Slashdot Mirror
NASA To Push Human Spaceflight
b00le wrote to mention a New Scientist article in which NASA chief Mike Griffin says that human spaceflight should be NASA's top priority. From the article: "Griffin countered that the same loss of expertise threatened NASA's human spaceflight programme, which had served to define the US as a world 'superpower'. He said NASA lost a substantial fraction of skilled engineers during a six-year gap between the end of the Apollo programme in 1975 and the first space shuttle flight in 1981. Letting the human spaceflight programme 'atrophy' after Apollo damaged the agency for three decades, he said."
Why I personally am pleased with the idea of a continued push for manned space flight, I feel like the public support just isn't there. There just isn't the widespread public support that there was in the 60s. What we need is an evil competitor.
NINJA SPIRIT - The Ancient Art of Insanity
There is another word for it, but it is great to see more and more companies start to focus on lost knowledge. I'd like to believe that the tech industry in both programming, help desk, and other fields focus on retaining this with benefits and such but with the eweeks, etc that I read and working where I currently do, I sometimes wonder. But as an American, it makes me proud that NASA finally has an intelligent leader (one whom I hope provides a space boost not only in America but an extra boost for other existing agencies across the world).
The more I hear Griffin speak, the more I think he was the perfect choice to head up NASA. The guy knows exactly what needs to get done, isn't afraid to push what needs to be done, is able to eloquently express why it needs to be done, and yet is respectful of the role he plays in the government without becoming a political shill.
About this particular story, he's right about needing human spaceflight. Every time we decide to push back on human space flight, we further reduce the ability of science programs to do their work. New technologies that could have been developed to get science packages off the ground and into space faster and cheaper get lost because there's no push for more advanced vehicles and technology. I don't know about anyone else, but I pray for the day when science packages based on reconfigurable standard designs can be simply and inexpensively launched from a space station. (A la Star Trek probes.) The mass production would allow us to launch more probes for less, and the orbital launch would save tens of millions on each probe. Thus instead of spending 20 years preparing for a single mission, we'll be able to reduce each mission to as little as 5 years (or less!) preparation time.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Griffin defended the agency's 2007 budget proposal, announced on 6 February, at a hearing before the US House of Representatives' science committee. The $16.8 billion budget includes $5.3 billion for science in 2007 but calls for $3.1 billion in cuts to science programmes by 2010 compared to projections made in the 2006 budget request.
Despite all the sybolism associated with sending people out into space, it's just not worth cancelling so many science programs. This related story details exactly what they're planning on cutting and states that from 2008 to 2011 science spending will increase by just 1% each year (is that even enough to keep up with inflation?). Is it really that important to send people back to the moon or to Mars?
I came here for a good argument
"Touché," Griffin responded. "I'm complaining now."
And this would be invaluable in a) reviving NASA's flagging image and b) allowing the private sector to take a more active role in spaceflight. The private groups are right now trying to make their living off of space tourism and the like, but I think that's the wrong tack. Science and exploration are what drives public opinion - remember when the first pictures of Jupiter came back from the Voyager probes? Small space companies would be well to consider trying to develop non-military launch vehicles to enable scientific expeditions to be launched cheaply and efficiently, with an eye toward adopting that technology toward getting people into space. After all, space toursist will have to have someplace to go, which means space stations, which won't be built by cargo hauled in space planes, but by good old-fashioned expendable boosters.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Actually what I submitted was something entirely different: I highlighted Griiffin's comment that "NASA's human spaceflight programme ... had served to define the
US as a world 'superpower."' (As if that were what NASA is for!) I wished to
emphasise that this focus on human spaceflight was at the expense of
real science, and
quoted Louis Friedman, director of the Planetary
Society, who said: "I would almost describe it as 'anti-science NASA'
now". My point was that NASA is sacrificing substance for style - or politics
for science.
/.
editors to edit submissions, but if they're going to wholly distort my meaning
I'd rather they took my name off the story, thanks all the same.
Maybe Zonk works for NASA, or the US Government - certainly he spun the story in a way that would make Scott McLellan proud. It's one thing for
Science fiction for grown-ups...
What I find so fascinating about humans in space is that there really is *no* space for us humans.
The living conditions are horrific.
Star Trek has really lobotomized the public about what it will be like to live in space; at least for the near future.
The MIR station had over 200 organisms growing on the crystal port window.
The smell inside was like a dirty locker room full of moldy socks.
The moon is like living in an ashtray.
No showers, no proper waste disposal.
Humans slough off 3 grams of skin per day, never mind shaving your face.
Where does all that go without gravity to conveniently collect it?
Breathing that conglomerate into your lungs is very unhealthy.
Sweating is a big problem with water loss adding to the Petri dish of the living space.
The list goes on with all the health concerns and morphing changes ones body goes through.
Space is *not* as glamorous as we are lead to believe.
I hate to disagree with this sort of idea -- going back to the Moon and everything sounds like so much fun -- but this is obviously all going to go nowhere. When push comes to shove, economic realities (not to mention Congress) simply won't allow Bush's grandiose Moon-Mars plan to get off the ground, or maybe LEO at best. It's all far too expensive and Dubya knows it, but he'll be long gone by the time NASA comes asking for the really big bucks. Then it'll be the next guy's fault for shooting it down.
Oh, the government could pay for it easily if they decided to shrink military spending by something like only 10 or 15%, but you know that isn't going to happen. There are way too many terrorists out there who are just be waiting to pounce at the first sign of weakness, so we'd better not give them the impression that our new fleet of F-22 Raptor's won't be ready on time! (haw).
I say NASA should concentrate on doing more with less and stick to stuff like Mars rovers and Titan landers. Hell, really great science projects like the JIMO mission and the Terrestrial Planet Finder have been scrapped, and for what? In the end, it'll turn out to be for nothing. We'll just be left with a bunch of expensive plans that are never going to fly outside of a computer.
"If you want to learn more about the universe, go out there and personallly and look."
This has got to be about the silliest thing I've ever heard on slashdot. By building giant telescopes and machines to capture radiation from space, we ARE looking. Your insinuation that sending a person into orbit, the moon, or even mars is somehow superior to that is nuts.
"One geologist on site with comparatively primitive tools would learn more in 1 month than all of the missions all the nations on Earth have sent to Mars so far."
And getting that geologist there and back will cost so much and require so much time that for the same amount of money in less time, we could design countless landers and robots to do all his work before he even got there.
"People who believe we can do everything with science packages are the same people who believe that they can understand humans by watching "Reality TV"; they don't see that intermediation by a poor technology results in poorer results."
But not that much poorer. Certainly not enough to justify all the extra pointless expense. And "the universe" is, well, a bit bigger than our solar system IMHO.