How do you feel about funding for the NASA program being discontinued?
I am quite interested in the opinions on this.
Printable View
How do you feel about funding for the NASA program being discontinued?
I am quite interested in the opinions on this.
Ok, it's a bit irritating that I can't capitalize NASA in the header
I really appreciate what NASA has done so far alone in the early stages of space exploration.
I think space research, like particle physics is too big and expensive for one country to afford by itself. I'd like to see a collaboration of countries working together. The ISS is a great example of that.
Closing the door on space exploration is like closing the door on our furture as a species.
I am/would be (is it defininte?) saddened by it. I have been fascinated by space exploration ever since Sputnik-1 was sent into Earth orbit in the 1950's. I remember Laika, Gagarin, Shepard, Glenn, and Tereshkova. At the pinnacle were Armstrong and Aldrin.
I remember the shock of the Challenger and Columbia disasters, and how it was explained that sometimes it takes the supreme sacrifice of some of the best people for human development to continue. I don't know if I believe that entirely, but I do subscribe to it in part.
I also remember waiting for months and years for the Mariner and Voyager missions to complete each stage of their planetary tours, and was fascinated by the pictures that were sent back. Likewise I followed the exploits of the Mars Rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, and grieved along with Colin Pillinger on Christmas Day 2003 when Beagle 2 went missing.
How much has all that cost? God knows! I can't say it was maney well-spent but I believe it was. But if it could have been spent better, then perhaps it should. How does NASA's budget stand against the national wealth of Bangladesh or Haiti? If the Space Programme is cancelled, will these nations benefit? Or maybe the money could be used to fund the US Health Service ...?
America no longer needs to put a man on the Moon or on Mars to prevent them from being "governed by a hostile flag of conquest", so maybe we should choose to raise up the poorer nations instead, because that would be hard too, although the rewards would be just as great - if it were a challenge we were willing to accept.
The NASA of the 60's,70's, and 80's died long ago, these days its more politics ect. Flashy Missions that get the publics attention ect. Even NASA executives were saying it was more a pork trough than a vaiable agency. Bush's talk about a Mars Mission before we even had a viable way of getting there and back ect... I want to see NASA continue, but get rid of the Political Hacks...
I have always been a firm believer in exploring our solar system. I was stunned by the cancellation of Apollo, and the fact that we haven't been back to the Moon since. We should, by now, have a viable base on the Moon, extracting everything they need to survive from the raw materials there.
We should also, by now, have made at least one manned mission to Mars, with the idea of setting up a permanent outpost there, as well. The robotic explorers we have sent there, and to Saturn and Jupiter as well, have performed magnificently, for sure, but their capabilities are necessarily limited and it's my opinion that manned exploration is ultimately necessary.
But I've also come to believe that NASA is no longer the torch-bearer for such exploration. Private corporations, even private individuals, are the future of space exploration. They can, and should, receive support from nations around the world, those who wish to share in the benefits they bring.
And those benefits can be quite large. Much of the advances in technology we take for granted today have their roots in the US space program. Making things smaller, faster, better has given us the modern computers we now use without thinking. The global positioning systems we depend on for so much of our daily lives are all benefits of the space program. Even modern medicine owes some of its tremendous leaps forward to the lessons learned by going to the Moon.
We can only guess at what benefits could come from new explorations into space: New ways to produce food cheaply and efficiently; new ways to manufacture the goods we need and want; new methods for dealing with pollution. All of these are possible, even probably, advances which the space program would spur.
The constellation program which NASA was trying to fund was a step backward, basically returning to the 1970's for a mission to the Moon. We need to move forward! Let NASA develop the technologies, but let the people build and control them.
Yes, there were deaths along the way. Apollo 1, Challenger, Columbia, as well as those in the Soviet Union, many of which we may never learn about. We mourn those who have died, and honor the sacrifices they made. But we honor them by moving forward with the exploration of space. That's why they died. By stopping, turning our backs on space, we diminish them.
Many people died crossing the oceans to the New World. More died crossing the plains of America to new homes. More died exploring the depths of our oceans, the bitter cold of the poles. But mankind has marched onward, seeking to learn everything they can about our home, Earth.
And as we are learning, it's a fragile home. Dinosaurs once ruled this planet. A relatively tiny rock, roaming around the neighborhood for who knows how long, drove those rulers into extinction. And there have been many extinctions in Earth's history. It's foolish to believe that such a thing couldn't happen again. But by moving ourward, spreading to our neighboring planets, we can further insure that mankind will not be destroyed by one of nature's small hiccups. And who knows? Perhaps, one day, we can find a way to move further outward, spreading to the stars to meet those beings who are waiting out there.
The Moon is only the first step.
I agree! (at the very least we are closing the door on our ability to compete with the other countries that are continuing with space exploration)Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
I too loved (and still love) planets, stars and space exploration. My mother and John Glenn are cousins! (although they are cousins once removed...whatever that means).Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
You say; "so maybe we should choose to raise up the poorer nations instead" Is that a 'collective' we or should it be the United States responsibility? We pumped millions into Haiti long before the earthquake. Too bad its President didn't give any to his people...but I believe his palace is quite nice in comparison to even the mansions there.
As a side note - what should happen to the U.S. if a space-exploring country happens to find a renewable energy source in outer space? We won't be able to harvest it. We will be relying on another country yet again.
Personally, I see Bush's talk of a Mars Mission to be ambitious and forward-thinking. It's better than having a President who, when presented with a possibility, negates it as impossible rather than being visionary. I do agree that NASA is very political. It is, after all, a government-sponsored program. Too bad there are no multi-billionnaires out there willing to take it over.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth694
Another thing too...
While all of those who look to the skies, or are fascinated by science fiction (and good ol' space opera,) are disappointed, technology is all too often driven forward by war.
The Race to the Moon provided a "conflict" that had no real human cost. (Yes, there were accidents, but more people working for NASA have died driving to and from work....) Much of the technology we enjoy today stems from solving problems needed to go to the moon.
I imagine an effort in terraforming part of Mars would create huge leaps in eco-sciences on earth. That's a huge loss, the head start we would have had by this time if we had been on Mars by the '80s, which would have been "easy" if we'd just kept on spending on space tech.
And though I'm mostly preaching to the choir, the cost is miniscule compared to what we have spent on the military on "wasted" projects. Not to mention the payback in taxes collected from new and old companies purveying new technologies and the jobs they created, has more than made up for the costs.
But, without an "enemy" to vie against in space, we in the USA are too short-sighted to see the long term benefits.
So... let's cheer on the ESA and the Chinese and hope they prove to be a "threat" and get our asses back into the captains chair.
"Make it so."
I concur with Thorne's post above, and see no need to repeat whats been said there in different language.
However, this concept, concerns me greatly:
"...Private corporations, even private individuals, are the future of space exploration..."
for some reason this line from a Flobots song seems to equate:
"The poor get poorly paid,
to hold the ladder where,
the rich get ricocheted,
into the stratosphere."
So what will our future in space hold in store for us?
Planet Microsoft?
Exxon IV in the Delta quadrant?
Enronville?
I for one would hope that as we migrate off-planet, we take the best traits of humanity with us. Yet history shows that when we expand into new territories, we as humans often behave badly.
"To boldly go where no man has gone before ... and claim it all as MINE!"
yeah that's worked so well for us all, here on our home-planet.
Wow... I guess I'm in a cynical mood today.
For anyone interested (especially those who think the money could be better spent elsewhere) take a look at this chart of the proposed budget. Mouse over the blocks to see what's being spent on what, and the differences between this year and next.
Found NASA yet? Look in the lower right, under General Sciences. Not much there, is it? We spend more on international aid than we do on science!
So let's not hear any talk about not being able to afford the space program.
Interesting chart, Thorne, and I agree that space exploration costs are comparatively small, and certainly smaller than the amount spent on international aid. So much smaller, one would think, that the diversion of that money into additional foreign aid would hardly be noticed.
Until you also realise that the space budget appears to be twice what is being provided for to meet future disaster costs ... So you can afford it, but should you be using it for other purposes after all?
That aside, I find myself agreeing with your suggestion that private capital should now be brought into play. If the Government can't/won't/shouldn't be funding space research anymore, where else will the money come from? As you point out, there are profits to be made, so what are we waiting for?
I note Tantric's concerns - do we want another Enron. Who's to say there will be, and who's to say that, without any space exploration there won't be? We humans are capable of behaving badly anywhere, but on balance, don't you agree we all behave rather well?
Talking of which ... Steelish, please explain what the difference is between an American and another human? Why can't Americans rely on others for (say) renewable energy?
And what's wrong with being self-reliant?Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
My personal opinion (which I'm sure will not surprise you ;)) is that they could take virtually all of the foreign aid money and split it between space exploration and domestic disaster preparedness. I'm tired of having my country denigrated for trying to help others. (Sure, we've done some bad things: who hasn't? But we're still among the first to respond to a disaster, anywhere in the world. And people hate us for it.) So eliminating foreign aid wouldn't be any problem for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
One way to avoid another Enron is to make sure there is plenty of competition. Space is pretty big. Each company grabbing an asteroid, or a small area of Mars, for example, shouldn't present any real problems. After all, even if you tried to claim it all, there's just too damned much of it for any one person, or corporation, to hold onto.Quote:
I note Tantric's concerns - do we want another Enron. Who's to say there will be, and who's to say that, without any space exploration there won't be? We humans are capable of behaving badly anywhere, but on balance, don't you agree we all behave rather well?
And yes, we all do behave rather well. As long as there's someone with a big stick smacking our butts when we step out of line.
As you are so fond of noting, MMI, America has tremendous resources. We shouldn't need to rely on others. Especially not with things of such obvious importance. Relying on unstable countries for the necessities is a disaster waiting to happen. It's far better to be self-contained for such things.Quote:
Why can't Americans rely on others for (say) renewable energy?
I don't believe the US is hated because it gives more foreign aid than any other country. No-one is that churlish. Maybe the aid you give is diverted by corrupt officials in the recipient country, and its effectiveness correspondingly diminished. I don't know if it's true, as steelish has insinuated, that the President of Haiti has used the aid America gave to refurbish the Presidential Palace, but if that's true, why the f^ck did you give it to him ... ????
I can understand resentment building up if, instead of granting aid that actually relieves poverty, the US only enriches the ruling elite, with whom, no doubt, lucrative land-grabs can be arranged, but I can't and don't believe the US is hated by people who benefit from its largesse.
I agree completely with your comment about private enterprise, competition and some overarching regulator to control it all, but I am disappointed in your isolationist approach to questions of trade. If you become entirely self-sufficient, you will not grow economically beyond a certain point, but if you allow yourself to benefit from other nations' productive capacities in exchange for some of yours, then all nations benefit and all will experience far greater growth and prosperity than with trade barriers up. I'm amazed a capitalist society would even countenance closed borders when it comes to making money.
It has to do with foreign relations. A country cannot simply bypass another country's government and hand out money to the people. Private charities can do that, but not governments.Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
I just don't agree with the idea of the U.S. becoming completely reliant upon another nation. Subsidize yes - completely rely, no. And simply being self sufficient in energy does not mean that there won't be import/export and trade relations going on.Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
To NOT spend money on science that could potentially benefit all mankind is a sin.
To spend money on some of the crap this administration spends it on is also a sin.
Maybe the administration can take my fine of $325/month for not having health insurance to fund NASA? At least I would feel good about where this bogus 'fine' would go.
And what the heck is this agnostic talking about 'sin' for? Gotta poke fun at myself once in awhile.
I saw a news report last night which claimed that those bringing relief materials into Haiti are being required by government officials to donate that material to the government, I presume so that the government can get the credit for distributing it. This is a situation which is ripe for governmental abuse, allowing officials to confiscate needed supplies, then sell them through black markets.Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
In short, I agree. Why the f^ck are we sending any aid at all? Let the Haitian government handle it themselves.
And it's my opinion that the US government should re-evaluate it's foreign aid policy. In those countries where it has become obvious that any aid we try to give is being diverted to wealthy politicians, the aid should be cut off. Contrary to popular belief, we do not need to feel responsible for everyone else in the world. There is far more need for that money in this country.
I'm not advocating closed borders, at least in so far as trade is concerned. Only that there are some areas where a country should be as self-sufficient as possible. Energy is a key item there.Quote:
I am disappointed in your isolationist approach to questions of trade. If you become entirely self-sufficient, you will not grow economically beyond a certain point, but if you allow yourself to benefit from other nations' productive capacities in exchange for some of yours, then all nations benefit and all will experience far greater growth and prosperity than with trade barriers up. I'm amazed a capitalist society would even countenance closed borders when it comes to making money.
California is a small example of that. State regulations made power generation within the state impossible, or at least prohibitively expensive. When outside energy companies refused to pay the fees, California ran short on power. If they had their own generating facilities they wouldn't have had that problem. (I realize this is an oversimplification, but it's a fair example of my argument.)
We see problems occurring over energy stores all the time. Entire nations held to ransom because they must import their oil from radical nations. The same can happen with food, or clean water. If you can't produce your own, you have to rely on possibly unstable suppliers. Eventually someone either pays too much or is forced to do without. Self-sufficiency, in critical areas, is far better.
But trade can, and should, still occur with non-critical items. I'm not against trade, just dependency.
At some point the government of the nation stopped caring about the exploration of space and started caring about massive scale projects that would support the space industry.
The entire program has become a cancer of political and industrial interests, and scrapping it to start over is not a terrible idea. It's the lack of starting over that has me concerned.
The exploration of space is without a doubt the future of humanity, and it seems to me the US no longer sees itself as leaders of humanity, at least in this regard.
I for one do not think America should be dominating the industry, but I don't believe we should back out of the industry either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Net_Jock
While I agree with most of your statements in this thread I think some of what you are saying here is just outright wrong. I'm not sure if its just your media portraying it this way and you don't have easy access to accurate information on this but the facts show whether home or abroad Americans (particularly at the government level) are very often slow to respond to disasters. New Orleans had offers of aid from Cuba and many other countries before the US made an official response. There are other examples where most of the G2X (whatever X is these days) had responded before the Americans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
I'd also object to the fact that people hate you for responding to disasters. American popularity does well in the disasters you respond to. What the internationalists seem to hate is unilateral declarations of war without UN approval. If you look at international popularity of the US it falls dramatically after both the declaration of the Iraq war. It also rises during the US election and with the Obama victory. One of the primary messages during that campaign was rebuilding America's international reputation from the damage done under the Bush administration.
International views of the US also improved as a result of cessation of water-boarding, a controversial topic which had near consensus opposition outside the US.
Something to think about: If international aid is causing the US's poor reputation, why is it that other countries that are even more active with international aid don't have the same reputation problems?
Lastly, regarding space, in order to have company owned asteroids you have to have a claim law. Deciding just what that claim law is is going to be incredibly controversial. If the standard is landing, does the US now own the entire moon? Just the area near where they landed? Does the government itself own the land to issue as it pleases, is it instead owned by the government organization NASA (which could conceivably sell it to fund further space exploration)? The current claim law for space seems to be it is impossible to claim ownership of land on non-Earth planets.
There are all sorts of potential issues with companies being able to send out cheap explorations whose only purpose is to land on a whole bunch of asteroids then come back to Earth and by so doing that one company owns every asteroid they landed on.
Also if a corporation claims an asteroid what nation owns the asteroid, is the corporation now the government of that asteroid, does the country in which its incorporated own that asteroid, what property tax applies? Are there royalties on the minerals?
As for avoiding an Enron, the problem with Enron was not lack of competition, if anything the problem with Enron is they were uncompetitive (too much competition, too good competition?) and instead of failing and getting fired, they cooked the books to make it appear the company was fine.
What you're saying is quite possible, I suppose. There's little doubt that the American media has degenerated into partisan and sensationalist reporting rather than factual reporting. But as for New Orleans, the primary failure there involved FEMA, and the government bureaucracy as a whole. The military, on the other hand, responded immediately and effectively, particularly the coast guard. As far as overseas disasters, from what I can gather the offers of aid are extended almost immediately. But when local governments refuse that aid until it's too late, there's little the US, or any other nation, can do other than wait it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by SadisticNature
I have no answer for this. I've never understood international politics. Hell, I can hardly understand local politics.Quote:
Something to think about: If international aid is causing the US's poor reputation, why is it that other countries that are even more active with international aid don't have the same reputation problems?
I agree, the problems involved are extreme. Certainly I wouldn't advocate the US should claim the entire moon, as we've only managed to put feet on a very tiny portion, and we have not built any kind of habitation. That should be a major requirement, I would think, for any claims: nothing is yours unless you build on it. Just landing and poking a flag in the dust won't qualify.Quote:
Lastly, regarding space, in order to have company owned asteroids you have to have a claim law. Deciding just what that claim law is is going to be incredibly controversial. If the standard is landing, does the US now own the entire moon? Just the area near where they landed? Does the government itself own the land to issue as it pleases, is it instead owned by the government organization NASA (which could conceivably sell it to fund further space exploration)? The current claim law for space seems to be it is impossible to claim ownership of land on non-Earth planets.
Why does a nation have to own it? Let the corporation own it, as long as it maintains a viable population/work force and continues utilizing it. No property taxes needed, since no nation would be providing any infrastructure or services to the asteroids. And no royalties, either, unless a corporation mines an asteroid under contract to another corporation/nation/individual.Quote:
Also if a corporation claims an asteroid what nation owns the asteroid, is the corporation now the government of that asteroid, does the country in which its incorporated own that asteroid, what property tax applies? Are there royalties on the minerals?
But overall, I agree there are a lot of problems to overcome. However, we aren't going to overcome them by sitting on our asses looking up at the pretty stars. We're going to have to go there, and soon, before we find ourselves following the dinosaurs down the inevitable path of extinction.
I think the chances of governments approving the idea of land subject to whatever laws the corporations so impose, where corporations could move their headquarters to reduce taxation and other such exploits is near 0%. There is also a problem where if there are legal complications and no jurisdiction and no nation attached, where are those matters resolved? If the corporation is headquartered in its own nation which lacks a legal system how do you even handle legal disputes with the entity? When one starts to ponder the complexities here one wonders why nations would ever allow this to occur.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
I also think following the dinosaurs down the inevitable path of extinction is probably hyperbole. The time scale is such that we probably have another 500+ years to get this done, and political conditions making space unpopular are likely to change by then.
As part of a disaster response team I can assure you, there are reasons rescue personnel don't rush right into a disaster and start working. There has to be cohesion between responders, there has to be organization, and there has to be a realistic approach. It's easy to criticize when watching on television and seeing people sitting on rooftops awaiting someone to come along and rescue them. I agree, why not paddle in, get the people, and paddle out.Quote:
Originally Posted by SadisticNature
Properly trained personnel have to be assigned to do these types of things, otherwise not only do you have the original people in need of rescue, now you have the people who attempted to rescue them in need of rescue themselves. Unseen dangers were everywhere in New Orleans...downed power lines, cars, bodies, sewage, street signs, small trees, etc. all submerged and ready to cause havoc with not only rescuers, but those being rescued. There were unstable buildings, aggressive animals (displaced wildlife such as snakes, rats, spiders, etc. - some of which were poisonous). There are rescuers who are trained to go into unstable buildings and search. Searches had to be done in an orderly fashion so as not to cause double the work. Records of what had been done and who had been rescued, from what house, etc had to be put on paper or in computers. Many people have no clue the amount of "engineering" goes into a rescue operation and I myself was once guilty of sitting on the sidelines and scoffing at the length of time it took to respond.
America is nothing if not innovative. Due to the outcry for faster response after Katrina, the U.S. has adapted an organized response system that is much quicker than before. That being said, a state in which a disaster occurs still needs it's Governor to ask the President for help before we can be deployed by executive order.
Maybe, but with governments seemingly eager to get out of the space race, the time may come when there's damned little they can do about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by SadisticNature
They would have to be dealt with as a separate nation, I suppose. Like the Vatican. A whole new area of law, maybe: Interplanetary Law.Quote:
There is also a problem where if there are legal complications and no jurisdiction and no nation attached, where are those matters resolved? If the corporation is headquartered in its own nation which lacks a legal system how do you even handle legal disputes with the entity?
Chances are they won't. But their need for the production of these industries will force them to at least tentatively accept the situation. I have no particular love of the Corporation as supreme lawgiver, by any means. But I also don't like the idea that every scrap of dust throughout the solar system has to be controlled by some greedy government entity already on Earth.Quote:
When one starts to ponder the complexities here one wonders why nations would ever allow this to occur.
I would imagine that the whole situation would become similar to the opening of the American West, with small communities forming and establishing laws, with large corporations replacing the old cattle barons, all leading eventually to either the establishment of new nations or the invitation of old nations to take control. If some rich recluse wants to build a home on a rock in the Asteroid Belt, why should he have to pay taxes and declare fealty to some government that's 100 million miles away on a good day?
500 years is not a long time as far as a species is concerned. That would represent about 0.3% of total span of homo sapiens existence. Just because we point to an asteroid impact as being the smoking gun which ended the dinosaurs doesn't mean they died off immediately. It took thousands of years, perhaps tens of thousands, for the last of the species to die.Quote:
I also think following the dinosaurs down the inevitable path of extinction is probably hyperbole. The time scale is such that we probably have another 500+ years to get this done, and political conditions making space unpopular are likely to change by then.
Aside from that, looking back through history I don't see a hell of a lot of improvement in political conditions over the last 500 years, or even the last 1000 years. How can we expect their to be any change over the next 500?
I think its a big mistake not only for the us, but for the world for the USA to abandon its national efforts in space.
Political conditions have improved dramatically in the past 500 years. We've gone from Monarchies to Democracy's, from an institution where everyone is subject to the whims of the leaders to a government of law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
If we have a similarly 'lackluster' change in the next 500 years, then I think progress will be just fine.
Furthermore a lot of the barrier is technological, and we've had huge technological advances even in the last 10 years. If that continues, eventually the price of spacecraft will come down so far that exploration is viable.
I don't think its that the other countries involved rush in and send untrained people to do dangerous jobs. The success rates of those rescue missions seems to suggest otherwise.
I'm not criticizing the people involved in disaster response or rescue. I'm merely suggesting that it was unreasonable for someone to claim that America was the first in and resented for it. Because they typically aren't the first in, and they typically are resented for other reasons.
I'm glad the US has improved their system since Katrina, seeing a repeat of that would be tragic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steelish
The forms have changed, perhaps, but the people running them haven't. Ask the women of Afghanistan if things are better for them than 500 years ago. Or the people in central Africa. Or countless other nations around the world who's political leaders' only concerns are improving their own lives at the expense of their people. No, the conditions are the same. It's only the rhetoric which has changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by SadisticNature
Which is precisely my point. It has gotten to the point where corporations, instead of nations, will be leading the way. That's what will cause the prices to fall. That's what will fuel the colonization of space and the planets. Only when the corporations and the rugged individualists have gone in and tamed things will the governments step in and start trying to control things. Hopefully, this time we won't let them.Quote:
Furthermore a lot of the barrier is technological, and we've had huge technological advances even in the last 10 years. If that continues, eventually the price of spacecraft will come down so far that exploration is viable.
The way I see it is:
Corporations and Individualists are unlikely to try for getting land in space unless the claim laws change.
Governments are unlikely to change the claim laws because of all the disadvantages they would face for doing so.
So until this becomes changed there isn't going to be a lot of individualist oriented exploration/claiming of space.
As for region by region analysis, perhaps my view is biased, but I don't think the governments to which you refer are the most likely candidates for space exploration, so concentrating on governance in countries with actual Space Programs would suggest my 500 year claim is valid. As far as it goes with democracy, if change isn't occurring its because people aren't making it happen. This isn't as easy as it sounds but its certainly possible in a democracy, in a monarchy the main methods of policy changes were executions and civil wars.