Slashdot Mirror
Space Policy Guru John Logsdon Has Good News and Bad News On NASA Funding
MarkWhittington writes According to a story in Medium, Dr. John Logsdon, considered the dean of space policy, addressed a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Seattle. The author of a book on President Kennedy's decision to go to the moon and an upcoming book on President Nixon's post-Apollo space policy decisions had some good news and some bad news about NASA funding. The good news is that funding for the space agency is not likely to be slashed below its current $18 billion a year. The bad news is that it is not likely to go up much beyond that. If Logsdon is correct, static NASA funding will mean that beyond low Earth orbit human space exploration will remain an unrealistic aspiration. American astronauts will not return to the moon, not to mention go to Mars, in the foreseeable future.
Dupe of a story just 5 down.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
and you would be able to double the NASA budget and have plenty of money left over. The F35 comes to mind, but many other unneeded and excessively costly weapons systems could be cut back in order to boost NASA funding.
A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
I foresee a future of space exploration funded by the super-rich, because it's cool and they can, but also organizations with a speculative interest. I'm thinking of asteroid mining - robotic at first, but if an asteroid is captured and brought near earth, manned operations will probably take place at some point.
Looking back at the earlier days of Earth exploration, specifically "new world" and Antarctic, there were no guarantees of success or even survival; and while Columbus was state-funded, the mission was of a primarily commercial interest. Shackleton's and Scott's, however, were primarily for exploration - scientific curiosity. As long as we have people like Elon Musk, there's a chance for manned exploration. Even a high-risk manned mission to Mars would have plenty of willing volunteers, as long as there was a chance of safe return (I do think it would at least have to be planned to be round-trip).
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
All the Chinese have to do is land a man on the moon -- even if it's a one-way trip -- and NASA's budget will skyrocket when they believe that the Chinese will have the high ground. It will become a defense program -- and you KNOW those have unlimited money, even from Republicans... hell, especially Republicans.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Americans are reactionary. Until China embarrasses the USA by taking a tinkle on Neal Armstrong's flag, they will not care.
Table-ized A.I.
The good news is actually that they won't have the budget for useless human exploration of space.
Yes, I think you are right. It will take people who have a personal motivation. E.g., Elon Musk wants to go to Mars himself. And many people feel motivated because they feel that humans need to explore. Their goal is not profit. Great voyages of exploration have always required patronage, just as the sciences and the arts have always required patronage.
I think Columbus showed a negative return for his trip.
The whole fucking colony of Roanoke disappeared costing several English Lords a boatload of money.
Exploration is not for timid bean counters.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.