...
Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
I thought Slashdot was the popular press. I feel so misled.
Read any good sonnets lately?
While you're at it, figure out how to get the popular press aware of this...
/. of course....
As opposed to
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
If you're interested in the sort of thing (and you live in the U.S.), contact your representative and let them know!
Sure, reply & tell them NOT to consider the measure.
First of all, look at the sponsors - almost all Lampson and a bunch of other Texans looking for a pile of cash ($50 mil next year & $200 mil in 2004, if you care to read the bill) to pour into Houston, Huntsville, Canaveral et al. I can smell the pork from here.
Second, $250 mil is NOT sufficient to get us to the aims of the bill (orbit an asteroid, orbit mars, etc), so this is just the key opening the door to more expenditures. This also relies on the idea that, for whatever reason, we NEED bipeds making orbits around asteroids & Mars.
Why? If anyone can tell me what in hell a human is going to do while orbiting an asteroid or Mars, other than look out the window and say "Cool" they win a cupie doll. I believe in sending up good satellites. I believe in innovative instrumentation. What I don't believe in is risking human life and probably tens of billions of dollars in toto for a damned boondoggle while we've got terrorists bombing buildings and one in six of us without health care.
Between the stupidity in general of hurtling someone out to Mars to do things machines to do very well without him and the whif of ham drifting across the plains of Texas I'm completely against it. Looks like Houston wants to beef up the space program to make up for the loss of Enron.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
After many and many stupid acts, this is an intelligent act. Space technology can always be applied down here on the surface, not talking about the experiments that can took place only in 0g.
To show how far the technology can advance, imagine the advances in the fisiotherapeutics when a group of astronauts stays 9 months in 0g and then another 6 monthsin 1/3g and back 9 months in 0g again.
Well, this is just an example. It's very important for the humanity, not just for US.
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
Everybody interested in this should read John Budzinski's article of a few years ago on this topic. His optimism in this article sprung from the surprising turnaround in annual federal budgets from deficits to surpluses. In the last years of the Clinton Administration the Government took in more than it spent for the first time since 1969 and actually looked like we would start paying off the Federal debt accumulated during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s - a total of SIX TRILLION DOLLARS OF DEBT. But hey, Dubya won, tax cuts passed, and now the US is back in deficit spending. Now the GOP has got bills in Congress to raise the debt ceiling and it's back to business as usual... Not many people remember that the real thing that made Apollo possible was a net federal SURPLUS in the treasury from the boom in the 1950s - we had to spend the money on SOMETHING, and part of what we spent it on was going to the moon. We also spent it on Vietnam, touched the tarbaby, and BANG we haven't seen a net federal surplus in the Treasury since. Currently we have a net Federal deficit of SIX TRILLION DOLLARS and it is going UP. With Social Security threatening bankruptcy in the 2020s or 2030s, we probably won't ever get back to a surplus in the Trasury for a very long time... This basic structural difference in the US Treasury from the 1960s and the 2000s is why any talk now of getting to Mars is just a sham. I get very depressed on this subject. During the late 1960s and early 1970s as a teen, it seemed the sky was the limit and it was VERY exciting. Now, as a middle aged man, I truly believe I will go to my grave without ever seeing humans on another world again. I truly feel sorry for those alive today that never have seen humans walking on other worlds for real, not in the movies, and have NO IDEA of the uplift to the heart and soul it brings...
As far as I can tell, the argument goes like this: "Let's see...we can move our pollution problems to a lifeless rock in outer space, learn more about life in space than we've ever known before, and advance the human race....or we can keep that lifeless rock looking purty and avoid all of the former. Hmmm, what to do?"
I don't know about you, but I think the guy trying to preserve the "pristine environment" of space is completely off his rocker. Space is not pristine, and never has been. Space is dirty, cold, dead everywhere we've looked, and full of things that can destroy organic life.
Human life, in any area, almost always alters the way things were before. If we have to, let's do our dirty work in space rather than here.
There's no sig like this sig anywhere near this sig, so this must be the sig.
Following the link from the article verifies that humans have spent less than 96 hours on the Moon's surface. Lunar Missions? Yes! Colonization? Sadly, I think that's a bit premature. As long as we're realistic about our goals I believe we can sell the general public on them. It's so easy for naysayers to point out the problems from the past, why not set some realistic goals and then accomplish them?
Why do I never get a fortune in my fortune cookies?
They don't seem interested in space or anything productive nowadays. Crime, terror, or sex is what the media likes.
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
Of course, the far side is also the one that gets the most meteor hits ...
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
When I was a youngster, I dreamed of zooming around in spaceships and meeting aliens.
Then I turned into an Angry Young Man and felt that we must tread lightly in the cosmos, and not pollute and exploit other planets the way we've plundered terra.
And then I started thinking about starting a family, and realised that as a human, my prime motivation is actually to make more humans. And then I thought about ice ages and planet-killer asteroid impacts (which are inevitable, not fantasy) and decided that we should say "Screw the fragile cosmos!", get our species' eggs out of our one fragile little basket and damn the cost in money and lives and ruined scientific study.
Who knows what I'll think as an old man. But right now, I reckon we should declare open season on other planets and start terraforming now. Because when the next ice age or asteroid hits, it'll be way, way too late to start, and as we've already plundered all of the easily available fossil resources, we can pretty much forget bootstrapping ourselves back out of the stone age.
Am I so very unusual in thinking that we should get real worried about these things now, while we've got the resources to do something about them?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
It seems like this is the US reacting to China's Plan to create moonbases by 2010. It would be a MAJOR setback for the US if the Chinese were able to do it before the Americans. I mean, the US, the most scientifically advanced country lost the moon to the chinese.
But this brings up another problem. Who's jurisdiction does the moon fall under? It's just like legistlating the internet. Legistlators have to realize that just because there is a law doesn't mean that people will follow it. What they have to do instead is work with other nations and trying to come up with a consensus.
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
From there it's just a matter of time.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I agree that alot of good science is underfunded, but I don't think that manned missions are benefitting from it. I mean look at the space station, Congress is trimming billions from the program, as well as forcing them to scale back the number of shuttle launches a year. Add to that the fact that had funding stayed at levels from the mid 80s, a Mars mission would likely be already well under way. It just always seems like the first manned mars mission is like 15 years away. In the 80s they said we'd do it around the turn of the century, then in the 90s it was somewhere between 2005 and 2010. Now it looks like 2020. Well thats enough of my ranting.
Why all the talk about colonizing planets when space colonies seem such a more elegant solution? (more info here and here)
Before modding this as troll, please read the argument.
Nothing caught this kid's imagination like seeing Armstrong and Aldrin hopping around on the moon, back in 1969. For that matter, not long before I was glued to the TV on Christmas Eve listening to the reading of Genesis. Nor does that mention the Mercury and Gemini flights.
Maybe I'm not an astronaut, or a payload specialist, or anything like that. But doggonnit, I *AM* a professional in the technology industry! Reading science fiction as a kid, following NASA and Cousteau, and a general bent toward science, math, and machines led me that way.
The greatest value out of NASA is to engage the imaginations of a new generation, and give them one more gentle nudge toward the technological professions. Robots just don't do that quite as well as people.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
If Bush keeps avoiding the elimination (not just storage) of nukes then we may end up needing a moon base for a new home.
Just 8 more planets to go before we've f-d them all up!
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Minor quibble, but "if you live in the U.S. contact your representative" ought to be "if you can vote in the U.S. contact your representative". We expatriate Americans can still vote, if only in federal elections.
It's not too early to come up with laws that will preserve the moon. Better too early than too late. Hell, we already had one large fast food corporation that wanted to have a pair of golden arches orbiting space so that everyone on earth could see them. If someone seriously proposed that idea, what do you think they would do to the moon if no one stopped them??
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
So let's not go and explore. Let's go and /stay/. Robots don't make good colonists, and telescopes are just dreamin' of it.
:-)
We've got to get off this planet
"The purpose of argument is to change the nature of truth." -- Bene Gesserit Precept
Added bonus, the dark side on the moon (the one we never see) is in the earth's RF shadow. All the better for radio astronomers, scientists, etc...
All the more reason why the far side (not dark side) of the moon is the side most in need of being developed with cities, cell phone towers, microwave relay stations, etc. Or at least some permanent satellites in lunar-stationary orbit that can bathe the entire far side in communications chatter.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
I visited the site, but it looks like its run by a bunch of lunatics.
When you go to testify before the Congress, do not go in your Star Trek uniforms like your parents did!
They will not take you seriously unless you are wearing AUTHENTIC Star Wars gear. Make sure you keep those light sabers holstered too, that Capital security is pretty jumpy these days.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
the worries about the mooon being totally overdeveloped are, in my opinion, unfounded. The moon is geologically dead, and there may be trace amounts of water located on the surface somewhere, but any development that will be done there will be with resources coming from other locations (i.e. Earth, Mars) and by the time that technology is around that converts geologically dead moon into viable construction material, we'll have little problems with garbage as well.
Right now, our need to accomplish has been turned inward, and our businesses are eating their own seed corn (shoddier products, more layoffs, bigger bonuses), while everyone else is looking for constant distractions, like what's at Blockbuster on Friday.
Working together to achieve something like landing on or colonizing the moon or another planet would only bring out the best in our society. Maybe all these highly technical people that our corporations seem to have no use for could contribute? Perhaps being a team player could be a positive goal instead of a cynical job "requirement."
We could use the advances in energy, information technology, engineering, biology and chemistry right about now anyway.
Hope is a powerful thing.
Robotic probes would still lead to the development of better launch and propulsion systems, so even going the robotic path, we would acquire the capabilities that make manned space travel affordable. In the long run, the use of robotic probes would not hold back manned exploration very much, but it would yield much more scientific data in the short run.
isn't even going to be enough to pay for all the digital watermarking cop-chips they're going to need on the A->D converters needed to get there...
3 7&mode=thread&tid=97)
(re: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/23/23552
> I suspect there are technical issues they can work out with more manned missions to the Moon, however, there are a number of others they can only really scratch the surface of. How do you answer issues like bone density being lost, or muscle mass being lost?
The same way they've been addressing them for going on three decades now. Your comment about the first man on Mars not being able to walk is so inaccurate it's silly. Firstly, bone density loss and muscle atrophy are real problems in spacefaring, but they're long term problems, and a trip to Mars doesn't qualify as long term (although living on the Moon may present some of these problems, and living in an orbital station certainly can). More importantly, Simple physics and ship designs have made this whole problem moot. Design a ship with a rotating part (see "2001: a Space Odyssey" or "Mission to Mars" for good visual examples) and the people involved won't have to deal with low-grav-induced health problems, since the human body reacts the same way to inertia as it does to gravity.
Also, if you really, really, really want to pick nits, your legs wouldn't need to be as strong on Mars to support you as they would on Earth, so even with some loss of bone mass you'd be doing fine. 8)
Virg
Just remember this George Bush interview:
Warning: This is intentionally misleading. Yes, this is a George Bush quote - a George Bush, Sr. quote.
I don't like Dubya, but as far as I know he's never echoed his father's opinion that atheists should be denied citizenship.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
We've been there, done that.
Alan Shepard did that during the Apollo 14 mission.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
They could even use their own software to manage their spacecraft, flight center, and bases
Once more, giving new meaning to "Blue Screen of Death", and to "Crashware".
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
How is this different from the U.S. government? :)
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
The fuel on rockets used to put people into space is some of the weakest rocket fuel around, if I remember right. That's a GOOD THING. If we powered the Space Shuttle (or future equivalent) with something akin to the fuel on, say, a Sidewinder missile, the accelerations involved would probably give us problems with dead astronauts.
/is/ still room for increases in power. As a recent Slashdot article pointed out, the accelerations your normal Joe/Jane experiences on a rollercoaster are much greater than the kinds of forces astronauts have to deal with.
Granted, there
I don't know. Can you hit a golf ball at 2km/s? You would be able to do it on an asteroid however.
Any Moon/Mars mission would probably involve ESA, Japan, etc. Wouldn't the UN flag be more appropriate? I would hate to see a flag post planted on Mars with six flags on it.
Give me one example from history where we stopped expanding our horizons and benefited. A chinese emperor (forget which one) decided to stop exploring, dismantled the fleet, and waited for others to come to him. They did, in battleships. Until recently, to which country did Hong Kong belong?
Europe OTOH, embarked on a huge era of exploration (1400s and up) and to this day they (and their colonies) are the most powerful and wealthiest countries on Earth.
Now, do we stay home or do we expand? Without a frontier human societies stagnate.
P.S. Yes, I know the Native Americans (North and South) got the raw end of the deal. In space (our system at least) there is no one to suffer from our expansion.
they propose. Get a job and a life congress !!
The amount of money you have proposed for
mars research still has me laughing.
China and others more serious about spending
some money will see success.
Secondly, NASA needs to get their brain engaged
as I have never seen a bunch of comic physics
applications for propulsion !
As far as protecting the Moon or any other heavenly body away from Earth is unenforceable.
Whomever develops the propulsion of tomorrow will
be our master !!