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."

35 of 668 comments (clear)

  1. Got a volunteer for ya' by DigitalNinja7 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  2. To the moon, Alice! by abmurray · · Score: 4, Funny

    To the moon!

    couldn't help myself. =]

    /honeymooners

    --
    a.b. murray

  3. Disclosure by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  4. The Bill is Worthless... by FreeUser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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
    1. Re:The Bill is Worthless... by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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 bill addresses the first two years funding. Though I fail to see it as adequate. I say if we can spend 87 billion dollars to force our democratic ideas on another country militarily, then we should be able to get a billion or so a year for space exploration.

  5. Now the important question... by MagPulse · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Now the important question... by SydShamino · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, keep an eye on the bill. If the cosigners cross party lines but are almost all in aerospace districts (and no, I haven't checked if they do and are), then I would categorize the bill as A), "a good idea, which passes only because it provides pork across the country."

      If the cosigners are all Democrats, then one of two things will happen. B), the bill is scuttled by the current congress as "more pork barrel legislation on idealistic goals, when we instead need to deal with the real world and real issues." Or, C), the bill is modified to specify that only Haliburton can receive any of the funds, all Democrats end up voting against their own bill, and congress points out how Demos "vote against pushing the boundaries of science, technology, and human achievement that made this country great."

      Option D) is that the bill is entirely Democrat backed, but it is embraced by Republicans and passes overwhelmingly. Personally, I'm not optimistic. :)

      ---------

      The above post is to be considered Funny +1 and/or Interesting +1.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  6. Re:Hmmm- by Kamel+Jockey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
  7. Terrorists on the Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    What they need to do is say there are terrorists with WMD massing on the moon. Then NASA can get $87 million too.

    1. Re:Terrorists on the Moon by LorneReams · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually I believe it was 87 billion.

  8. Re:Hmmm- by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "You are aware, Congress, that you can't legislate the advace of technology right?"

    You mean like Digital TV by 2006?

  9. Re:Hmmm- by mahler3 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    You are aware, Congress, that you can't legislate the advace of technology right?

    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.

  10. Re:Hmmm- by OS24Ever · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  11. Wow, an actual plan? by timeOday · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Having a vision for our space exploration makes a lot of sense to me. So much so that I wonder if NASA already had something like this, which a lot of us just didn't know about.

    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."

  12. Social Security by squashed · · Score: 5, Insightful
    2024. Isn't that the year the Social Security system is forecasted to go bankrupt?

    Right. We'll be funding all this manned space exploration then. No problem.

  13. re:deficit by CowBovNeal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  14. Re:Hmmm- by mercy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are aware, Congress, that you can't legislate the advace of technology right?

    "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

    ...both of which help a lot.

  15. phobos base? by lone_marauder · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sounds good to me, just don't do any transdimensional experiments up there.

    --
    who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
  16. Chinese Threat Spurs Americans to Explore Space by reporter · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The Space Exploration Act of 2003 was likely strongly motivated by ominous developments in the Chinese space program. In "China space programme makes US anxious", "The Straits Times" reports that the Chinese are accelerating development of their space program and plan to put Chinese astronauts in orbit around the earth. Both " nationalism and economic growth" drive the space program in China. Unlike the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in the United States of America, the Chinese space program is tied directly into the Chinese military and is developing technologies to obliterate American reconnaisance satellites.

    ... from the desk of the reporter

  17. I work at JPL... by skyknytnowhere · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  18. Re:Hmmm- by The+Old+Burke · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I would'nt say that you could directly contribute the success of the moon landing to Kennedy.

    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.
  19. Finally! by ENOENT · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  20. Glad to see a challange by mofochickamo · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  21. Vision matters by miketo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

  22. Out of curiosity by Timesprout · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  23. Re:Hmmm- by Manitcor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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."
  24. Aren't we missing a goal? by roystgnr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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."

  25. Re:Hmmm- by Liora · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  26. You want cost efficient space exploration? by *weasel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?"
  27. Pretty cheap too... by Bendebecker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "(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
  28. Your forgot to list ... by burgburgburg · · Score: 4, Interesting
    some of the things that the selected President has gone all flowery on but has inconveniently left underfunded like

    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.

  29. why space exploration == NASA budget? by BigGerman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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 ;-)

  30. Re:wtf? a Mars moon base? by halliburton · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to this article there's lots of good stuff worth looking into:

    (pasted from the link above)

    The Lunar rocks may also be examined according to the chemicals that they contain. Such analysis indicates:

    They are rich in refractory elements, which are elements such as calcium (Ca), Aluminum (Al), and Titanium (Ti) that form compounds having high melting points.

    They are poor in the light elements such as hydrogen (H).

    There is high abundance of elements like Silicon (Si) and Oxygen (O).

    The high concentration of rare metals like Titanium, and the availability of abundant amounts of Silicon and Oxygen has led to serious proposals about mining and manufacturing operations in the future for the Moon.

  31. Note the Congressional Districts by ketan · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Note that Nick Lampson is representative from the Texas 10th District. From his web site (emphasis added):
    This site is a resource for and about the Ninth District, which serves areas in Jefferson, Chambers, Harris, and Galveston counties; including Johnson Space Center, NASA's astronaut training facility and Mission Control.
    Note also that 11 of the 26 sponsors are also from Texas. I'm not making a comment about this bill's worth. However, Lampson's district would probably benefit from a beefed up space program, and the state of Texas itself would also benefit. The line between worthy project and pork is a very fuzzy one. My representative (D-Texas 10th) is not on that list, but I'm sure he was asked, since Lampson seems to have made an effort to get Texas representatives on board. I also note that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas 22nd) is not a co-sponsor. His district includes parts of Harris County (Houston) and Galveston county as well. Maybe just a political thing, since the other sponsors are Democrats. I wonder if one of the California Democrats has Vandenberg in his/her district. Nobody from Florida, though, so no direct connection with Cape Canaveral. Food for thought.
    --
    You have a choice: tax and spend Democrats, or borrow and spend Republicans. Choose wisely.
  32. I work at McDonalds... by freality · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.