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.

Comments

No, we don't!

[Lord Kano]

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.

No offense

[Ryvar]

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

Helium 3 & Fusion

[zaxer]

Note the one justification for going to the moon for military or economic purposes that the article gives - to mine helium 3 - still requires that we have working fusion reactors to process that helium. The article http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_0006 30.html has more information. Among other things, you also need to heat the surface to 800 degrees celsius to mine it.

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.

Re:Specious assumption

[Kulic]

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.

Re:Militarisation of space - one option

[zaxer]

Orbiting is not like flying over a country - after all, you can purposely do a 30 degree turn in a plane to avoid a country, but try doing that on a satellite and you'll run out of fuel in no time. So are you going to have to get the permission of 20+ countries for every non-geosynchronous object put in orbit?

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.

Re:Every heard of the Carlyle Group?

[jacoplane]

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.

Re:We can own buildings on the moon...

[EinarH]

There is a looong way from building research and mining structures/buildings on the moon to deploying strategic weapons in space. Any country that want's could set set up a reseacrh base in Antarctica tomorrow if they had the money, but you can't deploy strategic weapons there.
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.