Slashdot Mirror
"Frickin' Fantastic" Launch of NASA's Ares I-X Rocket
coondoggie writes "With a hiss and roar, NASA's Ares I-X rocket blasted into the atmosphere this morning at about 11:33 am EST, taking with it a variety of test equipment and sensors but also high hopes for the future of the US space agency. The short test flight — about 2 minutes — will provide NASA an early opportunity to look at hardware, models, facilities and ground operations associated with the mostly new Ares I launch vehicle. The mission went off without a hitch — 'frickin' fantastic' was how one NASA executive classified it on NASA TV — as the upper stage simulator and first stage separated at approximately 130,000 feet over the Atlantic Ocean. The unpowered simulator splashed down in the ocean."
They only planned to recover the first stage from what I had read. As the NASA official stated it the second stage and mock crew capsule would splash into the ocean like a giant lawn dart and sink to the bottom. I thought the analogy was funny because thanks to the government some large percentage of the population (those under say 25) have no idea what a lawn dart IS.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Where does the money COME FROM? Especially in a burgeoning depression? A government that produces surpluses, though it does so on the backs of the people, at least can justify some absurd pork and waste.
Not to be a downer, but cutting government spending and raising taxes to balance the budget actually worsened the 1930's Great Depression. Its the worse thing any government could do when there is a shrinkage in credit liquidity. Balanced budgets anti-inflationary measures can only be done when the economy is healthy when there is room to avoid a deflationary death cycle.
Also... NASA's budget is minuscule to some other sectors of spending:
Look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget
Then look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_budget_(United_States)
Notice how NASA doesn't even show up on the pie chart of spending categories. Its less than 20 billion compared to the 500 odd so billions for medicare, social security, and defense spending a piece!
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
My grandfather fell out of a tree when he was 45 years old and powdered his hip and femur. He wasn't able to walk for a year after that.
You can imagine he was pretty excited when he took his first halting step after a year of immobility.
This is sort of like the US space program.
... four years between missions? We went from nothing to the Moon in under ten years; it's taking us four years between test launches of something that we've done before?
Oh, yes -- I'm aware of that. That's not a criticism of NASA -- it's a criticism of the United States' screwed-up way of doing things. We spend $600 billion annually on the military, and the Iraq war will cost $2.5 trillion when all is said and done ... and yet we can't give NASA enough support that they can launch more than once every four years?
My nation is pathetic.
This is also the NASA that is facing such intense political pressure to justify the continuation of its manned spaceflight program -- and the NASA that Feynman slammed for its veneer-over-veracity attitude surrounding the Challenger disaster.
Unfortunately that idiotic attitude advocated by Feynman-- "never take risks" -- is pervasive through NASA, and avoiding risk-taking is now NASA's standard operating procedure.
Unfortunately, "taking risks" is exactly what NASA should be doing. You cannot progress without taking some risks.
I don't know any way to get around this problem-- any program funded by Congress is going to be incredibly risk-averse, because the one thing that they cannot stand is bad publicity.
Yeager's comment was that when an Air Force test pilot is killed, they name a street at Edwards after him, and go on with the program. When an astronaut dies, they shut down the program for two years and congress holds hearings.
"Space is a frontier for our great-grandchildren to consider"
We will always have the poor.
If not now, when? If not us, who?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
September 12, 1962. President John F. Kennedy says "We choose to go to the Moon". Nine years later Alan Shepard is playing gold at Fra Mauro.
Fast forward to 2009, when President Barry Obama says "Well, I guess you can go to the Moon, but I can't pay for it. Maybe you could go to an asteroid or play some chess instead." NASA starts looking for loose change in the couch to finance the next test launch.
"So it is not surprising that some would have us stay where we are a little longer to rest, to wait. But this city of Houston, this state of Texas, this country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them. This country was conquered by those who moved forward--and so will space."
...just not today, so maybe we should wait and rest and look behind us for a while, until that darn economy fixes itself.
NASA has always been "another government bureaucracy". The difference between the 60's and now: in the 60's, we had 1) a clear goal to aim for, and 2) sufficient funding to achieve the goal. In recent years we've had neither of these things... and that's not NASA's fault, it's the fault of Congress and the President.
And regarding the space elevator: the laughter has died down, and been replaced with... nothing. That's because there's nothing to talk about. We still don't have the technology to produce carbon nanofibers in anything like the lengths that would be required to build it. Nor do we know if other technical obstacles to building one can be overcome. Nor do we have even the slightest idea what it would cost (and won't until we solve the first two issues). And if you don't know the cost, you can't evaluate whether it's more cost effective than just using rockets. All of which means there's no basis to proceed with a project.
Risks are one thing. Unnecessary risks are another. If someone warns you "those O-rings are not safe," you fix them. If someone warns you "this debris falling may damage tiles which should be inspected," you do something about it. There are going to be PLENTY of risks associated with manned spaceflight about which you do not have detailed prior knowledge. That's no reason to be careless when you have a problem staring you in the face.
$17B a year is not going to make a dent in the economy or in poverty or homelessness, or climate change or anything else. Those are the results of human nature and/or normal cycles, and fixing them is a matter of political will and good policy, not a few extra dollars.
Spending a small amount on space exploration is EXACTLY what the government exists to do -- do things that require large amounts of money (for an individual or group) with high risks and low immediate reward, but that have the potential for great reward for all of society.
And if you think $17B a year with increases less than inflation and ever new directives and goals are 'endless resources' I think you need to take a look at the scale of the federal budget.
Every risk, in hindsight, is a stupid risk. And there will always be someone there to say "I told you so, but you didn't listen!"
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what risk is. There are no risks in hindsight, but only outcomes. Second, not every risk can be anticipated (these risks are often called "uncertainty"). Nobody is going to say "I'd told you so!", if the Shuttle were to be zapped by aliens while on the pad.
Third, stupid risks have two characteristics: 1) they are easily anticipated or were anticipated (someone will be there to say "I told you so") and 2) the cost of mitigating the risk is far less than the benefit gained.