We have a whole lot of other spending that can be cut without hurting American prestige.
If that’s so we should try to restore it by landing men on Mars and establishing colonies.
Which is a frightening possbility as than the only countries with launch capability would be dictatorships and enemies of America (or at least not particularly allies).
It’s unfortunate that politics is often so juvenile that the above may seem like a legitimate point.
What? China has a yearly budget of about 1.5 billion on their space program. NASA's 2010 budget is 18.7 billion.
When you own everything, everything is so much cheaper as theres no mark up.
The Chinese government is making things for itself, it doesn’t need the same budget as the U.S.
Their system is completely different so you’re comparing chalk with cheese.
Not that that will make any difference in the long run, you spend nothing you get nothing.
In the future no doubt people will remenisce…
“Remember when the U.S. was the most powerful country on Earth…?”
Have a look at the Chinese homegrown military aircraft. They’re about as capable as US aircraft developed in the 1960s (F-15, F-16, B-2etc.) or other NATO aircraft developed in the 70s (Tornado, Jaguar) but they’re just entering service now.
The Chinese government has 30 years of catching up to do to even equal the US - and you can’t seriously tell me you think the Chinese space budget is functionally equivalent to the US’.
Which is more important to you - American prestige, or the American people?
Eh?
The US is one of the single most popular destinations for expatriation by scientists - and excluding your colossal fuck up with Iraq and the years with that Texan idiot, rep is rebounding.
I’d rather opine that if you look at actual data, rather than Space Wanking, American prestige has pretty much fuck-all to do with the existence or not of a space program.
American prestige would be around actual impact, and general sense of US doing cool things (Apple, other technologies meet that quite well really).
Outside space geeks, the reality is not many people bloody care (I recall one the challenges with your manned space shuttle missions was … lack of public interest.
Yeah, well, numbers were brought to the table, Chinese are catching up to the US of the 1970s. Woo, shake in your boots…
And developing 1920s style ray guns. Why that would really show em…
Mate, are … you just pulling statements out of your ass? European Space Agency. Jaysus…
Quite. Using PRC as a bogeyman to pimp one’s favourite programme is just daft.
…and in the 60s-70s, where was the US? That’s right, the Moon.
No, the US was on Earth, contrary to what you may have read. We just sent a few spacecraft to the Moon. As it turned out, the oft-mooted idea of moving the whole country to avoid the Red Menace just wasn’t practical.
There are a lot of things the U.S. could be doing on Earth that would do a lot more for our global prestige than a Mars colony.
You are assuming offensive military capabilities in space travel. Those have been grossly exaggerated.
The quote "We have a lot of other things we could cut that would cause less damage etc.etc. "was not my quote but Curtis Le Mays.
I’m not sure what you mean. Are you going to feel safe until China spends as much as the US? The Chinese reportedly spent something like $125 million US on Shenzhou 6, which put two people in space for five days, and something like 2.6 billion on the first five Shenzhou spacecraft.
The US couldn’t hold half the required meetings to even discuss it for less than $125 million.
The US has spent about $150 billion on the Shuttle, or about $1.3 billion per launch. Now that the Shuttle program is canceled, Russia has reconsidered its launch costs and will be charging the US $55.8 million per seat, compared to the current price of about $26 million/seat.
It’s kinda silly to compare budgets and expenditures when China can obviously get people and equipment into space for a ridiculous fraction of what it costs the US. We should probably dump Russia and start paying China to handle space for us.
Well…I’d be inclined to ask WHY China’s costs are seemingly so much less. One reason I can think of off the top of my head is that they are willing to take more risks and to have less fault tolerance and redundancy in their systems than we are. Another might be that while the are saying that the costs are X, the reality is that the costs are X*(some large factor the constitutes graft, hidden over runs and other factors that they simply didn’t want to acknowledge).
Frankly, I’d be just a touch skeptical if someone were asserting that China can get into space cheaper and safer than the US can. YMMV of course.
-XT
Of course they can do it cheaper - they already are. As far as safety the same argument could be used against Russia but we’re paying them. I highly doubt China is going to tolerate a significantly higher failure rate than the US and Russia in its manned space program, and it isn’t as if the Columbia and Challenger disasters didn’t happen. Space isn’t exactly risk-free.
The response to the Columbia and Challenger disasters proves with place too high a premium on crew safety, in my book.
Killing people on the ground with falling debris, etc. would be awful. Killing astronauts, not so much, as long as the risks aren’t hidden.
:rolleyes:
Aside from the human and public relations costs of losing a vehicle and (on ascent) payload, there is the actual cost of losing a very expensive Shuttle Orbiter or similarly expensive vehicle. And the fact that most of the significant vulnerabilities and low safety margins of the Shuttle Orbiter are due to design criteria that compromised structural and functional safety, i.e. the cross range requirements that drove such a large delta wing configuration versus a more rounded lifting body. It would actually be reasonable to improve the crew survivability and reliability of a manned space launch vehicle by an order of magnitude or more, based on STS-derived launch systems. There is no reason to accept higher risk and poorer reliability as a trade for lower costs; on the contrary, the emphasis should be on improving and evolving systems to be more reliable in a cost-effective manner, i.e. identifying and designing out the critical low margin features in favor of more robust solutions even at a cost of modestly less performance. This is what the Soviets/Russians have done, and they’ve evolved a very reliable launch vehicle system over the last fifty years.
Stranger
But Mars would be far more impressive than most other things the US can conceivably do.
My fear is not primarily military, it would be psychological effect of the fact that only the authoritaian Russians and the Red Chinese have the ability to maintain a manned space program. The psychological effects would be utterly devestating.
There’s a lot that can be cut without hurting either that much.
No, the psychological effects would be utterly healthy. It would help us outgrow the infantile national pathology known as “American exceptionalism,” if a country with a system and/or culture we regard as inferior were to outperform us in something we regard as a characteristically American field of achievement. A comforting illusion, even an inspiring illusion, is never worth preserving.
It may cause massive despair and end the ascendency of the United States on the global stage.
The United States doesn’t need to be ascendant on the global stage and the world does not need our ascendancy.
Among the vast majority of Americans who barely notice the space program as it is? How does that work?
I was as space-made as any other American boy who grew up in the 60s, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t see that the post-Apollo manned space flight program has been 38 years of money wasted stooging around in low earth orbit.