Slashdot Mirror
The Fight Over NASA's Future
swestcott writes "The New York Times has an interesting article about the transition to the Obama administration and NASA's transition to the new Orion."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
NASA will last exactly as long as the American people are willing to keep spending money that we don't have and adding to the U.S. national debt. Coincidentally; that is also the exact lifespan of medicare/social security without income limits, the Iraq military budget, the government bailout packages, and the budgets of a wide variety of unnecessary pork projects.
Sadly, NASA is a drop in the bucket compared to most of this other stuff and is doing important research, but it is still money spent that we just don't have. And if we don't get the deficit under control soon, the U.S. government is probably going to be looking at bankruptcy somewhere around 2020. And if that happens, it's going to make this current financial crisis look like a sunday school picnic (we're talking Germany in the early 1920's bad).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Quit whining about budgets and work on cutting edge projects?
HELLOOOO
Why do you think they are not? Simple because their budget isn't there. They can't pie in the sky because they aren't getting money. They don't generate enough votes.
Politicians look for votes. Our money buys them votes. As such they will put the money to where it gets the most votes for the least investment. NASA is a large investment for a small return, 10 billion spent at NASA doesn't cover nearly as many votes as 10 billion on a new bridge or entitlement program. I am quite sure they have lots of CE projects on file, they just know they will not even get a hearing because the politicians are more concerned about feeding the greed of America's new looter class because that class keeps them in power.
Science and Math will become a priority when they generate votes. Just like your child's education, when those kids can vote then education will become a priority, they don't worry about the parents because every parent thinks their school is fine - its just those other schools. Hence education gets dumbed down, kids don't learn, instead of wanting to become a scientist they want to play ball and space sits out there waiting for a nation driven by pride and hard work will be the one to exploit it.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
i worked for a government agency in partnership with NASA, and unfortunately we were told last year that our budget was stagnant for 3 years in a row and wasn't going up (possibly down).
it is pretty ridiculous to keep budgets stagnant or to lower them and then expect the same output or better. inflation, hardware price increases (we used a lot of legacy systems that were very expensive), annual raises (believe me, not much), and everything else make up the shoestring budget that we were running off of. i don't understand all of the NASA budget cuts. it is an investment into science and our future. and a lot more goes on under NASA than just rockets and spaceships.
If you want to die in a fire, then I suggest you go do so.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
Where did he say the ends justifies the means?
I think you're making the assumption that everyone here is against the means used in this situation. Spending money on a mega highway in Alaska is the true definition of pork. Government spending on far reaching projects that otherwise wouldn't be immediately profitable for the business sector is perfectly fine, in my book. Don't assume that just because you think this is pork, everyone else is going to agree with you.
Actually, we have no freaking clue what killed the dinosaurs. But even if it was a meteorite/asteroid (as you smugly imply), it would still be a LOT smarter to pump our money into digging tunnels here on earth (where we at least have large existing supplies of oxygen, water, geothermal heat, and survivable atmospheric pressure) than pumping it into a pipe-dream of surviving the MUCH more hostile environs of any other reachable planetary body. Even after a large asteroid hit, I'd still rather be on Earth than anywhere else in the solar system.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Even after a large asteroid hit
Why do we have to take the hit if we have a workable space program? I'd rather deflect the damn thing than start digging tunnels while meekly accepting the fact that the vast majority of the human race and biosphere would die off.
The space program is pretty cheap if you look at it that way.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I disagree. A large portion of US Government owned patents come from NASA. These patents are then licensed out, or auctioned off in exchange for money. Give them funding to create money for themselves and US. It's only a liability if you refuse to utilize it as an asset. Where the other things you mentioned are pork, funding NASA can easily reap economic benefits if the administration in charge would choose to use it like they did back in the 1960's.
The whole Orion program was basically just a re-do of Saturn/Apollo anyway.
Columbus' journey was basically just a re-do of Leif Ericson's anyway. The ISS was basically just a re-do of MIR.
Free Martian Whores!
How many people in the USA lack food and shelter because of circumstances beyond their control, and how many of them lack food and shelter as a direct result of their own choices?
Is it right to take resources from productive people in order to allow other people to survive the consequences of their bad decisions?
Okay, sure. There are approximately 6 billion people in the world, all with their own particular values and opinions. You could surely collapse some values of certain swathes of people into a group of norms, but we're still talking at least hundreds of thousands of viewpoints, if not millions (depends on how specifically you try to categorize said opinions). Just looking at their books and various other writings, I can easily assume that they did not take into consideration hundreds of thousands of viewpoints. Therefor, they did not take into consideration all of the variables involved in reality.
I do not have to get more specific than that. They may have focused on the most prevalent viewpoints, but to say they considered every last aspect of humanity's individuality and its' effects on the average social viewpoints is patently absurd. The problem is, since everybody is different, the interplay between the individual and the social norm is subtle. The best way to describe the reality of society is to liken it to determining the weather. Chaos theory, perhaps, describes it best.
In essence, Marx and Locke focused on abstracts. The problem is reality has so many specific instantiations of unforseeable behavior that their economic models tend to break down the moment you put them into play with large groups of people. These models then need "fixes" applied, like patches, over time. It's not to say that Locke or Marx were idiots; they were quite intelligent men, regardless of your opinion on their socio-economic models. But to say the abstract models they specified will work flawlessly in society is foolishness. Every model currently in play in the world is an example of that. They were adopted with the purest of intentions, but patch after patch was overlaid upon them to rectify some perceived flaw in some specific case. Then you get American Capitalism, British Capitalism, German Socialism, Vietnamese Communism, Chinese Communism, etc, etc. They're all examples of how these models broke down upon entering society. In an ideal world, no one would want to modify the models at all, and then Locke or Marx's utopia would flourish and everyone would be dancing in the street as they basked in the fruits of their perceived "right way to live" socio-economic model.
But it has never happened and it never will happen, and therein is the entire point I was trying to make.
That's a nice little bald assertion you've got there. Were you planning to affix any content to that... or were you hoping it would stand on its own?
That's a nice little attack on his post you've got there. Were you planning to affix any content to that... or were you hoping it would stand on its own?
You can be lazy on calling people out on their ineffective arguments, but not many people will care if you don't provide any evidence to oppose such a post. And no, I don't care either way to comment on the topic, I'm just suggesting that your posts are as constructive to the conversation as this one is.
It depends a lot on where the money needs to be spent. There have been a lot of advancements in technology (especially computers) since the 60s, so I imagine that pretty much the entire control system would have to be replaced. Plus it's a larger rocket and a larger capsule which will require new design rules and testing. And it's hard to imagine that the price to actually build and operate the thing, once designed, has dropped a lot. The raw materials are still the same and the fuel is governed by physics more than by brilliance of design. (Given that it's bigger and has more people, costs have probably risen.)
Simply knowing the aerodynamics of rockets might not be that much of a savings. Or it might be; I can't say without better information than I think any of us here has.
You sound about as ignorant as all those stupid beauty pagent bimbos who only want "world peace". Live isn't fair, nor will it ever be. If we devoted all of our resourced trying to accomplish such a hopeless goal we would never progress at all. Where would we be if instead of spending resources to build societies infrustructure we instead decided to spend all of out money feeding the poor? Think before you speak you ignorant fuck.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
Actually, we have no freaking clue what killed the dinosaurs. But even if it was a meteorite/asteroid (as you smugly imply),
Given the evidence, the odds point to it almost certainly being an asteroid that did the deed. The crater at the same time, the iridium deposits, etc, all support the theory. Can we say that it was an asteroid without a shadow of a doubt? No, there is a slight possibility it was something different, but we're a hell of a long way from having "no clue" as to what did it. That's the same backwards ass thinking that throws up evolution as "just a theory" every time it's brought up.
As to the rest of your post, as another poster pointed out, a space program is far more useful in deflecting asteroids than in evacuating the whole planet. Something as simple as parking a satellite next to the incoming body for long enough (talking a span of years/decades here) can gravitationally perturb it enough to move it off of a collision course.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Why is it urgent to fly into space, just leave it a while and do it later.
I suspect what you call the "aggregator" is the guy who provided the capital for the enterprise in question. Capital that provided the programmer the computer to program on. Capital that provided the fry cook a grill to cook on. Capital that provided the cash register that the cashier uses.
The "aggregator" had to acquire this capital at some point -- by working for it. Does he deserve a share of the profit? Absolutely.
Okay, sure. There are approximately 6 billion people in the world, all with their own particular values and opinions. You could surely collapse some values of certain swathes of people into a group of norms, but we're still talking at least hundreds of thousands of viewpoints, if not millions (depends on how specifically you try to categorize said opinions). Just looking at their books and various other writings, I can easily assume that they did not take into consideration hundreds of thousands of viewpoints. Therefor, they did not take into consideration all of the variables involved in reality.
Please note that the viewpoints of the irrational need not reflect reality. That Euclid did not discuss the feelings of triangles should not count against him. I will acknowledge that most people have not considered all viewpoints, but am not sure what your point is. We were originally talking about economics, and you've somehow drifted off to social studies.
In essence, Marx and Locke focused on abstracts. The problem is reality has so many specific instantiations of unforseeable behavior that their economic models tend to break down the moment you put them into play with large groups of people.
I will not defend Marx, with whom I completely disagree, nor even Locke, who founded natural rights in the Divine. With respect to your argument, though, I can respond.
The reason your argument bears no relation to mine - essentially, you are talking past me - is that you measure a model's success by its results. This is quite common today. Most people take the pragmatic approach of supporting any and all actions that get the most convenient, immediate, positive results to them, without regard for the means involved, or for the long-term consequences of such actions. You are right to say that in such a viewpoint as has been widely accepted (by yourself included), it is impossible to construct a model that will succeed. There are indeed too many variables.
For me, however, the ends do not justify the means. The means are everything. Thus the appeal of my argument is in its support for individual rights, not necessarily in the outcome. However I do think the outcome would be beneficial to the producer and consumer in the long run, although certainly not universally true. But the goal is not to help everyone all the time - such is merely the goal of central planning, to which I am opposed. The goal is freedom to pursue your values without force from or directed toward others.
I can't believe this recycled 1950's tripe gets modded up. It's not even worthy of a further response until you can think of a reason WHY somebody would want to place their nuclear arsenal two days away on the moon.
How does space exploration have "no obvious returns"? The return is the ability to travel into space. Just because something is not profitable doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile.
This is why corporate space exploration will never be any good.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Actually, I was always discussing sociology. I was discussing economic models and their implementation in reality. You cannot have a reality involving humans without social studies being integral. I guess you missed that part of my previous statement (way up there, when I mentioned "reality"). That was (in my opinion) the important part of my statement. I fear you may have focused on the rest and not on that one part. A communication error, perhaps.
I definitely see what you're saying and I can respect it. However, idealism rarely gets us anywhere. Invariably, ones ideals clash with another's. Then it's a question of struggle.
I, personally, try to avoid ideals, especially fanatic devotion to any ideal. I've seen where zealotry leads, and I have no desire to be there.
I guess my main problem with your position is that you seem to ignore that a large portion of the people feel that social programs (those things you don't feel governments should be in charge of) are important aspects of government. Is not government supposed to reflect the will of the majority of the people? Have they not used their most valued right (the right to vote) to make their voice and opinions heard? Have they not collectively decided that government's role should be expanded beyond protecting interstate commerce and defense?
I'm only surmising here, but I imagine your response would be "their right to define the government they desire is fine, as long as it falls within the boundaries of the constitution, which protects the rights of the minority from the majority". If so, my response to that would be "fair enough, but do you really want to force the issue? If it came down to allowing a federal government with social services, possibly in contradiction of the constitution, or amending the constitution, which do you think will really end up happening?"
I'm only speculating here, but people in our society have gotten used to social programs on some level or another. I cannot imagine an amendment to the constitution allowing the federal government to participate in social programs.
(I apologize if that wasn't going to be your response; feel free to correct me :D)
I'm just taking a guess, but like many homeless, this guy is probably mentally ill and/or alcoholic. Simply finding a job for this guy isn't going to fix anything - he probably can't hold a job for long. This guy is sick - not able to work - thus disabled. What he really needs is some mental help / medical care to help him become able to hold a job. A little food and shelter should probably go along with that.
Further, people talk about spending money on "space" like we take the dollars, stuff 'em in a rocket, and shoot it off. Those dollars are spent here, on earth, and create jobs and opportunities for lots of people. Not to mention the spinoffs we get as a byproduct.
We can either just give money away (welfare), or spend it to create jobs and knowledge. I prefer the later.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
I never said they weren't, in fact I never mentioned those uses. But Important != necessary. Columbus managed to cross the Atlantic without it. The Egyptians built fairly accurate pyramids without it. Kids today are just soft.
That's an interesting line of logic you are using. I suppose we don't need electricity either?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
And if it didn't exist, they'd use another.
And that source would be...what, exactly? Other sources are either less accurate, more expensive, or both. GPS availability directly impacts not just what is possible but what is practical. You seem to believe practicality has nothing to do with an end product, that the mere possibility of it rules all. Let's hope you're not a product engineer.
I never said they weren't, in fact I never mentioned those uses. But Important != necessary. Columbus managed to cross the Atlantic without it. The Egyptians built fairly accurate pyramids without it. Kids today are just soft.
Columbus crossed the ocean without it -- and took months to do so, didn't know where he was when he got here, and risked death merely by voyaging in the first place. The Egyptians built their pyramids with great mathematics and an inexhaustible supply of brutal slave labor. Are you suggesting that we should regress to a less "soft" period where death is more commonplace and grinding slavery is a means to achieve great monuments to dead pharaohs?
Of course not, and I never said otherwise. But cable TV has been around a long time, and it's not that long ago that the satellite links had to be booked in advance and were very expensive, hence they were only used for really special events. That's if they worked at all. In other words, satellites are not a necessary prerequiste for cable TV as Mr Soon-to-be-homeless stated. For some of the content, obviously yes, but that's a different issue. You might as well say that the internet won't function without a camera, because you need one to make pr0n.
Again you confuse possible with practical. There are thousands -- perhaps millions -- of ideas out there that are possible but not practical. They will never reach fruition unless some breakthrough in practicality comes to fruition first. The space program has led the way on many such innovations that have made our everyday lives -- computers, cell phones, batteries, lightweight materials, etc. -- richer, and it's done it by dint of making things practical moreso that making them possible in the first place.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Yeah, it's not like there have been any major advances in computer-aided design or modeling since then. And materials research has been at a STANDSTILL.
And don't even get me started on the sorry state of the slide-rule industry...
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
We managed to find $25 billion to fund bailing out a moribund auto industry. It seems to me putting that money into a forward-looking industry rather than a backwards-looking one would have been a much more worthwhile use of the money.
A common logical fallacy -- "We wasted $x on A, so it's okay to waste $y < $x on B.". I am not in favor of the government bail outs. So far as I'm concerned GM should just spin off Corvette to Honda (the only GM car people actually dream about owning) and let the rest of the company die. But at least people actually get some utility out of cars -- they drive them every day. Nobody drives to the moon and we already know what's there -- a big dead rock. The actual scientific work is done far more cheaply with unmanned probes.
By the way, "we" didn't find $25 billion for the car company bailout. Every cent of every bail out is being borrowed.
How is sending people to the moon or Mars a worthwhile activity? Sci fi fantasies about settling Mars and what not are just ridiculous. Antarctica is infinitely more hospitable to human settlement than any other planet or moon in the solar system, yet nobody considers it sensible to build cities in Antarctica. As for technological spin offs, it would be far more efficient to invest the money directly in developing the spin offs rather than waste 90% of it going to Mars.
Bailouts should NEVER be just gifts of cash (as recently done). A quid-pro-quo should always be demanded. A space program as a bailout is not good (it should be done for itself), but it's far superior to a cash handout.
Similarly, the bailout of the finance sector should have resulted in massive government ownership and control of the sector. It should have then sold those things off as quickly as the market would bear, but a cash handout was extremely bad. It follows an extremely bad precedent and maintains it. The lesson is "It's ok to gamble recklessly with other peoples money. If you lose, someone else will pay."
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I was referring to recorded human history as being insignificantly short compared to geological timescales. Asteroid impacts are fairly common on the geological scale, the Arizona impact being only about 50,000 years ago. Asteroid Apophis, which is due to make a very close approach in 2029 and again in 2036, below the level of geosynchronous satellites, would not require much of a nudge to send it crashing to Earth, and it is definitely of the dinosaur killer size, being over 300m in diameter.
I'm not saying there aren't other things to worry about for the future, but we shouldn't neglect an important area of exploration and discovery because you are more likely to need another stop-gap solution for alternative fuels than a viable defense against world-changing, life-ending impacts. You are more likely to be killed in a car accident than be struck by lightning, but that doesn't make it safe to sit under a tall tree during a thunderstorm.
Ignorance is Bliss -- And the Opposite is True -- Genius is Madness
What would worry me here is NASA's history. The Apollo 1 fire. Challenger. Columbia. The common thread in all of them is NASA engineers saying "We have a problem, we need to stop and fix it.", and NASA management going "It's OK, we haven't had a problem yet.". So when I hear NASA engineers saying "This isn't going to work.", and NASA management going "Everything's going to work, we just need to fix a few little things.", I start wondering what reason I have to believe things aren't going to work out just like the last few times.
NASA engineers are really good at solving problems. NASA management is very bad at acknowledging they have a problem that the engineers need to solve.