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.
'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.
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.
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"?
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
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)
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
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.
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.
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
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