Space news /comments

[Crezth]

Proof that it could be done? or Proof that it needed to be done? Seems the government thought they had a motive to get it done. It just boosted the progress that was already there.

What? What progress was "already there?" All major rocket science in the 20th century was done by governments, or do you not think Wernher von Braun worked for a government before he worked on Apollo?

\/\/\/ Well, you're right, but the Apollo program wasn't a non-government thing by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Winner]

Eh, I'd say the Americans often make a false dichotomy out of this. Unlike the Soviets, NASA has always been contracting the private sector to develop its hardware. The issue here is how to change the system this has been done, because it is painfully obvious now that these long-favoured aerospace contractors are just milking the government like a cow.

As I said before, I am absolutely in favour of opening the space business to more competition, it's the only way to push down costs. On the other hand, if there is no public expenditure to drive the space programme forward, nothing much is going to happen. Oh yeah, a few bored millionaires will go on suborbital trips, but that's absolutely irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. But what needs to be stressed is that investing money into space exploration is the BEST WAY THERE IS to stimulate the kind of innovation in the industry any first world nation needs to maintain its wealth and way of life in this world of globalized competition.

Really, read the Tyson's article I pasted, it is quite good.

 

[kramerfan86]

At the end of the day though the state is still paying for it, even if its using private business to do the work. People suggesting that the government should just be cut out of that and let the businesses do it are being short sighted.

 

[timtofly]

Progress that was already there?

What? What progress was "already there?" All major rocket science in the 20th century was done by governments, or do you not think Wernher von Braun worked for a government before he worked on Apollo?

\/\/\/ Well, you're right, but the Apollo program wasn't a non-government thing by any stretch of the imagination.

Hermann Oberth, and von Braun were already "pushing" out ideas when "governement" took over. They were even conducting test.

Spoiler :

Oberth was born to a Transylvanian Saxon family in Nagyszeben (German: Hermannstadt, today Sibiu, Romania), Austria-Hungary. By his own account and that of many others, around the age of 11 years old, Oberth became fascinated with the field in which he was to make his mark through reading the writings of Jules Verne, especially From the Earth to the Moon and Around the Moon, re-reading them to the point of memorization. Influenced by Verne's books and ideas, Oberth constructed his first model rocket as a school student at the age of 14. In his youthful experiments, he arrived independently at the concept of the multistage rocket, but he lacked then the resources to pursue his idea on any but a pencil-and-paper level.

In 1912, Oberth began the study of medicine in Munich, Germany, but at the outbreak of World War I, he was drafted into the Imperial German Army, assigned to an infantry battalion, and sent to the Eastern Front against Russia. In 1915, Oberth was moved into a medical unit at a hospital in Segesvár, Transylvania, in Austria-Hungary (today Sighişoara, Romania). There he found the spare time to conduct a series of experiments concerning weightlessness, and later resumed his rocketry designs. By 1917, he showed how far his studies had reached by firing a rocket with liquid propellant in a demonstration to Hermann von Stein, the Prussian Minister of War.

It is true that he lacked resources to go further in certain areas, but the government can not take all the credit in "getting to space". When it came to the V2 it seems more credit goes to those who died making it possible than the government "offering" money to push the project forward. I refrain from trying to justify the governement in this endeavor.

 

[Crezth]

Hermann Oberth, and von Braun were already "pushing" out ideas when "governement" took over. They were even conducting test.

It is true that he lacked resources to go further in certain areas, but the government can not take all the credit in "getting to space". When it came to the V2 it seems more credit goes to those who died making it possible than the government "offering" money to push the project forward. I refrain from trying to justify the governement in this endeavor.

The bolded is the only relevant part; that's where the government comes in.

 

[kramerfan86]

I like how you sort of brush over the "lacked resources" part when that is sort of the meat of the argument. Private industry does not have the resources or desire to make many of these ideas a reality because there isnt enough financial pay off.

 

[timtofly]

I like how you sort of brush over the "lacked resources" part when that is sort of the meat of the argument. Private industry does not have the resources or desire to make many of these ideas a reality because there isnt enough financial pay off.

"in certain areas" It does take more than two men to go to the moon obviously. I was pointing out that progress was made, even before the governement overtook the endeaver. Does it always have to be the government to step in? My thoughts are no, but obviously there are those who disagree.

It is incredible that "financial pay off" always trumps dreams and endeavers.

 

[kramerfan86]

It is incredible that "financial pay off" always trumps dreams and endeavers.

Well what in the world do you expect when you want private industry to be the main vessel for research? Private industry doesnt do things for dreams and endeavors, if you want that you need to support government involvement.

 

[Andvare]

Billions of planets with life?

http://news.yahoo.com/billions-planets-life-074000332.html

Just based on numbers alone I find it impossible to believe there is not life beyond earth.

Why?

I have never understood this reasoning. It makes no logical sense, and seems to be based on "ooh, big number" way of thinking.

We have no idea on what chances life have for existing.
If there are 10 trillion Earth-like planets, but the chances are 100 trillion to 1, then Earth is a lucky strike.
The amount of planets means practically nothing for the chances of life, as long as we don't know what the chances are that it happens.
That is also why the search for life on Mars is important, because if we find it there, the chances for life elsewhere sky rockets.

 

[Crezth]

"in certain areas" It does take more than two men to go to the moon obviously. I was pointing out that progress was made, even before the governement overtook the endeaver. Does it always have to be the government to step in? My thoughts are no, but obviously there are those who disagree.

It is incredible that "financial pay off" always trumps dreams and endeavers.

News flash: In a capitalist society, financial pay-off is the number-one consideration, hands-down, no questions asked.

 

[Winner]

Why?

I have never understood this reasoning. It makes no logical sense, and seems to be based on "ooh, big number" way of thinking.

We have no idea on what chances life have for existing.
If there are 10 trillion Earth-like planets, but the chances are 100 trillion to 1, then Earth is a lucky strike.
The amount of planets means practically nothing for the chances of life, as long as we don't know what the chances are that it happens.
That is also why the search for life on Mars is important, because if we find it there, the chances for life elsewhere sky rockets.

Exactly.

News flash: In a capitalist society, financial pay-off is the number-one consideration, hands-down, no questions asked.

Which is why we have the government to organize public spending from taxation, which is supposed to have different priorities. Say, social spending - in a pure free market capitalist model, there is no place for welfare benefits - who would pay for them, and why?

There is of course the chance an eccentric billionaire would decide to immortalize his name by becoming the first man on Mars, but it is veeeeeery slim. There is absolutely no guarantee someone like that will ever appear.

In short, space exploration is a thing the free market doesn't deliver. Not now, not yet. Public spending for space-related activities is a necessity.

 

[Winner]

"Success in space needs to be punished" - NASA

- In short, the planetary exploration budget is being cut while the other NASA programmes funding remains flat.

The question a thinking person should ask here is not "why", but "WTH is this s***?!" (I am sorry for the expletives, but this really defies all common sense.) NASA (i.e. Bolden, the OBM, and by extension the Obama administration) is cutting the most successful NASA programme, throwing it into disarray just a year after they successfully wrecked the human spaceflight programme. It's amazing how much damage can one US administration do, where are the famous checks and balances?

I know many will disagree with me, but I believe the planetary exploration programme is the most important part of what NASA is currently doing. I love astronomy and the other programmes and if I could I'd like to have them all, but if a choice needs to be made, then planetary exploration needs to take precedence over astronomy, earth observation, and human spaceflight. Why? Well, humanity is likely to get to Mars and the other planets much sooner than it is going to reach distant stars and galaxies. Planetary exploration directly paves the way for human travel to these places.

Today, NASA's support in the public hinges on planetary exploration - it's these probes which return the most interesting science. They provide the most "tangible" and immediate of NASA's results, because they study places we could conceivably reach in lifetimes of most people who're now below thirty. Reducing planetary exploration is the surest way to undermine NASA even further.

 

[tokala]

A more elaborate comment on the issue can be found here:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/b...e-asks-for-brutal-planetary-nasa-budget-cuts/

It does appear that the cuts are supported bi-partisan, though:

"Mind you, this budget is not set in stone. This is simply the President’s request, which then goes to Congress. Over the past few years, Obama’s request has been for increases, with Congress threatening to cut it. Now, however, this budget comes pre-cut to Congress."

 

[kramerfan86]

I think the thing that would kickstart the space program is the discovery of some sort of fossil or microbe on mars. That would really excite society and get them behind NASA again.

 

[Winner]

"Mind you, this budget is not set in stone. This is simply the President’s request, which then goes to Congress. Over the past few years, Obama’s request has been for increases, with Congress threatening to cut it. Now, however, this budget comes pre-cut to Congress."

It would help if the Congress wasn't obsessed with building their hyper-expensive SLS at the expense of all other NASA programmes.

Seriously, the price estimates for the SLS are outrageous - they're re-using technology which exists, but propose a 10+ years timetable and budgets in dozens of billions of dollars. It took just 6 years to build Saturn-V FROM SCRATCH (no experience with large rockets, no engines, no experience with H2/O2 propulsion, nothing) 40 years ago, and it didn't cost that much

Which proves that the main mission for the SLS is not to launch things to space, but to preserve subsidized jobs among the main aerospace contractors in politically significant electoral districts.

I think the thing that would kickstart the space program is the discovery of some sort of fossil or microbe on mars. That would really excite society and get them behind NASA again.

I doubt that. At least not if it wasn't an irrefutable evidence, obtained by human being on Mars itself. But that's an egg-chicken problem.

 

[Winner]

"Obama shoots down Mars exploration"

Indeed, what is truly remarkable about the Obama administration’s NASA management is that it has managed to wreck both the human-spaceflight program and the robotic planetary exploration effort without saving any money. In 2008, NASA’s spending was $17.4 billion; this year’s budget is $17.7 billion. Yet in 2008, NASA was running an active space shuttle program, preparing for the critical mission to save the Hubble Space Telescope, developing systems for returning astronauts to the moon by 2019, building the Curiosity and Maven Mars probes and planning an orbiter for Jupiter’s moon Europa. Toda,y the shuttles are gone, the moon program is gone, and this decade’s Mars and Jupiter probes are gone - all without saving a nickel. In terms of damage done per dollar cut, it may be a world’s record.

Zubrin is foaming from his mouth again, but he's pretty much correct in most things he says. (Yes, he's crazy, but that doesn't mean he's wrong about everything.)

 

[kramerfan86]

Add it to the list of reasons why Im unimpressed with Obama. its a sad day when guys in the republican party are more willing to spend on space than a democrat.

 

[IAM]

Why?

I have never understood this reasoning. It makes no logical sense, and seems to be based on "ooh, big number" way of thinking.

We have no idea on what chances life have for existing.
If there are 10 trillion Earth-like planets, but the chances are 100 trillion to 1, then Earth is a lucky strike.
The amount of planets means practically nothing for the chances of life, as long as we don't know what the chances are that it happens.
That is also why the search for life on Mars is important, because if we find it there, the chances for life elsewhere sky rockets.

Several reasons come to mind.
- multiple extinction events on earth have lead to more abundant and advanced life; life seems destined to be
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Earths-five-mass-extinction-events.html
- life that has been found on this planet in places previously thought to not be capable of life
http://10awesome.com/10-most-unlikely-places-to-find-life-on-earth/
- yes the numbers. we have reason to believe that life can evolve on similar planets to ours and there seems to be some of those out there. It's not just a 100 billion stars in our galazy but a hundred billion galazys that we known of. Maybe there are a million stars in our vacinity that are devoid of life or maybe life in our solar syatem is considered barren by comparison to other systems.
- We only can guess at life as we know it. With an entire universe out there I'm confident that we haven't scrached the surface of what exist.

 

[Crezth]

Add it to the list of reasons why Im unimpressed with Obama. its a sad day when guys in the republican party are more willing to spend on space than a democrat.

The honest answer is that space has very useful military applications. A lot of the aerospace industry is propped up on demand by the air force.

 

[uppi]

"Obama shoots down Mars exploration"



Zubrin is foaming from his mouth again, but he's pretty much correct in most things he says. (Yes, he's crazy, but that doesn't mean he's wrong about everything.)

So after axing seemingly everything, what programs does NASA actually have left? What are they spending those 17 billion on?