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.
Now we'll never know if ants can be trained to assort tiny screws in space.
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
a billion isn't nearly what it used to be...
Its our damn tax money that pays for this stuff, I say we should be able to vote on what NASA should focus on next. They really havent done anything ground-breaking lately. The U.S. should take a vote on whether or not we want NASA to goto Mars, or build a space station on the moon. If that were to happen, people would be more interested in Space, and be willing to spend more on space exploration, thus it wont hurt science.
In college, really poor, need a flatscreen.
...and all the while NASA has to cut the ISS and other viable projects, the Senators and Representatives unanimously vote themselves a huge payraise because they've doen such an outstanding and thankless job last week.....
Gotta love the American System...
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.
--
This sounds an awful bit like something influenced alot by NASA in order to get a bigger budget. I think everyone on slashdot would agree that doubling or tripling NASA's budget would be better than sending cash to Israel, or sending that extra fighter wing to the "war against terrorism", or even wasting it on keeping pot smokers in jail...
As i recall, the original plan for the space station called for 15 billion, and satisfied pretty much all of the scientfic needs. Thanks to political budget games, its been redesigned so many times its usless and costs 3 times as much, and dosent even meet the original needs. I love it when humanity pisses on its own feet.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
This seems so typical these days. Just look at what the United States accomplished in the first 5 or 10 years of our space program..... then since the early 80's we haven't done crap. Granted that it helped to be in the cold war and have someone to compete against. IT seems without that pressure that the US isn't interested in making the needed investment and dedication to really push space exploration. To me that seems terribly sad. We shouldnt' just let the ISS sit up there and collect dust, it is a great place to do some very interesting science. IF.... we would get our act together.
Also, lets do something about the space shuttle for god's sake! What total piece of shit. How sad is it that we are flying something designed 25+ years ago that has the computing power of an P90 into space in the 21st Century.
NASA was formed to one up the Russians, not to do scientific research.
..."
From http://history.nasa.gov/brief.html
"... Formed as a result of the Sputnik crisis of confidence, NASA inherited the earlier National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), and other government organizations, and almost immediately began working on options for human space flight.
Some cats swing, and others don't. Don't you be the kind that won't.
It's time to slap a logo on the ISS and turn a buck. It could be Hershey's K-ISS or Sw-ISS M-ISS. Anything to put some money into the system in the name of science. It's not like anyone should be affronted by the idea of corporate sponsorship and science intermingling. It happens all the time. Check any biology lab or methods section of the scientific papers that come out these days and you're bound to find someone shilling for some company's enzyme or centrifuge. As long as the sponsor is just happy having their picture on NasaTV and isn't making decisions on food supplements or spacesuit fashion, I say go for it.
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
hey, isn't that about enough for a manned Mars mission?
The Russians are going to try to do it for 20B
Not the ISS. The high inclination orbit the ISS is in to accomadate heavy Russian cargo launches (for modules like Zvezda, zarya, etc) from Kazakhstan puts the station in an orbit that is not ideal for either Russian or US heavy launchers, just somewhere in-between. The result is that it would be enormously expensive to stage the construction of any Mars vehicle at the ISS because of all the extra expenses in launching to that orbit.
Also, the orbit isn't really that efficient for transfering out of because of the inclination, so you have two costs, the launch from ground cost and the fuel cost for boosting out of orbit.
Also, lets do something about the space shuttle for god's sake! What total piece of shit. How sad is it that we are flying something designed 25+ years ago that has the computing power of an P90 into space in the 21st Century.
What exactly don't you like about the shuttle? Why is it a piece of shit? Is there something wrong with it? Is it not meeting our needs? I can't tell if you have a legitimate beef with it or just don't like it because it's old. Except for the tragic Challenger accident, the shuttle seems to have done a pretty good job of wethering the years. I think it's impressive that something built 25+ years ago is still in service. Like the U2, it's a testiment to the quality of the original design. And what makes you think the shuttle has the computing power of a P90? I find it hard to believe that NASA hasn't upgraded the computer system in the shuttle. And if they haven't, it's probably because they haven't needed to.
GMD
watch this
I keep thinking... Why doesn't Russia strike up a deal with Cuba and have a rocet base there. It's closer to the equator (and therfore less fuel cost to escape velocity). Shouldn't be hard either, considering Cuba was once a part of USSR, and they probably still have lots of gear there.
You do get to vote on what NASA does w/its money.
Every time you vote for the people who represent you in Washington.
If it is as important as you think- get the word out, get others to rally around your platform and elect someone who will get the job done.
If you don't think people will do that now- what makes you think they would be more active if they were voting for how money is budgeted directly?
If the American populace determined the budget it would be a complete mess. And if you think a majority of your fellow citizens are in favor of huge expenditures for space exploration - you are mistaken
.
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?
Man, you know how many beers that could have gotten me at the baseball game? ...Like 4.
Its our damn tax money that pays for this stuff, I say we should be able to vote on what NASA should focus on next.
Why should NASA be different than any other government agency? There was no election held to decide whether we should bomb the bejeepers out of Afghanistan. I never got a chance to vote on the S&L bailout in the 80s. The religious people don't get a chance to veto public money being used to support artists that create blasphmous works like the "Piss Christ" and the "Dung Virgin Mary". The public never gets a chance to vote how their money is spent.
Besides, if the public had their way, they'd probably vote for NASA to blow it's budget sending N'Sync of J Lo into space. Remember how the media wouldn't shut the hell up about John Glenn's return to space a few years ago?
GMD
watch this
Of course we all know how receptive the USA is to Russians putting rockets in Cuba... ;)
"People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
"We need space exploration to inspire people through monumental achivements."
Um... dude... Some guy just went around the world non-stop in a hot-air balloon he was greeted with a collective yawn. The public doesn't care about that stuff, they'd rather watch the latest Britney Spears video.
I'm curious out of that $30,000,000,000 cost for the ISS, how much actually went into PARTS for the Space Station and how much went to pay for people's paychecks ?
It'd be interesting for organizations such as NASA and other government bodies to actually be accountable to 3rd party auditing firms for their spending. I mean, could you imagine how much was spent on engineers who get paid over $145,000 a year just to design a better O-Ring for the base of the toilet ?!??
I think when an issue like this comes up, NASA should not only plead for more money and complain that they are not getting the funding they need, but also VALIDATE these reasons with actual COST and EXPENSES they incur and actually how much more money they'll need with validation for that as well.
It just frustrates me how government agencies will complain that an amount of money like 30 BILLION dollars isn't enough to fund a project, but refuse to be accountable to anyone other than themselves for their spending habits and business practices!
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
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.
Yes, preferably one with large breasts.
the article does not say that currently the space station is not able to do much meaningful research, but it says that it cannot do enough.
Also the heading suggests that the space station is failing as a tool of science and that is just not true - it is completely capable of being a tool of science with increased funding. And that increased funding seems to be much less than the initial 30 b cost.
As far as mission to mars is concerned, considering NAsa's track record of cost overruns, a manned mission to mars will cost much more than 30 B.
I think the real sign of wealth (besides how many times you can buy the library of congress) is this:
Bill Gates is actually Rich Enough to build and travel to his own Moon Base.
The interesting thing about people that get that rich is: they don't want to go to the moon or mars. Afraid of attracting the attention of Bond, James Bond, perhaps?
-pyrrho
Everytime a government agency doesn't get it's way or desired budget they always bring on the doom and gloom stories of civilization ending and all scientific and social advancement coming to a halt.
I got an idea to save money. Have a Mars Survivor TV show. All the participants sign away any death compensation rights.
That way we don't have to spend lots to make the ship extra safe, and the TV ad revenue for the show helps pay for it.
Plus, it will make great drama.
"Dammit! I'm leaving this tin can! I can't stand you four. You selfish b8stards only want....."
"Wait!!!, don't open that air lock without a......"
(Swoooooooooooosh)
"Nevermind"
-T-
Table-ized A.I.
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!
American Physics Society head Robert Park has been saying that there's no research of any consequence going on in the ISS since its inception. Most science was cut out of the budget because of all the cost over-runs, Russia & US inability to synchronize production timelines, & other ISS bullshit. The Mars Pathfinder mission alone provided more new information about space & Mars than the ISS at a fraction of the cost.
Practically, being on the ISS is hell. You've got to wear ear protection because the noise of the machinery is like sitting front-row at a Metallica concert. It's smaller than you think due to missing modules that haven't been put in place yet, and you spend so much time putting it together and keeping it a safe, clean place to live there's no time to do anything else. It's like a tiny house that's so poorly designed all you can do is clean & fix it all day. Basically, without pouring tons MORE cash into this yawning vacuum of funding, it's a dead horse. Unless someone steps up to the plate with money, probably the US, this thing'll be abandoned within the decade. Good riddance. Fund more satellites & probes like Pathfinder.
Fat budget-heavy projects featuring humans simply aren't feasible without the confluence of factors seen in the 60's. With all the smart engineers in NASA it's troubling that they're still so driven by publicity & flash at the expense of real science.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
NASA's spending billions of dollars just to maintain the ISS because it can't afford to do anything else with it.
it is still in service but it gets practicaly rebuilt after every flight.
With regard to our "short-sightedness" regarding space in general & meteor strikes in specific:
Suppose we were to find out & verify, ala Armageddon, that meteor X, about the diameter of Texas, composed of a mixture of metal ore, rock, and ice as most meteors are, is hurtling toward us to destroy earth & humanity. What those politicians you refer to as short-sighted realize that you may not is that there's not a damn thing we can do about it. There is no ICBM collection, no space shuttle that can do jack shit for us no matter what story Jerry Bruckheimer likes to tell. There's also no form of technology we even have an inkling of that can deflect a meteor large enough to do serious damage to our planet. You can do the calculations yourself, but there aren't enough nuclear weapons on the planet to put a dent in a rock that big. We'd all have to face the fact that we're fucked and everything wasn't meant to last.
For fuck's sake, if there's any situation it's not the US government's job to handle, that's it. It's bend-over-&-kiss-your-ass-goodbye time, because almost all of us would die and the state of the US budget would instantly cease to be a concern for any survivors.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
I think that if you have a vote 'go to mars by 2030 or reduce NASA budget to $0' then people would vote for mars. Alot of people would like to see something 'kool' being done, but as it is now NASA isn't doing anything 'visable' enough for people to want to fund it.
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
(* NASA was formed to one up the Russians, not to do scientific research. *)
This is actually a good thing, perhaps.
It has been suggested that battling it out with space accomplishments reduced the chances of physical conflict on the ground by focusing aggression and ego toward the space-race instead.
Table-ized A.I.
The limit here was in politics, not technology. NASA is big enough that is has it's own politics (I am not going to propose/support X because if it fails I don't get position Y), plus having to deal with outside politics (if X fails your funding goes down to Y).
This is why I suspect that truely commercial/private ventures will be the ones that give us a significant presence in space. Such organization don't have to worry about outside politics for funding, and their internal politics reward taking a risk and achieving something.
I still have my hopes up for www.armadilloaerospace.com It is still relatively primative, but progressing despite the budget being relatively tiny and with a small staff. I am hoping that, at the very least they will demonstrate that it is reasonably possible for private/commercial entities to go to space without the aid of NASA.
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
One of the biggest problems right now is that the program to make a new reentry vehicle was a complete failure. So there are these very old Russian cargo pods that deliver supplies, and they keep one around all the time. They put garbage in them and send them back to earth when they get full. They can hold 3 people. If there is a big fire or something else catastrophic, the plan is get in the garbage can and ride it down. Without a larger lifeboat vehicle, and nobody knows what it would cost to make one, or how much development time it would take, the permanent crew is limited to 3 people, which isn't enough to do very much real science. It might take less than 30 billion to make a "new shuttle/lifeboat" but I wouldn't count on it.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
(* last small note: Bush asked congress for 40billion to fight the "war on terrorism", by the way. to put things in perspective in a little bit. over budget as ISS may be, it's a better 30b spent than certain other places where money is going. *)
Can I quote you after some mental zealot sets off a "dirty nuke" in downtown Chicago?
Table-ized A.I.
No, the AP doesn't editorialize, they were simply reporting on a report by a panel. Slashdot is well-established as a commercial operation, can't we have a little bit of professionalism?
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.
Everything NASA has ever done has been underestimated and underfunded. What makes you think someone would have gotten that $30B figure correct? What makes you think NASA's first-ever on-time on-budget project would be its most ambitious one ever?
Infuriate left and right
Well, as far as how to divide up the government, that is a different matter than *how much* resources should be devoted to anti-terrorism.
(* WWII time frame, in U of Chicago basement there was an experimental reactor operating with minimal safety.... *)
That is an orthogonal issue.
(* lastly, i would wager to say that the nuclear waste sitting in all of the plants today pose a much more serious threat than a lone terrorist with a dirty bomb. *)
So far more people have died of terrorist than from bad nuclear plants.
Besides, coal and gas plants kill people via lung desease, etc. Energy has risks associated with it. Either we live in the dark, or we accept energy generation risk.
(* i don't see 40 billion dollar initiatives on requiring breathalyzers on cars *)
Well I bet such an initiative would cost a lot more than 40 billion, plus be an inconvience for every driver. (Underground work-arounds would likely pop-up, and require a huge enforcement effort.)
Table-ized A.I.
You hit the nail on the head.
Probes are the key to studying space. Are there people on Chandra? On Hubble? People only go to them to make repairs and upgrades. I use these two observatories as an example because they have been of great benefit to science and should be exemplary (with the exception of the Hubble lens snafu) of the rest of our efforts in space. Manned presence in space is only necessary for maintenance, repairs, and upgrades.
By the way, do you ever read Robert Park's weekly "What's New?". If you don't, I think you would really enjoy it (go to aps.org). He frequently comments on NASA.
Let's scrap NASA and come up with something better.
I think we ought to give the ISS to the russians, and scrap the shuttle. Let's give 40% of NASA's budget to the russian space program, 10% to fund a civilian auditing organization (to stop the fleecing), and 50% to US contractors to build a cheap, reusable launch vehicle. Let's leave the heavy lift vehicles to the russians.
The russian space program, though beaten down by their new economy, is much more efficient, dollars to rubles, than NASA will ever be. They're unencumbered by the massive buracracy, have far fewer regulations, will sell space flights for money (the horror!). Basicially they can do for 1 Million what the US can only dream of for 50 million. Our money is better spent on their program. Hell, they could even launch harmless nuclear payloads without worrying about braindead idiots in the US protesting the poisoning of outer space.
Once the new vehicles are tested and in place, we can think about using ISS as a gateway to MARS! That would be truly cool, and well worth taxpayer's money. We'll just never get there under NASA's current (very heavy) thumb.
Cuba was an ally of the USSR, but never part of it. Kids these days...(Not that I was alive last time Russia tried putting Missles in cuba...) I imagine there are at least a couple slashdotters that were though.
Why?
(* The abreviation similarities and now the bad report for ISS makes me wonder if ISS is like IIS. Lets hope not. *)
If it was then it would be so leaky that astronauts would be ordered to wear spacesuits at all times.
Table-ized A.I.
The ROI case is almost trivial: how much money is the entire resource base of a planet worth? The I is infinitesimal compared to the R, even assuming that you don't bring resources back to the Earth.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
NASA aren't the most efficient (the ants would more likely be a private enterprise trick), on the other hand, they built it on what for them is a shoestring, telling Congress the whole time that paring the budget back to a little below the bone was a bad idea... and lo! For it was indeed a bad idea.
Having knackered the project, Congress are now saying that NASA were silly to do it in the first place. In a way, they were: they didn't leave enough fat in it for Congress to lop off without cruelling Fred.
Well... goodbye, Fred. Goodbye, Grand Tour. Goodbye, anything else past the orbit of Mars. What are the USA going to do now, send a man up with a red flag to walk in front of each satellite?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
This is no surprise at all. Way back in 1990, at the Texas Symposium on Relativistic Atrophysics, I saw presentatioons that demonstrated that no real science was going to get done on whatever the space station was called at the time. They'd just stripped off all the astrophsycis capability and much else. Why has it taken so long for this panel to reach a conclusion that has been blindingly obvious to anyone with a set of eyes for more than a decade?