Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

An Australian Space Agency At Last?

Posted by samzenpus on from the up-and-down-under dept.

Dante_J writes "In the Australian Federal budget presented last night, as well as big national infrastructure spending, an amount of $48.6 million over four years was allocated for an 'Australian Space Science Program.' Normally a space program is managed by a space agency. Does this now mean that Australia will follow the recommendations of the Senate Space Science report and give up its rather inadequate title of the only top-20 GDP nation not to have one? With nations like Vietnam, Bangladesh and Bulgaria forming or maintaining space agencies, this government infrastructure is obviously not limited to G-20 nations. Discussions to combine Australian and New Zealand airspace have been undertaken; should that translate to aerospace too, and both nations form an ANZAC space agency together?"

189 comments

  1. Australian Labor Governments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Have a habit of reannouncing existing spending, just with a new name.

    1. Re:Australian Labor Governments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unlike the Liberal government, which just pulls existing public spending, sells national assets to their crony mates, burns the cash on useless services and calls it "privatization".

      Hello Telstra sale. What did the public get for their money there? A short term tax cut. What did that tax cut cost us? A royal ass fucking from a now unleashed national monopoly.

      Thanks Howard, you bushy eyebrowed hobbit.

    2. Re:Australian Labor Governments by Divebus · · Score: 2, Funny

      They can reuse that chunk of Skylab and save a little money.

      --

      Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
    3. Re:Australian Labor Governments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks Howard, you bushy eyebrowed hobbit.

      That, Sir, is an insult to hobbits everywhere.

    4. Re:Australian Labor Governments by amilo100 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Uhm...

      You know that the Labour party creates massive deficits? The current labour government plans a deficit until 2016! You currently have the biggest budget deficit in your history.

      I would rather prefer a slightly bungled privatisation than that. Privatisation of state owned/sponsored telecom companies have been through history a major problem (e.g. South Africa's Telkom, split up of AT&T, etc...)

    5. Re:Australian Labor Governments by ross.w · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      2/10

      Obvious troll is obvious.

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
    6. Re:Australian Labor Governments by amilo100 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Nowhere did I intend to troll. I thought I made a valid point - in no country was telecom privatisation handled correctly. My country is only now recovering from a disastrous privatisation of the national telecom company. In many ways this is more a problem of the privatisation than of how it was done â" for a long time there will not be sufficient competition.

      But I guess the mindless bashing of the former Australian president is more warranted? WTF? The current government is creating humongous deficits until 2016. Every time I see such a deficit I almost get a heart attack â" but I guess privatising a public company is much worse than creating shitloads of debt in the public's name.

    7. Re:Australian Labor Governments by Fleeced · · Score: 1

      Hello Telstra sale. What did the public get for their money there? A short term tax cut. What did that tax cut cost us? A royal ass fucking from a now unleashed national monopoly.

      Are you kidding? We'd still be using dial-up if the telceomms industry wasn't de-regulated - and I'm sorry, but you can't de-regulate without privatising. Their big mistake was not splitting Telstra up before they privatised... though in fairness they needed a high price for it in order to retire the public debt.

    8. Re:Australian Labor Governments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the Telstra sale we got the Future Fund. Remember the Future Fund? It's to pay the retirement pensions of public servants into the next century because nobody's been putting anything towards that fund for several decades. That is if a certain cash-strapped (we gave away the $20Billion surplus the Libs made, remember) government can keep its hands off it.

    9. Re:Australian Labor Governments by Slotty · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the sale of Telstra went into funding all federal employees super annuation liability the government has on their records of course the current government got rid of that "future fund" and we still have the monopoly and nothing to show yet but the NBN might remove Telstra's monopoly more so on local data

    10. Re:Australian Labor Governments by conspirator57 · · Score: 1

      and they're down under: they can just fall off the planet rather than having to deal with all this escape velocity tripe.

      --
      "If still these truths be held to be
      Self evident."
      -Edna St. Vincent Millay
    11. Re:Australian Labor Governments by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Then maybe to do it correctly is not to do it at all. You know, you don't HAVE TO privatize everything.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    12. Re:Australian Labor Governments by amilo100 · · Score: 1

      Well, in my country with a fixed line state owned (until recently majority owned) company and private cellular companies, I would prefer private companies. The fixed line operator has 3 million people with phones.

      Yet even the poorest person have access to cell phones (30 million+). It is not just the nature of the business - it is the competition. Private cell phone companies are a lot more competitive (and thus lower prices).

    13. Re:Australian Labor Governments by eleuthero · · Score: 1
      I am not quite sure where you are getting your information that ATT was privatized. It has always been a publicly traded non-government company. It had brief status as a natural monopoly but even then there was some competition. Wikipedia on American Telephone and Telegraph is helpful here.

      Link

    14. Re:Australian Labor Governments by amilo100 · · Score: 1

      I referred to AT&T as a sponsored telcom company (I did not claim that it was government owned. AT&T may have been a private company - but it got help from the government.) Here are a few excerpts from WP:

      As a result of a combination of regulatory actions by government and actions by AT&T, the firm eventually gained what most regard as monopoly status.

      The breakup of AT&T was a screw-up.

    15. Re:Australian Labor Governments by ross.w · · Score: 1

      OK, not a troll, just misinformed. And it's hard to blame you with the FUD that's coming from Turnbull et al.

      The accepted method of getting through a financial crisis is to spend big to replace the demand that has dried up, in order to get it going again. Failing to do so results in a bigger recession (or even depression) and bigger problems. Deficit spending is a tried and true way to get your country out of recession, and every major power is doing the same.

      Unfortunately it also gives the chance for the Libs to go their usual "OMG DEFICIT BAD!!!1!" without saying what they would do in the absence of the $200B income that is no longer coming in courtesy of the mining boom ending.

      You may be sure they would be spending into deficit also. The details would be different, but the result would be the same.

      If your barn is on fire, it's stupid to worry about how much water will be in the well after you put it out.

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
    16. Re:Australian Labor Governments by amilo100 · · Score: 1

      The accepted method of getting through a financial crisis is to spend big to replace the demand that has dried up,

      Why? One of the biggest causes of the recession is that sub-prime lending bust: people loaned money to buy homes they cannot afford. Now credit has dried up: the reason for that is that too many people borrowed and too little people saved money up. So, the solution to this is that the government lend more money? Can too much borrowing by the public be fixed by the government borrowing in the public's name? Failing to do so results in a bigger recession (or even depression) and bigger problems.

      More than 50% of economists believe that FDR lengthened the depression because of the elaborate government intervention and spending.

      Deficit spending is a tried and true way to get your country out of recession,

      This all has happened somewhere before. In 1989 Japan (the second largest economy in the world) had a huge crash in the real estate market, after that the stock market got punished. Interest rates was set extremely low. The government reduced taxes and increased spending. During 1992 to 1995 the Japanese government had six huge spending plans (mostly on infrastructure). These continued for a long time after that. Look at this graph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PublicDebtTriade.PNG) â" you can see that Japan's public debt is the top one at 180% of GDP!

      Yet they have nothing to show for it â" these spending programs did not magically fix the economy. And Japanese citizens now sit with the debt of the lost decade. So, tell me again how does this fix the economy?

      If we are not sure if something will fix the economy but we know its side effects (massive debt), is it still wise to try that thing?

    17. Re:Australian Labor Governments by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Well, in my country with a fixed line state owned (until recently majority owned) company and private cellular companies, I would prefer private companies. The fixed line operator has 3 million people with phones.

      Then what was the problem? That "fixed line" company actually operates infrastructure that those cellular companies (and Internet service providers, and emergency services, and a whole bunch of other things) use for interconnectivity, and being government-operated it wasn't inclined to sabotage them or buy them all out like a privatized phone network would. You got benefits from its government-operated position even if you never paid a single cent to it directly. Government may be full of idiots and assholes, however as long as they can't put profit into their own pocket, they are not interested in destroying everyone who has a misfortune of being their competitor while depending on their services.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    18. Re:Australian Labor Governments by amilo100 · · Score: 1

      That "fixed line" company actually operates infrastructure that those cellular companies

      For a long time my country had a law that no private firm can create a telephone network. A "second" national operator (i.e. entity that has a licence to build a network) was only given in 2006. Later, in around 2007 the law was changed to allow other companies to also build their own networks.

      All cellphone companies (except the smallest one) started building their own networks extremely fast. The second national operator also started building its own network at a fast pace. The cable that gives the SNO international connectivity will be opened in June 2009 which is a big factor â" the previous government owned company had a monopoly and raped everyone.

      So, in short â" we did not benefit from that network but we were raped by it and the laws that protected it from competition.

      and Internet service providers

      The problem with Internet Service providers is this: Telkom ran its own service provider and they are forced to buy bandwidth from Telkom â" so they get raped. Telkom also ensured that no consumer gets mass access to bandwidth (by things such as 2GB caps on ADSL lines). I think that is to prevent VoIP eating away from its voice profits.

      and being government-operated it wasn't inclined to sabotage them or buy them all out like a privatized phone network would.

      The minister of public enterprises looked good when the company raked in massive profits â" therefore it was protected by the government. It is the same shit as with government airlines: they are expensive, run like shit and protected by tax payer bailouts (the only difference is that private airlines aren't declared illegal).

      however as long as they can't put profit into their own pocket,

      I don't know if you have ever heard of something called âoecadre deploymentâ. The person that is the CEO of a public enterprise is a person that is in favour with the government. It even went as far as a state oil company directly giving money to the ruling party before an election.

      they are not interested in destroying everyone who has a misfortune of being their competitor while depending on their services.

      The independent internet service providers example that I gave is an example of a state company destroying their customers who are also competition.

    19. Re:Australian Labor Governments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm also from South Africa, and you don't understand the country you live in, nor do you have the slightest grasp of economics.

      Budget deficits and surpluses are normal. The trick is getting it to balance *in the long term*. Australia is running a deficit right now because the government is spending to ensure that unemployment is reigned in and liquidity continues to flow. If they didn't, unemployment would rise and they'd have to spend on transfer payments anyway (Australia has a welfare program unlike South Africa). I'm not saying that this will work, just pointing out that no government can run a balanced budget all the time. Also, continuous surpluses are just as harmful to the national economy as continual deficits. It's not as simple as surplus = good and deficit = bad.

      The Telkom sale was bungled not because the government assed it up, but because Telkom has paid off corrupt legislators to keep the broken telecommunications legislative framework in place.

    20. Re:Australian Labor Governments by syousef · · Score: 1

      Right now I think both major parties are dirt.

      Labour spends like there's no tomorrow. Libs hoard money and sell off assets like there's no tomorrow. Neither seem able to deliver decent transport, education and health care.

      Describing the Telstra sale as a "Slightly Bungled Privatisation" is not unlike calling the sale of the family farm for can of beans a slight mismanagement of the farm mortgage.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    21. Re:Australian Labor Governments by ross.w · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Citation needed for your statistics. FDR is actually widely regarded as having fixed the depression in 1938 with his "New Deal". WHat had proplogned things up to that point was the Governments of the world sitting on their hands and doing nothing. Neville Chamberlain is on record as saying that it was just the economic cycle and his government was powerless to do anything.

      Of course then the war came, and what helps you fight a war? Deficit spending! No recession after that, everyone was busy cranking out weapons.

      After the war the post war reconstruction meant the boom continued for some time - because Governments were spending money.

      I'm not saying that a deficit budget is a sustainable position. It isn't. That is why the spending proposed is all one off stuff, designed to get money into the economy and boost demand.

      The other issue is the most of the current deficit is from the loss of revenue due to the global financial crisis. In order to maintain a surplus, the government would have to massively slash spending and cut jobs. Probably the last thing they should be doing in a recession when the Private sector is doing just that.

      The problem with the current crisis is that no one is lending money to anyone for fear they may go Chapter 11 tomorrow. That's what's causing the problem. Governments the world over are stepping in to fill the gap and provide money to keep things going.

      Australia is in a better position than most. Our projected deficit is about 4% of GDP (I think) and a lot less as a % of GDP then the USA, or the UK or Japan, none of whom had the benefit of a massive minerals boom beforehand.

      In fact the USA had a deficit before the financial crisis.

      The worst thing a government can do during a boom time is run a deficit. The worst thing they can do during a recession is run a surplus.

      Leaving markets to do their own thing and not regulating them is what got us into this mess. Alan Greenspan himself admitted as much in front of a senate committee and expressed shock at having been proved wrong.

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
    22. Re:Australian Labor Governments by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      You do realize that they can build their own network infrastructure only because existing network's owner is not actively sabotaging them, right? Look at US and its telecom infrastructure development -- once a monopolist is allowed out of its cage, it buys or bans on his network everything that has a wire sticking out of it, then charges consumers exorbitant prices for access to whatever remains.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    23. Re:Australian Labor Governments by amilo100 · · Score: 1

      Here is some [stats](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Critical_interpretations_of_New_Deal_economic_policies).

      Of course then the war came, and what helps you fight a war? Deficit spending! No recession after that, everyone was busy cranking out weapons.

      Don't you think the fact that Europe's industrial base was basically destroyed might have been a contributing factor? The USA was the only major power with no damage to its industrial base â" for most other countries it was back to square 1.

      The other issue is the most of the current deficit is from the loss of revenue due to the global financial crisis. In order to maintain a surplus, the government would have to massively slash spending and cut jobs.

      One of the major problems was that government spending increased significantly during the boom phase. Most governments now have âoestimulus spendingâ which creates increases the deficit. Don't you think that if labour laws were relaxed and more people were allowed to spend their time productively (instead of in Iraq) the economy would recover faster?

      The problem with the current crisis is that no one is lending money to anyone for fear they may go Chapter 11 tomorrow. That's what's causing the problem. Governments the world over are stepping in to fill the gap and provide money to keep things going.

      Don't you think a little consolidation is in order instead? Several companies (a good example is USA motor companies) should consolidate or fail because they are just not viable.

      Leaving markets to do their own thing and not regulating them is what got us into this mess.

      What got us into the mess was extremely low interest rates which created a massive boom (esp. in the real estate market). People got loans for cars and homes that they cannot afford. Laws in the USA such as the community reinvestment act (CRA) which forces banks to lend to low income people did not help matters along. Government sponsored entities such as freddic mac and fannie mae did not help things along.

      The government is not blameless at all in this financial crises.

      You still have not explained why massive deficit spending did not help to bring Japan out of its recession. That is the most perfect modern example of a recession after a housing boom.

      Alan Greenspan himself admitted as much in front of a senate committee and expressed shock at having been proved wrong.

      Alan Greenspan is one of the idiots that was responsible for too low interest rates that led to stupid lending (e.g. dot com crash).

    24. Re:Australian Labor Governments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can Australia go into space? Aren't they 'down under'?

    25. Re:Australian Labor Governments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, those nasty neo-liberals!

      I mean, what sort of crazy person would think that Labor privatised government assets like the Commonwealth Bank, Qantas and CSL? What sort of crazy person would think that Labor corporatised Telecom and created the current telecoms regulation as the first step towards privatisation? What sort of crazy person would think that Labor created the national electricity market and gave incentives to states to break up their vertically integrated electricity concerns?

      But of course that sort of crazy person also laughs at the hypocrisy of Kevin Rudd decrying it all and making fun of the Liberal leader's personal wealth when he himself is the wealthiest man in parliament, living off the back of his wife's fortune that was amassed on the back of so-called neo-liberal philosophies.

  2. ASP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Kangaroos in space!

    1. Re:ASP by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not for 50 million bucks you won't.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    2. Re:ASP by Joebert · · Score: 1

      Kangaroos hell, imagine Crocodile Dundee at the ISS.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    3. Re:ASP by uberjack · · Score: 1

      Considering they got electricity around 45 years ago, I'd say it's about time

    4. Re:ASP by peoplesignDave · · Score: 1

      (Bites the head off a freeze-dried Goanna) "You can live on it, but it tastes like shit."

    5. Re:ASP by SlashWombat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Apparently, Australia was the third (fifth?) country in the world to successfully launch a satellite into orbit. While this is hard to believe, apparently the launch vehicle for wresat was donated by the USA. However, it only took about 1 year to achieve this feat.

      Now, can we actually achieve less, but have the remains fall on Canberra's parliament during a full sitting ... that would do us all a favour! (As like all politicians around the world, Aussie politicians really do have their collective snouts in the public trough. If if looks like a pig, smells like a pig, and snorts like a pig, it must be a politician pig)

    6. Re:ASP by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Funny

      Russian launch vehicles have to be rotated to the correct azimuth before launch. I believe the launch pads have welded in stops which prevent them being pointed at Moscow.

      There must be a reason for that...

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    7. Re: ASP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prison inmates in space!

  3. Re:obligatory by Nasajin · · Score: 2, Funny

    Given the topic of the article, the obligatory position would be 20th post.

  4. Not enough by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Funding of $40.0 million over four years will be available for the establishment of the Australian Space Research Program, which will support space research, innovation and skills development.

    Funding of $8.6 million over four years will help establish a Space Policy Unit in the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research to coordinate Australia's national and international civil space activities, including partnerships with international space agencies.

    Umm.. yeah. $10 million a year, until the next government gets in and cancels it. That should, umm, do a lot!

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Not enough by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Funny

      The $10 million per year funds development of an advanced, lightweight carbon-fiber device, the Primitive Orbital UNit Cargo Holder, or POUCH. This device is attached to the side of US and Russian launch vehicles, and the Australians can then place tiny rockets and satellites in the POUCH to launch them into orbit. Launch vehicles are recovered using a novel mechanism. Giant steel springs are attached to the bottom of the launch vehicles; after reentering the atmosphere, the vehicles hit the ground, compressing the springs, and the energy is then dissipated as the vehicle bounces across the Australian outback using a hopping motion.

    2. Re:Not enough by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Australia's Space Agency = Ralph

      The children are right to laugh at us.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:Not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard that POUCH would also feature very good thermal insulation against extreme heat and cold.

    4. Re:Not enough by kramulous · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Given that you're a UQ follower, I would have thought you'd be for giving the cash to the scramjet (Hypersonics) lab. Those guys can make little money go a very long way. It would certainly be deserved.

      Such a shame the original dude had a stroke. His understudy shows promise though.

      --
      .
    5. Re:Not enough by daveime · · Score: 1

      Until the tiles^H^H^H^H^Hfur falls off it !

  5. Possible NZ Contribution by IntentionalStance · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I live in NZ and was about to make a disparaging comment about his little nation but instead decided to do a bit of googling and found:
    • Bill Pickering was responsible for Explorer 1 - the first US satellite
    • NZ is participating in the Square Kilometer Array
    • and there's RocketLabs

    Just a quick google so I am sure there's lot's more

    1. Re:Possible NZ Contribution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems unlikely that our current government is going to make a significant contribution to an over-seas science project, remember this is the same government who have slashed the RnD tax credits and believe that economic stimulis is for the weak. Having said that, I'm not sure if they wuld be wrong to do so. New Zealand really has very little to gain from this, if we want to put sattelites in space we can always use the U.S or europes capabilities and we can't exactly afford our own breakthroughs in this prohinitively expensive field.

    2. Re:Possible NZ Contribution by POds · · Score: 0, Troll

      I wonder if this is the start of experimenting with Sheep in space?

      --


      Giving IE users a taste of their own medicine since 2005 - http://pods.-is-a-geek.net/
    3. Re:Possible NZ Contribution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NZ is participating in the Square Kilometer Array

      Anything larger and the natives wouldn't have anywhere to stand up.

    4. Re:Possible NZ Contribution by auric_dude · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bruce Simpson with his home-made cruise missile? Looks like a contribution to me and judging from the fuss it caused http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3302763.stm http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/09/1253201 http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/09/205252 http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/29/1857212

    5. Re:Possible NZ Contribution by Maelwryth · · Score: 1

      It went a little further than that;
        President of Caltech University, Thomas Everhart said of him, "More than any other individual, Bill Pickering was responsible for America's success in exploring the planets an endeavour that demanded vision, courage, dedication, expertise and the ability to inspire two generations of scientists and engineers".
      There was a good biography for him donated to almost every NZ library by IPENZ last year called William H. Pickering: America's Deep Space Pioneer: America's Deep Space Pioneer.

      --
      I reserve the write to mangle english.
    6. Re:Possible NZ Contribution by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Notice how he had to leave New Zealand to accomplish that.

      --
      Comment of the year
    7. Re:Possible NZ Contribution by Maelwryth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Notice how he had to leave New Zealand to accomplish that."
      More telling would have been saying how he never came back. :)

      New Zealand is a very small, very young, country. Many of our best and brightest go overseas. Possibly the experience is part of what makes them our best and brightest. Furthermore, getting funding for large projects just isn't going to happen in a country of just over four million people. I think you would find that we aren't so unhappy that we lost them, we're just happy that they achieved an important role in the world.

      --
      I reserve the write to mangle english.
  6. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its Asspee.. but does it have a "L.A.S.E.R"?

  7. Re:g'day mate by arth1 · · Score: 1

    Well drag me to hell...what does an island nation, sitting well below the equator, need with a space program anyhow.

    How else are we going to get our stroon?

  8. Yeah, but - by RevWaldo · · Score: 4, Funny

    How are they gonna fire them rockets right-side up?

    --
    Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
    1. Re:Yeah, but - by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I believe the pointy end is up. Thats the normal way in any event.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    2. Re:Yeah, but - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      We just unbolt them from the ground and they fall into space.

    3. Re:Yeah, but - by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      But then they would just fall on to the back of the turtle.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    4. Re:Yeah, but - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my god, I laughed so hard I just choked on my cheese and vegemite sandwich.

    5. Re:Yeah, but - by afaik_ianal · · Score: 3, Funny

      MHOOSH!!!

    6. Re:Yeah, but - by ignavus · · Score: 4, Funny

      We just unbolt them from the ground and they fall into space.

      Well, it's well known that anything not bolted down in this country just disappears. It's been a mystery up until now. Thanks for clearing that up.

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
    7. Re:Yeah, but - by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Your 'S' is upside down.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    8. Re:Yeah, but - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, I heard that the Australian space shuttle has a screen door on it.

    9. Re:Yeah, but - by DavidApi · · Score: 1

      And our rockets will fly on the Left Hand Side!

  9. Be Serious by maz2331 · · Score: 1

    Any practical space program from scratch will cost closer to $50B than $50M.

    1. Re:Be Serious by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, to be fair, they're not talking about launch capability, they're talking about satellite development..

      But $40 million over 4 years isn't enough to make one sat and have it launched.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Be Serious by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To put it in perspective, its enough to pay 100 peoples salaries/etc over the four year period. This assumes an average of $100k salary+benefits+overhead per employee, which seems if anything an underestimate for hiring people you'd want running a space program. Put another way, a non-ground-breaking, standard satellite like the ones used for broadcasting XM/Sirius radio in the US cost closer to $300M to build.

      Not to say you can't do quite a bit with a small amount of money if applied right... theres certainly some interesting work you could do with autonomy and constellations with microsats that you might be able to do in that cost, particularly if a lot of its contracted out to universities (students are cheap labor).

      Still, I find that number awfully low, and it sounds like simply playing politics... making a small thing sound more important than it is. Or maybe its additional funding on top of other things that are already going on.

    3. Re:Be Serious by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      hehe, how do you figure? It's $10m/year.. not $40m/year.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    4. Re:Be Serious by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 1

      $100k/year/person * 100 people = $10M/year.

      Am I missing something? Over four years you have enough to pay those people for the same amount of time.

    5. Re:Be Serious by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      You're missing that it's a government agency.. they'll spend more on the director's travel budget than all the other employee's combined.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    6. Re:Be Serious by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 1

      I also didn't mention anything on facilities, furniture, computers, paperwork, power, phone, internet, etc. I was just trying to give a sense of how small that amount of funding is.

    7. Re:Be Serious by Mr.+Roadkill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I also didn't mention anything on facilities, furniture, computers, paperwork, power, phone, internet, etc. I was just trying to give a sense of how small that amount of funding is.

      That depends on how they're doing it. If they give money to universities that are already doing something in that area, desks and computers and paperwork and power and internet are already largely paid for and they can plough some of that money into getting the wacademics already there to research and build shiny toys. Plus, universities are sometimes quite good at making use of government money - look what happened at MIT and Stanford and various other places when Licklider and his successors splashed all that ARPA money around in the sixties, and the long-term good that came out of that.

    8. Re:Be Serious by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      desks and computers and paperwork and power and internet are already largely paid for
      I dunno how it works in australia but my understanding is in the UK whenever a university takes a research contract as well as the money allocated for specific things the university always adds on an ammount of "overhead" to help cover the general overheads of running the university.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  10. Re:g'day mate by InfiniteLoopCounter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well drag me to hell...what does an island nation, sitting well below the equator, need with a space program anyhow.

    Because future technology may come out of space science and astrophysics. Things like GPS and satellite communications are already here now. But to really benefit from advancements, you have to be properly in it.

    And then there's the 'prestige' of not having to send people overseas. It's a good thing that space science is getting funded in Australia along side other scientific disciplines and hospitals.

  11. It's all about satellite remote sensing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Australia is heavily involved in a number of satellite remote sensing initiatives. There is currently a push on to get international coordination on satellite sensor specs. I think this is about getting Australia a seat at that table.

  12. You don't need an agency... by gilgoomesh · · Score: 1

    The money is for a "Space Policy Unit in the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research". So they're just going to expand an existing department.

    The Australian Government has been funding or co-funding astronomy and satellite development for at least 50 years without needing a dedicated "Australian Space Agency". It doesn't look like they're changing anything here.

    1. Re:You don't need an agency... by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      umm.. it's $8.6 million for that, $40 million over 4 years for the Space Agency. Which, frankly, means paper studies and not a lot of them.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  13. Research only = FAIL by nemesisrocks · · Score: 1

    which will support space research, innovation and skills development

    Note, this doesn't include the engineering and development of engines, any sort of space-faring capability, or warp drive.

    AU$50m ain't gonna buy you a whole lot of space program.

    1. Re:Research only = FAIL by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      "Research" is generous. They'll do paper studies.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Research only = FAIL by jamesh · · Score: 2, Funny

      Note, this doesn't include the engineering and development of engines, any sort of space-faring capability, or warp drive.

      AU$50m ain't gonna buy you a whole lot of space program.

      But remember, we're Australians and we're already upside down. The sort of engineering we'll be doing is most likely 'reverse' engineering.

    3. Re:Research only = FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Really? The CSIRO also does "research only", and were the ones that developed all of the wireless technology the world now relies upon. If by "fail" you mean "world-changing technological success" then yes, I agree.

      (Of course, the corporate world tried to rip them off by not adhering to their side of the agreement with respect to patents, but that issue has been resolved in the CSIRO's favour.)

      No, we won't be launching any manned space expeditions any time soon. However, if the research is well-directed and the funds well utilised, we may yet develop some very useful technologies applicable to space science (presumably these technologies would also have spin-off uses for society at large).

      Furthermore, if this space agency does prove itself capable of producing said useful technologies, their funds will surely be boosted in the future.

      You can't go from zero to hero at the blink of an eyelid. Nobody is going to pony up $50 billion to give to a group of people who haven't proven they can do anything useful with it. That doesn't mean it should be cancelled. An initial small investment to test the waters and see how it develops is a useful strategy for developing an industry.

      Your all or nothing approach is ridiculous when applied to the field of research. If all research grants were at the mercy of people who thought like you, the abacus would still be the most powerful computer in the world.

    4. Re:Research only = FAIL by daveime · · Score: 1

      Nobody is going to pony up $50 billion to give to a group of people who haven't proven they can do anything useful with it

      Obama gave considerably more to the banks I believe.

  14. Spaaaaaaaaace by JudgeSlash · · Score: 5, Funny

    In space, no-one can hear the dingo taking your baby...

  15. How Soon Before Slashdot Goes Into Space by xp · · Score: 1

    So would the correct term for them be austronauts?
    --
    Slow Poke

  16. A.S.S. Program? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    uh...

  17. Ten Million a Year! by paulkoan · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just enough to fund the committee that will take four years to discuss whether an Agency is necessary.

    --
    This signature intentionally left blank
    1. Re:Ten Million a Year! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      And travel for "research" purposes. Do you know that a lot of launch sites are close to good beaches?

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
  18. Australian Space Science Program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ass-Pee!

  19. Hey, there's still room for a few 'firsts'. by Hillview · · Score: 1

    Just think.. first kangaroo in space?

    --
    -Troll, Flamebait, and Offtopic are NOT equivalent to disagreement.
  20. As an Australian... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    As an Australian, my stance on this is the opposite to my usual stance on the subject of collaboration with New Zealand; I would support this, where for other projects I usually wouldn't, because having both countries involved will make it significantly more difficult for either government (and especially the Australian government) to keep details secret or integrate it into the military. I would love for it to start as, and stay, a strictly civilian organization.

    I can understand the historical reasons for the early space programs being military in nature; but in modern times there is no excuse; in fact, it's saber-rattling to create such an institution under such a structure.

    1. Re:As an Australian... by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Interesting

      riiiight. Cause outsourcing our satellite imaging to the americans is just so much more peaceful than doing it ourselves.

       

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:As an Australian... by oliderid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well I'm no Australian but considering the size of your population I seriously doubt promoting mostly national projects would help your scientists and the overall return on investment.

      If all these European countries (having roughly a population similar to yours) have founded the ESA, this is precisely to share costs and having bigger projects. (see for example the special relationship between Canada and ESA) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESA Why not Australia as well?

    3. Re:As an Australian... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or why not see if New Zealand, Japan & South Korea would be interested in created a combined "Pacific Space Agency"

    4. Re:As an Australian... by jcnnghm · · Score: 1

      But the ESA is grossly underfunded. The NASA budget alone is larger than the budget of every other space agency on earth combined, and it's the smaller of the two US space agencies.

      --
      You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
  21. Re:g'day mate by magarity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    what does an island nation, sitting well below the equator, need with a space program anyhow
     
    Allow me to rephrase the stupid troll's question: What all representative governments should ask before starting a new agency (and therefor cost center) is "what's in it for our taxpayers"? This is a completely valid question.
     
    The nation's geographic situation does not come in to this equation except in the question of launch costs. Oh, and when did the continent of Australia get downgraded to island status? I missed that one.

  22. ANZAC? by grim-one · · Score: 5, Funny

    "form an ANZAC Space Agency together" So that'd be an Australia and New Zealand Army Corps Space Agency then?

    1. Re:ANZAC? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Informative

      "form an ANZAC Space Agency together" So that'd be an Australia and New Zealand Army Corps Space Agency then?

      Thats not going to end well you know.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    2. Re:ANZAC? by passiveNecro · · Score: 1

      ANZAC has been used to describe co-operation between AU and NZ fairly regularly for as long as I can remember. That said ANZSA could work.

    3. Re:ANZAC? by POds · · Score: 1

      Kinda makes you think of Star Wars doesn't it! :)

      --


      Giving IE users a taste of their own medicine since 2005 - http://pods.-is-a-geek.net/
    4. Re:ANZAC? by grim-one · · Score: 1

      ANZAC has been used to describe co-operation between AU and NZ fairly regularly for as long as I can remember. That said ANZSA could work.

      I'm fairly sure ANZAC is only used when referring to forms of military co-operation

    5. Re:ANZAC? by passiveNecro · · Score: 1

      we just had an ANZAC rugby league test which while the same month as ANZAC day is certainly not on ANZAC day. You are probably right that in an official/government capacity it is kept for military co-operation.

    6. Re:ANZAC? by seyyah · · Score: 2, Funny

      "form an ANZAC Space Agency together" So that'd be an Australia and New Zealand Army Corps Space Agency then?

      Thats not going to end well you know.

      Be extremely careful. You are about to subject us all to some teary-eyed Aussie reciting the line how it was all the fault of the British general who couldn't tell time and sent those brave ANZACs to their deaths in Simla Bay at 5 past ten instead of 10 past five. And he'll be humming the Walzing Mathilda all the while.
       
      None of us want this. So just lay off on how they bungled Gallipoli and we'll all be the better for it.

    7. Re:ANZAC? by passiveNecro · · Score: 1

      also a google search reveals http://www.anzac.edu.au/index.php?section=3. Its located in Australia and there is no way anyone here would use that acronym randomly.

    8. Re:ANZAC? by maglor_83 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I dunno. Gallipoli ended excellently, it was everything else that didn't go well.

    9. Re:ANZAC? by darinfp · · Score: 1

      Why do I get mod points when the only thing to moderate is zealotry around the release of Ubuntu Funky Fuckwit?

  23. Only$10 Million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $10 million a year should be just enough to establish a bunch of administrators and facilitators and co-ordinators to run a Space Program if anyone ever decides to have one.
    Don't think they'll be taking Woomera out of mothballs for a while yet.

  24. Considering how much debt we took on by Jacques+Chester · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm guessing "no".

    My understanding is that this is part of the Defence Whitepaper's plan for Australia to develop orbital remote sensing that doesn't rely on asking the USA very nicely if we could please have some photos.

    That much is pretty much safe from budget cuts in future. But everything else except pensions is now up for grabs. I know it's a recession blah blah blah but they just put in a $58 billion dollar deficit for this year alone, plus more to come. But it's OK, because Treasury predictions (which have NEVER been accurate) say that all the debt will all be paid off by unicorns and pixie dollars when GDP growth snaps up to 4.5% in a few years time.

    When, inevitably, that does not happen, everything that's not discussable on talkback radio (like space science) will get fucked. The CSIRO will scraping along on patent money in just a few years from now, you watch.

    --

    Classical Liberalism: All your base are belong to you.

    1. Re:Considering how much debt we took on by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      The labor government understands that national debt is the new colonialism.

      Just look at the US.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  25. why? by Slurpee · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm an Aussie. I love space.

    But really - I'm quite happy to let the USA (and other countries) spend the money on space. It needs to be done. It's good it's being done. But for the time being - I'm happy to sit and watch.

    Of course - if we think we can make this a commercially sound venture - go for your life.

    1. Re:why? by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Glad you asked.

      http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1369/1

      "As the report says "The ADF's primary operational environment is a vast area. We need to have comprehensive situational awareness and an ability to operate within this environment with decisive military effect, if required." This means that Australia must have a fairly comprehensive set of space-based assets, not just communications and imaging satellites but eventually, at a minimum, GPS augmentation and electronic intelligence gathering spacecraft."

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:why? by Slurpee · · Score: 1

      We need it for defence? dang.

    3. Re:why? by m50d · · Score: 1

      It's never going to be commercially sound, not at this stage. Space is still pretty much at the pure research stage; the benefits will be long-term. But make no mistake, they will be there, and for all humanity; any nation with a sense of internationalism ought to try and do its bit. (That doesn't mean putting the same things in space as everyone else just for the sake of it; that means collaboration, and doing the small missions which nevertheless haven't been done so far)

      --
      I am trolling
    4. Re:why? by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      We basically just beg the americans for everything at the moment. If they cut off our surveillance imaging we just don't have any options.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    5. Re:why? by Slurpee · · Score: 1

      We basically just beg the americans for everything at the moment. If they cut off our surveillance imaging we just don't have any options.

      Google maps? Ok - maybe not.

    6. Re:why? by agm · · Score: 1

      So long as it is funded by voluntary donation and not compulsarily via taxes, I agree with you.

    7. Re:why? by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      We need it for defence?
      From who? Micronesia?

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    8. Re:why? by Cimexus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Try: Indonesia. A few miles off our north coast. 300 million people compared to our 22 million. Overcrowded and politically not that stable (although by no means that bad either).

      Besides, physical proximity doesn't really matter in modern war. Potential threats to Australia are basically just the same potential threats as the US or any other country could face...

  26. ANZSA by POds · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Australian New Zealand Army Corp Space Agency?

    I'd prefer ANZSA - sounds like answer (in an aussie ascent)

    You ask it, they find it!

    --


    Giving IE users a taste of their own medicine since 2005 - http://pods.-is-a-geek.net/
    1. Re:ANZSA by fractoid · · Score: 1

      (As I said above :) Australian Regional Space Exploration. It's got a nice ring to it. ;)

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    2. Re:ANZSA by aaron+alderman · · Score: 1

      I know we play union and cricket together, but that doesn't mean we need to include South Africa in this too.

    3. Re:ANZSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't they involved in the SKA as well?

    4. Re:ANZSA by Hucko · · Score: 1

      More like ta dah!

      Yer 'Aussies' are ... different.

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
  27. Gullible by Joebert · · Score: 0, Troll

    If there were one nation on Earth gullible enough to see a staged moon landing on TV and buy it hook-line-and-sinker, it would be Australia, bless their hearts.

    Maybe that's why they don't have a "space program", the "astronauts" thought it was just too easy.

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    1. Re:Gullible by playerone · · Score: 1

      All you have to do is tell us your using our radio telescope to receive the signals!

      --
      --Question Authority--
    2. Re:Gullible by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we're pretty gullible. We even believed that Area 52 was just an airbase with some experimental planes on it. Hell, we didn't protest much against fluorinated water and its effects on our precious bodily fluids either.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    3. Re:Gullible by Philip_the_physicist · · Score: 1

      Recycled water, OTOH...

    4. Re:Gullible by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Squick. :( Still, since our destiny is ultimately to turn into Fremen in stillsuits, I guess it's a necessary step.

      You know, I'd never wondered quite how the stillsuits cooled themselves... the body is so terribly wasteful of its water precisely because it needs to cool down in desert conditions, maybe it's just that stillsuits were well insulated and very shiny?

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    5. Re:Gullible by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      On a serious note, I paid a visit recently to the actual site (Honeysuckle Creek) where the Apollo 11 moon landing images (including the famous 'one small step' transmission) were actually received (no, it wasn't at Parkes, contrary to what the movie 'The Dish' might have you believe). All it is now is a concrete slab and a couple of small memorials with some pictures of what it used to look like and some stories of how difficult it was to get there back in the day (it's in pretty inaccessible and rugged terrain in the Australian Capital Territory, just a couple of dozen km south of Canberra).

      Sorta sad that it's all gone, considering the historical importance of that place (and Australia's logistical/communications support for the Apollo program in general). It's in a national park though so I guess that's why they aren't allowed to develop anything substantial on the site these days.

      http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/

  28. A Moment by dark+grep · · Score: 2, Funny

    That is going to buy a heck of a lot of Mentos and Diet Pepsi, even after you take out the International Expert consulting fee from the Mythbusters.

  29. About time ... by golodh · · Score: 3, Funny

    An Australian Space Agency? So they are finally going to explore the Outback? About time too !

    1. Re:About time ... by DavidApi · · Score: 1

      The whole point of the agency is to relaunch SkyLab as a rival to the ISS. SkyLab fell into western Australia back in 1979 and the Aussies have been working on how to get it off the ground ever since (Note: I'm a Kiwi, and would love there to be a Space Agency in the Antipodes).

  30. austranauts? by c0lo · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't they be oztranauts? Or even ozznauts? (ozz-nots rather... I mean... given the budget...)

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  31. Freeze-dried Goanna... by peoplesignDave · · Score: 1

    "You can live on it, but it tastes like shit."

  32. Good first step. by DavidKlemke · · Score: 1

    An Australian Space Science program is great first step to getting Australia involved in space but for the most part I'll bet that it will rely on either currently deployed satellites and probes or will piggy back onto other's work. Whilst we might be a resource rich country we don't have the spare cash to invest in a fully fledged space program.

    We might see a couple Australian experiments going along for a ride with the big wigs of space (Russia and the USA) but I wouldn't expect much more then that for a long, long time. It's a real shame since we have so much spare room for testing experimental rockets and the like.

    It could be a great stepping stone for aspiring Australian astronauts and space researchers to get into other programs. We already ship a lot of our talent overseas why not our aeronautical people to! :P

    --
    The Refined Geek - Technology, Finance, Space and everything in between
  33. Kangaroo's in space.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ever tried to wrangle a kangaroo?

  34. New World Record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice. NZ will become the first country without an air force to get a space program. You know we don't have any planes, right?

    1. Re:New World Record by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Nice. NZ will become the first country without an air force to get a space program.

      You mean.. besides the Royal New Zealand Airforce?

      You know we don't have any planes, right?

      Apparently you don't know you have any planes.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    2. Re:New World Record by Maelwryth · · Score: 1

      Poster was probably referring to the scrapping of our Skyhawk fleet. That leaves us with bugger all. Not that it matters, we would be better off specialising in support of our allies than trying to fund a full blown armed forces.

      --
      I reserve the write to mangle english.
    3. Re:New World Record by Wild+Wizard · · Score: 1

      You mean.. besides the Royal New Zealand Airforce?

      Which has the P-3C Orion as it's only combat capable aircraft?

      Just get it over with give the PC3's to the navy and the rest to the army.

  35. Re:g'day mate by strider44 · · Score: 1

    So, serious answer to a stupid question:

    Australia has had a long history in space exploration purely because it's an island on the opposite side of the world to the US and most other space age nations. This includes broadcasting the pictures back from the moon and being a hub for a large number of satellites.

    Basically, you can't contact a satellite directly very easily from the US if the satellite is on the other side of the world. Australia's always going to have its place.

  36. Re:g'day mate by beav007 · · Score: 1

    Precisely. What the hell do we want a Space Agency for?

    Australia is an (well actually, "the") island continent. The mainland is the worlds biggest island, and Australia is also the worlds smallest continent.

  37. Re:g'day mate by mjwx · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well drag me to hell...what does an island nation, sitting well below the equator, need with a space program anyhow.

    I know the parent is a troll but...

    Using " to indicate degrees as I haven't figured out how to get ./ to render a proper degrees symbol.

    Australia's most northern point is 10"41 S (cape york, QLD), the US's most southern point is 18"56 N in Hawaii or 24"33 N on the US mainland (Key West, Fl)

    Australia's most northern capital city Darwin, NT is 12"29 S whislt the US's most southern capital city is Florida, FL is 25:46 N

    Australia's biggest problem is that it's fairly low lying country but really so is Florida, where Cape Canaveral is located. As I pulled all of this out of Google Earth fairly quickly I don't have avg elevations for NT, QLD and FL.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  38. And the first drongo that mentions Stroon!... by ScottZ · · Score: 4, Funny

    As (possibly ;-) ) heard in a pub recently...

    "Look. Its not a foolproof plan but its still pretty bloody awesome. The pollies and their gready wanker mates have ruined the planet. Our country might cop it up the arse harder than any other poor bastard. So, we go with their grandiose bloody scheme and when it comes time for them to bugger off, we create a diversion, give 'em space suits with dodgy visors and pack 'em into a welded-up bus with lox flowing down the sides and pull the lever on a bloody big rubber band! Voosh! Hello Great Southern Bight!

    Then we can grab ours beers, our horses, dogs, sheep, cats and sheilas and piss off in the real one. Waddya reckon?..."

  39. Space Science != Space Program(s) != Space Agency by DynaSoar · · Score: 4, Informative

    The following is fairly negative, but is posed honestly, not as flamebait, troll or other such nonsense.

    It seems to be becoming a standard /. format to raise a topic, pose a question, and then proceed to discuss the issue and/or raise more questions as though the answer to the first was affirmative. The result is something that looks like it belongs in Ask Slashdot, and makes sense mostly if you read it while nodding vigorously. The real answers to the questions could often be found by doing some real research on the subject, but that doesn't happen as it would disrupt the chain of wishful thinking. The same could be said of locating information disproving the imaginary thesis, but that's even less likely to occur.

    Space science encompasses pretty much anything that goes on over that magical 100 km altitude, even studying things up there from down here as well as technology associated with such work. $10M/year could fund your traditionally fine radio telescope program. It could as easily apply to using that hardware to support a space based radio-location (ie. GPS) program or even satellite relayed telecommunications. $10M/year might be able to get stretched to develop a sounding rocket if you scrimped by using something like Indonesia's sugar based solid fuel motors. It could also get swallowed whole easily maintaining your existing launch sites and related infrastructure. $40M would cover the initial training of a shuttle mission specialist but not the technical training for a specific mission. Many space related projects could be funded by the budgeted amount, except a "space program", taken to mean something like an Aussie spam-in-a-can riding into the black in an Aussie capsule on top an Aussie booster -- a home grown manned space flight program. Ain't gonna happen for that amount. That amount over 4 years might be able to fund the development of an administration and engineering group capable of doing something like that at some later date for a much greater amount. Given such an organization, that amount/time frame could go to make good progress on the proposed Ausroc LCLV, but almost certainly not enough to finish it.

    Australia has a decent record of booster and payload/program development and execution without having burdened itself with a top heavy centralized administration. Sites have been operating quite well on an independent basis. For instance, Woomera has operated 15 pads and launched well over 500 missions in the past half century without a hint of need for an oversight agency. It's fairly inactive now but could wind back up if needed for the Ausroc or similar projects. Other sites have similar records, and the cumulative national record is impressive (see http://www.astronautix.com/country/ausralia.htm ). It ain't broke. Don't fix it. Have the sense not to replicate programs long since superseded elsewhere, such as early (ie. Mercury and Gemini) NASA, when one could obtain far more for the money via partnering with present day US or Russian programs. Sure, you could develop a manned program, or you could put that money to better use and get more out of it, as you have been all along.

    And please do your homework so you can jump past the leading questions rhetoric and approach it from a position that lends to more fruitful discussion. If the quoted figures are your actual budget, then it was discussed and voted on. That means your own representative politicritter was at least peripherally involved, and an inquiry in their direction could well provide much more solid information (or at least proposed intentions) than the referenced vagaries and attached hypotheticals.

    Finally, a piece of synchronicity. As I was writing this the following fortune/tagline was at the bottom of the page: "Mitchell's Law of Committees: Any simple problem can be made insoluble if enough meetings are held to discuss it."

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  40. So... by wfWebber · · Score: 1

    Since we already have an International Space Station (ISS), we now can have an Australion Space Station aswell? Cool!

    --
    Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway. -- Andrew S. Tanenbaum
  41. Re:g'day mate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Australia is the worlds largest island and smallest continent. It is also the only country that has a continent all to itself!

  42. knifey spooney by stimpleton · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh Lordy, i can imagine if the aussies find alien life first...

    "You call that a ruby dye laser? Now *this* is a ruby dye laser!"

    This is a knife!

    --

    In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
    1. Re:knifey spooney by fractoid · · Score: 1

      I can see you've played knifey-lasery before!

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    2. Re:knifey spooney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aliens? That's an odd name. I'd have called them chazzwozzers.

  43. Re:Space Science != Space Program(s) != Space Agen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry everybody, I didn't bother reading all that either.

  44. Re:g'day mate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    It's also the only continent with a single country on it.

  45. Re:Space Science != Space Program(s) != Space Agen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy cow.... are your fingers sore???

  46. Re:Space Science != Space Program(s) != Space Agen by daveime · · Score: 1

    Can I say it, can I, can I ?

    You must be new here (aww damn, I just saw your ID).

    The real answers to the questions could often be found by doing some real research on the subject

    Hell, most ./ users have trouble RTFA, or even RTFS ... now we have to "research" something before we answer ? Unless you want even more wikipedia citations than usual, I'd retract your request for research.

    We're all terminal ADD sufferers here, and usually lose track of what ...

  47. Re:Space Science != Space Program(s) != Space Agen by daveime · · Score: 1

    ... <i> tags we opened.

    Hehe, that was clever wasn't it ?

  48. water? by Swoopy · · Score: 2, Funny

    First order of business: how to harvest water ice from space?

    1. Re:water? by Wild+Wizard · · Score: 1

      Asimov - The Martian Way

  49. Re:obligatory by fractoid · · Score: 4, Funny

    What will they call this new agency? It's Australian, and it'll probably serve our local region too. And space is "the final frontier" so the primary role of this agency is exploration.

    Australian Regional Space Exploration. How's that sound?

    --
    Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  50. Yesssss... by benjfowler · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've never understood the bipartisan bad attitude towards investing in science and technology in Australia.

    Any funding of science and technology tends to be political in nature; take a look at some of the CRCs, which tend to either be politicians' pet projects, or freebies for somebody's support base. The CSIRO (the Australian equivalent of the Max Planck Institute or NSF, and one of the biggest of its kind on Earth), is really a huge giveaway to the primary and extractive industries.

    I think it's because Australian leaders don't understand the importance of science and technology. I also think it boils down to the traditional Australian distrust of all that is too 'clever'; we'd rather stick to growing things and digging shit out of the ground rather than value-add.

    The potential benefits of a military space program are obvious. When you realise that it takes six hours to cross Australian airspace by plane, you realize that that's a lot of ground to cover. Why there aren't half a dozen Australian-owned military birds already flying is a minor miracle of short-sightedness and stupidity. And it's extremely naive for Australian defence planners to always assume that the US won't screw us over when we need them the most.

    And a civil space programme would do wonders for building sorely-needed industrial capability, and interest in science and technology. It doesn't even have to be expensive: do what the Canadians do, pick a niche, and get really, really good at it. For instance, advanced life support systems, or something like that... we don't HAVE to have our own launch vehicles.

    I'm not holding my breath though.

    1. Re:Yesssss... by timbo234 · · Score: 1

      It's always the same problem with anything science and tech related in Australia. Politicians, and maybe even the wider population in general, have no real interest in science, technology, startup companys, innovation etc. as it's far easier and simpler to just sell food and natural resources and buy everything we need from North America and Europe.

      Do they ever wonder why so many young Aussies live in Europe (or even the US) or why our trade deficit is always so huge, no matter how well the economy is going? Then the same politicians etc. lament that Australia has almost no home manufacturing industries besides mining and agriculture.

      --
      Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
    2. Re:Yesssss... by benjfowler · · Score: 1

      Do they ever wonder why so many young Aussies live in Europe (or even the US)

      Amen, I'm one of these people -- I'm in London and have no plans to return to Australia. There simply isn't enough opportunity in Australia; people who want to work on interesting stuff either have to be very lucky, or just go elsewhere.

      I'm reminded of Andy Thomas, a mechanical engineer from Adelaide who wanted to serve as an astronaut. He ended up having to go to the States and naturalize to get his astronaut's wings. Having to renounce your own citizenship is a pretty big step; are policymakers in Canberra paying attention?

    3. Re:Yesssss... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I've never understood the bipartisan bad attitude towards investing in science and technology in Australia."

      It's quite simple to understand really. It's because all the pollies in Australia, almost without exception, have neither the wit or the intelligence to see anything beyond the end of their noses. Like most pollies everywhere, their only objective is to feed at the trough of taxpayers money for as many years as possible and retire with a fat juicy pension. Their universal motto is "Fuck the taxpayers"

  51. Re:obligatory by Nasajin · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yeah, and they'd pilot a vehicle called the Australian National Uranus Spacecraft. It's practically recursive.

  52. ISS by Colourspace · · Score: 1

    Just don't let them on the ISS. Give it a week and all their mates will turn up with their backpacks...

    1. Re:ISS by decalod85 · · Score: 0

      They are building their own module for the ISS. It looks like a really big Fosters can.

  53. Re:obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not so subtle.

  54. Re:g'day mate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aye, mate. Do you have an extra stroon? And, what the hell does a guy DO WITH IT? Errrr, wait - what's with all those sick looking sheep? Did you use the stroon on them, or what?

  55. Re:g'day mate by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

    Errrr - thinking here. While in the Navy, rumor had it that plans were underway to float Long Island away from New York, to create the world's largest aircraft carrier.

    Now - uhhhhm - you seem to be suggesting that the world's smallest continent might become the world's largest spacecraft?

    But, how you gonna throw that big damned rock OUT THERE?!

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  56. australians only invest in property by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    Coz its boom boom, a market that never goes down, always 10% up, fast money, with tax deductions, its brick and mortar. Everyone should invest in housing, every person should own 5 properties. Its a win win, no chance of loosing, housing grants will protect the sellers! All investmnts are pittifull, go go housing! You know we have the largest country in the world, yet land is scarce and prices high.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  57. Re:g'day mate by smoker2 · · Score: 1

    Well drag me to hell...what does an island nation, sitting well below the equator, need with a space program anyhow.

    Well what does any nation sitting well above the equator need one for ? (Merrit Island 28 DEG, 8 min North - Woomera 31 DEG 11 min South) You can get much closer to the equator in Australia than that. Much closer than anywhere in the USA actually. The northern tip of Australia is at roughly 11 DEG South, while the most southerly point of the USA is still at roughly 24 DEG North.

  58. Tidbinbilla - Telescopes, Emus & Roos. by micronicos · · Score: 1

    The Tidbinbilla Tracking Station (now known as CDSCC) was opened in 1965 and is the only NASA tracking station in Australia still in operation. During the Apollo program, Tidbinbilla was used for tracking the Apollo Lunar Module.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra_Deep_Space_Communication_Complex

    So Pooh 2 u all ye doubters of the Northern Hemisphere!

    --
    Nico M, London, GB.
  59. Tsk tsk tsk tsk tsk! by clickety6 · · Score: 1

    Tsk tsk tsk tsk tsk!
    What's that, Skippy, the space shuttle is in trouble?
    Tsk tsk tsk tsk tsk!
    Well what can we do, Skippy?
    Tsk tsk tsk tsk tsk!
    Start up our own Australian Space Agency? How much money do we have?, Skip?
    Tsk tsk tsk tsk tsk!
    Just over $10 million a year? Crikey mate, you ain't too smart for a bush kangaroo, are you, Skippy?

    --
    ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
  60. British Space Program by Dooner · · Score: 1

    Back in the 1960s, the British used Woomer, Australia as the testing and launch ground for their own space program - including the successful launch of a satellite on the Black Arrow rocket. (The Brits then gave up). I wonder how much of the infrastructure is left in Australia and how much could be easily be recycled. Probably not much, but it's worth remembering that Australia has seen space launches in the past, so it's perfectly feasible for Australia to do it again.

  61. Re:obligatory by tech_fixer · · Score: 1, Funny

    Australian Science and Space Exploration Service: A.S.S.E.S

  62. Re:obligatory by everynerd · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's a funny name. I would've called it The Ministry of Spaceborne Chazzwozzers.

  63. Has anybody suggested IASA? by mmell · · Score: 1
    What the frell? Am I the only one to see a Farscape reference here?

    Then again, evidently I am.

    1. Re:Has anybody suggested IASA? by kalirion · · Score: 1

      I thought of Farscape as soon as I read the headline. Didn't remember what the agency was called though.

  64. IASA by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

    They should totally call it IASA, then launch some guy named John Crichton up in a module to test atmospheric slighshotting effect.

    I expect the test to go totally well!

     

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  65. Colony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does that mean we should look out for Colony Drop Bears?

  66. They've been preparing for this for years. by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    I've been told that most Australian students have just been taking up space in the classroom for a long time now.

    How does NZ expect to run a space program and remain a nuclear-free zone? Sorta limits your options for powering satellites, doesn't it?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  67. First Aussie space experiment... by Mad-Bassist · · Score: 1

    "This is Gregory Trimble with the science update, talking with Captain Rice of the first Australian space mission. Captain, what experiments are you performing up there?"

    "We're evaluating the effects of zero gravity on the growth of single-celled organisms."

    "What sort of single-celled organisms?"

    "Various strains of yeast."

    One of the crew in the background could be heard saying, "Good dinkum mate!"

    Captain Rice turned around and hoarsely whispered, "Shut up!"

    --
    "The only legitimate use of a computer is to play games." - Eugene Jarvis
  68. Re:Space Science != Space Program(s) != Space Agen by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

    Actually, this is the first thing I thought about with the proposed budget. Aussie will certainly not be able to develop the increasingly complex infrastructure for a full fledged space program. However, they could easily use that funding to develop support projects for the rest of the world's space programs. For instance, they could develop a small but reliable ground station complex to assist with launch vehicle and polar orbiter communications. There is a very limited number of ground stations in the world right now and bandwidth on them is in increasing demand and is, thus, expensive. Helping assist other country's space programs with something like orbit-ground communications infrastructure could provide both a source of revenue and an integrated role in mission development for the Aussie space organization, whatever that may be. Also, training staff on support projects like this would increase the market for specialized professions of the aerospace nature in Australia as well as attracting existing professionals to move there. In short, a well organized, supported, stable, and small 'foot-in-the-door' type program could be the first step for Aussie's to become an integrated part of the increasingly global space industry. I think it could work out extremely beneficial if done right...

    Cheers.

    --
    Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
  69. The real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The question that Australia should be asking itself is "Could we use space better to serve our National interest?"

    Space technologies are ideal for Australia precisely because we have a very large country with a small population (not even considering our Exclusive economic zone and Antarctic territories). From space, we can do many things far more cost effective that we can otherwise, because we can survey so much more ground on a repetitive basis than can be done flying planes or using ground based solutions. These activities include: monitoring our climate and land; forecasting our weather; maritime border protection; resource mapping; communications; broadcasting and many others.

    24 out of the top 25 countries by GDP have worked out that they can address their national priorities, in part, by using Space technologies. The recent funding for Space activities in Australia is a welcome step; however it needs to be the first step in Australia taking a serious look, and subsequent action in using space technology to address our National priorities.

  70. University of Woolloomooloo says... by Dogtanian · · Score: 0

    That's a funny name. I would've called it The Ministry of Spaceborne Chazzwozzers.

    So you're suggesting that we don't call it "Bruce" then? That's going to cause a bit of confusion. Mind if we call it "Bruce" to keep things clear?

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  71. Re:g'day mate by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    Well drag me to hell...what does an island nation, sitting well below the equator, need with a space program anyhow.

    Isn't Australia one of the two places in the world where an initial space elevator can be sited? For that reason alone it would be good to explore at least, the possibilities.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  72. Re:g'day mate by Cimexus · · Score: 1

    We're mostly pretty low lying yes (the vast bulk of the continent sits at around 1000 ft above sea level), but there are substantial regions at higher altitude (4000-7000 ft). The problem is they are all in the south.

    I'm guessing you get more benefit from a rocket launch perspective by being closer to the equator than by launching from a mile above sea level? Probably the best launch sites would therefore be somewhere in northern WA (some parts of the tablelands south of the Kimberly reach a reasonable elevation) or NT/QlD (lower, but slightly further north).

    One good thing is that virtually anywhere you pick in inland northern Australia is basically the middle of nowhere. So no worries about noise or bits of rockets falling on towns :P

  73. Re:g'day mate by mjwx · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing you get more benefit from a rocket launch perspective by being closer to the equator than by launching from a mile above sea level? Probably the best launch sites would therefore be somewhere in northern WA (some parts of the tablelands south of the Kimberly reach a reasonable elevation) or NT/QlD (lower, but slightly further north).

    One good thing is that virtually anywhere you pick in inland northern Australia is basically the middle of nowhere. So no worries about noise or bits of rockets falling on towns :P

    Northern coastal Australia, the Kimberley and inland are pretty remote and rugged. It would be to move hard to move large objects and enough supplies through there to the launch site, especially in the Kimberley. It only has to be as far away from a major population area that a significant accident on the ground will not affect the people in that area. As for launching you just put it on a trajectory away from the population area, for example the trajectory from Cape Canaveral is out over the Atlantic. Coastal NT east of Darwin would be better, that way your lands/water south and east are pretty clear. We cant direct the trajectory north due to the relative closeness PNG/Indonesia.

    Equatorial launches are far less costly then one at 30 or even 10 Degrees from the equator.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  74. Chiindi by Chiindi · · Score: 1

    Kangaroo's on amphetamines should give the required altitude for orbital insertion.