The US space program in decline?

[drl2]

Just tossing in a few semi-random thoughts here:

- I have to say that I find myself in the odd position of mostly agreeing with Coito on this one, and many of the responses here are coming across as knee-jerk disagreements to other ideologies he holds that he hasn't really even expressed (much) in the context of this thread.

- One of the few nice things I can say about the republican party is that they tend to invest more on science programs than the dems do. (Of course, they ruin this by being overly choosy about what sorts of research they'll fund, and then blatantly ignore the findings of said research...)

- There's been a long-running argument in the space community in general about the value of pursuing manned exploration vs unmanned, because the bang-for-buck value of unmanned exploration is just... er.. astronomically higher... than for unmanned; the International Space Station, for instance, is seen by many as a tremendous waste of resources. I agree with this to a certain extent, and think that we should probably _mostly_ focus on unmanned exploration; but part of the point of sending out all those probes is to figure out what's waiting for us when people get there someday, so let's not abandon efforts to get better and lifting actual human beings off this rock and figuring out how they can survive once they leave. Then there are some less tangible benefits, which I'll let Neil DeGrasse Tyson explain for me:



(And yes, it's wrapped in a layer of nationalistic nonsense, but search-and-replace "America" with "world" and the gist of it is still true.)


- The Case for Mars. Good book.

[Coito ergo sum]

Just tossing in a few semi-random thoughts here:

- I have to say that I find myself in the odd position of mostly agreeing with Coito on this one, and many of the responses here are coming across as knee-jerk disagreements to other ideologies he holds that he hasn't really even expressed (much) in the context of this thread.

It's characteristic of some people to oppose something based on the identity of the speaker. It's like disputing the sky being blue because Sarah Palin says it.

- One of the few nice things I can say about the republican party is that they tend to invest more on science programs than the dems do. (Of course, they ruin this by being overly choosy about what sorts of research they'll fund, and then blatantly ignore the findings of said research...)

Sometimes, that's true. Nixon and others ignored the findings regarding drug use and abuse, and many in both parties ignored the findings about violent video games and rock music not having any effect on the level of violence in children. And, they're busy ignoring the findings of scientific research suggesting that obesity has no causal link to fast food advertising.

- There's been a long-running argument in the space community in general about the value of pursuing manned exploration vs unmanned, because the bang-for-buck value of unmanned exploration is just... er.. astronomically higher... than for unmanned; the International Space Station, for instance, is seen by many as a tremendous waste of resources. I agree with this to a certain extent, and think that we should probably _mostly_ focus on unmanned exploration; but part of the point of sending out all those probes is to figure out what's waiting for us when people get there someday, so let's not abandon efforts to get better and lifting actual human beings off this rock and figuring out how they can survive once they leave. Then there are some less tangible benefits, which I'll let Neil DeGrasse Tyson explain for me:



(And yes, it's wrapped in a layer of nationalistic nonsense, but search-and-replace "America" with "world" and the gist of it is still true.)


- The Case for Mars. Good book.

It is touchy-feely feel-good to replace "America" with the "world," but the US doesn't control the world and can't tell them to chip into the space program. We can, at this point, partner with other interested countries, as we did with Cassini-Huygens and the international space station. But, it's just not going to be an effective "world space program" for some time to come. There is no point, however, in waiting. We should press on. The rest of the world can join us.

There are too many competing interests, and political motivations, that will simply stall a "world" space program in its tracks. The idea that all American motives are impure, and that the "world" is so much more enlightened and good, is a myth. The US is no better, but no worse, in that regard.

[drl2]

It is touchy-feely feel-good to replace "America" with the "world," but the US doesn't control the world and can't tell them to chip into the space program. We can, at this point, partner with other interested countries, as we did with Cassini-Huygens and the international space station. But, it's just not going to be an effective "world space program" for some time to come. There is no point, however, in waiting. We should press on. The rest of the world can join us.

There are too many competing interests, and political motivations, that will simply stall a "world" space program in its tracks. The idea that all American motives are impure, and that the "world" is so much more enlightened and good, is a myth. The US is no better, but no worse, in that regard.

My statement wasn't written with any sort of "join hands and sing kumbaya" intent - rather, I was trying to express the opinion that our space program is important for reasons that transcend arbitrary boundaries on a map. The world did cheer along with us when Neil Armstrong took that One Step, and the world did mourn with us when the Challenger went down, and the need to someday get off this rock is a need we share as a species.


On a slightly related note, spent the day in Baltimore today and got to see the Hubble 3D IMAX movie. The 3D wasn't too well done - I often saw ghost images - but when it did work, it worked well; I felt a slight sense of vertigo when looking down on the Earth from outside the shuttle in a number of shots. They showed some of the more famous Hubble images on the big screen, and did a decent 3-d fly-through of the Orion nebula and talked about the clusters of new stars and systems forming there. Squeezed in some talk of the Hubble Deep Scan images also, though I'd like to have seen more depth there (the film was about 4 hours too short. )

But I only need three words (okay, two words and an acronym) to answer any questions as to whether it was worth the price of admission.

IMAX SHUTTLE LAUNCH.

[Hermit]

NASA should get more involved with the private sector. If there's money involved there'll be hotels on Mars in no time.

No need. Don't we already have Mars bars?


Mind you, as CES pointed out almost at the outset, as the US space program is important from a national defense standpoint and from a standpoint of world leadership, why not let those who stand to benefit the most contribute the most. Let US corporations actually underwrite the space program. The trickle down effect will surely take care of the needs of the unwashed masses for which the private sector can feel smug and bask in its glory, while astronauts feed themselves on a user pays basis by getting charged for their meals in a Macdonalds franchise installed aboard a spacecraft on their way "to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life forms and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before." I am confident that "freedom of choice" will be ensured with the simultaneous availability of KFC, Pizza Hut et cetera. For sentimental reasons there might even be a Milky Way dispenser in the corridor leading to the Rupert Murdoch information outlet. Ah! The Private Enterprise. Paradise gone orbital.

[Coito ergo sum]

It is touchy-feely feel-good to replace "America" with the "world," but the US doesn't control the world and can't tell them to chip into the space program. We can, at this point, partner with other interested countries, as we did with Cassini-Huygens and the international space station. But, it's just not going to be an effective "world space program" for some time to come. There is no point, however, in waiting. We should press on. The rest of the world can join us.

There are too many competing interests, and political motivations, that will simply stall a "world" space program in its tracks. The idea that all American motives are impure, and that the "world" is so much more enlightened and good, is a myth. The US is no better, but no worse, in that regard.

My statement wasn't written with any sort of "join hands and sing kumbaya" intent - rather, I was trying to express the opinion that our space program is important for reasons that transcend arbitrary boundaries on a map. The world did cheer along with us when Neil Armstrong took that One Step, and the world did mourn with us when the Challenger went down, and the need to someday get off this rock is a need we share as a species.

I don't disagree. As much as possible should be done to support the space program, from all nations. But, this is sort of a "lead, follow, or get out of the way" thing. We need to move forward, and we should not delay to wait for others to catch up.

On a slightly related note, spent the day in Baltimore today and got to see the Hubble 3D IMAX movie. The 3D wasn't too well done - I often saw ghost images - but when it did work, it worked well; I felt a slight sense of vertigo when looking down on the Earth from outside the shuttle in a number of shots. They showed some of the more famous Hubble images on the big screen, and did a decent 3-d fly-through of the Orion nebula and talked about the clusters of new stars and systems forming there. Squeezed in some talk of the Hubble Deep Scan images also, though I'd like to have seen more depth there (the film was about 4 hours too short. )

But I only need three words (okay, two words and an acronym) to answer any questions as to whether it was worth the price of admission.

IMAX SHUTTLE LAUNCH.

That would be awesome. Shuttle launches rock.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

6,000 NASA jobs on the line

By Hayley Kappes
The Daily News
Published April 9, 2010

JOHNSON SPACE CENTER — Between 4,000 and 6,000 contractors who work for NASA’s shuttle and Constellation programs at Johnson Space Center will lose their jobs if Congress approves President Barack Obama’s proposed budget plan to kill the program, Director Michael Coats said.

http://www.galvnews.com/story/154715

Wouldn't real "economic stimulus" involve INCREASING our industries? And, wouldn't the space industry be a good way to do that?

I can't believe anybody supports this toolbag anymore. W....T.....F?

If you focus solely on that one event, then it's a bad thing. If you spend the money elsewhere for the same effect, then no. The highways around here are on a high boil with construction, fixing an infrastructure that seriously needed it. (The unfortunate side to that is it will be easier for the city slickers to get out this way now. )

[RuleBritannia]

[Coito ergo sum]

Weren't we going to get a manned mission to an asteroid together?

[Ian]

Weren't we going to get a manned mission to an asteroid together?

Officially cancelled (delayed, really) last October when Obama signed the NASA Authotization Act of 2010. The administrations stance is that this particular program (Constellation) was "over budget, behind schedule and lacking in innovation."

Probably a political PR decision as much as a budget decision. Both parties are debating how and where to cut spending, and Obama doesn't want to tagged with supporting an over-funded mission to an asteroid right now. If Uncle Sam had plenty of cash to spare, the program would probably still be rolling along. It's too bad.

[Coito ergo sum]

Weren't we going to get a manned mission to an asteroid together?

Officially cancelled (delayed, really) last October when Obama signed the NASA Authotization Act of 2010. The administrations stance is that this particular program (Constellation) was "over budget, behind schedule and lacking in innovation."

That was the Moon program.

The asteroid nonsense was Obama's dog biscuit to the press to keep them from barking at him. It worked. There never was a manned mission to an asteroid in the works - it was just Obama's bullshit.

[

Probably a political PR decision as much as a budget decision. Both parties are debating how and where to cut spending, and Obama doesn't want to tagged with supporting an over-funded mission to an asteroid right now. If Uncle Sam had plenty of cash to spare, the program would probably still be rolling along. It's too bad.

Frankly, they waste more than the 18 billion given to NASA taking a shit. It is too bad. The only place where fiscal responsibility actually seems to be enforced is NASA. Otherwise, there is no concern for saving money, just lip service.

[Coito ergo sum]

To each of you, sincere thanks for connecting and following us over the years. We must inform you that the Constellation program is no longer an active NASA program and on May 17 we plan to deactivate this account.

Bye bye, Constellation: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2350949498

Thanks to Obama, for kicking the can down the road....