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.
So we must protect it from the Chinese. We'll also own Mars once we land some people there and plant a flag. Defending our territory is very important.
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
Need a
Another
Space
Army
Makes perfect sense. Bush loves spying.
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.
If his space strategy parallels his military strategy, then we're all in trouble...
About the Hubble, IIRC, the "official" decision to abandon it is more because of the reduced shuttle fleet (not worth risking the few shuttles left) and the upcoming better space telescope. The latest Bush space plan has little to do with the Hubble... or that's what they say.
They will never be happy until they have a missile base and a McDonalds drive through on every chunk of rock in the solar system bigger than 2 square metres .
NEW YORK:
At New York's Kennedy airport today, an individual later discovered to be a public school teacher was arrested trying to board a flight while in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a setsquare, a slide rule, and a calculator.
At a morning press conference, Attorney general John Ashcroft said he believes the man is a member of the notorious al-gebra movement. He is being charged by the FBI with carrying weapons of math instruction.
"Al-gebra is a fearsome cult," Ashcroft said. "They desire average solutions by means and extremes, and sometimes go off on tangents in a search of absolute value.
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
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
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.
I noticed that the X-33 was canceled in W's early days. One of the issues with it was the composite cryo tanks for the h2. The interesting thing was that W's ppl (and the military) insisted that it was to be stopped, and dismantled. Yet, they allowed the tests of the engines at stennis and they continued the work on the cryo tanks. I suspect highly that W simply moved a near working system to being under the military.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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
Now compare that with launching missile pads up into space. It's just not the same. I mean if I wanted to do Military stuff, I'd want to fly a fighter jet, or something...not monitor space weapons we'll never use from the ground.
NASA's recruiting potential --;
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
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.
Carlyle is a big BushCo business, and this space thing is exactly their kind of scam. They mostly look for defense-related companies that are relatively cheap. The "relatively" is the tricky part. It depends either on insider knowledge that is liable to soon change the value of a target company's products, or sometimes the use of overt influence to change defense spending priorities to make the company's products more valuable. In either case, what they bought cheap suddenly becomes much more valuable--and they sell it off and look for another.
Space technology has been on the fringes of their interests. However, if you want to figure out the real motivation behind this latest space deal, look to see what the Carlyle folks have been buying lately. These guys only think with the brains in their hip pockets.
By the way, Poppy Bush and his friends are major participants. Saudis like the royals and Bin Ladins used to be big players in the group, too, but they were persuaded to get out. Looked bad, you know.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
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
This is a rhetorical question, right?
Of course this is just a cover for shifting towards military space applications. Bush, like any modern elected federal politican, doesn't listen to the people -- he listens to the media corporations and the corporations that bankrolled his election (that would be most of the big ones, for anyone who cares to ask).
Because of this, Bush will do whatever is in the interests of those corporations. One of those interests is to make sure the U.S. remains on top militarily, because the U.S. can't sieze the assets of other countries (e.g., Iraq) or credibly control the actions of other, smaller countries without a strong and influential military.
As difficult to defend against as the U.S. military is right now, it will be completely unstoppable if it manages to gain and retain control of space. Space-borne gun platforms simply can't be touched by anything any third-world country can produce, and producing the required equipment would probably bankrupt many of them. That makes such platforms impossible to defend against.
Now that China and India have shown some initiative in their quest for space, Bush and the corporations that back him want to make sure they can never challenge U.S. military authority. That requires that the U.S. take over and control space in Earth orbit at the very least. Hence the rush.
It goes without saying that a number of the U.S. corporations that back Bush will also benefit from the lucrative contracts that will be given to them for all of this. Contracts paid for by everyone who pays U.S. income tax. Contracts paid for at gunpoint.
If the U.S. develops a manned presence on the moon and elsewhere, it will be a military presence only, at least until corporations figure out how to make it profitable in the short term to be there.
Frankly, I don't think we'll get to Mars prior to a U.S. economic collapse due to the long term consequences of the "jobless recovery" we're currently in. That means we won't get there at all.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
PowerPoint dumbs down another presentation
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
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
The costs of both the space station and a moon base would not be that different from one another. Though the moon base would have allowed for much larger living quarter, plant life for primary oxygen supply. Further plant life could have been that of vegtables and other garden eatery. Exercise room, A real bedroom
Plus this would have allowed for daily sampling, atmospheric tests, and a wide variety of other scientific tests that the previous short lived manned mission to the moon could not have provided due to time constraints.
With the recent issue of the space station losing air pressure due to a leak (I beleive was in the living quarters), could have been potentially deadly. While a moon base could have a stock of oxygen and food that is never touch that would last as long as they needed until help could arrived. If the space station were to lose air at a high rate or have severe structural damage.. hwo long do you think it would take to get there? Answer... Too Long!
Never try to beat a professional at his own game!
NASA technology and expertise will flow to the military. Applicable military technologies will flow to NASA. This will benefit both sides as long as both sides think clearly about what technologies and costs could beneficially be shared and what technologies and capabilities should not.
In the past, for example, shuttle development costs grew as a result of military requirements. Let's hope that this will not happen again.
The general approach should be modular. For example, much of the data architecture, flight software, crew protection, and engine technology could be designed as modular components that plug into an overall standard. The military and NASA would then assemble their own spacecraft while benefiting from shared development costs and manufacturing overhead.
Those who wish to keep the military out of space have their heads buried in the sand. Today, a vaccuum of power exists in space because no country as of yet has the capability to project its power there. It would be foolish for the US not to strive to project power into space while we have an advantage. Because wheter we do or we do not, nations that decry our military efforts today will themselves grab for power when it is within their reach tomorrow. Treaties and regulations do not pacify conflict. Historically, they have only served to codify and legitimize balance of power and pervasiveness of justice that prevents conflict. When no such balance exists, using treaties and accords to contain conflict is like trying to wrap up fire with paper. Witness, for example, the Mideaster peace process.
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.
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...
Okay, so the US space program should become militarized because of China being a military threat.
Perhaps I am missing something. (Namely, ignorant of a huge modernized navy China has been hiding somewhere or something.)
I'm trying to imagine a war with China happening realistically. (Which seems unlikely unless one or both countries end up with idiots/nutcases in charge.)
I'm trying to imagine the US and China getting into a full balls-to-the-wall war, and the rest of the world just standing back and not getting involved. That's really hard.
I'm trying to imagine a scenario where China tries to invade the US, somehow transporting troops over the Pacific Ocean without getting picked off by US forces en masse. Where China doesn't have to worry about Japan sitting off its coast, India, Pakistan, Taiwan breaking away, internal rebellion happening while troops are diverted, Islamic rebels in the western provinces, even Russia and former Soviet states along its north border. Unless China has a magically unsinkable troop transport capable of carrying a few dozen million troops, I have problems seeing this happening.
I'm trying to imagine a scenario where the US invades China successfully. I keep imagining China just shrugging and saying, "We surrender -- make us part of the US!" and, a decade later when the US goes bankrupt from struggling with dealing with a population five times its size over seas, a multiplicity of languages and ethnic groups, etc., China quietly return to what it had been doing.
I can't see either side waging a war and succeeding (they might 'win', but that's different from being able to survive a victory.) The economic impacts, both local and globally, would be immense. Now, I can see a nuclear exchange, or a mutual destruction potentially happening (successfully, for certain definitions of success), but I can't see a conventional war working out.
This doesn't mean that military defenses aren't needed -- the scenarios above presupposes neither side has become easy pickings, but as is, the cost in waging a war seems far, far more than any unlikely gain.
The battlefield seems more likely to be in the economic arena at this point than the military. Yah, we need a strong arm to keep the cost of any military action high, but outside of stupidity or insanity, I'm not sure why fear is necessary.
Maybe someone can explain to me how China is a threat, militarily? (Outside of a nuclear exchange, which even then I am pretty sure the US holds a noticeable fire power edge. I've not heard a damned thing about any Chinese subs with nuclear missiles. I guess they have some(?)) Is there some battle plan by which they can just pop over on this side of the Pacific without worrying about Japan, India, Russia, Australia, the Pacific Fleet, and much of the rest of the world? I mean, I'd assume they would have to give the US some warning by taking out Japan, South Korea, etc. etc. first.
It just doesn't seem to make sense. Some amount of caution seems reasonable, but fearing China militarily seems to be overstating things. Regardless of the size, I just haven't heard anything about their ability to get their forces anywhere outside their borders.
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.
I'm surprised there has been no mention of asteroid threat. It's pretty much a given that it's just a matter of time before we face possible annhilation from an asteroid. If the current Administration wants to spend big on a space program why not jump start technology presently suggested as a means to meet with the threat of a killer asteroid? Are asteroid/comet threats considered to be outside of NASA's bailiwick?
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
Let's face it: China's successful launch of a man into orbit and ambitions to go to the moon have caused a stir among the current Administration. In this administration, most budgetary increases are going towards military or security applications, thus it was inevitable that NASA be asked to perform dual-use or even exclusively military research and development projects. Between the threat of China potentially capitalizing lunar/martian resources before we do and the need to win the elction, NASA got a kick in the pants to show that America is still able to explore space. While I thoroughly disagree with how the funding is being handled (cutting homeland security's budget in half and giving it to NASA would be a start), it is clear that the future of NASA is a dual mission.
First, NASA is to become more of a publicity tool whose true merits are sidelined by the need for good press. We've already seen this in the failure of NASA management to save Columbia by having it dock with the ISS until another shuttle could launch and with the failure of NASA management to prevent the Challenger launch to gain reputability with then-president Reagan. Perhaps the whole show should be run by engineers and the head of NASA made a 20-year Congressional appointment as a way to solve the problem. If nothing else, the shuttle should be either overhauled or replaced outright over the next 20 years as it was never able to live up to its original promises anyway.
Second, NASA will be the place for the military to test new high-altitude and orbital equipment. Air Force personnel are already working on a shuttle capable of deploying teams of people anywhere in the world inside of 12 hours while the "Star Wars" project or an equivalent will be deployed against potential threats from nations possessing limited quantities of intercontinental ballistic missiles. Other exotic military technologies and observation/communication equipment will be deployed using NASA to get around the existing military treaties or just to replace outmoded technology.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
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.
10 years. Maybe. And they have 5 times the population to draw from.
They have stolen or bought as much modern tech as they could get their paws on, and are very much competitors. Both in space economically.
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,
I've seen a few articles mention plans to build solar-cell production factories on the moon, lay out a few square miles and beam the power back to Earth orbit via microwave, then relay down to the surface...
Seems this is about new energy sources.
The WOT was about wresting control of dwindling oil reserves (check 'Peak Oil' on google)
First Afghanistan to get access to central Asia reserves, then Iraq to start things off in the MidEast (Syria looks like a follow-up)
There is an energy crisis coming, and we can't avoid it with biodiesel, solar/wind/hydro or reducing usage. The population density & rate of increase of our species is only sustainable because we've tapped stored bio-energy in the form of oil. Super-concentrated plant energy...
What happens when it runs out?
Yes, I know about switching to shale oil, coal, etc etc etc. Won't last 5 years at our current rate of consumption.
And China? They want to industrialize too.
Once that country picks up the pace, we'll see a face-off just like you'd see at a drying-up watering hole in Africa, two packs of lions fighting to the death over a 2-foot puddle of mud.
The US is clueing into the fact that if we get off this rock in the next 10-15, there's a chance to sustain our rate-of-growth. Simple as that.
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.
Of course this won't happen, which to me boggles the mind, as the boon to the economy and the world would be tremendous.
www.enthea.org
"We don't hear much about China's space program because they're ~20 years behind us"
This maybe the case, but,
1. Can you remember the moment when Japan stopped building nasty horrible automobiles and started producing some of the worlds finest?
2. It's been 30 years since any of you boys went to the moon, so, by your calculation, they're already well capable of getting there on their own
I've never shoed a horse, but I once told a donkey to piss off!
with all this hot air, someone would think that an election was on its way.
*sigh*
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...
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.
whats 2000 times worse than a monkey!?
a human
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.
...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.