Republicans fully fund Bush's Space Plan

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2004-12-08 04:48pm

While increasing NASA's budget sounds good on surface, the fact is that it's a very small increase for what Bush is talking about .I'm generally supportive of space exploration, but I have serious doubts about Bush & co.'s motivations...I get the feeling that it's just a lot more of feel-good talk that they can cut the moment the getting gets tough.

More importantly, NASA's science funding is getting slashed by the new budget. Since Apollo, NASA's glories could be summed up by one word: Science. Hubble, Viking, Voyager, Spirit/Opportunity, Chandra etc., and all this is under threat from the new budget. Even the Hubble doesn't look like it's going to be saved, and every astronomer and astrophysicist in the world would gladly donate their left kidney (without anaesthesia) if it would extend the Hubble's lifespan.

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2004-12-08 04:51pm

Forgot one more thing. The Mars initiative is going to involve the military-aerospace complex big time (read: Boeing, Lockheed Martin), which is presumably why the GOPs are so enthusiastic about it. Conversely, most scientific space missions are put together by university consortia.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-12-08 05:41pm

Lord Zentei wrote:
SirNitram wrote:The 'The magic Free Market Wand will make Space Travel a reality!' bit again.

Look, people. No one's going to space for profit on the current engines. Period. It's too expensive by far. And if no one is pushing upwards, the new engines that can make it even a tiny bit possible for the wet dream of the futurists to come true, then no one will make the engines, and it just won't happen. Space is too much of a long-term investment for anything meaningful to be done by private interests. Sure, when we're in space and moving between worlds, they'll start mining the belt. But they'll never get to doing the things that, in a very real sense, need to happen.
Ahem. Cough cough: Link

Still a long way to go, of course. But don't count the free market out so readily.

Oh. Wow. A sub-orbital flight that cost more than it won. How many decades has it been since that was first done?

If you weren't clutching at the magic wand so hard, you'd realize this doesn't even begin to address the problem: That no one's thinking long term enough to make space commercialization thinkable. So far, all we've got is a passenger version of the Vomit Comet in the works.

Whee. Really pushing the envelope, kiddies.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2004-12-08 05:46pm

One problem, though; balancing the budget(at least here in the US) is a rather difficult task. What's the political guarantee that an eliminated NASA would be revived, particularly as they would have to re-set up all their infrastructure?

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-12-08 05:52pm

SirNitram wrote:
Oh. Wow. A sub-orbital flight that cost more than it won. How many decades has it been since that was first done?

If you weren't clutching at the magic wand so hard, you'd realize this doesn't even begin to address the problem: That no one's thinking long term enough to make space commercialization thinkable. So far, all we've got is a passenger version of the Vomit Comet in the works.

Whee. Really pushing the envelope, kiddies.

Give be a hundred A-bombs, 20,000 tons of submarine-hull grade steel, a couple dozen miles of wiring, about fifty thousand vacuum tubes, a few hundred tons of graphite, and the title to Jackass Flats and the surrounding desert, and I'll make commercial spaceflight viable in less than a decade.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-12-08 05:56pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
Oh. Wow. A sub-orbital flight that cost more than it won. How many decades has it been since that was first done?

If you weren't clutching at the magic wand so hard, you'd realize this doesn't even begin to address the problem: That no one's thinking long term enough to make space commercialization thinkable. So far, all we've got is a passenger version of the Vomit Comet in the works.

Whee. Really pushing the envelope, kiddies.
Give be a hundred A-bombs, 20,000 tons of submarine-hull grade steel, a couple dozen miles of wiring, about fifty thousand vacuum tubes, a few hundred tons of graphite, and the title to Jackass Flats and the surrounding desert, and I'll make commercial spaceflight viable in less than a decade.

....Okay. I'll bite. Why vacuum tubes? We have surpassed that particular limitation.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-12-08 06:01pm

SirNitram wrote:
Give be a hundred A-bombs, 20,000 tons of submarine-hull grade steel, a couple dozen miles of wiring, about fifty thousand vacuum tubes, a few hundred tons of graphite, and the title to Jackass Flats and the surrounding desert, and I'll make commercial spaceflight viable in less than a decade.

....Okay. I'll bite. Why vacuum tubes? We have surpassed that particular limitation.[/quote]

We wouldn't be sure what sort of effects the EMP would have on the spacecraft's electronics from detonating nuclear devices a couple hundred meters from it until we actually tested the bloody thing. There would of course be a lot of shielding to put it mildly, but even then you're going to have some electronics exposed to the EMP, and since there's been so little testing of the effects of EMP it would be wise to use electronics we know aren't going to be knocked out by it in all locations on the vehicle until we figure out if we have the interior of the spacecraft sufficiently shielded to allow for more advanced electronics or not.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-12-08 06:03pm

Duly noted. This is what happens when you study NTR's instead of Orion and NPE.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-12-08 07:24pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: We wouldn't be sure what sort of effects the EMP would have on the spacecraft's electronics from detonating nuclear devices a couple hundred meters from it until we actually tested the bloody thing. There would of course be a lot of shielding to put it mildly, but even then you're going to have some electronics exposed to the EMP, and since there's been so little testing of the effects of EMP it would be wise to use electronics we know aren't going to be knocked out by it in all locations on the vehicle until we figure out if we have the interior of the spacecraft sufficiently shielded to allow for more advanced electronics or not.

I'm going to nitpick a bit -- you're worried about SREE affecting transistors. EMP will be generated as you boost around the upper atmosphere, frying anything unprotected on the ground, but the stuff inside the Orion launcher should be fine.

I wouldn't be worried about it, though. You've got this huge hunk of metal (and probably some other stuff) shielding the vehicle from the EM effects of the nuke. If you're still worried you can do various shielding methods (not like you're too worried about weight with an Orion drive) Vacuum tubes are also much less shock-tolerant than transistors and. Furthermore, I'm not too sure about how well vacuum tubes work when exposed to all that crap in space while we do have radiationed-hardened CPUs to play with.

Finally, vacuum tubes are power inefficient and generate quite a bit of heat. Heat is bad, heat means big unweildy radiator panels and bigger solar panels or nuclear reactors or RTGs or whatnot.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2004-12-08 07:35pm

However, anti-NASA argument #2 is a completely different animal: unlike general social ills such as war and poverty, the nation's budgetary problems are not insolvable.

True, however NASA is argueably pretty decent at growing the economy. Keynesian effects alone mean that adding a billion to the NASA budget won't create a billion dollar deficit in the general budget. Given the technological returns, like say new medicines allowing workers to live longer more productive lives, and the NASA budget most likely pays for itself in the long term.

Sure other research projects would provide faster rates of return; but my arguement is why not do them all? As long as the federal government doesn't go broke in the short term, eventually R&D pays for itself many times over.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2004-12-09 10:13am

SirNitram wrote:Oh. Wow. A sub-orbital flight that cost more than it won. How many decades has it been since that was first done?

If you weren't clutching at the magic wand so hard, you'd realize this doesn't even begin to address the problem: That no one's thinking long term enough to make space commercialization thinkable. So far, all we've got is a passenger version of the Vomit Comet in the works.

Whee. Really pushing the envelope, kiddies.

Well, I never claimed it was profound, but it is still a step. And, no, I'm not "clutching the magic wand" or anything (btw: it's and invisible hand).

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-12-09 10:21am

I say we build an 12okm long electromagentic tunnel that curves upwards in the end and shoots people into orbit cannon style!

(Don't laugh, it is somewhat doable)

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-12-09 11:45am

SirNitram wrote:Oh. Wow. A sub-orbital flight that cost more than it won. How many decades has it been since that was first done?

Nobody ever made money on aviation prizes. The prize is an incentive to partially offset the cost and risk, not to completely reimburse the fliers.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-12-09 01:12pm

Lord Zentei wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Oh. Wow. A sub-orbital flight that cost more than it won. How many decades has it been since that was first done?

If you weren't clutching at the magic wand so hard, you'd realize this doesn't even begin to address the problem: That no one's thinking long term enough to make space commercialization thinkable. So far, all we've got is a passenger version of the Vomit Comet in the works.

Whee. Really pushing the envelope, kiddies.
Well, I never claimed it was profound, but it is still a step. And, no, I'm not "clutching the magic wand" or anything (btw: it's and invisible hand).

Oh, it's a step. I'm just pointing out that there's not a shred of evidence commercialization will ever advance spaceflight. We'll see them trail along behind, where there's known profits, but, yet again, there needs to be a huge overhaul of corporate America's culture to actually accomplish jack or shit without NASA and the other space agencies of the world going first.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2004-12-09 01:20pm

SirNitram wrote:Oh, it's a step. I'm just pointing out that there's not a shred of evidence commercialization will ever advance spaceflight. We'll see them trail along behind, where there's known profits, but, yet again, there needs to be a huge overhaul of corporate America's culture to actually accomplish jack or shit without NASA and the other space agencies of the world going first.

It depends on what is meant by "advancing" spaceflight. I agree that Nasa has so far been paving the way, and commercial spaceflight would be impossible without their pioneering work. But for making spaceflight available to the public (and thus making existing technology more affordable - which is undeniably important) you probably need commercialization.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-12-09 01:34pm

Lord Zentei wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Oh, it's a step. I'm just pointing out that there's not a shred of evidence commercialization will ever advance spaceflight. We'll see them trail along behind, where there's known profits, but, yet again, there needs to be a huge overhaul of corporate America's culture to actually accomplish jack or shit without NASA and the other space agencies of the world going first.
It depends on what is meant by "advancing" spaceflight. I agree that Nasa has so far been paving the way, and commercial spaceflight would be impossible without their pioneering work. But for making spaceflight available to the public (and thus making existing technology more affordable - which is undeniably important) you probably need commercialization.

Even this I doubt. Even regaining the efficiency of the Saturn V, cost wise, would leave this technology massively out of civilian hands. And I see zero commercial attempts to make affordable engines, outside of a few groups trying to court NASA.

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-12-09 01:49pm

The only realistic plans I've heard for comercialization of space for actual, near-term goals that we can see are "space tourism" (right now stuck at orbital flights and hideously expensive-- which will probably not teach us anything new)...

... mining of asteroids/moon, which will not be feasable in the immediate future but may have some payoff in another 50 years...

... and the scheme to put massive orbital billboards in space, glaring down insanely huge and probably universally-hated commercial messages to the captive audience below.

Of them all, the third is unfortunately probably most likely, although so far businesses seem to realize that doing this will probably result in their shops on Earth being torched to the ground.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-09 01:51pm

SPOOFE wrote:
This is like saying that you don't need to watch small items in your budget because the rent is most of your monthly expenditure. How do you think the budget grew out of control, if not for thinking like this?
Circular logic. "The budget is out of control because of small-item spending; we can't spend anything on small-items because the budget's out of control."

A premise followed by a conclusion drawn from that premise is not circular logic, dumb-fuck. Circular logic has to be, you know, circular. As in A because of B, B because of A. Not "A is true, therefore B". I love it when morons try to use fallacy names when they don't even remotely apply.

All measures are not equal. I already pointed out where the real waste comes from, and it's from simple sloppy government spending.

Great, we'll just uncheck the "sloppy government spending" line item from the budget

I'm not advocating spending money willy-nilly... rather, I'm simply saying that balancing the budget will involve a lot more than trimming the expenditures on a couple small things.

To use your analogy... if your rent is already egregiously high, does that mean you decide to stop buying necessities or high-priorities to avoid going into debt?

Oh so now it's a "necessity" to go to Mars? One word: bullshit. It is a nice idea, and attractive in many ways, but that doesn't make it a necessity. Only idiots try to justify wants by misrepresenting them as needs.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2004-12-09 01:53pm

SirNitram wrote:Even this I doubt. Even regaining the efficiency of the Saturn V, cost wise, would leave this technology massively out of civilian hands. And I see zero commercial attempts to make affordable engines, outside of a few groups trying to court NASA.

The Saturn V is a bit of a tall order at this stage. Though very cost effective, it was designed to reach the bloody moon, and there are several steps that have to be acheived first.

As for non-NASA courting types there are a few, for instance Mircorp; there is also the possibility of permitting the use of existing resources to provide a boost.

Seriously, though: NASA landed on the moon 35 years ago, and what revolutionary new launch technology have they produced since then (apart from a deeply flawed and decidedly cost ineffective space shuttle)? While I support Bush's space plan, depending on NASA alone for producing cost effective approaches for public consumption may not be such a hot idea.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-12-09 01:59pm

Lord Zentei wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Even this I doubt. Even regaining the efficiency of the Saturn V, cost wise, would leave this technology massively out of civilian hands. And I see zero commercial attempts to make affordable engines, outside of a few groups trying to court NASA.
The Saturn V is a bit of a tall order at this stage. Though very cost effective, it was designed to reach the bloody moon, and there are several steps that have to be acheived first.

I was actually referring to the Saturn V in cargo configuration. I should have been clearer. However, do clarify on these steps that need to be acheived first. You'll find I need alot of convincing to beleive that pissing around in low orbit is necessary.

As for non-NASA courting types there are a few, for instance Mircorp; there is also the possibility of permitting the use of existing resources to provide a boost.

....Do you perhaps realize how, when I group the various national space agencies together, I might not consider a group courting the Russian space agency that different?

Seriously, though: NASA landed on the moon 35 years ago, and what revolutionary new launch technology have they produced since then (apart from a deeply flawed and decidedly cost ineffective space shuttle)? While I support Bush's space plan, depending on NASA alone for producing cost effective approaches for public consumption may not be such a hot idea.

Lovely strawman. Take the most underfunded years of NASA, claim no big jumps have been made, and then twist my words into saying 'We have to depend on NASA'. Do you comprehend how putting words in someone's mouth can be insulting?

Re-read the goddamn posts. I never said we must depend on NASA. It's in more dire need of an overhaul than ever. But, once more, Corporate America has exactly the wrong mindset for anything productive.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-12-09 02:04pm

Ben Bova once proposed giving commercialization a leg up in space the same way we got the damns out west built: huge, long-term, low interest loans direct from the Federal treasury to the private companies who built and operated them. Done right, everyone benefits: the government makes money, the company makes money, and the citizens get a needed piece of infrasrtucture. The problem is there just isn't that much you can DO in space that's going to make money even in the long term. Asteroid mining and orbital solar power satellites are the only ones I can think of. It would be nice if we were doing that, but that's not the path to permanant human habitation in space, which has to be the ultimate goal if the species is to survive.

Would it be possible under this system, given the technology, to build a space colony at L4 or L5 and make a profit charging rent to live in it? I can see the benefits of living there, especially if it's spun for gravity (perfect climate, perfect weather every day, can't beat the view), but so far as I know, for-profit cities rarely work, and that's with gravity and oxygen provided for free.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-12-09 02:09pm

RedImperator wrote:Would it be possible under this system, given the technology, to build a space colony at L4 or L5 and make a profit charging rent to live in it? I can see the benefits of living there, especially if it's spun for gravity (perfect climate, perfect weather every day, can't beat the view), but so far as I know, for-profit cities rarely work, and that's with gravity and oxygen provided for free.

It might get you the mega-rich, but that's about it.

Human habitation will not occour by commercial causes. There's no profit. There's every reason to avoid it for them.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2004-12-09 02:14pm

SirNitram wrote:I was actually referring to the Saturn V in cargo configuration. I should have been clearer.

Ok, fair enough.

SirNitram wrote:However, do clarify on these steps that need to be acheived first. You'll find I need alot of convincing to beleive that pissing around in low orbit is necessary.

I agree that "pissing around in low orbit" is not neccesary to provide revolutionary new technology, it may be neccesary to reduce cost and provide access for the public, an idea that NASA has thus far been quite hostile to.

SirNitram wrote:....Do you perhaps realize how, when I group the various national space agencies together, I might not consider a group courting the Russian space agency that different?

They are courting "commercial activities". They are allying themselves with the Russian space agency.

SirNitram wrote:Lovely strawman. Take the most underfunded years of NASA, claim no big jumps have been made, and then twist my words into saying 'We have to depend on NASA'. Do you comprehend how putting words in someone's mouth can be insulting?

Re-read the goddamn posts. I never said we must depend on NASA. It's in more dire need of an overhaul than ever. But, once more, Corporate America has exactly the wrong mindset for anything productive.

Whoa, take it easy. I never tried to put words in your mouth, and I agree that NASA has been underfunded and needs overhauling. I did say I supported the current space plan, didn't I? I was responding to the following post:

SirNitram wrote:Look, people. No one's going to space for profit on the current engines. Period. It's too expensive by far. And if no one is pushing upwards, the new engines that can make it even a tiny bit possible for the wet dream of the futurists to come true, then no one will make the engines, and it just won't happen. Space is too much of a long-term investment for anything meaningful to be done by private interests. Sure, when we're in space and moving between worlds, they'll start mining the belt. But they'll never get to doing the things that, in a very real sense, need to happen

My examples indicate that there are people who are willing to try and go into space for profit on the current engines. That was my point, nothing more.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-12-09 02:18pm

Lord Zentei wrote:
SirNitram wrote:However, do clarify on these steps that need to be acheived first. You'll find I need alot of convincing to beleive that pissing around in low orbit is necessary.
I agree that "pissing around in low orbit" is not neccesary to provide revolutionary new technology, it may be neccesary to reduce cost and provide access for the public, an idea that NASA has thus far been quite hostile to.

I see the steps you claimed exist are not quantified as I asked. Why am I not surprised.

SirNitram wrote:....Do you perhaps realize how, when I group the various national space agencies together, I might not consider a group courting the Russian space agency that different?
They are courting "commercial activities". They are allying themselves with the Russian space agency.

Semantical bullcrap.

SirNitram wrote:Lovely strawman. Take the most underfunded years of NASA, claim no big jumps have been made, and then twist my words into saying 'We have to depend on NASA'. Do you comprehend how putting words in someone's mouth can be insulting?

Re-read the goddamn posts. I never said we must depend on NASA. It's in more dire need of an overhaul than ever. But, once more, Corporate America has exactly the wrong mindset for anything productive.
Whoa, take it easy. I never tried to put words in your mouth, and I agree that NASA has been underfunded and needs overhauling. I did say I supported the current space plan, didn't I? I was responding to the following post:

You were putting words in my goddamn mouth by claiming I said only NASA was worth supporting.

SirNitram wrote:Look, people. No one's going to space for profit on the current engines. Period. It's too expensive by far. And if no one is pushing upwards, the new engines that can make it even a tiny bit possible for the wet dream of the futurists to come true, then no one will make the engines, and it just won't happen. Space is too much of a long-term investment for anything meaningful to be done by private interests. Sure, when we're in space and moving between worlds, they'll start mining the belt. But they'll never get to doing the things that, in a very real sense, need to happen
My examples indicate that there are people who are willing to try and go into space for profit on the current engines. That was my point, nothing more.

And accomplishing nothing new. That's been my point the whole time. There will be no advances on commercial corporation's watches until there's a massive overhaul of the culture, and even then, what needs to happen in the long term(Permenant offworld habitation and the spread of the species), will never happen for profit.

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-12-09 02:21pm

Long-term human habitation of space will be a dreary proposition at first, in fact. A colony of moon miners will have damn few luxuries, so to make up for that they'll expect enormous pay waiting for them when they get home. But will the products of their labor be worth it? If they are making common items that can be done on Earth, probably not.

The first colonies will most likely be not-for-profit government ventures-- scientific research mostly, where no one expects to make a "bottom line" at the end of the fiscal year. Once government paves the way and does theheavy lifting, busines will eventually try to stake a claim and expand on it from there.

But in space we don't even have "option 2" available for non-profit settlement: military bases. In the past, a place that was economically worthless but of strategic importance would have a fort built there and over time it would deveop into a colony of sorts. That incentive does not exist in space. So far. We hope.

Under current economic conditions, the third option for building a settlemetn is the most politically unattractive-- convict labor, a sort of "Botany Bay" on the Moon or Mars, whatever. If teh Death Penalty were overturned, convicted hardcases could be sent to work on th emoon for the rest of their natural lives. But the influence of public opinion would strike that down and alsio strike down th ecareer of any politician that brought it up...

Easy commercialization will happen only AFTER gov't has made it cheaper and comfy enough.