NASA budget cuts

[synaesthetic]

Shameful, truly. If there's one appropriate use of taxpayer funds that I fully support, it's space development and research.

Can we please start using more money for breaking the speed limit of the universe than we do for killing people?

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Shameful, truly. If there's one appropriate use of taxpayer funds that I fully support, it's space development and research.

Can we please start using more money for breaking the speed limit of the universe than we do for killing people?

The big dilemma that NASA faces is that their hardware does not sell where as weapons do.
Even if NASA was to develop a new Shuttle type reusable orbiter there are not many nations willing to invest in such hardware where as a fighter like F-35 or C-17 even with it's multi-million dollar price tags there are dozens of nations willing to purchase a fleet.
At the end it's about economy and unless NASA is able to develop a marketing plan with sale projection, I do not think they will obtain the necessary funds for R&D for the "NEXT" best thing for the future.
Pretty sad really with this kind of short sighted mind congress acts upon, thinking it is not worth the risk if it cannot generate profit while I hold my legislative seat.

[Ithekro]

If it wasn't for that whole "no weapons in space" treaty then I'm pretty sure they'd fund NASA just to figure out a way to get a warhead to a target faster...or set up an energy weapon platform in orbit or on the moon to maintain control (you have a big freaking laser is pointing "down"). Course that still wouldn't get all that many sales because most countries,, while they might be able to afford the equipment, don't have the territory to setup a launching paltform, or the skill to man an orbital station.

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

If it wasn't for that whole "no weapons in space" treaty then I'm pretty sure they'd fund NASA just to figure out a way to get a warhead to a target faster...or set up an energy weapon platform in orbit or on the moon to maintain control (you have a big freaking laser is pointing "down"). Course that still wouldn't get all that many sales because most countries,, while they might be able to afford the equipment, don't have the territory to setup a launching paltform, or the skill to man an orbital station.

I think the military got their laser weapon without for it to be stationed in space.
It 's actually not too practical to place those in space since if it's parked in LEO then you'll need a lot to compensate line of view in oribt and if it's stationed on the moon you can only target when it is over the enemy's territory.

[synaesthetic]

Weapons are a false economy, though, while space development could improve all aspects of the economy.

[Knightrunner]

I think they should use that money to fund solar panels. I just do not see how space affects us so much except for the beautiful constellations.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by Knightrunner

I think they should use that money to fund solar panels. I just do not see how space affects us so much except for the beautiful constellations.

Direct Benefits:

- Long range communications have two ways: you lay a physical line, or you use radio waves. Orbiting satellites orbit where...?

- Weather forecasts use satellites too.

- Predicting the sun's cycles are crucial at preparing our society for what essentially amounts to periodic EMPs caused by waves of the sun's radiation. That ship they sent orbiting around the sun a few years back is paying dividends in enormous amounts of extremely useful data, for research and practical purposes.

- Where do you think solar panels work best? Yes you guessed it, space. The atmosphere absorbs some of the light after all.

Indirect/Future Benefits:

- Investments in basic "theoretical" research -- as space exploration effectively demands -- are crucial to advances in human technology. They are also the least likely to be funded by private initiatives as the payoffs are decades ahead, and often not that profitable. Through NASA the US government effectively funded a crucial element for the technological revolution of today.

- Technologies invented for space exploration are often adapted for surface use.

- "Freefall" environments are useful in a variety of scientific research.

- Contemporary theoretical physics is heavily intertwined with astrophysics. Astrophysicists need to look at them constellations (and nebula, and...) a lot. Preferably from somewhere up high. Really high.

- When the sun becomes a red giant and consumes Earth, or a super giant asteriod comes clashing, or some genius turns Earth into a radioactive wasteland, I hope humanity makes it somewhere else by then.

- There's enormous amounts of raw material in space that is increasingly limited on Earth. The only way a market economy maintains its viability long term is to expand. After all, we've only been mining from one rock this whole time.

Actually Kinda Worth It:

- "I'm gonna grow up to be an astronaut!" Inspired people contribute more to society after all.

- The Jedi Council eagerly awaits first contact from our galaxy. Let's do this.


So yah, space be important, now and forevermore, even if a lot of humanity is too short-sighted to see it. CEO wages is anti-important. Even welfare is important only for the current living generation. The military-industrial complex is sadly important only because other people's military-industrial complex. Cut all that shit down and take us on a joy ride to the stars.

See if the universe's silly little regulation on the speed of light can stop humanity from our journey to infinity and beyond.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Knightrunner

I think they should use that money to fund solar panels. I just do not see how space affects us so much except for the beautiful constellations.

The list of modern money-making technologies that were made possible by NASA research is pretty long.

[Knightrunner]

Sorry, my statement was a bit to broad when I said space does not affect us that much. I think they should focus less on technology that looks at many solar systems away and just focus on the satellites orbiting in our galaxy. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing solar panels being built in space. I think NASA can spend there money better if they focus more on the technology aspect rather than trying to send people to the money. Don't get me wrong in this though. I like space. I believe discoveries of other planets is wonderful, but I think NASA funding can be better spent in something else.

[synaesthetic]

Well, it's not like an FTL drive will be any less useful in-system as opposed to inter-system travel... I mean, it takes two years to get to Mars with our current possible velocities.

[Knightrunner]

What does FTL mean?

[Ithekro]

Well two years depending on where in the orbit we are respectively to Mars. It can be shorter or longer depending on where we are and where Mars is. Of course even at Lightspeed (FTL being Faster Than Light) it would take over 25 minutes to get from Earth to Mars if Mars was on the other side of the system from us, and more likely 45 minutes or more since you would want to avoid hitting the Sun on the way their. That is not taking into account the time used to get the spacecraft out of whereever it it docked on either end of the trip. Getting to Saturn say would take over an hour easily at Lightspeed. Neptune (current last planet in the system) would take at least 4 hours to reach.

We presently have the technology (if I remember correctly) to accelerate an object up to 0.01 of lightspeed. Not with a human in it mind you. At Lightspeed you would run into the Moon in a second (if I recall) and the Sun in eight minutes.

However at lightspeed it would still take over 4 years to reach the nearest star to Earth. The closest star that we know has planets around it would take at least 15 years to reach. Thus the drive to get a FTL drive that would make such trips more practical. Cause only at high end Star Trek speed do you have travel between two habitable star systems being less than a day, and more likely still take several days travel.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by Knightrunner

What does FTL mean?

Faster than light travel.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Knightrunner

Sorry, my statement was a bit to broad when I said space does not affect us that much. I think they should focus less on technology that looks at many solar systems away and just focus on the satellites orbiting in our galaxy. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing solar panels being built in space. I think NASA can spend there money better if they focus more on the technology aspect rather than trying to send people to the money. Don't get me wrong in this though. I like space. I believe discoveries of other planets is wonderful, but I think NASA funding can be better spent in something else.

We live in a *solar system*. Satellites are artificial constructs that go beep. Other star systems are far away.

The budget for *deep space* astronomy/exploration or even local solar system planetary exploration is pennies versus the cost of "near Earth" development and exploration. The Shuttle and the ISS consume the lion's share of existing space science budget.

By understanding how other worlds work, how other solar systems are formed and function - gives us much better understanding of how THIS solar system works, how OUR world works, and whether our situation here is fragile or relatively safe and what to do about it.

[Ithekro]

The one question that will take a considerable amount of time and effort is the one we want answered. Is life rare? Are we alone? Recent evidence suggests other worlds that might be able to support some sort of life by our understandin gof life. But we have no proof, yet. We suspect Mars may have had life on it at one point in time, and that their may be primative life on Europa on maybe some of the other moons of Jupiter or Saturn. But we don't know yet.

If we are not alone, or their is at least an idea that life could be supported at least on other worlds, we have the potental for long term goals to ensure that our species will not be destroyed by having all of our kind on a single planet. But that is very, very long term. The steps to acheve that long term goal would benefit our species as we progress towards it.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Vexx

We live in a *solar system*. Satellites are artificial constructs that go beep. Other star systems are far away.

The budget for *deep space* astronomy/exploration or even local solar system planetary exploration is pennies versus the cost of "near Earth" development and exploration. The Shuttle and the ISS consume the lion's share of existing space science budget.

By understanding how other worlds work, how other solar systems are formed and function - gives us much better understanding of how THIS solar system works, how OUR world works, and whether our situation here is fragile or relatively safe and what to do about it.

I am not sure if the fear of alien invasion and immediate usable technologies are the concern of NASA. When you send satellites so far away, it is not going to be of any use other than sending boops and beeps.

Though I would be interested to see what the aliens' reactions are to the gold laserdisc on Voyager 1. The technology would be so outdated by the time it reaches them, so if they find and see the difference, that would be gold (pun unintended).

Originally Posted by Ithekro

If we are not alone, or their is at least an idea that life could be supported at least on other worlds, we have the potental for long term goals to ensure that our species will not be destroyed by having all of our kind on a single planet. But that is very, very long term. The steps to acheve that long term goal would benefit our species as we progress towards it.

Sadly many people simply thought of "it won't be my problem if I don't get to see it". And given the number of problems we have in our world today (oil wars, global warming, idiot politicians, religious extremism), the real funds seem to be bogged down on the short-term instead of long-term issues.

[Tri-ring]

For one thing an intelligent life being able to do FTL travel has no use "invading"earth.
Natural resources are more abundant "out" there then it is on this planet.
Fossil fuel is actually a very pour source of energy compared to nuclear fusion and/or other exotic energy source like matter - anti matter inhalation which would probably be necessary to make FTL possible.
In my opinion one thing we humans need to focus on are not short or long term issues but the mid term issue, namely energy, natural resources and development of new land.
We can harness sun light much more efficiently in space and as I wrote earlier there are more mineral natural resources that can be mined on asteroids and/or on other moons including our own.
The reason we put it off is as the same as we put off developing an alternate form of energy in the past, because it costs less AT THE MOMENT to process fossil fuel. Now we are heading in that direction because we see the economic climate more favorable. Talk about a frog not being able to leap out of a pot when boiled gently.

Some what off topic and it may not happen for another century or two but if we do develop solar power energy plants in space that can generate energy for the entire planet, the economy as we know it may collapse because the value of currency is based on supply and demand of energy. When this cycle is disrupted then society would probably need a new concept in rewarding people who achieved their mission/goal.

[Knightrunner]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

The one question that will take a considerable amount of time and effort is the one we want answered. Is life rare? Are we alone? Recent evidence suggests other worlds that might be able to support some sort of life by our understandin gof life. But we have no proof, yet. We suspect Mars may have had life on it at one point in time, and that their may be primative life on Europa on maybe some of the other moons of Jupiter or Saturn. But we don't know yet.

If we are not alone, or their is at least an idea that life could be supported at least on other worlds, we have the potental for long term goals to ensure that our species will not be destroyed by having all of our kind on a single planet. But that is very, very long term. The steps to acheve that long term goal would benefit our species as we progress towards it.

I would like that question answered if there are beings like us in a different galaxy or is there a bacteria that totally have different structures to live. Unfortunately, I honestly can't see people thinking long term when we can't even fix short term problems. If most people and scientist work together from the start then we would have lived in a cities of technology kind of like Final Fantasy worlds. We can easily build cities that can go green, but we don't. Until the current problems are solved I don't think NASA will be worrying about advance life. Hopefully, the human race will remain intact to benefit towards these long term goals .

[synaesthetic]

Alien invasion is pretty unlikely, I agree, especially by an extraterrestrial race capable of FTL travel.

What could we possibly have that they might want?

Unless they want slaves.

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Alien invasion is pretty unlikely, I agree, especially by an extraterrestrial race capable of FTL travel.

What could we possibly have that they might want?

Unless they want slaves.

The life for slaves in their society would probably be treated better than people who has a mid-level income in our society because of my last hypothesis of no penalty/limits in energy consumption.