Slashdot Mirror
The Future of NASA
fishbonez writes "According to this article, the President's new space exploration initiative parallels his military strategy for space. The article doesn't directly say that NASA will become an integral part of the military plan but clearly that conclusion could be drawn without the need for a tinfoil hat. We have already seen that Hubble will be allowed to expire prematurely as a result of this new initiative. Is the re-allocation of funds within NASA really for getting to the Moon and Mars? Or is it just a cover for shifting toward military space applications? If true, how badly will NASA's scientific mission be effected if it becomes a conduit for giving research and development money to defense contractors?" UPI has a lengthy piece covering the development of the new space plan.
Article II of the "Outer Space Treaty" states that
"Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."
See it here.
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
But wasn't this pretty obvious from the start?
What other reason would the figurehead for PNAC (earlier post on them here) have for announcing an enhanced space initiative when the biggest problem his administration is facing is budgetary concerns?
When this was first announced the first sentence out of my lips were "Oh fuck, here comes the militarization of space." Just so we can establish a Cringely-esque track record, when I saw the WTC collapse the first words out of my mouth were "Oh fuck, there go our civil liberties" (and Patriot II was just passed under our noses this last month).
This should come as a surprise for absolutely nobody save foreigners just chiming in. I suggest picking up Perle's new book for a roadmap of what we'll see this administration try and pull if they get elected next term (and they probably will).
--Ryvar
Thus, a moon base by 2020 would have absolutely no connection to this in my mind. Frankly, you aren't going to get any militaristic benefit from going to the moon, other than cowing other countries into submission. And we should already be able to do that through other means...
All this, of course, is not to say that I don't support going back to the moon - I do, for scientific reasons - but as a military objective, this whole helium 3 thing is silly right now.
Lately the most aggressive country in the world has been USA. Russia and China have been pretty nice and even improving in their relations and efforts towards democracy.
All at the same time the US is removing democracy and implementing kafkaland where you can be detained without knowing why and have no chance at defending yourself.
The US has pretty much gone out of their way to look like complete assholes and thats why most ppl think the current administration is shit because thats what comes out of assholes.
HTTP/1.1 400
I think most at NASA would tell the reason that Hubble is being abandoned is due the remaining shuttle being designed to service the ISS. I believe Columbia was the last shuttle that could easily reach the orbit of the Hubble, and be equipped to service it. Plus there are scarce enough mission slots now to maintain the ISS. NASA is also now looking ahead to "The James Webb Space Telescope" Hubble's successor.
Just wanted to clarify this. Columbia was the only shuttle with a large enough cargo bay to fit Hubble inside it. This is only a problem when you want to bring it back to earth safely (although IIRC Columbia was used to launch Hubble, but that's not a problem anymore).
It's probably not the only reason for cancelling the service mission, but a shuttle can't reach the ISS from Hubble's orbit. Thus no lifeboat if something goes wrong (besides sending up another shuttle). Never mind that this has been the case for all (5-6?) previous Hubble missions.
If true, how badly will NASA's scientific mission be effected (wrong! should be "affected") if it becomes a conduit for giving research and development money to defense contractors?
This usage note for the reference manual for the word affect indicates the "effect" and "affect" have different meanings:
Usage Note: "Affect" and "effect" have no senses in common. As a verb "affect" is most commonly used in the sense of "to influence" (how smoking affects health). "Effect" means "to bring about or execute": layoffs designed to effect savings. Thus the sentence These measures may affect savings could imply that the measures may reduce savings that have already been realized, whereas These measures may effect savings implies that the measures will cause new savings to come about.
-AZ-
The cost of getting to the moon is exponentionally larger (mathmatically, not figurativly) than getting into orbit. The equation of interest is: (Final Mass)/(initial Mass) = exp(deltaV/(Isp*g)); where g = 9.8 m/s, deltaV into 200nm orbit ~ 7.2km/s deltaV to moon ~ 14km/s (ballpark, I'm half drunk right now and don't want to look it up) Typical ISP = 325 (avg -- better at boost, worse at altitude. System issues --- vacuum Isp is usually better than at pressure, but storing LH2/LOX is a b&^@#$) The moon would not have allowed for larger living space. Contrawise: The lunar regolith would conduct heat away like a bastard. Two weeks of night would rape you WRT your heating bill, and two weeks of day would rape you A/C wise. And digging a f*ing hole would take equipment you would have to haul there. (read: 'you're screwed either way you look at it') Finally: a.) how the hell are you going to stock MORE oxygen on a base that is, price wise, a hundred thousand times farther away? b.) Are you 12? IT TAKES THREE DAYS TO GET TO THE MOON. And that is AFTER you launch!!
For example, there's no chance that we could put a space station in geosynchronous orbit. So if China decides they don't want us to do any space station research, we'd have no way to develop it.
Exactly. I mean - we keep doing this kind of thing. What the hell was the use of constantly sailing to this "New World" place? I mean - ships already hit the shoreline once. All this colonization and exploration crap. Worthless. History's superpowers should have been more worried with building ships to sail further.
Say. You don't suppose it had anything to do with budget do you? Take a look at Volume 1 of the CAIB report - Chapter 5. Find Section 5.3 (on page 107). Do a little reading on what NASA had to work with in the past versus what they work with now.
The only caveat to this is that NASA changed. Those who held the slide-rules lost power to those who did the bean-counting. To some extent - this difference in management has been blamed for Challenger. And it is a simular theme that shows up within the pages of the CAIB Report.
If you're interested in finding out more about the Carlyle group, there is a documentary made by the dutch tv program tegenlicht. The first two minutes is in dutch, the rest of the program is in english. Highly recommended.
Huh? NASA has been federally funded ever since they were created by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958.
And you could even argue that it's been much, much longer than that . The 1958 act didn't create them out of whole cloth; instead, it transformed the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) into the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). NACA seems to have been charted in 1915 and operated from 1917 to 1958. So the agency (which has National in its name -- should be a clue) has had federal funding for around 89 years. And it's not as if they're the same agency in name only. I believe you can still see the name NACA in stone work on one of the buildings at NASA Ames Research Center. (I forget which building, maybe one of the old wind tunnels.)
If this leaves you confused about what Bush has done, what he did is to change the size of NASA's budget back to something a little larger, closer to what it used to be before budget cuts, but not (I don't think) anywhere near the levels it at was when they sent men to the moon.
The 90% completed X-33 is at Edward's AFB, in a hanger, by a launchpad. The hanger, the launchpad, and the prototype are jointly owned by Lockheed Martin and NASA, President Bush could not take it without buying Lockheed Martin out ($356 million), and transferring NASA's share to the Air Force. Thing is, everyone that follows space exploration closely would know about it, no matter how much they tried to cover it up. (It would have to go through Congress). It's useless anyway, it can't haul cargo or anything remotely like that. The X-33 was cancelled in March, BEFORE that idiot Dan Goldin was replaced by the much better O'Keefe. Just something I forgot to mention.
Things in space exploration have been so slow, or at least so unspectacular, during last 20 years, that we're often forgetting that it took only about 10 years from the first American in orbit to the first American on the Moon... And that was with nobody having done it before, with 1960's technology and with much less general data on the moon than today. I'd imagine it'd be quite possibe for China to get a man to the moon in 5 years. Technically possible at least, financially might be a different matter...
Then there's the nuclear capability of Israel.... can't imagine where that came from.
Maybe you need to work your imagination a little harder.
Israel's capabilities are the result of both its having a high-skilled personnel fleeing Europe and its cooperation with France (first) and South-Africa (later).
In fact, the US tried to deter the Israelly efforts from the start.
Israel gained nuclear capabilities inspite of the US efforts.
Working for necessity's mother.
Actually The Outer Space Treaty (according to fas.org) "was the second of the so-called "nonarmament" treaties; its concepts and some of its provisions were modeled on its predecessor, the Antarctic Treaty. Like that Treaty it sought to prevent "a new form of colonial competition" and the possible damage that self-seeking exploitation might cause."
As long as US don't deploy strategic weapons on the moon who cares? As long as the moon is open to other countries for harvesting, science and recreation you can build the next Disneyland there if you want. Just stick to the signed and ratified treaties like other civilised countries.
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.
"These words did not originate with Abraham Lincoln, however -- they appear in none of his collected writings or speeches, and they did not surface until more than twenty years after his death (and were immediately denounced as a "bold, unflushing forgery" by John Nicolay, Lincoln's private secretary). This spurious Lincoln warning gained currency during the 1896 presidential election season (when economic policy, particularly the USA's adherence to the gold standard, was the major campaign issue), and ever since then it has been cited and quoted by innumerable journalists, clergymen, congressmen, and compilers of encyclopedias."
-Darkshadow (There was a thing called Heaven; but all the same they used to drink enormous quantities of alcohol.)
"If true, how badly will NASA's scientific mission be effected if it becomes a conduit for giving research and development money to defense contractors?"
Scientific mission? The VAST majority of NASA's budget is for nothing more than supporting the 25,000 people used to maintain the shuttle "fleet". Considering that and the $250 to $500 million dollar/launch costs I'd say the best thing that could happen is NASA fades as military projects bloom.