NASA May Shut Down all Space Station's Research 116
jdoire writes "NASA is considering shutting down all the research programs it conducts aboard the international space station for at least a year to fill a projected budget shortfall of up to $100 million, a top station manager said on Thursday. Why the shortfall, you may ask? Because of $3 billion of Congress's pet projets"
Humm (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Humm (Score:2)
Sunk costs. (Score:2)
construction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:construction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:construction (Score:1)
Scientific research be damned (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Scientific research be damned (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Scientific research be damned (Score:3, Funny)
Sounds good to me!
/future Civil Engineer
//tongue firmly in cheek
Re:Scientific research be damned (Score:4, Funny)
Politicians always say they're interested in "building bridges."
I think the problem is that most of us assumed they were being figurative.
China (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:China (Score:1, Troll)
They are not technology deveopers, merely technology copiers. In fact, they wouldn't have half their navigation tech if Clinton hadn't circumvented security recommendations for campaign contributions [washingtonpost.com].
Re:China (Score:4, Insightful)
"In fact, they wouldn't have half their navigation tech"
So where'd the other half come from?
The same could be said about the early American and Soviet space programs - they really needed the experience the Germans had. Or are you going to argue that the scientists and engineers from Peenemunde were not important?
Re:China (Score:1)
And there's a big difference between developing a big rocket thruster and being able to aim it. Some halves are more equal than others.
Our German scientists better than Russia's (Score:3, Interesting)
But of course! Keep in mind the reason "Our German scientists were so much better than Russia's German scientists" though. Their distribution was not random. Being 'rocket scientists' in both senses of the term they understood Germany was losing and made every effort to be captured by American or British forces instead of the Russians.
In other words, they wanted to be here bu
Re:China (Score:3, Informative)
Do you think that status will last forever?
It was China that first developed gunpowder, printing, the magnetic compass, and the planetarium. When they recover from the effects of a few centuries of colonialism and Maoism - really just a blip on the course of Chinese history - expect China to be a dominant world power, technologically and politically.
Re:China (Score:1)
I undertand there was tech sharing under Reagan and Bush (and I love how liberals HATE when you use Clinton as an example but will pull out Reagan or Bush for moral equivalence in a heartbeat), however certain things were prevented by being shared, among them Nav tech. What's more, one of the rockets 'blew up' and the Chinese stripped out the satellite control systems. Nice, eh?
I also don't know where your link was going. It's all over the map. Mentions Wen Ho Lee, which was
Re:China (Score:1)
Re:China (Score:1)
Re:China (Score:5, Interesting)
The only way we'll ever compete, or advance beyond the 70's in space technology, is to kill the shuttle and space station once and for all. Both were utter wastes of resources designed from the start to be nothing more than a civilian funding source for military research, then warped into corporate and international welfare programs with the fall of the cold war in the 80's.
The space station was never meant to be finished... it was meant to be as expensive and difficult to build as possible, to keep pumping billions into defense contractors, ensuring they were still around when the next big war came along.
It worked. Now our actions around the world more than support the funding of our defense contractors. Time to stop wasting money on the space station and put NASA's budget doing what it does best.
Re:China (Score:2)
Not if the money is going into crap that's even more useless, it isn't!
Re:China (Score:1)
Re:China (Score:2)
Sounds like they are doing that if the are taking away the money from the space assets that NASA doesn't do well to science museums, planetariums and science labs for colleges and Computers, classrooms and lab space for colleges and schools across the U.S, and a website and laboratory for the Gulf of Maine Aquarium
Re:China (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:China (Score:4, Funny)
Because China has no bureaucracy to speak of?
Re:China (Score:2)
Before the 3rd Century BC, the Chinese had no bureaucracy to speak of.
Re:China (Score:2)
I think they've already passed through their equivalent of "bloated bureaucracy" (during the Mao regime) and are entering a period of creative explosion (new manned space capsule design where the capsules can be joined into a growing station in orbit, new research in fusion technology), while the U.S. is entering a period of scientific stagnation and decline (cuts to space funding, increased crackdown on individual chemical research and other 'dangerous' areas, growth of process patents on software,
Wonderful... (Score:2, Interesting)
Where's IPAC (http://www.ipaction.org/ [ipaction.org]) when you need them?
"pet" projects, nice troll (Score:4, Interesting)
Construction or renovation of dozens of museums, planetariums and science labs for colleges.
Computers, classrooms and lab space for colleges and schools across the U.S.
A website and laboratory for the Gulf of Maine Aquarium.
Arguably worthy choices to spend scientific $$$ on. If you have X dollars, and X+Y projects to spend them on, then Y of those projects are going to go unfunded.
Re:"pet" projects, nice troll (Score:2, Insightful)
The proof of your last sentence: Pigeon Hole Principle (sorry, I had to).
Re:"pet" projects, nice troll (Score:2)
WHY ARE THEY BEING PAID FOR OUT OF NASA'S BUDGET?
You'd think that maybe there'd be other sources of funding for these things? Oh, wait. I forgot about the tax cuts and the wars.
Re:"pet" projects, nice troll (Score:2)
Re:"pet" projects, nice troll (Score:5, Insightful)
Construction or renovation of dozens of museums, planetariums and science labs for colleges. Oh I see NASA is uniquely qualified to provide laser light shows to rock music and the presence of museums and planetariums are instrumental to the exploration of aeronaughtics and space.
Computers, classrooms and lab space for colleges and schools across the U.S. If you've checked the prices on tutition and contact hours recently you'd know that if a school wants something useful, they'd just cut a check and buy it, if a school wants something that's "well yeaah maybe it'll come in handy, I'm sure we'll figure out something to do with it" than why not get the money direct from congress and cut out the middle-man, doesn't the middle-man have better things to do than run community outreach when their primary mission is basicaly on hold?
A website and laboratory for the Gulf of Maine Aquarium. Fish in space, KEWL I wanta aquarium on ISS! That'll make one hell of a screen saver!
Re:"pet" projects, nice troll (Score:2)
TFA never said anything about laser light shows. As for planetariums and museums, those are valuable in that they inspire kids to take up careers in science.
Money for computers, classrooms, and lab space in schools and colleges is actually a good thing. I'm not sure what your middle argument is getting at, but for one thi
Re:"pet" projects, nice troll (Score:2)
I can assure you, if there were an orbital habitat/lab with 500 or 1000 or even 50 scientists and astronauts beavering away at stuff in space at any one time, there would be no shortage of kids interested in getting into science with the possibly achievable goal of working in space someday.
As it is though, it's next to impossible for even the best of the best of the best to get more than a sin
Re:"pet" projects, nice troll (Score:2)
Re:"pet" projects, nice troll (Score:2)
You really don't understand the way higher education is funded. Tuition typically covers something like a third of the price of a college education at the more expensive schools. It's even less at public universities. The biggest source of funding for the latter typically comes from contract and grant overhead, which is often around 50% or higher. A
Re:"pet" projects, nice troll (Score:2)
Re:"pet" projects, nice troll (Score:2)
As I've said, I agree that this money really should be sent out through the Dept. of Education in a perfect world. But for whatever reason, it isn't being sent through there. (In fairness, there are times when funding NASA to do the education does makes a fair amount of sense. There are a number of projects out there to hook up scientists with classrooms, for example. Getting Dept. of Ed. to run the program just adds to the beauracratic overhead in those cases.)
Also, I don't think
Re:"pet" projects, nice troll (Score:4, Insightful)
Theres "worthy choices", and then there are "worthy choices that are funded by the appropriate budget". These may be the former, but apart from the museums and planetariums I think they are not the latter. They sound to me more like there is no way in h*ll that federal money would otherwise be granted to the project, so they got NASA to spend its limited budget on it instead.
Of course this is NASA's jurisdiction (Score:2)
Re:"pet" projects, nice troll (Score:2)
In any case, what does it matter which agency provides the mone
Re:"pet" projects, nice troll (Score:1)
While museums, planetariums, and all the other "pet projects" listed are indeed worthy choices for funding, this is a situation where if you have X dollars and X+Y projects to spend them on, go find Y more doll
Re:"pet" projects, nice troll (Score:2)
Exactly what do you base that on? That's the kind of PR hyperbole that NASA has been spouting for decades now, with little or no hard evidence to back it up (aside from urban legends about NASA inventing velcro [wikipedia.org] and the like).
Yes, they do scientific experiments onbaord the ISS and shuttle. No, there is no evidence that this is in any way cost-effective or has produced any of the kind of technologic
Re:"pet" projects, nice troll (Score:2)
Re:"pet" projects, nice troll (Score:2)
Yeah, but even if you grant that they should come out of the Federal budget, wouldn't the NSF or NOAA or DoEd be more appropriate?
I, know, it's easier to hide pork if it's spread across multiple budgets.
Re:"pet" projects, nice troll (Score:2)
And all excuses to spend federal money on state responsibilities. Federal legislators get to tell voters how much pork they brought home, state legislators won't have to do something drastic like raise taxes, and something that far better fits the definition of "general Welfare" than a spotty distribution of funds based on whose Congresscritter is on which committee goes unfunded.
Re:"pet" projects, nice troll (Score:2)
Arguably worthy choices to spend scientific $$$ on.
I agree. However it's not the mission of Nasa to create websites and labs for an aquarium in Maine, or classroom and computers for colleges across the US. I guess I don't understand why you don't think these projects aren't exactly as the article describes, pet projects for individual lawmakers. The fact that these project involve science (and not even directly funding a science program) justifies them receiving NASA funding in no way. Nasa is responsib
Re:"pet" projects, nice troll (Score:1)
Re:"pet" projects, nice troll (Score:2)
A sprawling headquarters building for a non-profit research group in West Virginia created by U.S. Rep. Alan Mollohan. The Democrat is now subject of a broader congressional ethics probe.
Since 2001, Congress has directed the space agency to spend more than $3 billion on special projects, most of them small endeavors sought by individual lawmakers for the benefit of their home districts, according to NASA and congressional records.
...
The cost of congressiona
many "pet" projects =! anything space-related (Score:1)
Re:"pet" projects, nice troll (Score:2)
Good, Play Hardball (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Michael Griffin is doing a better job.
Focus on the missions, and the supplementary benefits will follow. NASA did not need to buy computers for students, build planetariums or make a special website so that I could learn about the Voyager missions. Instead, they supremely engineered those things, and the science that they returned (and are still returning) inspired and taught the world.
People tend to underestimate the impact of one successful mission. Voyager, Hubble, Apollo and The Mars Rovers have done more for
science and education around the world than any congressman.
Re:Good, Play Hardball (Score:2)
science and education around the world than any congressman.
That's kinda why I think the entire organization of NASA should be replaced with something else. You are happy with one successful mission a decade that spends tons of money doing it! NASA needs to go now. I'd like to get into space alot more than you seem to
People tend to underestimate the impact of one successful missio
Re:Good, Play Hardball (Score:1)
Who is going to replace NASA? They are the best at what they do. You need to divest the organization from the burracracy. They have decades of experience. We should replace (about 1/2 of) our lawyer congressmen with scientists.
You are happy with one successful mission a decade that spends tons of money doing it!
So your suggesting cheaper-faster-more? That does not [russianspaceweb.com] work [sciencemag.org]. At least in the long run; in the econo
Re:Good, Play Hardball (Score:2)
The scary part, I'd say the same people in different places. I understand the red-tape of NASA. It's the mentality that demands that we have zero US deaths in space that caused it. That's why I think we shouldn't even think about manned space flight until just after we figure out nano-tech. Nano-tech would be neat if we could just send a probe to an asteroid and have an orbital hab after 1-2 years of it working to rebuild the asteriod. We could do the same thing without nanotech
Rest Assured (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Rest Assured (Score:2, Insightful)
- The French.
Re:Rest Assured (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Rest Assured (Score:3, Funny)
Easy answer:
NASA Chief Administrator to Congress: " We have recently learned that Terrorists have established a base at Cydonia. As you can see in these photographs from Hubble, Osama Bin Ladens face has been carved into the mountains of Mars. It is our belief that this was done as a propiganda ploy, however we can not rule out the possibility of further efforts underway there. We therefore need an immediate budget increase to make
Re:Rest Assured (Score:1)
Why is it called pork? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why is it called pork? (Score:2)
It's called "pork" because it's all about "bringing home the bacon," which is a colloquialism meaning to earn money for your family/constituents/whatever.
As for where the "barrel" part came from, I have no idea.
Re:Why is it called pork? (Score:1)
RFTA MODERATORS (Score:2)
Re:Why is it called pork? (Score:4, Informative)
I think it has more to do with politicians buying votes by delivering actual barrels of salt pork to their constituents. There's also a related term, "Bringing home the bacon", but this is more general, and is more a reference to earning a wage.
Re:Why is it called pork? (Score:2)
The phrase is derived from the pre-Civil War practice of distributing salt pork to the slaves from huge barrels. By the 1870's, congressmen were referring to regularly dipping into the "pork barrel" to obtaining funds for popular projects in their home districts.
http://www.porkboard.org/DidYouKnow/trivia.asp [porkboard.org]
Also, slush fund. (Score:2)
This is exactly what many Slashdotters supported (Score:5, Informative)
When Bush announced manned spaceflight to the Moon and Mars, Slashdotters broadly supported it (perhaps someone can find the original post). But of course, there are not unlimited resources, so money must be diverted from something else, namely science.
NASA now has cut all environmental science from its mission (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/science/22nasa
The mammoth deficit and the Republican's refusal to raise taxes ensure that funds are even more limited. NASA can't have it all, so which do you want? Science, or manned spaceflight?
Re:This is exactly what many Slashdotters supporte (Score:2)
Re:This is exactly what many Slashdotters supporte (Score:2)
Blaming pork is just a way to distract us from the real issues.
Re:This is exactly what many Slashdotters supporte (Score:2)
As others have pointed out, the current administration seems to feel there is an unlimited amount of resources for some causes. If only NASA had some alien threat they could use to drum up funding.
Obligatory StarGate Quote: (Score:2)
Mr. Wolsey: Nothing renews your appreciation for the military like the threat of invasion from life-sucking aliens.
-- Season 3, Episode 2"Misbegotten"
Re:This is exactly what many Slashdotters supporte (Score:2)
Yes and no. NASA seemed to think it could implement Bush's Vision for Space Exploration with only moderate budget increases, by redirecting funds from the Shuttle infrastructure. This turned out not to be the case, so they're cutting science.
Now, th
With a "War Budget" of .... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:With a "War Budget" of .... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:With a "War Budget" of .... (Score:2)
Of course, you do realize that NASA's overall budget has actually been increasing over the past few years, right?
Re:With a "War Budget" of .... (Score:1)
That's correct. But if you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_budget [wikipedia.org], you will see that the increase has not been as huge, especially if you consider inflation. Add to this the 3 Billion $ for the so called "pet projects" mentioned in TFA and NASA is at about the same level they were back in 1984. Of course I am no expert, you probably have more insight then me... I am not even f
Re:With a "War Budget" of .... (Score:2)
Profit ? How about Titan (Saturn's moon) which is covered in liquid methane and has 1/8th of Earth gravity ? Not to mention Kuiper belt..
For that kind of money one could have launched a train of dumb nuclear powered ships and have enough hydrocarbons to drown the planet..
Line item... WHAT? (Score:2)
"Line item Veto"
Yeah, the party not in power always hates the idea.
Re:Line item... WHAT? (Score:3, Informative)
The Line Item Veto is not the cure-all that a lot of people think it is. I think here in Wisconsin we've proven its weaknesses and drawbacks.
It was enacted in the mid 80s and the first governor to use it was Tommy Thompson. Under him it became called the "Vanna White Veto" because he took letters from words and wrote totally different bills from the ones he recieved. The State Supreme Court ruled that's you have to use whole words and can't create new words.
Tommy found a new way around the veto by elim
Signing statements. (Score:2)
"Line item Veto"
Repeat after me: McCain's Anti-Torture Amendment. [boston.com]
Repeat after me: Patriot Act Oversight Rules. [boston.com]
Bush already thinks he has a line-item veto in the form of signing statements. Let's not actually give him the power to further neuter Congress and expand executive power in the ways that he's been striving to do by legitimizing his acts with an actual line-item veto power.
No, I used to sort of support the line-item veto, but I'll never support it again. Even if just restrict
Pet projects are not the real problem (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is the nearly $5 billion per month (USA Today article with the numbers here [usatoday.com]) being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Even if you think the wars are legitimate, logic dictates that this huge cost is the reason why our deficit is going up, and why programs are being shortchanged.
Research? What research? (Score:2)
About the only really significant thing the manned space program has done in aid of science was to repair the Hubble.
We're putting humans into space so that they can build the ISS so that we can put humans into space. Into low earth orbit. The same place John Glenn went in 1962. It was thrlling then. Well, OK, the "Space Station 3D" movie is thrilling to watch now... but the scientific aspects of the ISS seem t
Re:Research? What research? (Score:2)
I'm always sick of that example.
John Glenn spent 88 minutes at that place. We're currently spending months. Where John Glenn rode around in a an capsule with about five square meters of room, the ISS has about 425 square meters! John Glenn wore a pressure suit. These people work in a shirtsleeve environment. One thing that also tends to get mi
Space, the final boondoggle. (Score:1)
The price tag for politicians' "pork" has grown so large that NASA may have to delay the new spaceships and rockets needed to replace the space shuttles, to be retired in 2010. Instead, NASA will pay for:
Construction or renovation of dozens of museums, planetariums and science labs for colleges.
Computers, classrooms and lab space for colleges and schools across the U.S.
It is an indication of how far wrong we are going with large science projects in space that we can define sup
Re:Space, the final boondoggle. (Score:2)
Flawed thinking. First, the argument "first we should solve all our problems" is age-old and still pointless. I
Re:Space, the final boondoggle. (Score:1)
Straw Man : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted.
I never said anything about solving all mankind's problems before going into space. I said education on earth is more important than sterile space programs. You just changed the discussion to suit yourself. But that happens a lot on Slashdot.
Can anyone argue logically on Slashdot? Can anyone stick to the line of thought?
Re:Space, the final boondoggle. (Score:2)
Split Up NASA (Score:3, Interesting)
Turn the shuttle and space station and all non-research operation/facilities (including launch) over to the Navy (not the Air Force, despite the superficial similarities) with the mandate to provide the US a continuous capability to deliver large payloads into space on demand.
NASA keeps making robotic probes and running science programs and focuses on organizing and developing for the "return to moon and on to Mars". All rockets and launch services to be contracted from the Navy or private industry.
Actually, split it into three portions - the utter fat (museums and such) gets divided between various other agencies such as education. Or simply cut it out entirely.
Re:Split Up NASA (Score:2)
Pork, the final graveyard (Score:1)
Indialantic? (Score:1)
Someone tell them there is no state of Indialantic and kick this clown out of the Congress. Ok well his stuff wasn't bad and seems like a good guy from the rest of the article, so if he is from a real state I don't mind.
Re:Indialantic? (Score:2)
Rep. means he's a Representative. Why they listed him as being a representative from Indialatic, I have no idea, but there is a town of Indialantic in the county of Brevard, Florida.
But I like the concept! Since each state automatically gets one representative and people are stupid, all one needs to do is insist that there are 51 states.
Step 1: C
$30 billion per bed hotel (Score:2)
Re:Excuse me? (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently not enough:
Re:Excuse me? (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Excuse me? (Score:2)
In all seriousness, however, $100 million really is not an impossible budget shortfall, considering how overbudget the projet already is. Maybe NASA decided that they needed to trim some of their budgets to gain a little more support. I believe that it is better to devote resources to building the thing now. The half-assed research that we can conduct will pale in comparison to what we will be able
Re:Excuse me? (Score:1)
Re:Excuse me? (Score:2)