NASA, or: How To Continue Beating Your Head Against A Brick Wall

[Sam_Stone]

@RTFirefly

I’m with you on that. But having agreed with you there, here’s the problems I run into:

1. We’ve already been to the moon. There’s no intellectually compelling reason to make a return trip.

I think the purpose of going back is simply to establish a permanent presence on another world. That’s an important milestone, just as the first orbit or the first trip to the moon was. It will help us develop our in-space capabilities in a host of ways, such as docking, refueling in space, learning mining techniques (it’s a virtual certainty that we’ll be mining water ice), moving cargo back and forth to Earth, etc.

Better to prove out these technologies when spare parts and rescues are only 3 days away, rather than six months away.

There is still lots to learn on the Moon, btw. Radio astronomy on the dark side would be completely insulated from Earth’s radio noise. Lunar geology may yet have some surprises. We may even find tubes that we can seal and use as living space for thousands of people if we want. The lunar ‘rilles’ are collapsed lava tubes, There are plenty of uncollapsed ones left, and they are now totally stable and will last for millions of years.

If enough water ice is found on the moon, it’s actually possible that we could build a mostly self-sustaining colony there with at least hundreds of people in it within 50-75 years.

2. Any manned exploration beyond the moon is going to be twenty times as difficult, and probably a similar multiple on the expense. That’s raising the ante really, really high - you could solve major problems here on Earth for that sort of money.

Like what? The Department of Education’s budget has been increased by more than NASA’s entire budget during the Bush administration. Where do you think the money would be better spent? Hell, I’ll bet NASA does more for science education in the U.S. than the entire Dept of Education, just by inspiring kids to study harder and to find science more interesting. A re-invogorated exploration program that actually expands the frontiers of space will do wonders for the country as a whole in terms of encouraging kids to stay in school, giving people a sense of pride in their country, and acting as an inspiration to the rest of the world. It also helps the U.S’s image to be doing big things that aren’t military.

3. Unmanned probes are already doing a terrific job of exploring the other planets and their satellites, sending back lots of data and great pictures, for a fraction of what it takes to keep the shuttle program alive.

Defining the value of the space program in terms of science is loading the deck in your favor. Robots are currently good for collecting scientific data. Great. Let’s keep doing that, or even doing more of it. But robots aren’t nearly as good as astronauts for engaging the public and expanding the boundaries of mankind. Eventually, you have to send people.

I think what would be more interesting than a manned Mars mission would be an unmanned Alpha Centauri probe. There would be some interesting engineering/IT challenges, such as:
i) Finding a way to propel it there fast enough that we’d have a chance to see how the mission turns out;
ii) developing software that will enable the probe to deal with challenges at the other end all by itself (the 8.6 year round trip for a radio signal requires that); and, speaking of which:
iii) being able to broadcast a signal over that distance that we can pick up at this end, with a transmitter and power source small and light enough to make the trip.

Getting a close-up view of another star/solar system would be pretty spectacular.

Actually, the way to get that is not to send a probe there, but to build freaking big telescope arrays in orbit. There is no theoretical reason why you couldn’t build an array big enough to image planets in other star systems the way we image Mars or even the Moon. The Terrestrial Planet Finder will be able to image features on Earth-sized planets around the nearest stars, and analyze their atmospheres for composition and signs of life.

Let’s do more of this. Hell, why don’t we just double NASA’s budget and just do it all? Even with the boondoggles and bad management, as far as I’m concerned NASA is one of the few government agencies that has delivered a reasonable bang for the buck. Doubling NASA’s budget would make it only about half the size of the Dept. of Education.

[RTFirefly]

@Sam Stone

I think the purpose of going back is simply to establish a permanent presence on another world. That’s an important milestone, just as the first orbit or the first trip to the moon was.

However much it would cost in current dollars to return to the moon, it goes without saying that sustaining a colony there would be many times more expensive.

It will help us develop our in-space capabilities in a host of ways, such as docking, refueling in space, learning mining techniques (it’s a virtual certainty that we’ll be mining water ice), moving cargo back and forth to Earth, etc.

And what in this list is worth paying that sort of money?

Better to prove out these technologies when spare parts and rescues are only 3 days away, rather than six months away.

Why - is the moon going to move further away from us anytime soon?

There is still lots to learn on the Moon, btw. Radio astronomy on the dark side would be completely insulated from Earth’s radio noise. Lunar geology may yet have some surprises. We may even find tubes that we can seal and use as living space for thousands of people if we want. The lunar ‘rilles’ are collapsed lava tubes, There are plenty of uncollapsed ones left, and they are now totally stable and will last for millions of years.

If enough water ice is found on the moon, it’s actually possible that we could build a mostly self-sustaining colony there with at least hundreds of people in it within 50-75 years.

That’s a big ‘if’. And other than the radio-astronomy bit, your list is mostly about having a moon colony for the sake of having a moon colony.

Like what? The Department of Education’s budget has been increased by more than NASA’s entire budget during the Bush administration. Where do you think the money would be better spent?

Yeah, but both are trivial compared to the costs of a Mars mission or a continuous moon colony. I’m thinking that’s enough money to put Social Security on a sound footing for the next eon, and still have money left to help out with Medicare.

Hell, I’ll bet NASA does more for science education in the U.S. than the entire Dept of Education, just by inspiring kids to study harder and to find science more interesting. A re-invogorated exploration program that actually expands the frontiers of space will do wonders for the country as a whole in terms of encouraging kids to stay in school, giving people a sense of pride in their country, and acting as an inspiration to the rest of the world. It also helps the U.S’s image to be doing big things that aren’t military.

Y’know, this is the sort of stuff that, when libruls used to say it about their programs, the conservatives rightly criticized their airy-fairy thinking.

Defining the value of the space program in terms of science is loading the deck in your favor. Robots are currently good for collecting scientific data. Great. Let’s keep doing that, or even doing more of it. But robots aren’t nearly as good as astronauts for engaging the public and expanding the boundaries of mankind. Eventually, you have to send people.

I’m willing to concede that eventually we may have to send people. But my point is that there’s no hurry on that: if the need to send people arises in fifty years, we’ll be able to get people back to the moon in 2-3 years. (We could do that now, if sufficient reason existed.) An eventual need to send people further away than low earth orbit doesn’t justify spending hundreds of billions to do so now without any particular reason.

And spending hundreds of billions for glorified PR is kinda stupid too.

Actually, the way to get that is not to send a probe there, but to build freaking big telescope arrays in orbit. There is no theoretical reason why you couldn’t build an array big enough to image planets in other star systems the way we image Mars or even the Moon. The Terrestrial Planet Finder will be able to image features on Earth-sized planets around the nearest stars, and analyze their atmospheres for composition and signs of life.

Hey, now you’re singing my song.

Let’s do more of this. Hell, why don’t we just double NASA’s budget and just do it all?

Why not cut NASA’s budget in half, get rid of the manned program entirely, and still do far more real science than we’re doing now.

[Liberal]

@RT

Why not cut NASA’s budget in half, get rid of the manned program entirely, and still do far more real science than we’re doing now.

Well, it’s a start. Go twice as far, and I’m with you.

[Sam_Stone]

@RTFirefly

And what in this list is worth paying that sort of money?

Well, I guess that depends on your perspective. You don’t think a manned program is worth anything, so from your standpoint making a manned program more robust isn’t worth anything either.

Myself, I think we need to explore. It’s in our bones. Civilizations that don’t have frontiers turn inwards and gaze at their navels and eventually die. A frontier is good for our soul. It helps keep us tough. It helps motivate our children. It gives us big things to dream about. It engages our sense of wonder and makes us feel good about ourselves. That has value. Big time value.

Why - is the moon going to move further away from us anytime soon?

No, but Mars is a lot farther. If we eventually want to go there, it would be nice to work out things like how to deal with sharp dust, how to make a good spacesuit glove, how to maintain a spaceship that moves from orbit to orbit and is refueled and maintained in situ, etc. NASA is now on an ‘exploration track’ that will push the boundaries of the frontier. That beats the hell out of flying a truck to and from LEO for 20 years.

That’s a big ‘if’. And other than the radio-astronomy bit, your list is mostly about having a moon colony for the sake of having a moon colony.

And what’s wrong with that? A self-sustaining moon colony would be isolated from earthside pandemics, bio-terror, and other natural calamities. As Heinlein said, the Earth is too small a basket to keep all our eggs in.

And if we find a lot of suitable enclosed lava tubes and figure out how to seal them, we could put cities on the moon. Tourism alone might make the whole thing worth it.

Yeah, but both are trivial compared to the costs of a Mars mission or a continuous moon colony. I’m thinking that’s enough money to put Social Security on a sound footing for the next eon, and still have money left to help out with Medicare.

Nonsense. Upper range figures for a Mars mission are around 200 billion dollars, spread over 20 years. 10 billion a year. The Dept of Education currently spends about seven times that much, and over the same period of time will have spent at least 1.4 trillion dollars. And 200 billion dollars won’t even make a dent in Social Security’s shortfall. Current estimates for that, by the way, involve an 18% benefit cut coupled with 3-5 trillion dollars in new funding.

You seem to think that NASA spends a lot more money than it does, and that great things could be done with that money. But in terms of the federal budget, NASA is but a tiny drop. There are ten federal agencies that have larger budgets than NASA. As I said before, just the increase in the Dept. of Education’s budget under Bush is greater than NASA’s entire budget, and no one has convinced me that the DoE has done anyone any good at all. HUD has a budget twice that of NASA. Agriculture gets about 30% more than NASA. Homeland Security and Veterans affairs each have double NASA’s budget.

Americans spend more on chewing gum than on NASA. It’s going to be pretty hard to convince me that too much money is being spent on the space program.

Y’know, this is the sort of stuff that, when libruls used to say it about their programs, the conservatives rightly criticized their airy-fairy thinking.

I’m not playing the partisan game here. The fact remains that if you question many of today’s physicissts, astronomers, engineers, and other technical people, many of them will say that they were inspired to go into science because of NASA. As I said before, I believe the educational benefits of NASA alone are worth more than the entire Department of Education, and it has four times the budget. If you’ve got lots of things that need to be done with NASA money, why not go after the DoE?

Hey, now you’re singing my song.

Why not cut NASA’s budget in half, get rid of the manned program entirely, and still do far more real science than we’re doing now.

A large array of telescopes may need humans to align and service them. They won’t be in LEO - they’ll probably be out in Earth orbit in a Lagrange point or something. So we need a spaceship that can get out there, and people trained in those kinds of long missions.

[Liberal]

@Sam

So we need a spaceship that can get out there, and people trained in those kinds of long missions.

What’s this “we” shit, Kimosabe? You need those people? You pay to train them, okay?

[Sam_Stone]

If ‘we’ wan to put telescope arrays in space, then ‘we’ might need people to service them. The ‘we’ is whoever puts up the telescope arrays.

And if you try to point out that I’m not American and therefore not involved in this, I’ll tell the Canadarm to give you a wedgie (-:

[dropzone]

@Sam Stone

And if you try to point out that I’m not American and therefore not involved in this…

Why Sam, I’d never say that! I’d just point out that you weren’t PAYING for it.

[ElvisL1ves]

@RTFirefly

Why - is the moon going to move further away from us anytime soon?

Actually, yes.