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....
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
No shit.
I did a double-take when I saw the title of this article -- ISS Cuts are hurting science? It's the goddamn ISS/Shuttle sinkhole that's making it impossible to do science in the first place. Perfectly good probe in orbit around Jupiter is gonna fly by Amalthea and miss out on a chance to get spectra of Ionian dust that's accumulated on it. Why? Because we can't afford $100K (or $1M to do it by "established procedures") to turn the damn camera on -- because ISS has eaten the budget again.
Science is suffering because we're spending billions on the goddamn ISS, which exists solely to provide an excuse to give the friggin shuttle fleet something to do.
<RANT>
The best thing NASA could do for science would be to launch one more shuttle, duct-tape it to the ISS, and fire the engines to deorbit it -- with the point of impact being the rest of the rest of the Shuttle fleet!
</RANT>
The resulting $30-40B in cost savings could be used to develop a heavy-lift capability (read: buy Proton and Energia from the Russkies), and start launching probes capable of doing real science. Hell, if you get the heavy-lift capability right, you could have enough cost savings to choose between building a replacement space station or saying to hell with low earth orbit for now, and doing a Mars Direct approach.
The only use I can see the ISS having is as a meeting/construction/refueling point for fuel tanks and other probes. If they'd just admit it and use it for that, it could have been a lot cheaper and more functional to boot.
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.
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.
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?