Slashdot Mirror
New NASA Budget Woes
Abcd1234 writes "The last few months have seen NASA the focal point of high drama, the most obvious example being the controversy surrounding the next Hubble Space Telescope servicing mission. Well, the drama continues with NASA reporting to a Senate subcommitee that it currently faces a $2 billion budget shortfall which could result in the downsizing, delaying, or outright cancellation of a number of NASA missions, including the Space Interferometry Mission and Terrestrial Planet Finder, which may be delayed, and the James Webb Space Telescope, often cited as the successor to the HST, which faces potential cancellation. Among the reasons for the shortfall: cost overruns in a number of missions, including the shuttle return-to-flight program, resumption of the Hubble servicing mission, and mandated congressional expenditures (a.k.a 'pork')."
Say what you want about Dan Quayle he at least had
a really solid plan for space exploration.
And although he had his problems ( a few, ok more than a few,this post is
about the message not the messenger:) this was the only espoused program that
would have really had a chance to "get us off this rock". He at one
point even talked about the "conversion" of 1/2 of the military budget to the
space program (who would do that now?) we need to take this
seriously, it sucks being at the bottom of a gravity
well..
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
NASA is in a budget crunch. They are going to NOT service the Hubble because its' successor (James Webb) will be up in 4-5 years. But wait, mysteriously, NASA is in a budget crunch and will kill James Webb due to budget priorities.
Or We will send enough troops to beat the Flintstone army, but not enough to keep Bedrock safe and orderly untill we can install a new government in Bedrock.
Duh!
Honest question: Why does the US have NASA? The US Army, Arforce and Navy all have their own space programs, so what is the point of NASA?
Oh well, what the hell...
NASA should hire some of those legendary Russian engineers who kept the Russian space program alive on a shoestring budget, using inelegant but practical solutions like kerosene rocket fuel. They should also hire the entire winning X-prize team. Mothball the shuttle program, focus less on manned space missions, increase R&D co-operation with private companies. Figuring a way to get payload into orbit cheaply should be the main mission.
When you need to give:
$700,000 for the Admiral Theater in Bremerton, Washington, despite a $4.2 million privately-funded facelift
$500,000 for the Olympic Tree Program for the 2002 Winter Olympics.
$1,250,000 for Aleutian Pribilof church repairs.
$750,000 for the Ketchikan Wood Technology Center.
$400,000 for a parking lot and pedestrian safety access in Talkeetna (population 300).
$2,500,000 for marijuana eradication.
-----
Priorities, priorities. You know?
What's the point in spending any money on a public space program when you've got a far far more advanced secret black space program?
http://www.disclosureproject.org/
In this light the budget cuts are not only sensible and necessary but go nowhere near far enough. NASA is more or less just a low tech show front diversion to keep eyes off where the real action's at. What a waste of tax payers money. Bring some of the secret program into the light and we can get on with expanding the colonisation of Mars or whatever the next step is from where we're really at right now.
Ah, secrecy - don't ya just love it?
Bullshit!
Not profitable? You must be kidding. How about the airline industry? Other than some clouds and air, what's in the sky? Takes like 90 min for the shuttle to go around Earth right? NYC to LA in an hour? Maybe expensive, but then again, look at the things bought by people with a TON of money.
What you are saying, is we should only do stuff we know is profitable right? Ask any major company to comment on that question. OBVIOUSLY we would rather just fund stuff we know will have a high ROI. Picking those things is exactly the difference between success and failure. EDUCATED decision must be made. I'll bet on space travel rather than your argument.
So, you're saying a prediction from the past of how people will react, is more accurate than how people are reacting right now?
I'm astonished that this is your source for your point "The majority of Iraqi's and arabs in general hate us even more than before..."
Silly me, I've been reading their words and watching their actions.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Yes I am, while not wanting to appear flippant, I noted Stonehenge as an example of making a people in the image of an icon or wonder. I'm suggesting we build, and even overbuild, not because it's economically feasible but because it will meld the efforts of several nations in a symbol that transcends political differences. The spinoffs from developing and implementing new and bleeding edge technology are manifold and not always apparent. What I'm suggesting verges on a technological totemism and, as such, may seem bathotic, but I think we are subject to a very primitive brain barely overridden by the executive center of the cortex, and likely to respond very positively to making the ISS a la the Tower of Bable. When has space exploration been an economically driven enterprise? There is probably no similar project in all of history that didn't pork feed contractors.
One of the biggest blunders to come from the baby boomer generation was the demonization of nuclear power and it was extended to the Orion project. It may be that a transnational enterprise would manage to escape the hysteria surrounding nuclear powered spacecraft giving support to Project Prometheus. (It's not uninteresting as an aside that James Lovelock, formulator of the famed, Gaia hypothesis now advocates development of nuclear power because were out of time to search out alternatives in the face of depletion and pollution of oil.)
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
30,000 years from now when humanity has turned this planet or something like it into one big computer and information storage system containing all the feelings, thoughts, and ideas of our decendants... I'm sure the only values left will be the values attributed to individuals or systems of individuals and their personalities.
That's probably a little farfetched to accept right off, so I'll divulge a simpler scenario. Once we have general purpose machinery and robotics capable of replication and production without human effort or interaction... market values will find obsolescence. Throughout invention we've been creating things that make living as a human require less and less effort. I think it's safe to assume that we will one day create a world that surpasses the need for further human effort.
From then on all effort will be toward artificial needs that would be classifiable more as luxury. There will no longer be a world where any question of "how much" will have any bearing on the comfort of a person's life unless that person wishes to enter into some sort of market system dealing in goods and services that can only be classified as extraneous to human need.
I'm talking about perfect, easy, stale, endless, pointless utopia. It's a good thing we've got apocalyptic religions to tell us the world won't last that long.
Direct away from face when opening.
Correlation != causation, and a high correlation doesn't change that. It's just as likely that very poor countries, which are less likely to be a democracies (democracies require an educated, preferably not-starving population), breed terrorists due to increased civil unrest. Choosing to blow the crap out of them just leads to more civil unrest and increased poverty, meaning *more* terrorism, not less. Worse, you galvanize them against a single enemy. Sure sounds like a winning strategy to me. Or not.
So cynical. If *some people* had universal replicators everyone else would force them out of their hands or die trying. Either way you lose all classes.
Suppose, worst case scenario, that someone had general purpose machinery and used it to dominate everyone else. Only three things could come out of that:
1) Revolution. Oppressed peoples rising up (and in this case they truly are oppressed since the person keeping the universal replicator doesn't have much right to keep it since it, by definition, is worth more than the effort and energy put into making it (John Galt would seem to disagree, but his only stipulation for getting free power was that you abide by the same moral standard as he did)) and overthrowing whoever is holding this power from them.
2) Complete suppression. Everyone would have to be held back to the point where they no longer were able rise up, probably through selective breeding, thus effectively robbing them of their humanity. The only humans left would be those in charge. (god being the supreme fascist)
3) Give it up. Either out of fear of revolution or distaste of suppression.
If it's option 2 and the power dynamic is maintained you're going to end up with the Dilbertian division where part of the human race becomes simian again and the other part advances. It's a bit fascist, but like it or not it would lead to a utopia. (if you're thinking dystopia you're in the same group of people as Hermione (Harry Potter reference) trying to save house elves from their oppression whether they like it or not. go join PETA or something.)
Direct away from face when opening.