New Budget NASA Space Science Missions 180
pertinax18 writes "The New York Times is reporting that 'Some of the most highly promoted missions on NASA's scientific agenda would be postponed indefinitely or perhaps even canceled under the agency's new budget.' This looks to directly impact the types of missions that have been NASA's greatest successes like the Mars Rovers. 'Among the casualties in the budget, released last month, are efforts to look for habitable planets and perhaps life elsewhere in the galaxy, an investigation of the dark energy that seems to be ripping the universe apart, bringing a sample of Mars back to Earth and exploring for life under the ice of Jupiter's moon Europa'"
You gotta pay your bills (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Well... (Score:4, Interesting)
And on a more serious note...
While Europa remains a high priority for science missions, NASA has been re-evaluating the JIMO mission and concepts that have been proposed for Europa landers, and the latest opinion is that the scope of these missions would make them too costly for the amount of information returned. Additionally, JIMO relies too heavily on technology still in development for Griffin's comfort.
Also released last month, if I remember right, another slashdot article talking about said budget. Sorry, but I'm too lazy and slashdot's search feature is too crappy for me to look it up.
Does anyone disagree with me here? (Score:3, Interesting)
Between the Space Shuttle's budget, stupid wars, and highways to nowhere, the US government should be able scrape together a few million for these important missions.
A Tale Of Two Goals, indeed (Score:5, Interesting)
We have long been hoping that someday people would go back to the moon for more than just the Apollo-style touch-and-go missions, and now that looks like a reality more than it ever has since the end of the Apollo program.
And yet, it is the worst of times, too, for those who have been working very, very hard on programs that have nothing to do with the lunar program which have been very productive. I can only hope that this will pass, and that once the new vehicles have been developed and are flying we will be able to resume other science programs -- and face it, despite the setbacks like the Polar Lander and the Climate Observer, there have been a great many successes in the NASA robotic programs. The HST, the MER program, Cassini, the Great Observatories, Landsat, the list just goes on and on.
The Shuttle was and is a great idea, but the execution was flawed due to too much pennypinching during the design phase. It is an amazing idea and I hope that a safer reincarnation of the same thing returns, from either a government or from a private company. Do it right (manned flyback booster, a hardier orbiter, and so on) and put a better escape system on it.
But until things get smoothed out again, all I can do is wait, and hope that it all works out in the end. I've been a space buff for years, and I probably will be forever, and I know that the new expendables will probably be more inexpensive to operate plus the processing flow will hopefully be smoother.
Until then, though, it is the season of light and the season of darkness.
Re:Not good at all (Score:3, Interesting)
Better solution: quit wasting money collecting fun facts about distant destinations we won't have the technology to visit for centuries, if ever, and concentrate our resources on local destinations that might actually yeild some practical use to us sometime before the 29th century.
In my book, they're setting their priorities exactly right.
No big surprise (Score:4, Interesting)
American Competitiveness Initiative (Score:2, Interesting)
Our government's policies are not consistent regarding science and technology, and both President Bush and Congress are to blame. Our lawmakers don't understand the human impact of their decisions regarding the budgets of agencies like NASA and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Every time they re-allocate funds from one project to another, cut programs, or fail to increase the NASA and NSF budgets sufficiently to account for inflation, scientists and engineers lose their jobs. The U.S. government is shooting itself in the foot when it comes to our global competitiveness in science and technology.
Re:A Tale Of Two Goals, indeed (Score:3, Interesting)
The Shuttle was and is a great idea, but the execution was flawed due to too much pennypinching during the design phase.
I'm not sure design was the real problem. As usual, when government money is involved, engineering loses out to politics. The history of the Shuttle might have been far different if Morton Thiokol (who had a huge logistical disadvantage) hadn't been awarded a certain contract.
Too many people, inside and outside of NASA, made conflicting claims about the Shuttle. Depending on who you listen to, it was supposed to be reusable, cheap, dependable, long-lived, have fast turnaround, be a science platform, be a space truck, etc. Well, pick one or two if you're a realist. I'm amazed that it performed as well as it did at so many tasks and think the basic design was fairly good.