Slashdot Mirror
Obama Choosing NOT To Go To the Moon
bonch writes "Obama's budget proposal will contain no funding for the Constellation program, which was to send astronauts to the moon by 2020. Instead, NASA will be focused on terrestrial science, such as monitoring global warming. One anonymous official said: 'We certainly don't need to go back to the moon.'"
In the wrong direction. We should have spent the 60's on healthcare reform, increasing national spending, polarizing our government between the political parties, and copyright enforcement. Yes, that would have given the 70's a golden age such as the one we enjoy now, except without microprocessors -- which we don't need.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
Which part of that has anything to do with global warming?
Why is it suddenly NASA's job to monitor global warming? Why not create an agency with that job, instead of re-allocating something that has for many decades been all about space exploration?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
'not to go to the moon in this decade and not do the other things, not because they are hard, but because not doing so is easy'
Or something like that.
...the Space Administration will be focused on terrestrial science?
Man, some days the jokes just write themselves.
Nobody should act surprised. He said he was going to kill Constellation during his original campaign.
Yes. Constellation wasn't just the moon. It was the next generation of NASA rockets for human spaceflight. If Constellation is cancelled, this isn't just the end of the moon. It's the end of Mars too. Hell, it's the end of America's manned spaceflight program in general.
I'll probably attract a zillion flames for saying this, but I think this is great. NASA does a great job on uncrewed probes, and that's a mission that can't be carried out by private enterprise. The shuttle and the ISS, however, are pure pork and nationalism; now that the cold war is over, the politicians cover the crewed space program with a thin veneer of scientific research, but the amount of good science that comes out of *crewed* spaceflight is not in reasonable proportion to the cost. We need to get NASA out of the business of doing things that the private sector can do, because otherwise the private sector will never get off the ground in those areas. Suborbital and LEO space tourism are the killer apps for private-sector crewed spaceflight. Let's unleash their energy and creativity to get that going, rather than spending public money on poorly engineered concepts for going back to to the moon.
Find free books.
yup. wow. last line in the article:
That....is disturbing, if that is their view. Maybe next they need to have a war on science again?
Debt is the present. If we don't take care of that, we will stagnate and disappear much more quickly. This is good, pay down debt first then invest.
Though, for all the talk of fiscal responsibility I don't see anyone mentioning that the US's military budget is about the same as the rest of the worlds military budgets combined. And 9 times that of China's. It would make sense to cut that first.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
We are just a few decades from Zefram Cochrane's first warp flight amidst the backdrop of a post-apocalyptic USA. Conventional rockets are a waste anyway.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
And 9 times that of China's.
That's debatable, since China isn't being very transparent with their military programs or intentions.
It would make sense to cut that first.
Because the last time the US withdrew from the World it worked out so well for mankind.....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Mallory O'Brian: And we went to the moon. Do we really have to go to Mars?
Sam Seaborn: Yes.
Mallory O'Brian: Why?
Sam Seaborn: 'Cause it's next. 'Cause we came out of the cave, and we looked over the hill and we saw fire; and we crossed the ocean and we pioneered the west, and we took to the sky. The history of man is hung on a timeline of exploration and this is what's next.
- West Wing
Sounds like he's getting revenge for that Alabama Rep who switched from Democrat to Republican.
I should note, for reference, that if we were to double NASA's budget, we'd increase the current deficit by just over 1%.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The moon is a backup.
The next space race should be about who can take the largest, most unweildly animal to the moon, let it run around, and bring it back safely. I say we try to a gorilla or a buffalo or a bear in a space suit that fits them and let them run around the moon a little bit and then the animal returns a hero. If that works we start with marine life. Let's put an enclosed dolphin tank on the moon and do a little show and then bring it all back home.
If we're doing this for science we can send probes cheaper and safer. If we're doing this for glory then send a giraffe or hippo.
If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
With the Shuttle put to bed, and now Constellation, NASA is done. Yeah, maybe a few robot probes will go out, but that's not what people get excited about (and are thus willing to fund). If it's not welfare or war, it's up for cancellation with this government. The global warming crowd will still get some funding since that's still seen as a viable power grab (not enough people can add, apparently) but that can't last. It seems the commercial launchers will handle what the Air Force can't for government satellite needs.
So, does an aspiring American rocket scientist try to find work in China or hope to get one of the few jobs with Space X, Scaled Composites, or Virgin Galactic?
Amazing - the one government program even Penn & Teller can't bring themselves to hate is the first to fall. Ah, well, competitive forces at play.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Space is the future. If you don't go out there we will stagnate and disappear.
Or, the more realistic view: Space in an uninhabitable wasteland, enormously expensive to get to, and impossible to survive in for long periods without costly, regular support deliveries from Earth.
Let's face it, without some amazing and so-far-unforeseen advances in technology, any off-Earth colonies would die out within a few years of losing support with Earth. Given that, the presence or absence of those colonies isn't really relevant to the survival of mankind, which is 100% tied to the viability of Earth.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
In a 'couple of hundred years' we won't have the material resources left for mass migration. Our technology is easily up to the task right now; we are simply too fixated on the bottom line to invest in our own future.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Unless someone can make an as-yet unknown value proposition for going back to the moon, it's a waste of resources.
Had we planned on staying this time... building a small base or research station to leave men on the moon for extended periods of time... then it would have been worth it. But it was clear that we weren't going to do that. We were basically just going back to relive old glories, when it gets right down to it.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I agree. Why not show that every now and then we can rise above petty insignificant squabbles over religion, resources and power and as a
species we can reach higher and achieve almost anything.
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
Why isn't the abundance of Helium-3 more of a selling point for the return to the moon? Especially with the recently /.'d mention of the impending shortage earth-side.
Because a very large portion of our defense spending is used in providing defense for those other 1st world nations. The reason Europe and Japan don't have huge armies is that the US does it for the, with bases all over the world, populated by US personnel. If the US were to pull out of Europe and Japan (which I wholeheartedly endorse, btw), our budget would shrink - and their budgets would skyrocket. And then the bleating about the US not "living up to it's global responsibilities" would start anew.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
No, they will cancel actually developing a heavy-lift rocket, and instead just 'look at' developing a heavy-lift rocket. It's much cheaper.
Individually and as a race, we are all going to die. We don't have any chance as a race, and getting off "this rock" doesn't change that one bit.
OTOH, we do have a choice about where we direct resources and what effect that has on the quality of life.
What better way to learn how to live with dwindling resources here on earth than learning to live in a place with NO RESOURCES!
The possible environmentally important spin-off technologies from a moon/mars mission are endless
Advanced hydroponics
Advance carbon dioxide filtering techniques
Learning how to grow food in mineral-less soil
Think of Mars or the Moon as a laboratory.
If we can figure out how to live there, we can possibly figure out what it takes to live in harmony with any environment, even our own.
PLUS when you say waste of resources, what do you mean? Money? NASA budget is minuscule to the amount of money the US government throws away. Scientist? Aerospace engineers don't care about environmental science, it isn't their field, it is not like you will be keeping them from solving terrestrial problems by having them work on spacecraft.
-
A large part of the reason those bases continue to operate is to project power into places like South-east Asia and the Middle East. They wouldn't need to be replaced because Europe and Japan are mostly uninterested in the continuing misadventures of imperialism.
"The Mountain West in an uninhabitable wasteland, enormously expensive to get to, and impossible to survive in for long periods without costly, regular support deliveries from the Industrialized East."
That's always been "true", and always been a lame excuse. Yes, in a colonization effort LOTS of people fail - ask the Roanoake colony. But someone will succeed, and MAKE the "wasteland" into a paradise.
You can choose to stay in the tenement - if someone offers me 50 acres, I'm taking it!
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Yesterday I had a Jimmy Dean Flapstick. That product is a true culinary achievement, and I gladly spend my own money to help support Jimmy Dean R&D. Sending astronauts to the moon, on the other hand, is something that has been done. In fact, it was done before I was born, and I am old.
Besides, what Obama really needs isn't a man (or woman) on the moon. He needs an excuse that will allow him to pass the Carbon Cap and Trade bills so that he can raise billions in new tax revenues. NASA already has plenty of experience inventing climate data, so it is the perfect organization for the job. With enough money, convincing the voting public that CO2 is driving global warming should be pretty straightforward. In fact, the real problem may be knowing when to say when. With the increased funding NASA should be able to convince voters that they are actually ON FIRE.
Also, once we finally did start to take part in WWII, our equipment was horribly outdated due to massive military spending cuts that had happened since WWI. Much of the equipment we armed our soldiers with, early on, was the same stuff we had used in WWI (helmets, guns, etc.)
Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
Unless someone can make an as-yet unknown value proposition for going back to the moon, it's a waste of resources.
To give humans something to look forward to and hope for. To inspire coming generations of scientists and engineers to push the envelope like there's no tomorrow. To instill a sense of purpose and pride in a populaous that is becoming increasingly disenchanted, confused, embittered, pathetic, jaded, and all around broken.
Value shouldn't always be measured in $$.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Unless someone can make an as-yet unknown value proposition for going back to the moon, it's a waste of resources.
So what exactly would you have several hundred thousand scientists, engineers, manufacturers, technicians all skilled in space flight technology DO?
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Oustide the financial outlay, how would they be hurt?
.... The point being that the challenges of manned space flight present unique obsticles. And solutions there have benefited mankind on Earth in a myriad of ways. Very often those benefits manifest in leaps forwared in Enviromentalism and our understanding of Earth's systems.
That aside, here are some answers: 1) A collective goal: Mankind rarely succeeds on a scale comparable to when they have a common goal. Build hope and cooperation between nations and you can bring them closer to understanding of one another.
2) Residual Science: Like the military (much to any hardcore liberal's chagrin), the Space Program has produce many quite notable and beneficial advancements as residuals to the space program itself. Examples of advancement can be found in Medicine, Chemistry, Biology, Genetics, Propulsion, Aerodynamics, Physics, Thermal Dynamics, Magnetism,
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Minor difference: The "brown people" as you so cynically refer to them asked us to help them. Did we invade Saudi Arabia or did the recognized Government of that country ask us to protect them against Saddam? Did we force Egypt to sign a peace treaty at gunpoint with Israel or did we act as an honest broker?
If it's all about resources then how do you explain our involvement in Afghanistan? Or the Balkens? -- unless they don't count because they aren't filled with brown people. How do you explain our response to humanitarian catastrophes like the Indian Ocean tsunami or Haitian earthquake? How do you reconcile the fact that those humanitarian operations were enabled by our military power with your cynical view of our motives?
I'll be the first to admit that we aren't behaving altruistically. We seemingly have no issue allowing genocide to take place where it doesn't interfere with our strategic interests. But on balance I would still maintain that the United States is a force for stability in the World. If you have an idea that's grounded in reality for replacing our role I'd love to hear it -- I'm getting sick of footing the bill for our role as the global policemen.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Step 1: Convert ourselves into robots so we can be built out of titanium.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!
The moon is also rich in silicon. Perhaps we should convert ourselves to Chenjesu.
Noone ever goes walrus!
Titanium's not tremendously rare on Earth, it's just more expensive because it's a bitch to refine and process. As I understand it, most of the processing steps require either a high vacuum or a completely inert atmosphere to overcome the high reactivity of titanium at high temperatures (around room temp it forms an extremely well-bonded oxide on the surface, which is why it's known to be corrosion resistant.)
As the default state on the lunar surface is hard vacuum, this opens up a lot of interesting possibilities for metals development, if only we were able to get there, and bring along or develop a suitable power source as well.
Major analogy fail. Native Americans were living in the "wasteland" when the Roanoke Colony was founded.
Make an analogy of how we colonized somewhere genuinely inhospitable (e.g. Antarctica, the bottom of the ocean, the molten core of a volcano) and that'll fit. Find an Earth compatible planet that we can get to and that'll fit. Otherwise, space is great but it will kill you dead without Earth. What we need to do is take a long term view of off-planet colonization and start making it happen. We need to send robots to start the hundreds (if not thousands) of years long process of terraforming Mars into something that could independently sustain humans.
I'd like to see calculations on the BILLIONS of dollars that have been generated in the last 45 years in the private sector and in taxes to the federal govt as direct results of the science developed to go to the moon.
If it cost us 6% of the GDP every year from 1958-1972 (the bulk of the moon mission years) , then it cost ~$735billion.
[6% of $875billion/year over 14 years, (~521billionGDP in 1960 and ~$1.23trillionGDP in 1972 avgs to about $875billion/year)]
I'd like to see you convince me that we havent produced $735billion in private funds and taxes in the 38years since 1972 based on the science garnered by NASA in those 14 moonshot years.... To say nothing of the advances that have allowed for cleaner and more efficient technologies that we use each and every day, saving money and reducing polutants.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
For the price of one war in Iraq we could have continued the Apollo program for another 200 years.
+0 Meh
Seriously... We're willing to spend practically infinite amounts of money propping up banks that ought to have failed, and giving hilarious bonuses to idiots on wall st. but we're unwilling to think strategically about the survival of the human race?
Are you fucking kidding me?!?
We need to get our asses going on getting a colony on either the Moon or Mars or both and working out the logistics of making it self sustaining.
It's just not a matter of if, but when we'll have another extinction level event and we need to spread out and be prepared.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
"Since when is the F-35 a defense boondoggle?"
Where do I start? There's so much. It's over budget, far behind schedule (only 10 percent of scheduled flight testing completed in 2009, with the prototypes spending most of their time parked on the taxiway or in a hangar). The fire control suite and EOTS are nothing but vaporware, promises, and plastic display models at this point. It's overweight. When anaysts said that it was less maneuverable than an F-16, Lockheed said "That's OK, dogfighting is obsolete anyway". Hmm, where have we heard that before? There are noise problems with the engine (on average twice as loud as an F-15 at takeoff), enough of a problem to current designated noise corridors that a least two cities are actually suing USAF not to bring F-35's to their area. Google "F-35 noise", and prepare for a lot of reading. The F-35 is quickly becoming the new F-111, a plane designed by committee for everyone and pleasing no one.
The cost is what'll probably kill this program, or limit its' sales. There are grumbles in the Navy department that they want to kill it in favor of new (and cheaper) Super Hornets. Lockheed says base F-35 models will be around $70 million apiece (compared to $50 a pop for Super Hornets). But realistic" estimates say the tag is more likely between $111 and $132 million, flyaway. At the top range, it would make them more expensive than the far more capable F-22. Oh, and the Navy just completed a study that found the F-35 would cost 70% more per hour to operate than Super Hornets, and that the F-35B's vertical thrust mode would damage current flight decks.
USAF should simply buy new build F-16's. The Navy should buy new Super Hornets. And if the Marines can't have new-build Harriers, then get the Marines out of the fixed-wing business altogether (a possibility that Bill Sweetman over at Aviation Week has also raised).
"
Life is hard, and the world is cruel