Politics & Space - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

genuinegirly · 03-11-2011, 05:48 PM

I've shared a considerable amount of my interest in the space program with everyone on the TFP over the past year. Now I'm interested in learning where you stand.

I support the idea of the government funding space research. I admit that I am biased party in this regard. I depend on NASA for the controlled spaceflight experiments that interest me. I don't see that the private sector will be able to fully take over the role that the Shuttles played in scientific research within the next decade, not without significant support from government sources, whether through contracted labor, direct subsidies or tax inscentives. It seems that there are a number of companies that are ready to perform manned missions in the next couple of years, but I'd like to see some proof that they can successfully perform unmanned missions before we place lives in their hands.

Do you think that the private sector should be governed by existing government-run space programs?
What do you think a government's role should be in space exploration and development?
What kinds of controls do you think should be in place for private space endeavors?
Should anything off of our globe be considered free for a claim?
Do you expect private companies to exploit the resources of any heavenly body they encounter?

Share with me whatever you would like to share, in relation to space and politics. I'm really curious what people have to say.

Willravel · 03-11-2011, 06:22 PM

I honestly have come to believe that NASA will be looked back upon as the greatest investment the United States government ever made. The idea of investing directly in technological development and scientific advancement is more than intriguing, it's an integral part of human existence. Did you know NASA money paid for the development of fiberglass and teflon? Did you know NASA invented the smoke detector? NASA helped develop the first portable computers. They kept Tylenol with cyanide from reaching consumers, possibly saving hundreds of thousands of lives. NASA has been at the beginning of so many technological developments, it's difficult to list them all.

NASA is pure innovation and exploration.

Do you think that the private sector should be governed by existing government-run space programs?
I believe there should be oversight to ensure safety, certainly. I also believe that NASA should be able to contract out scientific work to private companies.

What do you think a government's role should be in space exploration and development?
NASA should be the leader, imho. It has a long history of doing the jobs of exploration and development well, earning my trust.

What kinds of controls do you think should be in place for private space endeavors?
Safety inspections before launch, be it manned or unmanned.

Should anything off of our globe be considered free for a claim?
No. I'm not happy with the way humans have divided up resources on earth in attempts to gain power over others. We've exploited the earth far more than we've respected it. I don't trust private corporations and individuals to treat our universe with respect and with the aim of betterment for all mankind. I know it sounds pie in the sky, but exploration should be about a better tomorrow for everyone. We should have human governmental regulation over human endeavors into space.

Do you expect private companies to exploit the resources of any heavenly body they encounter?
I expect them to try, but people like me will be standing in their way.

DaveOrion · 03-12-2011, 01:12 PM

I also have an interest in space exploration but after considerable thought I've concluded that it might be best to take care of this planet first, then push towards the stars. First the overwhelming cost of space exploration is indeed a burden we shouldnt have to carry. Secondly is the extreme dangers involved in space flight which technology hasnt overcome. Thirdly, we simply are not ready, putting a man on the moon is one thing but colonizing or even mining the moon is an astronomical (no pun intended) effort which the first two reasons cover.

As far as your questions go the private sector should not be governed by existing programs, as an example take spaceship one, they did a great job without government interference.

Spaceship One

The government is great and spending billions of dollars with few results, yes we landed a man a the moon but in my opinion that was shear luck. Its a small miracle that those men ever made it there let alone returned alive. Any number of cataclysmic events could have ended that journey in a heartbeat.

Look at the space shuttle program...........

Risk assessment shows NASA's odds were high for greater space shuttle losses | The News-Press | news-press.com

Quote:

CAPE CANAVERAL — NASA seriously underestimated the dangers astronauts faced when the shuttle fleet began flying in the early 1980s, a new internal safety study shows.

At the time, managers thought there was only a 1-in-100,000 chance of losing a shuttle and its crew. Engineers thought the probability was closer to 1 in 100. But in reality, the odds of a disaster were much higher.

On each of the shuttle's first nine missions, there was a 1 in 9 chance of a catastrophic accident, according to the new risk analysis. On the next 16 flights that led up to and included the January 1986 Challenger disaster, the odds were 1 in 10.

NASA lost 14 astronauts in two shuttle tragedies, and saw near misses on a dozen other flights.

"We were lucky. There were a number of close calls," NASA summarized in the new risk assessment.

The moon is already for sale although I'm not sure how anyone could actually stake a claim. A piece of paper might not do the trick

Buy Moon Property - Lunar Real Estate - Moon Land For Sale

And of course there are already many standing in line to exploit the moons resources. Gotta get that helium3, Good Luck with dat.

Global Network - Space Exploration and Exploitation

The Artemis Project: Private Enterprise on the Moon

Opinio Juris Blog Archive Bilder on the Legal Regime for Mining the Moon

The inherent dangers of space which include both zero gravity and cosmic rays would have severe health implications for astronauts on any long term mission, we first need to investigate their effects on cells, tissues and our hormonal and immune systems. Not to mention those pesky micrometeorite showers, the psychological effects of living in confined spaces, & propulsion systems.

Give us a few hundred years & we might have a few of these bugs worked out.

ASU2003 · 03-12-2011, 01:58 PM

I have done some work for NASA before, so it interests me too...

As for commercial spaceflight, I think there was just as much worry about NASA & the Soviet space program being successful in the early days. And I've toured some rocket production companies (Orbital) in Arizona, and they are getting the hang of building rockets that can be repetitively successful. Competition demands that they are, and that the price and technological improvements can bring down costs.

Now, I'm not sure it would be wise to just retire the shuttle, if we could sell it to a private company to use... if it turns out to be efficient and they could make money by launching it. I think NASA was doing it for as cheap as possible though.

I think the bigger question needs to be asked is, what should be our space policy going forward. I think we should have big goals like artificial gravity, ultra-fast propulsion, particle shields, radiation barriers, and other sci-fi type things that if accomplished, should be rewarded with large sums of tax-payer money. At least in my world, that is the purpose of life to improve humanity and big science advancements are one part of that.

Do you think that the private sector should be governed by existing government-run space programs?
I think there should be an FAA or FCC type of oversight to help them out and keep things from colliding in space.

What do you think a government's role should be in space exploration and development?
Scientific research and exploration is still needs to be done by government. And companies should be able to ask for advice on how to solve problems or tests that could be run in space.

What kinds of controls do you think should be in place for private space endeavors? If people are willing to take the risk, then none. If they want to be safe, then the government should check them out as an independent 3rd party.

Should anything off of our globe be considered free for a claim?
If they can get there, or send a robot there, then they can get 1 square mile of real estate. It is their own nation, with no rules type of claim...

Do you expect private companies to exploit the resources of any heavenly body they encounter? If they want to mine an asteroid or H3 on the Moon, then I don't have a problem with that. I'm not sure if we have free trade with the Moon or not though...

WhoaitsZ · 03-14-2011, 12:13 PM

space is essential if we wish to not die out.

it does piss me off that we invest so little in exploration of our own damned planet, namely oceans.

I just don't know what to think when it comes to government to privatization. on the other hand, in this day and age, our gov is doing everything through privatization anyway, amirite?

---------- Post added at 03:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:12 PM ----------

oh god i just had a mental image of the moon having a Westborough Church banner saying GOD HATES ALIEN FAGS

genuinegirly · 03-14-2011, 12:32 PM

You are all so respectful! But this thread needs some dissenting opinions...
So here goes.

DaveOrion, I’m going to pick on you first. I hope you'll respond!
Do you consider it not an issue that we're defunding many areas of space research to the point that we are unable to maintain even a “skeleton crew” of researchers who are able to pass on their knowledge and methods to the next generation of scientists? Your prospect of dealing with Earth first is noble, but don’t we have lots of educated people trying to solve those problems already? I argue that while we’ve been figuring out how to put life in space, we’re also learning how to make life more liveable for those here. It is nearly impossible to get a grant from NASA without relating a convincing argument for how your research will provide a near-immediate benefit to people on Earth. Also, wouldn’t colonization of space offer a frontier for people to spread out, offering a decrease in population density on Earth, and decreasing the impact humans make on their current overuse of natural resources?

Jinn · 03-14-2011, 12:59 PM

genuinegirly, this reminded me of a video I saw a year or so ago with Neil deGrasse Tyson about what *else* NASA means for the future of the US. I really think you'd enjoy it, if you haven't already seen it:

YouTube - Neil deGrasse Tyson at UB: What NASA Means to America's Future

It's worth it for the other posters, too. I think he pretty aptly summarized where I'm at, and I think the 'inspiration' point is worth as many dollars as the money we throw at "defense." His first point (about SPACE defense) is awfully appropriate too.

supersix2 · 03-14-2011, 01:25 PM

I think I've posted on another thread on space by genuinegirly in the past. I am a current employee of a NASA contractor involved with the day to day operations of the International Space Station, I've also worked on Space Shuttle operations for the past 3 years recently moving over to the ISS. My time at work was also spent on developing operations concepts for the Orion spacecraft which was part of the Constellation program that was cancelled early last year.

In the past year I've been growing more and more disappointed in the way Congress and the Administration has been handling NASA and it's budget. Last year the Obama Administration called for cancelling the Constellation program (a program that would have provided crew and cargo transportation to and from the ISS as well as eventually returning astronauts to the moon) in favor of future technology development but without any real end goal in sight. I have mixed feelings about cancelling Constellation because since I worked on part of that program I am well aware of the many problems it was having and budget shortfalls due to the fact that it was never funded appropriately in the first place from the Bush administration. The real problem I had was the squishy language to just do technology development but without any end goal. Engineers need a goal to work towards so we can bound the problem and NASA was getting no direction from the top. Once Congress got a hold of the budget request all hell broke loose because Senators and Congressmen who have NASA centers in their states were immediately concerned with people losing their jobs. As a result NASA (as well as the rest of the government) has been functioning without a budget since October 1st of last year. Instead NASA is left spinning its wheels working at the 2010 budget which includes working on parts of the cancelled Constellation program. NASA is now essentially wasting money on a program that will never fly due to Congressional inaction. This has been the story of NASA since the end of the Apollo program. The public's perception of NASA I believe has been tarnished because all they see is NASA spending billions of dollars with no real results to speak of. Sure in the last 30 years we've flown 133 space shuttle missions and built an massive space station in orbit working with countries all over the globe but the Space Station has taken 10 years to develop and over 10 years to build at a $100 billion price tag. Most of this is due to the numerous budget changes passed by Congress and approved by various administrations over the 20 year lifetime of the Space Station Program. That being said...

I am encouraged by the prospect of commercial companies getting involved in space transportation. I believe it will allow us to have greater access to space at a lower development and possibly lower operational cost. I attribute much of the cost NASA has to Congress and Administrations tinkering with its long term plans which forces development phases to be drawn out or to make design trades that are more expensive in the long run. I see this now as I am involved in Space Station operations. I believe that commercial companies who are removed from direct Congressional control will be able to more freely implement design changes and development processes that will be more cost effective and possibly even safer. In short, we will finally be getting spacecraft designed by engineers and not designed by lawyers in Congress.

To answer the questions posed at the beginning of this post:

Do you think that the private sector should be governed by existing government-run space programs?
Yes and they are. Right now NASA and the FAA are negotiating who will be the organization to certify commercial spacecraft. NASA released a requirements document on what a spacecraft needs to be "human rated" NASA and its contractors are in talks with all of the commercial companies on who will operate the spacecraft, train the ground controllers, train the crew members, and where these things will be done. Some commercial companies want little NASA involvement (oversight only) while others want more help from NASA.

What do you think a government's role should be in space exploration and development?
The government should continue to fund the International Space Station for as long as it can safely operate in space to provide a destination for these commercial companies to fly to. NASA should retain levels of funding to appropriately operate the ISS, develop new technologies in space and aviation. NASA should also been given a long term goal to either return to the moon, go to Mars, or go to an asteroid on a manned mission. I believe we should set up a space station on the Moon or Mars to sustain a human presence off of Earth. This goal should be realistic but not too long term (10 years out, maximum) and more importantly it should not be messed with once the plan is laid out.

What kinds of controls do you think should be in place for private space endeavors?
Similar controls to how the FAA rates and certifies aircraft. Nothing more or nothing less.

Should anything off of our globe be considered free for a claim?
Space exploration is in benefit of all mankind whatever destination is reached and whatever resources are used should be for the benefit of all nations.

Do you expect private companies to exploit the resources of any heavenly body they encounter? I expect this will be a long term goal but right now private companies are focused on building cheap and reliable launch vehicles to reduce the cost of launching payloads into low earth orbit (LEO). They are also working on ways to launch humans into LEO as well as delivering supplies and crew to the ISS. I believe NASA should be focused on the science of how to use these resources and then allow the commercial companies to use the research to implement it. This is similar to how aeronautics research was handled in the first half of the 20th century.

Willravel · 03-14-2011, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by supersix2

I think I've posted on another thread on space by genuinegirly in the past. I am a current employee of a NASA contractor involved with the day to day operations of the International Space Station, I've also worked on Space Shuttle operations for the past 3 years recently moving over to the ISS. My time at work was also spent on developing operations concepts for the Orion spacecraft which was part of the Constellation program that was cancelled early last year.

If this is true, you're an impressive individual.

supersix2 · 03-15-2011, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveOrion

I also have an interest in space exploration but after considerable thought I've concluded that it might be best to take care of this planet first, then push towards the stars. First the overwhelming cost of space exploration is indeed a burden we shouldnt have to carry. Secondly is the extreme dangers involved in space flight which technology hasnt overcome. Thirdly, we simply are not ready, putting a man on the moon is one thing but colonizing or even mining the moon is an astronomical (no pun intended) effort which the first two reasons cover.

I would like to address this because statements like this make my blood boil. The amount we spend on space exploration is minuscule compared to the amount is spent on "solving" the problems here on earth and with much more tangible results.

Here is the proposed 2012 NASA budget.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/516674main_F...s_Overview.pdf

For comparison here is the proposed 2012 Social Security Administration Budget
http://www.ssa.gov/budget/2012BudgetOverview.pdf

I am not doing this to debate the merits of Social Security but merely to make a comparison as to how much Social Security spends on Administrative Expenses to the entire NASA budget for scientific research, operating space shuttle and space station, and aviation research.

Social Security is requesting a little over $12.5 Billion for Administrative Expenses. Page 5 of their budget outlines what they define as administrative expenses. Many of the things they are requesting money for are things NASA too has to deal with such as aging computer systems, on going needs to find efficiencies in business processes, rising infrastructure costs, and loss of experience as people retire. To compare, NASA is requesting around $3.5 Billion for what they call Cross-Agency Support and Construction, Environmental Compliance, and Restoration. Now think about the types of facilities NASA has to build and maintain, launch pads, fuel tanks, cryogenic tanks, wind tunnels, vacuum test chambers, medical facilities. As opposed to Social Security which is....office buildings.

Now compare that to the budget totals of operating both Space Shuttle and Space Station programs, R&D for human and robotic space missions, and performing scientific research in space and on earth NASA is requesting around $15 billion.

So for just a little over what Social Security is requiring to maintain their facilities and essentially file paperwork NASA is putting shit in space and keeping in there.

Oh by the way...they ENTIRE NASA budget request for 2012....a whopping $18.7 billion which is about 0.5% of the entire federal budget.

So Dave Orion...I'm pretty sure we are spending more than enough to "solve" problems here on earth such as "fixing" Social Security.

Sun Tzu · 03-17-2011, 06:23 PM

NASA is too important to dismantle and disperse to the private sector completely. It is a dream of mine (although I know it will never happen in my lifetime) that an international venture to Mars will happen. The crew (A,B,C, and D teams) would consist of professionals from USA, Russia, China, Iran, Israel, and others. It would be a site for nations of the world to see what could be accomplished by working together.

Instead of debating who would set their flag on Martian soil first; an Earth flag would have to be created.

genuinegirly · 03-19-2011, 04:17 AM

Jin, I love that video, thank you for sharing it here.
Supersix, thank you for sharing your perspective. I'm glad that you popped in for this discussion, I was hoping you would.
Sun Tzu, you're not the only one with such a dream.

pan6467 · 03-21-2011, 03:14 AM

If you look at how important and how interested the populace is in space exploration, you cannot deny the need to keep a well funded NASA. Look how important Hubble has become and the space station. Look at how we built the Star Trek community and movies. The interest is there. NASA just needs to do what Supersix did and show the people exactly where the money goes and what their budget is. I have heard numerous people inside the government say that out of every government program, NASA is the most economically responsible. We need another "Mars Rover" or "moon mission" to truly regain the "hype" so to speak.

With space exploration, we should be selling optimism, and as mentioned above the possibility of a unified Earth interested in moving forward and reducing the burden we put on this planet.

But alas I am a Roddenberrian idealist in this area. Gene had it right, the future and destiny for a peaceful Earth is space exploration. Pure and simple. perhaps on one of the planets or asteroids we find diamonds and gold thus lowering the prices and making them more accessible to the people. I'm a rockhound Lapidarian, I would love to see rocks brought back to Earth from other space entities like asteroids or planets and moons.

As someone else above pointed out, I also believe we should be exploring more of our oceans depths. There because of the pressure and volcanic actions, we may find all sorts of what we believe to be "rare" gems and precious metals among things we have no idea existed. Our oceans depths maybe richer in what we find scientifically than we would in space.

Do you think that the private sector should be governed by existing government-run space programs? Yes, I do. It is the nature of the corporate beast to cut corners at the safety of the people in the name of profit. An oversight committee that is subsidized by the privatized companies should be put into place. This committee should have the leadership appointed by Congress or a third party.

What do you think a government's role should be in space exploration and development?
I believe it is vitally important for the government to continue a space program that inspires optimism and hope. In order to do this we need to increase educational spending at a higher rate. This would be an extremely hard sell in these economic times. We need to give more grants to and more put more emphasis on areas such as astrophysics, astronomy, the sciences and math. We can't have people working at NASA or in companies that can barely do algebra 2/ trigonometry or have no clue what NaCl+H2O is. They (the government) could also develop tax credits if the "privatized" contracted companies offered scholarships and tuition help for people wanting to go into these fields. The upside to all this would be a better educated, higher tech population. With more marketable skills and disciplines. It would increase job growth, wages and thus a new tax base that would eventually pay the investment the government and companies put in back with interest. But again, you'd have to use a damned good sales pitch and projections and have people that truly believed in this to be the spokespeople selling it to the citizenry.

What kinds of controls do you think should be in place for private space endeavors?
An oversight committee subsidized by the private companies for safety and quality assurances. Professional testing for pilots and crew make sure they are healthy and qualified to be there. Make rules that any entity cannot be claimed as "private" or "owned" by a specific government or people.I find that that rule of law would be out of necessity because we would eventually see colony wars and wars here for that "land". It's in human history and nature to fight over land and mineral rights. May as well try to stem that possibility off before it happened.

Should anything off of our globe be considered free for a claim?
No. As I stated in the last question to do so would probably end in wars and loss of life. This is one area I'm pessimistic in given our history here on Earth.And what happens if by some miracle we find life on an asteroid or planet? Do we treat them as our ancestors treated the Native Americans when the new world was first discovered and as we moved Westward? My feeling is that if we allowed free claim that would be a possibility.

All that said, we would have to have a system of incentives for the private sector to truly go into that business. My proposal would be 50 year land and mineral rights for a set fee or percentage of the find, that would be used to fund the sciences and a "policing" security that would make sure the laws were followed.

I have for a long time believed if industry wants more freedoms and less taxes than they should set up third parties that police themselves. It's much like the origins of the FDA, the EPA, the FAA, the FCC and so on. Not trying to be political just historical..... the one bad thing that we are still paying for during the Reagan years is that he made all those more government funded than privately funded, which was what they were supposed to be, privately funded entities. Which burdened the taxpayers more.

Do you expect private companies to exploit the resources of any heavenly body they encounter?
Absolutely. There has to be incentive for them to go "out" there. No doubt in my mind that as long as there is greed in man there will always be exploitation. Look at the countries here on Earth that exploit their peoples. The companies that exploit their workers and if an accident like the BP Gulf affair occurs, bury it and spin it to the best of your ability. That's just present day, our history shows that we will exploit anything for greed. Whether it be individual, corporate or imperialistic, exploitation is a given. How can you possible police space, if the government won't finance it?

DaveOrion · 03-21-2011, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genuinegirly

You are all so respectful! But this thread needs some dissenting opinions...
So here goes.

DaveOrion, I’m going to pick on you first. I hope you'll respond!
Do you consider it not an issue that we're defunding many areas of space research to the point that we are unable to maintain even a “skeleton crew” of researchers who are able to pass on their knowledge and methods to the next generation of scientists? Your prospect of dealing with Earth first is noble, but don’t we have lots of educated people trying to solve those problems already? I argue that while we’ve been figuring out how to put life in space, we’re also learning how to make life more liveable for those here. It is nearly impossible to get a grant from NASA without relating a convincing argument for how your research will provide a near-immediate benefit to people on Earth. Also, wouldn’t colonization of space offer a frontier for people to spread out, offering a decrease in population density on Earth, and decreasing the impact humans make on their current overuse of natural resources?

OMG, you made me cry! You're mean & scary! Ok, not really.........here goes my reply anyway.

What has the space program (NASA) actually given us? Microwave ovens & tang? There may be a few more things like LEDs and enriched baby food but all things considered do the benefits outweigh the cost? It depends on your point of view, a highly educated NASA employee will probably rave about the benefits while your average joe cant even spell benefits.

I do realize that the NASA budget is less than 1% of the total federal budget & that seems rather small but when you consider that we may spend 3 billion in 6 months on a Libyan no fly zone...........Damn, I guess the NASA budget really is small. It’s the corruption & waste of the federal gov that really pisses me off, it’s the hot shot over educated administrators who sit on there ass & get paid exorbitant amounts to do very little, NASA admins included. Its the subcontractors who pad their bills, the employees who milk their jobs because they're paid by the hour, the suppliers that overcharge for an inferior product, and on & on. The point is that this planet has damn near 7 billion people who cannot get along because of ideological, theological, or whateverological differences, our natural resources are dwindling away & wars are fought over them. We cant even feed the people that are here now let alone anymore & you think that more money should be spent on a pipe dream space program to colonize other planets? Please.

As previously stated the inherent dangers of space are vast, the technological problems have not been overcome, we don’t have warp drive, star gates, transporter technology, subspace wormholes or anything even close. By the time our tech advances far enough we will surely have destroyed ourselves anyway so it all seems pointless anyway. Damn, that all seems rather pessimistic, but stand back & take a good long objective look at the world and you may see why.

supersix2 · 03-21-2011, 03:15 PM

Hey DaveOrion if you go here you will see NASA has given you more than Tang and microwaves. Go to the Spinoff Database button at the top and just do a search by NASA center. There are pages of abstracts written showing how a NASA invention, innovation, or research has had impacts across industries.

NASA Spinoff homepage

Most of your thoughts on this topic are misguided and over-generalizations. Name me one industry out there that doesn't have a few bad apples that pad numbers, "cook the books" or employees who milk their jobs? Spending vast sums of money is not going to fix ideological, theological, or whatever logical differences. You know what has allowed nations to put aside differences? Working on joint space exploration ventures and guess what we get extra benefits of technology advancement out of it.

We don't need warp drives or wormholes to go to return to the Moon, build a moon base, or go to Mars or an asteroid. Sure we need to mature some technologies before we can do these things more safely and with a higher chance of success but if we had the money and the will we can pretty much do it now. What will we end up doing is working with other countries and explore as a joint effort. Different countries and cultures working together towards a common goal will allow people to set aside their differences.

Anyway man, I know I'm not going to change your mind but maybe this will help you not easily discount the impacts of the space program on all of the various "problems" facing the world.

DaveOrion · 03-21-2011, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by supersix2

Hey DaveOrion if you go here you will see NASA has given you more than Tang and microwaves. Go to the Spinoff Database button at the top and just do a search by NASA center. There are pages of abstracts written showing how a NASA invention, innovation, or research has had impacts across industries.

NASA Spinoff homepage

Most of your thoughts on this topic are misguided and over-generalizations. Name me one industry out there that doesn't have a few bad apples that pad numbers, "cook the books" or employees who milk their jobs? Spending vast sums of money is not going to fix ideological, theological, or whatever logical differences. You know what has allowed nations to put aside differences? Working on joint space exploration ventures and guess what we get extra benefits of technology advancement out of it.

We don't need warp drives or wormholes to go to return to the Moon, build a moon base, or go to Mars or an asteroid. Sure we need to mature some technologies before we can do these things more safely and with a higher chance of success but if we had the money and the will we can pretty much do it now. What will we end up doing is working with other countries and explore as a joint effort. Different countries and cultures working together towards a common goal will allow people to set aside their differences.

Anyway man, I know I'm not going to change your mind but maybe this will help you not easily discount the impacts of the space program on all of the various "problems" facing the world.

Uh, yea, I was kidding about the tang thing.............I'm already aware of all of the tech that NASA has come up with, this is the info age & I do have access to the net..................

People change their mind all the time, I do as well..........

All we need to do is change the minds of most of the people on earth and your theoretical Utopian bliss with all counties working together for a common goal can be realized. Tech will help us overcome the hurdles and look out galaxy here we come!

I think that was called Star Trek.

supersix2 · 03-21-2011, 06:16 PM

I wasn't going as extreme with utopian bliss when I suggested that working towards a common goal will cause people to set aside differences. I was merely suggesting that since you have a group of countries all with a vested interest in one thing they will be more likely to work together in other things as well.

For example, we rely heavily on the Russians in the ISS program. After the Shuttle retires this year they are our only ride to the space station. They also are the only ones who are able to regularly and reliable fly up new supplies to the space station. Since we've invested $100 billion in this space station I really doubt we'll do anything stupid to jeopardize our relations with Russian for fear they increase the cost of flying us to the station or worse yet cut us off entirely. In all honesty the Russians could detach their portion of the ISS and probably be perfectly fine (until their money runs out). The US segment would be left abandoned with no way of getting people or supplies there.

Hell one of the goals of the Shuttle-Mir missions and partnering with the Russians for ISS was to ensure they had some stable income to their country after fall of the Soviet Union. The fear was they would sell off their nuclear arsenal and other military technologies to form Soviet Republics and by essentially buying their services to build some modules for ISS as well as pay them "rent" to allow our astronauts to live on Mir we helped keep them solvent while also learning a little about operating in space long term.

All I'm trying to say is there are real tangible changes that have taken place due to our partnering with other countries for space exploration.

ASU2003 · 03-21-2011, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveOrion

All we need to do is change the minds of most of the people on earth and your theoretical Utopian bliss with all counties working together for a common goal can be realized. Tech will help us overcome the hurdles and look out galaxy here we come!

I think that was called Star Trek.

And we are bringing people into this future anyway possible. We now have a lot of the sci-fi products that could be found in Star Trek.

And, if it was economical to work together instead of killing each other because they come from someplace else than we could do a lot more good.

------------------

Anyway, I think the one problem NASA has is that they are too 'big', yet their budget is the right size. Or at least they cover too many areas just because they deal with space. NOAA and the EPA should be responsible for earth science from space. The USDA should be funding plant experiments on the space station.

Materials science can be done by universities of other gov. agencies.

NASA should be working on major leaps in science that involve space propulsion, space habitat, rockets, satellites, and probes.

Wandrin · 03-21-2011, 07:16 PM

One of the problems of politics interfering with space exploration is the focus on manned missions to other planets. Yes, I know that this is what the people want and that it is something that the politicians push. It is glamorous, but it wastes time and money.

A manned mission is far more complicated, costs 100 times more (at least), takes longer to plan, and really doesn't provide any more information than sending adaptively intelligent machines to do the same job. But it makes for better TV.

We don't even know how to keep food tasty for a manned mission to Mars, yet we are diverting a huge portion of NASA's budget to that project, and away from more productive (in terms of information gathered) missions.

Since the same luddites in congress that cannot be convinced of global climate change (because it isn't in their Bible) are the ones holding the purse strings, there isn't much that can be done about the problem.

genuinegirly · 03-22-2011, 07:03 PM

ASU, unless it's somehow mandated by Congress, the USDA and NIH will never fund basic research in gravitational biology.

There are two big reasons for this:
1) they are focused on applied research
2) they too are facing budget cuts and will not take on a new area of research that they feel strongly belongs under the jurisdiction of NASA.

Here's an interesting fact... in 2004 there were 3,000 university students involved in fundamental microgravity research (physical sciences + life sciences) in the United States. Today in 2011, there are less than 200. Read that again... three thousand has been widdled down to TWO HUNDRED. This huge cut in the number of students involved with fundamental research projects means that there are significantly fewer people coming out of universities with this kind of hands-on experience in research labs, expertise which are in high demand by general industry, but also now especially by commercial spaceflight.

This is how the funding was cut so drastically: the money was funneled from fundamental research into the rocket development for the Constellation project, and has yet to be allocated back to basic research. Over the past few years, Congress has mandated 15% of the ISS research budget to go toward non-exploration research, with the original intent to allocate approximately $200million to fundamental life & physical science research. In response to this brilliant move by Congress, NASA sliced the overall ISS research budget to a tiny fraction of its former size, then began classifying random non-Sovient payloads into the same money pool which have absolutely nothing to do with basic research. The result was a widdling down of that $200 million down to a mere $35 million, barely enough to keep a handful of the most prominent university space research labs limping along with an ever-decreasing shadow of staff.

Students are suffering the most. Those that were stung by the Space bug early in their education are finding it nearly impossible to locate undergraduate and graduate opportunities in space research labs. The precious, motivated few that do find their way into the few remaining labs end up frustrated and/or broke as they realize the overwhelming necessity of working with European collaborators (who have triple the funding for ISS space life and physical science basic research).

Students are getting the shaft, and the knowledge base of the older experts are not being passed down. Scientists are leaving the field, seeking alternate projects that have nothing to do with space life and physical sciences, just so they can keep their labs running - and they often don't have space for undergraduate and graduate student researchers in such a transition.

We have an International Space Station, funded mainly by US tax dollars, that is designed for basic life science research to answer the pressing questions necessary to further NASA's mission directorate... and now the US is providing essentially no funding for that research. We have industry interests and non-peer-reviewed-pseudoscience taking up valuable research space on the ISS which have nothing to do with the original intention of the Station. The European Space Agency is providing 100x the funding in this area for European research teams, and therefore they are making many of the scientific breakthroughs that grab media attention, rather than US scientists.

What do we have to show for cutting almost all the funding that once went to space life and physical science research? We have a halfway-conceived Constellation project that was supposed to be a gateway to long-duration spaceflight, which neglects crucial bioregenerative life support systems. Yeah, that was a stupid move.

Sun Tzu · 03-22-2011, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wandrin

One of the problems of politics interfering with space exploration is the focus on manned missions to other planets. Yes, I know that this is what the people want and that it is something that the politicians push. It is glamorous, but it wastes time and money.

A manned mission is far more complicated, costs 100 times more (at least), takes longer to plan, and really doesn't provide any more information than sending adaptively intelligent machines to do the same job. But it makes for better TV.

We don't even know how to keep food tasty for a manned mission to Mars, yet we are diverting a huge portion of NASA's budget to that project, and away from more productive (in terms of information gathered) missions.

Since the same luddites in congress that cannot be convinced of global climate change (because it isn't in their Bible) are the ones holding the purse strings, there isn't much that can be done about the problem.

This point is indeed the reality. Along with how to prevent muscle atrophy and accelerated osteoporosis from the VERY long trips in zero g. However, there is going to be a generation that must look at terraforming elsewhere. Its not an impending problem now, but its the kind of issue that will take hundreds of years to investigate. Earth populus will always create its own dungeons so when will there ever be a right time?

supersix2 · 03-22-2011, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

This point is indeed the reality. Along with how to prevent muscle atrophy and accelerated osteoporosis from the VERY long trips in zero g. However, there is going to be a generation that must look at terraforming elsewhere. Its not an impending problem now, but its the kind of issue that will take hundreds of years to investigate. Earth populus will always create its own dungeons so when will there ever be a right time?

We have pretty good countermeasures in place to combat the muscle and bone loss on ISS. The crew members have 4 different types of exercise equipment that they use for 2 hours every day. Their diet is structured to replace calcium and delay bone loss and they can take what is basically osteoporosis medicine to prevent bone loss.

Honestly the major things hindering us from exploring Mars at this point is the general will of those in charge and the available funding.

Sure you can point to issues like radiation shielding (which is really the foremost concern for travelling beyond low earth orbit) but given the proper funding and the goal we can solve that problem.

Even if we fully cannot mitigate the risk of radiation (space flight is all about managing risk) there will be no shortfall of willing volunteers to take on a risky mission to Mars in the name of exploration.

Really all the US needs to do is make space exploration a priority and fund it correctly and then leave it to the engineers to get it done.

Wandrin · 03-22-2011, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

This point is indeed the reality. Along with how to prevent muscle atrophy and accelerated osteoporosis from the VERY long trips in zero g. However, there is going to be a generation that must look at terraforming elsewhere. Its not an impending problem now, but its the kind of issue that will take hundreds of years to investigate. Earth populus will always create its own dungeons so when will there ever be a right time?

But with the possibilities come the the possibilities that the machines can create a habitable base for the humans. The experiments with foam generation in low-g are very interesting.

Why not have as much info as possible before we risk human lives in the exploration? Oh, the info to be gleaned. Oh,the info we don't know....

03-11-2011, 05:48 PM	#1 (permalink)
genuinegirly Eat your vegetables Super Moderator Location: Arabidopsis-ville	Politics & Space I've shared a considerable amount of my interest in the space program with everyone on the TFP over the past year. Now I'm interested in learning where you stand. I support the idea of the government funding space research. I admit that I am biased party in this regard. I depend on NASA for the controlled spaceflight experiments that interest me. I don't see that the private sector will be able to fully take over the role that the Shuttles played in scientific research within the next decade, not without significant support from government sources, whether through contracted labor, direct subsidies or tax inscentives. It seems that there are a number of companies that are ready to perform manned missions in the next couple of years, but I'd like to see some proof that they can successfully perform unmanned missions before we place lives in their hands. Do you think that the private sector should be governed by existing government-run space programs? What do you think a government's role should be in space exploration and development? What kinds of controls do you think should be in place for private space endeavors? Should anything off of our globe be considered free for a claim? Do you expect private companies to exploit the resources of any heavenly body they encounter? Share with me whatever you would like to share, in relation to space and politics. I'm really curious what people have to say. __________________ "Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq "violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

03-12-2011, 01:58 PM	#4 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	I have done some work for NASA before, so it interests me too... As for commercial spaceflight, I think there was just as much worry about NASA & the Soviet space program being successful in the early days. And I've toured some rocket production companies (Orbital) in Arizona, and they are getting the hang of building rockets that can be repetitively successful. Competition demands that they are, and that the price and technological improvements can bring down costs. Now, I'm not sure it would be wise to just retire the shuttle, if we could sell it to a private company to use... if it turns out to be efficient and they could make money by launching it. I think NASA was doing it for as cheap as possible though. I think the bigger question needs to be asked is, what should be our space policy going forward. I think we should have big goals like artificial gravity, ultra-fast propulsion, particle shields, radiation barriers, and other sci-fi type things that if accomplished, should be rewarded with large sums of tax-payer money. At least in my world, that is the purpose of life to improve humanity and big science advancements are one part of that. Do you think that the private sector should be governed by existing government-run space programs? I think there should be an FAA or FCC type of oversight to help them out and keep things from colliding in space. What do you think a government's role should be in space exploration and development? Scientific research and exploration is still needs to be done by government. And companies should be able to ask for advice on how to solve problems or tests that could be run in space. What kinds of controls do you think should be in place for private space endeavors? If people are willing to take the risk, then none. If they want to be safe, then the government should check them out as an independent 3rd party. Should anything off of our globe be considered free for a claim? If they can get there, or send a robot there, then they can get 1 square mile of real estate. It is their own nation, with no rules type of claim... Do you expect private companies to exploit the resources of any heavenly body they encounter? If they want to mine an asteroid or H3 on the Moon, then I don't have a problem with that. I'm not sure if we have free trade with the Moon or not though... Last edited by ASU2003; 03-12-2011 at 03:33 PM..

03-14-2011, 12:32 PM	#6 (permalink)
genuinegirly Eat your vegetables Super Moderator Location: Arabidopsis-ville	You are all so respectful! But this thread needs some dissenting opinions... So here goes. DaveOrion, I’m going to pick on you first. I hope you'll respond! Do you consider it not an issue that we're defunding many areas of space research to the point that we are unable to maintain even a “skeleton crew” of researchers who are able to pass on their knowledge and methods to the next generation of scientists? Your prospect of dealing with Earth first is noble, but don’t we have lots of educated people trying to solve those problems already? I argue that while we’ve been figuring out how to put life in space, we’re also learning how to make life more liveable for those here. It is nearly impossible to get a grant from NASA without relating a convincing argument for how your research will provide a near-immediate benefit to people on Earth. Also, wouldn’t colonization of space offer a frontier for people to spread out, offering a decrease in population density on Earth, and decreasing the impact humans make on their current overuse of natural resources? __________________ "Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq "violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

03-17-2011, 06:23 PM	#11 (permalink)
Sun Tzu Conspiracy Realist Location: The Event Horizon	NASA is too important to dismantle and disperse to the private sector completely. It is a dream of mine (although I know it will never happen in my lifetime) that an international venture to Mars will happen. The crew (A,B,C, and D teams) would consist of professionals from USA, Russia, China, Iran, Israel, and others. It would be a site for nations of the world to see what could be accomplished by working together. Instead of debating who would set their flag on Martian soil first; an Earth flag would have to be created. __________________ *To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking*

03-19-2011, 04:17 AM	#12 (permalink)
genuinegirly Eat your vegetables Super Moderator Location: Arabidopsis-ville	Jin, I love that video, thank you for sharing it here. Supersix, thank you for sharing your perspective. I'm glad that you popped in for this discussion, I was hoping you would. Sun Tzu, you're not the only one with such a dream. __________________ "Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq "violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

03-11-2011, 06:22 PM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I honestly have come to believe that NASA will be looked back upon as the greatest investment the United States government ever made. The idea of investing directly in technological development and scientific advancement is more than intriguing, it's an integral part of human existence. Did you know NASA money paid for the development of fiberglass and teflon? Did you know NASA invented the smoke detector? NASA helped develop the first portable computers. They kept Tylenol with cyanide from reaching consumers, possibly saving hundreds of thousands of lives. NASA has been at the beginning of so many technological developments, it's difficult to list them all. NASA is pure innovation and exploration. Do you think that the private sector should be governed by existing government-run space programs? I believe there should be oversight to ensure safety, certainly. I also believe that NASA should be able to contract out scientific work to private companies. What do you think a government's role should be in space exploration and development? NASA should be the leader, imho. It has a long history of doing the jobs of exploration and development well, earning my trust. What kinds of controls do you think should be in place for private space endeavors? Safety inspections before launch, be it manned or unmanned. Should anything off of our globe be considered free for a claim? No. I'm not happy with the way humans have divided up resources on earth in attempts to gain power over others. We've exploited the earth far more than we've respected it. I don't trust private corporations and individuals to treat our universe with respect and with the aim of betterment for all mankind. I know it sounds pie in the sky, but exploration should be about a better tomorrow for everyone. We should have human governmental regulation over human endeavors into space. Do you expect private companies to exploit the resources of any heavenly body they encounter? I expect them to try, but people like me will be standing in their way.

03-14-2011, 12:13 PM	#5 (permalink)
WhoaitsZ Crazy Location: right behind you...	space is essential if we wish to not die out. it does piss me off that we invest so little in exploration of our own damned planet, namely oceans. I just don't know what to think when it comes to government to privatization. on the other hand, in this day and age, our gov is doing everything through privatization anyway, amirite? ---------- Post added at 03:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:12 PM ---------- oh god i just had a mental image of the moon having a Westborough Church banner saying GOD HATES ALIEN FAGS

03-14-2011, 01:25 PM	#8 (permalink)
supersix2 Insane Location: Houston	I think I've posted on another thread on space by genuinegirly in the past. I am a current employee of a NASA contractor involved with the day to day operations of the International Space Station, I've also worked on Space Shuttle operations for the past 3 years recently moving over to the ISS. My time at work was also spent on developing operations concepts for the Orion spacecraft which was part of the Constellation program that was cancelled early last year. In the past year I've been growing more and more disappointed in the way Congress and the Administration has been handling NASA and it's budget. Last year the Obama Administration called for cancelling the Constellation program (a program that would have provided crew and cargo transportation to and from the ISS as well as eventually returning astronauts to the moon) in favor of future technology development but without any real end goal in sight. I have mixed feelings about cancelling Constellation because since I worked on part of that program I am well aware of the many problems it was having and budget shortfalls due to the fact that it was never funded appropriately in the first place from the Bush administration. The real problem I had was the squishy language to just do technology development but without any end goal. Engineers need a goal to work towards so we can bound the problem and NASA was getting no direction from the top. Once Congress got a hold of the budget request all hell broke loose because Senators and Congressmen who have NASA centers in their states were immediately concerned with people losing their jobs. As a result NASA (as well as the rest of the government) has been functioning without a budget since October 1st of last year. Instead NASA is left spinning its wheels working at the 2010 budget which includes working on parts of the cancelled Constellation program. NASA is now essentially wasting money on a program that will never fly due to Congressional inaction. This has been the story of NASA since the end of the Apollo program. The public's perception of NASA I believe has been tarnished because all they see is NASA spending billions of dollars with no real results to speak of. Sure in the last 30 years we've flown 133 space shuttle missions and built an massive space station in orbit working with countries all over the globe but the Space Station has taken 10 years to develop and over 10 years to build at a $100 billion price tag. Most of this is due to the numerous budget changes passed by Congress and approved by various administrations over the 20 year lifetime of the Space Station Program. That being said... I am encouraged by the prospect of commercial companies getting involved in space transportation. I believe it will allow us to have greater access to space at a lower development and possibly lower operational cost. I attribute much of the cost NASA has to Congress and Administrations tinkering with its long term plans which forces development phases to be drawn out or to make design trades that are more expensive in the long run. I see this now as I am involved in Space Station operations. I believe that commercial companies who are removed from direct Congressional control will be able to more freely implement design changes and development processes that will be more cost effective and possibly even safer. In short, we will finally be getting spacecraft designed by engineers and not designed by lawyers in Congress. To answer the questions posed at the beginning of this post: Do you think that the private sector should be governed by existing government-run space programs? Yes and they are. Right now NASA and the FAA are negotiating who will be the organization to certify commercial spacecraft. NASA released a requirements document on what a spacecraft needs to be "human rated" NASA and its contractors are in talks with all of the commercial companies on who will operate the spacecraft, train the ground controllers, train the crew members, and where these things will be done. Some commercial companies want little NASA involvement (oversight only) while others want more help from NASA. What do you think a government's role should be in space exploration and development? The government should continue to fund the International Space Station for as long as it can safely operate in space to provide a destination for these commercial companies to fly to. NASA should retain levels of funding to appropriately operate the ISS, develop new technologies in space and aviation. NASA should also been given a long term goal to either return to the moon, go to Mars, or go to an asteroid on a manned mission. I believe we should set up a space station on the Moon or Mars to sustain a human presence off of Earth. This goal should be realistic but not too long term (10 years out, maximum) and more importantly it should not be messed with once the plan is laid out. What kinds of controls do you think should be in place for private space endeavors? Similar controls to how the FAA rates and certifies aircraft. Nothing more or nothing less. Should anything off of our globe be considered free for a claim? Space exploration is in benefit of all mankind whatever destination is reached and whatever resources are used should be for the benefit of all nations. Do you expect private companies to exploit the resources of any heavenly body they encounter? I expect this will be a long term goal but right now private companies are focused on building cheap and reliable launch vehicles to reduce the cost of launching payloads into low earth orbit (LEO). They are also working on ways to launch humans into LEO as well as delivering supplies and crew to the ISS. I believe NASA should be focused on the science of how to use these resources and then allow the commercial companies to use the research to implement it. This is similar to how aeronautics research was handled in the first half of the 20th century.

03-21-2011, 03:14 AM	#13 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	If you look at how important and how interested the populace is in space exploration, you cannot deny the need to keep a well funded NASA. Look how important Hubble has become and the space station. Look at how we built the Star Trek community and movies. The interest is there. NASA just needs to do what Supersix did and show the people exactly where the money goes and what their budget is. I have heard numerous people inside the government say that out of every government program, NASA is the most economically responsible. We need another "Mars Rover" or "moon mission" to truly regain the "hype" so to speak. With space exploration, we should be selling optimism, and as mentioned above the possibility of a unified Earth interested in moving forward and reducing the burden we put on this planet. But alas I am a Roddenberrian idealist in this area. Gene had it right, the future and destiny for a peaceful Earth is space exploration. Pure and simple. perhaps on one of the planets or asteroids we find diamonds and gold thus lowering the prices and making them more accessible to the people. I'm a rockhound Lapidarian, I would love to see rocks brought back to Earth from other space entities like asteroids or planets and moons. As someone else above pointed out, I also believe we should be exploring more of our oceans depths. There because of the pressure and volcanic actions, we may find all sorts of what we believe to be "rare" gems and precious metals among things we have no idea existed. Our oceans depths maybe richer in what we find scientifically than we would in space. Do you think that the private sector should be governed by existing government-run space programs? Yes, I do. It is the nature of the corporate beast to cut corners at the safety of the people in the name of profit. An oversight committee that is subsidized by the privatized companies should be put into place. This committee should have the leadership appointed by Congress or a third party. What do you think a government's role should be in space exploration and development? I believe it is vitally important for the government to continue a space program that inspires optimism and hope. In order to do this we need to increase educational spending at a higher rate. This would be an extremely hard sell in these economic times. We need to give more grants to and more put more emphasis on areas such as astrophysics, astronomy, the sciences and math. We can't have people working at NASA or in companies that can barely do algebra 2/ trigonometry or have no clue what NaCl+H2O is. They (the government) could also develop tax credits if the "privatized" contracted companies offered scholarships and tuition help for people wanting to go into these fields. The upside to all this would be a better educated, higher tech population. With more marketable skills and disciplines. It would increase job growth, wages and thus a new tax base that would eventually pay the investment the government and companies put in back with interest. But again, you'd have to use a damned good sales pitch and projections and have people that truly believed in this to be the spokespeople selling it to the citizenry. What kinds of controls do you think should be in place for private space endeavors? An oversight committee subsidized by the private companies for safety and quality assurances. Professional testing for pilots and crew make sure they are healthy and qualified to be there. Make rules that any entity cannot be claimed as "private" or "owned" by a specific government or people.I find that that rule of law would be out of necessity because we would eventually see colony wars and wars here for that "land". It's in human history and nature to fight over land and mineral rights. May as well try to stem that possibility off before it happened. Should anything off of our globe be considered free for a claim? No. As I stated in the last question to do so would probably end in wars and loss of life. This is one area I'm pessimistic in given our history here on Earth.And what happens if by some miracle we find life on an asteroid or planet? Do we treat them as our ancestors treated the Native Americans when the new world was first discovered and as we moved Westward? My feeling is that if we allowed free claim that would be a possibility. All that said, we would have to have a system of incentives for the private sector to truly go into that business. My proposal would be 50 year land and mineral rights for a set fee or percentage of the find, that would be used to fund the sciences and a "policing" security that would make sure the laws were followed. I have for a long time believed if industry wants more freedoms and less taxes than they should set up third parties that police themselves. It's much like the origins of the FDA, the EPA, the FAA, the FCC and so on. Not trying to be political just historical..... the one bad thing that we are still paying for during the Reagan years is that he made all those more government funded than privately funded, which was what they were supposed to be, privately funded entities. Which burdened the taxpayers more. *Do you expect private companies to exploit the resources of any heavenly body they encounter?* Absolutely. There has to be incentive for them to go "out" there. No doubt in my mind that as long as there is greed in man there will always be exploitation. Look at the countries here on Earth that exploit their peoples. The companies that exploit their workers and if an accident like the BP Gulf affair occurs, bury it and spin it to the best of your ability. That's just present day, our history shows that we will exploit anything for greed. Whether it be individual, corporate or imperialistic, exploitation is a given. How can you possible police space, if the government won't finance it? __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

03-21-2011, 03:15 PM	#15 (permalink)
supersix2 Insane Location: Houston	Hey DaveOrion if you go here you will see NASA has given you more than Tang and microwaves. Go to the Spinoff Database button at the top and just do a search by NASA center. There are pages of abstracts written showing how a NASA invention, innovation, or research has had impacts across industries. NASA Spinoff homepage Most of your thoughts on this topic are misguided and over-generalizations. Name me one industry out there that doesn't have a few bad apples that pad numbers, "cook the books" or employees who milk their jobs? Spending vast sums of money is not going to fix ideological, theological, or whatever logical differences. You know what has allowed nations to put aside differences? Working on joint space exploration ventures and guess what we get extra benefits of technology advancement out of it. We don't need warp drives or wormholes to go to return to the Moon, build a moon base, or go to Mars or an asteroid. Sure we need to mature some technologies before we can do these things more safely and with a higher chance of success but if we had the money and the will we can pretty much do it now. What will we end up doing is working with other countries and explore as a joint effort. Different countries and cultures working together towards a common goal will allow people to set aside their differences. Anyway man, I know I'm not going to change your mind but maybe this will help you not easily discount the impacts of the space program on all of the various "problems" facing the world.

03-21-2011, 06:16 PM	#17 (permalink)
supersix2 Insane Location: Houston	I wasn't going as extreme with utopian bliss when I suggested that working towards a common goal will cause people to set aside differences. I was merely suggesting that since you have a group of countries all with a vested interest in one thing they will be more likely to work together in other things as well. For example, we rely heavily on the Russians in the ISS program. After the Shuttle retires this year they are our only ride to the space station. They also are the only ones who are able to regularly and reliable fly up new supplies to the space station. Since we've invested $100 billion in this space station I really doubt we'll do anything stupid to jeopardize our relations with Russian for fear they increase the cost of flying us to the station or worse yet cut us off entirely. In all honesty the Russians could detach their portion of the ISS and probably be perfectly fine (until their money runs out). The US segment would be left abandoned with no way of getting people or supplies there. Hell one of the goals of the Shuttle-Mir missions and partnering with the Russians for ISS was to ensure they had some stable income to their country after fall of the Soviet Union. The fear was they would sell off their nuclear arsenal and other military technologies to form Soviet Republics and by essentially buying their services to build some modules for ISS as well as pay them "rent" to allow our astronauts to live on Mir we helped keep them solvent while also learning a little about operating in space long term. All I'm trying to say is there are real tangible changes that have taken place due to our partnering with other countries for space exploration.

03-21-2011, 07:16 PM	#19 (permalink)
Wandrin Upright Location: today?	One of the problems of politics interfering with space exploration is the focus on manned missions to other planets. Yes, I know that this is what the people want and that it is something that the politicians push. It is glamorous, but it wastes time and money. A manned mission is far more complicated, costs 100 times more (at least), takes longer to plan, and really doesn't provide any more information than sending adaptively intelligent machines to do the same job. But it makes for better TV. We don't even know how to keep food tasty for a manned mission to Mars, yet we are diverting a huge portion of NASA's budget to that project, and away from more productive (in terms of information gathered) missions. Since the same luddites in congress that cannot be convinced of global climate change (because it isn't in their Bible) are the ones holding the purse strings, there isn't much that can be done about the problem. __________________ If ignorance is bliss then why are the ignorant so angry? - Shannon Wheeler

03-22-2011, 07:03 PM	#20 (permalink)
genuinegirly Eat your vegetables Super Moderator Location: Arabidopsis-ville	ASU, unless it's somehow mandated by Congress, the USDA and NIH will never fund basic research in gravitational biology. There are two big reasons for this: 1) they are focused on applied research 2) they too are facing budget cuts and will not take on a new area of research that they feel strongly belongs under the jurisdiction of NASA. Here's an interesting fact... in 2004 there were 3,000 university students involved in fundamental microgravity research (physical sciences + life sciences) in the United States. Today in 2011, there are less than 200. Read that again... three thousand has been widdled down to TWO HUNDRED. This huge cut in the number of students involved with fundamental research projects means that there are significantly fewer people coming out of universities with this kind of hands-on experience in research labs, expertise which are in high demand by general industry, but also now especially by commercial spaceflight. This is how the funding was cut so drastically: the money was funneled from fundamental research into the rocket development for the Constellation project, and has yet to be allocated back to basic research. Over the past few years, Congress has mandated 15% of the ISS research budget to go toward non-exploration research, with the original intent to allocate approximately $200million to fundamental life & physical science research. In response to this brilliant move by Congress, NASA sliced the overall ISS research budget to a tiny fraction of its former size, then began classifying random non-Sovient payloads into the same money pool which have absolutely nothing to do with basic research. The result was a widdling down of that $200 million down to a mere $35 million, barely enough to keep a handful of the most prominent university space research labs limping along with an ever-decreasing shadow of staff. Students are suffering the most. Those that were stung by the Space bug early in their education are finding it nearly impossible to locate undergraduate and graduate opportunities in space research labs. The precious, motivated few that do find their way into the few remaining labs end up frustrated and/or broke as they realize the overwhelming necessity of working with European collaborators (who have triple the funding for ISS space life and physical science basic research). Students are getting the shaft, and the knowledge base of the older experts are not being passed down. Scientists are leaving the field, seeking alternate projects that have nothing to do with space life and physical sciences, just so they can keep their labs running - and they often don't have space for undergraduate and graduate student researchers in such a transition. We have an International Space Station, funded mainly by US tax dollars, that is designed for basic life science research to answer the pressing questions necessary to further NASA's mission directorate... and now the US is providing essentially no funding for that research. We have industry interests and non-peer-reviewed-pseudoscience taking up valuable research space on the ISS which have nothing to do with the original intention of the Station. The European Space Agency is providing 100x the funding in this area for European research teams, and therefore they are making many of the scientific breakthroughs that grab media attention, rather than US scientists. What do we have to show for cutting almost all the funding that once went to space life and physical science research? We have a halfway-conceived Constellation project that was supposed to be a gateway to long-duration spaceflight, which neglects crucial bioregenerative life support systems. Yeah, that was a stupid move. __________________ "Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq "violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy