The thread for space cadets!

[hobbsyoyo]

Yep.
The bulk of humanity doesn't share your view.
Looks like either your group did a poor job of explaining, or they evaluated your arguments and found them wanting.

Or you know, they all got eaten by trolls.

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

Planets around binary stars in general have interesting sunrises/sets. It must be interesting to have a "mini-sun" in the sky in night for most of the year...

Way to be a debbie downer there.

You don't sound too enthused.

And besides, that's not quite what I was referring to. I was talking about circumbinary worlds, rather than worlds in Alpha Centauri-style sytems.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

What a waste.

 

[Winner]

Yep.
The bulk of humanity doesn't share your view.

The bulk of humanity is barely literate. Your point is what, exactly?

Looks like either your group did a poor job of explaining, or they evaluated your arguments and found them wanting.

Most people simply have little idea about issues concerning science and technology. I'd say its partially a fault of our imbecilic civilizational system of values which we have built around consumerism and adoration of stupidity.

(/rant)

Way to be a debbie downer there.

You don't sound too enthused.

I am generally like that

And besides, that's not quite what I was referring to. I was talking about circumbinary worlds, rather than worlds in Alpha Centauri-style sytems.

I know, but I'd guess habitable worlds around close-orbiting binaries are going to be exceedingly rare.

What a waste.

I still think that if the Soviets had managed to fly N-1, the US could never have abandoned Saturn-V. Damn commies, it's all their fault

 

[Glassfan]

NASA on verge of losing its edge

"Years of trying to do too many things with too little money have put NASA at risk of ceding leadership in space exploration to other nations..."

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I still think that if the Soviets had managed to fly N-1, the US could never have abandoned Saturn-V. Damn commies, it's all their fault

I agree with you 100% here. If the Soviets had also been a bit more successful in their unmanned endevours or started doing more ambitious stuff on the manned side, I think the US wouldn't have given up with the Saturn V. I mean, with no notable 'firsts' to contend with on the US side, it was easy to give up such a powerful rocket.

Too bad it turned out the replacement turned out to be more expensive and less capable than the thing it replaced.

NASA on verge of losing its edge

"Years of trying to do too many things with too little money have put NASA at risk of ceding leadership in space exploration to other nations..."

The original Aries program was a great missed opportunity that was underfunded from the moment of conception. Now they are basically re-doing the program with the same lack of funds. I am afraid it won't work out, especially since the completion date for many of it's goals are past the next presidential election.

Let's hope the private sector starts doing awesome things and get people excited about space again before the election and/or inevitable cancellation of the SLS.

 

[bugwar]

The bulk of humanity is barely literate. Your point is what, exactly?

OK, let me narrow it down to your interest group.
The bulk of the people paying for the space program aren't that interested in it.
They have more pressing desires for using tax dollars than chunking metal into space.
Be glad for what little they spare for NASA.

If you want more bucks, try doing a better job of selling your product.
Until that happens, you will be consigned to the fringe of American society.

You got to the moon because America perceived a threat to their well-being if they didn't beat the Russians there.

Now the taxpayers see no threats. So you get the scrapings of the tax barrel.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

OK, let me narrow it down to your interest group.
The bulk of the people paying for the space program aren't that interested in it.
They have more pressing desires for using tax dollars than chunking metal into space.
Be glad for what little they spare for NASA.

If you want more bucks, try doing a better job of selling your product.
Until that happens, you will be consigned to the fringe of American society.

You got to the moon because America perceived a threat to their well-being if they didn't beat the Russians there.

Now the taxpayers see no threats. So you get the scrapings of the tax barrel.

First off, you're wrong from the first sentence. Winner is Czech and as such his 'interest group' is more along the lines of ESA supporters, not NASA supporters.

I'll leave the rest a lone because it isn't particularly constructive. This is the thread for space cadets, not the one for space haters. If there had been a larger point behind your post other than 'you're wrong - NASA SUX', I might discuss it. But that's all I'm getting from you.

 

[bugwar]

First off, you're wrong from the first sentence. Winner is Czech and as such his 'interest group' is more along the lines of ESA supporters, not NASA supporters.

I'll leave the rest a lone because it isn't particularly constructive. This is the thread for space cadets, not the one for space haters. If there had been a larger point behind your post other than 'you're wrong - NASA SUX', I might discuss it. But that's all I'm getting from you.

NASA, ESA, they are both in the same social minority boat.
My comments are in response to posts that wonder why western space programs are in the financial toilet.
The reason for that is they don't appeal to many taxpayers.

Personally, I would rather that the budgets were ten times their current sizes.
I also realize that it ain't gonna happen till you convince the majority of voters that it is something they want also.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You see, I mistook your comments as personal attacks.

That tends to happen when you lump people into groups and ascribe them attributes.

 

[Crezth]

NASA on verge of losing its edge

"Years of trying to do too many things with too little money have put NASA at risk of ceding leadership in space exploration to other nations..."

This is what Winner has been saying a lot, but it's sort of painting the issue in a tinted light. The implication is that NASA in being stretched thin is achieving nothing of value, because it's "ceding leadership in space exploration" to other nations. That's not quite true, however, because the NASA labs, despite working on many varied and disparate projects, are still major economic and scientific workhorses. NASA is successful according to all reasonable metrics - it's only when people say "why don't we have a colony on Mars" that they start to question if NASA is doing any good. Thankfully, these people generally don't have seats in the Congress. I say "generally" because there are unfortunately quite a few provincial nutbags with the financial sense of grasshoppers running around the House floor.

Anyway, the argument is a little bland in wake of the recent landing of Curiosity. Say what you will about the sorry state of NASA with respect to competing space organizations, nobody else is landing rovers on Mars.

Let's hope the private sector starts doing awesome things and get people excited about space again before the election and/or inevitable cancellation of the SLS.

I'm holding out for flying space unicorns myself.

OK, let me narrow it down to your interest group.
The bulk of the people paying for the space program aren't that interested in it.
They have more pressing desires for using tax dollars than chunking metal into space.
Be glad for what little they spare for NASA.

If you want more bucks, try doing a better job of selling your product.
Until that happens, you will be consigned to the fringe of American society.

You got to the moon because America perceived a threat to their well-being if they didn't beat the Russians there.

Now the taxpayers see no threats. So you get the scrapings of the tax barrel.

Uh, OK. Right now people think NASA is getting 20% of the federal budget. I'll worry more what John Q. Idiot thinks when he gets his damn numbers straight.

NASA isn't missing out on funding because the "taxpayer" doesn't care. The taxpayer knows jack about the budget and will continue to know jack about the budget for the foreseeable future so long as most people don't have economics degrees, much less know how to file their taxes.

 

[bugwar]

Uh, OK. Right now people think NASA is getting 20% of the federal budget. I'll worry more what John Q. Idiot thinks when he gets his damn numbers straight.

NASA isn't missing out on funding because the "taxpayer" doesn't care. The taxpayer knows jack about the budget and will continue to know jack about the budget for the foreseeable future so long as most people don't have economics degrees, much less know how to file their taxes.

All right, I'll bite.
If lack of voter concern is not the cause, then why is NASA (and ESA, for that matter) getting so little funding?
Or are you of the opinion that the budget levels are just fine as they exist?

 

[Crezth]

If lack of voter concern is not the cause, then why is NASA (and ESA, for that matter) getting so little funding?

It's a lot of things. It's lack of political capital and general unwillingness of leadership in Washington to push it as an issue. It goes beyond simply "voter concern." Point being there's nothing to convince the "taxpayer" of budget-wise, because the taxpayer has no frame of reference for understanding how much NASA should be paid, or why. My point that the average citizen reckons NASA gets 20% of the budget is definitely salient: when you say NASA-ites should be "grateful" that they receive what they do - well, grateful to whom? Special interests in Washington, mainly. The generalities of funding are almost always out of the public eye.

Or are you of the opinion that the budget levels are just fine as they exist?

Or do you think chimpanzees should be given bazookas and tiny hats and airdropped into the Amazon?

 

[bugwar]

It's a lot of things. It's lack of political capital and general unwillingness of leadership in Washington to push it as an issue. It goes beyond simply "voter concern." Point being there's nothing to convince the "taxpayer" of budget-wise, because the taxpayer has no frame of reference for understanding how much NASA should be paid, or why. My point that the average citizen reckons NASA gets 20% of the budget is definitely salient: when you say NASA-ites should be "grateful" that they receive what they do - well, grateful to whom? Special interests in Washington, mainly. The generalities of funding are almost always out of the public eye.

Thanks for elaborating.

Why is there a lack of political capital?
Is it because there is not enough pressure on the representatives by the voters to care?

Why don't the bulk of the voters care?
Is it because those who do care haven't done a good enough job motivating the rest of the populace to want more from the space program?
Or is it simply that in the forest of competing special interest groups for the federal dole, the space cadets are simply too few in number to warrant a larger slice of the fiscal pie?

If the taxpayer doesn't have a "frame of reference", why not?
Could it be because those who have such a frame are not effectively reaching out to the remaining voters?
Frankly, until you make a topic of use to me, I wouldn't bother learning a "frame of reference" for it either.

If the average citizen believes twenty percent of the budget goes to NASA (I would love to see the source of that tidbit),
then I recommend that NASA or their fan club get on the stick correcting that perception.
Cuz if you let those with the power to change things remain in ignorance, you get what you deserve.

 

[Crezth]

Why is there a lack of political capital?
Is it because there is not enough pressure on the representatives by the voters to care?

Why don't the bulk of the voters care?
Is it because those who do care haven't done a good enough job motivating the rest of the populace to want more from the space program?

Yes and no. It's true that the voters don't care, but the reasons for that are as circumstantial as anything. What issues do the voters care about, for example?

It was easier in the '60s and directly after Sputnik, when the red scare was in full-swing, because NASA had a mission statement that directly plugged into an overarching political dialogue. Winning the arms race became winning the space race became NASA swallowing 5% of the federal budget in a year. It had very little to do with NASA going to public schools and talking to the kids about the planets, and even less to do with "convincing" the public of anything. It was a matter of national defense.

Nowadays we have different concerns, and very few of them relate to space - and even military concerns are dwindling somewhat. Voters are worried about the economy (despite not understanding it), and they're worried about immigration and gays marrying and fetuses being razor-bladed.

I'll be the first to admit that NASA got its start because of rivalry with the USSR, and that without a rivalry like that we probably won't ever see a resurgence in its value. But even back then, NASA's success depended on political circumstance, and the perceived reality of the reds watching us from space was chilling. I'm not sure if they could have done anything to screw up the sweet deal that Congress was cutting them. Likewise, there's nothing they can do now to get that money back; if landing a rover on Mars - Mars, for chrissakes - doesn't get people excited, well, that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Or is it simply that in the forest of competing special interest groups for the federal dole, the space cadets are simply too few in number to warrant a larger slice of the fiscal pie?

There are plenty of pro-space people in the USA, but the politics just don't care about them. That's all there is to it, really.

If the taxpayer doesn't have a "frame of reference", why not?

I can't pin it on anything specifically, but a lack of education and persistent misinformation by the media do wonders.

Could it be because those who have such a frame are not effectively reaching out to the remaining voters?

I guess, but this applies to all specialties, not just NASA. There are loads of economists who understand why libertarian proposals are garbage, for example, but they aren't the ones getting the message out there that they are. Entrenched political interests can do that quite handily for them. Likewise, it isn't generals who are constantly reminding us that we need a big, expensive army/air force/navy; it is politicians.

If the average citizen believes twenty percent of the budget goes to NASA (I would love to see the source of that tidbit),

Eat your heart out.

then I recommend that NASA or their fan club get on the stick correcting that perception.
Cuz if you let those with the power to change things remain in ignorance, you get what you deserve.

Hey, we're trying. There's only so much you can do when organizations like Fox News hire pseudo-experts to come on the morning show to talk about everything from mundane garbage to regressive trash. And people watch it. Oh, do they watch it.

e: I'll take it one step further and point out that the act of informing people is a costly endeavor. NASA rakes in about 0.5% of the federal budget, so about $17 billion/year. With this money it has to manage dozens of labs and facilities and do the space missions that get it good press. Whatever is left over, after all that, I guess is what goes to getting the word out. Non-NASA space groups don't earn close to as much as NASA so we'll leave them unsaid, because News Corp, an organization dedicated entirely to putting thoughts into people's brains, makes $33 billion/year. That's twice what NASA gets. NASA simply can't compete with that volume of information.

 

[Winner]

OK, let me narrow it down to your interest group.

(...)

Now the taxpayers see no threats. So you get the scrapings of the tax barrel.

Let me narrow it down to your disinterest group: ninety per cent of what I am paying from *my* taxes go to things and people I am not interested in and bring me little benefit.

These include: social checks for people who refuse to work, but our government keeps feeding them; treatment for fatties, drinkers, and smokers who've destroyed their internal organs with their suicidal lifestyle; large sporting arenas where games I don't care about are being played to entertain people I don't care about; bribes subsidies for transnational corporations to make them set up manufacturing plants here that will provide jobs I have no interest in taking; salaries for a legion of state bureaucrats who make my life miserable every time I have to interact with them; roads to God-forsaken villages whose existence doesn't make any economic sense; subsidies for farmers populating these villages, so that they can produce more stuff I don't eat, and sell it at 200% the real price; buying over-priced military hardware our pathetic military needs for deployments in countries we don't give a damn about and are there just to suck up to the Americans; etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

So forgive me for wanting at least SOME fraction of my bloody tax money to go to things that ACTUALLY FRAKKING MATTER IN THE LONG TERM.

/rant

 

[Crezth]

Well Winner, maybe you should just learn to communicate to the plebs better. You have no one to blame but yourself.

 

[Winner]

The plebeians are not the problem; it's the government. Democracy is just very sub-optimal in terms of long-term planning, which is necessary for adequate preparations for future challenges.

(The sad truth is that even the Commies had spent more of the country's GDP on R&D, including space, than the post-1989 governments. I am not sure private investment balances the gap.)

 

[Winner]

Governments 'too inefficient' for future Moon landings

One of the last men to set foot on the Moon has said that private enterprise will be the driving force for a return to the lunar surface.

Harrison Schmitt told the BBC that governments are "too inefficient" to send humans back to the Moon.

(...)

Speaking to the BBC World Service's Discovery programme, he said that he felt that private firms could make a return on the huge investment needed to set up extra-terrestrial mining operations by garnering a new source of fuel called helium-3. The gas is similar to the helium used to blow up balloons, but has properties that some scientists believe make it the ideal fuel for nuclear fusion reactions.

(...)

Of all the countries with the motivation and resources to send an astronaut to the Moon is China. It already has ambitious plans to send robotic explorers to the Moon next year. Those missions may prompt an Apollo-type effort by China to demonstrate its own technological power by sending an astronaut to the Moon.

Prof Logsdon believes that it would be far better for the next attempt at a Moon shot to be an international effort.

-> Can someone please explain to me how someone who actually flew to the Moon can believe in this? Is it a wishful thinking, or does he know something the rest of us don't?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Can someone please explain to me how someone who actually flew to the Moon can believe in this? Is it a wishful thinking, or does he know something the rest of us don't?

I think he's coming at it from the angle that the political process in the US (and much of the West, for that matter) is really hard on long-term space projects, while the Chinese process is much friendly to them. I'm sure he's bitter from having lived through all the budget cuts, changed priorities forced by politicians and missed opportunity NASA has endured over the years.

These guys think they can fund a private moon mission.
I'd like to believe them, but it definately reads like a pie in the sky plan. They don't even go into depth (at least not in the article) about how they are going to raise the capital they need other than vague references to 'media ventures' and making enough advance sales to attact financing. Good luck with that.
____________________

Water geyser erupting from the south pole of Enceladus
Article on a sample-retun mission

Scientists are developing a mission concept that would snag icy particles from Saturn's moon Enceladus and return them to Earth, where they could be analyzed for signs of life.

The spacecraft would fly through the icy plume blasted into space by geysers near Enceladus' south pole, then send the collected particles back to our planet in a return capsule. Enceladus may be capable of supporting life, and the flyby sample-return mission would bring pieces from its depths to Earth at a reasonable price, researchers said.

"This is really the low-hanging fruit" of sample-return missions, said study leader Peter Tsou of Sample Exploration Systems in La Canada, Calif., who presented the idea here Wednesday at the annual fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union. "It would be a shame not to pick it."

I really hope they do this, it's a lot easier than drilling down through the ice-crust of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn (I hope they do those too eventually). The article says this is 'low hanging fruit' because it doesn't require a lander and much of the technology needed was demonstrated by the Stardust probe.