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.
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.
"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?