Slashdot Mirror
Trump Administration Wants To End NASA Funding For ISS By 2025 (theverge.com)
According to budget documents seen by The Verge, the Trump administration is preparing to end support for the International Space Station program by 2025. As a result, American astronauts could be grounded on Earth for years with no destination in space until NASA develops new vehicles for its deep space travel plans. From the report: The draft may change before an official budget request is released on February 12th. However, two people familiar with the matter have confirmed to The Verge that the directive will be in the final proposal. We reached out to NASA for comment, but did not receive a response by the time of publication. Any budget proposal from the Trump administration will also be subject to scrutiny and approval by Congress. But even announcing the intention to cancel ISS funding could send a signal to NASA's international partners that the U.S. is no longer interested in continuing the program. Many of NASA's partners still have yet to decide if they'd like to continue working on the station beyond 2024. The International Space Station has been an ongoing program for more than two decades. It costs NASA between $3 to $4 billion each year, and represents a more than $87 billion investment from the U.S. government. It's become a major hub for conducting both government and commercial experiments in microgravity, as well as testing out how the human body responds to weightlessness.
The ISS mission has exceeded it's original goals and it's far past time to recognize that. To say that it's invaluable to science is nonsense. To say that it is also invaluable to a human mars mission (something that I always thought was kind of stupid any way considering the countless failures we have had sending other spaceships there) is not much better than nonsense. This all has *got* to be a big open secret at NASA.
NASA can finally be unhindered to develope the next generation of propulsion technologies that will be required for any space mission rather than worry about what flavor of bubble gum a handful of Astronauts will need as they check off another orbit done.
I am truly glad that the Trump administration can see that.
Rather than a human mars mission, I much, much rather see us be able to find a way to send another spacecraft to Pluto and have it only need a year to get there.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
You better let the people spending the money decide where the money is being spent. Want to spend money in space, spend it where it will generate more investment in space. Want more money for space, make bigger plans, don't be bloody cowards. How big, shoot for the stars, why the fuck not but make clear each step of the path. So earth orbiting space stations, a permanent moon base, then town, then city, asteroid bases, a mars colony, bases on the other moons and then the stars. How to pay for it, STOP FUCKING KILLING EACH OTHER, it is expensive and achieves fuck all.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Who said that's the best argument for the ISS? Some useful science has come out of the ISS, but enough to justify its cost by itself? NASA has turned into a pork barrel jobs program. If its budget allocation were decided by NASA itself, and put directly into basic research and advancing the state of the art in aerospace tech, they'd get much more interesting things accomplished. The most interesting upcoming mission they have now is the Europa Clipper, with a vague launch window 4-7 years from now. The NASA human mission to Mars is planned for 15 years from now and always will be. I remember "let's send a man to Mars" being part of George W. Bush's reelection campaign promises (not like I believed it). If commercial space companies will only do what's profitable for them, then NASA should do the R&D that's unprofitable: cleaning up space junk, blue skies science, and basic research. In the near future, "hey we have some humans in orbit" is no longer going to be impressive and their normal PR methods won't be able to save the ISS.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
"Musk's Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy will make launches cheap enough for that to be feasible."
Same thing they told us about the %$#@% Space Shuttle. They promised weekly launches and cost of a few hundred dollars a kg to LEO. The best they ever did was 9 launches in 1985. And the average cost to LEO was $60000/kg.
But this time it's different. ... How different? Most likely, not very
Aside from which, most of what we need to know about people, manufacturing, etc in space was determined in the 1970s by Skylab.
A new Skylab type mission every decade or two might be worth doing. The Space station was a near total waste of money and resources.
Humans in space? Maybe in the 22nd century. Right now, we'd do better to focus human exploration on great unknowns closer to home. Like the oceans that cover 70% of the planet. Leave exploring space to machines that can do it cheaper and better.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
... the "international" space station was mostly a political project and it is hard to cite any real success it had along those lines. It was about mending fences with the Russians after the Cold War by participating in a shared project that both nations could excel at... the Russians got funding to keep their space program alive without which it probably would have died entirely... and the US HOPED that the Russians would see the US as a potential friend in the world. Whatever our past... the future opens ever wider.
Sadly, it doesn't seem like any of that happened. The Russians seem immune to olive branch gestures.
That being the case... what is the scientific point of it? Nearly everything it does can be done more cheaply and creatively in other ways. We don't need to share funding or technology with what are still stubbornly rival powers. We are not chained to whatever is relevant to the ISS if we don't fund it at all.
The whole thing is likely to be abandoned and de-orbited.
I want humanity to venture into space... to claim the stars and all that stuff. But the ISS doesn't seem to have any role in that ambition. Its not even a good science platform. It isn't even good propaganda. It isn't even good diplomatic fodder to make the Russians happy. What does it do? Really?
I am very happy to fund NASA heavily. But clarify the mission statement and fund according to that clear mission.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.