Nasa

[steelish]

How do you feel about funding for the NASA program being discontinued?

I am quite interested in the opinions on this.

[steelish]

Ok, it's a bit irritating that I can't capitalize NASA in the header

[Lion]

I really appreciate what NASA has done so far alone in the early stages of space exploration.

I think space research, like particle physics is too big and expensive for one country to afford by itself. I'd like to see a collaboration of countries working together. The ISS is a great example of that.

[denuseri]

Closing the door on space exploration is like closing the door on our furture as a species.

[MMI]

I am/would be (is it defininte?) saddened by it. I have been fascinated by space exploration ever since Sputnik-1 was sent into Earth orbit in the 1950's. I remember Laika, Gagarin, Shepard, Glenn, and Tereshkova. At the pinnacle were Armstrong and Aldrin.

I remember the shock of the Challenger and Columbia disasters, and how it was explained that sometimes it takes the supreme sacrifice of some of the best people for human development to continue. I don't know if I believe that entirely, but I do subscribe to it in part.

I also remember waiting for months and years for the Mariner and Voyager missions to complete each stage of their planetary tours, and was fascinated by the pictures that were sent back. Likewise I followed the exploits of the Mars Rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, and grieved along with Colin Pillinger on Christmas Day 2003 when Beagle 2 went missing.

How much has all that cost? God knows! I can't say it was maney well-spent but I believe it was. But if it could have been spent better, then perhaps it should. How does NASA's budget stand against the national wealth of Bangladesh or Haiti? If the Space Programme is cancelled, will these nations benefit? Or maybe the money could be used to fund the US Health Service ...?

America no longer needs to put a man on the Moon or on Mars to prevent them from being "governed by a hostile flag of conquest", so maybe we should choose to raise up the poorer nations instead, because that would be hard too, although the rewards would be just as great - if it were a challenge we were willing to accept.

[Stealth694]

The NASA of the 60's,70's, and 80's died long ago, these days its more politics ect. Flashy Missions that get the publics attention ect. Even NASA executives were saying it was more a pork trough than a vaiable agency. Bush's talk about a Mars Mission before we even had a viable way of getting there and back ect... I want to see NASA continue, but get rid of the Political Hacks...

[Thorne]

I have always been a firm believer in exploring our solar system. I was stunned by the cancellation of Apollo, and the fact that we haven't been back to the Moon since. We should, by now, have a viable base on the Moon, extracting everything they need to survive from the raw materials there.

We should also, by now, have made at least one manned mission to Mars, with the idea of setting up a permanent outpost there, as well. The robotic explorers we have sent there, and to Saturn and Jupiter as well, have performed magnificently, for sure, but their capabilities are necessarily limited and it's my opinion that manned exploration is ultimately necessary.

But I've also come to believe that NASA is no longer the torch-bearer for such exploration. Private corporations, even private individuals, are the future of space exploration. They can, and should, receive support from nations around the world, those who wish to share in the benefits they bring.

And those benefits can be quite large. Much of the advances in technology we take for granted today have their roots in the US space program. Making things smaller, faster, better has given us the modern computers we now use without thinking. The global positioning systems we depend on for so much of our daily lives are all benefits of the space program. Even modern medicine owes some of its tremendous leaps forward to the lessons learned by going to the Moon.

We can only guess at what benefits could come from new explorations into space: New ways to produce food cheaply and efficiently; new ways to manufacture the goods we need and want; new methods for dealing with pollution. All of these are possible, even probably, advances which the space program would spur.

The constellation program which NASA was trying to fund was a step backward, basically returning to the 1970's for a mission to the Moon. We need to move forward! Let NASA develop the technologies, but let the people build and control them.

Yes, there were deaths along the way. Apollo 1, Challenger, Columbia, as well as those in the Soviet Union, many of which we may never learn about. We mourn those who have died, and honor the sacrifices they made. But we honor them by moving forward with the exploration of space. That's why they died. By stopping, turning our backs on space, we diminish them.

Many people died crossing the oceans to the New World. More died crossing the plains of America to new homes. More died exploring the depths of our oceans, the bitter cold of the poles. But mankind has marched onward, seeking to learn everything they can about our home, Earth.

And as we are learning, it's a fragile home. Dinosaurs once ruled this planet. A relatively tiny rock, roaming around the neighborhood for who knows how long, drove those rulers into extinction. And there have been many extinctions in Earth's history. It's foolish to believe that such a thing couldn't happen again. But by moving ourward, spreading to our neighboring planets, we can further insure that mankind will not be destroyed by one of nature's small hiccups. And who knows? Perhaps, one day, we can find a way to move further outward, spreading to the stars to meet those beings who are waiting out there.

The Moon is only the first step.

[steelish]

Closing the door on space exploration is like closing the door on our furture as a species.

I agree! (at the very least we are closing the door on our ability to compete with the other countries that are continuing with space exploration)


I am/would be (is it defininte?) saddened by it. I have been fascinated by space exploration ever since Sputnik-1 was sent into Earth orbit in the 1950's. I remember Laika, Gagarin, Shepard, Glenn, and Tereshkova. At the pinnacle were Armstrong and Aldrin.

I remember the shock of the Challenger and Columbia disasters, and how it was explained that sometimes it takes the supreme sacrifice of some of the best people for human development to continue. I don't know if I believe that entirely, but I do subscribe to it in part.

I also remember waiting for months and years for the Mariner and Voyager missions to complete each stage of their planetary tours, and was fascinated by the pictures that were sent back. Likewise I followed the exploits of the Mars Rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, and grieved along with Colin Pillinger on Christmas Day 2003 when Beagle 2 went missing.

How much has all that cost? God knows! I can't say it was maney well-spent but I believe it was. But if it could have been spent better, then perhaps it should. How does NASA's budget stand against the national wealth of Bangladesh or Haiti? If the Space Programme is cancelled, will these nations benefit? Or maybe the money could be used to fund the US Health Service ...?

America no longer needs to put a man on the Moon or on Mars to prevent them from being "governed by a hostile flag of conquest", so maybe we should choose to raise up the poorer nations instead, because that would be hard too, although the rewards would be just as great - if it were a challenge we were willing to accept.

I too loved (and still love) planets, stars and space exploration. My mother and John Glenn are cousins! (although they are cousins once removed...whatever that means).

You say; "so maybe we should choose to raise up the poorer nations instead" Is that a 'collective' we or should it be the United States responsibility? We pumped millions into Haiti long before the earthquake. Too bad its President didn't give any to his people...but I believe his palace is quite nice in comparison to even the mansions there.

As a side note - what should happen to the U.S. if a space-exploring country happens to find a renewable energy source in outer space? We won't be able to harvest it. We will be relying on another country yet again.


The NASA of the 60's,70's, and 80's died long ago, these days its more politics ect. Flashy Missions that get the publics attention ect. Even NASA executives were saying it was more a pork trough than a vaiable agency. Bush's talk about a Mars Mission before we even had a viable way of getting there and back ect... I want to see NASA continue, but get rid of the Political Hacks...

Personally, I see Bush's talk of a Mars Mission to be ambitious and forward-thinking. It's better than having a President who, when presented with a possibility, negates it as impossible rather than being visionary. I do agree that NASA is very political. It is, after all, a government-sponsored program. Too bad there are no multi-billionnaires out there willing to take it over.

[Ozme52]

Another thing too...

While all of those who look to the skies, or are fascinated by science fiction (and good ol' space opera,) are disappointed, technology is all too often driven forward by war.

The Race to the Moon provided a "conflict" that had no real human cost. (Yes, there were accidents, but more people working for NASA have died driving to and from work....) Much of the technology we enjoy today stems from solving problems needed to go to the moon.

I imagine an effort in terraforming part of Mars would create huge leaps in eco-sciences on earth. That's a huge loss, the head start we would have had by this time if we had been on Mars by the '80s, which would have been "easy" if we'd just kept on spending on space tech.

And though I'm mostly preaching to the choir, the cost is miniscule compared to what we have spent on the military on "wasted" projects. Not to mention the payback in taxes collected from new and old companies purveying new technologies and the jobs they created, has more than made up for the costs.

But, without an "enemy" to vie against in space, we in the USA are too short-sighted to see the long term benefits.

So... let's cheer on the ESA and the Chinese and hope they prove to be a "threat" and get our asses back into the captains chair.

"Make it so."

[TantricSoul]

I concur with Thorne's post above, and see no need to repeat whats been said there in different language.

However, this concept, concerns me greatly:
"...Private corporations, even private individuals, are the future of space exploration..."

for some reason this line from a Flobots song seems to equate:
"The poor get poorly paid,
to hold the ladder where,
the rich get ricocheted,
into the stratosphere."

So what will our future in space hold in store for us?

Planet Microsoft?
Exxon IV in the Delta quadrant?
Enronville?


I for one would hope that as we migrate off-planet, we take the best traits of humanity with us. Yet history shows that when we expand into new territories, we as humans often behave badly.

"To boldly go where no man has gone before ... and claim it all as MINE!"
yeah that's worked so well for us all, here on our home-planet.

Wow... I guess I'm in a cynical mood today.

[Thorne]

For anyone interested (especially those who think the money could be better spent elsewhere) take a look at this chart (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html) of the proposed budget. Mouse over the blocks to see what's being spent on what, and the differences between this year and next.

Found NASA yet? Look in the lower right, under General Sciences. Not much there, is it? We spend more on international aid than we do on science!

So let's not hear any talk about not being able to afford the space program.

[MMI]

Interesting chart, Thorne, and I agree that space exploration costs are comparatively small, and certainly smaller than the amount spent on international aid. So much smaller, one would think, that the diversion of that money into additional foreign aid would hardly be noticed.

Until you also realise that the space budget appears to be twice what is being provided for to meet future disaster costs ... So you can afford it, but should you be using it for other purposes after all?

That aside, I find myself agreeing with your suggestion that private capital should now be brought into play. If the Government can't/won't/shouldn't be funding space research anymore, where else will the money come from? As you point out, there are profits to be made, so what are we waiting for?

I note Tantric's concerns - do we want another Enron. Who's to say there will be, and who's to say that, without any space exploration there won't be? We humans are capable of behaving badly anywhere, but on balance, don't you agree we all behave rather well?

Talking of which ... Steelish, please explain what the difference is between an American and another human? Why can't Americans rely on others for (say) renewable energy?

[steelish]

Why can't Americans rely on others for (say) renewable energy?

And what's wrong with being self-reliant?

[Thorne]

Until you also realise that the space budget appears to be twice what is being provided for to meet future disaster costs ... So you can afford it, but should you be using it for other purposes after all?
My personal opinion (which I'm sure will not surprise you ;)) is that they could take virtually all of the foreign aid money and split it between space exploration and domestic disaster preparedness. I'm tired of having my country denigrated for trying to help others. (Sure, we've done some bad things: who hasn't? But we're still among the first to respond to a disaster, anywhere in the world. And people hate us for it.) So eliminating foreign aid wouldn't be any problem for me.

I note Tantric's concerns - do we want another Enron. Who's to say there will be, and who's to say that, without any space exploration there won't be? We humans are capable of behaving badly anywhere, but on balance, don't you agree we all behave rather well?
One way to avoid another Enron is to make sure there is plenty of competition. Space is pretty big. Each company grabbing an asteroid, or a small area of Mars, for example, shouldn't present any real problems. After all, even if you tried to claim it all, there's just too damned much of it for any one person, or corporation, to hold onto.
And yes, we all do behave rather well. As long as there's someone with a big stick smacking our butts when we step out of line.

Why can't Americans rely on others for (say) renewable energy?
As you are so fond of noting, MMI, America has tremendous resources. We shouldn't need to rely on others. Especially not with things of such obvious importance. Relying on unstable countries for the necessities is a disaster waiting to happen. It's far better to be self-contained for such things.

[MMI]

I don't believe the US is hated because it gives more foreign aid than any other country. No-one is that churlish. Maybe the aid you give is diverted by corrupt officials in the recipient country, and its effectiveness correspondingly diminished. I don't know if it's true, as steelish has insinuated, that the President of Haiti has used the aid America gave to refurbish the Presidential Palace, but if that's true, why the f^ck did you give it to him ... ????

I can understand resentment building up if, instead of granting aid that actually relieves poverty, the US only enriches the ruling elite, with whom, no doubt, lucrative land-grabs can be arranged, but I can't and don't believe the US is hated by people who benefit from its largesse.

I agree completely with your comment about private enterprise, competition and some overarching regulator to control it all, but I am disappointed in your isolationist approach to questions of trade. If you become entirely self-sufficient, you will not grow economically beyond a certain point, but if you allow yourself to benefit from other nations' productive capacities in exchange for some of yours, then all nations benefit and all will experience far greater growth and prosperity than with trade barriers up. I'm amazed a capitalist society would even countenance closed borders when it comes to making money.

[steelish]

I don't believe the US is hated because it gives more foreign aid than any other country. No-one is that churlish. Maybe the aid you give is diverted by corrupt officials in the recipient country, and its effectiveness correspondingly diminished. I don't know if it's true, as steelish has insinuated, that the President of Haiti has used the aid America gave to refurbish the Presidential Palace, but if that's true, why the f^ck did you give it to him ... ????

I can understand resentment building up if, instead of granting aid that actually relieves poverty, the US only enriches the ruling elite, with whom, no doubt, lucrative land-grabs can be arranged, but I can't and don't believe the US is hated by people who benefit from its largesse.

It has to do with foreign relations. A country cannot simply bypass another country's government and hand out money to the people. Private charities can do that, but not governments.


I agree completely with your comment about private enterprise, competition and some overarching regulator to control it all, but I am disappointed in your isolationist approach to questions of trade. If you become entirely self-sufficient, you will not grow economically beyond a certain point, but if you allow yourself to benefit from other nations' productive capacities in exchange for some of yours, then all nations benefit and all will experience far greater growth and prosperity than with trade barriers up. I'm amazed a capitalist society would even countenance closed borders when it comes to making money.

I just don't agree with the idea of the U.S. becoming completely reliant upon another nation. Subsidize yes - completely rely, no. And simply being self sufficient in energy does not mean that there won't be import/export and trade relations going on.

[oww-that-hurt]

To NOT spend money on science that could potentially benefit all mankind is a sin.
To spend money on some of the crap this administration spends it on is also a sin.
Maybe the administration can take my fine of $325/month for not having health insurance to fund NASA? At least I would feel good about where this bogus 'fine' would go.
And what the heck is this agnostic talking about 'sin' for? Gotta poke fun at myself once in awhile.

[Thorne]

I don't know if it's true, as steelish has insinuated, that the President of Haiti has used the aid America gave to refurbish the Presidential Palace, but if that's true, why the f^ck did you give it to him ... ????
I saw a news report last night which claimed that those bringing relief materials into Haiti are being required by government officials to donate that material to the government, I presume so that the government can get the credit for distributing it. This is a situation which is ripe for governmental abuse, allowing officials to confiscate needed supplies, then sell them through black markets.

In short, I agree. Why the f^ck are we sending any aid at all? Let the Haitian government handle it themselves.

And it's my opinion that the US government should re-evaluate it's foreign aid policy. In those countries where it has become obvious that any aid we try to give is being diverted to wealthy politicians, the aid should be cut off. Contrary to popular belief, we do not need to feel responsible for everyone else in the world. There is far more need for that money in this country.

I am disappointed in your isolationist approach to questions of trade. If you become entirely self-sufficient, you will not grow economically beyond a certain point, but if you allow yourself to benefit from other nations' productive capacities in exchange for some of yours, then all nations benefit and all will experience far greater growth and prosperity than with trade barriers up. I'm amazed a capitalist society would even countenance closed borders when it comes to making money.
I'm not advocating closed borders, at least in so far as trade is concerned. Only that there are some areas where a country should be as self-sufficient as possible. Energy is a key item there.

California is a small example of that. State regulations made power generation within the state impossible, or at least prohibitively expensive. When outside energy companies refused to pay the fees, California ran short on power. If they had their own generating facilities they wouldn't have had that problem. (I realize this is an oversimplification, but it's a fair example of my argument.)

We see problems occurring over energy stores all the time. Entire nations held to ransom because they must import their oil from radical nations. The same can happen with food, or clean water. If you can't produce your own, you have to rely on possibly unstable suppliers. Eventually someone either pays too much or is forced to do without. Self-sufficiency, in critical areas, is far better.

But trade can, and should, still occur with non-critical items. I'm not against trade, just dependency.

[SadisticNature]

At some point the government of the nation stopped caring about the exploration of space and started caring about massive scale projects that would support the space industry.

The entire program has become a cancer of political and industrial interests, and scrapping it to start over is not a terrible idea. It's the lack of starting over that has me concerned.

The exploration of space is without a doubt the future of humanity, and it seems to me the US no longer sees itself as leaders of humanity, at least in this regard.

[steelish]

I couldn't agree with you more. It's just that there are still those old school diehards who believe that America should be the only country dominating space travel.

I for one do not think America should be dominating the industry, but I don't believe we should back out of the industry either.

[SadisticNature]

My personal opinion (which I'm sure will not surprise you ;)) is that they could take virtually all of the foreign aid money and split it between space exploration and domestic disaster preparedness. I'm tired of having my country denigrated for trying to help others. (Sure, we've done some bad things: who hasn't? But we're still among the first to respond to a disaster, anywhere in the world. And people hate us for it.) So eliminating foreign aid wouldn't be any problem for me.

One way to avoid another Enron is to make sure there is plenty of competition. Space is pretty big. Each company grabbing an asteroid, or a small area of Mars, for example, shouldn't present any real problems. After all, even if you tried to claim it all, there's just too damned much of it for any one person, or corporation, to hold onto.
And yes, we all do behave rather well. As long as there's someone with a big stick smacking our butts when we step out of line.

As you are so fond of noting, MMI, America has tremendous resources. We shouldn't need to rely on others. Especially not with things of such obvious importance. Relying on unstable countries for the necessities is a disaster waiting to happen. It's far better to be self-contained for such things.

While I agree with most of your statements in this thread I think some of what you are saying here is just outright wrong. I'm not sure if its just your media portraying it this way and you don't have easy access to accurate information on this but the facts show whether home or abroad Americans (particularly at the government level) are very often slow to respond to disasters. New Orleans had offers of aid from Cuba and many other countries before the US made an official response. There are other examples where most of the G2X (whatever X is these days) had responded before the Americans.

I'd also object to the fact that people hate you for responding to disasters. American popularity does well in the disasters you respond to. What the internationalists seem to hate is unilateral declarations of war without UN approval. If you look at international popularity of the US it falls dramatically after both the declaration of the Iraq war. It also rises during the US election and with the Obama victory. One of the primary messages during that campaign was rebuilding America's international reputation from the damage done under the Bush administration.

International views of the US also improved as a result of cessation of water-boarding, a controversial topic which had near consensus opposition outside the US.

Something to think about: If international aid is causing the US's poor reputation, why is it that other countries that are even more active with international aid don't have the same reputation problems?

Lastly, regarding space, in order to have company owned asteroids you have to have a claim law. Deciding just what that claim law is is going to be incredibly controversial. If the standard is landing, does the US now own the entire moon? Just the area near where they landed? Does the government itself own the land to issue as it pleases, is it instead owned by the government organization NASA (which could conceivably sell it to fund further space exploration)? The current claim law for space seems to be it is impossible to claim ownership of land on non-Earth planets.

There are all sorts of potential issues with companies being able to send out cheap explorations whose only purpose is to land on a whole bunch of asteroids then come back to Earth and by so doing that one company owns every asteroid they landed on.

Also if a corporation claims an asteroid what nation owns the asteroid, is the corporation now the government of that asteroid, does the country in which its incorporated own that asteroid, what property tax applies? Are there royalties on the minerals?

As for avoiding an Enron, the problem with Enron was not lack of competition, if anything the problem with Enron is they were uncompetitive (too much competition, too good competition?) and instead of failing and getting fired, they cooked the books to make it appear the company was fine.

[Thorne]

the facts show whether home or abroad Americans (particularly at the government level) are very often slow to respond to disasters. New Orleans had offers of aid from Cuba and many other countries before the US made an official response. There are other examples where most of the G2X (whatever X is these days) had responded before the Americans.
What you're saying is quite possible, I suppose. There's little doubt that the American media has degenerated into partisan and sensationalist reporting rather than factual reporting. But as for New Orleans, the primary failure there involved FEMA, and the government bureaucracy as a whole. The military, on the other hand, responded immediately and effectively, particularly the coast guard. As far as overseas disasters, from what I can gather the offers of aid are extended almost immediately. But when local governments refuse that aid until it's too late, there's little the US, or any other nation, can do other than wait it out.


Something to think about: If international aid is causing the US's poor reputation, why is it that other countries that are even more active with international aid don't have the same reputation problems?
I have no answer for this. I've never understood international politics. Hell, I can hardly understand local politics.


Lastly, regarding space, in order to have company owned asteroids you have to have a claim law. Deciding just what that claim law is is going to be incredibly controversial. If the standard is landing, does the US now own the entire moon? Just the area near where they landed? Does the government itself own the land to issue as it pleases, is it instead owned by the government organization NASA (which could conceivably sell it to fund further space exploration)? The current claim law for space seems to be it is impossible to claim ownership of land on non-Earth planets.
I agree, the problems involved are extreme. Certainly I wouldn't advocate the US should claim the entire moon, as we've only managed to put feet on a very tiny portion, and we have not built any kind of habitation. That should be a major requirement, I would think, for any claims: nothing is yours unless you build on it. Just landing and poking a flag in the dust won't qualify.


Also if a corporation claims an asteroid what nation owns the asteroid, is the corporation now the government of that asteroid, does the country in which its incorporated own that asteroid, what property tax applies? Are there royalties on the minerals?
Why does a nation have to own it? Let the corporation own it, as long as it maintains a viable population/work force and continues utilizing it. No property taxes needed, since no nation would be providing any infrastructure or services to the asteroids. And no royalties, either, unless a corporation mines an asteroid under contract to another corporation/nation/individual.

But overall, I agree there are a lot of problems to overcome. However, we aren't going to overcome them by sitting on our asses looking up at the pretty stars. We're going to have to go there, and soon, before we find ourselves following the dinosaurs down the inevitable path of extinction.

[SadisticNature]

What you're saying is quite possible, I suppose. There's little doubt that the American media has degenerated into partisan and sensationalist reporting rather than factual reporting. But as for New Orleans, the primary failure there involved FEMA, and the government bureaucracy as a whole. The military, on the other hand, responded immediately and effectively, particularly the coast guard. As far as overseas disasters, from what I can gather the offers of aid are extended almost immediately. But when local governments refuse that aid until it's too late, there's little the US, or any other nation, can do other than wait it out.


I have no answer for this. I've never understood international politics. Hell, I can hardly understand local politics.


I agree, the problems involved are extreme. Certainly I wouldn't advocate the US should claim the entire moon, as we've only managed to put feet on a very tiny portion, and we have not built any kind of habitation. That should be a major requirement, I would think, for any claims: nothing is yours unless you build on it. Just landing and poking a flag in the dust won't qualify.


Why does a nation have to own it? Let the corporation own it, as long as it maintains a viable population/work force and continues utilizing it. No property taxes needed, since no nation would be providing any infrastructure or services to the asteroids. And no royalties, either, unless a corporation mines an asteroid under contract to another corporation/nation/individual.

But overall, I agree there are a lot of problems to overcome. However, we aren't going to overcome them by sitting on our asses looking up at the pretty stars. We're going to have to go there, and soon, before we find ourselves following the dinosaurs down the inevitable path of extinction.

I think the chances of governments approving the idea of land subject to whatever laws the corporations so impose, where corporations could move their headquarters to reduce taxation and other such exploits is near 0%. There is also a problem where if there are legal complications and no jurisdiction and no nation attached, where are those matters resolved? If the corporation is headquartered in its own nation which lacks a legal system how do you even handle legal disputes with the entity? When one starts to ponder the complexities here one wonders why nations would ever allow this to occur.

I also think following the dinosaurs down the inevitable path of extinction is probably hyperbole. The time scale is such that we probably have another 500+ years to get this done, and political conditions making space unpopular are likely to change by then.

[steelish]

While I agree with most of your statements in this thread I think some of what you are saying here is just outright wrong. I'm not sure if its just your media portraying it this way and you don't have easy access to accurate information on this but the facts show whether home or abroad Americans (particularly at the government level) are very often slow to respond to disasters. New Orleans had offers of aid from Cuba and many other countries before the US made an official response. There are other examples where most of the G2X (whatever X is these days) had responded before the Americans.

As part of a disaster response team I can assure you, there are reasons rescue personnel don't rush right into a disaster and start working. There has to be cohesion between responders, there has to be organization, and there has to be a realistic approach. It's easy to criticize when watching on television and seeing people sitting on rooftops awaiting someone to come along and rescue them. I agree, why not paddle in, get the people, and paddle out.

Properly trained personnel have to be assigned to do these types of things, otherwise not only do you have the original people in need of rescue, now you have the people who attempted to rescue them in need of rescue themselves. Unseen dangers were everywhere in New Orleans...downed power lines, cars, bodies, sewage, street signs, small trees, etc. all submerged and ready to cause havoc with not only rescuers, but those being rescued. There were unstable buildings, aggressive animals (displaced wildlife such as snakes, rats, spiders, etc. - some of which were poisonous). There are rescuers who are trained to go into unstable buildings and search. Searches had to be done in an orderly fashion so as not to cause double the work. Records of what had been done and who had been rescued, from what house, etc had to be put on paper or in computers. Many people have no clue the amount of "engineering" goes into a rescue operation and I myself was once guilty of sitting on the sidelines and scoffing at the length of time it took to respond.

America is nothing if not innovative. Due to the outcry for faster response after Katrina, the U.S. has adapted an organized response system that is much quicker than before. That being said, a state in which a disaster occurs still needs it's Governor to ask the President for help before we can be deployed by executive order.

[Thorne]

I think the chances of governments approving the idea of land subject to whatever laws the corporations so impose, where corporations could move their headquarters to reduce taxation and other such exploits is near 0%.
Maybe, but with governments seemingly eager to get out of the space race, the time may come when there's damned little they can do about it.


There is also a problem where if there are legal complications and no jurisdiction and no nation attached, where are those matters resolved? If the corporation is headquartered in its own nation which lacks a legal system how do you even handle legal disputes with the entity?
They would have to be dealt with as a separate nation, I suppose. Like the Vatican. A whole new area of law, maybe: Interplanetary Law.


When one starts to ponder the complexities here one wonders why nations would ever allow this to occur.
Chances are they won't. But their need for the production of these industries will force them to at least tentatively accept the situation. I have no particular love of the Corporation as supreme lawgiver, by any means. But I also don't like the idea that every scrap of dust throughout the solar system has to be controlled by some greedy government entity already on Earth.

I would imagine that the whole situation would become similar to the opening of the American West, with small communities forming and establishing laws, with large corporations replacing the old cattle barons, all leading eventually to either the establishment of new nations or the invitation of old nations to take control. If some rich recluse wants to build a home on a rock in the Asteroid Belt, why should he have to pay taxes and declare fealty to some government that's 100 million miles away on a good day?


I also think following the dinosaurs down the inevitable path of extinction is probably hyperbole. The time scale is such that we probably have another 500+ years to get this done, and political conditions making space unpopular are likely to change by then.
500 years is not a long time as far as a species is concerned. That would represent about 0.3% of total span of homo sapiens existence. Just because we point to an asteroid impact as being the smoking gun which ended the dinosaurs doesn't mean they died off immediately. It took thousands of years, perhaps tens of thousands, for the last of the species to die.

Aside from that, looking back through history I don't see a hell of a lot of improvement in political conditions over the last 500 years, or even the last 1000 years. How can we expect their to be any change over the next 500?

[denuseri]

I think its a big mistake not only for the us, but for the world for the USA to abandon its national efforts in space.

[SadisticNature]

Maybe, but with governments seemingly eager to get out of the space race, the time may come when there's damned little they can do about it.


They would have to be dealt with as a separate nation, I suppose. Like the Vatican. A whole new area of law, maybe: Interplanetary Law.


Chances are they won't. But their need for the production of these industries will force them to at least tentatively accept the situation. I have no particular love of the Corporation as supreme lawgiver, by any means. But I also don't like the idea that every scrap of dust throughout the solar system has to be controlled by some greedy government entity already on Earth.

I would imagine that the whole situation would become similar to the opening of the American West, with small communities forming and establishing laws, with large corporations replacing the old cattle barons, all leading eventually to either the establishment of new nations or the invitation of old nations to take control. If some rich recluse wants to build a home on a rock in the Asteroid Belt, why should he have to pay taxes and declare fealty to some government that's 100 million miles away on a good day?


500 years is not a long time as far as a species is concerned. That would represent about 0.3% of total span of homo sapiens existence. Just because we point to an asteroid impact as being the smoking gun which ended the dinosaurs doesn't mean they died off immediately. It took thousands of years, perhaps tens of thousands, for the last of the species to die.

Aside from that, looking back through history I don't see a hell of a lot of improvement in political conditions over the last 500 years, or even the last 1000 years. How can we expect their to be any change over the next 500?

Political conditions have improved dramatically in the past 500 years. We've gone from Monarchies to Democracy's, from an institution where everyone is subject to the whims of the leaders to a government of law.

If we have a similarly 'lackluster' change in the next 500 years, then I think progress will be just fine.

Furthermore a lot of the barrier is technological, and we've had huge technological advances even in the last 10 years. If that continues, eventually the price of spacecraft will come down so far that exploration is viable.

[SadisticNature]

I don't think its that the other countries involved rush in and send untrained people to do dangerous jobs. The success rates of those rescue missions seems to suggest otherwise.

I'm not criticizing the people involved in disaster response or rescue. I'm merely suggesting that it was unreasonable for someone to claim that America was the first in and resented for it. Because they typically aren't the first in, and they typically are resented for other reasons.

I'm glad the US has improved their system since Katrina, seeing a repeat of that would be tragic.


As part of a disaster response team I can assure you, there are reasons rescue personnel don't rush right into a disaster and start working. There has to be cohesion between responders, there has to be organization, and there has to be a realistic approach. It's easy to criticize when watching on television and seeing people sitting on rooftops awaiting someone to come along and rescue them. I agree, why not paddle in, get the people, and paddle out.

Properly trained personnel have to be assigned to do these types of things, otherwise not only do you have the original people in need of rescue, now you have the people who attempted to rescue them in need of rescue themselves. Unseen dangers were everywhere in New Orleans...downed power lines, cars, bodies, sewage, street signs, small trees, etc. all submerged and ready to cause havoc with not only rescuers, but those being rescued. There were unstable buildings, aggressive animals (displaced wildlife such as snakes, rats, spiders, etc. - some of which were poisonous). There are rescuers who are trained to go into unstable buildings and search. Searches had to be done in an orderly fashion so as not to cause double the work. Records of what had been done and who had been rescued, from what house, etc had to be put on paper or in computers. Many people have no clue the amount of "engineering" goes into a rescue operation and I myself was once guilty of sitting on the sidelines and scoffing at the length of time it took to respond.

America is nothing if not innovative. Due to the outcry for faster response after Katrina, the U.S. has adapted an organized response system that is much quicker than before. That being said, a state in which a disaster occurs still needs it's Governor to ask the President for help before we can be deployed by executive order.

[Thorne]

Political conditions have improved dramatically in the past 500 years. We've gone from Monarchies to Democracy's, from an institution where everyone is subject to the whims of the leaders to a government of law.
The forms have changed, perhaps, but the people running them haven't. Ask the women of Afghanistan if things are better for them than 500 years ago. Or the people in central Africa. Or countless other nations around the world who's political leaders' only concerns are improving their own lives at the expense of their people. No, the conditions are the same. It's only the rhetoric which has changed.


Furthermore a lot of the barrier is technological, and we've had huge technological advances even in the last 10 years. If that continues, eventually the price of spacecraft will come down so far that exploration is viable.
Which is precisely my point. It has gotten to the point where corporations, instead of nations, will be leading the way. That's what will cause the prices to fall. That's what will fuel the colonization of space and the planets. Only when the corporations and the rugged individualists have gone in and tamed things will the governments step in and start trying to control things. Hopefully, this time we won't let them.

[SadisticNature]

The way I see it is:

Corporations and Individualists are unlikely to try for getting land in space unless the claim laws change.

Governments are unlikely to change the claim laws because of all the disadvantages they would face for doing so.

So until this becomes changed there isn't going to be a lot of individualist oriented exploration/claiming of space.

As for region by region analysis, perhaps my view is biased, but I don't think the governments to which you refer are the most likely candidates for space exploration, so concentrating on governance in countries with actual Space Programs would suggest my 500 year claim is valid. As far as it goes with democracy, if change isn't occurring its because people aren't making it happen. This isn't as easy as it sounds but its certainly possible in a democracy, in a monarchy the main methods of policy changes were executions and civil wars.

[Thorne]

Corporations and Individualists are unlikely to try for getting land in space unless the claim laws change.
But if the governments aren't going into space, how can they stop the claims? Possession is nine-tenths of the law, and so forth.


As far as it goes with democracy, if change isn't occurring its because people aren't making it happen. This isn't as easy as it sounds but its certainly possible in a democracy, in a monarchy the main methods of policy changes were executions and civil wars.
I think there's been a lot of change in the democracies lately. Unfortunately, the changes I've seen haven't been for the better. More restrictions, less liberty, less governing but more government, less innovation, more baby-sitting. The more things change the more they stay the same.

Geez, I'm just full of platitudes today, aren't I?

[gagged_Louise]

I think they should be kept substantially funded. Obviously there's more urgent projects down here at present than refiring a programme of sending astronauts to the moon and, later, Mars (apparently NASA lost the original designs for the Saturn V rocket and so on, so the technology to send manned craft to moons and planets will have to be largely reinvented and rebuilt) but the scientific gains by NASA, ESA and other space agencies have been simply amazing, and the space race has had a rcih overspill into other uses of the technology that they came up with or helped fund.

The internet as we know it and modern computer wiring are, to a large extent, by-products of the space race and the military build-up that it was closely tied to: running rockets and satellites in real time far beyond the earth, and communicating with space crews and unmanned probes, plainly forced development of new and more powerful computer systems and radio links, monitors, circuits and network services. Without the Apollos. no Apple PC and no xboxes. So space exploration pays off in technical advance. I hope the fund cuts will not prove to be a really long-term trend.

There isn't going to be a large-scale colonization of Mars in the present century, in such a way that it could house any major emigration of this packed planet. The reason is simple: Mars is a very inhospitable place and any settling projects there will require big efforts before there will be anything like a permanently manned base or Martian villages under glass domes. And even putting the first men on Mars won't necessarily be a one-nation affair. Lion is just right in saying we need cooperation and joint efforts to keep up space exploration.

[lucy]

How do you feel about funding for the NASA program being discontinued?

I am quite interested in the opinions on this.
Not that it's my piece of cake since it ain't my money, but i think that cash can be spent better somewhere else, or - even better, because you probably take that money from your children and grandchildren by leaving them mountains of depts - not at all.
Bases on the moon? On mars? What for? Just because we're too darn stupid to take care of the one base we have?

[steelish]

Top Ten Reasons for Going Into Space


Reason Number 10
Colonization: it's a long shot, but there are serious people who still claim that we can travel to mars and turn it into livable space for humankind. The process is called "terraforming".

Reason Number 9
Intelligence Surveillance: Ok maybe we wouldn't bother placing a spy satellite over the Hawaiian Tropics contest (then again maybe we would) but the very first truly functional (i.e. non-experimental) satellite was a U.S. spy satellite. This was the Corona series, first operational in August of 1960. The U.S. maintained a strong lead in this super-secret technology throughout the cold war and it was the only distinct intelligence advantage this nation ever really had. Since the U.S. won the cold war, you simply can't dismiss the importance of this capability.

Reason Number 8
International Diplomacy: this one speaks for itself. It's the only reason we went to the moon.

Reason Number 7
Natural Resources: this one may be reaching, but there are people who believe that we would want to mine the asteroids & the moon for minerals. The most credible argument for this is assuming we would want to build a huge space structure and wouldn't want to have to loft the raw material into earth orbit or higher on rocket power.

Reason Number 6
Researching the universe: this one also speaks for itself. The discoveries and observations made from the Hubble telescope alone are staggering, and could never have been made from earth because of the obscuring effect of the atmosphere.
There are new discoveries being made every day, such as finding planets around other stars and discovering the true structure of the outer solar system (the Kuiper belt).

Reason Number 5
Technology Spin-Offs: this also speaks for itself, although the list of new technologies just goes on and on and on. These new technologies mean new industries, new jobs, and saved lives. For example, kidney dialysis, which has kept (and still keeps) countless people alive, came from the Apollo program. A new artificial heart came from technology used in Space Shuttle. New insulin pumps can eliminate the need for injections for diabetics, and the space program is constantly producing new materials for prosthetic devices.

Reason Number 4
Researching the sun, moon, and planets: - planetary probes like Voyager, Pioneer, Viking and Pathfinder landers on Mars, Magellan probe to Venus, these and others have all changed our entire view of the solar system and all the planets. Nothing else has ever given us the close-up view of the planets or their moons. For example, no telescope could ever have shown us the volcanoes on Jupiter's inner moon Io or the ice on Jupiter's second moon Europa. Nothing could ever have given us the clue that there could be life on those moons, aside from the space probes we've sent.
With these probes and the new, powerful orbiting telescopes we've put in place, we are updating our once-simple view of the solar system - learning about the many asteroids and comets and their complex orbits. We are only now becoming aware that an asteroid or comet may have been the end of the dinosaurs, and could be the end of us. By studying our solar system, knowing what's there and what threatens us, and devising the capability of averting disaster, space exploration could mean the very survival of the human race.

We may care very much some day about this reason for space exploration.

Reason Number 3
Marvin the Martian's autograph: well maybe not his, but the more we learn about our solar system and the universe the more likely it is that we'll someday contact intelligent life.

Reason Number 2
Satellites in orbit: The biggie in my opinion - you would not be reading this page if it weren't for communications satellites that make the world wide web possible. Thousands and thousands of lives would be lost each year to hurricanes if it weren't for weather forecasting satellites. Even the war in Iraq would have come out differently (and not in favor of the allies) if it weren't for satellite positioning capabilities. The civilized world owes much of what it is today to satellite technology.

Reason Number 1
Because it's there: This one may seem whimsical but it is not. The society that stops exploring and begins to stagnate begins to die. It is only through the constant effort to learn and to achieve that we remain vigorous, bright, and strong. The fact that we don't know yet what is out there, and the fact that space represents our final limitation, is reason enough for us to strive to master it. Note that the same could be said for the ocean floor.

[Thorne]

[B]Top Ten Reasons for Going Into Space[/B

Great job, steelish! I can't disagree with any of these, except maybe #7, the diplomacy one. Seems to me a silly reason for anything, trying to show up your neighbor.

I would probably place #5 and #4 at the top of my list, with #10 linked to #4. The whole reason for colonizing would be to spread the human race out so that it could survive a cataclysmic impact of the Earth.

For those interested in such, I highly recommend Phil Plait's book "Death From the Skies" which lists a lot of the stuff out there that is capable of destroying our culture, our civilization or even the whole planet, not least of which is our own Sun. It wouldn't hurt to have a few colonies further out than we are.

[steelish]

Hmmm...I don't think of the diplomacy as a one-upmanship so much as a "see what man is possible of doing" sort of thing, prompting others to try to reach for the stars as well. I guess I view the world differently than others and tend to look more towards positive influences. If I see an accomplishment - whether it be from neighbor, another country or even a "foe" - I analyze and wonder if I myself am capable of such a thing (and also if I desire to do it) and if so...how to go about accomplishing it.

[lucy]

Top Ten Reasons for Going Into Space


Reason Number 10
Colonization: it's a long shot, but there are serious people who still claim that we can travel to mars and turn it into livable space for humankind. The process is called "terraforming".
Yup. Right. And the resources we use to do that won't be available for other, maybe more important projects and the pollution created in the process will tip our Earth just a bit more towards the edge. Towards the edge of becoming inhospitable to humans, that is, i'm not worried at all about the planet as a whole.
Besides, given humankind’s (read: moslty Europe’s and America’s) truly fantastic record of colonization we probably shouldn’t attempt to fuck up yet another place, even if it is a barren one and we can’t slaughter or enslave a couple of million natives and kill their cultures in the process.


[BReason Number 9
Intelligence Surveillance: Ok maybe we wouldn't bother placing a spy satellite over the Hawaiian Tropics contest (then again maybe we would) but the very first truly functional (i.e. non-experimental) satellite was a U.S. spy satellite. This was the Corona series, first operational in August of 1960. The U.S. maintained a strong lead in this super-secret technology throughout the cold war and it was the only distinct intelligence advantage this nation ever really had. Since the U.S. won the cold war, you simply can't dismiss the importance of this capability.
Ok, as i said already: It's your money. If you think sending people to Mars gives you a strategical advantage, go for it. I'm Swiss, i don't give a damn whether you can watch me undress in my bedroom from 50 km above.
Given recent events one would think that the gathering of intelligence is not the problem, but processing it is.


[BReason Number 8
International Diplomacy: this one speaks for itself. It's the only reason we went to the moon.
Sorry, that’s boys stuff. My dick’s longer than your dick. Go for it, if you can’t find a better way to spend your money.


[BReason Number 7
Natural Resources: this one may be reaching, but there are people who believe that we would want to mine the asteroids & the moon for minerals. The most credible argument for this is assuming we would want to build a huge space structure and wouldn't want to have to loft the raw material into earth orbit or higher on rocket power.
Uh huh. Kinda like the chicken or egg question, isn’t it? In order to be able to colonize space to get at the resources we need to get at the resources so we can colonize space.
Or did i get that wrong and it was that the other way round? ;)


[BReason Number 6
Researching the universe: this one also speaks for itself. The discoveries and observations made from the Hubble telescope alone are staggering, and could never have been made from earth because of the obscuring effect of the atmosphere.
There are new discoveries being made every day, such as finding planets around other stars and discovering the true structure of the outer solar system (the Kuiper belt).
Yup, good reason. Can be perfectly done without sending anybody into orbit. And much cheaper, because Austronauts are heavy and they need a lot of stuff while up there, thus making it expensive. Oh, and don’t tell me that Austronauts where needed to repair Hubble. For the same amount of money who was spent to do that (all costs included, not just that one flight) several Hubbles telescopes could probably have been built.


[BReason Number 5
Technology Spin-Offs: this also speaks for itself, although the list of new technologies just goes on and on and on. These new technologies mean new industries, new jobs, and saved lives. For example, kidney dialysis, which has kept (and still keeps) countless people alive, came from the Apollo program. A new artificial heart came from technology used in Space Shuttle. New insulin pumps can eliminate the need for injections for diabetics, and the space program is constantly producing new materials for prosthetic devices.
That could all be done without going to space. IF there were the right incentives. If all the brainpower spent on sending 80kg human bone and flesh in orbit would be spent on researching, say, new materials for prosthetic devices would have a much larger spin off. In the meantime, most countries drastically cap their spending on basic research, thus capping also the basis for future practical research.


[BReason Number 4
Researching the sun, moon, and planets: - planetary probes like Voyager, Pioneer, Viking and Pathfinder landers on Mars, Magellan probe to Venus, these and others have all changed our entire view of the solar system and all the planets. Nothing else has ever given us the close-up view of the planets or their moons. For example, no telescope could ever have shown us the volcanoes on Jupiter's inner moon Io or the ice on Jupiter's second moon Europa. Nothing could ever have given us the clue that there could be life on those moons, aside from the space probes we've sent.
With these probes and the new, powerful orbiting telescopes we've put in place, we are updating our once-simple view of the solar system - learning about the many asteroids and comets and their complex orbits. We are only now becoming aware that an asteroid or comet may have been the end of the dinosaurs, and could be the end of us. By studying our solar system, knowing what's there and what threatens us, and devising the capability of averting disaster, space exploration could mean the very survival of the human race.

We may care very much some day about this reason for space exploration.
Yup, good reason. Do it, but don’t send people. Personally i don’t care too much about the survival of the human race. Any survival is just temporary anyway.


[BReason Number 3
Marvin the Martian's autograph: well maybe not his, but the more we learn about our solar system and the universe the more likely it is that we'll someday contact intelligent life.
I doubt that. And if we do, they’ll probably not recognize us as intelligent, mwahahaha....

Furthermore, with our record of dealing with other beings, we’ll probably fuck it up as usual. I guess it would be better for everybody and –thing involved if we didn’t find intelligent life.


[BReason Number 2
Satellites in orbit: The biggie in my opinion - you would not be reading this page if it weren't for communications satellites that make the world wide web possible. Thousands and thousands of lives would be lost each year to hurricanes if it weren't for weather forecasting satellites. Even the war in Iraq would have come out differently (and not in favor of the allies) if it weren't for satellite positioning capabilities. The civilized world owes much of what it is today to satellite technology.
We wouldn't miss a thing if it hadn't been invented. For example, the web (which originated at the CERN, if i’m not misstaken)
And people do still die in hurricanes, just because they have no means of building houses that can withstand a hurricane. Even more lives could be saved if cars were banned, by the way.... Or some money spent on fighting malaria. Or money being spent to provide children with clean drinking water. Or. Or. Or. The list goes on....
As for the war in Iraq: All your fancy satellites haven’t prevented you from entering a useless war in the first place. But of course that is just my humble opinion.


[BReason Number 1
Because it's there: This one may seem whimsical but it is not. The society that stops exploring and begins to stagnate begins to die. It is only through the constant effort to learn and to achieve that we remain vigorous, bright, and strong. The fact that we don't know yet what is out there, and the fact that space represents our final limitation, is reason enough for us to strive to master it. Note that the same could be said for the ocean floor.
Given human nature as it is, this is not whimsical at all. In fact, this is the only point i completely agree with you :)

I’d just say: Leave the astronauts on the ground for the time being, just because sending them up is extremely expensive and not really necessary, care about other problems first, and if and when they are solved, think about it all again.

[steelish]

When the money used for space exploration is totalled up and presented as a single sum, it looks like a lot of money that one is then tempted to apply to other purposes. That is a deception. In the United States, the federal government each year spends less than 1% of its budget on space exploration, and more than 30% of the budget helping the poor in this country. That means that if the space program were completely eliminated, a poor person instead of getting $1.00 would then get $1.03. That does not seem like the extra help they really need to save them.

What would we lose for giving the extra 3 cents to the poor (or some other program)? Well for one thing without the space program you and I could not be having this online conversation because there would be no communications satellites. No one ever said the web originated due to space exploration...it's simply made possible because of it. There would be no weather satellites so there would be little or no warning of hurricanes or typhoons. I'm not sure about where you're from, but in the United States it is now unusual for a lot of lives to be lost in a hurricane, whereas in the past we could lose thousands of lives to these storms. The difference is satellite surveillance of weather systems. We would certainly know and understand less about our solar system and universe without the space probes and orbiting telescopes provided by space exploration. We would also understand less about the earth, about ecological systems, about efficient ways of growing crops and controlling pollution.

The reality is that the space program has done a lot to save the earth, save lives, feed people, and bring us together through closer communication. The space program has shown us an example of how to solve seemingly impossible problems. We should use this example to help us solve other difficult problems, like world hunger. It is a mistake to say that since we have problems that we haven't solved, we should stop solving other problems as well.

It is also ironic to claim that we want to save the present and forget the future. What do you do tomorrow, when the neglected future has become the present?

[Thorne]

I’d just say: Leave the astronauts on the ground for the time being, just because sending them up is extremely expensive and not really necessary, care about other problems first, and if and when they are solved, think about it all again.
A lot of the current research into interplanetary travel is involved in sending robotic missions to establish viable bases and begin the task of creating a man-usable habitation, then sending the men (and women) up to run things. True, a lot can be done without the use of astronauts, but right now we have at least one rover on Mars which is stuck in sand, probably forever, when all it really needs is for someone to walk up and give it a good swift kick in the wheels.

But a lot of your concern over space travel seems to be the tired old complaint of where to spend the money. Give it to these people, help those people, throw it down yet another rat-hole. Yet the very fact that you are here and able to complain about it is evidence that you don't practice what you preach. How much better could the world be if you would just donate the money you waste on internet access to charity, where it would be put to virtually no good at all?

I think what bothers people most about the frontier of space is that, like virtually every frontier mankind has faced, the best and the brightest will flock to it, leaving the homelands to stagnate. Unfortunately, once the frontier has been tamed, all those nay-sayers will drag their preconceived notions along and try to make the new world exactly the same as the old, thus destroying whatever good there might have been.

So just sit there at home bemoaning how other people choose to spend their money. Let those who really care about the human race push back the frontiers, making a better world, and a better solar system, for themselves. After all, it's not costing you anything.

[SadisticNature]

Top Ten Reasons for Going Into Space


Reason Number 10
Colonization: it's a long shot, but there are serious people who still claim that we can travel to mars and turn it into livable space for humankind. The process is called "terraforming".

Reason Number 9
Intelligence Surveillance: Ok maybe we wouldn't bother placing a spy satellite over the Hawaiian Tropics contest (then again maybe we would) but the very first truly functional (i.e. non-experimental) satellite was a U.S. spy satellite. This was the Corona series, first operational in August of 1960. The U.S. maintained a strong lead in this super-secret technology throughout the cold war and it was the only distinct intelligence advantage this nation ever really had. Since the U.S. won the cold war, you simply can't dismiss the importance of this capability.

Reason Number 8
International Diplomacy: this one speaks for itself. It's the only reason we went to the moon.

Reason Number 7
Natural Resources: this one may be reaching, but there are people who believe that we would want to mine the asteroids & the moon for minerals. The most credible argument for this is assuming we would want to build a huge space structure and wouldn't want to have to loft the raw material into earth orbit or higher on rocket power.

Reason Number 6
Researching the universe: this one also speaks for itself. The discoveries and observations made from the Hubble telescope alone are staggering, and could never have been made from earth because of the obscuring effect of the atmosphere.
There are new discoveries being made every day, such as finding planets around other stars and discovering the true structure of the outer solar system (the Kuiper belt).

Reason Number 5
Technology Spin-Offs: this also speaks for itself, although the list of new technologies just goes on and on and on. These new technologies mean new industries, new jobs, and saved lives. For example, kidney dialysis, which has kept (and still keeps) countless people alive, came from the Apollo program. A new artificial heart came from technology used in Space Shuttle. New insulin pumps can eliminate the need for injections for diabetics, and the space program is constantly producing new materials for prosthetic devices.

Reason Number 4
Researching the sun, moon, and planets: - planetary probes like Voyager, Pioneer, Viking and Pathfinder landers on Mars, Magellan probe to Venus, these and others have all changed our entire view of the solar system and all the planets. Nothing else has ever given us the close-up view of the planets or their moons. For example, no telescope could ever have shown us the volcanoes on Jupiter's inner moon Io or the ice on Jupiter's second moon Europa. Nothing could ever have given us the clue that there could be life on those moons, aside from the space probes we've sent.
With these probes and the new, powerful orbiting telescopes we've put in place, we are updating our once-simple view of the solar system - learning about the many asteroids and comets and their complex orbits. We are only now becoming aware that an asteroid or comet may have been the end of the dinosaurs, and could be the end of us. By studying our solar system, knowing what's there and what threatens us, and devising the capability of averting disaster, space exploration could mean the very survival of the human race.

We may care very much some day about this reason for space exploration.

Reason Number 3
Marvin the Martian's autograph: well maybe not his, but the more we learn about our solar system and the universe the more likely it is that we'll someday contact intelligent life.

Reason Number 2
Satellites in orbit: The biggie in my opinion - you would not be reading this page if it weren't for communications satellites that make the world wide web possible. Thousands and thousands of lives would be lost each year to hurricanes if it weren't for weather forecasting satellites. Even the war in Iraq would have come out differently (and not in favor of the allies) if it weren't for satellite positioning capabilities. The civilized world owes much of what it is today to satellite technology.

Reason Number 1
Because it's there: This one may seem whimsical but it is not. The society that stops exploring and begins to stagnate begins to die. It is only through the constant effort to learn and to achieve that we remain vigorous, bright, and strong. The fact that we don't know yet what is out there, and the fact that space represents our final limitation, is reason enough for us to strive to master it. Note that the same could be said for the ocean floor.

Reason #10: Disagree about long shot; with the steady increase of technology and rapid improvements in atmosphere science, I'm quite convinced terraforming is a matter of when not if.

Reason #9: I actually think the Cold War was one because capitalism and democracy have principles that are adhered to, while actually communism lasted less than 6 months in the USSR. One of the fundamental pillars of communism as proposed by Lenin was the absence of a national army, but rather a military role in everyone's life through the use of militia in a largely defensive role. By Spring of 1918 the USSR had a standing army, and by the time the cold war began it was using military force around the world. Furthermore, the KGB was generally considered the best intelligence service in the world, so if the war was largely about information its hard to imagine the US winning.

Reason #8: This is kind of awkward, if space travel needs to be about International Diplomacy should we abandon the idea of national space programs and conduct international efforts through mutually funded programs?

Reason #7: This is inevitable. We will continue to want non-renewable resources long after those resources are exhausted on Earth.

Reason #6: Agree

Reason #5: Agree. Also don't forget the ballpoint pen which is the best selling of all these inventions :P

Reason #4: Agree.

Reason #3: Humorous way of putting it. I'd rank this far lower, space programs are valuable even if Earth is the only life sustaining planet in the universe.

Reason #2: Problem is we already have this and no one is shutting it down.

Reason #1: Agree in both content and ranking.

[SadisticNature]

A lot of the current research into interplanetary travel is involved in sending robotic missions to establish viable bases and begin the task of creating a man-usable habitation, then sending the men (and women) up to run things. True, a lot can be done without the use of astronauts, but right now we have at least one rover on Mars which is stuck in sand, probably forever, when all it really needs is for someone to walk up and give it a good swift kick in the wheels.

But a lot of your concern over space travel seems to be the tired old complaint of where to spend the money. Give it to these people, help those people, throw it down yet another rat-hole. Yet the very fact that you are here and able to complain about it is evidence that you don't practice what you preach. How much better could the world be if you would just donate the money you waste on internet access to charity, where it would be put to virtually no good at all?

I think what bothers people most about the frontier of space is that, like virtually every frontier mankind has faced, the best and the brightest will flock to it, leaving the homelands to stagnate. Unfortunately, once the frontier has been tamed, all those nay-sayers will drag their preconceived notions along and try to make the new world exactly the same as the old, thus destroying whatever good there might have been.

So just sit there at home bemoaning how other people choose to spend their money. Let those who really care about the human race push back the frontiers, making a better world, and a better solar system, for themselves. After all, it's not costing you anything.

Perhaps I feel the marginal utility of getting internet access is very high, while the marginal utility of money spent on the space program is very low. I might also feel that many charities have better marginal utility than the space program. So its certainly consistent for someone to have internet and not support expensive space programs because they have other priorities for the money.

I think this is awfully close to a personal attack. Someone can't advocate having charities get money over space programs without being told they personally shouldn't buy internet and should instead donate the money to charity? Or being told by implication they don't care about the human race?

A similar vein would be suggesting you think its a good thing to let the starving children in Africa die because you'd rather spend money on the space program than feeding them. I haven't brought this up before because I don't think its constructive, and its not the type of argument I'd normally make. However, you are making the equivalent argument in the opposite direction so now it becomes relevant.

I also disagree strongly with your view of how the new world evolved but that is a whole thread of its own.

[denuseri]

Lets not forget the other reason that no one is mentioning.

A) Statistically speaking it is highly doubtful that we are the only sentient species in the small region of space within our own galaxy.

B) Theory of relativity aside it is also statistically imporbable that most other setient species wont one day decide to expand on their own and put their eggs in more than one basket.

C) The species that develops the technology to do this before the others will have a great advantage over the species that stays planet bound and squanders their rescources on hedonist pursuits over interplanetary expansion.

D) Based upon the known historical evidence here on our own planet, there is nothing to sugest that evolutionary expansion between stars is nessesarally going to be any more peaceful that evolutionaray expansion was here on earth between different regions.

Do you want to be the spannish conquistadors or the mayans in the above enevitable scenario?

It is simple common sence to expand off planet as soon as possible.

[lucy]

So just sit there at home bemoaning how other people choose to spend their money. Let those who really care about the human race push back the frontiers, making a better world, and a better solar system, for themselves. After all, it's not costing you anything.
Yup, that's why i said i don't care too much either way as you might recall.

Whether if those who push the boundaries are those who really care about the human race or whether they're just satisfying their egos is of course a totally different question. Who cares about the human race more, the general who leads his army into war, or the nurse who stays behind to tend to the injured and dying?
Who cares about the human race more, the pioneer who takes land that doesn't belong to him or the farmer's wife who stays behind and raises her children?

Btw, the one that flocked into America when it was still a 'frontier' (to white Europeans only, of course, native Americans probably didn't think of it as that, but again, a whole different topic) weren't exactly the brightest but the poorest and those who didn't have much of another choice left.




C) The species that develops the technology to do this before the others will have a great advantage over the species that stays planet bound and squanders their rescources on hedonist pursuits over interplanetary expansion.
Then I hope it's not us, but some life form that proves to live up to the term 'intelligent'.


Do you want to be the spannish conquistadors or the mayans in the above enevitable scenario?


Yes, let's prepare for war!!! Yippeeeee, intergalactic war, and we're in on it!!!
That's what we humans are really good at, aren't we? Killingmaimingenslaving each other and everything else that lives. So why not other, extraterrestrial lifeforms too? It's high time to let the rest of the universe know that they better not mess with us.
Wait, we shouldn't even stop for a second to try and communicate with them, that might screw the moment of surprise. Better nuke (we'll probably have much better weapons by then, tho) them first and not ask questions later.

[Thorne]

Perhaps I feel the marginal utility of getting internet access is very high, while the marginal utility of money spent on the space program is very low. I might also feel that many charities have better marginal utility than the space program. So its certainly consistent for someone to have internet and not support expensive space programs because they have other priorities for the money.
This is my point exactly. You, and others, feel one way about this, I feel a different way. Neither of us is necessarily right or wrong. The only thing that would be wrong is for one group to force the others to follow their agenda. So if a group wishes to give money to charity, they should be free to do so, and if another group prefers to give money to space exploration, they should be accorded the same freedom.


I think this is awfully close to a personal attack. Someone can't advocate having charities get money over space programs without being told they personally shouldn't buy internet and should instead donate the money to charity? Or being told by implication they don't care about the human race?
It was not meant as a personal attack, and I do apologize if anyone took it as such. It just bothers me when people try to tell me that I'm not doing something right because I want to spend my own money, or use my own resources, as I see fit. If anything, I was berating that kind of personality, without meaning to point any fingers.


A similar vein would be suggesting you think its a good thing to let the starving children in Africa die because you'd rather spend money on the space program than feeding them. I haven't brought this up before because I don't think its constructive, and its not the type of argument I'd normally make. However, you are making the equivalent argument in the opposite direction so now it becomes relevant.
I see your point, I honestly do, I just reject the logic of it. There have been starving children all over the world throughout history, and no amount of charity or breast-beating has done a bit of good in the end. It's just that I believe all of the off-shoots of the space program, such as medical advances, communications advances, etc., have done more to ameliorate the suffering in the world than all the charities in the world combined. Charities, for the most part, only remedy the symptoms of poverty and disease: science fights the causes, or at least the physical causes. The political causes are more endemic and entrenched, and harder still to overcome. But ultimately, throwing money at them is not the answer.

For example, suppose we could develop a sustainable habitat on a planet as hostile as Mars. Don't you think that would have a significant impact on survival at the fringes of the Sahara? And, once the initial habitat has been constructed, the resources to sustain it would come from Mars itself, or from the asteroids. There would not need to be a constant drain of resources, and in all likelihood those initial expenditures would be recovered a hundredfold, or more, once the habitat became established.

[Thorne]

Yup, that's why i said i don't care too much either way as you might recall.
Yes you did. I caught that when I read back through the thread. And as I stated above, my comments were not intended as a personal attack against anyone, and I apologize if I made it seem so.


Who cares about the human race more, the general who leads his army into war, or the nurse who stays behind to tend to the injured and dying?
It would depend on the circumstances, of course. If the general is trying to destroy a threat to his nation, his culture, his people, isn't he doing better than the pacifist who advocates paying tribute to the enemy to keep him at bay? The nurse is concerned with relieving the suffering of individuals. The general wants to stop the causes of that suffering.

But basically this is the old argument of giving a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach him to fish and he can feed his family forever.

[SadisticNature]

Yes you did. I caught that when I read back through the thread. And as I stated above, my comments were not intended as a personal attack against anyone, and I apologize if I made it seem so.


It would depend on the circumstances, of course. If the general is trying to destroy a threat to his nation, his culture, his people, isn't he doing better than the pacifist who advocates paying tribute to the enemy to keep him at bay? The nurse is concerned with relieving the suffering of individuals. The general wants to stop the causes of that suffering.

But basically this is the old argument of giving a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach him to fish and he can feed his family forever.

If the enemy is a country completely incapable of being a threat to a superpower and the superpower attacks it anyways and then trades food for oil (at a bad rate) in a closed market where other countries can't make better bids, then it seems to me the general is perpetuating that suffering. Particularly since the government was involved in installing the dictator its now removing in the first place.

But we digress.

[SadisticNature]

This is my point exactly. You, and others, feel one way about this, I feel a different way. Neither of us is necessarily right or wrong. The only thing that would be wrong is for one group to force the others to follow their agenda. So if a group wishes to give money to charity, they should be free to do so, and if another group prefers to give money to space exploration, they should be accorded the same freedom.


It was not meant as a personal attack, and I do apologize if anyone took it as such. It just bothers me when people try to tell me that I'm not doing something right because I want to spend my own money, or use my own resources, as I see fit. If anything, I was berating that kind of personality, without meaning to point any fingers.


I see your point, I honestly do, I just reject the logic of it. There have been starving children all over the world throughout history, and no amount of charity or breast-beating has done a bit of good in the end. It's just that I believe all of the off-shoots of the space program, such as medical advances, communications advances, etc., have done more to ameliorate the suffering in the world than all the charities in the world combined. Charities, for the most part, only remedy the symptoms of poverty and disease: science fights the causes, or at least the physical causes. The political causes are more endemic and entrenched, and harder still to overcome. But ultimately, throwing money at them is not the answer.

For example, suppose we could develop a sustainable habitat on a planet as hostile as Mars. Don't you think that would have a significant impact on survival at the fringes of the Sahara? And, once the initial habitat has been constructed, the resources to sustain it would come from Mars itself, or from the asteroids. There would not need to be a constant drain of resources, and in all likelihood those initial expenditures would be recovered a hundredfold, or more, once the habitat became established.

You are allowed to use your own money as you see fit. But once taxes are collected by the government those taxes are no longer "your" money but the governments money. You aren't arguing about personal donations you're arguing about government spending. And your argument seems to be "I pay taxes" the government can only spend money in ways I like. Well there are people who pay taxes and don't support the military, so by that argument the US shouldn't pay for one.

[denuseri]

We have also fortunately allowed ourselves the freedom to say what we wish when it comes to just about anything short of inciting a riot...including what if anything our government does or does not do with the money that we give it.


As for perpetuating a future for our species in space and being prepared for the eventuality of exosolar contact or the spread of nationhoods into space...."he who seeks peace should prepare for war".

[Thorne]

And your argument seems to be "I pay taxes" the government can only spend money in ways I like. Well there are people who pay taxes and don't support the military, so by that argument the US shouldn't pay for one.
No, I'm arguing that the government should spend the money in a manner which is representative of the taxpayers. Granted, certain funding must be maintained, regardless, for purposes of national security. Others, however, are discretionary, and can be handled differently. Actually, I would think that NASA would fall into both of these.

But what I would really like to see is an optional tax form, which the taxpayer can fill out if he wishes, allowing him to request where the discretionary portion of his tax money is spent. So if we assume that, say 30% of my taxes are considered (by the government) to be discretionary, I can select maybe 50% of it goes to NASA and 50% to general science funding. This could even be just guidelines, not binding in any way but giving me at least some sense that some of my tax dollars are being used as I want them to be. Probably a silly idea, and extremely doubtful that it would be implemented, but hell, I can fantasize, can't I?

[steelish]

Then I hope it's not us, but some life form that proves to live up to the term 'intelligent'.

I believe you're confusing intelligence with mercifulness. They do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. A "higher" species might view us along the same lines as we view a cockroach. I bet you would kill a cockroach that's in your home. You've probably even sprayed for bugs.

[steelish]

Yes, let's prepare for war!!! Yippeeeee, intergalactic war, and we're in on it!!!
That's what we humans are really good at, aren't we? Killingmaimingenslaving each other and everything else that lives. So why not other, extraterrestrial lifeforms too? It's high time to let the rest of the universe know that they better not mess with us.
Wait, we shouldn't even stop for a second to try and communicate with them, that might screw the moment of surprise. Better nuke (we'll probably have much better weapons by then, tho) them first and not ask questions later.

Not necessarily. What we should prepare for is the possible need to communicate with another species and the likely only way to be able to do that is to understand as much as we possibly can of space and our surroundings. We cannot hope to communicate "intelligently" with an interplanetary species if we have a narrow view of the universe.

Yes, there is a lot of bloodshed amongst humans. There will always be as long as we do not attempt to understand each other. By the same token, if we do not attempt to understand the universe and the hardships that face an interplanetary species, aren't we responsible for any misunderstandings we bring to the table?

[steelish]

You are allowed to use your own money as you see fit. But once taxes are collected by the government those taxes are no longer "your" money but the governments money.

Wrong. That's the current viewpoint of people who do not understand how America is really supposed to work. The government works FOR the people, and if they pass a new tax code or say $$ will be spent on a specific thing, then they are beholden to the people who elected them to spend the money in the manner they said it would be spent. It is "OUR" money because it is "OUR" government. Unfortunately, education has been twisted to the point where the true American Government process has been taught incorrectly for so long now, that even adults have a skewed view of it.

The American Government now keeps 70¢ of every $1 collected for themselves, to spend on their own expenses. Only 30¢ of each $1 collected gets distributed to the various programs.

[SadisticNature]

Wrong. That's the current viewpoint of people who do not understand how America is really supposed to work. The government works FOR the people, and if they pass a new tax code or say $$ will be spent on a specific thing, then they are beholden to the people who elected them to spend the money in the manner they said it would be spent. It is "OUR" money because it is "OUR" government. Unfortunately, education has been twisted to the point where the true American Government process has been taught incorrectly for so long now, that even adults have a skewed view of it.

The American Government now keeps 70¢ of every $1 collected for themselves, to spend on their own expenses. Only 30¢ of each $1 collected gets distributed to the various programs.

The government works for the people. That means everyone, not just you. It's a republic not a democracy, so they are allowed to vote for unpopular things once elected.

Also you keep $0.70 cents of every $1 collected is rather misleading. Do you count military expenses as keeping for itself? What about medicare? What about medicaid? What about social security?

The government actually spends far more than it takes in, and the overhead of the government itself is small compared to programs.

[steelish]

The government works for the people. That means everyone, not just you. It's a republic not a democracy, so they are allowed to vote for unpopular things once elected.

It means all American citizens, yes. It also means that if a program is voted into existence, and they say they will do "X", they should do "X" and not do "Y"...that is what I am trying to say.


Also you keep $0.70 cents of every $1 collected is rather misleading. Do you count military expenses as keeping for itself?

No, that comes out of the 30¢


What about medicare?

No, that comes out of the 30¢


What about medicaid?

No, that comes out of the 30¢


What about social security?

No, that comes out of the 30¢


The government actually spends far more than it takes in, and the overhead of the government itself is small compared to programs.

Exactly, therefore you can understand the frustration and the reason the deficit is so high. The government officials have their own fleet of planes, their own healthcare system, and very high salaries. Once voted out or retired, they (and their families) retain that healthcare and they continue to earn their salaries until death. Is it any wonder why they consume so much of our taxpaying monies?

[SadisticNature]

It means all American citizens, yes. It also means that if a program is voted into existence, and they say they will do "X", they should do "X" and not do "Y"...that is what I am trying to say.



No, that comes out of the 30¢



No, that comes out of the 30¢



No, that comes out of the 30¢



No, that comes out of the 30¢



Exactly, therefore you can understand the frustration and the reason the deficit is so high. The government officials have their own fleet of planes, their own healthcare system, and very high salaries. Once voted out or retired, they (and their families) retain that healthcare and they continue to earn their salaries until death. Is it any wonder why they consume so much of our taxpaying monies?

You might want to check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

Your 30 cents figure is actually grossly erroneous.

Medicare + Medicaid = 19% of spending
Social Security = 20% of spending
Defense = 23% of spending

Government Salaries are covered in Other Mandatory Spending and represent a portion of a category that covers 17% of spending.

So your 70 cent figure is actually more like 10 cents on the dollar, and your 30 cents figure is more like 90 cents on the dollar.

[DuncanONeil]

Now that I heard about it. It sucks! And in my estimation quite stupid!!


How do you feel about funding for the NASA program being discontinued?

I am quite interested in the opinions on this.

[DuncanONeil]

Than it is too late to fix anything!

BTB what has this to do with NASA?


You might want to check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

Your 30 cents figure is actually grossly erroneous.

Medicare + Medicaid = 19% of spending
Social Security = 20% of spending
Defense = 23% of spending

Government Salaries are covered in Other Mandatory Spending and represent a portion of a category that covers 17% of spending.

So your 70 cent figure is actually more like 10 cents on the dollar, and your 30 cents figure is more like 90 cents on the dollar.

[SadisticNature]

Your standards for tangents that result from normal discussion in a thread seems to be they are ok, as long as you agree with them. The minute you disagree you criticize the post. The point was this was replying to a grossly erroneous "fact" (I should probably call it a fiction) that was posted in this thread. Just because such errors are off topic doesnt' mean it should be fine to post the error and not fine to correct it. Just because such errors support ones world view doesn't mean it should be fine to post the error as truth and not fine to correct it.


Than it is too late to fix anything!

BTB what has this to do with NASA?

[DuncanONeil]

Ok! What was the erroneous fact?


Your standards for tangents that result from normal discussion in a thread seems to be they are ok, as long as you agree with them. The minute you disagree you criticize the post. The point was this was replying to a grossly erroneous "fact" (I should probably call it a fiction) that was posted in this thread. Just because such errors are off topic doesnt' mean it should be fine to post the error and not fine to correct it. Just because such errors support ones world view doesn't mean it should be fine to post the error as truth and not fine to correct it.

[denuseri]

Just some FYI:



"CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - President Barack Obama boldly predicted Thursday his new plans for space exploration would lead American astronauts on historic, almost fantastic journeys to an asteroid and then to Mars - and in his lifetime - relying on rockets and propulsion still to be imagined and built.

"I expect to be around to see it," he said of pioneering U.S. trips starting with a landing on an asteroid - a colossal feat in itself - before the long-dreamed-of expedition to Mars. He spoke near the historic Kennedy Space Center launch pads that sent the first men to the moon, a blunt rejoinder to critics, including several former astronauts, who contend his planned changes will instead deal a staggering blow to the nation's manned space program.

"We want to leap into the future," not continue on the same path as before, Obama said as he sought to reassure NASA workers that America's space adventures would soar on despite the impending termination of space shuttle flights.

His prediction was reminiscent of President John F. Kennedy's declaration in 1961, "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth." That goal was fulfilled in 1969.

Obama did not predict a Mars landing soon. But he said that by 2025, the nation would have a new spacecraft "designed for long journeys to allow us to begin the first-ever crewed missions beyond the moon into deep space."

"We'll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history," he said. "By the mid-2030s, I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth. And a landing on Mars will follow. And I expect to be around to see it."

The biggest criticisms of Obama's plans have been that they have lacked details and goals. Thursday's speech was an attempt to answer, especially since an asteroid is the next step away from Earth's reach.

Asteroids zip by Earth fairly often and have occasionally smacked the planet with disastrous results. For example, asteroids have been blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs.

Landing on an asteroid would give scientists a better idea of how to handle a future killer asteroid that could wipe out much of life on Earth. Also, it would be a feat sure to win great attention - and there is far less gravity than the moon, meaning it would be easier and cheaper to leave.

"I think he said all the right things" in declaring a commitment to space exploration, said George Washington University space scholar John Logsdon, who has served on several NASA advisory boards. "I don't know what more you could have asked for."

But several Republicans, including Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana and Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah, assailed Obama's plan and speech, calling his plans "job-killing."

"The president's new plans for NASA are flat-out irresponsible," Vitter said. "He has evidently decided ... that it's time for us to simply walk away from manned space exploration for the foreseeable future, with no clear timeline for returning or for achieving any of our goals for deep space exploration."

Obama said he was "100 percent committed to the mission of NASA and its future." He outlined plans for federal spending to bring more private companies into space exploration following the soon-to-end space shuttle program.

He acknowledged criticism for his drastic changes to the space agency's direction. But, he said, "The bottom line is: Nobody is more committed to manned space flight, the human exploration of space, than I am. But we've got to do it in a smart way; we can't keep doing the same old things as before."

Obama said the space program is not a luxury but a necessity for the United States.

He noted that the Kennedy Space Center has inspired the nation and the world for half a century. He said NASA represents what it means to be American - "reaching for new heights and reaching for what's possible" - and is not close to its final days.

Obama sought to explain why he aborted President George W. Bush's return-to-the moon plan in favor of a complicated system of public-and-private flights that would go elsewhere in space, with details still to be worked out.

"We've been there before," Obama said of the nation's moon landings decades ago. "There's a lot more of space to explore."

He said his administration would support continued manned exploration of space "not just with dollars, but with clear aims and a larger purpose."

The Obama space plan relies on private companies to fly to the space station, giving them almost $6 billion to build their own rockets and ships. It also extends the space station's life by five years and puts billions into research to eventually develop new government rocket ships for future missions to a nearby asteroid, to the moon, to Martian moons or other points in space. Those stops would be stepping stones on an eventual mission to Mars itself.

Addressing concerns of job losses to space program workers, particularly in Florida, Obama said that "despite some reports to the contrary," his plan would add more than 2,500 jobs to the Cape Canaveral region over the next two years than would the plan worked out by his predecessor.

"We'll modernize the Kennedy Space Center, creating jobs as we upgrade launch facilities. And there is potential for even more job creation as companies in Florida and across America compete to be part of a new space transportation industry.

"This holds the promise of generating more than 10,000 jobs nationwide over the next few years. Many of these jobs will be created in Florida, an area primed to lead in this competition," he said.

Among his most vocal critics has been Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon. Obama did not mention Armstrong, who did not attend the speech, but he did praise Buzz Aldrin, one of Armstrong's Apollo 11 crewmates.

Aldrin did attend the speech - flying in with Obama on Air Force One.

Obama also said his administration would rescue a small part of the moon program: its Orion crew capsule.

But instead of taking four astronauts to the moon, the not-yet-built Orion will be slimmed down and used as an emergency escape pod for the space station.

Obama spoke in the vast launch complex's Operations and Checkout building - the place where Orion is scheduled to be eventually prepared for launch.

The president said, "This Orion effort will be part of the technological foundation for advanced spacecraft to be used in future deep space missions. In fact, Orion will be readied for flight right here in this room."

White House science adviser John Holdren summed up Obama's program as "a faster pace in space, more missions to more destinations sooner at lower cost.""

The above quoted reference is from contributions to The Associated Press made by S. Borenstein & E. Werner.

[DuncanONeil]

I am sorry but I find it hard to compare Kennedy"s bold statement with Obama's beliefs and desires.


Just some FYI:



"CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - President Barack Obama boldly predicted Thursday his new plans for space exploration would lead American astronauts on historic, almost fantastic journeys to an asteroid and then to Mars - and in his lifetime - relying on rockets and propulsion still to be imagined and built.

"I expect to be around to see it," he said of pioneering U.S. trips starting with a landing on an asteroid - a colossal feat in itself - before the long-dreamed-of expedition to Mars. He spoke near the historic Kennedy Space Center launch pads that sent the first men to the moon, a blunt rejoinder to critics, including several former astronauts, who contend his planned changes will instead deal a staggering blow to the nation's manned space program.

"We want to leap into the future," not continue on the same path as before, Obama said as he sought to reassure NASA workers that America's space adventures would soar on despite the impending termination of space shuttle flights.

His prediction was reminiscent of President John F. Kennedy's declaration in 1961, "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth." That goal was fulfilled in 1969.

Obama did not predict a Mars landing soon. But he said that by 2025, the nation would have a new spacecraft "designed for long journeys to allow us to begin the first-ever crewed missions beyond the moon into deep space."

"We'll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history," he said. "By the mid-2030s, I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth. And a landing on Mars will follow. And I expect to be around to see it."

The biggest criticisms of Obama's plans have been that they have lacked details and goals. Thursday's speech was an attempt to answer, especially since an asteroid is the next step away from Earth's reach.

Asteroids zip by Earth fairly often and have occasionally smacked the planet with disastrous results. For example, asteroids have been blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs.

Landing on an asteroid would give scientists a better idea of how to handle a future killer asteroid that could wipe out much of life on Earth. Also, it would be a feat sure to win great attention - and there is far less gravity than the moon, meaning it would be easier and cheaper to leave.

"I think he said all the right things" in declaring a commitment to space exploration, said George Washington University space scholar John Logsdon, who has served on several NASA advisory boards. "I don't know what more you could have asked for."

But several Republicans, including Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana and Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah, assailed Obama's plan and speech, calling his plans "job-killing."

"The president's new plans for NASA are flat-out irresponsible," Vitter said. "He has evidently decided ... that it's time for us to simply walk away from manned space exploration for the foreseeable future, with no clear timeline for returning or for achieving any of our goals for deep space exploration."

Obama said he was "100 percent committed to the mission of NASA and its future." He outlined plans for federal spending to bring more private companies into space exploration following the soon-to-end space shuttle program.

He acknowledged criticism for his drastic changes to the space agency's direction. But, he said, "The bottom line is: Nobody is more committed to manned space flight, the human exploration of space, than I am. But we've got to do it in a smart way; we can't keep doing the same old things as before."

Obama said the space program is not a luxury but a necessity for the United States.

He noted that the Kennedy Space Center has inspired the nation and the world for half a century. He said NASA represents what it means to be American - "reaching for new heights and reaching for what's possible" - and is not close to its final days.

Obama sought to explain why he aborted President George W. Bush's return-to-the moon plan in favor of a complicated system of public-and-private flights that would go elsewhere in space, with details still to be worked out.

"We've been there before," Obama said of the nation's moon landings decades ago. "There's a lot more of space to explore."

He said his administration would support continued manned exploration of space "not just with dollars, but with clear aims and a larger purpose."

The Obama space plan relies on private companies to fly to the space station, giving them almost $6 billion to build their own rockets and ships. It also extends the space station's life by five years and puts billions into research to eventually develop new government rocket ships for future missions to a nearby asteroid, to the moon, to Martian moons or other points in space. Those stops would be stepping stones on an eventual mission to Mars itself.

Addressing concerns of job losses to space program workers, particularly in Florida, Obama said that "despite some reports to the contrary," his plan would add more than 2,500 jobs to the Cape Canaveral region over the next two years than would the plan worked out by his predecessor.

"We'll modernize the Kennedy Space Center, creating jobs as we upgrade launch facilities. And there is potential for even more job creation as companies in Florida and across America compete to be part of a new space transportation industry.

"This holds the promise of generating more than 10,000 jobs nationwide over the next few years. Many of these jobs will be created in Florida, an area primed to lead in this competition," he said.

Among his most vocal critics has been Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon. Obama did not mention Armstrong, who did not attend the speech, but he did praise Buzz Aldrin, one of Armstrong's Apollo 11 crewmates.

Aldrin did attend the speech - flying in with Obama on Air Force One.

Obama also said his administration would rescue a small part of the moon program: its Orion crew capsule.

But instead of taking four astronauts to the moon, the not-yet-built Orion will be slimmed down and used as an emergency escape pod for the space station.

Obama spoke in the vast launch complex's Operations and Checkout building - the place where Orion is scheduled to be eventually prepared for launch.

The president said, "This Orion effort will be part of the technological foundation for advanced spacecraft to be used in future deep space missions. In fact, Orion will be readied for flight right here in this room."

White House science adviser John Holdren summed up Obama's program as "a faster pace in space, more missions to more destinations sooner at lower cost.""

The above quoted reference is from contributions to The Associated Press made by S. Borenstein & E. Werner.