NASA Cancels Missions After All 256
jd writes "Barely a day after NASA chief Dr. Griffen swore blind that projects might be frozen but not cancelled due to the new priorities and budget constraints, news comes of a new asteroid mission that has been cancelled due to the new priorities and budget constraints - something Dr. Griffin did not mention in his earlier comments. The visit to two asteroids, short about $90 million, was completely abandoned according to NASA, with no possibility of revival. In consequence, smaller missions are reportedly feeling at much greater risk."
Relax, We're still going to the moon, right? (Score:4, Insightful)
To all the naysayers. (Score:5, Insightful)
1. NASA shouldn't be shooting for the Moon and Mars because it takes away from the smaller missions.
2. NASA should take a lesson from the private industry on how to get to space cheap.
But isn't this exactly what government is great at. Shouldering HUGE projects that no private industry in its right mind would spend money on... Ultimatly to progress science or humanity in general. No private industry is going to beat NASA to Mars. So let them have the small missions, hell once they really get their feet under them we can even contract out the smaller missions to them. But the really big stuff like getting people to Mars is only going to get done my NASA. And sure maybe we could hold back and wait for technology to progress a bit more, but we would still be stuck in Europe if that was the case.
Re:You have to pay for the Iraq war (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right? (Score:1, Insightful)
The space station will be outdated years before its even built, the shuttles have been outdated for years and all these amazing space exploration projects just give us hints at the good info. they never really reveal the outstanding stuff.
We really need to abandon NASA and create a new organization with new managment and new ideas.
Re:To all the naysayers. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You have to pay for the Iraq war (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You have to pay for the Iraq war (Score:5, Insightful)
Such as law enforcement?
Get this very clear: ANYTIME you ban a substance or object you will ALWAYS create a blackmarket for said substance or object. Why do you think kids are killing each other on the streets today? Video games? No, it's drugs... a blackmarket that is ripe for the kind of thugs who can play the game... Do you recall prohibition at all?
Currently smokes and alcohol are a windfall for the US government considering the level of taxation as well.
But whatever, ban them, let's go back to bath tub gin (which probably caused more health problems in speak easies than what factory made alcohol causes in today's society.)
Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or come up with some other neat, small, and cheaper things like Stardust. Now that was cool.
A Clear Vision (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Shut yo mouth!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is exactly why there are no more antibiotics on the horizon -- much more profit in Viagra.
Sorry, government should (IMHO) take charge in those areas where something is in humanity's best interest, but is not yet profitable. Once things are profitable, the gov't can get out of the way. Private industry is too focused on short-term profit to care much about anything else.
Re:To all the naysayers. (Score:1, Insightful)
Then again, a government would get behind a big project that the market would never bear and is worthless. The government is so much better at knowing what people need. So ya, if you want to force a huge worthless project upon the people, but then see the three strengths of government above...
Re:You have to pay for the Iraq war (Score:0, Insightful)
"Believe it or not that 5 billion is not being spent on killing people. Rebuilding and effectivly running a country is expensive."
That is just sick. Do you even understand why or is it a deliberate troll? Think about it.
1) No need to rebuild countries if you don't bomb them into rubble to start with.
2) America has failed to 'run' anything for a very long time, let alone effectively.
Therefore I will choose the NOT option from belief choices, and pray a more civilised nation beats you into space.
Government projects (Score:3, Insightful)
The one reason that government's can sometimes do things better or first is because they don't have to make a profit
The government doesn't have to make a profit; somebody else does. Doing things "first" comes at the expense of the entire country, and "better" is always debatable.
Re:You have to pay for the Iraq war (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Shut yo mouth!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Not, government FOR THE PROFIT, by the people. You have a corruption of American values, good sir.
Re:Space Exploration (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You have to pay for the Iraq war (Score:3, Insightful)
time to do instead of look (Score:3, Insightful)
It's time to dump the stupid navel gazing telescopes and put some money into actually doing things in space instead of just looking at them.
If you always just claim people are too expensive to send, you aren't going to develop very good engineering and technologies to send people. I'm glad we've broken out of this loop and will actually being doing something worthwhile in space again.
Re:This is what I can say... (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me tell you something:
When all the money being spent or a substantial amount of money to be spent MUST be borrowed from foreign governments/institutions, that looks like the third world. It has nothing to do with size at all. And that is the USA.
China, Russia, Japan and the EU now help us with our balance of payments. That's a [sad] fact. It was even speculated that China could punish us just by being stubborn by refusing to cooperate. This is exactly what the USA used to do to the 3rd world countries that it used to support financially. This time, the countries I mention above could do the same to us.
Now that sounds like the 3rd world. Do not let the skyscrappers and highways fool you. This country is sinking in debt and mismanagement. The bad thing is that it will get worse before it gets any better.
Re:You have to pay for the Iraq war (Score:1, Insightful)
Except
Re:Space Exploration (Score:4, Insightful)
That argument is simply insane. You are talking about the same Federal Government that funded the Louisiana Purchase. The US government was spending large portions of its budget exploring and acquiring new territories before most of the current Armed Forces branches even existed.
Somebody needs to go through a bunch of these "B..b..but the Constitution says nothing about space exploration" posts with the -1,Troll stick. I don't know where this thinking is coming from, but it has no historical basis.
Re:Shut yo mouth!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You have to pay for the Iraq war (Score:2, Insightful)
You'll eliminate cig & alcohol tax in the proc (Score:4, Insightful)
You've got Google, use it. According to the budget explorer [kowaldesign.com] roughly 644 billion for health and human services and 475 billion for the DOD. And NASA? 15 billion. The Executive office of the President gets about 25 billion BTW.
Eliminate cigarettes and alcohol and you end up with a heck of a lot of money not being spent that could be used for any number of better things.
Well isn't that just a load of off topic flamebait. Yet here at Slashdot, that's what mods call Insightful!
Well, allow me to retort with a few "insightful" comments of my own. I smoke and drink and I say, go right ahead slick... You also eliminate cigarette and alcohol taxes. Oops! Forgot about that, didn't ya sport? So, your "money saved" is already being spent. Here's a better idea... Why don't we institute a fat ass tax on fast food and junk food. Then we can go for a diabeties tax on colas with caffeine... You know, those deadly addictive products with no warning labels. Then we can have All Kinds Of Extra Money to spend on things like space travel and research! ... No? Don't like the idea of taxing your twinkies? Well damn! I could've sworn heart disease was the number one killer in America. Pot, meet kettle.
Alright. Go ahead, mod me down you guys. [davehitt.com] I know you want to.
Re:Shut yo mouth!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they are not. "By definition", they bring in more money than they cost. That does not mean they are in "humanity's best interest".
Proof: murder, robbery, and war, are all profitable, and are very much *not* in humanity's best interest.
It sounds terrible, but I am yet to hear one good reason to make antibiotics for people who can't pay.
Because sometimes it's *you* who can't pay. Ever been broke? Should you deserve to die because you got sneezed on by some unclean jerk during the short period where you didn't have enough money for medication?
If you can't keep yourself alive, you deserve to die. It's that simple.
That's nonsense. By your morals, it would be absolutely moral for someone to kill you, since it would show you are unable to "keep yourself alive", and thus "deserve to die".
What? It's OK for the government to help keep you alive with police, fire, and military? Hypocrite.
Your ideal world is the "law of the jungle". It's in the top of your list, "1. Arm Citizens". What do you think happens when a beloved family member of one of those "armed citizens" becomes deathly ill and needs medicine they can't pay for? Do you think they'll just politely die, as you think is their darwinian duty? Don't count on it.
Darwinism would suggest they take those arms and acquire what they need (or want) by force. Who are you to stop them? It's darwinism, after all.
You've got Darwin all wrong. It's not just the survival of the one with the biggest gun and the most money. It's also strength in numbers. You focus on some lazy, drug-addled, morally inept, socially obscene bum who gets free health care and cry "foul". Just like with freedom of speech, it's not there to help the undesirable elements of society, it's there to help us all. To do so, to do it right, yes, you have to protect the undesirables. But free medical care helps you, too, even if you can fully afford it on your own. Fewer people coming in to the office sick, fewer children getting sick at your school. You lessen unemployment, you lessen stress, you allow people the freedom to spend money on what they want, rather than on what they are forced to, which leads to a stronger economy and a healthier, more robust society.
It makes completely rational sense to provide the public with free access to government services, and it even makes "darwinian" sense, if you must.
Re:Space Exploration (Score:3, Insightful)
However, to answer your question: Iran is a sovereign nation and while some people would like us to simply "put a stop" to their plans, at least as many people would be very upset with us if we did. Iran claims their nuclear technology is for peaceful use. Iraq claimed it had no weapons of mass destruction
However. I wasn't referring to America's utility as a superpower and global cop. What I am talking about are things such as the damage done to our educational system, the patent and copyright systems, and other issues whose immediate impact doesn't appear too serious but will undoubtedly have negative consequences for decades to come. Technic civilization is one of humanity's more fragile inventions, and it really won't take much to break it. I hope that doesn't happen: I would really like us to become a starfaring race, or at least become capable of effectively exploiting the Solar System's resources. None of that will happen if we send ourselves back to the Stone Age, or simply become incapable of major technological advancement.
Re:time to do instead of look (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:earth to civvies (Score:2, Insightful)
Having a say, and "dictating" are two different things. Only a small fraction of shuttle missions have been military-related. Having a few percent dictate the entire design would not be very rational.
Re:40 more million? that's it? (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Every dollar spent by NASA must be first appropriated by Congress. If NASA sells some old hardware, or receives a donation, that money goes straight to the federal government's general fund, not to NASA.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Terminate shuttle and buy scientific results (Score:2, Insightful)
The National Academy of Sciences shall identify areas of scientific interest in which the quality of research results are quantifiable -- primarily in terms of information content. Examples of these kinds of research results are: DNA sequencing (human genome project), digital imaging of various phenomena (astronomical, planetary, terrestrial ozone-layer monitoring), quantitative behavior of systems in microgravity, quantitative mineral assay of various sites (terrestrial and nonterrestrial), etc.
A dollar amount, to be established in conjunction with Congress, shall be associated with each informative item and with varying degrees of accuracy of the information. That dollar amount will then be appropriated to The Trust to be paid out only in the event that an Eligible Party has delivered new information on the associated item of interest to a designated recipient. When a measurement has already been made, payout will be limited to information value corresponding to the increased confidence level of the measurement (e.g. additional significant bits or fractions thereof). In areas where an information flow is required (periodic sampling) the value of various sampling frequencies at the various degrees of accuracy (significant bits) will be included in the valuation of the measurement. Duplicate information flows will share the cash flow evenly. For superior information flows, the incremental increase in accuracy will enjoy less diluted access to funding flows allocated to those incremental increases in accuracy.
Income on The Trust will be used to adjust The Trust for inflation. Additional income from The Trust may be used to fund items within The Trust. In the event that an item is measured by a Party which is not an Eligible Party, and that information is available to the designated recipient -- the corresponding funding will be redistributed within The Trust. After-inflation losses will be redistributed within The Trust, deactivating items which are not currently being pursued by any Eligible Party.
Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right? (Score:3, Insightful)
The New Horizons probe is hitting an astonishing 21m/s now - 25 or so when it's past jupiter. Maybe they could stive for a bit more than a 4m/s gain? Maybe they could spend some money to show how safe nuclear power is instead of dealing with the bullshit anti-rng protesters? How about spending a little less money with Lockheed Martin, and a little more with creative engineers at @ Scaled Composites? Maybe, just maybe, they could quit bitching about their mediocere 3% budget expansion, and hire engineers with 5% more intelligence/ingenuity - instead of the average people they have now - or - get this - hire more people and make the average performers at nasa *gasp* take a pay cut.
I like the idea that they're farming out advanced research with prizes to the best ideas, but that's only the beginning. There are a lot of people that don't have PHDs that know a lot more than some of their current employees*. Once our current plutacray erodes, maybe they'll actually give a piss about what's out there instead of how much money they give LM, or Boeing.
*Note: I just said some.
Government needs to fund pure science,not missions (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem (as far as a corporation is concerned) is that in science you don't always know what you're going to find out before you find it out. Weird problems in one area can lead to huge advances of knowledge in something that's completely unrelated. That's why it's best for the government to continue funding this basic research, since it's the people that're going to eventually benefit from it, or maybe never benefit from it. What corporation wants to fund experiments counting the number of Neutrinos (very weakly interacting particles that have no forseeable practical applications) that come from the sun? No corporation in their right mind is the answer. They'll never make back money invested in it. But yet that very experiment has led to big developments in the understanding of particle physics. We now know that neutrinos have mass, and oscillate between the different types of them. And even this knowledge has no practical applications of it at all. Might it someday? Maybe, then again maybe not.
Really, the big problem with a Mars mission is you're going to waste a lot of money on one big project that could produce a LOT more scientific results if used in 100 other small projects. You'll probbably gain some technology along the way, but what do we really expect to gain scientifically from a manned Mars mission? Maybe we'll find life on Mars, and learn more about planetary geology. Is that worth scrapping all the other smaller missions? I don't think so.
What worries me about the manned Mars mission is the vast majority of the money is going to go to private industry to develop technology only suited to going to Mars. That's great if you think Science is just about making the world like Star Trek, but it isn't so good if you think science is about learning things about our universe. Don't get me wrong, I think the manned missions have some importance. I just don't think that importance overshadows the science that Nasa (and really hardly anyone else) produces.
Re:Shut yo mouth!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
People pay for cigarettes; do cigarettes help people?
Re:Shut yo mouth!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Too bad the point in question is whether war is in "humanity's best interest", and not whether, in spite of all the evils and horrors of war, there is also some benefit.
I'd imagine that every war there has ever been has had something good about it. That doesn't justify them as being in "humanity's best interest".
think of the huge technology increases that occured as a result of world wars I, II, and the Cold War.
And how many millions had to die in the process? So you wouldn't mind a bombing raid over your neighborhood, a nuke or two in your city, the constant fear, the daily disruptions, the hard and uncertain life, so long as your loss is my technological gain? Or is it only in "humanity's best interest" if you aren't among the dead (or, even, the inconvenienced)?
bad idea to cancel our nuclear propulsion (Score:1, Insightful)