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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.