Why we should fund space research

[robnissen]

Nice article in the Washington Post today discussing all the news from the last few weeks: Gliese C, Eta Carinae and the first extrasolar temperature map. It then talks about all the telescopes that made these wonderful discoveries possible and why we need to build more:<br /><br />http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/11/AR2007051102061.html?hpid=opinionsbox1<br /><br />I hope the politicians are listening.

 

[dragon04]

I often wonder not why we should fund space research and exploration, but rather how many baskets we should be putting our finite number of eggs in.<br /><br />Where will we get the most bang for our buck considering our current technology and resources?<br /><br />Do we spend a hundred billion dollars and a couple decades shooting 4 or 5 guys to Mars?<br /><br />Do we instead use that money to work on advanced propulsion, unmanned probes and observational tools such as the next generation of space based telescopes?<br /><br />Where the money goes is not so important as the logic behind <b>how</b> money and resources are used.<br /><br />We seem to be trying to do it all and it's at the expense of each of the individual programs to varying degrees.<br /><br />I think we generally lack the proper focus that we really need. It's understandable, though. We're kids in a Wal Mart sized candy store with a couple of bucks in our pockets, to speak metaphorically.<br /><br />A debate for the ages. Do we support one program over another simply because it's what we <b>want</b> to see happen regardless of cost? That doesn't sound like a business plan one could take to the bank when looking for financing.<br /><br />If that's the path we choose, so be it. But whatever we do, there will be downside. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

There will always be an upside and a downside for any decision.<br />Real life is a &%$#@! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">Where the money goes is not so important as the logic behind how money and resources are used. <br /></font><br /><br />I agree!<br /><br />I am all for more money being spent on space exploration. 2x or 3x more! In my vision, I would like to see many more unmanned probes and rovers, plus an improved communication net here and at key planets so that we can receive the huge bandwidth of transmission from probes and rovers.<br /><br />We should be sending a new generation of unmanned probes to map Titan, and back to Jupiter and Uranus and Neptune.<br /><br />We should be building a fleet of many cheap "standardized" rovers to explore Mars, the Moon, some asteroids, a comet, and some Jovian and Saturnian moons.<br /><br />We should also build several expensive customized rovers for detailed analysis of key planetary locations, such as Mars, Titan, Europa, Io, Enceladus, etc.<br /><br />In my vision, we should have a dozen rovers running at any given moment!<br /><br />We should <i>fully</i> repair the Hubble and keep it running.<br /><br />We should fund research into making tinier, smaller robotic probes with enhanced capability. This can be done using existing and forseen improvements in nano technologies and data processing.<br /><br />Data should be published and publicly available on the web, with minimal delay. NASA and JPL are largely doing this now, which I applaud. Research papers from publicly funded projects should be published in journals which have <i>free</i> internet access, and not in paid-access journals. If said journals need government subsidy to meet publishing expenses, then include this very minor funding. This should be the universal standard. Afterall, we the taxpayers pay for this research. (and yes, I understand the counterarguments, but I feel these counterarguments are not compelling enough, and also obsolete thinking).<br /><br />I think it is an unwise use of money to send people to Mars and the moon <i>at this time</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow">We should fully repair the Hubble and keep it running.</font><br /><br />You're making my point for me, and thanks!<br /><br />Why? Why spend a couple of STS launches at 500 million a crack and God knows how much in training, and parts?<br /><br />Just build a newer better one, and get it up there instead. Every moment that goes by makes it more and more prohibitively expensive to keep Hubble running. In short order, from a cost basis, it would have been cheaper to simply build a new Billion Dollar Baby and get it into space and operating.<br /><br />This is <b>exactly</b> what I'm talking about. Hubble has yielded astonishing results. But that in and of itself is no reason to spend billions of dollars repairing the "Old Girl" when we could take the same money and Build Hubble v2.0<br /><br /><font color="yellow">We should fund research into making tinier, smaller robotic probes with enhanced capability.</font><br /><br />Absolutely. Cassini has been a <b>bargain</b> in terms of the data it has returned and the science it's doing and will continue to do. Money well spent.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">I think it is an unwise use of money to send people to Mars and the moon at this time.</font><br /><br />Again, I agree. "At this time" being the critical words. What's the rush? I'd dearly love to see men and women set foot on Mars before I die. That would be awesome. I remember as a kid how I felt when Neil Armstrong set foot on the Moon. Wonderful stuff.<br /><br />But if I'm to be honest with myself, my great desire to see people on Mars isn't worth a hundred billion bucks. My disappointment doesn't cost NASA a dime, and I wouldn't think the worse of them for making the prudent decision.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">I also question the value of the ISS; but we may as well complete it since it is already up there, the incremental additional expense to complete and run this is worth the payback</font><br /><br />Again, <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">Just build a newer better one, and get it up there instead. Every moment that goes by makes it more and more prohibitively expensive to keep Hubble running. In short order, from a cost basis, it would have been cheaper to simply build a new Billion Dollar Baby and get it into space and operating. </font><br /><br />That is OK with me too, and you have me convinced.<br /><br /><i>I also question the value of the ISS; but we may as well complete it since it is already up there, the incremental additional expense to complete and run this is worth the payback </i><br /><font color="yellow">, if I were the CEO of a corporation, I certainly couldn't use that argument to convince my shareholders that I should spend their money. They'd have my head on a pike. </font><br /><br />Well, I do think the incremental additonal expense ($15B?) is worth it. But I would have never begun it to begin with. The total cost of the ISS could have funded 2 dozen Cassini's, a brand new Hubble, plus rovers on Mars, Moon and Titan for example. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[nexius]

The success of the U.S relys on it's space program to me. Coming from a military point of view.. If you control the skys, you control the battle. The only reason I said that is because thats how the government thinks. Their so anal with national security ( as they should be ) and the Department of Defense, that the only reason they want NASA is to figure out defense im sure. I'm sure the president could care less about space exploration.

 

[qso1]

nexius:<br />If you control the skys, you control the battle. The only reason I said that is because thats how the government thinks.<br /><br />Me:<br />As far as manned space, the DOD has seen no need for one at this point, at least not publically. This is because when they did have grandiose plans to deploy troops in space. They were in the form of concepts that are still stuff of the future even today. SSTO troop transports, manned space stations, stuff that has proven not very practical or even really required. MOL ended the manned military station dream and Dyna Soar ended the idea for now of having some kind of regular troop transport to space capability.<br /><br />The main reason the DOD pretty much abandoned their man in space plans was that they developed unmanned spysats that could do the bulk of military recon from space. There simply has not been an emerging threat from other nations that I'm aware of that would require troops in space.<br /><br />nexius:<br />Their so anal with national security ( as they should be ) and the Department of Defense, that the only reason they want NASA is to figure out defense im sure.<br /><br />Me:<br />Don't be too sure. The DOD pretty much already has their space requirements figured out. They don't need NASA for that. They might respond should a NASA asset be attacked but thats mainly them waiting for a rationale to go beyond where they have already gone in space.<br /><br />Bush would actually be one to care about space exploration because it means jobs in Texas. Home State for the Johnson Space Center. If you noticed, Johnson and the Bushes have been NASAs biggest supporters who attained the Presidency. They either implemented programs already called for (Kennedy Apollo challenge Johnson carried forward) or proposed new programs (Bush 1 and 2).<br /><br />Reagan was a pretty big supporter of space station (He started the station program rolling on his 1984 Union address) as long as he thought it might prove useful to his SDI plan <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">(dubya and his daddy) . . . proposed new programs . . .</font><br /><br />Proposed, yes.<br /><br />Funded? Not so much. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

Thats true. Bush 1s lunar program was DOA due to the estimated cost. The current VSE program is trying to get by on minimal funds at best. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[enigma10]

<i><font color="yellow">Why we should fund space research.</font></i><br /><br /> Because we owe it to the other 99.9 other species that didn't make it, and we owe it to the other 99.9 of humanity that must carry on after we're <i>resting</i>. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br /> Need there be more reasons? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[summoner]

I think we do need to continue with the VSE. It's fantastic for science to see robots and rovers all over our solar system, but nothing inspires the next generation like actual people standing on the moon or Mars. Imagine if we had a Congress full of John Glenn's instead of lawyers? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> <br /><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:271px;background-color:#FFF;border:1pxsolid#999"><tr><td colspan="2"><div style="height:35px"><img src="http://banners.wunderground.com/weathersticker/htmlSticker1/language/www/US/MT/Three_Forks.gif" alt="" height="35" width="271" style="border:0px" /></div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

I think that 1% of each persons taxes should be able to be earmarked for any specific purpose.<br /><br />Let's see, stupid war in Iraq, or Space exploration... easy choice <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[deapfreeze]

I think this is a good idea. I also think we should donate more give the people more say. I am sure if given a reason more people would. Let people other than those working for NASA or other space programs have a choice. Like we have these six mission possibilities what would we like to see out of these six kind of thing. Only people who donate would have the option of voting on the six missions. More space revenue and the people have a choice. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>William ( deapfreeze ) Hooper</em></font></p><p><font size="1">http://deapfreeze-amateur-astronomy.tk/</font></p><p> </p> </div>

 

[dragon04]

I really like that idea, MW! I think I shall use that in my Campaign (with credit to you, of course).<br /><br />At least space enthusiasts would feel a little less disenfranchised if they <b>knew</b> money set aside by them was earmarked for only NASA.<br /><br />It would also be a good way to get an idea of what the taxpayers see as important programs by how they earmark their 1%. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[summoner]

It's a great idea, too bad our gov'ts think they know better than us how to spend <b>our</b> money. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> <br /><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:271px;background-color:#FFF;border:1pxsolid#999"><tr><td colspan="2"><div style="height:35px"><img src="http://banners.wunderground.com/weathersticker/htmlSticker1/language/www/US/MT/Three_Forks.gif" alt="" height="35" width="271" style="border:0px" /></div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

If 1% could be earmarked (that's why I made a modest proposal, 1% of your income tax) I bet we'd all be out there on the street twisting arms. The problem with the current situation is that our input is too easily ignored. <br />As they say Money talks.... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />And this idea puts a tiny percentage of the target in OUR hands.<br />Believe me, I'd convert 90% of the people in High Bridge within a month <img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[spacester]

It's a fabulous idea. One of the best I've ever heard.<br /><br />It's worth a try, IMO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

Count me in. Maybe the IRS could add something to the tax forms. You could volunteer a lump sum or a percentage of your income. NASA could run a humble ad campaign, and maybe, just maybe the Gov. would match our donation ON TOP of what is already budgeted. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[nexius]

Thanks for clearing that up! I'm just a babbling fool haha..

 

[deapfreeze]

This could be educational and we could do some big digs if they like on the moon or mars. I think this would appeal to a large number of people. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>William ( deapfreeze ) Hooper</em></font></p><p><font size="1">http://deapfreeze-amateur-astronomy.tk/</font></p><p> </p> </div>

 

[dragon04]

I don't think that MW intended that exclusive program finding come from the 1% earmark money, but rather as the "and then some" part to already allocated monies.<br /><br />Along the lines of the box you can check if you wish $3 to go to the Presidential election fund, except that 1% of your taxes go. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

That is correct, thanks for making it clearer.<br />The good part is that 1% of taxes is way more than 3 bucks.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[ianke]

Does anyone here have an idea what percentage of the population thinks like us? I'd be really surprised if even 5 or 10 percent of the people would choose NASA funding over education or other other such projects.<br /><br />Dragon's thought at least has it as above and beyond the normal budgetary income, so every little bit counts. However if we made it the only funding I'm afraid NASA would be doomed. Perhaps I am wrong, but I do not think of our group is a good cross section of the population to determine what the nation would do. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

anvel:<br /><br />I love your enthusiasm, MeteorWayne! But we have to assume that the 1% would have other attractors.<br /><br />Me:<br />All too true and provable actually. The Clinton Administration could have funded NASA an extra $1 billion during the surplus years. The budget surplusses of the late 1990s would have easily funded a NASA budget increase of substantial portions but all we got was business as usual. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>