If that were the case, why would the NASA budget be increased at all (which it is)?
Sorry, xtisme, but that just doesn’t make sense, especially given Obama’s proclaimed general backing of and investment in increasing technology, infrastructure, and research.
Well, it makes sense if you understand that I’m not saying this is a big conspiracy in order to get rid of NASA. I think that, at this time, Obama IS trying to do the right thing. Hell, I’m mostly convinced that he IS doing the right thing since, as others have pointed out, the direction Bush et al gave NASA and the subsequent programs were flawed…perhaps fatally so.
My thinking here (such as it is), goes something like this: By de-emphasizing the manned aspects of the program I think that it will lessen overall public interest. This will make it easy if, during an economic crunch or a pubic outcry for the government to DO SOMETHING™!! about government spending for congress and the president to, with regrets, cut later budgets. After all, just because there was an increase this time, doesn’t mean there will always be increases, and if the public loses interest in the overall program, then it will be easy to snip a bit here, cut a bit there.
Frankly, what I’d like is for the government to set real and ambitious goals and a bold direction, be it with manned, unmanned or hybrid missions, and then fully fund the programs to work towards and achieve those goals. THAT’S what I REALLY want. I have nothing against unmanned missions…in fact, I LOVE unmanned missions! I just think that manned exploration also has it’s place, and, to me, it’s also the thing that really can capture and hold the public’s eye and attention.
-XT
For those who are genuinely interested in a realistic long term plan for technology development and exploration, take a read of the U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee final report, “Seeking A Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great Nation”, particularly Chapter 7.0: Critical Technologies for Sustainable Exploration. One excerpt is particularly of note:
[indent]The composition of near-Earth objects is less well understood than the composition of the Moon because of the current dependence upon telescope-based observations and inferences drawn from meteorites reaching Earth. These data suggest that almost any desirable resource can be found on near-Earth objects, but since each near-Earth object is a distinct body with its own orbit and properties, it is difficult to make generalizations about how resources would be extracted and returned to cislunar space. It is worth noting that in some cases, the energy required to return mass from a near-Earth object to near-Earth space is significantly less than to return mass from the lunar surface to Earth Moon L1 Lagrange Point. Therefore, further robotic exploration and human-tended pilot visits to near-Earth objects are particularly interesting subjects for further exploration.[/indent]
Stranger
Well, the way you phrased it sounded to me like a conspiracy in the offing. 
Also, I was gonna add a qualifier that one obviously can’t speak to future administrations, but didn’t think it necessary.
Perhaps I’m being overly optimistic (about the administration, about the economy, whatever), but I don’t think NASA will see its budgets cut while Obama is in office. 
I hope you are right…and, in reality, I think you are. The space program is one of my pet programs, and I always want it to do great things, to, er, boldly go where no one has gone before and all that.
-XT
Valid point xt. We do run the risk of the public losing interest. But personally, I’m willing to take that risk if it can possibly result in a better long-term space program. If the public can’t see the benefits, screw it- we don’t deserve a space program anyway.
I would not be stunned with amazement if some of the posters who are giving all sorts of reasons why manned space exploration is pointless, and anyway private enterprise can do it better, and anyway the present administration hasn’t completely ruled out M.E., and so on and on and on…aren’t in actuality party political hacks debating for party political reasons rather from any genuine interest in space exploration.
Just as I also wouldn’t be stunned with amazement that if the administration reversed its policy tomorrow, the self same people would be untiring in their efforts to exhort the benefits of M.E.
Manned exploration is the future of Humankind, hopefully it will still go ahead with or without American participation.
I suspect that Russia isn’t too unhappy about the U.S.s present policy, as it means that they have the final say on what happens, and how much its going to cost to pay them.
And ultimately it means more of the good stuff for them when it all comes together; as undoubtedly it will one day.
And America will be left watching the action from the cheap seats.
Oh no! An accusation of astroturfing. How will we ever survive.
The public has already lost interest. NASA does a horrible job of making its work accessible to the general public. I support the space program (and its frankly rather limited budgetary requirements, relative to its returns) because I understand that without it we’d have no GPS, no live news feeds from far-off battlefields, processed foods, CCDs, ad infinitum - but the average person doesn’t think about that stuff, aside from perhaps being dimly aware that satellite television requires a thingy up in space.
Those posters pay the taxes which pay for this grand series of experiments. Britain spends about 300 million pounds on space. The budget for NASA alone, which doesn’t include defense- and intelligence-related space spending, is $18 billion.
It’s not exactly going ahead with British participation. If manned exploration is so important, why don’t you donate to NASA or the ESA?
FTR I’d rather we went to the moon than did nothing, but I’d rather we looked to new horizons in space exploration than go to the moon.
Completely agree with you, I personally think that the U.K. should make a major committment to space exploration whether within E.S.A. or on its own, backed with significant amounts of finance.
My bug bear is with people who have their own motives for taking a stance(and being a party political spin doctor is one of them) but pretend that its for different reasons from the real one.
As in "Oh I’m no racist, I don’t want Obama to get elected because he hasn’t got enough experience, wasn’t born in America, has an agenda to make everyone Muslims, has ties to terrorist groups, will bankrupt America ", and all of the other pathetic tripe that racists came out with during the election.
Anything rather then say they didn’t like him because he was black.
Of course we have a parralel in normal board life where for example,an individual poster has on completely different threads had their opinions decisevly shot down in flames by another poster and as a result taken a deep personal dislike to the offending poster.
They then have made it their mission in life to follow him or her from thread to thread making bitter attacks on him or her and pretending it is for the noblest of motives concerning the topic of the thread, you know concern for the American
tax payer or somesuch.
I am just so grateful that you’re not one of them of course.
A’pologies for any typos, the sun is shining directly on my screen and its hard to make out writing easily.
It might also be shining directly on your head, because you appear to be a little delusional at the moment.
Well, mad dogs and Englishmen, RNATB.
I think we should maintain manned space exploration including landing men on the Moon even if it’s to maintain American prestige. Consider this: the Red Chinese are planning to land astronauts on the Moon and unlike us they have the benefit of long-term leadership less likely to radically change plans. If once they land people on the Moon it will be the greatest humiliation America has suffered since possibly the Iranian Hostage Crisis. It will destroy American self-confidence and lessen America’s prestige. Hopefully we will able to aim for long-term plans like manned landing on Mars, permanent bases on Luna and Mars, and perhaps colonization and even terraformation of Mars.
Yes, it’s not like the U.S. hasn’t already sent people there 40 years ago :rolleyes:
You do bring up an interesting question though, have the Chinese actually made any serious steps to undertake a manned moon-shot within the next 10-20 years?
this article Seems to indicate that they’re still considering the feasibility of a manned lunar mission between 2025 and 2030.
They probably will. They’re rising and ambitious and powerful and vigourous almost like that of Bismarckian Germany.
Not exactly a persuasive argument :rolleyes: . Let me know when they start spending more than an eighth of NASA’s budget.
The Red Chinese? Were you raised on a diet of’Fifties propaganda films?
Stranger
I’m tempted to quote my mother who asked me if I’d jump off a cliff if my friend Jimmy was going to, but I’ll hold off.
This must be the least persuasive argument for going back to the moon. They’re going to a place we went to fifty years ago (by the time they MIGHT get there) and we should be all embarrassed? “Heh, thanks for coming!! What took you so long??” Should we start cranking out black and white TVs? They might start making them again too. Don’t want to get too far behind!
The main issue that I don’t think we discuss is the pure economics of it. The reality is we are in a much worse position culturally and financially than we were in the 1960’s Culturally, the American expects the govmnt to provide much more for them then they did forty years ago. And with our debt growing close to a years worth of GDP, we aren’t in an economic position to throw this kind of cash around.
Unthread someone though out a figure of only 10% of our budget. Are you frick’n kidding me!! We can’t balance the books now, but we’re going to spend 10% of our federal budget out the window in space?
I don’t think the US cares about its loss of prestige. It’s pretty much gone.
The important thing about the Chinese space program is that it’s funded and active, while the US space program is… uh… I"m not sure what the US’s space program is. I think it has something to do with giving up launch capability, and paying Russia to send up a telescope or another robot someday. What else? Waiting for private industry to come up with “game-changing new technology.”
The US has the advantage of partnerships with other countries, and we have plans for cool sounding things like “space ports” and stuff. But, the Chinese aren’t neglecting partnerships either. They’re also not above stealing lots of tech, but whatever gets the job done.
While the Chinese are making a big show of going to the moon, they’re also developing robotic probes, strengthening their position as a space launch capable country, and securing the high ground. Sounds like meaningless buzz words, but ask our top military officials what they think of the high ground, and its loss.
I don’t think the US public cares much that the coolest thing the US is going to do is maybe someday pay someone to put an infrared telescope in space for us or something.