Slashdot Mirror
NASA Turns 50
phobos13013 writes "Fifty years ago yesterday, in 1958, President Eisenhower signed the United States Public Law 85-568, National Aeronautics and Space Act to create NASA. In the fifty years since its creation, NASA has made manned missions landing on the Moon, put a space station in orbit, launched numerous unmanned missions to the Moon, Mars, the solar system, and beyond, as well as launching reusable manned spacecraft in orbit. Some of the failures included the loss of two manned spacecraft and their crews as well as the loss of the Apollo 1 crew during a training mission. Although the future of the organization is in question, Americans, and the world, are looking forward to another fifty years of progress including a return trip to the Moon and an eventual manned mission to Mars."
50 years, and we are still stuck in low Earth orbit. 50 years, and still no cost-effective launch system.
Hmm, that might be because reality is different from science fiction. We don't have intelligent humanoid robots either or even flying cars (you'd think that one would be easy), so are those NASA's fault as well? Increase NASA's budget to more than the current fraction on one percent of the national budget and maybe we'll see some more progress
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
NASA has accomplished some truly amazing feats during the last 50 years, the pinnacle surely being the moon landing of Apollo 11
But that was 40 years ago, which is exactly what the problem is. NASA's budget has been going down ever since (as a percentage of the nation's budget) all the way from 4% to 0.7% and falling. The only way things are going to change in a dramatic way is if somebody figures out a genuine commercial interest in space exploration, which would lead to an increase in NASA's budget and more competition from private sector and from other nations.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
.. how many spacecraft have YOU put into orbit? that's right, silence.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
If you think that's a lot then I don't think you want to know how much money the US is spending on its military.
/Mikael
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
I just think it's been a self destructive downward spiral.
Cut funding for NASA, NASA stops doing amazing things, people stop caring about NASA, the peoples representative stop caring about NASA, cut more funding from NASA, rinse, repeat.
I wonder if we subtracted a great percentage of things like weather forecasting, satellite communications, planetary geology, solar technology, aerospace and commercial aviation advancements, awesome pictures of our Universe and other worlds, a growth in understanding of the Universe.... if people would start to care.
NASA was a catalyst behind so much stuff that everyone now takes for granted. They are the root of a giant science and technology tree.
The flaws and bureaucracy were always there. If NASA had funding and direction the flaws wouldn't be the biggest thing we notice.
To bad.
Or, people in this country stop acting so anti-government and commit to a space program on the scales you're talking about. Personally, I don't see commercial interests EVER besting NASA as far as milestones go. Sure, they can use the technology that national space programs develop, but no way a corporation is going to sink $100 billion into getting a man on the Mars.
Everyone keeps talking about how NASA is in danger as if Microsoft is going to take over space exploration. NASA hasn't hit the same scale of milestones as the moon shot, but I've been impressed with what they've been getting done. Now, I want to see more but we live in a country full of intellectually disinterested American Idol fans.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
*raises glass*
to the next 50 years
They get their NOAA remote-sensing licence?
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
NASA's problem; The @$#%#^%* space shuttle Gee. they said space travel sure is expensive! what can we do? Hey, let's build a re-usable space ship! We can operate it like an airliner and launch it every two weeks! (cough!) It will be cheap and economical! (cough!) We can get rid of all our expendable launchers! (cough!) And it will be safe, we can even take school teachers up for rides! (CHOKE!) Inefficient, bad compromise between a cargo ship and crew launcher, Inherent design flaws that make it vulnerable to catastrophic failure, huge operating costs that make it more expensive to launch than a saturn V, and has completely put an end to all manned exploration. Sorry, dicking around in orbit doing science experiments is NOT exploration! I will be glad to see them sitting in museums.
I'm tired of this "but there are poor people!" argument. We could dump every spare cent in the budget into welfare programs, and you'll still have poor people.
If you want to look at it this way, a space program is a jobs program. It's not like all the money spent on it is thrown away in space, or burned in a giant pit... that money all goes into the economy. It pays all the small contractors that make electronics, valves, pumps, etc.; it pays all the mechanics and technicians that build and maintain the systems; it pays all the engineers that design the spacecraft... and all those people have to live and eat somewhere. Make the program interesting, and kids will think "hey, I want a part of that", and they'll stay in school, get science and engineering degrees, and have a better future. I think that's much more beneficial than just handing out welfare checks.
We need to change the focus of the space program, too. No more of this focus solely on science; it's good and all, but it doesn't directly solve practical problems. The focus should instead be on preserving the human race--ie, developing defenses against planet-killer asteroids and spreading out over many worlds (redundant off-site backups). And you know that, if something happens (like a large asteroid coming at us), the public will be screaming "do something, save us!" And I'll just be sitting there saying "well, I told you so, but nobody listened."
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
And then there's the inconvenient truth that almost all the good science is being done by unmanned craft. Try and list scientific accomplishments that have come out of the International Space Station. With the dubious exception of crystal growth, most of them have to do with acclimatizing humans to space, or bringing some simple plant or insect to LEO to see what happens. Basically no interesting science has happened except with the robot explorations.
Finally, there's the canceling in 2006 of the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) due to "competing priorities." This to me is the final proof that Moon+Mars is killing space science. My conclusion: Either we should actually separately fund Moon+Mars or we should kill it and re-allocate the money to unmanned projects (like the Mars Rovers & DSCOVR) that are doing actual science.
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
Sure, they can use the technology that national space programs develop, but no way a corporation is going to sink $100 billion into getting a man on the Mars.
Even if a corporation was willing to spend that much money... there's no way it would happen. Almost everyone (politicians, executives, shareholders, and the general public) is pretty much incapable of long-term thinking. Hell, most companies don't even seem to think beyond this quarter, much less this year--just look at all the dumb decisions that boost quarterly profits at the expense of long-term ones. Something like the space program could have an enormous benefit twenty or thirty years down the road... but nobody's willing to invest the cash required if they have to wait that long for their return.
That's why, despite my general leanings toward less government involvement and private industry, I believe governments (ie, not just the US) need to commit to long-term heavy space funding. The potential benefits, like survival of the species, efficient technology that can help reduce environmental impact, space-based power transmission to remote areas, better satellite navigation, asteroid impact avoidance, etc. are benefits to everyone; and while private industry may have a role, only a government has the necessary funds and the longevity to run something like this.
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
...and 35 years of wasting my money.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
50 years of aeronautics research on a steadily declining budget:
http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/technical_excellence.htm
Just $750 million in aerospace funding for FY2007; perhaps it is time to split the ``NA'' from the ``SA'' and give the aeronautics directorate the freedom to pursue its own budget and agenda outside the bondoogle that is the US space programme.
In other words, just turn the clock back those 50 years...
The stench first appeared at 6.23am Houston time. The source is still unknown.
Whoever smelt it, dealt it.
IMHO, your HO is an idiot.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire