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.
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.
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....
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
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
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.
"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.
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.
Yes, preferably one with large breasts.
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.
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.
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.
"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?
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.