Slashdot Mirror
The Upside of the NASA Budget
teeks99 writes "There are a lot of articles circulating about the new changes to the NASA budget, but this one goes into some of the details. From what I'm seeing, it looks great — cutting off the big, expensive, over-budget stuff and allowing a whole bunch of important and revolutionary programs to get going: commercial space transportation; keeping the ISS going (now that we've finally got it up and running); working on orbital propellant storage (so someday we can go off to the far flung places); automated rendezvous and docking (allowing multiple, smaller launches, which then form into one large spacecraft in orbit). Quoting: 'NASA is out of the business of putting people into low-earth orbit, and doesn't see getting back in to it. The Agency now sees its role as doing interesting things with people once they get there, hence its emphasis on in-orbit construction, heavy lift capabilities, and resource harvesting hardware. Given budgetary constraints and the real issues with the Constellation program, none of that is necessarily unreasonable.'"
This new program is far better than the old one. It is so very heartening to see in a NASA program a stated goal to reduce the cost of human spaceflight, along with R&D of enabling technologies (orbital refueling, etc). NASA is finally shifting its human spaceflight focus in the right direction. As I've heard said before, it's not NASA's job to put a man on Mars (or the moon). It's NASA's job to make it possible for National Geographic to put a man on Mars.
Now congress just has to not be a bunch of idiots and ruin it (possibly the greatest challenge to human spaceflight yet).
Personally I feel NASA's ongoing mission should be the distribution of people into outer space for permanent relocation. We should focus on saving humanity from the off chance we kill each other with nukes or get hit by an asteroid.
Citation needed
Getting to LEO isn't rocket science, any more. We've been doing that for over 50 years, now.
By now it's rocket engineering, and appropriate for the private sector.
Keep NASA in the rocket science business - deep space, new technologies, etc. The goal here is for the private sector to do it faster and cheaper, enabling other things to piggyback on top - like even further out rocket science. Too much of NASA's attention is spent on that first 100-200 miles.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Doomed is country that is paying a lot for unemployment benefits and welfare and little for space research.
...but the major impediments to commercial space launches are still the FAA and the EPA.
Perhaps the most attractive point of the commercial swing is that it makes the FAA/EPA factor moot. A launch provider is a launch provider...if the payload sports an American flag on the delivery vehicle, so be it. If it is economically more feasible to hitch a ride into orbit on a Cold War R-7 out of Kazakhstan, that will be the commercial solution.
0 = 1 + e^(Alt something)
That's just an observation. It's not intended to be criticism of the plan. I have plenty of criticism of the old plan, but I don't yet know enough about the new one.
Better yet: Not any shape. Place it on a disk, that fits semi-loosely in your cylinder. (Tighter will get more wear, but be more efficient. There'll be a range of 'good' values here.)
Then you let the air back in from vents under the disk. It'll launch most of the way from air pressure alone.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
Depends on the type of license. The manned reusable license is actually pretty well thought out. (Scaled was easily able to get such a license). The FAA is more than reasonable about that. You might want to actually research that.
Mexico is not really an option as American companies - or companies with primary American ownership/staff - are still subject to US laws. Space and associated technologies are too close to arms proliferation and the laws are written with that in mind.
The reality is that US companies can, and do, get all the necessary licenses.
What is difficult is the reverse engineering of existing technologies. Almost everything NASA paid for in X programs the last 30 years is still owned exclusively by the company whom they contracted the work. The Linear Aerospike engines that were tested for X-33 has been sitting on shelf at LockMart for almost 10 years, so other companies wanting to explore the concept have to rebuild the design. The only real design in the last decade to come out of NASA itself without outside contracts has been TransHab. (Which they promptly signed a sole-source distribution contract with Bigelow to handle).
And therein lies the problem with NASA. Their R&D programs are not like the old NACA development programs. The technology is not moving to off-the-shelf. They are on-the-shelf technologies because that is primarily where they stay. Any company that wants to build a small orbital vehicle will have to do that from scratch or with whatever they can leverage.
Much needed overhaul of a partially moribund manned program.
Putting science first will create a much more meaningful space
program in the long run, one in which a manned presence is
essential.
No matter how you look at this issue, it's really just putting rosed-colored glasses on a tough situation. Sure, scientists and such are clever and will try to figure out how to continue to expand the sciences, even without financial support systems of the past, but the demand in aeronautics will continue to diminish, fewer experts will get involved, and any incentives to stay will simply go away.
Of course I might be wrong, but honestly, if this philosophy really worked in governing bodies (the idea that you slash the budget to marginally operating ability, and suddenly you get better "products") then you should not expect record spending, but instead we should expect to see record budget slashing.
The truth is, there's no great plan, instead these cuts are politically motivated due to the demographics of states affected by this change. Of course that's a president's prerogative and presidents do political things. I just won't pretend it's good news for NASA or US space tech.
http://www.beanleafpress.com
The biggest spending areas are Medicare, Social Security, and Defense. Fiddling with any of these is a sure way to lose the next election, not only for yourself but for your party. So, no one will touch them except to add more to them and make the problem worse. Meanwhile, trying to even get taxes back up to where they were 10 years ago is political suicide. So, we're stuck with politicians doing the will of the people to stay in office, and the will of the people is more benefits, more defense, less taxes. This is obviously unsustainable, but no one seems to care. Oh sure, people go on TV screaming about it, and people grumble about it amongst themselves, but then what? Back in the late 1990s/early 2000s, we had a budget surplus. At that time, the few people suggesting we use it to pay down the debt were drowned out by those demanding it be "given back" in the form of a tax cut. Bush came into office and gave the people what they want, and we ended up back in the red again.
We need to raise taxes, cut benefits, and slash defense spending. We now spend more than every other country in the world combined on defense, at some point we have to say we're spending too much on it. Of course, if anyone even suggests cutting defense spending they're labeled as an unpatriotic terrorist sympathizer, and their political career goes down the toilet. Similarly, if anyone suggests cutting social security or Medicare, they're accused of wanting to kill old people, and old people vote more than anyone else. Talk about raising taxes, and you're a big government socialist. The whole system has gone off the rails, and everyone is too busy trying to tear everyone else down and look good for the voters to actually fix any of it. All we can accomplish is bickering about discretionary spending, which is such a small part of the budget that even taking it all the way down to zero wouldn't solve the problem.
End of rant.
So, NASA's jumping on the same bandwagon as private companies now - outsourcing everything they can get away with. I'm not totally anti-outsourcing, but I do think it goes way too far. Executives love the idea of having as few things in-house as possible, especially when a business partner can do it cheaper. The problem is that they don't care how the partner manages to do it cheaper! This happens in every field. Outsource manufacturing, and you get poor product quality. Outsource software development, and you get crappy code that has to be rewritten anyway. Outsource IT, and satisfaction levels go down as the people who knew what was happening get replaced by the cheapest people they can find. How would this apply to space travel?
Also, here's another thought. In not too many years, China, India or one of the other developing economies is going to be the dominant country on Earth. It's just a fact - they have governments who pursue growth at all costs, and we've decided to stop trying to stay ahead. One of the things that kept the US and the Soviet Union on their toes during the Cold War was the run-up in their space programs. The US push to be first on the moon was basically a government mandate, along with the massive amount of funding that it took. Let's say we wanted to do something like that again - maybe to prove a point to China or something. Now, instead of using unlimited money and power to make things happen, NASA has to go beg/bribe 500 subcontractors to do the job instead of hiring the scientists and engineering staff themselves.
Your assumption appears to be that the Blues Brothers fx team never thought about wind or aerodynamic effects, rather than they were competent and confident and the FAA just made them jump through a bunch of bureaucratic hoops to arrive at what people in the industry already knew.
Actually, I think the premise here is that it would be really fucking stupid to assume one way or the other. The FAA needs proof, or are you going to argue that because one group of people might have done right without the FAA requiring proof, the FAA should just let anyone do it whether they've put any thought into these effects or not? Or are they just supposed to psychically divine which people will do it responsibly and which won't? Or, even less plausibly, simply take their word for it, since people are basically both competent and honest?
Can I come live in your fantasy world? I'm more than happy to grant that government could be a lot less intrusive and expensive in it, and it would be a great place to live, if it were real...
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
The US government is putting its manned access to space in the hands of private entities. When those entities go broke, will they be deemed "to important to fail"?
The fact of the matter is, you can do a lot more with robots than with people. One of the things holding back our progress is the stubborn insistence on sending men to do a machine's job, consuming huge amounts of resources and money that could have been spent actually accomplishing things rather than making "Buck Rogers" PR out of serious business.
Every time I see this kind of sentiment, I just cringe. On multiple levels, I think this is simple flat out wrong. There is a role for both manned and unmanned exploration of the Solar System and space in general. The two kinds of exploration fill complimentary roles, not competitive roles.
Frankly, it really annoys me that Dr. Sagan brought up this idea in the first place and popularized the notion that we could kill the Astronaut Corps and somehow have more money left over for the Jet Propulsion Lab. He is the origin of the notion, together with highly jealous oceanographers who thought their pet science projects should get priority on science funding as well.
Yes, there is a kernel of truth to the notion that some forms of exploration are better left to robots. Certainly the initial reconnaissance should be done remotely, and the use of robotic probes can certainly leverage a manpower shortage that is always going to be the case in space exploration anyway for the next couple thousand years or more.
Still, there is nothing like having somebody actually there, feeling the dirt, smelling the dust, responding to the physical environment and doing something that no other human has ever done before in the history of mankind. The benefits of a manned space exploration program have already paid off many, many times in terms of opening up horizons that never existed before, and introduced new ways of thinking and even whole new concepts and memes that are still going through society today.
If it wasn't for manned spaceflight, the modern environmental movement simply wouldn't exist. Seriously, prove me wrong here. And it took people, real folks doing stuff up there, to really kick those ideas into mainstream culture. Previously, environmental concern was for very fringe activists that were mostly ignored.
I use environmentalism just as but one of many examples of ideas and concepts that came from space and the experiences of people. No, I don't think that would have ever been developed from robotic exploration where every view is managed by committee.
You spend billions of dollars a year on the shuttle and build the American part of the ISS on that set of constraints and then wonder why it cost so much.
Everyone seems to have forgotten that the whole point of the shuttle program was to bring launch costs down. Easy to overlook, since it ended up being a total money pit. But it didn't have to be that way.
If memory serves, this is how it went wrong: NASA couldn't get the startup budget that was deemed the minimum necessary to develop the thing. They decided to build it anyway, and hope that once the program was started, Congress would be afraid to kill it.
That indeed was what happened, but the result was a disaster. Once the el cheapo design got locked in (why does Seattle DOS come to mind?), the only way to move the program forward was to kludge in fix after fix. The result was the most complicated vehicle in the history of transportation. (NASA's clueless PR flacks actually boast about this!) Complexity like that can only result in cost overruns and repeated malfunctions — how many launches have been delayed by technical problems?
The obvious thing to do is start from scratch, and this time fund the program properly, so you don't have to fix it later. And while you're at it, you might as well build something that can achieve a proper orbit. Unfortunately, that's even more a political non-starter in 2010 than it was in 1970.
What do they do with all that money I give them?
Invade Afghanistan and Iraq and make a lot of new terrorists.
Some of us complained a bit at the time. Probably didn't make the news.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Regardless of all the money they have supposedly wasted, NASA has enriched our lives in more ways than its critics can imagine. The moon and Mars missions were priceless. Those Hubble images alone are worth every penny. And they did it all with one of the most primitive, dangerous and expensive transportation technologies known to mankind, rocket propulsion. And that there is NASA's biggest problem. No other country is going to surpass the US in space exploration because they are all struggling against the same brick wall.
Rest assured that we are not going to colonize the Moon, let alone the solar system and the star systems beyond with a bunch of clunky rockets. Rocket science may look cool but it’s way overrated. Fortunately for space fans, a breakthrough in our understanding of motion is about to change all that.
A new analysis of the causality of motion leads to the conclusion that we are immersed in energy, lots and lots of it. Normal matter moves in an immense, crystal-like lattice of energetic particles without which neither gravity, nor electromagnetism, nor even motion would be possible. Soon we’ll use this knowledge to build vehicles that can move at enormous speeds and negotiate right angle turns without slowing down and without incurring damage due to inertial effects. Floating sky cities impervious to earthquakes, tsunamis and bad weather, New York to Beijing in minutes, Earth to Mars in hours; that’s the future of energy and travel.
Physics: The Problem With Motion
We all love Asimov’s dream of a galactic empire. We want to colonize the entire solar system and many other star systems beyond. Going back to the Moon using our current rocket propulsion technology is not the way to do it. What would be the point of that? Is the moon made of unobtainium? No it's not. What NASA should be doing is spending a boatload of money on developing new and revolutionary space propulsion technologies. Even the space station is a complete waste of time and money from humanity’s point of view, the few who are benefiting from it notwithstanding.
We need a new foundational science of motion and propulsion. The current Newtonian paradigm is just not cutting it. It’s time for you rocket scientists to retire and give new brains with revolutionary ideas a turn at the wheel.
PS. Don't say nobody told you because I just did. :-)
Rebel Science News
I don't think elderly people even want to go to nursing homes. I'm planning to take my mother in once she is too old to live on her own.
There's some bills in that scenario still, and they are all related by not having enough children. First, and most obvious, the elderly person might have outlived their kid. Granted, it was this sort of scenario that social security was originally for, but now everyone claims it. No matter where your mother lives, she'll be getting a social security check and really, it will probably be for more and for longer than what she paid into it.
Medicare is its own disaster. Dying of old age really means a mountain of medical bills for all the little things that go wrong. I can't even begin to calculate the tens of thousands of dollars that were spent on even silly things for my grandmother in law in the last year of her life. It's easy to say, just let her go, but when it is ultimately your grandmother or mother in front of you, its actually easier to do what it reasonably takes to give her a chance.
Bottom line is, the population is old, there's not enough kids to care for them, there's a ton of medical and other bills with them, and so both the absolute and the per capita costs of keeping old people alive is going to skyrocket, and it has. WE can either pay sufficiently to keep grandmother alive in increased taxes, or, we can instead bankrupt our children before they even get started, through massive debt, and I'd rather have the former.
This is my sig.
But carefully. Get to where you want to be overnight, and a lot of people are out of work and the panic starts all over again.
The best time to tighten your budgetary belt, unfortunately, is the time it is least likely to be done: when times are good. When times are good every dollar taxed is coming out of smoothly operating machine for turning dollars into wealth.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.