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'"
Well... (Score:1)
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.
Dark Energy? (Score:1)
Re:Dark Energy? (Score:1)
Re:Dark Energy? (Score:2)
The observations that don't fit physics theories have the potential to let to better understand the way the universe fundamentally works and, more importantly, how to use it to our advantage.
Re:Dark Energy? (Score:2)
Re:Dark Energy? (Score:2)
Ah. Drama. (Score:2)
Wasn't that an anime plot? Or maybe a Final Fantasy game... someone fetch Butz and have him check it out.
exploring for life under the ice of Jupiter's moon (Score:1)
ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS EXCEPT EUROPA.
ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE.
Peter, do you me to go ahead and send you another copy of that memo?
Re:exploring for life under the ice of Jupiter's m (Score:2)
The memo isn't scheduled to be sent for several more years yet.
Also, us having not found the Moon Monolith at the scheduled time, it's likely that the memo will never be sent, and that the senders are actually fictional characters incapable of sending anything.
Europa is most definitely not off-limits at this time.
Re:exploring for life under the ice of Jupiter's m (Score:2)
ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS EXCEPT EUROPA.
ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE.
That Memo has been superceded. New memo reads:
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US.
You gotta pay your bills (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:You gotta pay your bills (Score:2)
Re:You gotta pay your bills (Score:2)
After cuts last year, the National Science Foundation saw a modest increase this year, but not enough to keep pace with inflation. Likewise, the 2006 budget for the National Institutes of Health fails to keep pace with inflation. DARPA is being pushed away from pure research, and now NASA's science is being put on hold. Bush can
Re:You gotta pay your bills (Score:2)
http://www.cra.org/CRN/articles/jan06/harsha.html [cra.org]
Re:You gotta pay your bills (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You gotta pay your bills (Score:2)
Naw, you just go to your colony management screen, and drag "Farmers" to "Scientists" and watch the research points start flooding in.
Or maybe that was in Master of Orion II.
Offtopic: Master of Orion II (Score:2)
I still play it at least once a week.
I prefer to use a Lithovore Creative custom race, with 10 points of disadvantages, and pickup Telepathic when I research Evolutionary Mutation.
I also like to use a Unification Creative Telepathic custom race.
Re:You gotta pay your bills (Score:2)
"Perhaps even canceled" (Score:2)
It appears the Shuttle replacement costs (and ongoing Shuttle costs) are more than was thought. And if we're going to get rid of the Shuttle, clearly there has to be a replacement. So unless Congress wants to increase the budget to make up the difference, then these missions will just have to wait a while longer.
It's mentioned on page 2. (Score:2)
If you lose the skillset, you won't get it back. Once the retroactive budget cuts take hold, there'll be a LOT of scientists who will find themselves burned. Even if NASA gets more money at a later date, few will take the risk of going back, k
The bottom line (Score:2)
Dr. Charles Beichman, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory: "We're getting ready to fire all the people we've built up"
"Such a lengthy suspension would be a devastating blow to the program and the science community"
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 un
Makes sense (Score:1, Troll)
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.
Re:Does anyone disagree with me here? (Score:3, Informative)
That's exactly where the money is going: to develop the CEV. Which happens to be the manned replacement for the Shuttle. There is also the big booster built from Shuttle-system components that will be used for heavy lifting big cargo.
You're advocating what's already being done!
The shuttle program can't just stop now, however; it's needed for a few more tasks. Like, oh, that obligation toward finishing the space station and getting it usable (at least, the parts that aren't just being trashed and left t
Re:Does anyone disagree with me here? (Score:2)
I don't see a Hubble mission anywhere on the list of upcoming shuttle missions. [nasa.gov]
Re:Does anyone disagree with me here? (Score:2)
More:
Griffin Vows To Send Shuttle Mission To Hubble [spacedaily.com]
Re:Does anyone disagree with me here? (Score:2)
I love this picture: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thu
Re:Does anyone disagree with me here? (Score:2)
Let's get rid of that while we're at it. Given how much manned programs cost, and given how rapidly the capabilities of the unmanned probes and rovers are increasing, sending humans into space will soon have little more merit than sending monkeys into space. It's not even terr
Re:Does anyone disagree with me here? (Score:2)
While there are a lot of things that robots can do, there are a hell of a lot of things they can't. For instance, having a robot on Mars doing geology investigations is great, but all the stuff the rovers take a day to do could be done by a human in just a few minutes. Robots can't react to new situations the way humans do, either; present one with something outside of its programming and it'll just sit there. And do you really trust the robot to not screw up?
Re:Does anyone disagree with me here? (Score:4, Insightful)
misconception my ass.
While there are a lot of things that robots can do, there are a hell of a lot of things they can't. For instance, having a robot on Mars doing geology investigations is great, but all the stuff the rovers take a day to do could be done by a human in just a few minutes.
The amount of time it takes is irrelevant. How much is costs to get the job done is the point.
Robots can't react to new situations the way humans do, either; present one with something outside of its programming and it'll just sit there. And do you really trust the robot to not screw up?
Um... And like there is not a documented paper trail of people screwing up?
There are reasons why humans still drive trucks, fly planes, and operate trains.
What planet do you live on? You have never heard of robots flying planes or operating trains or driving trucks? The military uses flying planes now. Every other airport I go to uses robots to drive the trams. Nearly every distribution plant uses robots to truck goods from one end to the other.
You use the right tool for the right job. And the choice of a human over a robot can sometimes be just another case where you choose the right method for the right situation.
Bullshit
You use the tools you can afford! I would love to use a helicopter to transport me from my house to my work every day. It would save time, the technology is available, what's the downside? I cant afford it
I could hire a doctor to put a bandage on my kids "boo-boo". The doctor is certainly qualified, what's the downside? It's too expensive
I could send a dude to Mars to pick up rocks. "Dude" is certainly qualified, he can do it faster, what is the downside? do you really need the math?
Re:Does anyone disagree with me here? (Score:2)
Plus the dude will spend most of his time sleeping, eating, housekeeping, suiting up and writing reports for management.
Re:Does anyone disagree with me here? (Score:2)
I live on the same planet as you do, and apparently you aren't considering the fact that while there are SOME situations where robots can do the job, they can't do ALL of them.
The only steaming pile of bullshit I see here is your uncalled-for hostile attitude.
And if you're going to whine about "affordability", here's somethi
Re:Does anyone disagree with me here? (Score:2)
It did kind of come out that way didn't it.
I'd hate to have
Well, I have this little problem in that I am in the space business, and I have to worry about these things. I certainly can dream, but I cannot live in a fantasy land either. Sure, I would love to launch a probe to 0.1 AU with a full suit
Re:Does anyone disagree with me here? (Score:2)
Anyone?
Bueller?
Bueller?
Re:Does anyone disagree with me here? (Score:2)
Humans can't function in extremes of temperature - Robots can
Humans need transport back to earth - Robots do not.
Actually, only the third is a viable sticking point at this time. Humans routinely live in vacuum and function in the extreme temperatures of near Earth orbit. Sure, a naked human isn't going to last long in the vacuum of space or in the temperature ranges that can be experienced there. But humans don't come packaged that way.
Basically, we hav
Re:Does anyone disagree with me here? (Score:2)
Re:Does anyone disagree with me here? (Score:2)
The Shuttle is already being wound down. It is the US government that determines where NASA spends its funds. If you don't like how the funds are being earmarked, talk to your congresscritter. Even if the President has a Mars fixation, it is Congress that holds the purse strings and passes the budget.
Re:Does anyone disagree with me here? (Score:2)
The whole point of the Space Shuttle was to build and support the Space Station. The whole point of the Space Station was to build an interplanetary ship, since building one that has to both escape Earth's gravity AND fly to, say, Mars is a huge problem to overcome. And this was only to be the plan for 15 to 20 years.
Congress turned the Space Shuttle into the only vehicle left, and Congress turned the Space Station into what it is. OK, them and a lot of bad managemen
Re:Does anyone disagree with me here? (Score:2)
Well, I'd tell you to talk to my father, who was on the executive committee that approved the shuttle design. The plan as I stated earlier was a shuttle whose primary design was to act as a "space truck" for hauling station parts up. But we're really talking ancient history... This was way before the first of several Station redesigns to "reduce costs" which had just the opposite affect.
Yeah, you're right to question the station's main purpose to be a dock to build a interplanetary vehicle. There were l
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: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
Re:A Tale Of Two Goals, indeed (Score:2)
Re:A Tale Of Two Goals, indeed (Score:2)
All of these issues were addressed in designs -- that were thrown out due to being too expensive.
I'm not sure what your argument is. As I said, pick one or two design goals - expense was one of those. You can't have them all. The Shuttle was designed in the 70's. I'd guess that most Slashdot denizens can't remember a time when the Shuttle wasn't flying, and a good portion weren't even born when the first shuttle launched, although most have perfect hindsight on the subject.
Just for comparison, it wa
Re:A Tale Of Two Goals, indeed (Score:2)
Re:A Tale Of Two Goals, indeed (Score:2)
Sadly, the decision to award the contract to Morton Thiokol was made on sound engineering (and penny pinching) g
Re:A Tale Of Two Goals, indeed (Score:2)
Sadly, the decision to award the contract to Morton Thiokol was made on sound engineering (and penny pinching) grounds. At the time the contract was awarded, there was essentially no experience with big monolithic solids, and a fairly large base of experience with large segmented solids.
You lost me. If there was no experience in the field, then why should Morton Thiokol have been chosen over any geographically closer competitor, with the resultant transportation and assembly problems? Just low bidder?
Re:A Tale Of Two Goals, indeed (Score:2)
I'll try and explain, I thought I made myself clear.
There are two ways to build big solids -
Re:A Tale Of Two Goals, indeed (Score:2)
Usually when NASA puts out a RFP, it includes it's research data (and/or a general design) as well as the specifications, the contractor then proposes a specific design. NASA analyses the competing designs and chooses among them. (Contrary to popular belief, price is only one of many, many criteria used by the goverment to evaluate proposals.)
Yes, I've been involved in several responses to RFPs. I'm aware of how it works. There are also single-source requisitions which are not so clear.
Many people pa
Re:A Tale Of Two Goals, indeed (Score:2)
Re:A Tale Of Two Goals, indeed (Score:2)
In other words, you prefer ignorance - your mind is made up, facts need not intrude into your world.
Um, no, those would be your words. My cynicism comes from seeing both ends of the aerospace and construction contract process over a period of several decades. If I tend to entertain suspicions about government contracts, it is because I've seen how easily abuses of the system happen. While you could be correct about the RFP process for SRBs, I do not get my "facts" from unknown people on Slashdot (alth
Re:A Tale Of Two Goals, indeed (Score:2)
>The CLV development cost is now at $10B and will likely rise. This to get
>a rocket that lifts 24.5t to LEO. We can already do this with an Atlas HLV.
Your post is somewhat misleading. The Atlas HLV doesn't exist yet; it's a hypothetical configuration that's never been tried. I agree that it (should) be cheaper to arrange one of those to launch than develop a new CLV, but it's not like we can arrange one tomorrow. An Atlas of
Re:A Tale Of Two Goals, indeed (Score:2)
>off the same pad and infrastructure as all Atlas V's.
Again, this isn't what I've been told. I can't tell you precisely the issue, nor could I find a reference at the moment, but I think right now certain infrastructure isn't big enough to handle a top-end HLV.
>It is available in 2 years. CLV might be here in 7. CLV is $10B HLV is less
>than $300M. For an additional $2B LM could fly six HLV's off to build
>confidence befo
I wonder (Score:1)
Who needs space exploration when you have have TONS and TONS of PORK, that oh sweet budget bustin' other white meat that our elected big spenders in Washington would just starve without.
A Sad Sight (Score:2)
All of the cancelled missions were of great scientific and exploratory importance. Sadly, the same cannot be said of the missions replacing them.
Hopefully under a new administration, sanity (and science) will return to NASA.
Re:A Sad Sight (Score:2)
Re:A Sad Sight (Score:2)
Lemming
Re:A Sad Sight (Score:2)
At least someone... (Score:3, Informative)
Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, and 56 other senators have introduced a bill that would mandate a 10 percent increase per year in NASA's science budget from now through 2013, among other things.
More people ought to contact their representatives about NASA funding. Unfortunately space exploration doesn't seem to get as much press time as other "important" issues these days.
Re:At least someone... (Score:2)
Who bother looking for life elsewhere? (Score:2)
I wish I could simply mod this "Funny", laugh and move on, except so many people actually think this way. At the moment, unmanned missions are being canned, next thing we know a new government is in and cans the manned missions as economically unfeasable, and then there's no more science *or* engineering/political activities going on at NASA.
Re:Who bother looking for life elsewhere? (Score:2)
As with all things--especially complex and sophisticated things--asshats will misunderstand, misrepresent, and misapply. But that just proves that they're asshats, not that the subject of their asshattery is itself a bad idea.
And as you have just demonstrated, being an asshat about Christianity
Re:Who bother looking for life elsewhere? (Score:2)
I'm not disagreeing with you at all. But I am saying there are people out there who do use this kind of non-logic to try to justify something they don't care about.
I didn't mean to lump the intelligent Christians who want to keep unmanned missions alive with the kind that have a habit for mis-spelled trolls...
Re:Who bother looking for life elsewhere? (Score:2)
The moral of the Babel story is that God doesn't want man to set himself up in God's place. The tower would have been totally acceptable, had it been built to the glory of God, rather than to deny the glory of God and aggrandize the glory of man.
Another relevant passage would be one of the rare instances of New Testament smiting, where God strikes down King Herod after the masses exclaim that the king looks like a god, and Herod does no
Re:Who bother looking for life elsewhere? (Score:2)
The Creator of the Entire UNIVERSE gets all hot under the collar because some human in the Middle East 2,000 years ago looks like him. Does the word "parochial" mean anyt
Re:Who bother looking for life elsewhere? (Score:2)
No. You are horribly mistaken. I can only assume you arrived at this conclusion through some grotesque misunderstanding on your part.
The Creator of the Entire UNIVERSE gets all hot under the collar because some human in the Middle East 2,000 years ago looks like him. Does the word "parochial" mean anything to you?
The whole Christian story of the relat
Re:Who bother looking for life elsewhere? (Score:2)
Just reading the Bible which is full of examples of people being smitten down by Yahweh.
Egypt, Middle Eastern Asia. As I said, parochial.
No they
Science kills religion... (Score:2)
Of course they want to force out funding for extraterrestrial life sicences and searched. This would shatter their belief nuch like the concept that the Earth revolved around the sun.
Their 5 year mission... (Score:3, Funny)
Kirk: Put in on the main screen
Uhura: Aya
Commander: Jim...
Kirk: Commander Wilkes! What brings us the pleasure of your visit?
Commander: Jim, I have some bad news.
Kirk: Not another shippment of tribbles, heheh
Commander: Jim, this is serious. We're
Kirk: Yes
Commander: Well, we're going to have to cut it back to one
Kirk: What?
Commander: That's right - one year.
Kirk: (dramatic) Their
Commander: That give your 3 more months to clear up this planet destroyer thingy.
Kirk: But
Commander: It's the budget Jim. Starfleet's pretty strapped these days, what with the extra patrols in the Romulan sector
Kirk: I knew we never should have taken sides in their sectarian squabbling.
Commander: That doesn't matter. It's not for us to decide. We
Kirk: What about
Commander: It's "to boldy go" Jim. I know, we all feel as bad about it as you do. Prepare to wrap this up in 3 months. That's all.
Uhura: They've dropped connection, captain.
Kirk: Sulu, lay in a course for the Altairian sector
Spock: Captain, the plant destroyer is continuing toward the heavily populated...
Kirk: Nevermind that. If we've only got 3 months budget left we're going to the planet of the Altairian slave girls...
Cancelling = Bad. Delaying = Not so much. (Score:2)
Every government program complains about funding cuts and gives doomsday scenarios about what's going to happen. Those t
Re:Cancelling = Bad. Delaying = Not so much. (Score:2)
The shuttles and the ISS should be scrapped immediately, and the US shouldn't develop a replacement for the shuttle.
Instead, money should be redirected into low-cost unmanned launch options, robotics research, and missions that
Re:Cancelling = Bad. Delaying = Not so much. (Score:2)
I personally think your salary should undergo significant cuts, and you will be forced to be more efficient.
fuckin 'a (Score:2)
Re:fuckin 'a (Score:2)
Re:fuckin 'a (Score:2)
Re:fuckin 'a (Score:2)
Re:fuckin 'a (Score:2)
I have not said that the pathe we're on is close to optimal. I have said that the transition to a more-optimal path will involve a period of turmoil, during which a lot of non-optimal events will inevitably occur.
I wouldn't say this is optimal, but it is typical.
How would you propose to fix it?
Re:fuckin 'a (Score:2)
This is exactly what they are doing! The reason there isn't as much money for science is due to the fact that they have to spend money to replace the shuttle.
No big surprise (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:No big surprise (Score:2)
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Re:No big surprise (Score:2)
Basic research always suffers (Score:2)
On the bright side, it still seems to be OK to pay $billions to spray coal with pine resin, though, according to the previous article...
Small changes (Score:3, Informative)
2004: $5,600M
2005 (est): $5,527M
2006 (est): $5,476M
That doesn't look like too big of a change. Does losing $50 million really do that much?
Re:Small changes (Score:2)
Re:Small changes (Score:2)
In a word: yes it does. A lot. For starters, The loss from 2004 to 2006 looks more like $124M to me, which is a 2.2% cut But that's not really stating the full extent of the problem, since these are nominal dollars and not real dollars. If we assume the inflation rate is 3%, we find that t
The answer is simple (Score:2)
I dont follow US politics, is the general push from the US people these days pro-iraq-war or anti-iraq-war? (i.e. is there pressure from the public to the administration to pull out of iraq or not?)
The first A in NASA is Aeronautics (Score:2)
Why is it that 99.999% of NASA's "customers" travel by air and
China? (Score:2)
Re:Not good at all (Score:2)
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.
Re:Not good at all (Score:2)
Re:Not good at all (Score:2)
What, like the back of a Volkswagen?
Destroying and moving on (Score:2)
Considering how much of the federal budget is spent on destroying this planet we should definitely be spending a fair amount looking for other habitable planets!
But if the US is destroying the planet, doesn't it make sense to develop the technology that will allow us to colonize other planets before it is too late? That is what President Bush's moon initiative is about. What good does it do to discover planets around other stars if all we can do is gaze wistfully at them without the means to travel to
Re:Destroying and moving on (Score:2)
NO it does not.
It makes a lot more sense to try to stop the destruction.
That is what President Bush's moon initiative is about.
Rrrright... That's it... Bush has some futuristic vision of the destruction of our planet...oh wait... that's not been proven yet... we had better cut off the science budgets of those people that actually study these
Contempt for the views of fellow countrymen (Score:2)
I chose my words to illustrate the falacy of the earlier argument that the search of habitable planets was somehow a plan to visit one.
and then convince the mindless masses that I'm all into this whole space thing, I've got a vision, trust me...
I think President Bush does not have your contempt for the views of your fellow countrymen. Is returning to a real space program, like the US had during Apollo, really that controversial? Is pumping cash into aerospace corporations any less noble than pumping i
Re:To save NASA, impeach Bush (Score:2)
I believe that if we don't have the commitment -- in hearts, minds, and dollars -- from the American people for a manned mission to Mars, then we just shouldn't do it.
And a way to win that commitment would be to launch, for example, Terrestrial Planet Finder [nasa.gov] mission and discover a few Earth-like planets nearby.
Preferably with some signs of life, but aliens are not required - Hollywood will fill in the rest.
Re:To save NASA, impeach Bush (Score:2)
This is not the first time a grotesquely underfunded mandate has been handed off by the Bush administration. Read: No child left behind.
We have a $300 Bil Colony.. (Score:2)
If anything,