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.
Need a
Another
Space
Army
Makes perfect sense. Bush loves spying.
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 .
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
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.
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
PowerPoint dumbs down another presentation
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
I for one welcome our new American overlords...oops
I meant to say I welcome American militarization of space. Only the Americans can do it, only the Americans can be trusted not to abuse the power. If it were China or Russia, I'd be much more scared because they've both shown no compunction about killing millions of their own people. I shudder to think what they would do to the rest of us.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
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.
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
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.
This kind of argument - that technology of war is being developed for our own good and protection - is always given by right-wing apoligists when they don't have anything else to fall back on.
c asDefenses.pdf, which was prepared by such war criminals as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Elliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz. While you're at it, check out the web site it comes from: http://newamericancentury.org. It will shock you into becoming a socialist!
The simple fact is that most of the world's people are quite content withouth space being militarized, and the only people who long for weapons can be divided into 2 categories:
1) The agressors, and
2) Those who feel a need to defend themselves from (1)
As recent world history has shown us, despite all the scare-mongering over 'Weapons of Mass Destruction', the real agressors come from the country that makes and sells more weapons of mass destruction than all the rest of the countries combined. And for those interested in the competitors, Israel and the UK come a distant 2nd and 3rd.
I'm not implying by this that Americans are inherintly evil or backward ( as they imply of their enemies ). The US is simply the pinnacle of the world's capitalist empire, and as such, is the most glarying obvious example of what capitalism is really about: profit at any cost.
And that's why the US targets societies with different value systems to it's own for conquering and assimilation: as examples of alternatives to capitalism, they are the biggest threat to the US goal of total global military domination. Don't think that's what the plan is? Check out http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmeri
More like people are inherently bad. More specifically, greed, and the hunger for power is what drives the already-powerful to bring down the rest of the people.
:D
If you manage to completely automate the manufacturing process, and improve renewable energies then everything should theoretically become cheaper. Throw humanity in the equation and you have 1984.
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.
Only after the last tree has been cut down,
only after the last river has been poisoned,
only after the last fish has been caught,
only then will you find that money can not be eaten.
(Cree indian proverb)
Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!
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...
I thought that this wasn't a real option simply on account of the different orbital inclination of the Columbia mission and the ISS? (I'm not sure I'm using the right terminology. I mean the angle of the orbital plane and the equator.)
The ISS orbits on a fairly large inclination. This allows craft from the Russian launch facilities to reach the station easily. Nearly all flights (other than ISS missions) from the Kennedy Space Center orbit at a shallower angle.
It is relatively easy to adjust your orbital altitude in flight, but large changes in inclination require a lot of energy. I doubt that the shuttles manuevering thrusters would have been able to perform the large adjustment of inclination.
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.
Further arguments on why abolishing limited liability is the Right Answer
In a nutshell: companies are taking too many risks in areas like biotech, handling of toxic chemicals, and consumer safely. They're using the unlimited protection afforded them by the government in ways which harm us all.
Abraham Lincoln on Corporations
"As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."
Now, does this sound familiar to you? It is modern America. Yes, we've got very used to the economic benefits of limited liability. However, the policital cost - individual voters losing control of the political process to big money is simply unacceptable.
It's time to rein in corporate power and put people back in the driver's seat.
Hexayurt - open source refugee shelter,
SIGH
So many stories that get told, all in the interest of hopeing that it is true.
As an ex-nasa engineer, I can tell you that some of what you say is true, but your political spins are way off base.
The decay started with Nixon. He is the one responsible for the shuttle. Carter was mostly handsoff but also low budgets. But, it was Carter that started much of the research that carried the 80's. It was in 1977, that DOD started a serious program about radiation abaeyence (which has usefulness to us) with the goal of a stealth aircraft. In fact, it was the main reason why the B1 was canceled by him. But it was still mostly ignoring us.
Reagan was actually worse. More money seemed to flow, but not really. It was in the support of the military, not for NASA. Yes, a number of inititives were taken, but they were not really funded. In fact, it was more political than anything. So many projects with no real increase. We lost the challenger and that was a hard hit. But a lot of that was bad management from up top. Simply more politics (which it would appear was in ivolved with the columbia than is known).
As to the 2'nd gen shuttle, well, it was dead before it started. It was mired in politics for a decade. One thing about the venturestar was that it only had 4 years.
About the only thing from Reagan that was useful was the begginning of the space station. Had we taken the low-budget approach of skylab, we would probably have several stations up there. Instead, between Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, it has become a bit of a nightmare. It now holds us back.
Bush really did not help us.
Clinton was not bad, but he changed the focus. He did cuts, but then again he was not doing that much.
Now we have a president who is aksing the agency to do more, but is really not providing funding. O'keefe has been a nightmare inside of there. Total demoralization. He has been a top down guy who if you say one bad word about the president then you will be shot. At least under Goldin, we could critize the president for being stupid at times.
What Bush says would be useful, but the politics is horrible, the funding will more likely be along the same line as "No children left behind" (none), or along the line of Iraq (oh, we will give haliburton 100 Billion to build this; No real worry if they do not do a thing).
Do we need a leader? Yes. Was it in Reagan? No way. Is it in this Bush? I am guessing that he will do it the same way that he was in military; AWOL and just doing a political stunt..