Save our Science!

General discussion. Please use this area for any off-topic discussion.
User avatar
Matthew
Posts:186
Joined:Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:06 am
Save our Science!

Postby Matthew » Thu Mar 30, 2006 4:06 pm

The Planetary Society has started a petition to save our science.

Sign the petition here.
http://www.planetary.org/programs/projects/sos/

User avatar
Gusset
Posts:99
Joined:Sun Jul 24, 2005 3:36 am
Location:Vancouver, WA, USA
Contact:

Postby Gusset » Thu Mar 30, 2006 9:29 pm

I'm all for advancing science...I'm an engineer, I have an interest in astronomy and physics that I try to pass on to kids through teaching in some of my free time, I enjoy hearing about discoveries made by Spirit, Opportunity, Cassini, and other space probes and facilities. I love learning new things.

But egad, that petition is a tough one. Big decisions often look a lot simpler than they really are from the comfort of our living rooms. If the projects that they cite as important and being axed were to be funded, something else would have to be cut, and there'd be people ticked off about that, as well.

Before I could consider signing something like this, I'd need to see at least summary budget numbers, as well as previous years' expendetures for comparison. Generalizations coupled with words and phrases like "ridiculous", "devastate", and "decimating science" don't do me any good.

Perhaps all of these assertions are true, but those of us who have not kept up on all the details would be irresponsible to sign such a petition with only the information I found on the web site. What specific programs is NASA planning to fund that should be dropped in favor of some of the ones that The Planetary Society is decrying? It would be nice if they had a page with some detail (telling me about $1 billion going toward the evil space shuttle isn't enough).

-Gusset

User avatar
Matthew
Posts:186
Joined:Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:06 am

Postby Matthew » Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:39 am

I can understand that Gusset. I'm sure there are no easy decisions when it comes to NASA's budget. I've been following this story for a while. It looks like there will be less actual science and a lot more waste with the current budget proposal. I strongly favor science over waste.
What will happen if this budget is passed?

The Europa Mission- DEAD.
This long-sought mission -- actually mandated by Congress last year -- would have explored one of our best shots at finding life beyond Earth.

The Terrestrial Planet Finder - DEAD.
TPF would have enabled us to find Earth-like worlds in distant solar systems -- to actually see continents and seasonal changes on other planets.

The Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA)- DEAD
Years of international preparation lost.

Mars Sample Return mission - DEAD. Two Mars Scout missions scheduled for after 2011...dead. The Mars Telecommunications Orbiter...dead.

University research funding - CUT 15%
Astrobiology - GUTTED by 50%
Mars - systematically removed from NASA's exploration program.

User avatar
Gusset
Posts:99
Joined:Sun Jul 24, 2005 3:36 am
Location:Vancouver, WA, USA
Contact:

Postby Gusset » Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:36 pm

What programs ARE funded under the current budget that are not considered science by the Planetary Society? They mentioned money being funneled to space shuttle operations, but is there anything else that is being funded that they would suggest are less important than the Europa mission, for instance?

Thanks for any insight.

-Gusset

User avatar
Matthew
Posts:186
Joined:Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:06 am

Postby Matthew » Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:48 pm

What programs ARE funded under the current budget that are not considered science by the Planetary Society? They mentioned money being funneled to space shuttle operations, but is there anything else that is being funded that they would suggest are less important than the Europa mission, for instance?

Thanks for any insight.

-Gusset
That's probably subjective. The overall impression that I'm getting is that the administration is looking for ways to get away from searching for life on other planets and wants to go with things that are more politically advantageous among their supporters. Not many fundamentalist really want to find E.T. because that undermines their belief system. So what they are attempting to do is put up barriers to the discovery of life on other planets and stop looking for other earth like planets in other solar systems. It’s all very counter-productive to scientific discovery and achievement.

User avatar
Gusset
Posts:99
Joined:Sun Jul 24, 2005 3:36 am
Location:Vancouver, WA, USA
Contact:

Postby Gusset » Fri Mar 31, 2006 10:05 pm

What programs ARE funded under the current budget that are not considered science by the Planetary Society? They mentioned money being funneled to space shuttle operations, but is there anything else that is being funded that they would suggest are less important than the Europa mission, for instance?

Thanks for any insight.

-Gusset
That's probably subjective. The overall impression that I'm getting is that the administration is looking for ways to get away from searching for life on other planets and wants to go with things that are more politically advantageous among their supporters. Not many fundamentalist really want to find E.T. because that undermines their belief system. So what they are attempting to do is put up barriers to the discovery of life on other planets and stop looking for other earth like planets in other solar systems. It’s all very counter-productive to scientific discovery and achievement.
That's pretty thin. Forgive me for filing that one away under the conspiracy theory category.

Again, I don't know what the answer should be...I'm just looking at it from the "my project got cut/had it's budget decreased, so I'm going to scream really loud about it" angle: probably some truth, but probably some tunnel vision of its own.

I looked at the budget request summary on the NASA web site. The biggest piece of the pie is going to shuttle operations and CEV-related development, and as estimates have risen, they've taken dollars from some of the science programs to make up the shortfall.

What is the alternative? The shuttle needs to fly, expensive though it may be, or the ISS doesn't get completed (the value of the ISS is, of course, a totally separate topic as far as fiscal issues go), which is a commitment the US has made...I'm not aware of anything else that can do it. IIRC, the shuttle is also the only vehicle that can perform the Hubble servicing mission that is part of the budget (which I consider a top priority).

Should CEV development be cut back? That's another devil in the details. Cut it back, and we have no LEO capability once the shuttle is retired. We are already behind China in terms of manned capsule capability, so unless being second-best in terms of space capability is OK, we can't ignore that. I'd have a problem with any course that leaves NASA having to farm out our launch capability because we weren't willing to put the engineering effort into designing heavy launch platforms. Engineering/technology and scientific advancement go hand in hand...you can't have one without the other. Heavy launch capability should make a scientist drool at the thought of what can be flung out into the solar system.

I also noted in a space.com article that some of the cuts are under review (one was actually reversed). SOFIA (not certain exactly what it is...) is nearly complete and some lawmakers are lobbying for it.

Looking at the highlighted cancelled programs on the SOS page, I want to question one statement, and comment on one of the cancelled programs:

"Mars - systematically removed from NASA's exploration program" is just not true; there is $430M allocated for 2007 and 2009 launches of Mars landers, and the stated goal of putting a man on Mars would be silly to pursue without exploring further.

The cancelled Mars sample return mission is an incredibly complex engineering task (ref. recent sample return efforts, some successful and some not, by NASA and the Japanese). Its efficiency and chances of success will only get better with advancement from CEV and moon colonization research and development. You can bet that they're going to push hard for that one again in the not-too-distant future, because if nothing else it will be a proving ground for return-from-Mars technology that is needed for a manned mission.

I guess all I'm trying to say is that I can see the rationale behind some of the decisions and priorities. These don't appear to be thoughtless decisions.

I'd like to see the NASA budget increased, myself. Anything that advances science and technology is a good thing, so if there's going to be pork in the US budget, they can do worse than NASA. I don't like to see the US losing its leadership in those areas. It pains me to see the statistics about declining numbers of science and engineering students in this country.

Sheesh, I just read what I wrote...wow, that was long! Sorry...

-Gusset

User avatar
Matthew
Posts:186
Joined:Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:06 am

Postby Matthew » Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:11 pm

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for heavy launch vehicles and human spaceflight but they first need to develop something better than the dysfunctional shuttle program. It's been plagued with problems and cost overruns since its inception. The ISS can be supplied by other launch vehicles until a new heavy launch vehicle system is ready.

User avatar
Time
Posts:220
Joined:Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:27 pm
Location:Orlando, Florida, USA, Earth, Human Empire

Postby Time » Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:35 pm

I voted ! :D !
Anything that helps NASA is usually good. I wished they'd hurry up and build another orbital base there(moon) too. I read in an Astronomy Magizine years ago about building a small station in orbit around the moon. Then to just use a vehicle to transfer people and equipment from station 1(Earth) to station 2(Moon) would save on fuel costs overall. Then use a landing craft to decend to the planet and return. Once tested, this concept could be used for a station 3(Mars) then anywhere else.
Perhaps our ideas need to be added to simulation games before anyone can visualize its use.
MOO1 Fan, MOO2 Fan, MOO3 needed too many changes = hopeless, getting older waiting for a MOO4 (still).

User avatar
Retsia
Posts:73
Joined:Fri Nov 25, 2005 1:22 pm

Postby Retsia » Sun Apr 02, 2006 4:01 pm

I can see NASA dead a decade from now....

Japan, China and India will be the next "Goliaths" in space exploration...


Quite frankly, I wish NASA to prosper, but too many leashes of all kinds have been put around its neck.

User avatar
Time
Posts:220
Joined:Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:27 pm
Location:Orlando, Florida, USA, Earth, Human Empire

Postby Time » Sun Apr 02, 2006 5:00 pm

true,
China will be a monster.
greater population, production, income,
Subt, Prod+1, Uni, Tax+0.5, compared to

Japan:
Tol, Prod+1, Sci+1, Pop.-50%, Food-0.5 (Small Island)

and the U.S.:
Prod+1, Sci+1, Charismatic, Artf. HW,Tax-0.5, Uncreative (possible for no Pollution controls)

and India:
Subt., Food+1

to put it in MOO2 terms.
MOO1 Fan, MOO2 Fan, MOO3 needed too many changes = hopeless, getting older waiting for a MOO4 (still).

User avatar
Retsia
Posts:73
Joined:Fri Nov 25, 2005 1:22 pm

Postby Retsia » Sun May 14, 2006 7:31 pm

NASA is going down

User avatar
Matthew
Posts:186
Joined:Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:06 am

Postby Matthew » Mon May 15, 2006 4:33 pm

NASA is going down
I think NASA will inevitably deminish in importance but will always a key player so long as it still exist. If the human race really wants to explore and exploit the resources of space, then all the countries will need to combine their resources in order to make it happen.

It maybe be a very long time before we are able to really explore outside of our own solar system other than just viewing it with telescopes.

User avatar
Retsia
Posts:73
Joined:Fri Nov 25, 2005 1:22 pm

Postby Retsia » Thu May 18, 2006 4:13 pm

I completely agree...we need no separation when exploring space.


You know how that will happen?


When we transcend biology...

User avatar
llylwyyn
Posts:13
Joined:Sat May 27, 2006 9:16 pm
Location:USA
Contact:

Postby llylwyyn » Wed Jun 14, 2006 2:14 pm

I read this thread, it's good to see that people still care about science in America.

I like to point out for those who may not know: the current federal budget for the so-called "war on drugs" is over $9billion annually. Yet countries like China and Japan spend less than a few hundred million fighting drugs... why is that? One can blaim corruption in government, but surely the problem is more fundamental - a problem in our approach. The truth is that people who do drugs are going to do drugs, and people who are willing to supply drugs will always be around. It's a simple matter of supply and demand. When the US gets its head out of its ass and legalizes softcore drugs, they will not only save billions of dollars but also earn billions in tax revenue. I would argue that we should let the drug users do their drugs, while taxing those drugs, and spend this money on scientific research grants and education grants for the rest of us who are smart and capable of advancing the human race.

The military budget is equally bloated, but having served in the Army I can say that their funding, and their mission, is critical. Although it would be nice if the politicians stopped declaring wars on everyone... war is very expsenive, not to mention stupid and purposeless. Someone needs to get Bush a copy of Moo2 so he can get his aggression out online!
"Beer is the solution to and cause of all my problems. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a solution that needs probleming..."

User avatar
Retsia
Posts:73
Joined:Fri Nov 25, 2005 1:22 pm

Postby Retsia » Thu Jun 15, 2006 12:05 pm

It is not so much Bush than the Masons that use him as a puppet.


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests