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.
They're moving Out of Space and Into Spying
Because people can use it for bad things. That's what this article is all about, isn't it?
Maybe when you tree huggers finally realize that there will never be peace and love the world over, only then will you finally come to terms with the world as it really is.
Technology will be used in evil ways. However, it will also be used in ways that are amazingly good.
Have some faith.
I have been pwned because my
I am very interested (and concerned!) about the USA's military use of outer space, but what about China?
They must surely have plans as well, but we never hear anything about them -- no news, no speculation -- nothing.
perhaps if there was actually a space threat from someone... reasonable people would feel differently. the Chinese are almost 50 years behind us... excuse my lack of alarm.
. SLASHDOT: Home of the vicious nerd.
The fact remains that the militarization is space is virtually inevitable - if not by us, by someone else. One of the reasons for the Chinese Shenzhou manned-spaceflight program is to put electronic and optical intelligence platforms in orbit. The rear section of the Shenzhou orbiter is left in low Earth orbit where it can be used for photographic and electronic surveillance. Just as our space program lead to more advanced space-based intelligence platforms, the Chinese are doing much the same.
What's more worrying is the threat of satellite hunter-killer devices. Imagine if someone developed the technology to knock out the GPS grid - both our military and our economy would suffer greatly.
We can't naively assume that space will only be used for peaceful means, and if we don't take the initiative in ensuring that we have adaquate countermeasures we take on significant risk.
On the other hand, the process is going to be slow. Space exploration is very expensive, and only a major power can afford significant investments in space. We're not going to see al-Qaeda or even North Korea develop a sat-killer any time soon.
Chances are we'll see a new space race between the US and China, with the moon being the primary goal for both. The technological advancements from such a race will be as important as the advancements we got from Apollo. New materials, new energy source, new biotechnology are all potential spin-offs from space exploration.
Rather than fear increased space travel, we should be welcoming it. Yes, there will be a military presence in space, but the benefits of space exploration far outweigh the risks.
On the other hand, I'm generally in favour of space exploration - especially if we can send some of our polliticians out on non-return trips ;)
In fact, the sooner we open up this new frontier to the point where our chompin'-at-the-bit youngsters can get off planet before they ruin this one for the rest of us, the better.
Dear governments of the world - please let those who would sacrifice their lives on a less than 50/50 chance of success in this venture have a go at it. Our fore-fathers had about the same chance when opening up new territories here on Earth - and the energy accumulated in the recent generations is chafing enough that it is causing the rest of us grief.
Been there, done that, paid for the T-shirt
and didn't get it
The shuttle blows. The ISS is barely in space. We need to break the gravitational bounds of earth again. What good is going 200 miles up? It's pointless? Been there done that. We need to grow a a pair and get going. I'm glad that NASA is getting a good kick in the pants. We can't waste another 30 years with crap like a 300 miles in space POS shuttle.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
You guys make it sound like Hubble is the last telescope we will ever make, let alone put up in orbit.
Hubble is a Cracker Jack toy compared to whats on the books right now. Letting Hubble fall into obsolescence is a _blessing_ in a way, since it paves the way for newer, better (interferometer!) telescopes to go into the mix.
Besides, it's not like we're at a loss for data. Hubble generated enough data to keep researchers busy for decades. Let it burn up, as far as i'm concerned. Make way for the bigger and better.
Cheers,
Bowie J. Poag
Bush loves spying.
His father did, not him. Had he paid attention to the intel world, we would not have had 9/11 (per the republican investigation committe).
In addition, he would not have lied about Iraq. There was no need for constant lies concerning Sadaam.
As to the army, well, it makes sense. W. is making up for being a coward. I find it funny that his a father, a real hero, was not in a hurry to sacrafice lives. Yet, he was a total coward for 'nam, but goes to war for just some oil.
Its convenient to have signed that treaty for now. It allows us to take actions against violators who we also bully into signing. But when the time comes, we'll throw it away as fast as we threw away the ABM treaty. When you are a large country that can get away with discarding some treaties, yet also able to enforce others, signing treaties gives you immense power over smaller countries.
It was a toss-up whether the hubble was going to be put on ice or not, and it looks like nasa made a decision.
But really, what's wrong with the militarization of space? Almost all the sci-fi tv shows dealing with space, yes, the ones you know and love, are populated by military folks: star trek, babylon 5, stargate sg-1, battlestar galatica come to mind. The only space show I can think of that didn't have the military as primary characters was firefly, which died an unfortunate (and probably premature) death.
Let's face it, the military are the only ones who are crazy enough to spend billions for a strategic position. No sane commercial enterprise is going to spend that much to build a space beachhead, because there's no ROI. If commerical enterprises can leverage off of the military infrastructure, well, that makes it a bit more acceptible from an ROI point of view.
It must be election time. Its time for "insightful" unbiased articles like this to start to appear.
That said I wouldn't argue that a build up of the manned space program could be a cover for taking the high ground in space. Control of the skies is what gives the US such a commanding advantage in wars these days. Certainly a reason the US is none too happy to see Europe launching Galileo its own GPS system.
I won't debate whether this makes the US evil or not, but it could be seen as prudent in maintaining a lead militarily. To expect China to remain to peaceful purposes only in space may be a bit naive. At this point I don't support nor condemn US space initiatives. I wait to see if this all turns out to be political rhetoric. We all rejoiced in the science and progress of the Apollo era, but without a cold war to drive it there would have been slower progress in space. Now that the world has become a more dangerous place again, we may see such programs again. A boon for science, but with a cloud inside the silver lining.
Letter To Iran
Why do so many otherwise smart people lose it when it comes to Bush's policies? For example, the Hubble telescope. How many manned space flights has NASA sent up in the past year? The observant among us may remember that the shuttle is GROUNDED. How can we service Hubble without the shuttle? Not to mention, a bigger and better Hubble replacement is due to be in orbit within 5 years. Besides this--it's not like hubble is going to come hurtling into the ocean tomorrow, it has probably years of functionality left. What's the problem?
These articles overlook the fact that no matter what Bush is planning, NASA already has a lot of overlap with the military:
1. Most of NASA's contractors are also defense contractors (Lockheed, etc.), so, it is obvious that _any_ increase in NASA's budget will lead to some defense contractors getting more money.
2. Many of the astronauts are air force officers, since the skills needed to pilot a space craft and a fighter plane are similar. (Chiefly, the ability to stay conscious at a high # of G's)
3. The _original_ space program and the Moon Mission were intended to show the Soviets US tech was better. If the new program competes with the Chinese, it will be the same situation with only the names of the countries changing.
I don't know about that -- Captain Midnight did a nice number on a satellite with little more than the right opportunity. My apologies for the comparison, as Captain Midnight was certainly not a force of evil like those two entities, but the point stands to say -- you don't have to put a bullet through a satellite to kill it.
Throughout human history, technological advancement has been driven primarily by military need. Considering that military force is the ultimate expression of religion, politics, and economics, that should be no surprise.
Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
There are treaties and agreements, to which the US is a signatory, about the placement of weapons and military technology in space.
If the US breaks those treaties unilaterally, what right does it have to castigate others if at some point in the future they too decide that legally binding agreements don't matter to them either?
Shouldn't the US lead by example? Shouldn't it honour its agreements and stick to its word? How can you expect other nations to respect and trust the US if it doesn't reciprocate that respect and if it betrays that trust?
Oh, and of the three nations you chose to name, one's a US ally now and the other's more concerned with protecting its borders from its neighbours than it is with finding new enemies half way around the world.
That leaves China, which as I pointed out just recently, exports more good to the US than anywhere else, so why you think they'd try to threaten their biggest trading partner (and military counterpart) is beyond me.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
since when does international law mean anything? just look at antarctica, according to "international law" it is divided up nicely into slices with many different countries each having a piece. yet everyone knows that the USA and Australia have grabbed the whole thing..and if anyone doesn't like it, what are they gonna do about it?
IL doesn't mean anything since no one has the balls to back it up. and when you talk about space: anyone out in space is going to be in the same league and therefore the same position as the USA so they wont be arguing against property rights either. the only ones arguing will be those nations that dont have the ability to go out there.
I'd rather see the feds funding fusion energy research at the rate they are trying to fund adventures to the moon and Mars. Once we get fusion as a power source down I would think we might have a little cash left over to fund trasure hunts.
So NASA, with their increased allowance, can now buy 1/2 of a steath bomber! . Wow, I never knew Bush really cared about space exploration. I get the feeling that this is one of those "Don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain!!!" situations.
-- cloudnine --
It is such a shame that those who don't take these kinds of initiatives put themselves at risk because if NO ONE took the initiatives at all, there would be no risk. I often wish that was how the world worked. Instead we get the endless cycle:
Country 1: We have to build it first or we will be at risk.
Country 2: Look Country 1 is building them, so we have to build them also to keep up or we will be at risk.
Country 3: Well, if Countries 1 and 2 are building them then we can't be left behind.
Country 1: Uh-oh. Countries 2 and 3 are building them, so no we need to build more and better ones or we will be at risk.
Country 2: What's that? Country 1 is building more?? Well, fire up the factories. We need more too.
Country 3: Us too!!!
Country 4: Hey guys. I have an idea. How about none of us build any of them and there will be no risk.
Countries 1, 2, and 3: *Simultaneous Laughter*
Country 1: Now...where were we? Oh yes, BUILD MORE!!
Countries 2 and 3: US TOO!!!
ad infinitum
*sigh*
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
Why not make space, or at least the space around the earth, the same as the air: the space above a particular country belongs to that country, space above the international oceans is open to all. Thus it would be necessary to have other countries' permissions before orbiting anything over them, and issues like spying and weapons platforms would be somewhat marginalised. This would also allow each country to develop a space program as it saw fit in its own bit of space, or optionally to rent that space to others.
As it is now, space seems a bit like the wild west - noone cares who they fly over, or what's orbiting above them, or whatever.
Likewise we should develop a method for dividing up the moon, mars etc. that is not based on present capabilities but on the likelihood that one day any nation will be capable of utilising these resources. Or better yet put them all under the total control of the UN, as things too big for one nation to claim for itself.
I'm not a US basher, but just because the US is powerful right now doesn't mean it should have total rights to everything it finds in space. I mean, by that logic the US itself would still be part of France and Britain.
Personally I wish there were more collaborative space exploration. Instead of 3 countries/consortiums sending a probe each to Mars, we could have a probe to Mars, one to Europa, and one to Venus.
On a political note [not for moderation]: America, the rest of the world is praying that you wake up and dump Bush this year. It may be 50:50 in the polls in the States, but from outside your continuing refusal to realise that he is a dangerous, incompetent, scheming, money grabbing, corrupt fool is increasingly alarming. Mod -100000 for flamebait, but that's how it is. Please realise though: I love the US, I just wish someone would drive it in the right (or should that be centre-left) direction.
Read Pynchon.
...and control of facilities on a piece of property like this is as good as owning the property. The US does not own Antarctica but our presence at McMurron and other bases gives us de facto control of the area. There is a key piece of lunar territory on the south pole that gives great visualization of the Earth, and a military observation facility there would be difficult to root out since the building would be United States Territory. In addition, holding a large base in Copernicus crater would give us de facto control of the crater and the space beneath it. An underground facility using the crater as an airlock/entryway would be owned by the United States. Officially the control would be by default, but it would take military force to actually remove the personnel, again granting de facto control to the occupying force.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
I hope the cost of space exploration will be too much for any one state to undertake. Throughout history monumental undertakings have informed cultures. The pyramids, Stonhenge or other monumental undertakings have permitted cultures to defined themselves in relation to their neighbours and the universe. The exploration of space represents the first time we as a world will make our mark outside the boundaries of our home planet. It would be fitting if the exploration of space required the coming together of many nations and aide in the development of a world government.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
Tell me, how do you think "the US will blow them [Russia and China] off the map if they're 'bad'", without getting blown off the map itself? And how do you think the US could force Russia or China to do what it wants, in space or elsewhere?
It's a bit hard pushing around a nuclear power. That's why the US is treating North Korea with kid gloves: they're shit scared that the madmen who run North Korea (leaders who let their own people starve are madmen) will nuke Seoul, thereby taking out South Korea's capital, a large chunk of its population and its economy and the 35-50,000 US troops permanently based there.
Perhaps you should pick up a history book sometime? Or take a geopolitics class? Who know, you might actually learn something about how the world works.
It's people like you that make people elsewhere look at Americans as arrogant assholes. Do yourself (and your countrymen) a favour: shut your mouth, educate yourself and try to look at other societies and cultures as something other than ICBM targets.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
"Is the re-allocation of funds within NASA really for getting to the Moon and Mars?
It's on the record as being re-allocated for those purposes, so that seems like a redundant question. I supose you're asking "is that their real purpose"? Perhaps a longer-term perspective would ask the question of, what is the purpose of getting to the Moon and Mars, besides "exploration"? Historically, exploration has had economic, security, and political motivators. This is just more of the same, it appears...
Or is it just a cover for shifting toward military space applications?
Same argument. When Columbus sailed the ocean blue, and the King and Queen of Spain underwrote his voyage, don't you think that people complained that the government was using that voyage as a cover for shifting towards military nautical applications? Of course they did... Ever heard of the Spanish Armada? Spain succeeded in developing it's military nautical applications... war galleons, collonies in the americas, gold, etc. etc. Of course, they later lost control of most of it, but at the time it was simply an investment which later paid of in terms of economic, political, and military 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?
Maybe none at all. There is a "science of war" after all... Take the Atlantic Research Corporation, for example... They conducted scientific research into the area of solid-fuel rockets... Pretty serious scientific applications, all things considered. Also very serious defence, political, and economic research as well. All things considered, NASA's scientific mission could possibly be improved if they could develop a new line of shuttle replacements that could also serve defence applications... And the armed services have a repuation of having equipment which works pretty well, now-days... You never know when some extra terrestrial object or species is going to start landing on our chunk of rock... Better be ready...
Sorry, I could resist the ramblings of a political tin-foil hat wearer.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
It's also there and it's working right now. Hubble has proven itself to be reliable for longer than a decade, which is one of the best possible guarantees that could be hoped for in space. Throwing it away to invest entirely in something not yet proven is a big gamble. The cost of keeping Hubble working for a few years longer is quite low compared with the overheads of designing, building and launching entirely new projects.
Of course it'd be great to have future projects in due course, but suggesting that Hubble has "generated enough data" is a very shallow viewpoint. There are never a shortage of applications for people to use it -- big telescope time is hard to get. There are also $200 million instruments that were designed and built for the next Hubble mission that will now never be used. The James Webb Space Telescope, for example, which is still in a relatively conceptual design phase, also doesn't obsolete Hubble. They're designed for quite different things.
In any case with George Bush's massive "reallocation" of funding within NASA, this is one of the shakiest times for this type of genuine scientific project. Don't be surprised if the JWST and other similar projects are also scuttled in the near future in favour of the politically popular but scientifically dubious goal of getting more human ballast into local space.
the Chinese are almost 50 years behind us... excuse my lack of alarm.
Yeah, but with the way things seem to be going, in about 15 years there will be approx 200 million Chinese wannabe yuppies driving around Hummers, and with absolutely NO EMISSION controls to boot. (Not to mention the 75 million Bangalore programmers driving their BMW SUV's...
Just think of the fucking SMOG problems, Buster!
The pollution from Beijing alone will be reaching past St. Louis on a regular basis.
And all you starving, out-of-work Americans will be prostituting your little sisters just so you can afford a ticket to the Mars colonies. (At least one of which will be named after Ronald Reagan: you can bet your worthless stock options and social security checks on that!)
Hey, just don't forget to thank Dubya-and-family for your f-ed-up sorry-assed life when you reach orbital speed, SUCKAS!
We don't hear much about China's space program because they're ~20 years behind us. :P
Not that that's an incredible hurdle to overcome, given the sorry state of NASA, but as far as aerospace tech in general goes the Chinese are way behind.
People won't notice unless they're quite obviously in danger of attaining parity, at which point it would likely be far too late to do anything about the situation.
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
Guess you didn't read what I said:
Emphasis added to highlight the relevant part.
Democrats and Republicans are almost to a man roughly the same these days. There are differences, but none that really matter anymore. Both listen to the roughly same sources for direction. There might be some corporations that bankroll the Republicans more than the Democrats and vice-versa, but that will continue to decrease over time as corporations consolidate and merge. In any case, there isn't enough of a difference there to really matter anymore.
There are exceptions, of course. But those exceptions are exceedingly rare and depressingly powerless.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
That's because you were a kid. You're an adult now. You understand more. And you're probably much more cynical. Your world view has shifted dramatically.
The program you are all sentimental about was part of a pissing contest between two superpowers holding guns to each other's heads. That doesn't really fall in line with the whole concept of discovering new things and making friends with aliens.
Heck - during the 60's, American culture couldn't even hold on to the "making friends with aliens" idea. SciFi flicks of the era started with aliens being our friends and possibly saviors. Then Hollywood latched on to the idea that aliens might not be friendly. Aliens became all manner of monster and mennace. Mix in a bit of Red Scare and you got Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
Back to reality.
Why did the US get so upset over Sputnik to begin with? It doesn't take much imagionation to see the military aspects.
Don't get me wrong. I think the space program is more than military application. But the military aspect has always been there. Whether you recognized it or not.
NASA always had a culture of exploration: to see what is out there and find out what it means. Exploration and discovery go hand in hand.
Turning NASA from an Exploring agency to an empire-building agency is evil, pure and simple.
This was supposed to be a nation dedicated to freedom and increasingly we're becoming the most frightening and dangerous regime on earth. Our civil liberties have been strip mined, and we're saddled with a government we can't trust and may not be able to get rid of.
We started as Athens, and now we're rapidly heading towards Rome. What a lousy, bloody, stupid waste of the potential of a great nation this Bush has wrought.
I'm tired of the Democrats, and I'm tired of the Republicans. The libertarians show promise, but the Libertarians suck. The greens are a good idea, bu the Greens are fascists, and Nader is a basket case.
We need fundamental fixes: to admit that the Limited Liability Corporation was a grave error, or at least that the Constitution has proved inadquate in it's current for to keep such beasts under control, for starters**. We need to find a way of representing out views outside the follow-the-herd thinking of conventional political parties, so that intelligent debate, healthy scepticism and scientific fact get a fair hearing in the political arena.
NASA really once was our crown jewel: an essentially peaceful effort put the first human being on the surface of another world. Yes, there were nationalistic reasons for doing it, but we did it in peace, and we did it for everybody.
To see it militarized when there is no credible space-related threat to the safety or liberty of Americans is anathema.
I don't know what we can do to reverse this corruption of our ideals, but I hope somebody else does. How's about using this thread to think about that.
(**) The Bill of Rights would have contained a clause banning the formation of corporations, had not the states of the time had adaquate anti-corporate legislation themselves. In hindsight, this may have been the most critical error the Framers made.
Hexayurt - open source refugee shelter,
Its convenient to have signed that treaty for now. It allows us to take actions against violators who we also bully into signing. But when the time comes, we'll throw it away as fast as we threw away the ABM treaty. When you are a large country that can get away with discarding some treaties, yet also able to enforce others, signing treaties gives you immense power over smaller countries.
Which has, of course, nothing to do with the fact that a lot of people don't trust America or Americans. It has absolutely no relation with terrorist attacks on US targets all over the place.
Nopes.
That's just jealousy.
--
Mirror Inc.
When the Columbia went down, I made it my goal to find out what went wrong. Ultimately I decided that the Space Shuttle was a dated piece of equipment that needed to be replaced. Endeavor should have never been built, instead a new 2nd-gen shuttle should have. (The program existed, but was later canceled) The lack of funding by the Clinton administration is what led to its ultimate demise. The Venturestar Program was the 3rd generation space shuttle (called the Space Launch Initiative), and the X-33 was the prototype. Actually, it wasn't even that, it was a "technology validator". So it makes sense to test the components that had been built already (like the linear aerospike engine, which is revolutionary due to its efficiency and the composite fuel tanks would be a boon to any launching system, shuttle or otherwise) The program was cancelled because too many things had gone wrong and NASA under Clinton appointee Daniel Goldin had shifted focus to small, unmanned probes (faster, better, cheaper) so they were unwilling to tough it out. You can find out all about the X-33 at ALLSTAR or NASA itself.
> but like all madmen, they're inherently cowards.
This sounds to me like unconvincing propaganda--do you have any serious evidence for such an assertion?
I would fear for us all if we ever attempted "world government". As a race, we're not even qualified to run a government, never mind a national one, never mind a global one.
I mean, statistically speaking, a world government would be approximately 2000 times more screwwed up than the US one, just based on the number of people it deals with. 2000 times! The US is already run by a monkey, whats 2000 times worse than a monkey!?
Is the re-allocation of funds within NASA really for getting to the Moon and Mars?
YES! FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, YES! Manned space exploration was a top priority for NASA since its inception and creation. The point was "putting a man on the moon". That is why NASA was founded! Then we had run-ins with Carter and Clinton, where that vision was fogged by poor administration and judgement. It took a great president, Ronald Reagan, to see the Space Shuttle project to completion and to put NASA on track for the future (SS Freedom, 2nd gen shuttle, Space Launch Initiative, Moon Bases, Man on Mars) He knew we didn't have the time nor the technology to go to Mars yet, but that was still the unltimate goal, a "when we're ready" kind of thing. Then George H.W. Bush happened. He rolled back the programs, but he did not completely destroy them, he cut things down to a bear minimum. Clinton destroyed them. I remember hearing that Dan Goldin thought exploration through robots was just as good as human exploration. Growing up in Langley AFB (the NASA facility is intgrated with the base), I got to hear directly what the NASA engineers thought of Clinton back in '94-95, and it wasn't pretty. Clinton killed the programs created during the 80's. He didn't do it directly, he (through his direct control and the appointment of Goldin) just cut their funding to below minumum levels, so he could write it off as "NASA's fault, not the administration's". We need another Reagan to get us back on track. We've found him- He's George W. Bush. NASA's mission is once again manned exploration.
Or is it just a cover for shifting toward military space applications?
NO! NASA and the military (primarily the US Air Force) work together because they research the same things. The applications of that research differ, one is a civilian organization, and the other is a military one. The AF had an interest in the Venturestar program, a single-stage to orbit (SSTO) craft would be wonderful. It would be mobile, easily, safely, and cheaply launched. They could build a good number of them, give them different jobs (like mounting a laser on one). NASA is actively engaged in the Airborne LASER project. The AF loans aircraft to NASA all the time. Heck, the only reason I got to see an SR-71 and F-117 regularly in flight in the early 90s was because of the NASA research facility attached to the Air Force Base. NASA explores aerodynamics and aerospace. The Airforce is an aerodynamics and aerospace power, see the connection? When NASA develops an aircraft (e.g. the forward-swept wing, X-29), the AF would like to know the results of it for use militarily. Any way you look at it, NASA and the military both have the same research goals.
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?
It's not true, and NASA's money goes directly to NASA. If the military and NASA work together, it is good for NASA becase NASA gets the boost of military funds, not the other way around. Every joint development project is funded by NASA AND the military until NASA can't use it as research anymore, at which point a NEW military project based on the results of the NASA/military one would be created. (NASA is a civilian agency, and is more or less transparent in where its money goes, unlike the military)
NASA is not an agency of 'progress for the sake of progress'. It is an agency dedicated to improving mankind. The safe voyage to the moon and back was more important than exploring the moon. A Moonbase could produce fuel. The ultimate result is not "the moon is composed of this % of that and this % of this" It's, "we can use this to make that which helps us in the end." The important thing is not the science itself, it's how it's used. President Bush sees that. Clinton did not.
Don't forget that bit.
I would have been very sorry to see America turn its back on preeminence in space. It accomplished great things and probably will again.
But here's the thing. Apollo may have begun as a techno-military tour de force, and sure it was intertwined with nuclear delivery systems, and phalloidal to boot. But it changed. As the project neared the goal it dawned on people everywhere, as well as the ones actually doing it, that this was really happening, and it was a step up, and the human condition had changed.
By the time Armstrong stuttered out the historic words and set the plaque down, it was too great a matter to be only America's possession: it was America's gift. There was just no other way it could be.
I've been saying to friends lately, Look, for some time to come, space is going to be owned by the USAF. But that doesn't mean I've forgotten the gift. And you shouldn't either, because it's your inheritance and one day you'll be proud to pass it on.
I believe it was that the Columbia, as the oldest of the orbiters, was simply designed/built too heavy to make it up to the altitude/inclination of the orbit of the ISS even from launch let alone from orbit, that's why Columbia never was used to go to the ISS before, and why it never would have been a viable option anyway
This is true, but it's actually a bit more complicated. People in the government of Country 1 might decide they need to have more of "it" and see this endless cycle as a good way to justify it, if they can just convince the people of their country that Country 2 has more of "it" than country 1 now.
So then you get creative reevaluation of intelligence data. Where professional intelligence experts say there is not that much of "it" in Country 2, these people go and look at the data. They claim it's to look at it again "without bias," but in fact they have the bias that they want to find that Country 2 has much more of "it" than the dedicated intelligence analysts found. Instead of evaluating all the data, they "cherry pick" the parts that support their thesis and conveniently leave out all the data that doesn't, even if what they leave out is crucial or even if what they leave out constitutes the great majority of the data.
I'll give four examples where the USA played the role of Country 1 and did this. Just so you don't have to "trust me," I'll cite a reasonably well-written article that talks about these issues that you can read by clicking here. A Google search on "missile gap" will get you some other good sources.
Additionally, when I talk about the most recent example, I cite articles I found on the White House web site.
The classic example is the Soviet "missile gap." Working from exactly the same raw intelligence data, USAF Intelligence reached the conclusion in the late 1950s that the Soviets would deploy 500 ICBMs by the early '60s. The intelligence branch of the Strategic Air Command reached the conclusion that the Soviets would deploy or might have already deployed 1000 or more. The recently much-maligned CIA figured there were about 50. The author of the article I cited states that the driving force in that case was the USAF, which was in a battle with the Army and Navy for military funding. A huge deployment of Soviet ICBMs would help justify a huge deployment of American ICBMs, fattening the Air Force budget, of which ICBMs represented a sizeable chunk. The SAC also had an interest in an inflated estimate, since the SAC would control and operate the missiles.
The SAC pointed to signs and clues in Soviet documents and in comments by Kruschev that could be interpreted in a way that supported their hypothesis. SAC showed Eisenhower (and later Kennedy) slide shows with pictures of grain elevators, a medieval tower, and some strange structure in the middle of nowhere and argued that such places might be used to hide missiles, even though there was no evidence that any such thing was going on. The punch line? By the time Kennedy became President in 1961, satellite surveillance revealed that the Soviets had 4 ICBMs. No, that's not a typo. Four ICBMs.
Example 2: In 1969, President Nixon and the Joint Chiefs wanted to try to justify huge spending on a missile defense system. Sound familiar? One of the best justifications was protecting American ICBMs from Soviet warheads, allowing the USA to respond to a hypothetical Soviet first strike. This would theoretically keep the Sovie
"It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
...is simple. The US fears a unified Eurasian continent and will do all it can to prevent it. The US's situation is analogous to Britain's in the 19th century: a relatively small island off the coast of a big continent. The main aim of British foreign policy for 200 years was to prevent the unification of Europe - such a Europe would have marked the end of the British Empire.
Similarly, the US fears (long term) a united-ish Eurasian continent, something like the EU. A unified China, India, Russia and the Asian Tigers would represent such economic and political power it would mark the end of US global control. Hence the military bases in central asia, the importance of Afghanistan, the deals with India and the wariness over China. Hence the worry when Russian and China signed an agreement to cooperate recently.
The US's Eurasian foreeign policy tactics are divide-and-rule.
Really....even though the shuttle didnt have the proper docking equipment?
Oh, thats right....you're making this stuff up as you go along....carry on.
Thats funny, when the WTC collapsed, the first words out of my mouth were: "Oh fuck, there go thousands of innocent civilian lives."
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
Never let the facts get in the way of an opinon.
The US has an excellent record of keeping treaties. We even exited the ABM treaty according to the terms of the treaty.
The reason the senate has been so active in NOT ratifying Kyoto, is precisely BECAUSE the US adheres to treaties.
Find some other reason to hate America.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Which has, of course, nothing to do with the fact that a lot of people don't trust America or Americans. It has absolutely no relation with terrorist attacks on US targets all over the place.
If you're suggesting that terrorists target the United States because we've done something to deserve it, I suggest that you go straight to hell.
America is a terrorist target because we are a CONVENIENT SCAPEGOAT. The same way "communists" were fifty years ago. The same way "witches" were a few hundred years ago. The same way Jews have been for two thousand years.
We could change our international policies to do nothing but appease the leaders of all other nations, and there would STILL be some motherfuckers trying to blow our shit up. Do you really think those dirty assholes strapping explosives to themselves have any awareness of which international treaties are being enforced and which are ignored?
From a Congressional report:
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) conducts the most visible space activities. NASA's FY2004 budget request is $15.5 billion. NASA requested $15.0 billion for FY2003; Congress approved $15.3 billion (adjusted for the 0.65% across-the-board rescission, from which the shuttle program was exempted). The loss of the space shuttle Columbia on February 1, 2003, is dominating debate over NASA's future. The space shuttle's primary mission for the foreseeable future is taking crews and cargo to and from the International Space Station (ISS). The two programs are inextricably linked, and Congress and the Administration face many issues, both near-term and long-term, about the shuttle and ISS.
The Department of Defense (DOD) has a less visible but equally substantial space program. Tracking the DOD space budget is extremely difficult since space is not identified as a separate line item in the budget. DOD sometimes releases only partial information (omitting funding for classified programs) or will suddenly release without explanation new figures for prior years that are quite different from what was previously reported. The most recent figures from DOD show a total (classified and unclassified) space budget of $15.7 billion for FY2002, $18.4 billion for FY2003, and a FY2004 request of $20.4 billion. DOD space issues include management of programs to develop new early warning and missile tracking satellites, and management of military and intelligence space activities generally.
Save me Jeabus!
What's the problem if the military has lots of money to do research? I really can't understand the problem of "militarization" of space. The military has the means, the will, and the reason to be up there, something that the civillian world does not. Plus, the rewards always filter down in usable, stable, and battle tested forms. Boo-hoo, major corporations don't get a patent and the technology is in the public domain.
I'm sure there are some military readers here on slashdot. Hopefully they can back this.
From what I have personally seen at various Air Force Labs, the military does not need NASA whatsoever. They may occasionally work together but for the most part the military has done tons of stuff in space on their own without NASA's help. They have the capabilities to launch their own stuff and monitor their own stuff. We should all be well aware there are already plenty of satellites in space that even NASA doesn't know what they are.
To say Bush is going to militarize NASA and the space program is just naive. It goes to show how many paranoid people there are around here (especially slashdot) who will not go very far to try and find a conspiracy theory. People need to stop taking the ongoings of politics and spinning into anti Bush sentiments. Not that I'm a big fan of him but seriously.
Anyway, I'm sure I'll be marked as flame bait but I'm sick of the paranoid conspiracy crap slashdot throws out every day.
World government? You got to be putting me on! I doubt Europe (which is culturally united to some extent (compared to other regions in the world)) would be able to have a European government. You can have world/international organizations (UN, Nato etc). I wouldn't even doubt that you could have a global space agency which would involve collaboration between NASA, ESA and some of the new players of Asia (India, Japan and maybe even China?).
World governments are bad ideas!
--Joey