The Death March has Begun at NASA.

[MKSheppard]

What's wrong with an organization taking on complimentary or even disparate tasks for the greater good that they are capable of undertaking?

Except that NASA by it's missions ALONE generates goodwill for the United States automatically -- look at stuff like the Hubble images; the images from the rovers on MARS, and the Apollo missions -- plus the already extant outreach programs they have that put them in contact with schools all around the world.

[Shroom Man 777]

In addition, our space probes have considerably more reach. A manned mission to anywhere we can actually reach would be to prove we could do it, get out, take pictures, et cetera. Not something like colonization. Robots are perfectly capable of achieving that kind of mission and in places we can't reach and don't know about. We can't really afford glory missions where we do things just to prove how bad ass we are.

Why not?

Seriously, you could take the cash out of the DoD budget.

I wonder how Shep would react to that.

"Hey guys, cut the B-1 Lancer and the F-22 and use the money for manned spaceflight!"

*Shep's head explodes*

[MKSheppard]

I wonder how Shep would react to that.

I'm fine with that as long as we get an operationally armed spaceplane in orbit to blow away other people's satellites and drop nukes from orbit. You can just then paint a NASA logo over the USAF markings.

[Eleventh Century Remnant]

Accepting that the main visible arm of NASA seems to be dying, and looking back to try to figure out exactly what went wrong when, I keep getting pulled to the mid to late sixties.

The thought becomes unavoidable that NASA's manned spaceflight arm lay down on it's organisational deathbed a hell of a long time ago; I personally reckon at the latest with the cancellation of the Apollo Applications Program if not the cancellation of NERVA. This is so far back I'd have to invent a time machine to object.

Not only is the political will to make the money available not there, I honestly don't think it was ever there, not at government level. I 'know', or at least the biographies and histories tell me, that on the Soviet side the extent to which they never intended to have a space program is overwhelming, and it was basically finagled through in the face of the system by space enthusiasts who also happened to be missile engineers.

In America, basically the same situation until the Soviets presented them with a challenge they couldn't ignore for prestige purposes, and that got the cash flowing- not that there were not genuine space enthusiasts working with rockets in America, but they didn't get through that organisational barrier until it became a matter of national security.

Many brilliant dreams were dreamt, but they were always limited by what Congress was willing to fund, and once it was obvious that victory would be achieved, the flood of money and interest that made Apollo possible slowed to a trickle. No Apollo applications, no nuclear engines. No going past LEO, nothing that isn't of direct use. Space dreamers and space enthusiasts do not control budgets.

The death march began more than forty years ago, and this is nothing more than the patient sliding into a deeper stage of coma, and the failure of the latest resuscitation attempt.

[eion]

What's wrong with an organization taking on complimentary or even disparate tasks for the greater good that they are capable of undertaking?

Except that NASA by it's missions ALONE generates goodwill for the United States automatically -- look at stuff like the Hubble images; the images from the rovers on MARS, and the Apollo missions -- plus the already extant outreach programs they have that put them in contact with schools all around the world.

So what's the conflict? The job should be pretty easy and complimentary.

[Coyote]

The biggest problem with NASA is public perception. Even though NASA's budget is tiny (on the comparitive scale of such things) the things they do and build appear to be titanic, Pharaonic-level acts of grandeur. Rockets, space probes, stuff like that-- people see it and they can imagine that incalculable tons of money that "surely must have" gone into it.

Then, when results come back (years later in many cases, a probe launched today could take 6-10 years to get anywhere interesting and send back spine-tingling photos) people say, "sure, these are spine-tingling photos, but that's it? We spent eleventy-skillion gigadollars and all we got was some fancy pictures?"

So at any given time you have an Administration that, in many cases, will spend the money on space probes but will not be in power to enjoy the warm-and-fuzzy when the probe reaches its destination, and, a tragically ignorant public that does not understand the values of the things being done. They think the rockets and launches are ginormously more expensive than they really are, and that the cost of a launch or two would actually make a difference in a real budget... and they think that all we get is "pretty pictures" and nothing else.

[PeZook]

Yeah, the public is so ignorant that it can seriously believe claims that, say, Apollo "only brought us some rocks and planted a flag", when in fact the data from Apollo is still being analyzed, the experiments left on the lunar surface are still being used, and the technologies developed for the program are still making our lives easier.

Even if they realize 10 billion is nothing in the US budget, they see it as 10 billions that gives nothing in return.

[Skylon]

So...what could the Muslim world exactly contribute to NASA? Frankly only Iran has anything close to space launch capability (not exactly a country the US is on friendly terms with).

You want to build closer ties to the Muslim world? Give them an open invite to collaborate on ISS or an unmanned mission (whatever hardware they can produce), and let's move on (and past this right-wing...."HOLY SHIT! Muslims!" crap).

[Coyote]

So...what could the Muslim world exactly contribute to NASA?

Um.. fanaticism? I mean, don't underestimate the value of good, useful fanaticism. You could say "Alah commands you to make a rocket capable of flying to Mars" then step back and watch them foaming at the mouth as they martyr themselves building a VASIMIR hot-rod.

Of course, fanaticism has its downside, too: "Thanks to you guys, there's no women on this tub. So it's your turn in the barrel, Achmed."


Seriously, though... inappropriate stereotypes aside... the Arab/Muslim world has billions in finances that are wasted on things like palaces and Mercedes, and a space program would teach them ways to stretch resources like water, and how to really use all that solar power potential. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Indonesia have resources, population, and actual infrastructure that could be useful.

But really, the next big players in space are going to be the ones who see a way to make assloads of money out of it. Here's the big problem-- by international treaty, no one can "own" space or the things in it (ie, planets or parts of planets). People across the political spectrum in the US are saying "let the private sector handle it" but the private sector has no incentive to invest long-term because it'd be like mining a public park-- the permit can be revoked at any moment to suit political whims.

The private sector wants to own sections of property so they have exclusive property rights to stake claims. If they don't get to own it and keep it, they won't invest. Right now, space "belongs to everyone" so if a company goes to Mars and finds profitable minerals, they fear having the market prices dictated by some international agreement that will be below their desired profit level. In their eyes, natural resources in space are "pre-nationalized".

[PeZook]

So...what could the Muslim world exactly contribute to NASA? Frankly only Iran has anything close to space launch capability (not exactly a country the US is on friendly terms with).

Money, launch sites, abort sites and astronauts. Not things NASA has a desperate need for, but a PR boon of having a Muslim astronaut fly into space on a NASA ship would be absolutely tremendous.

[Simon_Jester]

Except we don't have any ships, on account of Obama cancelling Constellation.

[MKSheppard]

So...what could the Muslim world exactly contribute to NASA?.

Launch trajectories from Iran to Israel? Seriously; that was a retarded beyond belief statement by Bolden; and since the WH is backing it up; it means it was true.

[Skylon]

So...what could the Muslim world exactly contribute to NASA? Frankly only Iran has anything close to space launch capability (not exactly a country the US is on friendly terms with).

Money, launch sites, abort sites and astronauts. Not things NASA has a desperate need for, but a PR boon of having a Muslim astronaut fly into space on a NASA ship would be absolutely tremendous.

Already happened. In 1985 a member of the Saudi royal family went up on a shuttle flight, STS 51-G: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultan_bin ... iz_Al_Saud

[MKSheppard]

a PR boon of having a Muslim astronaut fly into space on a NASA ship would be absolutely tremendous.

Already been done.

Link

Sultan bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (Arabic: سلطان بن سلمان بن عبد العزيز آل سعود‎) is a retired officer in the Royal Saudi Air Force who flew aboard the STS-51-G Space Shuttle mission as a Payload Specialist. He is a grandson of King Ibn Saud and is the only Saudi citizen to travel in space. He was also the first Arab, the first Muslim and the first member of royalty in space.

[eion]

Except we don't have any ships, on account of Obama cancelling Constellation.

King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia has an estimated personal wealth of $17 Billion. We might be able to find an investor or two for space exploration and infrastructure in the ME. Call it the Branson model of Space Exploration.