NASA Cancels Missions After All

jd writes "Barely a day after NASA chief Dr. Griffen swore blind that projects might be frozen but not cancelled due to the new priorities and budget constraints, news comes of a new asteroid mission that has been cancelled due to the new priorities and budget constraints - something Dr. Griffin did not mention in his earlier comments. The visit to two asteroids, short about $90 million, was completely abandoned according to NASA, with no possibility of revival. In consequence, smaller missions are reportedly feeling at much greater risk."

Comments

Relax, We're still going to the moon, right?

[RedHatLinux]

Probably not, because history has soon that whenever a president is in some form of political trouble, they will often trot out "visions" of American returning to space with such regularity you would think they were smoking Peyeote, but they are shelved once the crisis passes or a new president takes over.

Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right?

[MindStalker]

Well the Shuttles were a bad idea.. And attempt to look new and modern, while trying to meet cold war requirements. If you've looked up the info on the upcoming replacement its very cost effective and well thought out.

Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right?

[diagonalfish]

The shuttles were a great idea, when they were made. Nowadays they're gigantic, dangerous, unwieldy things with ancient technology. We need to stop wasting money trying to fix them and just abandon the whole thing, working on this replacement instead.

Or come up with some other neat, small, and cheaper things like Stardust. Now that was cool.

Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right?

[MindStalker]

Actually no, a good bit of the shuttle design went to the airforce requirement that it be able to pluck soviet satallies out of orbit then do a quick landing onto a runway strip. This requirement was never actually used (atleat according to all records public today) and ended up costing us unimagined amounts of money in the long run. Most accounts state that the shuttle would have had a completly different design otherwise.

Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right?

[Stoutlimb]

They probably never used that feature when they realized the Soviets like to booby trap their satellites with explosives.

Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right?

[fimbulvetr]

Maybe the pioneer anomolies? How about cosmic ray research (See newest Scientific America)? How about maybe some research into living somewhere besides earth? I mean, we really are some unimaginable fraction of the universe (or even galaxy!) right now - it'd be nice to see something more. They are, after all, a SPACE agency. Space is a lot friggen more than just mars. Space is absurdely huge. Absurdely. It's difficult for you and I to imagine Pluto's distance, much less the Oort cloud's.

The New Horizons probe is hitting an astonishing 21m/s now - 25 or so when it's past jupiter. Maybe they could stive for a bit more than a 4m/s gain? Maybe they could spend some money to show how safe nuclear power is instead of dealing with the bullshit anti-rng protesters? How about spending a little less money with Lockheed Martin, and a little more with creative engineers at @ Scaled Composites? Maybe, just maybe, they could quit bitching about their mediocere 3% budget expansion, and hire engineers with 5% more intelligence/ingenuity - instead of the average people they have now - or - get this - hire more people and make the average performers at nasa *gasp* take a pay cut.

I like the idea that they're farming out advanced research with prizes to the best ideas, but that's only the beginning. There are a lot of people that don't have PHDs that know a lot more than some of their current employees*. Once our current plutacray erodes, maybe they'll actually give a piss about what's out there instead of how much money they give LM, or Boeing.

*Note: I just said some.

Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

The space station will be outdated years before its even built.

You dont know what you're talking about. The space station is outdated compared to what? How can you say it's outdated if there is no other new space station with which to compare it. The fact is that space programs must use components that have a track record of stability. For instance, in 1995, would it have made sense to load Windows 95 and its fabulous new plug and play technology onto the shuttle's computers? Obviously no, that software was crap. Space programs are by design somewhat "outdated" but, it's not like you are are flying around in a fancy new 2006 space station that is better.

Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right?

[Nowhere.Men]

Don't know for soviet ones but the shuttle has bring back to earth a few things. One was a satellite to test the effects of space environment to different materials. It was supposed to stay in orbit for 6 month, stayed there 2 years.

Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right?

[tacocat]

Actually the Space Shuttle was a damn good idea and the concept is still a damn good idea. If it sucked so bad then why are people still considering a reusable delivery system today?

Nay Sayer!!!

It's still a good idea, just like the 286 intel chip was. But they need to opportunity to go next generation on the project and build a new series. In the future I think it would make more sense if NASA only built two and then started a redesign.

Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right?

[Sponge Bath]

Foam insulation my ass.

Hey, what ever floats your butt.

"Space shuttle, I just can't quit you."

Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right?

[drooling-dog]

Sounds like you're into this more for the SF-inspired adventure than for the science. Results from COBE and WMAP have pretty much revolutionized our understanding of the Universe just in the last few years, for example. Data returned from planetary probes has been absolutely spectacular. IMHO, it would have been a tragedy to have allocated those funds to more manned space flight instead.

Space is absurdely huge. Absurdely. It's difficult for you and I to imagine Pluto's distance, much less the Oort cloud's.

Which is why it makes no sense (technological or economic) for people to go there. Besides, Pluto is nothing. Right now we can observe gamma ray bursts billions of light years away, from when the Universe was only a tenth of its current age, and use that information to learn very fundamental things. How exciting is that? I highly doubt that there will ever be human interstellar travel, but if there is it will only be because we've learned some very exotic new astrophysics that provides us with a cosmic "shortcut" of some kind.

The New Horizons probe is hitting an astonishing 21m/s now - 25 or so when it's past jupiter. Maybe they could stive for a bit more than a 4m/s gain?

This was never supposed to be a speed trial, was it? The acceleration is due to the gravitational effects of shooting past Jupiter, not any special technology aboard the craft. You'd have to change the laws of physics to increase it by much, even if that were a goal.

Maybe they could spend some money to show how safe nuclear power is instead of dealing with the bullshit anti-rng protesters?

Those experiments have already been done, by the former USSR at Chernobyl and by the US at Three Mile Island. But I agree with you that more nuclear power is probably inevitable. If we actually do the research and spend the money to make it safe, you can thank those bullshit protesters.

How about spending a little less money with Lockheed Martin, and a little more with creative engineers at @ Scaled Composites?

That'll happen when Scaled Composites starts matching the Big Boys in corruption and political patronage (just wait a decade or so). Much of the motivation in shifting NASA from science to manned exploration is exactly what you suggest.

Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right?

[ScrappyLaptop]

Actually, your CPU analogy is a very apt one. The 80286 was a terrible, terrible chip; most were used merely as a very fast 8088. Sure, it offered protected mode and with it the ability to address 16MB of memory, but since Intel assumed no one would ever want to use real mode once they tried protected, they included no way to leave protected mode! The workaround was to instruct the system (the keyboard controller actually) to do a reboot! And that 16MB of memory? If you went a byte past the top address, you wrapped back around to the bottom! No flat memory space either; instead you had to use a very clunky addressing scheme. The only thing I can say good about the 80286 is that once Intel realized that they had gone down the wrong path, they released the chip that they should have (and perhaps the one that you really meant), the 80386.

To all the naysayers.

[MindStalker]

I constantly hear people saying one or both of two things.
1. NASA shouldn't be shooting for the Moon and Mars because it takes away from the smaller missions.
2. NASA should take a lesson from the private industry on how to get to space cheap.

But isn't this exactly what government is great at. Shouldering HUGE projects that no private industry in its right mind would spend money on... Ultimatly to progress science or humanity in general. No private industry is going to beat NASA to Mars. So let them have the small missions, hell once they really get their feet under them we can even contract out the smaller missions to them. But the really big stuff like getting people to Mars is only going to get done my NASA. And sure maybe we could hold back and wait for technology to progress a bit more, but we would still be stuck in Europe if that was the case.

Re:To all the naysayers.

[ToasterofDOOM]

The one reason that government's can sometimes do things better or first is because they don't have to make a profit. Onced something is profitablt the private industries generally do something better, and one day NASA might just be a small research group that only concerns itself with the bleeding edge, unlike today when everything in space can be seen as bleeding edge.

Re:To all the naysayers.

[mrpeebles]

You are clearly not mormon...

Re:To all the naysayers.

[colmore]

The problem with having private industry do the smaller missions is that NASA's smaller missions are (in general) the good ones - less about publicity and symbolism and more about real and useful scientific research. Private industry tends to not publish its research in journals and will hold its findings in secret or, worse, in patent.

The primary thing to be gained by travel to space is intellectual property, which is why, until IP law gets the enormous overhaul it will need to properly balance return on investment and the good of the market as a whole, the privitization of space is a great big red flag for me.

Imagine if the Hubble images had been available only with a giant fee, and a license that more or less prevented further open academic research, the way that published findings from (for just one instance) the pharmaceutical industry do.

No, I'm a big believer in free interprize, but IP law is so fsck'd up at the moment, that sadly, I have to say I want to see as much research in the clumsy and innefficient hands of the government, if it means it will at least remain public domain.

Re:You have to pay for the Iraq war

[dsheeks]

How much of the US GDP goes to health care vs. the military? Eliminate cigarettes and alcohol and you end up with a heck of a lot of money not being spent that could be used for any number of better things.

Space Exploration

[Wayne_Knight]

Merely sending people up in to space isn't exploration. We've sent probes to many of the planets (Mars in paticular), and there are plans to a new space observatory. Considering the costs associated with space, I think the U.S. is doing just fine. Hell, I like to wonder, where is everyone else?

Oh, and for you anti-NASA freaks, I'd like to provide you with a link to a history of NASA's budget. It calculates to about $3 per taxpayer per year. Compare that to the military budget, which is about 500 times higher.

Re:Space Exploration

[ScrewMaster]

No, the question is if. As in, "we can go to the stars, if we remain a high-technology civilization long enough to do it." I'm not convinced that we're going to be able to do that. We're making a lot of fundamental mistakes right now, mistakes with very long-term consequences.

Re:Space Exploration

[Waffle Iron]

It calculates to about $3 per taxpayer per year.

That chart shows the current budget at $16B. Assuming that there are around ~250 million actual taxpayers in this country, that comes out to $64 per taxpayer per year.

Re:Space Exploration

[John Miles]

Lets compare charges for space exploration vs. defense as found in the constitution that grants powers to the federal government.

That argument is simply insane. You are talking about the same Federal Government that funded the Louisiana Purchase. The US government was spending large portions of its budget exploring and acquiring new territories before most of the current Armed Forces branches even existed.

Somebody needs to go through a bunch of these "B..b..but the Constitution says nothing about space exploration" posts with the -1,Troll stick. I don't know where this thinking is coming from, but it has no historical basis.

Re:Space Exploration

[ScrewMaster]

Yes, I was thinking of something else.

However, to answer your question: Iran is a sovereign nation and while some people would like us to simply "put a stop" to their plans, at least as many people would be very upset with us if we did. Iran claims their nuclear technology is for peaceful use. Iraq claimed it had no weapons of mass destruction ... we didn't believe that and invaded anyway and now everyone hates us for it. So what's a mother to do? If we exercise our economic and military might to deal with "rogue" nations we get accused of being imperialists and warmongers, and if we don't we're accused of being a. complicit or b. irresponsible and uncaring. Odd that no-one else seems to want to role of global cop ... certainly the U.N. hasn't been very effective in limiting the proliferation of atomic weapons. Either way, blame for all the world's ills keeps getting laid at our feet. Should we occupy Iran? North Korea? Are we responsible for every goddamn dictator and/or religious fanatic that comes to power, anywhere, anytime? Get real. It's too bad nobody remembers all the bad things that Russia and China (to name just two) have done in the past half century, or for that matter all the good things the U.S. has accomplished in spite of our economic "imperialism". Isn't selective memory a wonderful thing?

However. I wasn't referring to America's utility as a superpower and global cop. What I am talking about are things such as the damage done to our educational system, the patent and copyright systems, and other issues whose immediate impact doesn't appear too serious but will undoubtedly have negative consequences for decades to come. Technic civilization is one of humanity's more fragile inventions, and it really won't take much to break it. I hope that doesn't happen: I would really like us to become a starfaring race, or at least become capable of effectively exploiting the Solar System's resources. None of that will happen if we send ourselves back to the Stone Age, or simply become incapable of major technological advancement.

Climate of budget tightening

[amightywind]

This is a difficult situation because the mission has a lot of merit. But it was over budget and had technical problems. Something had to go in a climate of budget tightening. Most people on this forum will rail at this decision. They should blame the aimlessness of NASA's manned space program since Apollo, and credit NASA administrator Michael Griffin for doing something about it.

Re:Climate of budget tightening

[SpaceViolin]

To hear complaints of "cost overruns" for this mission, knowing well the role that the upper NASA management played in adding to those costs is grating on the ear, I must say. I suggest to read these links for details of the Dawn mission from Mark Sykes, the director of the Planetary Science Institute, writing to the House Science Committee Chair on Friday: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19838 and his interview with the Planetary Society: http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00000475/ As for technical problems, yes there were things that were critical to address, but the Dawn Independent Assessment Team, who gave their report to NASA in late January, stated that the Dawn mission was no different in their mission development from any other successful space mission in their late stage of development and they gave a recommendation to finish the project and launch. Another example of the misinformation of the Dawn problems are the much-talked about xenon tanks, which were, in fact, tested at twice their designed conditions when they failed, and on the day of the cancellation, NASA had a letter from the project (at JPL) stating that all xenon tank problems were solved. Please remember that all Dawn instruments were built and more than halfway through the spacecraft integration at the time of the cancellation, so the Dawn spacecraft was ~95% constructed. And not only dollars were spent, but significant amount of euros too, because two of the three Dawn instruments were European, instruments paid for by NASA's international partners: the German Aerospace Agency and Italian Space Agency.

Re:You have to pay for the Iraq war

[MindStalker]

Believe it or not that 5 billion is not being spent on killing people. Rebuilding and effectivly running a country is expensive. Look at it this way the current national budget is 2 trillion I believe, thats 40 billion per state. Iraq has a population of 26 million (for comparison texas has a population of 20 million, california has 33 million). So that 5 billion a month = 60 a year. Yes a bit more expensive than the average state, but you have to subtract the prewar level of spending on those troops. We really should be collecting income tax from these people.... :)

Re:You have to pay for the Iraq war

[east coast]

Eliminate cigarettes and alcohol and you end up with a heck of a lot of money not being spent that could be used for any number of better things.

Such as law enforcement?

Get this very clear: ANYTIME you ban a substance or object you will ALWAYS create a blackmarket for said substance or object. Why do you think kids are killing each other on the streets today? Video games? No, it's drugs... a blackmarket that is ripe for the kind of thugs who can play the game... Do you recall prohibition at all?

Currently smokes and alcohol are a windfall for the US government considering the level of taxation as well.

But whatever, ban them, let's go back to bath tub gin (which probably caused more health problems in speak easies than what factory made alcohol causes in today's society.)

Damn...

[n0dalus]

I guess that means no Space Jackets for us :(

A Clear Vision

[Dr. Sorenson]

It would be nice if there were a clear vision with set objectives for the space program. It would be nice to have some set time tables for a lunar colony or a mission to Mars. Right now there doesn't seem to be a plan for NASA other than satellite maintainence and some miscellaneous probes/rovers.

Re:Shut yo mouth!!!

[mfago]

Technology should move at the speed of profitability, not humanity's best interest.

And this is exactly why there are no more antibiotics on the horizon -- much more profit in Viagra.

Sorry, government should (IMHO) take charge in those areas where something is in humanity's best interest, but is not yet profitable. Once things are profitable, the gov't can get out of the way. Private industry is too focused on short-term profit to care much about anything else.

Government projects

[Z34107]

The one reason that government's can sometimes do things better or first is because they don't have to make a profit

The government doesn't have to make a profit; somebody else does. Doing things "first" comes at the expense of the entire country, and "better" is always debatable.

Colbert Report

[wass]

You ever watch the Colbert Report? It's a hysterical political 'commentary' show following the Daily Show on Comedy Central, featuring Stephen Colbert basically pretending to be a Bill O'Reilly-esque self-centered "America'loving, liberal hating" host, while being obviously sarcastic, snarky, and pretty funny.

Anyway, he had Peggy Noonan on his show a few weeks ago, who was a speechwriter for Bush and Reagan, amonst other republicans. She was mentioning how during Bush's 2004 campaign she took a leave from her job at Wall St. Journal to work for Bush's re-election. Colbert immediately responds with "Which of Bush's many achievements made that worthwhile?" And she couldn't say anything but just smirk. She didn't even attempt any talking point of one thing Bush did, it was pretty awesome seeing her pretty uncomfortable she was in even trying to list something positive Bush achieved.

Re:You have to pay for the Iraq war

[drooling-dog]

Absolutely. And you can throw in people who eat unhealthy diets, people who don't get enough exercise, and people who engage in accident-prone recreational activities, as well...

Re:Shut yo mouth!!!

[mofomojo]

Government FOR THE PEOPLE, by the people.

Not, government FOR THE PROFIT, by the people. You have a corruption of American values, good sir.

JPL

[jacks smirking reven]

Anyone else agree that if any section of NASA should be getting more money it's the JPL. Much of the increased interest in space and the last few really excellent displays of space technology (Rovers, Cassini, Deep Space 1) while the shuttle division languished in time. JIMO, one of the most fascnating and ambitious missions has had its budget sliced as well. I say we go with the most science for the buck and unmanned is the best way to get that outside of our own orbit at this point.

Re:JPL

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked at JPL this summer and you're absolutly right.

JPL is special in that it is run by the California Institute of Technology for NASA. JPL employees are employees of Cal-Tech, not the federal government.

JPL is much more focused and efficient then any other NASA center, and it shows. It's also the only place in the US where a space mission can go from concept, to detailed design, to fabrication, launch from KSC, and then operations are at JPL as well. End-to-end inside the JPL fenceline.

Re:JPL

[glitchvern]

The problem is that over the last 15 years while Nasa's budget has remained relatively constant in inflation adjusted dollars we have given science more of the budget, increasing from 24% to 32% of Nasa's total budget. This extra funding for science has come from the human spaceflight budget and now we don't have enough in the human spaceflight budget for return to flight. Add in hurricane Katrina which severely damaged several shuttle facilities, our commitment to other nations to complete ISS, and the costs of developing a new vehicle and human spaceflight has to take back some of it's budget from science.

Re:JPL

[iamlucky13]

When the time came up to decide whether or not to give JIMO money to actually develop and build the mission beyond the concept phase, NASA shied away from it. They decided it relied too heavily on technology that is still under development like ion propulsion. Yes, both NASA and ESA have built and tested ion propelled spacecraft (like DS1), but the duration of those missions was something like 12 months each, as opposed to years, and the mass involved was fraction of JIMO's. A failure would mean the loss of a multi-billion dollar mission. I believe equally as important in the JIMO decision, was the projection that the amount of science return from it compared to mission cost would be significantly lower than other proposed missions. So JIMO isn't going to happen, but Griffin and JPL are still extremely interested in a mission to Europa in the next decade.

You may already know this, but work is moving ahead on the Mars Science Laboratory, the nuclear-powered follow on for the Mars Rovers to be launched in 2009. It looks like this one is really going to happen. And we all know about Stardust returning a bountiful harvest, as well as New Horizons currently well on its way to Pluto and beyond. NASA is also considering additional relatively low-cost missions based on the New Horizons hardware.

Re:You have to pay for the Iraq war

[p2sam]

That, or eliminate taxes on tobacco and alcohol. Pick one.

What?? More important stuff?

[Siffy]

They're not going to the asteroids cause there's more important stuff to do? They need to go blow those things up. Good going NASA. We're all going to die now.

Terrestrial Planet Finder Missions

[Bombula]

Like everyone else here, I understand the dichotomy between missions for scientific benefit and missions for inspiring mankind. Occassionally there is some crossover, but it is less common than we'd like. So when scientific missions like this asteroid one get cancelled in favor of inspiring missions like putting men on the Moon and Mars, it is easy to cry 'political agenda'. I'm not even sure htat's fair, but there it is.

But it's the missions that DO have good crossover that seem to me like they should be prioritized. And the best example I can think of are the missions to put up huge space telescopes to find a second Earth. Finding another Earth would be hugley inspiring, and as far as I understand it these scopes would be fantastic scientific instruments as well.

Am I the only one who was particularly sad to see these missions delayed?

time to do instead of look

[pocopoco]

The science missions were rapidly becoming useless anyway. Search for life my ass, they should have been exploring how exploitable the mineral resources were.

It's time to dump the stupid navel gazing telescopes and put some money into actually doing things in space instead of just looking at them.

If you always just claim people are too expensive to send, you aren't going to develop very good engineering and technologies to send people. I'm glad we've broken out of this loop and will actually being doing something worthwhile in space again.

Re:time to do instead of look

[Tablizer]

You seem to be implying that manned missions are better preparation for eventual asteroid and moon mining. I disagree. Life support is very expensive. Remote-controlled reports with good sensors would probably make better space miners. Perfecting remote-controlled robots would go further toward the mining goal.

Re:This is what I can say...

[bogaboga]

> If you think the United States economy looks like that of the third world, I invite you to leave the coma of your comfort and visit a third world country.

Let me tell you something:

When all the money being spent or a substantial amount of money to be spent MUST be borrowed from foreign governments/institutions, that looks like the third world. It has nothing to do with size at all. And that is the USA.

China, Russia, Japan and the EU now help us with our balance of payments. That's a [sad] fact. It was even speculated that China could punish us just by being stubborn by refusing to cooperate. This is exactly what the USA used to do to the 3rd world countries that it used to support financially. This time, the countries I mention above could do the same to us.

Now that sounds like the 3rd world. Do not let the skyscrappers and highways fool you. This country is sinking in debt and mismanagement. The bad thing is that it will get worse before it gets any better.

Re:Shut yo mouth!!!

[Siffy]

But at least he/she understands capitalism. Where money is more important than even human life.

You'll eliminate cig & alcohol tax in the proc

[MacDork]

How much of the US GDP goes to health care vs. the military?

You've got Google, use it. According to the budget explorer roughly 644 billion for health and human services and 475 billion for the DOD. And NASA? 15 billion. The Executive office of the President gets about 25 billion BTW.

Eliminate cigarettes and alcohol and you end up with a heck of a lot of money not being spent that could be used for any number of better things.

Well isn't that just a load of off topic flamebait. Yet here at Slashdot, that's what mods call Insightful!

Well, allow me to retort with a few "insightful" comments of my own. I smoke and drink and I say, go right ahead slick... You also eliminate cigarette and alcohol taxes. Oops! Forgot about that, didn't ya sport? So, your "money saved" is already being spent. Here's a better idea... Why don't we institute a fat ass tax on fast food and junk food. Then we can go for a diabeties tax on colas with caffeine... You know, those deadly addictive products with no warning labels. Then we can have All Kinds Of Extra Money to spend on things like space travel and research! ... No? Don't like the idea of taxing your twinkies? Well damn! I could've sworn heart disease was the number one killer in America. Pot, meet kettle.

Alright. Go ahead, mod me down you guys. I know you want to.

Re:Shut yo mouth!!!

[node 3]

Profitable ventures are by definition in humanity's best interest.

No, they are not. "By definition", they bring in more money than they cost. That does not mean they are in "humanity's best interest".

Proof: murder, robbery, and war, are all profitable, and are very much *not* in humanity's best interest.

It sounds terrible, but I am yet to hear one good reason to make antibiotics for people who can't pay.

Because sometimes it's *you* who can't pay. Ever been broke? Should you deserve to die because you got sneezed on by some unclean jerk during the short period where you didn't have enough money for medication?

If you can't keep yourself alive, you deserve to die. It's that simple.

That's nonsense. By your morals, it would be absolutely moral for someone to kill you, since it would show you are unable to "keep yourself alive", and thus "deserve to die".

What? It's OK for the government to help keep you alive with police, fire, and military? Hypocrite.

Your ideal world is the "law of the jungle". It's in the top of your list, "1. Arm Citizens". What do you think happens when a beloved family member of one of those "armed citizens" becomes deathly ill and needs medicine they can't pay for? Do you think they'll just politely die, as you think is their darwinian duty? Don't count on it.

Darwinism would suggest they take those arms and acquire what they need (or want) by force. Who are you to stop them? It's darwinism, after all.

You've got Darwin all wrong. It's not just the survival of the one with the biggest gun and the most money. It's also strength in numbers. You focus on some lazy, drug-addled, morally inept, socially obscene bum who gets free health care and cry "foul". Just like with freedom of speech, it's not there to help the undesirable elements of society, it's there to help us all. To do so, to do it right, yes, you have to protect the undesirables. But free medical care helps you, too, even if you can fully afford it on your own. Fewer people coming in to the office sick, fewer children getting sick at your school. You lessen unemployment, you lessen stress, you allow people the freedom to spend money on what they want, rather than on what they are forced to, which leads to a stronger economy and a healthier, more robust society.

It makes completely rational sense to provide the public with free access to government services, and it even makes "darwinian" sense, if you must.

Try 31 times higher.

[MacDork]

It calculates to about $3 per taxpayer per year. Compare that to the military budget, which is about 500 times higher.

That's a bit of an exaggeration... NASA's share of the federal budget is roughly 15 billion dollars. The DOD gets 475 billion. That's closer to the neighborhood of 30 times. It's worth mentioning that the executive branch gets 25 billion a year though; About the same as the legislative branch, the judicial branch, and NASA combined... Limos and jets cost more than shuttle missions apparently.

Re:earth to civvies

[Tablizer]

Newsflash! Contrary to popular rumors encouraged by government, NASA has always been a military "stealth" branch. It is, has been, and will always be, so might as well get over it. For glaring example,the entire size,design and configuration of the shuttle was dictated by military projects.

Having a say, and "dictating" are two different things. Only a small fraction of shuttle missions have been military-related. Having a few percent dictate the entire design would not be very rational.

Re:40 more million? that's it?

[Detritus]

So instead of bitching about NASA draining on economy and tax money, what about donations? Can't NASA just ask for public funding through donations from multi-billion corporations? I'm sure 40 million can be used as tax write off for them.

No. Every dollar spent by NASA must be first appropriated by Congress. If NASA sells some old hardware, or receives a donation, that money goes straight to the federal government's general fund, not to NASA.

You fell for the Bushit.

[fmaxwell]

Bush's "mission to Mars" is just his attempt to neuter NASA, long-despised by the GOP because of its ties to the Democrats (e.g., Kennedy Space Center).

He will convince people (like you) that it's okay to kill off the Shuttle, the International Space Station, probes like the one being discussed here, and unmanned planetary missions -- because we're going to Mars. Then he'll use the fiscally irresponsible federal deficit spending (that he encouraged and approved) as a reason why NASA can't have enough budget for a manned Mars mission.

Adjusted for inflation, NASA's annual budget is half of what it was in 1966. How will we put men on Mars for half of what it cost to put men on the moon?

You are an idiot.

[fmaxwell]

The science missions were rapidly becoming useless anyway. Search for life my ass, they should have been exploring how exploitable the mineral resources were.

It's time to dump the stupid navel gazing telescopes and put some money into actually doing things in space instead of just looking at them.

It's morons like you who have made the U.S. fall behind in science. You see the spectacular pictures coming back from the Hubble Space Telescope and the only wonder you are filled with is wondering if there's a way to strip-mine the galaxy. Instead of having any wonder about how life began, how the universe evolved, and whether there is life on other planets, all you care about is turning NASA into an absurdly expensive mining company.

If you don't like science, then please don't post. You are just dragging down the level of the conversation and reinforcing the global belief that Americans are ignorant, greedy, and crass.

Government needs to fund pure science,not missions

[Vellmont]

I think you're really missing a very large point about what the government is for, and what private industry is for. Private industry is really great at putting money in forseeable goals where profit can be made. It's really bad at funding basic research in areas where there's no clear profit to be made. It's also really bad at developing anything that benefits everyone as a whole, but can't be charged for. 100 years ago what corporation would have wanted to fund some patent clerk who didn't even do any experiments and just wanted to think about the nature of light? But yet now our entire view of the Universe is different, and many of the devices you use every day rely upon an understanding of relativity.

The problem (as far as a corporation is concerned) is that in science you don't always know what you're going to find out before you find it out. Weird problems in one area can lead to huge advances of knowledge in something that's completely unrelated. That's why it's best for the government to continue funding this basic research, since it's the people that're going to eventually benefit from it, or maybe never benefit from it. What corporation wants to fund experiments counting the number of Neutrinos (very weakly interacting particles that have no forseeable practical applications) that come from the sun? No corporation in their right mind is the answer. They'll never make back money invested in it. But yet that very experiment has led to big developments in the understanding of particle physics. We now know that neutrinos have mass, and oscillate between the different types of them. And even this knowledge has no practical applications of it at all. Might it someday? Maybe, then again maybe not.

Really, the big problem with a Mars mission is you're going to waste a lot of money on one big project that could produce a LOT more scientific results if used in 100 other small projects. You'll probbably gain some technology along the way, but what do we really expect to gain scientifically from a manned Mars mission? Maybe we'll find life on Mars, and learn more about planetary geology. Is that worth scrapping all the other smaller missions? I don't think so.

What worries me about the manned Mars mission is the vast majority of the money is going to go to private industry to develop technology only suited to going to Mars. That's great if you think Science is just about making the world like Star Trek, but it isn't so good if you think science is about learning things about our universe. Don't get me wrong, I think the manned missions have some importance. I just don't think that importance overshadows the science that Nasa (and really hardly anyone else) produces.

Re:Shut yo mouth!!!

[Phragmen-Lindelof]

"People pay for things that help them, and don't pay for things that harm them."
People pay for cigarettes; do cigarettes help people?

Foolish Choices

[rben]

Going to an asteroid made a lot of sense. The asteroid Amun, which is the smallest known metallic asteroid near Earth, has over a trillion dollars worth of metals. Mining it would pay back a hundred fold on the cost of developing the technology to do so. Instead, we have another pie-in-the-sky mission of going back to the Moon and on to Mars with no payback. It will just cost a fortune.

I'm all for going to the Moon and on to Mars, but I want a sustainable space program. I want to see us go out to space and develop the resources that are out there.

As has been pointed out on this thread, the Shuttle isn't the best way to do this. We need safe reliable transportation to space at a reasonable cost. I think the best answer is a space elevator. The folks over at www.liftport.com are working on actually building one -- well actually four of them. If LiftPort accomplishes it's goals, it will have four space elevators that will be able to carry a shuttle load of cargo to orbit on a WEEKLY basis. Since the elevator will extend out sixty thousand miles, it will also serve as an excellent launching platform for missions to anywhere in the inner solar system. The Earth's own momentum will supply the initial velocity needed.

Re:Shut yo mouth!!!

[node 3]

Actually, I'd argue that war is very beneficial to humanity

Too bad the point in question is whether war is in "humanity's best interest", and not whether, in spite of all the evils and horrors of war, there is also some benefit.

I'd imagine that every war there has ever been has had something good about it. That doesn't justify them as being in "humanity's best interest".

think of the huge technology increases that occured as a result of world wars I, II, and the Cold War.

And how many millions had to die in the process? So you wouldn't mind a bombing raid over your neighborhood, a nuke or two in your city, the constant fear, the daily disruptions, the hard and uncertain life, so long as your loss is my technological gain? Or is it only in "humanity's best interest" if you aren't among the dead (or, even, the inconvenienced)?

But George W. Bush said...

[solfood]

we were going to Mars. So it must be true.