Slashdot Mirror
Obama's Impending NASA Decisions
eldavojohn writes "From delaying Project Constellation to an additional $2 billion in funding, Space.com looks at some immediate decisions the President Elect will have to make once he takes office in January. The biggest one will be the shuttle plan: do we retire the shuttle fleet or keep it on for more missions? If it is retired, we would have to rely on another country to bring our astronauts into space between 2010 and 2015 as a new fleet is built. Will Obama hold true on his $2 billion pledge to NASA?"
I hope Obama holds up to his $2 billion offer. I know there are other problems facing the USA but space exploration is not something we should ever stop.
we are flat broke. Kill the shuttle already.
...and one which is related to, but transcends, politics, is:
How can any grand initiative that takes longer than eight -- or four -- years to implement ever again be achieved?
NASA decisions are a very small part of the issue. The question should be, will the new president choose to continue deficit spending at a time when tax revenues will be shrinking and the number of national debt dollars exceeds the number of stars in the known universe?
Let us not become the evil that we deplore.
I expect him to be as keep his NASA pledge as much as he kept his stance against telecom immunity and his pledge not to exceed public financing limits.
In other words, not at all.
He's a politician. I've never known a politician to follow through with their campaign promises.
How can we not not retire it? The shuttles are a huge money drain on NASA. If they were out of service NASA would have extra money to spend on more interesting things like developing better propulsion systems and better launch vehicles. Or better yet, let's let some of these budding space companies compete for building launch vehicles.
Is any of this really up to Obama? Isn't it Congress that decides where money is spent? Pretty sure that I took Civics in 8th grade and the Executive branch doesn't control all the cash. Unless Bush has changed all that in the last 8 years?
I think Obama will give NASA the $2 billion. It's a stimulus to the economy, something it badly needs. Now, I know that 90% of slashdot is libertarian, but Keynesian economics says that you do deficit spending in a recession. You both decrease taxes and increase spending, since the gov't can act as a employer of last resort (when everyone else is firing). There's no question that there's great waste when 10% of the population is unemployed (if that high unemploymentcomes to pass). You'll have millions of people not doing anything for the economy, just sitting at home and draining the government's social spending with nothing to show for it. The only way to quickly reduce that number is by government spending. No other way. He may even reverse Bush's decision to go to the Moon and instead go to Mars first. If he wants Florida in the bag in 2012, he probably will also extend the Shuttle for a couple years.
(Of course, the national debt will eventually overwhelm the tax base unless the flip-side of Keynesian economics is also followed: increase taxes and decrease spending during boom cycles.)
Our whole space program needs a general rethink. We have two big programs, flight to the Moon and Mars, that were started by Bush without a lot of thought, we have the ISS which is ready for experiments that we do not have money to fly - such as Samuel Ting's very interesting cosmic anti-matter detector, and we are canceling ready-to-go missions such as the SIM planet finder to pay for new stuff that is frankly never likely to happen.
We do not have a coherent space program, and so we are wasting much of our money. Fixing this will not be easy, but it is very urgent in my opinion.
We're looking to outsource!
"We're considering continuing to use a vehicle that has a failure rate of 1-2% per flight?"
Just a reminder, the NASA space shuttle program is one of the most successful long term space programs ever. Remember - this IS rocket science. Seriously, look up some of the other space programs and you'll see some spectacular failures with nowhere near as many successes over the span of decades. The space shuttle program is an enormous success.
Yes, and the management of it has been a classic example of how Not To Do It.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Because our diplomatic relations with Russia have generally been getting worse. Many of their officials are hard-liners from the cold war era.
Developers: We can use your help.
In the cold war NASA was bankrupting Russia and expressing USA's technical superiority... NASA's goals are much less interesting to many now - exploration, learning, and inspiring interest in understanding science and the unknown.
I love NASA and think it should be funded, but I'm a nerd... The cold war version of NASA was a lot easier for an entire nation to rally around and love.
Overclockers
The expected Apollo loss rate was 1 in 25, or 4%. The Soyuz loss rate has been 2 out of 100, or 2%.
Having said that, the Russians are very sensible in running basically the same spacecraft for decades. Once you get the bugs out, spacecraft (like any engineering) is a lot more reliable, and the Soyuz has had 90 successful missions in a row. (I am counting success here as the crew survived - obviously, not all of these missions did everything they were supposed to do.)
Take all that money and put it into robotic missions and space telescopes.
If a telescope needs work that only people can do, put some people on a rocket and have them work on it.
For all the money they want to piss away on a Mars mission, I'd send 100 robots.
for the money on the ISS, I'd put it into space telescopes or even one on the far side of the moon with lunar satellites for data transmission.
People in space has been and always will be a dumb idea. fun and glorious and all that crap, but still, vastly more expensive for less data.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Why not fund them in parallel and just scale the shuttle missions back?
We can achieve all of the above with a sort of Compromise. I mean most of us can chew gum and walk at the same time. There is no guarantee that anything better will be made, the Shuttle was originally supposed to be cheap but by the time everything got into place and so on, we ended up with what we have at 10 times the original expected cost to operate. Even NASA's planned replacement isn't nearly as cost effective or capable as originally intended, and that is if they can get the bugs worked out. Last I heard, there were some serious bugs that made the entire project's justification questionable.
Not really on topic, but there is a shuttle launch that is scheduled for tonight at 7:55pm EST, weather permitting. It should be especially neat because it is a night time launch. I live in north Florida and if the sky is clear enough, it's an awesome sight to see! I hate to think of the possibility that my generation could see the end of the space program, while my parents' generation saw the start of it. Make sure to check out some of the amazing picture of the shuttle at night: http://images.google.com/images?sa=N&tab=ni&q=night%20time%20shuttle%20launch
Lets see he is going to give 95% of Americans a tax break.
Keep spending under control.
Try and provide socialized medicine.
Continue to vote to bailout private organizations. Well only those that he feels should be bailed out.
What's 2 Billion dollars for NASA? Given the 1.7 TRILLION in Entitlement programs that the U.S.A currently has. Anyone want to take a bet that Entitlements will go up next year also? How about the debt?
Given the above situation I am sure he shouldn't have any issues getting an extra few Billion for a space program.
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
Is the United States currently in a position to fund scientific research? Shouldn't we concentrate on putting the country back on its feet now, and leave space flight for another generation?
Bruce Perens.
I really don't think Iran is going to risk total annihilation to lob a nuke at Europe.
Israel, maybe, but certainly not with a nuke.
I suspect the leadership in Iran, though certainly cruel, is not crazy enough to risk their nice little isolated theocracy being totally annihilated. If they ever get a nuke, it will sit quietly in a bunker somewhere, to be used as collateral for treaties and negotiations, just like how North Korea is doing with theirs.
It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
"It's hard to imagine for me that there are people out there who are not inspired by NASA's endeavors."
I'm incredibly inspired by NASA's current Mars exploration, discoveries coming out of the Hubble, etc. Can you imagine putting together a system that can fly to Mars, land on the surface, and drive around for years collecting data without ever getting to touch the thing after launch? Anything that works that brilliantly first try is awesome. Definitely inspiring.
The guys sucking up most of the budget while struggling to keep their toilet running in low Earth orbit? Not so much.
...just like their options for performing aggressive actions is subsequently limited knowing that any escalation of things to nuke status will lead to their assured destruction.
It all balances out. Hasn't Pakistan had nukes for years? Yet Kashmir looks pretty much like it always has, right?
Iran getting a nuke is NOT going to be the end of the world.
It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
I hope somebody at NASA starts pushing for nuclear powered rockets based on Gaseous Core Nuclear Reactors. In a gaseous core reactor or "nuclear lightbulb" a cloud of gaseous uranium would be confined in the center of a sealed quartz bulb, by a buffer gas swirled around the inside of the bulb. The uranium gas heats up to 25,000C, emitting intense ultraviolet. Pure quartz is 100% permeable to UV, which passes through and heats a stream of liquid hydrogen flowing past the outside of the bulb. The superheated hydrogen expands and exits through a rocket nozzle to provide thrust. Keeping the nuclear fuel from touching anything overcomes the temperature limitation of solid fuel reactors, which can only be taken to about 3,500C without melting. They're also safe; completely destroying a GCNR in the atmosphere would release less than 1% of the nuclides from a single 1950 A-bomb test.
Here's an interesting hypothetical design for a 100% reusable, non-polluting GCNR-powered rocket using the Saturn-V form factor, which could life 1000 tons of payload into Earth orbit and return an equal size cargo to a fully powered landing. This rocket could launch a space hotel in a one shot or carry lavishly equipped missions to the moon or Mars, with dozens of crew and plenty of radiation shielding. True Buck Rogers style spaceships that take off and land vertically again and again.
Sending only robots into space, and within a generation you'll have no space program at all. Without kids being interested in science in general, all science will whither (and not just space science)...
Not to mention of course the whole idea of redundant environments in case the earth has a real issue.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The bailout was not to make those rich few richer, it was to make the economy recover, but when you ask what they are spending it on the banks will not say. Who says the banks are not hiding this $700 billion windfall in the closet already? I think they are.
I guess I'll take exception to calling astronauts the "annointed elite". Read through the biographies of the current crop of astronauts, and you'll see a pretty broad demographic of military officers, researchers, doctors, and even a teacher. Almost all came from a middle class background and got where they are through hard work.
The astronaut selection process is completely merit based, albeit extremely selective (since there's way more applicants than openings).
I'd be interested in what your propose NASA do to put "normal citizens" into space. Right now NASA and a couple of other government agencies are SpaceX's main funding source, and SpaceX probably has the best chance of coming up with a private ride to orbit for normal (albeit rather rich) citizens to go to space based on this work.
Worst...sig...ever!
As a fiscal conservative, I'd prefer less aggregate government spending because it is an inefficient way to accomplish the ends it is put to. However, given the spending spree the government is on, I find NASA far less objectionable than writing checks to citizens, bailouts, or WPAish "dig a ditch. now fill it in." economic "stimulus" plans. At least spend our money on something that might one day help us.
I agree. Bailing out deadbeats and loan sharks is a poor investment of our great-grandchildren's money (for they're the ones who will actually be paying for all this debt).
On the other hand, space research and development that requires huge capital expenditures is an excellent investment that will someday bring us a much larger economy and more prosperity for all. An active moon mining operation that is sending home tritium and other valuable substances would pay for itself in a few years, as would orbital low-grav biotech and nanotech manufacturing facilities.
Ultimately, over the next 50-100 years, the nations that go into space will be the major superpowers while those that remain on Earth will stagnate, much as the Spanish, British, and French became the dominant nations during the colonial era.
Obama has not demonstrated a keen interest in science so far, except for wanting to rescind Bush's restrictions on stem cell research. That's a good first step, but seeing as how it doesn't cost any money it's merely a symbolic one.
Obama, it should be noted, wanted to cut the space program to pay for his socialized preschool scheme. That plan was removed from his website during the campaign, probably because an advisor told him the space program is important.
I have little faith in the Democrats in general wanting to explore outer space. It seems as if they are so focused on social spending that space is a distant little blip on their radar. Oh, sure, there's a few thousand aerospace jobs out there that it would be nice to keep in this country rather than outsourced to China and India, but I wouldn't bet a lot on job security in the aerospace field right now.
Maybe we could instigate a letter writing campaign to convince our representatives and senators that the space program particularly benefits the poor and needy and people "of color", and they'll up the priorities a bit.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
Isn't SpaceX close to launching astronauts into space with their Falcon 9 and Dragon? This sounds like a big opportunity for private space industry to fill this need.
What we COULD do is dump the manned missions until we, as a society, evolve far beyond our primitive level of technology. Send machines, many machines, which would be both cost effective and expendable. The rush to send meat into space was understandable during the Cold War, but is not wise today.
Actually, the way to bring down the cost of sending humans into space is to simply do it. After the research has been done and the ships have been built, the cost of actually launching humans into space is relatively trivial.
Sitting back and waiting for the technology to magically appear is tantamount to giving up on developing said technology. Ancillary tech such as smaller and faster computers may come along anyway, but putting it all together requires a lot more integrative technology and hands on expertise.
And, take note that if we, the U.S., give up on manned flight as too expensive, there are other nations out there that will definitely continue. Do we want to settle for renting a 3rd class berth on Chinese and Russian ships for the next 50 years, after we pretty much pioneered the way?
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
There hasn't been a Soyuz-related fatality since 1971, and the vehicle has undergone 3 major design revisions since then.
I would argue that it's unfair to include the early Soyuz launches (or Apollo 1 for that matter), considering that the problems which caused the failures were entirely eliminated, and the vehicle proved to be extremely robust afterward.
The same can be said (to a lesser extent) for the Challenger, but not Columbia, as the tiles remain extremely vulnerable.
There have been 2 Soyuz launch failures since 1971, both in which the entire crew survived thanks to the launch-abort system. (One blew up on the pad, and the other had a stage-separation failure that caused the craft to invert before the LES activated)
In its current design, the Soyuz is probably the inherently safest and most reliable spacecraft in existence.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose