Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Future of NASA

Posted by michael on from the up-in-the-air-ha-ha-ha dept.

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.

2 of 714 comments (clear)

  1. Helium 3 & Fusion by zaxer · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.

  2. Re:Specious assumption by Kulic · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.