|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
January 23rd 04, 05:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
The New NASA Mission Has Been Grossly Mischaracterized.
In article ,
quibbler wrote: No, that is quite the case. You're just in the early stages of denial and haven't faced budget realities. The fact is that Bush has demanded a wasteful realignment of NASA resources toward a manned mission which will be ruinously expensive. The realignment of NASA resources is the best thing to happen to NASA in 30 years. Not wasteful, but highly useful. Allowing NASA to drift about with the lack of focus it's had for the last few decades, now THAT would be wasteful. The fact is that real science is far too expensive with a manned program. I agree. So let's not attempt to do real science. Let's work on opening the frontier for human habitation instead. Robots must lead the way. Robots have their place, but to get people living in space we really need to have people living in space. It would be more accurate to call this an 'exploration plan'. No it wouldn't you republican shill. We can explore without manned missions or a permanent moon base. Not if by "exploration" you mean "expanding the range of places people have visited and experienced firsthand," which is certainly what *I* mean by it. Bush is destroying the real science programs because he just doesn't get it. Or maybe you're clinging to them because YOU don't get it. I don't care about "real science." Real science isn't putting people on the Moon. And I want people on the Moon. When the next killer asteroid comes our way (or substitute your favorite global catastrophe), having pretty pictures of distant galaxies and a deep understanding of the cosmos isn't going to save humanity. "Exploration" is just a bull**** buzzword. You apparently weren't smart enough to figure that out, so I'm afraid I've got to break it to you bluntly. Heh. More like, you haven't got a leg to stand on, so you're reduced to swearing and other insults. More pity to you. maintenance, and towards more exploration and science. Bull****. We do science and exploration with unmanned probes. Period. It would be inordinately dangerous with present technology to do any kind of detailed science with manned missions. Science science science... why exactly do you believe that space development (or more specifically, NASA's expenditures) should be about science? The "S" in NASA doesn't stand for Science, you know. It's obvious that our present technology is not quite up to the task of serious "exploration" as it is. Relying upon it for a manned program is crazy. Demonstrably false, given that a dozen people have been to the Moon already, for days at a time. We just need to redevelop that capability, and add infrastructure that allows for longer stays, reduced costs, greater safety, etc. a.. Exploration of the solar system will be guided by compelling questions of scientific and societal importance. The only compelling question the Bush admin wants answered is "Can we beat the chinese back to the moon and waste hundreds of billion in the process?" Interesting how you first talk about examining the budget, and then later demonstrate that you haven't done so yourself. Getting back to the whole robot and human thing, we can't expect to just send one or two probes and then humans. We need to send probe after probe to look at things in depth. I have no doubt that unmanned craft will be a regular part of developing the Moon. But the point of that development is human habitation. The money that we spend on the robotics program will have important spin offs here on earth. Not so with a great deal of manned space technology, which would primarily be useful only off-world. ....and off-world technology is exactly what we need to develop. ,------------------------------------------------------------------. | Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: | | http://www.macwebdir.com | `------------------------------------------------------------------' 
|
|
#2
January 23rd 04, 08:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The New NASA Mission Has Been Grossly Mischaracterized.
Joe Strout wrote:
In article , quibbler wrote: No, that is quite the case. You're just in the early stages of denial and haven't faced budget realities. The fact is that Bush has demanded a wasteful realignment of NASA resources toward a manned mission which will be ruinously expensive. The realignment of NASA resources is the best thing to happen to NASA in 30 years. Not wasteful, but highly useful. Allowing NASA to drift about with the lack of focus it's had for the last few decades, now THAT would be wasteful. If this document actually had focus... You'd have a point. But it doesn't. It's a scattershot listing of all the space goals NASA and the advocacy community have been salivating about for years, weakened and fuzzed up to make a feel-good mission statement. D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to , as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion.
|
|
#3
January 24th 04, 03:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The New NASA Mission Has Been Grossly Mischaracterized.
"Joe Strout" wrote in message ... I don't care about "real science." A pity, really.
|
|
#4
January 24th 04, 03:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The New NASA Mission Has Been Grossly Mischaracterized.
In article 4llQb.60160$XD5.41416@fed1read06, "Chosp"
wrote: "Joe Strout" wrote in message ... I don't care about "real science." A pity, really. And an exaggeration. I do read _Science_ each week, and I have a M.S. in Neuroscience, so clearly I do care about some real science. I just don't think that it is the proper justification for activities in space, and moreover, that this myth that space is about science has been holding back space development for decades. ,------------------------------------------------------------------. | Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: | | http://www.macwebdir.com | `------------------------------------------------------------------'
|
|
#5
January 24th 04, 04:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The New NASA Mission Has Been Grossly Mischaracterized.
|
|
#6
January 24th 04, 04:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The New NASA Mission Has Been Grossly Mischaracterized.
In article ,
quibbler wrote: The realignment is a desperate attempt to fix the idiotic reagan administration priorities of things like a space station and shuttle misssion. Agreed. However, manned exploration is not the way to do it I disagree with that. and manned exploration will eat the lion's share of this budget. Good, that is as it should be. Not wasteful, but highly useful. You are uninformed. No, I'm quite informed, thanks. Manned exploration is ruinously expensive. It is expensive, yes. Largely because we don't do enough of it. And this is why it's important for the government to be doing it -- the government can, in theory, develop things which are beyond the return-on-investment horizon for the business world. This is a very good use of tax dollars. We have known since the inception of the space program that robotic missions would be the most cost effective ways to produce scientific data and that's still true today almost universally. Agreed. But irrelevant. NASA is not about producing scientific data. That was just a bad choice made after Apollo wound down when they said, "Well we've won the Moon race, now what do we do?" A much better answer would have been: "We develop infrastructure needed to live and work in space, and strive to open up the space frontier as quickly as possible." That's essentially what the new mandate does. Better late than never. Allowing NASA to drift about with the lack of focus it's had for the last few decades, now THAT would be wasteful. NASA doesn't need a moron like Bush to pretend that he is now an expert on space, when he's not an expert on anything except maybe smoking crack or dodging service in vietnam. Bush is not qualified to micromanage NASA I agree with all of that (except perhaps Bush's past activities, of which I have no knowledge or interest). But he's not micromanaging anything; he made one speech in which he set out some broad goals. He didn't even present the budget chart; that was left to O'Keefe. It will be up to O'Keefe to make this plan actually work. I don't know whether O'Keefe is an idiot or not, but since he hasn't demonstrated so yet, I think there's cause for optimism. and unfocused hodge podge of manned space stunts will only drop to zero the amount of real science that NASA will be able to do. Well, that's a fine amount of real science for NASA to do. But I don't think an unfocused hodgepodge of space stunts is what we're talking about here. Instead, we're talking about building infrastructure, especially on the Moon. That's quite focussed and very important. Yeah, we needed to get rid of the shuttle, but Bush is the guy who vowed to keep it flying after Columbia. Bush is all talk and no action. Bush Bush Bush. Will you get over it? I don't like the guy either but so what? Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Whatever his reasons, or whoever may have been pulling the strings, is irrelevant. The result is the most sensible plan NASA has had in a very long time, and I don't care who made the speech about it. His proposals give no serious amount of money to NASA to accomplish the grandiose flagpole sitting Bush wants them to do. We're not talking about flagpole sitting, and you're right, the budget proposed is modest enough to actually get funded by Congress. That's a good thing. Whether NASA can be readjusted enough to put this small budget to good use remains to be seen. Certainly it's plenty of money in principle. Rather, he is forcing them to cancel real science in order to engage in an idiotic, completely unnecessary moonbase boondoggle. No, he's forcing them to cancel real science (good!) in order to refocus on what their mission should be, which is manned space development. Whether the moonbase will turn out to be a boondoggle or not, we're better off trying than not trying. So let's not attempt to do real science. LOL. You obviously don't understand that it is is the science that underpins this whole program. No, science has been the *excuse* that NASA has used to justify its budget. That was a mistake. The sciencific results don't justify the expense, even when talking about strictly robotic missions. Most taxpayers really don't care exactly how old the universe is or whether it's going to end by collapsing, ripping apart, or freezing. We can't just jump in a rocket and go to mars. We have to understand the science of how to provide life support, shield from exotic radiations, etc. Those are engineering questions, not science. And besides, who said anything about going to Mars? We need to develop the Moon first before we think seriously about any other large bodies in the solar system. Let's work on opening the frontier for human habitation instead. That takes science and real intelligent planning, neither of which Bush's plan supports. It takes much more engineering than science. The only bit of science I can think of that would really be useful is data on how the body adapts to long periods in 1/6 G. Perhaps some of that science will eventually be done on ISS, but if not, then the best way to get that data would be to collect it on the Moon. The moon would be a less hospitable place, for example, than mars or perhaps some asteroids. Less hospitable than Mars: yes, but tremendously, ridiculously, irreplaceably closer. It is pure folly to consider going directly to Mars before we've learned how to stay for months or years at a time on the Moon. Less hospitable than some asteroids: pure bunk. Some asteroids may be richer in volatiles, perhaps, but that doesn't make up for other factors. We can't have a scientific illiterate like Bush ramming his own ill-conceived politial nonsense, like a moonbase through NASA. You seem much more concerned with who made the speech and why, than with its content. Perhaps you should be venting in some politics newsgroup instead of sci.space.policy. We don't need Bush doing that in spades with a moonbase which would have no source of food, water or essential support. Nonsense. It has a ready source of all those things: a large, inhabited planet rich in all of those and more, only a couple days' travel away. Perhaps you've heard of it? Moreover, once we're set up and taken care of a few more urgent needs (like a pressurized, temperature-controlled environment to move around in), we can start looking into finding them more locally. Food can be grown. Water may be obtained at the poles. Etc. We don't need men on the moon right now. Agreed; we needed men (and women) on the moon 30 years ago. But again, better late than never. We need robots to lead the way for another decade or two until we know enough about the moon to intelligently plan our options. First: rubbish. We know plenty enough about the moon to get started; the only major unknown is the form of the hydrogen at the poles. Second: the plan involves unmanned missions, insofar as those contribute to the goal. That means we WILL see robots going back to the Moon and answering those questions that need to be answered, well before the people go. We also need to spend far more on research and less on putting rocket on a lunar resort. Ah, I'd love to see a lunar resort, but NASA isn't going to build one. However, spending more on "research" isn't going to build one either -- what we need is infrastructure development. Once we have that, Disney or Bigelow or somebody else will eventually build the resort. Robots have their place, but to get people living in space we really need to have people living in space. We've had them in space stations. Yes. That's good, but it's time for the next step. There are serious health risks at present. Similar health risks would apply on the moon. Actually, not so much. Most of the health risks in the space station are due to (1) microgravity and (2) radiation. Well, the Moon doesn't have microgravity; we don't know how much 1/6 G helps but it certainly can't hurt. And radiation shielding is cheap on the Moon; people there will be much less irradiated than those in a space station. More importantly, it would be far more expensive and difficult to constantly send servicing and support to a moonbase as opposed to a space station. Not far more expensive. Maybe twice as expensive. Until we develop infrastructure that brings the cost down, such as a nuclear-electric tug, or a tether transfer system, or something else. But those things don't spring fully formed out of the head of Zeus; they arise only *after* there is a need for them. So, to get the ball rolling, you found your base and make do with what you have. Not if by "exploration" you mean "expanding the range of places people have visited and experienced firsthand, That's flagpole sitting. There is some truth to that. So I did cringe a bit when he talked of "exploration" -- I'd rather have heard "development." However, the details to sound more like development than exploration; we're going to make a base and stay in it for increasingly long periods of time. That's not flagpole-sitting, that's homesteading. We need to expand the range of places that our robotic sensors have visited. We need more probes to pretty much every planet. No we don't, and no we don't. Maybe you do. You pay for it, then. Or better yet: this is the sort of thing the National Geographic Society will no doubt get into when the cost comes down enough. So just get out of the way, let us bring the costs down, and then you can join NGS and urge them to take pretty pictures of remote and currently-irrelevant planets. If Bush wants to do something for the space program then revive the pluto-kuiper missions. Send more science packages to the outer planets. Land robots on the moons of mars, rather than rushing to get humans there. The experience will eventually make it much safer and easier for humans to go there. No, that will just tie up NASA producing nothing but pictures and charts for another half-century. I'm certainly glad you're not in charge! No, I get it. Science is the only thing that separates us from the lower primates. It is more and more critical that we expand our scientific capabilities. Learning to live and work in space will expand the important scientific capabilities. And eventually, it will enable those less important ones (cosmology, so-called astrobiology, etc.) to accomplish far more than they could now as well. Bush's undermining of space science is reckless and will only hold us back. We went to the moon and then, when we had our little adventure fix we sat around for another 35 years doing relatively little. The same may happen if we make one trip to mars. I agree. Fortunately nobody's proposing making one trip to Mars. And I note that what you're proposing -- more robotic probes and so on -- is the same thing NASA has been doing for the last 35 years, which you correctly describe above as "doing relatively little." But, being able to hold two contradictory points of view at the same time is what separates us from the lower primates. We'll shoot our wad and that will be it for mars exploration for another few decades. Bush's childish ego gratification scheme will make going back to mars the next time that much harder. Forget Mars. That was just a bone thrown to the Mars advocates. The focus of the plan is the Moon, which is exactly where it should be. I don't care about "real science." I know that because you fail to grasp that we live in a highly technical world where we are utterly dependent on science. You are quite incorrect. Shall we get out our rulers and compare? You also fail to grasp the intense promise and power of science which could answer questions about issues like whether life existed on Mars. Ooh, whether life existed on Mars -- why didn't you say so! How did they ever manage to build a car without knowing that? If we only knew whether life existed on Mars, we could solve the energy crisis, cure poverty, reinvigorate the economy, and protect humanity against global catastrophe! (I'm being sarcastic, BTW.) Seriously though, it's great that you're so content with the world that you think whether life existed on Mars is an important question. Good for you. Most people are not so content, however. The world is entering a crisis period, with several different global dangers developing at once (including energy, climate change, genetically engineered bioweapons, etc.). And closer to home, we have economic problems (lots of low-tech jobs going to other parts of the world, without enough high-tech jobs being developed to replace them) as well. I'd rather see my tax dollars go into something that can help out with these problems. Purely intellectual pursuits are worthwhile too -- that's what NEA is for, for example -- but not as relevant to me as developing space. rest of your repetitive junk snipped ditto ,------------------------------------------------------------------. | Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: | | http://www.macwebdir.com | `------------------------------------------------------------------'
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | April 2nd 04 12:01 AM |
| Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 2nd 04 03:33 AM |
| NASA Selects Explorer Mission Proposals For Feasibility Studies | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | November 4th 03 10:14 PM |
| Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 12th 03 01:37 AM |
| NASA Selects UA 'Phoenix' Mission To Mars | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | August 4th 03 10:48 PM |
.
Hybrid Mode
