E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
NASA
An artist's conception shows the Jupiter Europa Orbiter with the Jovian moon Europa in the foreground.
Last updated
11:35 a.m. ET March 8:
Planetary scientists would love to have some samples collected on Mars for delivery back to Earth, and they're itching to get a closer look at Europa, a moon of Jupiter that may harbor a hidden ocean and perhaps life as well. But they might be stymied during the decade to come, due to the federal government's tightening financial circumstances.
The Mars and Europa missions are the top priorities for flagship robotic missions emerging from a big-picture scientific assessment known as the Decadal Survey. Over the past couple of years, the survey's organizers have received input from more than 1,600 planetary scientists, and the final results were released today in the form of a National Research Council report titled "Visions and Voyages."
The whole idea of the survey is to let scientists weigh in on NASA's priorities for exploration over the coming decade. Two big-ticket missions — the Mars Astrobiology Explorer-Catcher, or MAX-C, and the Jupiter Europa Orbiter — rose to the top:
- MAX-C, proposed for launch in 2018, would gather up rocks and soil from a promising area of the Red Planet and have the stuff ready to blast into Martian orbit, where it could be picked up for eventual return to Earth. Such a mission would lead to the first opportunity to examine fresh material from Mars, which could hold clues to the existence of past or present life on Mars.
- The Jupiter Europa Orbiter is proposed for launch in 2020 and would reach the Jovian system in 2025 or so. The spacecraft would focus on Europa and two other moons of Jupiter that may have subsurface oceans of water, Callisto and Ganymede. Ice-penetrating radar could determine how close liquid water is to the surface of those moons, and detailed chemical analysis of Europa's top layer could conceivably turn up signs of life.
The only problem is, doing these sorts of things costs money. A lot of money. The report notes that the mission to Jupiter and Europa is projected to cost $4.7 billion, and MAX-C's projected cost is $3.5 billion. It suggests that MAX-C would have to be cut back to $2.5 billion, and that the Jupiter Europa Orbiter mission should proceed in the 2013-2022 time frame "only if changes to both the mission and the NASA planetary budget make it affordable without eliminating any other recommended missions."
The exploration situation could get even tougher due to the budget-cutting mood in Washington. If there's less money than projected for planetary exploration, NASA should consider not only cutting back on the scope of those flagship missions, but delaying or canceling them, the report says.
ESA
This illustration shows one of the concepts for Europe's ExoMars rover at left, and NASA's MAX-C collection rover at right.
The future of NASA's robotic exploration is further complicated by the fact that both MAX-C and the Jupiter Europa Orbiter are being considered in cooperation with the European Space Agency. MAX-C would be complemented by ESA's ExoMars rover, and the Europeans have been willing to sign up as partners in the Europa study effort. Shifts in cost and scope could affect the character of international cooperation in robotic space exploration.
What's more, NASA has other types of programs to think about: The International Space Station is likely to be in operation well into the 2013-2022 period, and Congress wants the space agency to spend billions on the development of a next-generation heavy-lift rocket for human spaceflight. Meanwhile, the Decadal Survey's report on astrophysics — released last August — has rolled out a separate wish list with pricey items, including a $1.6 billion space telescope to probe dark energy and identify Earthlike planets.
Game plan for future missions
The survey's chairman, Cornell University astronomer Steve Squyres, discussed the 400-page report in depth today during the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in Texas. He laid out a game plan for matching the aspirations of planetary scientists with the available budgets:
- See if MAX-C and ExoMars can be combined into a one-rover sample collection mission to Mars. He said an analysis of the mission requirements suggested that such a mission could be done for $2.5 billion, even if NASA had to do it alone.
- If MAX-C's cost to NASA can't be brought down to $2.5 billion, the mission should be taken off the table. "There's no Plan B," said Squyres, who heads the science team for the wildly successful Mars rover missions. The Jupiter Europa Orbiter would become the prime focus for flagship missions, but the cost would have to be reduced. "It is a fabulous mission, but at 4.7 [billion dollars] it is an intractable problem that needs to get fixed," Squyres said.
- If neither of those two missions can be done in the 2013-2022 period, consider sending an orbiter and atmospheric probe to Uranus. Cost of that mission, which would be the first to focus exclusively on an ice giant planet, is estimated at $2.7 billion, "so it ain't cheap either," Squyres said.
- The next priorities would be the Venus Climate Mission (at $2.4 billion) or the Enceladus Orbiter (at $1.9 billion). "If you can't afford any of those, you've got no flagships at all," Squyres said.
Under that scenario, big-ticket missions would go by the wayside for the next decade, leaving NASA with medium-class missions such as Juno, a solar-powered Jupiter orbiter with a cost of $1 billion; and lower-cost efforts such as the GRAIL lunar probes, which carry a price tag of $375 million. Squyres said those types of programs should not be cut back. The scientists also endorsed the Mars Trace Gas Orbiter, a NASA-European mission that would be launched in 2016 to delve into the mystery of Martian methane.
Wide array of future flights
The report suggests seven candidates for future medium-class missions, which would be selected through NASA's New Frontiers program. Such missions could bring a sample back from the surface of a comet, explore the lunar south pole, analyze Saturn's atmosphere, explore the Trojan asteroids that share Jupiter's orbit, land on the surface of Venus, observe the Jovian moon Io, or distribute sensors around the moon to study lunar seismology.
On another front, the decadal report recommends setting aside 6 to 8 percent of NASA's planetary science funding for technology development and urges the federal government to restart production of plutonium-238. That radioisotope is used to power missions heading for the outer solar system, where solar power just isn't enough to keep a spacecraft warm and working.
Squyres urged the researchers assembled in Texas to contact their representatives in Congress and voice their support for the exploration plan.
Jim Green, the director of NASA's Planetary Science Division, said that tough economic times may lie ahead, and the scientific community's backing would be critical in the years to come. "The decadal report transcends Congress, transcends changes in administration, and is our guiding light that moves us forward, year after year after year," he said.
Correction for 11:35 a.m. ET: An earlier version of this report incorrectly suggested that Green called on scientists to contact members of Congress. That call actually came from Squyres.
Join the Cosmic Log community by clicking the "like" button on our Facebook page or by following msnbc.com science editor Alan Boyle as b0yle on Twitter. To learn more about Alan Boyle's book on Pluto and the search for planets, check out the website for "The Case for Pluto."
Leave a Comment:
WHY WHY WHY Cant they let that completely useless ISS die already and get back to the probes where all of our true science comes from.
Because, as the name International Space Station implies, it is a joint effort. The U.S. is not the sole country funding the project, it is instead a joint project between the U.S. the European Space Agency, and Russia. We just provided the cargo vehical used to build it.
That doesn't change the fact that they continue to fund our portion and get nothing of any real science value from it. They should cut off the funding and move the money somewhere useful.
Not to get nit-picky but
Also, the space shuttle was not the only cargo vehicle used to build it. Alternatively, it was the only vehicle that could bring large amounts of cargo back to Earth.
And I respectfully have to insist that the ISS is not completely useless. Actually, I'd say it's not useless at all. It may be really expensive and take away from other potentially wonderful missions but it's certainly not useless.
Hi Mob,
I trust your opinion on these matters, so tell us some of the uses you see from the ISS? I would love to see it's budget completely shifted to probes if it were my choice.
I know many folks who are in that boat. I also want to see more robotic probes around and on more cosmic bodies. But I am not a fan of taking the budget away from one great scientific investment to do so. The ISS provides a great opportunity to live and work in space. As human beings that is a very important things in and of itself. The medical research being done up there is very worthwhile and it will in time help millions. Also, in an upcoming shuttle mission they will drop off a very interesting device that will do research on particle physics ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Magnetic_Spectrometer ).
I could just keep going for a few hours, but the main point I am going to keep coming back to is the importance of long duration human spaceflight. I feel that is a very important step in humanity's reach into space and to me it's worth more than all the wars in Asia. If you want to cut back on something cut back on the "war on terror". But that's a whole different discussion.
Manned space flight is a money pit dead end. After 9-12 months its very detrimental to astronaut health to be in space. Notably the immune system. And we're not going to solve the limitations anytime soon. Robotic probes are the way to go with a limited budget anyway.
No ISS does not guarantee one more dollar for these probes. If ISS support were somehow removed from the NASA budget, that budget would likely shrink accordingly...
Or have you forgotten that reducing the Federal Budget is the current mantra?
Wakehead, that is one of the reasons to have the ISS around, to figure out ways to counter micro-gravity effects on the human body(the immune system issue is not so much related to micro-gravity as it is a consequence of living in a "clean" environment).
What I don't understand is why we're ignoring the moon. Why aren't we doing everything we can to figure out how to mine He3 from the surface of the moon? Talk about an energy source!
I agree with Mob, it shouldn't be necessary to cut one incredibly valuable scientific mission in order to fund another. Space has the potential, as the ISS illustrates, to bring the world powers together. As long as our interests are aligned with other nations, we will achieve great things.
The ISS provides a unique environment that cannot currently be found anywhere else. For example, in the coming year or two, it will serve as a test platform for the VF200 (VASIMR), which is a completely ground breaking new form of rocket propulsion. It will greatly reduce the cost of keeping the ISS in it's proper orbit, and will also enable some incredible manned and unmanned missions down the road. Remember the "Mars in 39 Days" article that was out a while ago? VASIMR is the enabling technology. It has the potential to enable low-cost "space tug" to and from the Moon, as well as ultra-fast deep space probles.
Rather than cutting education, scientific research, etc., (which fall under "discretionary spending"), and really only constitutes a small fraction of the US Federal Budget, we should really be looking at Military, Medicare, and SS, which make up over 60% of the budget. NASA currently gets 0.5%. 1% for NASA and all of the incredible feats of human ingenuity that they foster, should not be too much to ask.
Why doesn't NASA use the ISS as the hub of a solar collector farm and microwave energy back to Earth to help replace our dependence on OIL? The technology works and the hub is the most costly part of the project. If we had not killed the saturn booster we could already have had a pilot program running.
It has something to do with the cost of lift to orbit being a million dollars a pound and the value of the energy returned being about 10 cents a kilowatt, even if you could resolve the issues of being sure that the energy beam didn't blind or randomly murder people as it operated.
We only need oil for 10 more years, after that, fusion power will permit synthetic generation of oil as required by the distribution system.
So, no benefits that you can mention from the ISS? Living and working in space is not a benefit, but rather a cost or investment.
No value has been produced. No product. Pull the plug. Stick a fork in it, its done.
Umm, just to clear the ISS-hate air a little: US-funded research on the ISS may have just found a cure for osteoperosis!! Neither the ISS nor manned space-flight are useless. You can't measure these things in terms of the projected benefits, but rather in terms of the unexpected benefits. Since we don't know what those will be ahead of time (thus the unexpected part), the best way to estimate them is to look at unexpected benefits earned in the past. Those are huge!!
Now, sure, probes to Mars and Europa would be great too, and could come up with their own sizable unexpected benefits, but to say we should kill the ISS funding is idiotic.
Don Meaker, Living and working is space may not appear as a benefit but it creates benefits. That is why I always bring it up when asked about the ISS benefits to humanity. There are many benefits to us folks down here on Earth that come as a direct result of human spaceflight in general and having the ISS specifically. One specific example of how the ISS has directly benefited humanity has been brought up by Mike Wall at Space.com and brought to my attention via MSNBC. Read that article and then tell me the ISS has no value. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41972316/ns/technology_and_science-space/
This is a really tough issue for me. As many of you know I'm all for heavily funding NASA. The inadequacies of the American federal budget are causing us to cut back on scientific exploration of all types. All of these programs are worthwhile. The research of medicine on the ISS alone is worth $100 billion dollars (in my opinion). I find it disheartening, to say the least, that the global economy was ruined (for whatever number of reasons and causes) and now that has led us to this place where we have to stifle and postpone and cancel altogether some of these spectacular missions.
The bottom line is - If we weren't in this current financial state we wouldn't be cutting funding to these programs. And for me personally planetary science, specifically learning about OUR solar system is more "worthwhile" and important in the near-term than our understanding of dark-matter and dark-energy. (although I do feel those subjects should be explored and adequately funded.)
Considering that ISS is nearly complete and operating well, I think it's time to shift more of the operational management and financial cost over to our partners in the endeavor. We have put in the most time and money on it up until now by quite a bit, and soon it will be up to the Russians to supply and re-crew ISS anyways. We should also invite China to participate in ISS. Get China to build some modules. If China can get them up there, then we'll attach them. We should try to get some more countries involved as well.
Let Russia, JAXA, and ESA take the lead with ISS, while we re-concentrate our main efforts on these missions that this news article has outlined.
For the record, President Obama did bump up NASA's budget a bit, though not as much as you and I would like.
The scientists and engineers running these programs just don't get it. When J.Q. Public sees stupid mistakes made time and again at costs in the $100 millions, you can expect to be asked to be more careful and do less. We landed on the moon over 40 years ago and since that time we have spent billions on mediocre programs that have had horrible failure rates. In almost every case it has been caused by mismanagement versus the vagaries of pushing into the unknowns of space. We should be lauding the Voyager program, the Mars lander program, the Cassini project and a host of other good successes. Even in those efforts, some stupid mistakes had limited the expected outcomes as well. For all of the bright folks involved, it appears you are in dire need of common sense and leadership. Just saying ! Of course, it would have helped your case had we not urinated away $trillions on poorly executed and unrealistic wars over the last 40 years as well. In the meantime, expect China to take the lead into space. We gave them the economic strength to do so when we outsourced our manufacturing for "cheaper" labor. It was a nice run but we have passed our prime. We still don't use the metric system in our education system and we think we can complete in this new world order? Right, just ask the boys at Lockheed Martin who screwed up the Mars orbiter.
It would be helpful to have a Wernher von Braun type somewhere high in the ranks of NASA right now.
Watcher,
Sadly, J. Q. Public doesn't get it, either. He expects things like GPS, the World Wide Web, cell phones, and live broadcasts from the Olympics in China to come without sacrifice. He expects new medical discoveries and cures for previously incurable diseases and disorders to pop up for free. Because of this, he tells his senator to cut funding for NASA. Cutting funding without cutting work (because fewer results means even less funding in the future) means cutting corners. Cutting corners causes problems like those you mentioned.
NASA's biggest problem is a PR problem. The American people have forgotten how much they and the world owe to NASA.
I don't understand Congress' oversight on NASA's budget leaning towards developing more powerful lifting vehicles and manned space flight when it's clear it's far-more costly and risky than deploying advanced robotic technology that is coming closer and closer to rivaling human judgment and intuition. Human space flight was a miraculous achievement in the late 20th Century, but was clearly politically-motivated and not funded for genuinely scientific or culturally-advancing purposes. It's a pity, but it's also a pinnacle that just can't be practically regained. We just plain missed our shot at "2001". Dreary reality got in the way. Now we still do have a chance to exploit the leaps in computer technology not even dreamed-of in those great mid-60's sci-fi shows and we should not let this opportunity pass either over some heady delusions brought-about by too much "Star Trek" growing-up. We blew our shot at that future. Time to trade the bridge for a comfortable seat in front of a monitor while "Nomad" does the work safely for us. We'll learn just as much!
I've said it before and I'll say it again.. Why must we give up on manned-spaceflight. I argue, we will NOT "learn just as much". You won't learn anything about keeping human beings alive and well by sending robots to do all the jobs. I am a big proponent of a multi-pronged "attack" in terms of space exploration. I believe it unwise to rely solely upon technology. I believe it unwise to rely solely upon manned spaceflight. What is needed is an understanding of what each option does best and how we can maximize the potential of all our exploration tools. I disagree vehemently with the assessment that we "just plain missed our shot at '2001'". I agree that we may not have acted wisely in the strictest sense of the word up to this point, but I personally believe with all my heart that we can indeed regain that pinnacle of human achievement. But that can not be done if we succumb to our fears and just give up because some politician or agency or report says something we don't like to hear! The innovators and inventors of this world won't simply stop coming up with ways to make space travel possible. For that I am thankful.
I think that there is an assumption here that NASA programs are only about what we learn. Manned spaceflight is about application. Sure, we can sit around the monitor marvelling about the 'billions and billions,' but the future of the species relies on spreading off this dinky little rock (beautiful though it is). We don't get to that point without practice and, I hate to say it, some trial and error. By way of comparison, getting to the Superbowl starts in training camp, and you don't get there without winning a lot of games. You don't there by waiting for someone to tell you when your turn is. The answer is not in turning upon your teammates. Yes, more funding is needed, but we also need a way make the missions cheaper. I've never heard of a standard robotic platform that could be mass produced and specialized experiments plugged in like USB devices, but it sounds cheaper than anything 'flagship.' There are probably a million reasons that won't work, but it's a thought in the right direction.
ydmos, The idea of mass producing robot probes and all that is a great idea. I would personally love to see that happen, but one has to take into account what is being probed. If we want to have 50 Spirit or Opportunity style rovers roving around on Mars then it should conceivably be pretty simple to setup a manufacturing process that would drive down the cost of making those rovers. But those rovers were designed for that specific purpose and they wouldn't be quite as efficient in say an environment like we find on Earth's Moon, or Titan or Enceladus or wherever else we want to study. for each environment or each purpose you may need a totally different type of machine to get the desired results, and then that can be mass produced and we can explore those places in greater detail.
But I see where you are going with the idea. If we could somehow streamline the rover building process in some way to make it cheaper to build and operate them then we should certainly do that. But I believe that right now they are doing it the way they do it for good reason and it's because of that that we get results like Spirit and Opportunity and Cassini and others. I would personally love to see an army of Cassini's around all of the planet and many of their moons. We have only scratched the surface in our Solar System and I'd love to see us exploring it more and more.
No Buck Rogers, no bucks. The public equates NASA with manned space ("if we could put a Man on the Moon"). Get rid of the man, then there is no support for space beyond the couple thousand nerds who draw a check to squint at monitors.
Ydmos, good idea. I've had a similar idea. Why not mass produce probes that could go to asteroids or land on small moons or even enter orbit and take pictures? They could be made with certain standard parts and instruments, but modularized so that mission specific items could be added.
Do something similar with rovers, as Mob suggests.
I think we've got a couple of expensive wars to fight. NASA and scientific endeavor always comes in 2nd to power mongering and big fat corporate subsidies syphoned from taxpayers disguised as defense and no-bid contracts
=(
I think the ISS is superb! Humanity needs to perfect BOTH robotic AND manned exploration and space habitation!
Putting all of our eggs completely into either basket is going to leave our future potential very lop-sided.
The ISS is a grand experiment in both geopolitical cooperation and experimentation with long-term human survival in orbit (as well as all other experiments the crew conducts).
If we go whole hog into robotics, we will see great progress in exploration, yes, but we will not be able to get our species off of this rock...perhaps just leave some fascinating artifacts floating around for some other space-faring civilization to find one day.
If we go all out into manned-spaceflight...we will progress very slowly. It takes SOOO much more infrastructure to support a single human in space than a robot, and duration and longevity are sorely limited. This is a field that needs refinement and awaits a number of key technological advances that have yet to come to fruition. But to not expand this field means missing the opportunities to incorporate said technological advancements if funding is directed away from such a mission as manned space.
Think about the aspects of some basic parts of current day technology...the ancient Egyptians had batteries, copper, and crystal, yet they never built a radio.
The Greeks had advanced clockwork that calculated astronomical events, but never used it to create a calculator. The Greeks had a steam engine, but the most they used it for was to animate animatronics and simple entertainment...the industrial revolution could have started 4,000 years ago if it weren't for a lack of the right minds getting together and collaborating.
And THAT's the point. We need to put time and $$$ into researching this stuff...we have the potential, but the right minds, timing, and accumulation of knowledge in a central place is needed to accomplish these goals.
Focusing purely (or even mostly) on robotics is going to leave us without a rout for developing manned space exploration/colonization...the technology is NOT going to spawn from the ether...we have to discover it and refine it.
Magnets have been around
gah, stupid magnets comment, didn't mean to leave that in, I think I made my point...
If you consider Yankee Stadium was built for about 1.5 billion, and we as a nation won't scrape together the $ needed to fund these important missions, it's just sad.
Well, professional sports is a method of channeling all of that natural human aggression into something that is truly meaningless in the grand scheme of things, and thus, it keeps us docile overall.
I'm sure the powers that be prefer it that way. It helps ensure that the masses don't end up channelling that pent up aggression towards them instead. I'm certain that the powers that be feel $1.5 billion dollar stadiums are well worth the investment for that reason alone. The Romans figured this out a very long time ago.
Maybe we should declare war on the Moon. Then we would send the troops to build some resupply spaceports. After we declair victory we could send in private contractors to help rebuild the infrastructure for the natives and spread goodwill.
Did I spell "declare" as "declair"?
Excellent comments Seriously, no really. I could not have said it any better.
I think TonyInDallas is onto something.
If only! The promise of Helium3 isn't even enough to lure greedy capitalist monsters into investing in landing and mining the moon!
The taxpayer is going to have to fund 99.99% of this initial investment in time and money...private interests will only pick it up once they see a profit in 5-10years
Have we even figured helium3 fusion out yet? I thought we were still 10 years out from fusion (as we always seem to be 10 years away from achieving fusion). I suppose I haven't kept up with that topic as much as I'd like.
Read up on the different projects such as ITER
We're trying fusion with elements that can be found naturally on Earth. That by definition is limiting.
Helium3 occurs naturally in space and has imbedded itself on the Moon's surface and likely regolith as well.
The reason why it is so promising is because of how it "stems from the aneutronic nature of its reaction products. Helium-3 itself is non-radioactive. The lone high-energy by-product, the proton, can be contained using electric and magnetic fields. The momentum energy of this proton (created in the fusion process) will interact with the containing electromagnetic field, resulting in direct net electricity generation." here's the link to the expanded explanation (wikipedia, I know, but it has some good corroborating citations)
But, seriously, I think tourism might fuel more private enterprise in space before mining and other enterprises.
I got interrupted before I finished.
The exciting 3 day Lunar tour, the romantic 14 day Martian Cruise and the ultimate 4 week Outer Planet Honeymoon Cruise with a 4 day stay at the exciting Saturnian resort orbiting Titan.
Check our website for exciting cruise offers starting at just $199,000 (US) per person.
If you don't eat your carrots and your spinach, you can't have dessert. If we don't balance our budget, we shouldn't explore planets.
Exploring the worlds in our neighborhood isn't dessert - it's scouting the local woods to see if there be carnivores nearby, and finding the local watering holes.
It's a matter of survival.
Knowing if there are carnivores nearby doesn't help when you don't have a means to defend yourself. All that does is make them curious. And besides, we can't keep this expensive search going if our creditors start wondering if they will be paid back, and if our jobs are heading out of town because we can't keep our borrowing habit under control.
Then we need to discover new trading partners to boost our economy. I'm sure aliens would love to have some Chinese made abdominal exercisers supplied by a U.S. import/export company.
Between the stimulus, entitlements, the new 'Health Care (Insurance) Reform' bill and the Metrodome, I think we could afford to cut some of the other, less healthy desserts before cutting our space program (which is really closer to the spinach than dessert).
C. Smith is 100% correct on this one, and so is Michael, and TonyInDallas, okay everyone is right except for Bill-402395.
NASA IS carrots and spinach, along with salad and proper exercise. Bill, you may not believe this but NASA makes America money, and they do so by researching and developing things that help humanity in a variety of ways. If you don't believe that then you should look into it because it is the truth.
If you want to cut out the "dessert" there are better places to start.
Not only do they make the US money...they make us MORE money than defense contracting does!
Why? Because the patents that NASA develops become public domain in very short order and can be licensed for practically nothing while they remain proprietary!
Defense contractors do generate a technological benefit to US citizens as well, but if the technology is deemed national security sensitive, it's kept under lock and key and may take decades before it is declassified!
Look no further than the batteries and capacitors that are used on nuclear submarines even from the 1970's. The US heavily protects its battery technology! If the government were to free up those patents from the sensitive classification they have, US Auto could probably start producing Tesla-level electric vehicles for half the price and trounce the competition.
Problem is that classified patents stay in very tight circles. Meaning that when a defense contractor produces a product for the military that utilizes a number of these top secret patents, there is a very low likelihood for competition in service, support and upgrading because the government isn't likely to let such information spread too far from the originators.
It's a huge gravy-train for defense contractors, and one of the primary reasons our military technology is far from standardized and modular...every company wants to make proprietary gear that only they and their direct subsidiaries are capable of servicing.
We could solve a lot of our budgetary problems if the US would revise how it deals with defense contractors...because right now, each contract is handled rather monopolistically...the only major competition comes in the bidding process...and many companies will just underbid and make it up in overruns and delays.
That's a whole different can of worms there, Seriously. I do not disagree with you, don't get me wrong, but you hit the nail on the head regarding competition as to why the possibility for those patents being declassified are near zero currently. The power of the almight dollar trumps the benefits to the public.
You guys are all fools, space flight is the biggest waste of time. we should wait until our technology is more capable of even trying space flight. You guys must be pissed living in this day and age and not hundreds of years in the future. Succers!!!!!!!
Ummm, fritz, we have been in space for nearly 50 years, and had our first moon landing almost 42 years ago this year. I would say we are advanced enough for space flight. And the question isn't so much technological capabilities, but rather funding levels.
Fritz is probably 16 and doesn't understand that most of the technology he uses came directly or indirectly from investment in the space program.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people like fritz out there.
Yeah I know, with that kind of mentality, Jules Verne's "From the Earth to the Moon" would still be considered science fiction.
hey man don't be pessimistic
can still do time lapse photos coupled with computer simulations
If someone told me they needed $100 from me to help pay for a manned mission to Mars and every other adult in the U. S. was being asked the same question I'd hand it over in a heartbeat. Just as long as the government was not going to receive one single cent.
I'd like to believe you could get $100 billion minimum. Why the hell leave it to a corrupt, bureaucratic, wastful organization like a government? It should never have been up the any government in the first place. That would doom any attempt to get to the other planets.
I think we should have forms on our income tax returns that allow us to allocate how much money we want to go towards various programs. Imagine being able to say that you want 50% of your tax dollars going to NASA, 20% to Pell Grants and education, 20% to National Parks and 10% to investigating big pharmaceutical companies for price fixing and 0% toward Congressional raises.
I don't think it'd work for tax dollars directly (too many idiots would want more shopping malls and sports stadiums), but for extra donations it'd be great. I'll never give anything extra to 'the government', but if I could make a special donation just to NASA, or even better a special program in NASA, I would.
We already have a check mark for presidential campaigns getting a dollar. How about one for ten dollars to NASA?
We couldn't contribute all of the return, but if they gave us control over half, or even a third or quarter, to assign it to where we want, what a democracy.
However:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."
Sir Alexander Fraser Tyler
We can vote to get money from the public treasury?
I vote we change the law that says senators and congresspeople get to set vote on their own salary. More than half of them are millionaires. I feel this represents a large conflict of interest.
@ TonyInDallas,
In our case not the majority, but the most wealthy.
I would say we are slowly sinking into a corporate oligarchy with a smidge of plutocracy for good measure.
@mob In this day of our american republic, I beleive that if any processes should be handled by true democratic popular vote (which is possible with modern electronics...assuming the IT security sector got their butts in gear) is state and national elections (i.e. electoral college is obsolete with modern technology) and changes of salary for congressmen (perhaps congresspeople is more PC). Neither of those two processes would suffer greatly from the time it would take to gather a large public vote ,and delay is one of the few disadvantages to true democracy. I definately agree that when 50 people are voting whether or not to increase their own salary, there is a large and obvious conflict on interest.
I would vote that any congressional or Senate pay raises voted for by Congress have to be put on the ballot during the following presidential election, thus providing that the peope have to approve the measure.
We should also cap their expense accounts, which increases to would also have to be approved by the people. Any excess expenses would would come from personal funds.
And, Seriously, it's like corporate voting, one vote per share, or dollar in this case.
I think we should be investing in research to finding another way to oppose gravity instead of brute force rocket power. NASA seems to be fixated on this 70yr old technology. We aren't going anywhere in a timely manner at the current rate of travel.
Um, I don't forsee us being able to invent anti-gravity(maybe anti-graviton particles, super sci-fi science anyone) tech anytime in the near future. We haven't even discovered the graviton yet.
HOWEVER, we have discovered more efficient forms of rocket propulsion, that would enable much more robust manned or unmanned missions (VASIMR, Nuclear Rockets, Aerospike, etc.) Past research has proven these technologies, yet none have been fully developed/implemented as of yet.
We have long since reached the peak of what liquid fueled rockets (Hydrogen, RP-1, etc.) are capable of... we're still casting "stones" (Solid Rocket Boosters) into space for crying out loud... these have the worst Isp of all. As always, it comes down to cost.
Yeah, but the problem is, politics, and business always seem to get in the way of good science, prefering to keep with tech that benefits established factories, rather than spending the necessary funds to renovate, or update to be able to build those newer technologies. As Mob has pointed out on several posts, that was the basis behind the Bush Administration's idea to return to the moon, to keep the companies that manufactured the shuttle booster systems in business once the shuttles retired.
Actually, rocket propulsion is only one of the ideas being pursued, and it's pretty much ready for abandonment. I work at NASA and not to long ago they passed out their plans for future technology research for the next 50 years (very speculative, of course). 'Conventional' propulsion systems were only 1 of 4 sections in the propulsion systems research plan. We're already using ion engines in space, and they're testing a plasma rocket that could cut travel time to Mars by 2/3 now. These won't get us into space, as the raw thrust isn't enough, but the impulse is great, so they'll get us around space quite well. There are other fields of research to replace rockets for getting us out there.
Indeed as Eric has stated I do point that out every so often. But the real credit should be given to Seriously, No... Really. He was the one who showed me the info and opened my eyes to the greasy wheels.
But I think we can all agree that there is a need for heavy investment into a new means of getting people and cargo into space. We need to bring the price/per pound rate down to the where it would be fiscally possible to get huge loads and massive quantities of cargo into space.
And there are people who are researching ways to make anti-gravity devices. it's a far off tech but it's certainly one worth investing in.
@ mob_barley,
Thanks for the cred =D
I'm just glad that more people now know...the more that know, the less likely that people will be able to get away with it in the future.
I can only imagine the kind of useless make-work initiatives that go on behind closed doors in the Defense industry...At least the make-works in NASA are public
I wonder which companies are being kept afloat by servicing the B52 for another 50 years?
------------------------------------
As for the tech. We are all really in a pickle because of how much funding has gone into Defense Spending vs. scientific endeavor. The defense spending will eventually pay off technologically as the patents and devices get cleared for public use like accurate GPS and motion/proximity sensors and enhanced imaging/reality tech.
But I'm sure that Uncle Sam is still sitting on a hotbed of bleeding-edge tech that won't hit public domain for at least 25 years!
Mark my words! In 25 years, you will see a lot of cheap composites, smart fabrics, room temperature super-conductors, incredibly cheap/durable displays, etc. And that's the beginning
Unless we can get the American public involved in these endeavors enough to form our own grassroots campaign to have these truly beneficial technologies released from their secret patents. Anyone up for starting a signup sheet?
@ Eric-2189088,
Good luck, you are not the first and certainly won't be the last.
You'll have to contend against both the government's national security concerns as well as the corporate lobbyists that like the added life that a classified-status gives to a patent.
I know. I however have authority issues. Its one of the primary reasons why I never went military. This, to me, is one great big authority issue. As for corporations, I don't care what they think, they've been screwing us over for the last 60 years with defense contracting, and they need a proverbial busting in the craw.
@ Eric and Seriously. That would certainly be a humungous endevour. However, I think that the recent and unfolded events in North Africa illustrate pretty well that when you can get enough people behind something with unadulterated purpose...larege conglomerates of powerful people can be overthrown.
Military technology is generally 20 years behind civilian tech, sometimes way further behind than that. The reason is the bureaucratic government contracting process. It takes forever to make changes. For example, Rockwell's guided bomb package still uses vidicon tubes. Vidicons haven't been produced for at least 20 years, but to update to CCD sensors would require rebidding the contract. Just look at how long it has taken for the Air Force to finally award a new tanker contract. Rockwell scoured TV stations, security camera dealers, etc for new old stock vidicons to keep production going for the Iraq war. Then look at the B52. There hasn't been one built since 1958, but it is still our primary heavy bomber. The planes are older than the pilots who fly them. I could go on and on. The point is, most military tech is long obsolete before it ever makes it to production. NASA isn't much better. The qualification process is so long and torturous that by the time a probe is launched it is 20 years out of date.
One of the advantages of the one dollar one vote governance of civilian corporations is that decisions are made quickly. New technologies are adopted quickly. That's the reason for the big push to reform military procurement to COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) because it is the quickest way to get new tech into the field. It often saves large amounts of money too.
While the Congress celebrates demolishing science probes and useful technology work for that pork-only big booster, they have the nerve (Shelby) of saying that they're helping keep NASA at the cutting edge.
Yes, the edge of becoming totally irrelevant.
Agreed - Shelby is the biggest problem facing US space exploration today.
IMHO: space travel, space science, and space exploration have entered a new model. Cost has always been an issue that was accepted as high to begin with and expected to overrun by integer factors. Schedules were notional - consequences were non-existent for missing and pushing one to the right another 2 years was standard operating procedure. But all of that is changing.
The ISS is in the process, slow as it is, of becoming a national lab. In spite of the end of the Shuttle Transportation System, new modules are being proposed to add to ISS capabilities and provide research opportunities. In spite of it's operating costs and inability to produce published papers (to date), I think it has been a valuable exercise for learning how to construct and maintain a complex, international project that simulates major elements of a deep space journey. I am in favor of funding it at a level that supports commercial expansion for the next 10 years.
NASA research has an excellent track record; pushing the envelope and managing to exceed expectations on many occasions. It hurts to see their funding cut, especially in astronomical and planetary system probes, but they will find a way to succeed. I think it is unfair to make sudden funding changes to them as that drives their costs up and causes them to lose resources, so I hope congress restores sustaining funding for projects in progress. I'm curious to see if private entities can partner with academic and NASA to pursue projects that traditionally would have been national ones. Finding a way to do these missions more cost effectively in outer space will produce spinoffs in applications on earth. I don't see us giving up, but missions may be smaller and use more generic components.
I agree with replenishing our supply of plutonium-238; this is material that we will need to explore our solar system. One thing I am opposed to is continued funding of the heavy lift vehicle as currently proposed by congress. It serves no useful purpose other than to fund the supporters of some powerful interests. There is some soaring rhetoric that it's proponents have attached to it, but that's all that's ever going to actually fly. The HLV as proposed will sap all NASA budgets and technical resources without ever getting to the pad. It's not something that is a high priority for the majority of people actively doing space science. Granted, it would be a nice-to-have, but it's cost to maintain the marching operations army behind it (if it ever was actually completed ... few in aerospace give that a chance at projected funding levels) will leave no money for anything else unless NASA's budget was immediately doubled and kept at that level for 10+ years. I don't see that happening.
The present and future of space activities is about affordable projects that can meet schedule and budget. That means smaller projects that are predictable; and that will ultimately be better to sustain exploration ... and commerce. Just my $0.02.
Not to worry... the adventure of the human race will be continued by China and other countries that have vision and guts, not the country that continues to be weaken by the GOP and it's tax cuts for the millionaires.
I too have strong feelings about the political landscape of our country but let's keep politics out of this discussion shall we..
I have talked to many people about the Chinese space effort and it's amazing to see how confident American's are in China's ability in space. They haven't done anything, relatively speaking, and yet because they are simply investing heavily in their space program everyone is jumping on board this "China is the new space superpower" bandwagon. China has big plans. Sure, okay. That's true. China is investing heavily in science and their space programs. Okay, yeah, that may be true. But it is a far-cry from being a space super power.
Space is a strategic resource. Last year china practiced playing chicken with two spacecraft. If that was to be the end of YOUR superbowl viewing experience, all of the sudden, having a manned presence in space would be YOUR top priority?....till then, a lot of americans are expounding the concept that ending NASA will solve all their money problems, or that somehow, NASA was the only agency that missappropiated funds. I guess once we got the x-box connect and the internet, there was no further use for basic research?....Thank god the french won't use their most probable upcoming discovery to send Higgs bombs our way!!...but I for one would of felt more comfortable knowing that OUR people had discovered and explored the HIGGS particle in the texas supercollider....this crap has been going on too long, I note so many of the whiners are just that...whine about everything. Get off NASA's case already, the big risk science projects have big payoffs, the chinese are well aware of it and many of you all know damn well the russians wanted to get to van bruan before we did, (he knew it too!)...Hitler wanted to get his hands on albert for WHAT REASON??
ok, due to political inept leadership for the past 15 years or so, maybe even 20, we slip a bit, it is a big deal, in the meantime, nasa will, like always, attempt to make due with the lemons the american public has handed them....and frank is right, iss or not, the funding plan ain't likly to change. Man's destiny is space. Let alone the challenges, money is already being made in commercial space. And anyone with common sense knows there is a HUGH prize for real commercial success, comms sats are but a kiwi seed, but we all know, few commercial endeavours are really interested in basic research.....for those of you not clued in, our solar system stretches out almost 2 light years!!, with trillions of astral bodies to be explored, and, yes, exploited. Or look at from this perspective, after china has expanded AROUND as far as physically possible (and diluted everthing else) then THEY MUST expand OUT!!....let's put our right foot forward NOW....at least we have the chance today. An american mannned space program with a modest goal of a moon outpost is pretty much the smallest step we can take, since our leadership and a very vocal whining minority can't seem to get it through thier video-manic dummed down brains, it is falling upon the shoulders of US, the commercial sector. Maybe it is as it should be, I am not certain of that, but one thing is for sure, the acidic atmosphere of those on the far right and those on the far left is becoming a sure sign of failure, and you can bet, china, euro, russia AND India are pretty much texting each other LOL,LAMO etc as they watch us bicker over the scrap potatoes and miss the t-bone steak dinner.
idiots. Whats next? put the parks up for sale so we can make oil market manipulators even richer? let us get to the heart of the problem and solve it, nasa is not the problem, greed is. And it is promalgumated by false statements by whiners that space is of no value. It is. It is of the Utmost strategic value to this and all nations. Otherwise the air force would of bought more bullets rather than invest in the secret space plane. Nasa's basic research made it possible. Not chinese basic research (notice how open they are about their research!!), not Russia's basic research (ditto dudes)...but us basic research...yes, our tax dollars. Not a single kid is going to learn anything becuase you throw money at a problem, but at the root of all these problems is an american attitude that the world, their government, their fellow americans all owe them something....I blame that attitude on their parents, on the easy, and sheltered life they have had, on their own for greed for more when what they had was not enough to satisfy their little empreor like minds. Not me. I don't care, I got a thirst for knowledge and already knew those type of bullies don't give a damn about it. But we don't stand alone, we just go on about our way in a bit of sadness because we already knew it could be a much better country if the whiners would just shut the hell up and let those that do, actually do, and those that don't, just get the hell OUT OF OUR WAY!!!
Very long post, but honestly, it needed to be said and I agree with all of it
+1 for you
Hopefully we can one day have some sensible people such as yourself in office that understand that exploration, scientific advances and education come ahead of whether Boeing gets an expanded C17 contract or we order 30 new nuke subs from Northrop!
Higgs bombs?
Higgs bombs, hehehe...I like Gravitombs more!
If we named the weapon after the discoverer, than the a-bomb would the the bomb-Stein and in the 1950's, people would be worried about Fineman-fallout
Higgs field decoupling for speed of light transportation (no mass = no problem)
There is also the possibility that one of these billion dollar projects, probes, or whatever will blow up, explode, or fail. And, there goes a few billion down the drain. NASA and the space industry can't exactly boast a 100% success rate. They just had something they launched the other day that failed to reach orbit, fell back to earth and crashed into the pacific if I remember right. At a cost of 400+ million. Now if that happens to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.5 to 5 billion and if blows up it's going to be a problem.
The loss of a mission is always a problem. It affects everyone involved and many who were not even involved. But those kind of fears should not prevent us from trying. If you thought you might get hit in the face by a baseball would you never play baseball? If you thought you might rack your nuts on the cross bar would you never learn to ride a bike?
A bit more care and redundancy goes into the systems that involve humans on board.
Machines are expendable
And yet, two Shuttles were lost with all hands, and Apollo 1's crew died on the pad. All of that "man rating" delay and expense has given us systems that aren't any more reliable than a package of bottle rockets.
What's sad is that there is plenty of money for space exploration if the turds in Washington would stop spending on pork projects and cut entitlement programs.
Yeah, but your voice (and all of ours) are drowned out by the lobbyists of
Us taxpayers are funding the gravy-train for all of these fat hogs...good luck trying to reduce the size of the trough any time soon :)
No kidding. Altruism is dead in politics
And it only seems to be getting worse unfortunately
Almost everyone I hear clamoring for reduced government spending has no idea what they're talking about. No idea about public economic good, externalities, combined utility or investment. They just want to cut away anything they can grasp, when it is the stuff held out of reach that is in the most need of cutting.
There's so much that could be cut from defense, farming/oil subsidies, it's not even funny!
If we want to cut down on spending, we should be clammoring to force the Fed to raise its rate to eventually match inflation...doing so would drastically reduce the US's ability to keep refinancing old debt and making new low-interest debt (it would also force them to start paying back the money they owe us in T-Bills in the SSI-Trust Fund.
Why do you think education has been steadily getting worse in this country. An uneducated populace is far easier to control than an educated one. As for the spending reductions you mention, we could probably fund NASA without worry for the next three years.
Space travel is a novel idea, but what has the ISS done since its inception. What miracle medicines has it produced or shown promise? The ISS was designed as a big Kumbia so nations could give each other a big hug in space.
The big missions in space are looking for extraterestrial life, but really what will that do for us on earth. Will we get to answer that big question "Are We Alone?" A mission to Mars, while nobel, will be nothing more than a few billions of dollars that will only bring back, maybe, a box of rocks. Europa is out of the question for man because of the intense radiation and magnetic field of Jupiter. Even Ice Penetrating Radar to see how thick the ice is and maybe life could evolve in those conditions seems like a that's nice. In the end we end up with a big bill and a few rocks that we pass out to dignitaries, which they lose.
NASA was created a a testosterone fest between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. after Sputnick. America won, by being the first to land a man on the moon and return him safely back to the earth. We ended up with a big bill and a box of rocks. Now we want to go back because the Chinese want to go there, let them get their own box of rocks. We don't have to return every time someone wants to do something we are not doing at the moment.
In the year 1960 man reached the bottom of the ocean in the Trieste, but haven't gone back. There a lot more challenges in deep sea exploration then trying to see if there might be life on some distant rock. There needs to be a priority of scientific studies created so we don't spend our time and money on whimsicle projects that in the end do not yield any useful knowledge. Past life on Mars does nothing for us today or tomorrow.
You really don't see the need for space exploration of all types? Wow, considering the population of this planet will (with in 100 years of so) reach levels that can not be sustained by Earth it seems sort of a no-brainer as long as China has billions and India is not far behind.
Actually global population is "growing" stable and will be stable or decrease within 100 years. The birth rate in many counties is less than the replacement (death) rate (2.1 children/woman) and expected to reach that is third world countries within 20 years. The "we need space colonies for living space" is crap.
Yes, it is expected to stabilize in the sense that the growth rate will slow down. HOWEVER, many projections DO NOT foresee an ultimate max number. Some UN models project 10 billion by 2040, and 14 billion by 2100 with no peak number in sight.
There IS a very real possibility that we will need to colonize space in the future in order to avoid a global crisis related to overpopulation. I would like to know what your basis is for simply dismissing that possibility...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41972316/ns/technology_and_science-space/ it's only the most recent article I've read. There are many many others. And another thing, why does it have to be a "miracle" medicine? Medicine that helps is worthwhile and the research that goes on at the ISS does a lot for people and you're just unwilling to accept that it.
Where you (Frank) see a "box of rocks", I see a wealth of knowledge. After all, how many boxes did we have to fill with rocks before we had our current understanding or our own planet. The answer is we are still filling boxes with rocks Frank. The pursuit of knowledge is a never ending quest. For many in this world education never stops. I work along engineers and architects every day and in our industry continuing education is very important. It's like that for all great professions. A master mason may be able to do great work with knowledge gleaned a thousand (or more) years ago but there are newer techniques and technologies and tools and systems and materials that make the job easier and more efficient. You need to keep learning. We all need to keep learning.
And just because there is a radiation laden environment somewhere does not mean "Europa is out of the question". While it is true that an unprotected ship and it's crew would be destroyed by Jupiter's radiation it is by no means and end-all situation. There have been great advances recently in creating magnetic fields. Such advances could lead to the system that would protect astronauts everywhere from the threat of radiation. It is not impossible to imagine a way to get people to live and work in the Jovian environment.
Frank, you seem to see the space race as solidly black and white. It is not. There were many motivations to make the trip to the moon, both in the 60's and today. Some are political, some are economical, some scientific... the point is a mission of that size and scale will inevitably have many hands stirring the pot and certain motivations do indeed win out but the fact remains that we here on Earth do see the benefits of such a space race. It does not, however, simply come down to who has the box of rocks. That is a very limited view of the space program and I'll argue long and hard against that point of view.
Your comparison of the space program with deep sea exploration leaves a lot to be desired. You assert that there are many more challenges in going to the bottom of Earth's ocean than there are in "trying to see if there might be life on some distant rock." Well that, Frank, is just flat out not true. First of all, comparing the two is apples and oranges. But if we are going to compare them you'd need to understand all the things that go into both endeavors. Once you look at that data it should be immediately clear that looking for life on Mars or Europa is a significantly more difficult challenge.
You say "There needs to be a priority of scientific studies" which is all well and good until you realize that there already is. Different agencies and organizations research different areas of science, they do different things and they all have their individual and group priorities. Congress thinks they know what are good priorities for NASA but that's actually a broad generalization that shouldn't be made. Not everyone in Congress is on the same page. And it's like that everywhere. Here we are right now talking about which priorities should be higher or lower on the totem pole and it's painfully clear that between you and I, Frank, we'd probably have a tough time agreeing on which should have higher priority.
You think the ISS is just a big international hug fest, which it's not, but there is a significant relationship that is being built by the international partners and it is a very important relationship. With ease-o-communication only getting better and easier the world is getting smaller. I mean, people will be able to travel easier, communicate easier, transfer ideas and emotions easier and all that is going to blur the lines that we are so used to on our maps. The next few decades are going to be very tough as we all try to adapt to the changes that will be coming. I am glad we are part of the ISS building process and I am willing to learn more about that process to help the process get better. Participation in the world around us is all we have. Make it a better world. Don't look at scientific exploration and understanding as if it's just a box of rocks!
I really don't see the big deal about putting up 4-5 billion. Heck, didn't we give some company hundreds of billions? And NASA manages their money much better than that company did.
you know what azzhole i get a social security check every month and you what else azzhole i paid into it for 50 years azzhole so dont call me entitled azzhole i earned every penny azzhole its not an entitelment its an earned benifit azzhole
Shut NASA down and give it to private contractors.
It was the private corporation Taurus XL rocket that failed with the Glory climate satellite on it last week.
Maybe if NASA didn't have to reach out to Muslims they could do a better job reaching out to space.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/05/nasa-chief-frontier-better-relations-muslims/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7875584/Barack-Obama-Nasa-must-try-to-make-Muslims-feel-good.html
As well as the Carbon obersvatory satellite(can't remember the exact name off the top of my heard) a couple years back, using the exact same type of rocket no less. And what do muslims have to do with a private corporation possibly fubaring the launch vehical used for the satellite?
shut grunt up and give him the bird. NASA uses private contractors for pert near everything. NASA is an administration. It is huge! You clearly don't understand what NASA is Grunt.
These guys sure have a lot of ideas how to spend other people's money. Of course, they are highly paid for so doing. Get a grip. We are in a recession. These "planetary scientists" should have been the first to be laid off to save tax money and get back into a stable economy (see: 60 Minutes - 3/6/11 - with kids in FA going hungry due to tourism layoffs). Its not too late; send out the pink slips. Mars has been there for a long time and few more years (or decades) will make no difference.
Quesion: How does laying people off help the economy? How does taking away the ability of consumers to spend money help the economy?
One company or entity laying off helps that one company. If all or most organizations are laying off, it hurts the economy as a whole, even the companies laying off due to no one being able to buy their products, spurring more layoffs and more economic depression.
Bechtel, it's sentiments like yours that need to be changed. You think you can fix anything by laying people off?? Tony is absolutely correct. You Bechtel have it backwards. the first thing that should be done to fix our economy is address the root cause of the financial turmoil. The root cause of the financial turmoil is NOT tourism layoffs, or planetary scientists, or teachers unions or anything like that.
"What I don't understand is why we're ignoring the moon. Why aren't we doing everything we can to figure out how to mine He3 from the surface of the moon? Talk about an energy source!"
I recently read an article which said that just one Space Shuttle load of He3 would provide enough energy for the USA, for one year...I am not sure as to the truth of that however, if it is a fact, why are we not devoting whatever time and money necessary to mining and shipping He3 back to Earth...It seems to me that the energy savings alone would go a long way to funding such a project...JUST FOOD FOR THOUGHT.
He3 for fuel is a wonderful idea.
We ain't there yet.
YES, a spaceship filled with He3 would run the U.S. for a long time. The He3 would be converted to electricity via a fusion nuclear reactor (NOT the same as the fission reactors that we have across our country).
Here's the problem: we do not yet know how to build a fusion reactor. Fusion bombs - yes. Controlled reaction - no.
Fusion reactors are perhaps 20 years away. They've been 20 years away for the past 50 years of research.
WHEN we know how to build successful fusion reactors, and IF the Moon is a reasonable source of He3, THEN it may be reasonable to set up lunar mining.
Cheers! ~Michael (AFM*Radio / Astronomy.FM)
Michael, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the problem with fusion reactors have to do with the fact that we cannot come up with a strong enough magnetic field to control the reaction? I remember hearing that, at least one of the problems, had to do with that, but I cannot remember if it was related to controlling the reaction, or if it was a different problem itself.
I hear polywell fusion is pretty promising.
Our government has better things to spend our tax money on.
1st: Make sure they have a high salery and good medical coverage.
2nd: Fight wars and revolutions for other countries.
3rd: Continue to support those on welfare.
4th: Support illegal immigrants to secure the growing hispanic voting power.
All of that is so much more important than any scienticif research or even taking care of the tax paying American work force.
So your saying that investment in an agency that can lead to new technologies that can benefit both the country and the world, as it has already in the past, is not a worth while investment?
Eric, methinks scifiwriter is being facetious.
I would be inclined to believe that, however it sounds somewhat similar in tone to Don Meaker's posts.
My what a lot of hot air and information we have flowing today. Whew! I thought I had stumbled onto the political blogs again.
Scifiwriter: Spellcheck Dude. Humanity Check Dude. Everytime someone needs to find funding for their pet project they blame our shortfalls on the poor and chronically unemployed. That is foolish and incorrect. The vast majroity of people receiving public assistance are the working poor. Due to location, educational deficiency, industrial failure or other factors beyond their control they have been left behind and cannot support their families. They are trying. Most are two income families trapped in minimum wage jobs. Your vision of the Welfare Recipient is the infamous "Welfare Queen". She is black, female, unmarried, living in the projects with half a dozen kids and using her welfare check to buy beer and cigs. That is racist and wrong.
Likewise your rant about Illegals is racist and wrong. That is a "crisis" manufactured by the GOP to energize their base. I know, I was talking to one of their own about it and he told me their polling had indicated that "illegal immigration" was a fool-proof wedge issue because they are largely powerless and have no representation. We are naturally a xenophobic nation and distrustful of those who are different from us. Perfect for energizing their base and bleeding votes off the opposition. And, it's wrong.
We have the money for these projects. Cut defense spending, pull our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, close Guantanamo and the majority of our other military bases over seas. We can no longer afford to be the world's policman. Cut the tax breaks for corporations who send jobs off-shore, cut the tax breaks for the rich. Cut farm subsidies and other hand-out programs that are being abused. Reduce medicare and medicaid fraud and trim the Federal Government and voila! No deficit.
Put more money into education and put more money into cyber research and space exploration.
There will be no need to cut social programs, or medicare or medicaid and the increase in the GNP will take care of Social Security while a solution is worked out.
It's not rocket science. Which is good, because if we don't do something soon we're not going to have any Rocket Scientists to figure out the hard stuff for us.
We've got to realign our priorities. Stop funneling money to the Military Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned would bankrupt us and start spending more money on education and programs to create jobs, good jobs that pay a living wage. Within a generation the welfare budget can be slashed, crime rates will drop and prisons and jails can be converted to other uses.
It's the 21st Century folks, not the 19th century, and we've got to drop that 19th Century mind-set and begin to move forward. But NOT at the expense of the poor or the disenfranchised. We can do this, but we've got to do it together.
Onward to Mars, Onward to Jupiter. Onward to the Stars!
There is poor child out there right now who will be our next great Rocket Scientist, all he/she needs is a chance.
I have a question: why is it that when people talk about spending on the space program it seems like they think we load up bags of money on rockets and propel them into the cosmos? They money goes back into the economy supporting our "way of life".
Now, I do have problems with government waste and using only the "lowest bidder" (bad approach, if you want something that will last). Those are issues that should be looked into, not reducing funding. I think these issues are some of the reasons that the president/government is promoting private space investment.
Easy way to fund NASA cut the bloated defense budget. We spend how much on defense? From whom/what? The anyone that says "terrorist" is a FOOL. The bloated defense budget only protects the MIC's profits.
Anyone that says "NASA" is a fool. The only way to develop space is to get past the "Nina, Pina, and Santa Maria" stage, and provide for private property rights, to encourage people to invest, and own.
Goverment projects are inherently wasteful, and the tax payer foots the bill. By contrast, private parties or corporations invest their share holder's money, and must succeed, or go under. Corporations fail after bad decisions, and so, are careful in making their investments. Governments by contrast are short sighted, run by a political class that is technically stupid, and failure causes significant upheaval.
I agree we could get more bang for our buck with private investment, but corporations also cut cost to the detriment of the future (and hoard profit for the detriment of the future, as well). Take dumping waste into the river, because the river will take it away. Future generation clean-up. Reinvest more profits and give less the overly paid CEO's and pay out less dividends and give out less bonuses. Short term profit. Corporations are not the way to go unless corporate culture changes. Short term profit will not get us there and keep us there.