Slashdot Mirror
H.R. 3057: To the Asteroids, Moon and Mars
apsmith writes "Democrats have just introduced the Space Exploration Act of 2003 to the U.S. House of Representatives; the author is Nick Lampson of Texas, with 26 co-sponsors. The bill sets a vision and goals for the future of NASA, beyond the Low Earth Orbit of the Space Station and Shuttle, outlining a series of incremental steps for human spaceflight. These include development of reusable spacecraft for carrying people around in the Earth-Moon vicinity, including to the nearby Lagrange points; sending people to an Earth-crossing asteroid; establishing a lunar base, and sending people to Mars with a base on a Martian moon by 2024."
Please, send Senator Orin Hatch on the Earth-crossing asteroid mission. The guy is a space-cadet already!
Show your love for the Hacker community
HackerLogo.com
To the moon!
/honeymooners
couldn't help myself. =]
--
a.b. murray
Rep. Lampson's congressional district includes Johnson Space Center, which would benefit greatly from an expansion of manned spaceflight.
But then again, I could be wrong.
...unless it includes appropriations for NASA sufficient to actually fund said exploration. Mandatory appropriations congress can't later cut, which is highly unlikely with Baby Bush spending the country into bankrupcy with his family's little war in Iraq and his tax cuts for his wealthy buddies.
It is a nice vision, but without adequate funding it is only so much posturing from congress, and frankly, I'm quite sick of windbags who have no intention of following through on their flowery rhetoric with concrete action.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Does it have a chance? Have any senators commented on it yet? At the bottom of the bill it lists $50 million for 2004 and $200 million for 2005. Are these on top of NASA's budget? If it is, with the deficit we're running now, this looks more like a political stunt. I hope it's not.
You are aware, Congress, that you can't legislate the advace of technology right?
Sure you can. When President Kennedy was sworn into office in 1961, he set a goal for the end of the decade that we would "send a man to the moon and bring him safely back to Earth."
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
What they need to do is say there are terrorists with WMD massing on the moon. Then NASA can get $87 million too.
"You are aware, Congress, that you can't legislate the advace of technology right?"
You mean like Digital TV by 2006?
It is ALWAYS very dangerous to legislate must do goals like this. Whole beneficial programs can be scrapped to enforce some Idealistic Goal. Look at what Title 9 did to mens sports for example. This may blow up in our face. As much as I would love to get us out of LEO and on to greater things, this sort of legislation may hinder more than help.
Yeah, silly President Kennedy; what was he thinking? He should've waited until the technology to get to the moon spontaneously became available, and only then requested funding from Congress for the actual mission.
other than the reusable vehicle, we can do the rest today if we just wanted to. But until someone evil trys to do it first like the Soviet Union did in the 50s, we're not goin no where.
That's what sucks the most in my opinion. We won't explore to explore, we'll just throw money at it to 'preserve our way of life' or something like that.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
Looks like someone is trying to get NASA back on track after a long period of waffling in the manned spaceflight program. The fact that it's a little bit of pork-barelling doesn't hurt either, but I can overlook that :)
I know many of us tend to be skeptical about mission statements. However, it seems like a good idea because unlike a business (universal business mission statement: "Make Lots Of Money"), it isn't that obvious what NASA is trying to do, or should try to do. And I think it should be more specific than "explore space, and earth from space."
Right. We'll be funding all this manned space exploration then. No problem.
Congress controls over a trillion dollars every year. Money in our capitalist society definitely does influence what technologies are pursued. Drug companies pump out ever more exotic drugs every year instead of researching cures for the diseases they treat. I can't blame them.
You know, all those goals that the NASA administrator has to set will probably go unfufilled if nothing is done to the deficit now.
The deficit is already 455 billion. At the current rate, this deficit will probably reach 8-900 billion even with a relatively decent recovery of the economy.
10-15 years later when the deficit is so big that it hangs like Damocles sword over Capitol hill, NASA's budget will be put on the chopping block.
Bush is on fire and its not good for my lungs.
You are aware, Congress, that you can't legislate the advace of technology right?
...both of which help a lot.
"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth."
-- Pres. Kennedy, May 25, 1961
You certainly can't legislate innovation, but you definitely give it a helping hand by:
a) encouraging it, and
b) funding it
Sounds good to me, just don't do any transdimensional experiments up there.
who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
The impetus of going to the moon was to beat the Soviets. While Kennedy may have been instrumental in funding it, the greatest thing he achieved was tacking his name onto it. I'm not even sure if he's so responsible for that so much as all the Kennedy lovers since then still trying to build his legacy.
t
I mean, come on. We need a base on our own moon! It can be mined for fuel and we can launch stuff from there. Saves so much on fuel and metal...
It wasn't Congress, but I seem to recall a President in recent history who declared that we'd put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. The fact that we hadn't yet invented the Lunar Lander didn't do much to dissuade him. It would be disingenuous to suggest that many of the technological leaps made in the years that followed would have come about without the chief executive's impetus driving them.
True, Congress can't say, "invent Spiffy Technology X, now!" Congress can say, "This is what you're going to do. Figure out how to do it!"
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
It won't be you, so it might as well be a machine. Machines can send back immersive multimedia, so it can be as if we all went up there. Machines can survive better, even if the spacecraft takes some damage or gets bathed in radiation. Machines can do more work more consistently. We won't care if many of them get the shit beat out of them during their missions. The list goes on and on.
Manned space flight is not practical, it only gets in the way. It prevents rather than promotes space exploration.
Is there some point to doing this? If we are in it just for the new technology, then there are much better ways to spend science research dollars. Is this "exploration" going to bring any tangible benefits? Is there any economic justification to this?
And the first things my coworkers and I did when we found this out was laugh our asses off.
Habitation on the moon in 15 years? Mars in 20?
Maybe if we devoted the sum output of the entire GDP to doing so! As of now, there's no hope of that happening. We need an infrastructure in orbit around Earth before we can start sending things to the moon. Larger space stations, orbital manufacturing, and perhaps craft designed solely for use in space, to ship people and material to the moon.
That costs money. More money than anyone involved is willing to spend, I bet, especially for the timetable they're legislating.
My bet is that this bunch of politicians has no idea what they're talking about, has discussed the feasability of this with no one, and is looking for some attention from the press in light of the Indian and Chinese space programs.
skye
A lot of the innovation and technology that made it possible to send people to the moon can be traced back before Kennedy. For example the breaktroughs in within rocket science came from scientists that we hired from Germany. They helped us develop the first stages of our rocket program.
So legislating advamcement in technolgy is hard because of the timespan. Luckily our great nation has lately acquired a lot of high tech rocket technology from Iraq. Rumors about their infamous program where true. Their advanced weapon programs contained powerful rockets capable of shuttling us to Mars and back.
Proud patriot and republican voter.
The government wants to spend money on something I like!
Maybe they can reallocate some money from ongoing projects such as propping up totalitarian regimes to a space colonization project. That would be nice.
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
I'm floored that a Congressional bill would even mention Lagrange points.
However, they call for travelling to L1 and L2 to build "large-scale space structures such as would be required for scientific observatories". Aren't L1 and L2 already occupied by the SOHO and MAP observatories, respectively? I haven't checked the decommission dates for those observatories, but does this imply they would be building something nearby, risking those existing observatories?
Also, this bill makes lots of noise about doings things from LEO to elsewhere, but is strangely quiet about getting stuff from the surface to LEO. Is this a deliberate omission?
HR 3057 already sounds like the name of a spacecraft...
The facts have a liberal bias. --The Daily Show
I'm glad to see something new for manned spaceflight. The shuttle missions are not as insipiring as they used to be. I'm going to write my congresswoman Linda Sanchez to propose a Battle School for the bill, just in case we find any buggers on Mars.
Honk if you're horny.
"We go to the moon, and we do these other things ... not because they are easy, but because they are hard." --John F. Kennedy
It's only when people have visions of things bigger than themselves and their immediate needs that great things happen. The visionaries provide the drive, while the pragmatists make it happen. As cynical as many of you are about Congress and its motivations, having a compelling vision for exploration and research is welcome. I'd rather have excitement and drive than ennui and cynicism.
And we will have a base on, the moon, mars, heck I bet we could even go to Jupiter. They can plan all the want, it takes MONEY to realy build something.
I am in favor of sending machines, dumping the shuttle, etc.... But it is all meanless unless we get a president that wants to actually spend MONEY on the space program.
Kennidy, wanted to and did. Reagan chalanged, but only spent on SDI (What a waste!)
*sigh*
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
Like any long-term project, the first part is formulating a more detailed plan, doing some basic research and costing, and building the infrastructure. In other words, the first year is not spent on the expensive stuff. $50M for the first year and $200M for the second year sort of makes sense, so long as the third year is even hight -- and based on the cost estimates that they come up with in that first two years of planning and research.
I work in government science research. Multi-year funding for projects always looks sort of like a bell curve. The planning and initial research is cheap, the building of the project and primary operation of the project is expensive, and the wind-down is cheap again.
Given the recent trends we have seen from the US (Pax Americana, attempting to control the Gulf, the intention to control technology etc). I am curious to know how people think the US would respond were China for example to make sudden huge breakthroughs in space technology within the next 5-10 years and begin establishing Lunar/Martian bases and exploring deeper space?
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
true, however having top-down support for the big chief himslef along with the neccassary funds allocation helped make it a relaity.
Of course all this was motivated by the cold war ultimiatley.
We may have gone to the moon eventually however we have never been back since the orignal missions as there has never been a push like that in the past. I would love to see the goverment put some goals on NASA and give them the funding to match.
"Don't mess with him, he taunts the happy fun ball."
I see goals for vehicles for Earth orbit-Moon orbit-Lagrange point trips, vehicles for Earth orbit-NEO trips, vehicles for Earth orbit-Mars orbit trips, and vehicles for Lunar and Martian landings...
But you know, it's not like we've got a whole city of astronauts in Earth orbit waiting to go places yet. At the moment if we actually wanted passengers on any of those manned vehicles, we'd need to send them up on the space shuttle for around $100M a person. That's just not going to cut it.
Rather than having NASA aim at a half dozen targets and design a half dozen vehicles we could barely use, I'd like to see them (and private contractors) designing a half dozen vehicles for just one target: getting people to orbit and back cheaply. Let one company prototype a lifting body and let another one stick reusable capsules on top of "big dumb boosters"; let one laboratory try to make the DC-X scale up to orbit, and let another try a VTHL with a flyback booster. And this time, instead of picking the X-33 proposal with the most neat-sounding untested technology, let's let every serious proposal be funded to the prototype stage; that way we can also make it clear this time that the response to "It's not working yet, can we have more money sooner?" will be "No, but we can give those excess funds to those of your competitors who could put something in the air."
Any particular reason you place so much blind faith in the private sector?
I am concerned about any program, any piece of hardware, any treaty, any law that treats me as a consumer, not a citizen
Rumors about their infamous program where true. Their advanced weapon programs contained powerful rockets capable of shuttling us to Mars and back.
Nope, not true. We've had rockets powerful enough to take us to Mars for years. We've just not had powerful enough rockets to take us, and all the oxygen we need to breathe while there, and burn to blast off and get back. If you run the numbers you'll see why, and then see that even super-duper-Iranian rockets aren't going to make up the difference.
The scientists are going to be able to make it to Mars though, and it's not because of a rocket break-through - it's because a few people were thinking outside of the box and figured out a better solution.
Liora
then Privatize the space industry. the government has squandered its monopoly.
allow more corporate partnership and sponsorship. share patents with cooperating corporations with shorter timelimits (say 5-10 years, no extensions). there'd be plenty of financial incentive, and a net gain for the public domain.
yes, nasa science is currently all patented and free to everyone - but there just isn't anything new coming through the pipe these days. what has nasa given the public domain in the last 10 years? more than 0 stuff 5-10 years down the line is a huge improvement.
don't we all feel the burning -need- to get off this rock? to ensure that civilization will survive the next giant asteroid? to get off this rock and swing on a star?
why did it take 30 years from the moon landing until the ISS -started-? why did we waste so much time and money (and lives) on the shuttle program? why was congress -lied- to about the goals of the shuttle program and the low-earth-orbit focus?
why do we continue to trust the beauracracy who have admitted to lies, collusion and deliberate mistruths in their plundering and misguiding of the space initiative over the last 4 decades?
doesn't it bother us all that our most primal function (exploring,adapting,surviving) has been hoodwinked into jogging in place for nearly half a century? that we haven't been back to the moon a single time?
and don't start that the moon is pointless, or mars is pointless.
of course it is.
but if you never aim for the stars - you'll never get off the ground. we picked the moon as our focus in the space race - a completely pointless exercise - but look at the technology that came of it. imagine what we'd learn on our way to mars-capability. imagine what we'd learn by actually -trying- to build an outpost on a rock with no atmosphere and low gravity.
our future is up there, i say we go get it.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
"(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator for carrying out this Act--
(1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
(2) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2005."
Heck, M$ could pay for the bill. Why not get some sponsorship? Good PR for the company, a mission that wouldn't have been for NASA. Just as long as the given company didn't try to patent any organism it may/may not find on Mars.
As for the bill itself, all I can do is appluad. Finally, some ppl in washington with vision. We fucked this planet up to the point where it is going to take 1000's of years to fix it (if ever). The current attitude that is mostly 'let's fix earth's problems first' simply isn't realistic anymore. In addition, we have wasted enough time in low-earth orbit. Let's really start exploring space now. The space program has been asleep since the end of apollo, the sleeper must awaken. Plus, if an asteroid pulverizes earth, at least any colonies on mars we can set up mmight survive. The time for the future has come!
"...a person needs new experiences, it touches something deep inside us allowing us to grow. Without change something sleeps inside us and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken!"
---Dune (The Movie)
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
"Why bother sending people to an Earth-crossing asteroid?"
There is a high likelyhood that within the next 50 years we will detect an asteriod on it's way towards our planet for impact. Once detected, the only way to know how to best deal with it is to go TO it and determine exactly what type of asteroid it is. If it is a solid iron-nickle then we can actually bring the tools along with the survey crew to move it. If it turns out to be porous, there are other methods that can be used. The point is that we will need to determine this, and the most reliable piece of diagnostic equipment you can put in space is still a human. I would sleep a lot better at night knowing that we at least have the capability to intercept one of these beasts before it nukes us. This bit of exploration also becomes a part of survival. I love dual-use designs.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
Americorps
No Child Left Behind
AIDS help for Africa
Homeland Security
Rebuilding Afghanistan
Halliburton
Oh, wait. He made sure to properly fund that last one.
Or just providing an application for it.
If NASA made it known that they would ship insane amounts of payload to space at $100/lb if somebody could do it, you could bet that even Boeing or LockMart would put asside their current cash-cow boosters to make a launch vehicle to do just that.
Gentoo Sucks
Here's the highlights:
... and additional studies to establish goals are not needed at this time.
... the main hurdle to be overcome is the lack of a national commitment to such activities.
"(7) There have been numerous commissions and study panels over the last 30 years
(8) While there are significant technical and programmatic hurdles
(11) While the ultimate goal of human space flight in the inner solar system is the exploration of the planet Mars, there are other important goals for exploration of the inner solar system that will advance our scientific understanding and allow the United States to develop and demonstrate capabilities that will be needed for the scientific exploration and eventual settlement of Mars."
w00t! I claim Tharsis Tholus!
"(20) Completion of the International Space Station with a full crew complement of 7 astronauts and robust research capabilities is essential if the United States is to carry out successfully a comprehensive initiative of scientific exploration of the solar system that involves human space flight."
Not so hot on this one.. again, Zubrin's proposals are passed over. Ah comprimise.
If you're not familiar with Zubrin, he made a plan 10 years ago to get to Mars with existing technology (Saturn VII), that would allow scientists months of surface time there, all for $10B:
http://www.nw.net/mars/docs/nearterm.txt
"(4) Within 20 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the development and flight demonstration of a reusable space vehicle capable of carrying humans from low Earth orbit to and from Martian orbit, the development and deployment of a human-tended habitation and research facility on the surface of one of the moons of Mars, and the development and flight demonstration of a reusable space vehicle capable of carrying humans from Martian orbit to the surface of Mars and back."
Again, given Zubrin's work (that he presented to Congress), this is a bummer. We'll spend a lot of time building huge spaceships, instead of getting to Mars and settling it. A lot can happen in 20 years though.. perhaps any legislation like this is good. It's especially understandable given the recent shuttle disaster.. law-makers don't stick their necks out too far.
"(1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
(2) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2005."
Now that's what I'm talkin' about.
I believe, as part of a long term population control measure, China plans to establish a "human" export program to space. In addition to relieving population pressures and getting rid of undesirables such as proponents for democracy, the Chinese government also believes that this will distract the remaining citizens from the glaring black eye of their abysmal human rights record. Of course, I'm waiting for Elvis to come back too
Almost all manned space missions are a prestige matter and hence a waste of money for as much as science is concerned. Yes, in the sixties the U.S.A. put men on the moon to show the world how advanced they were, ahead of the rest of the world. It was a political statement in the cold war: look, Russia, we can walk on the moon, we are technically superior to you.
But what is the use in 2003 to start planning a mission to put men on Mars? Such a mission would cost billions of dollars, money that could much better be used for more interesting things, such as:
- Is there life on Venus? Although surface temperature at Venus seems to hot for live, there might well be cooler spots where bacterial life may exist. Bacteries are found alive and multiplying on earth at temperatures of 120 degrees celsius under high pressures. Who knows, there are live forms possible at higher temperatures and more, what we would call, extreme circumstances, than we so far imagined to be possible.
- More missions to moons of Jupiter and Saturn. There are hints that liquid water exists at some of the moons. Let's try to land on a few of them.
- A bigger space telescope. Yes, I know, another space telescope is already being build. But why not make it a little bit better, bigger, more advanced, more versatile?
- More budget for research on rocket ion-engines or other ways to propel a spacecraft. The speeds that we can reach with current technologies are not very impressive.
All this and more can be done for the costs of a manned Mars mission. In the name of science, lets forget about manned space flight for a while.
My karma ran over your dogma
It seems to me much better way to actually get space exploration going is to make it profitable for a business. ;-)
Is not it what a well-behaived capitalist government supposed to do? Promote good things, guard against the bad things but generally stay away?
Giving more money to large government agency that was flying shuttles mostly "because there were there" would not get us any further.
Congress needs to come up with a major incensive for businesses to go to space. Like a super Xprize. (or tax-free lifetime for any corp or individual participating in a Mars shot
Ummm, basketball and football aren't the only sports available for men to play. At my university, we couldn't have a men's gymnastics team or volleyball team. And I went to a rather large public university (40,000 students). At smaller colleges with less funding, sports such as wrestling, soccer, and swimming get the axe. In my highschool, we had 200 guys sign a petition to get a men's vball team going, but the administration said they couldn't.
IANAL, but I play one on
I'm guessing that the actual purpose of this bill is for it to go down in flames, and get Every Single Republican on the record as voting "no". This will provide a talking point for the election, showing that the Republicans are a bunch of reactionaries who can find the money to hand to Halliburton, but not to actually advance technology.
"You are aware, Congress, that you can't legislate the advace of technology right?"
Sure you can. When President Kennedy was sworn into office in 1961,
Of course, last I checked, President != Congress.
> How about resources? The Moon has resources that could be mined for use
:)
Okay, as long as I get me some Moon Cheese, and some yummy Moon Pies, I'm okay with the whole thing.
If they can legislate innovation can't they legislate more jobs? Or are they too busy legislating.
You have a choice: tax and spend Democrats, or borrow and spend Republicans. Choose wisely.
but I can read Robert Zubrin's "The Case for Mars", a famous book that tells of the plan he prestend to Congress years ago. In it, he describes how to use Saturn VII rockets to launch a 2 phase, conjunction-class mission to Mars. The first phase carries no humans, instead carrying a machine to create rocket fuel, air and water out of the martian atmosphere. Once the return fuel is ready, you launch the second trip, with scientists. They get there after 9 months of artificial grav (tether-linked comparments set spinning) and set down to a full supply of oxygen and water, maybe even a backup supply.
They then do a many month investigation of the area surrounding the landing site, find life, invent martian versions geology, climatology, etc., and return home.
His estimated cost: somewhere around $10B, $20B and up for variations.
Repeat, repeat, repeat: settlement.
That was 10 years ago, and that's all off the top of my head.
You need the full GDP of the $US ($10T, or 1/5th of the money in the entire world) to do the same? I hope this isn't how the whole of JPL thinks, but if it is, perhaps that's why our space program is stagnant.
Now tell me what's wrong and ludicrous with his ideas (if you care to investigate them) and I'll find someone who can help you understand them.
If it turns out you're right, write a letter to these poor, misguided chumps in Congress.
Otherwise submit a proposal for their funding.
Or, get out of JPL and join me at McDonalds.
Even though I wince occasionally at government spending in the midst of a deficit, I think that a revitalized space program will help stimulate the economy, with NASA subcontracting out a lot of the work for space programs, I hope this will be a step in the right direction for our economy.
One of the things that you have to keep in mind is that NASA requires the use of military grade hardware. It has to undergo strict testing for a period of several years before it can be approved for mission-critical usage. You wouldn't want your CPU to glitch (Pentium 1, anyone?) and cause the spaceship to veer off course, would you?
This quote better sums up Kennedy's vision for space and technology:
We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
follows the directions of the Republican President. The President's budget sent to Congress underfunds things like Homeland Security and Americorps. Also, Bush expended political energy to make sure he got the tax cuts he wanted. For things like No Child Left Behind and AIDS help for Africa, he gives a "What can I do?" shrug and nothing else.
Don't sweat the deficit too much. The absolute numbers mean nothing. If I told you that ten years ago, I held debt of $10,000, and now I hold a debt of $30,000, am I better off? Well, ten years ago, I made a fifth of what I make now, so I'm actually better off in terms of debt. Here are the actual numbers.
This is not to say that there's nothing to worry about; for all the conservative fulmination of President Bush, domestically he's turned out to be as free-spending as Clinton or any other Democrat. Apparently, "the era of Big Government is over" is over.
Having said that, if NASA's budget cut it would have to be politics over science (super-collider, anyone?). It constitutes such a small percentage of the federal budget that cutting it would achieve nothing. I'm a libertarian, but when it comes to the space program, I've always said that if my tax dollars are going to be forcibly extracted from me, at least a few of them are going towards advancing man into space.
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
Well, of course not, since any advanced technology is the end-product of millenia of baby steps in that direction. For instance, we could have never gotten to the Moon without the mathemetical development of orbital mechanics, by Keppler, etc.
We could never have built anything capable of surviving the stresses of acceleration and reentry without technologies ultimately based upon the ancient techniques of metallurgy, and so on.
What may be claimed by Kennedy, is providing the kick-in-the-pants to actually take the current state of the technology, develop upon it, and go that one extra step, to actually do what is possible.
You can't legislate new technology, any more than the Continental Congress could legislate plasma TV's into existence, or Congress can legislate warp drives. What can be legislated, is a reasonable step forward from the current state of the art.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
You know what happens when one country conquers space? and I mean, truly conquer?
Well, deterrance is over.
Let me illustrate: What happens if the crazy (bold? daring?) chinese start creating space colonies? What happens when they get, say, 500 million people in space and move their center of power there?
In that scenario, what's it to them if they nuke Taiwan? or the US for that matter?
What would have happend if Stalin, Franco, Hitler, Castro, Napoleon or even Mr. Churchill had gotten the bomb first?
It will probably take another Einstein signed letter to FDR to get the US to "do what it takes" again. And a completely different political reality.
Economics have nothing to do with it.
There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
I am a senior exec in the space program. China definitely has enormous attention, as does India. The betting is not whether China will go to the Moon, but whether it will be three years or five years. When they go, they also plan to stay. When they begin this year to seriously launch their own manned orbital missions it will be interesting to see the US response.
Actually, Robert Zubrin's Case for Mars is was not the first to point out that information, and he and his colleagues at The Mars Society are not the ones that came up with the solution to which I was referring. I know the guy that did, but it's not really information I should give out right now... not because it's classified (although to a certain extent I suppose it is), but because I sort of like my anonymity and I don't really want to tell the world whose daughter I am (mostly because then you would know my real name...).
But, I will tell you this much. Until the recent space disasters (Columbia, Mars probes) they had anticipated sending men to Mars for a two year fact-finding mission in 2009, then 2011. They have to do it in two year windows because of the orbits. Those dates have been pushed back now, but I think the whole project is still a go. (Read: I haven't heard otherwise, but that doesn't mean that otherwise isn't true.)
Liora
If you actually worked at JPL, you would have known about Zubrin's idea. It's relatively common knowledge. If you hadn't heard about Zubrin but really do work at JPL then it's clear why you don't belong at JPL.
The establishment of a Refuel/Construction station at L1 or (and knowing the government) L2, seems to be a major goal. It is not however mentioned wiether this station would be best as an automated station or a manned station. With good communication and a manned space station being maintained in LEO (Which should be pushed into higher orbit when we abandon the Space shuttle if you ask me) does this new station need to be manned? Is thier any scientific advantage to manning the station or can we operate it from earth just as well?
I must say it almost seems like a feasible plan if well funded and supported. But the proccess is going to be slowed down if this first station must be inhabited.
--"Sorry for the inconvience." Gods Last Words to his Creation
DNA, So Long and Thanks for all the Fish
Not necessarily. Science projects are often an investment in the future, with great payoffs.
If we were to develop a good replacement for the shuttle that did wonders for launch costs ($100/lb or so), even if the craft is owned by Boeing or LockMart, you can bet that people are going to be lined up to use that instead of Ariane, Soyuz, or Proton rockets. This would result in a lot of folks employed in America in support of this, because you know that they'll find reasons to turn down any other suggestions for launching elsewhere.
Plus, the companies are probaly going to be traditional American aerospace contractors. Which then means that the employees of said contractors will end up with money that will go back into circulation when they buy stuff, invest, etc.
Wellfare... Now that's throwing money down the drain.
Gentoo Sucks
Actually, they can get a lot of this just by running a program a little better.
If they make the program a few years instead of 10 years, it's more assured funding and less propensity towards useless middle management. Plus, it's much easier to cancel a 10 year project 3 years in instead of canceling a project that's 3 years into a 4 year project.
If you have competing bids up to the point of prototypes, which the military does, you get 2x the basic developments for 1.25x the cost. If you have a clear setup of prototype-then-production, you don't end up with a 20 year old prototype like the shuttle. (It's probably the case that they should have just built Enterprise and maybe Columbia first, except at half-size and then gone back to the drawing board for Challenger, Atlantis, Discovery, and Endeavour)
And if you concentrate on a few things, like cost, safe transport of 4 crew, and the ability to get up and down, you can do it in a reasonable amount of time with a reasonable budget. The problem is that they tried to make the shuttle do too many things and be too advanced.
The problem with stopping the manned space program is that it's doubtful that we'd be able to get it started again once stopped.
Gentoo Sucks
domestically he's turned out to be as free-spending as Clinton or any other Democrat
I would argue far more so. I think the Clinton administration busted the myth of the 'tax and spend liberal Democrat' pretty well, what with the restraint shown in the growth of government spending, and the ultimate surplus that was used to start paying down the debt.
And I think Bush is busting the myth of the 'fiscally responsible Republican' pretty well. He has squandered the surplus and driven us to the largest deficits in history in just two years, and the government -- in size and power -- has grown enormously in that time. It's all borrow and spend, borrow and spend, while his corporate buddies are stuffing fistfuls of money into their pockets, while the average American gets laid off, has their property taxes jacked up to cover local and state short-falls, and is basically getting bupkiss back from the cuts.
Over the next ten years, the deficits the Bush Administration are racking up will come to over $33,000 for each and every tax-payer. That's scary.
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
While I'm not going to comment on the specifics of this bill, one thing jumps out at me:
The 60's space program did wonders for the private sector. The lofty goals of sending people to the moon made computers smaller and more powerful (ushering in the PC revolution of the late 70s and early 80s), did wonders for materials science, and introduced a myriad of other technologies we take for granted today. (To be more specific, it made these technologies affordable to the masses.)
To be blunt, the U.S. is slipping technologically in the world. While we probably won't be overtaken by China or India in the next decade, it could happen in 20 or more years. Planting these seeds now could spawn another technological revolution 10-20 years from now. While a program like this probably won't accomplish a lot of "pure science", the economic impact could do wonderful things for industry, the economy, and our standard of living (they're all intertwined) down the road.
Consider the X33 program. MacDonnel Douglas built their Delta Clipper prototype (scaled down), and Lockeed Martin the aerospike engine and some smaller-scale mockups. Lockheed won the contract, and then the entire project was scrapped by NASA.
It's financially impractical to build a full-scale man-rated spacecraft as a prototype in a competitive bid system. No company has an amount of capital sufficient for this that they can afford to lose if they don't win the bid.
IMO the general approach used with X33 was a correct one: publish a Request For Proposal and see which aerospace companies come up with something that meets the requirements.
The requirements on X33 were far too loose. Tighten them up, focus the general configuration of the vehicle (capsule, lifting body, winged) and get some prototypes built at the expense of the bidding companies. Then award a contract and penalize the company for these massive cost overruns. Some decent project management skills would go a long way here!
Keep in mind that NASA was not putting men in space as they developed the shuttle. The last Apollo astronaut launched in 1972 and the first shuttle launch occured in 1981. Are we willing to put another hold on human space flight for 9 years to develop new vehicles and technologies? What about the ISS?
Currently it takes most of NASA's budget to operate the shuttle. Ending the shuttle program would free lots of engineers, scientist, and dollars to develop the next generation of vehicles.
Simple people talk of people, better people talk of events, great people talk of ideas.
No. There are two lagrange points for the sun-earth system which are relatively close. And there are two in the moon-earth system that are MUCH closer. The moon is only on the order of 275000 miles from the earth, and the lagrange point between the two is relatively close to the moon. They are points designated where the gravitational attraction on a mass between the two bodies is equal to zero.
There are other lagrange points, but you get the idea.
The bill in question is EXCELLENT and the JPL "employee" made me laugh. Here's why this bill should be encouraging to everyone interested in space exploration.
e velop.pdf
1. It gives NASA specific goals that the general public (and politicians) can relate to. More importantly, it lifts expectations higher than low earth orbit.
2. It fosters public debate on space exploration. Whether it passes or not, such debate is needed.
2. It will provide more than the current shoe-string budget to advancing NASA technologies needed for space travel. Take for example the Johnson Space Center's Advanced Space Propulsion Laboratory and the Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VSIMR).
The plasma rocket drive is not powered by conventional chemical reactions as today's rockets are, but by electrical energy that heats the propellant. The propellant is a plasma that reaches extreme temperatures -- 50,000 and above. Some scientists call this the fourth state of matter.
This new type of technology would dramatically shorten human transit times between planets (about 3 months to Mars). Not only will planetary missions be fast, but the plasma drive will propel robotic cargo missions with very large payloads (more than 100 tons to Mars). Obviously, trip times and payloads are major concerns when using conventional rockets.
The laboratory was founded at NASA Johnson Space Center in December 1993. The lab director is NASA astronaut Dr. Franklin Chang-Diaz. He has been working on the development of a plasma rocket since 1979. Work began at Charles Stark Draper Laboratory then continued at the Massuchusetts Institute of Technology Plasma Fusion Center before moving to JSC.
For more information about the rocket: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/mars/reference/aspl/d
Yes, thank you for pointing out that my model is nonsense. There's a very nice explanation with diagram that I should have dug up before spouting.
It still looks like the nearest Earth/Sol point ought to be several million miles away, but then I've already proven that I don't know beans about orbital mechanics....
Here is what i would do: 1. Cut all Social Programs down to zero! (Sure this may seems mean and mean spirited but there is too much port and fat being spent.) 2. Take half the money saved and throw it at NASA. Of course i would fire a whole bunch of people and personally oversee the re-construction of NASA) 3. Take about 15 billion dollors and use it get some good engineers working for both NASA and for JPL and all the other placed like Lockhead Martin. 4. Then I would institute a crash program to establish a moon base in 6 years. I would even revive the Saturn V or use Russian Heavy lifters if I had to. I would also teach those dimwits at Lockhead about a nice invention Mr. Ford Pioneered called "The Assembly Line". I would also have a competition to create a "Model T" of outer space for a space tug. 5. Set up big Tax incentives that would only be met for companies as long as the program goal was met. Example. Tax Cut for landing on the moon 100% if land 5 people on moon by 2006 50% if land people on moon by 2007 25% if land people on moon by 2008 0% if no landie 6. Transition the entire ball of wax to private industry by 2010 and fund the entire ball of wax through tax inccentives that are almost permanent. 7. profit
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
Then how did Sen. Al Gore invent the internet?
By pissing on a transformer.
Like what I said? You might like my music
Simple. We've been there how long? And we've found how many?
The way I see it, one of three things is possible. Either the government sincerely believed the weapons were there and was wrong; the government never believed they were there and lied to us; or, and this one's my favorite, Iraq is full of WMDs and our troops are just too damn inept to find them.
No matter which one you choose, it makes our government look bad. Question is, how bad do you want them to look?
The point is, I don't jump to conclusions unless I have empirical evidence to justify that leap. In this case, none has been provided. The fact that Saddam is an evil prick notwithstanding, we had no good reason to attack Iraq. You give me absolute proof that WMDs still exist in Iraq and that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling them up until our goverment invaded his country, and I'll issue a formal apology without malice, and without regret. Until then, shut the hell up.
There they were, sitting in the van with all those dials, and the cat was dead. -V. Marchetti, CIA