Is our space policy a "train wreck"

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/science/space/25nasa.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=nasa&st=cse

James A. M. Muncy, a space policy consultant, said of the current heavy-lift design. “The question is, what does Congress want more? Do they want to just want to keep the contractors on contract, or do they want the United States to explore space?”

He called the situation at NASA “a train wreck,” one “where everyone involved knows it’s a train wreck.”




I think it was obvious to most people that the US wasn't prepared to spend what it would take just to get back to the moon.
Now with huge cuts in the Federal budget inevitable, and no real prospect of tax increases that will do anything but cut the deficit, there is really no space program at all. At least, in regards to anything but low earth orbit.

Does anyone see the US funding a mission to Mars when Americans can't afford to send their kids to college, or fill up their gas tanks?
When cities and towns are laying off teachers and police, Mars will the last thing on anyones mind.

The only thing that could save space exploration is a major propulsion discovery. And I mean major. Warp drive type major.
 

GagHalfrunt

Lifer
Apr 19, 2001
25,284
1,998
126
The only thing that could save space exploration is a major propulsion discovery. And I mean major. Warp drive type major.

That's only half the solution. Warp drive would be needed to make it possible, but it would still take something else to make it interesting enough to get major funding. The moon was a dead end, low earth orbit is a dead end and everybody knows Mars is a dead end too. Nobody gives a shit if there's water on Pluto or rings around Uranus. To agree to waste that kind of money NASA has to show us the pot of the gold at the end of the rainbow. Until we have strong evidence of REAL life more advanced than bacteria somewhere we can get to nobody is going to care enough to fund getting there.
 

Jadow

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2003
5,962
2
0
I'd be in favor of our space policy being "Lets put some new more advanced space telescopes in orbit and leave it at that"

Cut the budget by 90% since it's a total waste.
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
You can't seriously be considering cutting my funding.

Yes. And we're going to give it to unproven posters instead.

We should give neckbeard a grant, he seems to be shooting for the stars as of late.

;)
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
However, thinking in terms of sci-fi that might just become reality, I'm actually starting to kind of understand the passing of the reigns to private corporations.

Private corporations see potential money to be made in space. They'll come up with the ideas of how to use space for non-science purposes. Which is kind of what we need.

Hopefully it'll end up working out where NASA keeps doing propulsion research with various other groups, including schools and corporations. And they can keep doing the "let's explore space to learn stuff" dance. I wholly approve of exploring space simply for the hell of it, to try and learn anything that can be learned out there. We have a ton of questions and there are some answers that can be found out there.
Problem is, we live in the real world, where governments rule. Simply appeasing our human curiosities should be enough to keep making the push in the exploration of space - but we have to face the facts, unless there is a space-cock measuring contest, governments could care less about what's out there. They think, "what we find out there is going to have no impact on our world down here, no salvation for how much we have fucked up down here."

In the real world, there has to be not only competition, but also a pressing opportunity to capitalize/own a market.
In space, there are no limits just yet. Cliche, yes, but truth. Corporations, once they achieve reliable means of establishing their own presence in space, may seek things governments have only toyed with, or perhaps only dreamed.

We need to not only learn things in space, we need to push out in space. We need to mark some territory, wave our space-peen around, show that cold vacuum who's boss 'round these parts.
Most importantly, we need to get some people off this rock, or else we doomed. Sure, we dream that eventually we'll be capable of traversing the stars and establishing massive colonies around the solar system. We have to escape dreams and actually make that attempt at some point. If we try and fail now, that's a lesson learned for future generations. We will not get things right the first time, but that can't hold us back, and thankfully, it rarely ever has.

But the way our cultures see things now, space is merely a dream for generations far off in the future - right now it's simply a cool science experiment, it serves no purpose to actually stretch out our legs in space when we have pressing matters here on Earth.

So what if this is our birth world, we can't stay here forever. There could be a comet out there with desires to crush all of our hopes and dreams in the next century. We gotta start tinkering with things we don't understand right now, if we hope to teach our kids how to not make our mistakes and prepare them to make a better attempt.

Governments are never going to give the necessary budgets to the science agencies, they don't understand the important of the future - everything is about the here and now, let the future worry about the future. Governments are short-sighted.
Corporations, well, they aren't perfect, and their foresight might be all based around the concept of making money... but at least they think about the future in slightly more realistic terms.
And with the right nurture from NASA, corporations may have a chance to do what NASA could not afford to do in anything considered near-term. Corporations can do it faster than the government.

When it comes to actually making space ours, actually colonizing and dominating every sector of space we can reach, it has to be in the hands of corporations. Governments can catch on after the fact, which in reality is the ideal course of action. Corporations completely ruling space sounds like a bad idea, but they'll get there faster, and do it bigger and better. We just have to make sure governments make the right timing and come in and take ownership once anything starts to look good. Obviously, we'll have to have some semblance of society and order out there. Hopefully by that time Earth is united under a single government.

The truest ideal is for Earth to be united under a single banner, and that government (with the budget of global commitment and cooperation of all the world's finest scientists) to take the reigns and force the issue of establishing distant colonies for various purposes. It'll still end up becoming government as usual, but at least we'll have parity, which is my ultimate point in all of this.
But of course, it'll take forever for all the dumbasses of the world to figure out uniting is actually what we need to do (and of course, they'll figure it out far too late, when we're probably already on the brink of global disaster, or worse, already in ruins and trying to clean up our mess), so we can't wait until then - let the corporations get a jump-start, maybe we'll have something good in progress that the world can get behind when it's ready to answer the call of reason and logic.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
73,058
34,321
136
The gravity well is too deep for a meaningful space program to overcome with current thrust engines. The energy and infrastructure required to get to the moon was enormous. Either we need an energy source so cheap as to make the costs of rocket fuel trivial or we need to figure out how to build a bean stalk. Even there, the energy costs of lift are enormous.
 

dougp

Diamond Member
May 3, 2002
7,909
4
0
I'd be in favor of our space policy being "Lets put some new more advanced space telescopes in orbit and leave it at that"

Cut the budget by 90% since it's a total waste.

I don't think people understand what their lives would be like without military and space funding. I'd rather us cut funding to countries that don't deserve it or meet any types of "requirements" we might have and use that on a space budget. Plenty of death row inmates we could use to test vehicle delivery system!
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
The train wreck started in 1972 when we started looking at a glorified plane. Since that time we've decided to be stuck in low earth orbit fucking around with little planes rather than having distinct goals.

Hey, what's your goal today?

Uhh, get in my little plane, drop a satellite off, fuck around a bit in orbit, fly home.

Wow, cool, how much does that cost?

Few billion.

What'd you accomplish?

Took off, shit in space, came home.

Wow, good use of money.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
People educated in wooden desks with slide rules put a man on the moon.

Now we have people running the show intent on over engineering everything.

We no longer have the scientists with the brainpower to actually do it, thought I am sure they could run simulations and discuss it for 10 years before doing an experiment on some irrelevant part of the program.
 
Last edited:

Brigandier

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2008
4,394
2
81
Nah, it just has the wrong focus. As soon as we got to the moon, the focus should have been, "sustaining life on extra-terrestrial masses."

It'd be a slow effort, but at least we'd get advances in sustainable energy production and resource management.
 

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,278
89
91
I hate to tell you but we are land locked to this planet. The idea that we are going to habitat another planet is a fairy tale.
 

TechAZ

Golden Member
Sep 8, 2007
1,188
0
71
The main focus of NASA should be pooling together the best scientists together to come up with a much faster means of travel, increase probe deployments, and make a super hubble. I know they have the new infared telescope going up soon, and I'm excited to see what that brings us. Man missions just aren't worth it when you consider the cost to benefit ratio, in my opinion.

We will not habitate another planet until life expectancy is significantly higher and light speed/near light speed travel happens. It would likely take more than a lifetime to reach a newly discovered habitable planet.
 

ichy

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2006
6,940
8
81
As much as I love space exploration, I think there's an argument to be made that manned space flight is a dead-end with current launch technology. We might be better off sticking with robotic exploration of the solar system (when you look at cost/science ratio of missions like Voyager, Cassini etc and compare it to the shuttle program it's cringe-inducing) while working on more long-term research to get away from chemical rockets. That being said, the fact that for the first time in my life the US won't have a real manned spaceflight program makes me almost want to cry.

Re the cost, of course we can afford it. In the grand scheme of things we spend very little on NASA. Kick some bums off of welfare and stop fighting pointless wars in Iraq and you could easily save 100x NASA's budget in a very brief period of time.