Slashdot Mirror


Give Space a Chance, Says Phil Plait

The Bad Astronomer writes "A lot of pundits, scientists, and people who should know better are decrying the demise of NASA, saying that the President's budget cutting the Constellation program and the Ares rockets will sound the death knell of manned space exploration. This simply is not true. The budget will call for a new rocket design, and a lot of money will go toward private space companies, who may be able to launch people into orbit years ahead of Ares being ready anyway."

13 of 279 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah, orbit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Weee! They'll be able to launch people into orbit years ahead of Ares! Because putting people into orbit is exactly why Ares was being built, since NASA can't do that with their current rockets.

    The private industry is decades away from what NASA can do today. It's at least a century away from what NASA could do 40 years ago. They're never going to get us into mars, because there's simply no profit in it. Government funding is the only way space exploration can go forward.

    1. Re:Yeah, orbit! by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They're never going to get us into mars, because there's simply no profit in it.

      Oh really? Because to me, Phobos and Deimos (Mars' moons) are little more than a few trillion tons of metal, ceramics, volatiles and a few million tons of precious metals sitting in a nice stable orbit over Mars. Just perfect to supply the Earth with some rare metals, the moon and LEO with volatiles and any space tourism around Mars. The view is fantastic and I'd bet there's people who would pay pretty big bucks to take a vacation to Martian orbit or even visit the surface. You woyuld have to have a profound lack of imagination to not see any "profit" in going to Mars and in space exploration in general. Resources, tourism, research etc. plenty of profit to be made, it's just a matter of building up the necessary technology and infrastructure.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    2. Re:Yeah, orbit! by Third+Position · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Indeed. Government funding is the only way manned space flight has proceeded for the last 50 or so years. I'm as big on the free market as anyone, but there are some things worth doing that are simply not profitable in economic terms. In fact, some of humanity's greatest achievements obviously weren't profitable. I doubt the pyramids ever provided the Egyptians with a profit. Well - at least not for several thousand years.

      Sure, private industry, say SpaceX, might be able to develop the technology. But who will be the customer? What company, with several billion dollars at it's disposal, has an incentive to go to the moon or Mars? What would the incentive be?

      --
      American Third Position
      Finally, a real choice!
    3. Re:Yeah, orbit! by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seriously?
      I just can't see mining a trillion tons of anything to carry it back to earth being a good idea. And mining a moon seems fraught with peril, an generally a bad idea. For Christ sake if exhaling can destroy earth's environment, how could de-orbiting a trillion tons do the planet any good?

      The only way to gain the riches of mars is to live there. You can't bring it home.

       

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    4. Re:Yeah, orbit! by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The supply of space metals shipped to Earth can not lower the price of precious metals on Earth lower than what it costs to ship them no matter how abundant they are in space. Hence why even though there are quadrillions of tons of salt on Earth, the price isn't near zero due to the cost of transport and extraction.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    5. Re:Yeah, orbit! by wizardforce · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and a practical way of transporting it to earth

      The price can never drop below the cost to maintain the rate of supply that is profitable. Never. It doesn't matter how much of x material there is. If it costs 500$/kg to extract, purify and transport it then the price must be at least 500$ over a period of time. If the price is set below that, the further ability to maintain the level of supply that results in that low price goes away which causes supply to drop and prices to rise to the point where it is again profitable to extract.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  2. Wishful thinking is bad science too by syousef · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What you need is for people to realise the benefits that come with space exploration so that they demand, through their votes, that it be included in the budget. What you don't need to do is give up on NASA in favour of private companies that can only ever be expected to be SELF serving. Capitalism as a tool is a good thing, but as a religion it is as stupid as any other religion.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:Wishful thinking is bad science too by syousef · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not big corp vs small at all. It's a question of a lack of leadership. Businesses, and certainly small businesses are ill suited to leading when it comes to such long term goals. Outsourcing sub-tasks to them is fine. Outsourcing projects that could take decades is a recipe for corruption and failure.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  3. Re:Losing Constellation is a set back by osu-neko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Years of work have gone in Ares I,5 and the capsules. ... but if its cancelled and NASA have to restart then those years and dollars are gone

    You are suffering from the "sunk costs" fallacy. Those years and dollars are gone, not "if its cancelled", they're gone, period. The question is, what is the best way to proceed from where we are today. If the Ares program is not a good investment, then we shouldn't throw any more money at this. This is equally true whether we've spent nothing or spent a trillion dollars...

    --
    "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  4. Re:Bravo. by icebike · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Phil is absolutely correct on this.

    NASA spending also makes jobs. Everything from top level engineers and administrators down to bag boys in the grocery stores.

    I wish people could get it thru their head that we are not launching stacks of 100 dollar bills into space. Every last red cent is spent here on earth.

    Why make the poor into hand-out wards of the State? I have never understood the so called (self called) "Progressive" parties propensity to enslave population thusly, and lose the first derivative of government spending.

    If NASA did nothing at all and delivered nothing at all but stacks of study after study it would STILL be better for society than handing out food stamps because there were no jobs.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  5. Re:Losing Constellation is a set back by Rei · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Shuttle was a great research program. We learned an awful lot. The problem was that we turned what should have been a first generation reusable pilot project into a workhorse.

    It might have been a suitable workhorse in some of its original incarnations. Might. But after the design compromises that led up to what we currently know as the shuttle, its chances for affordability were ruined.

    --
    Noone ever goes walrus!
  6. Re:Bravo. by EzInKy · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Poverty is a social problem, not a technological one.

    Social problem: Famine
    Technological Solution: Irrigation
    Result: Civilization (Just ask Sid)

    Solving social problems with technology is what separates men from animals.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  7. Re:Bravo. by ionix5891 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Social problem: Corrupt government

    Technological solution: transparent and open database of expenses (think UK mps expenses scandal) accessible by citizens

    Result: less corruption

    having your expenses published in papers and discussed by all have really been a kick in ass for politicians in UK