Don't worry, even though the Constellation program was canceled Roger Wicker was able to secure funding for $350 million for a NASA project that was mothballed the day it was completed. That's how space science now works under the GOP.
The USA remains exceptional, especially in two areas: military expenditures and incarceration rates. No other nation even comes close. You can rest assured that the GOP will keep it that way as long as the money is spent in their districts.
"Now if you want to see Obamacare gone then you should do something about it but you still need to fix the jobs problem and to pay for Social Security because SS isn't going away anytime soon, even though it's bankrupt and you'll never see a dime of it when you retire."
So because one is "never going to see a dime of it when one retires", we must adopt the GOP plan to end social security? How is that going to give anyone a dime or is it simply that hose 1% busy buying GOP politicians just need another tax cut?
"Reality: IF our species wants a chance at long term survival, we MUST leave this rock. Its not optional, its required."
Quite true, however, such an eventuality is likely more than a billion years in the future. For space science to become relevant to current problems, it needs to focus more on solutions of humanity's current problems, not those billions of years in the future. With the pace of global warming resulting from carbon dioxide pollution accelerating, humanity now has mere hundreds of years before world ecosystems that had been stable for tens and hundreds of millions of years, disappear within a few centuries. This is by far a much more pressing concern. NASA needs to be reorganized so that it is focused on addressing this issue and not the construction of more and more pork projects for contractors busy buying the votes of Congress as they have done for Roger Wicker in Mississippi.
Lets face it, there is no place in the universe we are going to be able to get to that will support human life in the short term than Earth. Even if we had the technology to travel to Mars, Mars is incredibly inhospitable to life, and other potentially hospitable planets are way to far away to get there within 50,000 years even with propulsion systems 100 times faster than we have now. If the space science community wants to garner support of humanity it had better quickly begin to get serious about focusing on more immediate concerns regarding humanity's pending extinction. Otherwise, soon the entire point will be moot. Humanity simply doesn't have the luxury of addressing problems billions of years in the future, when it faces extinction within a few hundred as a result of carbon dioxide pollution.
and also evidently craptons of bs masquerading as propaganda.
"manned programs are now moving into the private sector, where astronauts can take risks with impunity."
Ah, a universe filled with the current corporate mindset toward employees. Just what we need. FYI prolonged space travel produces severe permanent degradation of the eye. Every astronaut with extensive exposure to outer space now suffers from permanent eye problems.
The technologies of exploration in the past eventually morphed into tools of commerce that led to global warming that eventually caused human extinction. Progress marches on.
Don't forget to add that the 1% will then survive for a short while on a planet, whose seas are so acidic that they won't support multicellular life and whose terrestrial spaces are seared by intense heat with soils so hot that they will melt rubber tires. Soon EVERYONE will enjoy the benefits of living in outer space, without the trouble of actually having to leave home.
"Google is one of the few companies that invests in products that might become useless."
Its good to know that at least they do something in exchange for loading up the internet with advertisements. In return I get useless products. Thank you Google. I have to admit that I do take advantage of the search engine and Google Earth, although admittedly both rely on research developed through taxpayer funding.
There are roughly 325,000,000 Americans, which at $0.50/American would bring NASA a budget of $162,500,000. The NASA annual budget is instead $18,400,000,000. It is, however, true that NASA is 0.5% of the entire US annual budget.
You shouldn't confuse where the 0.5 figure originates, as it makes those supporting space research appear as though they have poor math skills. Also you shouldn't confuse the two lest you be asked to pay your annual share of approximately $566.15. Should I report you to the IRS for failing to pay your full share? I won't because I find your willingness to pay $2,830.77 to support science laudable, even though I think you would do better by spending more of that $2,830.77 on biological science that addresses the consequences of global warming on our rapidly deteriorating ecosystems, while there is still limited time to save them from almost certain extinction. If we solve that problem in time, there will be plenty of time and opportunity to conduct "space research". If we don't, then all the space science in the universe will be moot.
"Sad as it sounds, I think the best hope is the eventual militarization of space."
If this is the space science community's argument of last resort, then the point of doing space science has become a thing of the past.
If space scientists want to be relevant, they need to start focusing on projects that improve humanities chance of surviving the mass extinction that the planet faces in the next two hundred years as the consequences of global warming induced by carbon dioxide pollution play out. The rest is fascinating ivory tower work clearly worth pursuing, but not worth spending much money on as it diverts attention to the single biggest threat humanity now faces, the disappearance of world ecosystems as a result of climate change and the social and political forces that drive it.
"There will always [sic] be at least one person opposed to any sensible project. There needs to be a way for representatives of a majority of the people to be able to fund sensible science and technology projects even if someone objects."
We already have that. Its called Congress. The problem is that we continue to elect people to Congress who are corrupt, too poorly educated to lead, and consistently place special interests before the common good despite reams of rhetoric to the contrary. Politicians are now just a commodity like everything else in our capitalistic society. They are bought and sold with little other useful purpose. Sadly, the problem is that they are merely a reflection of ourselves. Poorly educated yet brimming with hubris.
Exactly, since we know exactly what we will get when we cut off funding and force millions to live in poverty in the streets. At least scientists can "vote with their feet" and move to China, India, Europe, and Japan, where there is still interest in building a space program.
Just out of curiosity, what makes you think or "unadulterated democracy" we have now is somehow devoid of the same corruption?
The only reason that useless monument NASA recently built and then immediately closed at the Stennis Space Center at a cost of $350 million is not called "corruption", is because it is so politically impolite and so politically inconvenient.
No, it was Joe Taxpayer. Give credit where credit is due. Not to the middle men who spent the money. Otherwise, one never makes any case for government spending as opposed to tax breaks for billionaires.
Quite true, but how much less might we have actually spent to achieve the same results if we had explicitly set the development of such technologies as specific goals rather than funding a man on the moon?
With the amount of money spent on "space research", humanity could have gone a long way to discover, identify, name, and study interactions of the millions of species on this planet that make it habitable, before they actually go extinct. Although we depend upon for them for our survival, because we instead spent billions on "space research", we now face the consequences of global warming and other human induced changes that are now crushing ecosystems worldwide. Sadly, its probably too late to do that and humanity will now have to settle on just taking our chances as most world biodiversity disappears completely in the next couple hundred years, because now ignorance likely to be our only option.
The overhead of wasted money like the large tower built by NASA at the Stennis Space Center in Hancock County Mississippi at a cost of $350 million that was closed the day it was completed and never used for the purpose intended strongly suggests why public support for space research has dwindled over the years.
Yes, but who are their customers? Its still Joe Tax Payer.
The only thing differentiates privatized space exploration industry from the old NASA is the number and composition of the middle men. At least with government funding, it used to be that the best science called the shots. Now, we simply have to settle for decisions being made on the basis of greed, megalomania, and political ambitions.
Don't tax the church. Tax the pastors and church elders by limiting their ability to claim their 47 room mansions and fleet of 35 vehicles including private jet as a legitimate religious expenditures. Funny how doing this might actually reveal to all that the purpose of churches and religion is the same as it is for other business, namely to make money.
Great idea. There should be a new tax of for those above a certain annual cap, say a $1,000,000 per year. Anyone in this category would then see their taxes raised by 80% of any any income over the $1,000,000, with a tax credit determined by how many new jobs they can demonstrate they created that tax year. Jobs should be categorized so that higher skilled jobs and higher paying jobs gain a greater tax reduction. That way the entire "trickle down" theory of economics can actually be made to work. Somehow, I doubt a single one of those GOP "jobs", "jobs", "jobs" politicians would actually support such legislation. For them, the facade and hypocrisy are far more important than "jobs", "jobs", "jobs".
For most species any rapid change will likely be negative. This occurs because species have evolved to live most successfully in particular niches and under optimal conditions. Move away from optimum and reproductive success diminishes rapidly. It is for this reason so many species have evolved homeostatic mechanisms that permit them to modulate changes, often through behavior or through other traits. Unfortunately, these mechanisms also result in a trade-off between stasis near the optimum, but increasingly sub-optimal performance as you move away from optimal conditions. This is true at both the cellular and multicellular levels of organization.
Except for local bolide impacts and other regionally limited catastorphies, what "more rapid changes" are you talking about?
The current rate of global warming is about 36 times that observed during the Eocene-Paleocene Thermal Maximum, which so far as I am aware is otherwise the single most rapid spike in carbon dioxide concentrations and global warming ever recorded in Earth history, having occurred over roughly a 30,000 to 60,000 year period.
Sadly, rising sea levels are only a small part of the threat of global warming and probably the most manageable even though virtually every port in the world will need to be rebuilt or moved in the next 100 years. A much bigger concern is the rate of warming and its effects on the ecosystems we take for granted. We are already seeing the disruption of plant pollination and its consequent effects on food production as well as the invasion of temperate areas by tropical species, many highly invasive and capable of causing epidemics in either human or other plant and animal species.
We are also seeing dramatic disruptions caused by more unstable and more extreme weather, both of which will likely effect non-coastal areas more than coastal areas simply because of the high specific heat of water and because more water will be present in the atmosphere, except in regions where high temperatures will generate increased aridity, such as much of the US Southwest. Although the changes on a global scale may seem slight and gradual, when averaged, more locally collapse or radical change of ecosystems will be the greater problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't worry, even though the Constellation program was canceled Roger Wicker was able to secure funding for $350 million for a NASA project that was mothballed the day it was completed. That's how space science now works under the GOP.
The USA remains exceptional, especially in two areas: military expenditures and incarceration rates. No other nation even comes close. You can rest assured that the GOP will keep it that way as long as the money is spent in their districts.
" Isn't that worth something?"
It almost certainly will be to opthamologists, as extended time in outer space results in permanent human eye problems.
"Now if you want to see Obamacare gone then you should do something about it but you still need to fix the jobs problem and to pay for Social Security because SS isn't going away anytime soon, even though it's bankrupt and you'll never see a dime of it when you retire."
So because one is "never going to see a dime of it when one retires", we must adopt the GOP plan to end social security? How is that going to give anyone a dime or is it simply that hose 1% busy buying GOP politicians just need another tax cut?
Ask your congressman.
"Reality: IF our species wants a chance at long term survival, we MUST leave this rock. Its not optional, its required."
Quite true, however, such an eventuality is likely more than a billion years in the future. For space science to become relevant to current problems, it needs to focus more on solutions of humanity's current problems, not those billions of years in the future. With the pace of global warming resulting from carbon dioxide pollution accelerating, humanity now has mere hundreds of years before world ecosystems that had been stable for tens and hundreds of millions of years, disappear within a few centuries. This is by far a much more pressing concern. NASA needs to be reorganized so that it is focused on addressing this issue and not the construction of more and more pork projects for contractors busy buying the votes of Congress as they have done for Roger Wicker in Mississippi.
Lets face it, there is no place in the universe we are going to be able to get to that will support human life in the short term than Earth. Even if we had the technology to travel to Mars, Mars is incredibly inhospitable to life, and other potentially hospitable planets are way to far away to get there within 50,000 years even with propulsion systems 100 times faster than we have now. If the space science community wants to garner support of humanity it had better quickly begin to get serious about focusing on more immediate concerns regarding humanity's pending extinction. Otherwise, soon the entire point will be moot. Humanity simply doesn't have the luxury of addressing problems billions of years in the future, when it faces extinction within a few hundred as a result of carbon dioxide pollution.
and also evidently craptons of bs masquerading as propaganda.
"manned programs are now moving into the private sector, where astronauts can take risks with impunity."
Ah, a universe filled with the current corporate mindset toward employees. Just what we need. FYI prolonged space travel produces severe permanent degradation of the eye. Every astronaut with extensive exposure to outer space now suffers from permanent eye problems.
The technologies of exploration in the past eventually morphed into tools of commerce that led to global warming that eventually caused human extinction. Progress marches on.
Don't forget to add that the 1% will then survive for a short while on a planet, whose seas are so acidic that they won't support multicellular life and whose terrestrial spaces are seared by intense heat with soils so hot that they will melt rubber tires. Soon EVERYONE will enjoy the benefits of living in outer space, without the trouble of actually having to leave home.
Ah, such inconvenient truths.
"Google is one of the few companies that invests in products that might become useless."
Its good to know that at least they do something in exchange for loading up the internet with advertisements. In return I get useless products. Thank you Google. I have to admit that I do take advantage of the search engine and Google Earth, although admittedly both rely on research developed through taxpayer funding.
There are roughly 325,000,000 Americans, which at $0.50/American would bring NASA a budget of $162,500,000. The NASA annual budget is instead $18,400,000,000. It is, however, true that NASA is 0.5% of the entire US annual budget.
You shouldn't confuse where the 0.5 figure originates, as it makes those supporting space research appear as though they have poor math skills. Also you shouldn't confuse the two lest you be asked to pay your annual share of approximately $566.15. Should I report you to the IRS for failing to pay your full share? I won't because I find your willingness to pay $2,830.77 to support science laudable, even though I think you would do better by spending more of that $2,830.77 on biological science that addresses the consequences of global warming on our rapidly deteriorating ecosystems, while there is still limited time to save them from almost certain extinction. If we solve that problem in time, there will be plenty of time and opportunity to conduct "space research". If we don't, then all the space science in the universe will be moot.
"Sad as it sounds, I think the best hope is the eventual militarization of space."
If this is the space science community's argument of last resort, then the point of doing space science has become a thing of the past.
If space scientists want to be relevant, they need to start focusing on projects that improve humanities chance of surviving the mass extinction that the planet faces in the next two hundred years as the consequences of global warming induced by carbon dioxide pollution play out. The rest is fascinating ivory tower work clearly worth pursuing, but not worth spending much money on as it diverts attention to the single biggest threat humanity now faces, the disappearance of world ecosystems as a result of climate change and the social and political forces that drive it.
"There will always [sic] be at least one person opposed to any sensible project. There needs to be a way for representatives of a majority of the people to be able to fund sensible science and technology projects even if someone objects."
We already have that. Its called Congress. The problem is that we continue to elect people to Congress who are corrupt, too poorly educated to lead, and consistently place special interests before the common good despite reams of rhetoric to the contrary. Politicians are now just a commodity like everything else in our capitalistic society. They are bought and sold with little other useful purpose. Sadly, the problem is that they are merely a reflection of ourselves. Poorly educated yet brimming with hubris.
Exactly, since we know exactly what we will get when we cut off funding and force millions to live in poverty in the streets. At least scientists can "vote with their feet" and move to China, India, Europe, and Japan, where there is still interest in building a space program.
All the more reason to close it down completely and start over.
Just out of curiosity, what makes you think or "unadulterated democracy" we have now is somehow devoid of the same corruption?
The only reason that useless monument NASA recently built and then immediately closed at the Stennis Space Center at a cost of $350 million is not called "corruption", is because it is so politically impolite and so politically inconvenient.
No, it was Joe Taxpayer. Give credit where credit is due. Not to the middle men who spent the money. Otherwise, one never makes any case for government spending as opposed to tax breaks for billionaires.
If supporters of space exploration really want to be convincing, they need to do more than make excuses.
Quite true, but how much less might we have actually spent to achieve the same results if we had explicitly set the development of such technologies as specific goals rather than funding a man on the moon?
With the amount of money spent on "space research", humanity could have gone a long way to discover, identify, name, and study interactions of the millions of species on this planet that make it habitable, before they actually go extinct. Although we depend upon for them for our survival, because we instead spent billions on "space research", we now face the consequences of global warming and other human induced changes that are now crushing ecosystems worldwide. Sadly, its probably too late to do that and humanity will now have to settle on just taking our chances as most world biodiversity disappears completely in the next couple hundred years, because now ignorance likely to be our only option.
The overhead of wasted money like the large tower built by NASA at the Stennis Space Center in Hancock County Mississippi at a cost of $350 million that was closed the day it was completed and never used for the purpose intended strongly suggests why public support for space research has dwindled over the years.
Yes, but who are their customers? Its still Joe Tax Payer.
The only thing differentiates privatized space exploration industry from the old NASA is the number and composition of the middle men. At least with government funding, it used to be that the best science called the shots. Now, we simply have to settle for decisions being made on the basis of greed, megalomania, and political ambitions.
Don't tax the church. Tax the pastors and church elders by limiting their ability to claim their 47 room mansions and fleet of 35 vehicles including private jet as a legitimate religious expenditures. Funny how doing this might actually reveal to all that the purpose of churches and religion is the same as it is for other business, namely to make money.
Great idea. There should be a new tax of for those above a certain annual cap, say a $1,000,000 per year. Anyone in this category would then see their taxes raised by 80% of any any income over the $1,000,000, with a tax credit determined by how many new jobs they can demonstrate they created that tax year. Jobs should be categorized so that higher skilled jobs and higher paying jobs gain a greater tax reduction. That way the entire "trickle down" theory of economics can actually be made to work. Somehow, I doubt a single one of those GOP "jobs", "jobs", "jobs" politicians would actually support such legislation. For them, the facade and hypocrisy are far more important than "jobs", "jobs", "jobs".
For most species any rapid change will likely be negative. This occurs because species have evolved to live most successfully in particular niches and under optimal conditions. Move away from optimum and reproductive success diminishes rapidly. It is for this reason so many species have evolved homeostatic mechanisms that permit them to modulate changes, often through behavior or through other traits. Unfortunately, these mechanisms also result in a trade-off between stasis near the optimum, but increasingly sub-optimal performance as you move away from optimal conditions. This is true at both the cellular and multicellular levels of organization.
Except for local bolide impacts and other regionally limited catastorphies, what "more rapid changes" are you talking about?
The current rate of global warming is about 36 times that observed during the Eocene-Paleocene Thermal Maximum, which so far as I am aware is otherwise the single most rapid spike in carbon dioxide concentrations and global warming ever recorded in Earth history, having occurred over roughly a 30,000 to 60,000 year period.
Sadly, rising sea levels are only a small part of the threat of global warming and probably the most manageable even though virtually every port in the world will need to be rebuilt or moved in the next 100 years. A much bigger concern is the rate of warming and its effects on the ecosystems we take for granted. We are already seeing the disruption of plant pollination and its consequent effects on food production as well as the invasion of temperate areas by tropical species, many highly invasive and capable of causing epidemics in either human or other plant and animal species.
We are also seeing dramatic disruptions caused by more unstable and more extreme weather, both of which will likely effect non-coastal areas more than coastal areas simply because of the high specific heat of water and because more water will be present in the atmosphere, except in regions where high temperatures will generate increased aridity, such as much of the US Southwest. Although the changes on a global scale may seem slight and gradual, when averaged, more locally collapse or radical change of ecosystems will be the greater problem.