Slashdot Mirror
NASA Panel Says ISS Cuts Hurt Science
medcalf writes: "The AP reports that the International Space Station, as proposed, is incapable of doing much meaningful scientific research, and that NASA should thus stop characterizing the program as 'science-driven.' Factors listed in support of the recommendation are insufficient crew, lack of certain vital equipment and insufficient resupply missions. Makes me proud of spending $30 billion in tax money -- hey, isn't that about enough for a manned Mars mission? Perhaps a reevaluation of our goals in space, and what we are prepared to risk for the money, would be in order?" The AP article is summarizing the conclusions of a 23-member panel, which finds the current aim of a "core-complete" station too slender a justification of the past and current expenditures in the name of science.
Makes me proud of spending $30 billion in tax money -- hey, isn't that about enough for a manned Mars mission?
Well, given the inability of multiple independent national and international space agencies (the US and Russia in particular), to bring in a much simpler, safer, and less technically challenging mission (namely ISS) on time and on budget, I find it highly doubtful that a $30 Billion dollar projected budget for a manned mission is even within an order of magnitude of what the actual cost will be....
Being that we, as a civilization, do not know if it will be today, tomorrow, or many years from now when an asteroid hits us, plague overtakes us, or our resources deplete, I'm always suprised when people declare that space exploration should be anything other than our number one priority.
What good is feeding the starving, curing cancer or AIDS, and fighting the latest war when it all comes down to the fact that for the foreseeable future we, in fact, have no real "future" beyond what is here in front of us.
--
Is this news? After spending billions of dollars
..or if the French had said:
in the space program, we haven't really seen all those fantastic scientific
developements NASA has been promising for years..
Now don't get me wrong here.. I'm all for the space program,
I just think they should quit using science as a front and say it like it is:
We need space exploration because space is our destiny.
We need space exploration to inspire people through monumental achivements.
We need space exploration to learn more about ourselves and the universe.
We need space exploration because it's fun.
The inspiration argument is IMHO the most neglected.
Yet, the world would've been a poorer place
indeed, if the egyptian pharaoes had said:
"Forgeddabout the pyramids, let's spend the money on defense instead and whip those Babylonians"
"A cast-iron tower in Paris? What the heck for?"
etc..
You must remember that humanity is a rather short sighted specieis. A meteor strike isn't going to happen in the next 4-8 years so as far as a politician is concerned, that's never going to happen. If a meteor strike did happen, civilization would fall apart and it wouldn't really matter whether the politicians fought to save the planet because the survivors would be too busy hunting and gathering to worry about voting them in for another term.
The problem with the future of space exploration is that there's no evidence that there's any useful return on that investment in the short term. As we can tell from the social security debates, that's what makes or breaks any political decision.
As for your view that we shouldn't care about AIDS, etc, because it doesn't matter in the long run if a big asteroid wipes us out. Using that logic, then to hell with space exploration, lets get to work on reversing entropy. Because regardless of anything we do, if entropy continues on its merry way, we're screwed. Check out Asimov's short story, I believe it's called "the question" or something like that.
Personally I think space exploration is vital to our survival, but in a way that isn't immediately obvious. It's not about avoiding the next plague, rather it is about creating hope and something to strive for. Right now, there are few frontiers left to explore on this planet. We have this growing sense of stangation of culture, etc. BUT, if we were pushing into space, then suddenly we've got new things to strive for.
I suspect though that, as with all of past exploration, money will have to be the driving factor. Corporations need to be convinced that there's money to be made by investing in space exploration. Renaissance exploration was all about trying to find resources, and wealth. If the WWF's report on the fate of the world is any indiciation, there will be plenty of motivation to do this in the near future.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
People don't vote because they don't care.
The politics and govt. are the way they are because the people don't care.
That is the status quo.
You seem to feel that the govt. made the people this way but it is quite the other way around. You forget- ultimately the govt. is the people. This is a fact that is undeniable. If every citizen of the U.S. woke up tomorrow and decided to change things- they would change. Who would stop it?
.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
The super-conducting super-collider was purposed several years ago. This was going to be the largest particle accelerator ever built. The benefit to science would have been enormous. However, the project was dropped because it was too expensive. Now the International Space Station is costing the United States a lot more money, and the benefit to science is questionable. Kind of makes you mad at the government for masquerading the International Space Station as science.
...interesting if true.
The USA is a Republic, not a Democracy, and it's heading towards an autocratic new-style theocracy at a frightening rate. Keep in mind that technically we do not elect the president. We have to put up with this Electoral College nonsense. Nor do we elect some of the most influential people in this nation. This system may have worked in the 18th and 19th centuries, but IMHO, I think we should be choosing Supreme Court justices and cabinet members nowadays instead of letting the president-of-the-term put whatever dingbat he feels like will assist his own motives into the role. But, you know what they say about Politics, Religion, and Operating Systems.. Not that Joe Schmoe has a chance of succeeding anymore in our government. Senate seats and Presidential houses are reserved for the quite rich and southern.
Unfortunately, there are only two choices on the ballot, and they are "cut NASA's funding" and "cut NASA's funding". If you think American elections actually give Americans much of a say in things, then I highly recommend this book. Modern America is a democracy in name only.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
stifeling humanities exploration in out of space, and scientific research, is money.. then maybe we should reeveluate the principles our society is based on? :/
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
The interesting thing about people that get that rich is: they don't want to go to the moon or mars.
I've thought a lot about that question ("Why doesn't Bill Gates do something really cool for humanity, like fund a private Mars program? Man, if I were Bill, I'd be spending my summers on Olympus Mons already.")
At this point, I think I understand the answer. Bill never wanted to build a moonbase or go to Mars, any more than he wanted to become the President of the United States or a Bond-esque archvillain. He wanted to become the richest dude on Earth by running the world's biggest software company. That's it. That's all he ever wanted, and he obviously wanted it more than anything else, because that's what he got.
Paradoxically, if Gates had ambitions in other directions such as funding a private space program, he'd likely never have achieved a position in life that would allow him to do those sorts of things. He'd have retired to go play with rockets after making his first few hundred million, a la John Carmack. This is why the only people who could take space exploration private won't.
Which sucks, but I'm pretty sure that's the way it is.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
You saved me the trouble of typing this myself. The ISS, our shutle fleet, hell, the ENTIRE MANNED SPACE PROGRAM is a huge white elephant. If science is really NASA's goal:
1) Give the manned program a rest until we have heavy lift capability or reusable vehicles with maintenance schedules similar to those of military aircraft.
2) Build more Galileo-class probes. The faster-better-cheaper nonsense has been exposed for what it is. Doing anything right is neither fast, nor cheap. Focus on the "better" part and save money in the long term.
3) Don't succumb to the urge to "build pyramids." Apollo, was a classic example of what we DON'T want to see happen: an awesome technical achievement left to decay when priorities shifted. When we go to Mars, I hope we'll have a CONCRETE exploration / colonization plan that extends DECADES into the future, not just a series of flag-plantings.
You never get to vote on what NASA does with "its" money; at best you get to vote for someone who may, or may not, vote on a huge budget with NASA's take a small part of the whole.
"The USA is a Republic, not a Democracy"
And this is a bad thing? I've said it before and I'll say it again: "Democracy" is just a pretty name for mob rule.
"We have to put up with this Electoral College nonsense."
The only nonsense there is the fact that most of those electors aren't allowed to exercise free will. We've gone from a system where electors could have some sort of personal interaction with presidential candidates, the ability to ask and answer they're own questions instead of the ones the press deems important, to one where the guy who looks best on TV gets elected. Again, this is a good thing?
"I think we should be choosing Supreme Court justices"
No! No! A thousand times NO!!! The justices of the Supreme Court of the United States should be accountable to the federal constitution and the federal constitution only! "Will the voters like this?" is a question that should never go through a judge's mind. The "justice" doled out by the court of public opinion isn't justice at all. We've already fouled up the system that decides state-level judges (where candidates tout not how fair they are but how many convicts they've locked up for long prison terms), why on earth would you want to screw up the SCUS as well? If anything, that would be a way of guaranteeing the establishment of the "autocratic theocracy" you claim you fear. "Vote for me! I locked up thousands of undesirables my last term!"
"and cabinet members"
Yeah, instead of letting the president pick people he knows he can work with, let's let the faceless millions that don't know anything that isn't on TV decide for him. Great idea!
"Senate seats and Presidential houses are reserved for the quite rich"
Because the folks like you screaming for more "democracy" put them there! By demanding the "right" to vote directly for these people you guaranteed that only those people who could afford TV time are put there. And you want to spread this heinous system to even more corners of the federal government?
I already ranted about a lot of this in a past journal entry of mine. Of course, if you would rather remodel the US government into one that can change on a weekly basis, you're probably far too gone to see the light of reason. And we'll end up with elected officials that bend over backwards to please the voters in the same way the chief executives of Enron and WorldCom tried to please theirs. After all, if all that matters is what the voters say, why bother with the law?