15
   

President-Elect Obama and NASA

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2009 02:05 pm
I seriously doubt that even were the electorate willing, the United States possesses the resources to engage in a large-scale, wide-spread exploration of and exploitation of the solar system. If the human race ever does engage in such an enterprise, the only way to maintain even a modestly "good" standard of living for all people of the earth while undertaking such a venture will be to spread the cost and the resource provision around to all or almost all the nations. It is not plausible to consider a large extra-terrestrial program while "leaving the rest of the world to itself."
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2009 04:06 pm
@mysteryman,
Show me where I said eleminate humanitairian aid. I am talking about military aid which we supply many times more of than humanitarian aid. Because of us we prepituate wars with our so called military aid which we give more of to nondemocricies than democratic countries.
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2009 04:12 pm
@Setanta,
Exactly what is happening now. Why not let all countries preticipate in the financing of the space program and let the world enjoy the benefits of the space program. And to those of you who dont see the benefits of exploration go to the many scientific sites and read up on them.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2009 05:08 pm
@rabel22,
No, it's not happening now. The United States and Russia provide the expertise and equipment so that other nations can make an "as needed" contribution to the so-called international space station whenever we happen to send one of their citizens up there. Otherwise, other nations take their own, separate initiatives in space, and often it is for commercial purposes, such as boosting communications satellites into orbit. China is the only nation to have joined the United States and Russia in the "prestige" arena of space programs.

Other nations enjoy the benefits of the space program whether they participate or not, because the benefits get marketed commercially.

Quote:
And to those of you who dont see the benefits of exploration go to the many scientific sites and read up on them.


You have no basis whatsoever to assume that i don't see the benefits of exploration, simply because i advance the pragmatic argument of the difficulty of getting someone to pay for the effort. As a matter of fact, i keep up to date on this, as on many other scientific topics, through the medium of the popularizing press--a not always reliable source.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2009 05:19 pm
@Brandon9000,
By voting for obama,
thay voted against everything that is good, including NASA.
He is a marxist who will consume his time
with redistribution of wealth and favoring his race.

The higher asperations, like exploration of outter space
or defending humanitiy from extinction by installing human DNA
on other celestial bodies to protect us from extinction
with the next major impact from above, will have no place
in his agenda. Its hopeless.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2009 05:25 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

the prospect of a president who doesn't "get" science

Arf arf arf arf arf arf arf arf Laughing

Having no sympathy for the space program would be a fair indication. Just in case you want to do something wild and actually talk about the thread topic,

I was speculating about whether his change of heart
during the campaign was sincere or just campaign rhetoric.

For sure,
it was just campaign rhetoric.
Marxists don 't care much about telling the truth.

Don 't expect anything else from him
that is good, either.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  0  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2009 06:29 pm
Brandon feels we can colonize the sun, provided we go there at night.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2009 06:37 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

Brandon feels we can colonize the sun, provided we go there at night.

Kinda noisy up there





David
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2009 07:08 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

Obama Moves to Counter China in Space With Pentagon-NASA Link
Email | Print | A A A

By Demian McLean

Jan. 2 (Bloomberg) -- President-elect Barack Obama will probably tear down long-standing barriers between the U.S.’s civilian and military space programs to speed up a mission to the moon amid the prospect of a new space race with China.

Obama’s transition team is considering a collaboration between the Defense Department and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration because military rockets may be cheaper and ready sooner than the space agency’s planned launch vehicle, which isn’t slated to fly until 2015, according to people who’ve discussed the idea with the Obama team.

The potential change comes as Pentagon concerns are rising over China’s space ambitions because of what is perceived as an eventual threat to U.S. defense satellites, the lofty battlefield eyes of the military.

“The Obama administration will have all those issues on the table,” said Neal Lane, who served as President Bill Clinton’s science adviser and wrote recently that Obama must make early decisions critical to retaining U.S. space dominance. “The foreign affairs and national security implications have to be considered.”

China, which destroyed one of its aging satellites in a surprise missile test in 2007, is making strides in its spaceflight program. The military-run effort carried out a first spacewalk in September and aims to land a robotic rover on the moon in 2012, with a human mission several years later.

A Level of Proficiency

“If China puts a man on the moon, that in itself isn’t necessarily a threat to the U.S.,” said Dean Cheng, a senior Asia analyst with CNA Corp., an Alexandria, Virginia-based national-security research firm. “But it would suggest that China had reached a level of proficiency in space comparable to that of the United States.”

Obama has said the Pentagon’s space program -- which spent about $22 billion in fiscal year 2008, almost a third more than NASA’s budget -- could be tapped to speed the civilian agency toward its goals as the recession pressures federal spending.

NASA faces a five-year gap between the retirement of the space shuttle in 2010 and the first launch of Orion, the six- person craft that will carry astronauts to the International Space Station and eventually the moon. Obama has said he would like to narrow that gap, during which the U.S. will pay Russia to ferry astronauts to the station.

NASA Resistance

The Obama team has asked NASA officials about the costs and savings of scrapping the agency’s new Ares I rocket, which is being developed by Chicago-based Boeing Co. and Minneapolis-based Alliant Techsystems Inc.

NASA chief Michael Griffin opposes the idea and told Obama’s transition team leader, Lori Garver, that her colleagues lack the engineering background to evaluate rocket options, agency spokesman Chris Shank said. Garver and other advisers declined to comment.

At the Pentagon, there may be support for Obama’s vision. While NASA hasn’t recently approached the Pentagon about using its Delta IV and Atlas V rockets, building them for manned missions could allow for cost sharing, said Steven Huybrechts, the director of space programs and policy in the office of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who is staying on into the new administration.

The Delta IV and Atlas V are built by United Launch Alliance, a joint venture of Boeing and Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed Martin Corp., and typically are used to carry satellites.

Already Developed

“No one really has a firm idea what NASA’s cost savings might be, but the military’s launch vehicles are basically developed,” said John Logsdon, a policy expert at Washington’s National Air and Space Museum who has conferred with Obama’s transition advisers. “You don’t have to build them from scratch.”

Meanwhile, Chinese state-owned companies already are assembling heavy-lift rockets that could reach the moon, with a first launch scheduled for 2013. All that would be left to build for a manned mission is an Apollo-style lunar lander, said Griffin, who visited the Chinese space program in 2006.

Griffin said in July that he believes China will be able to put people on the moon before the U.S. goes back in 2020. The last Apollo mission left the lunar surface in 1972.

“The moon landing is an extremely challenging and sophisticated task, and it is also a strategically important technological field,” Wang Zhaoyao, a spokesman for China’s space program, said in September, according to the state-run Xinhua news agency.

Docking

China plans to dock two spacecraft in orbit in 2010, a skill required for a lunar mission.

“An automated rendezvous does all sorts of things for your missile accuracy and anti-satellite programs,” said John Sheldon, a visiting professor of advanced air and space studies at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. “The manned effort is about prestige, but it’s also a good way of testing technologies that have defense applications.”

China’s investments in anti-satellite warfare and in “cyberwarfare,” ballistic missiles and other weaponry “could threaten the United States’ primary means to project its power and help its allies in the Pacific: bases, air and sea assets, and the networks that support them,” Gates wrote in the current issue of Foreign Affairs magazine.

China is designing satellites that, once launched, could catch up with and destroy U.S. spy and communication satellites, said a Nov. 20 report to Congress from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. China’s State Council Information Office declined to comment on the nation’s anti-satellite or manned programs.

To boost cooperation between NASA and the Pentagon, Obama has promised to revive the National Aeronautics and Space Council, which oversaw the entire space arena for four presidents, most actively from 1958 to 1973.

The move would build ties between agencies with different cultures and agendas.

“Whether such cooperation would succeed remains to be seen,” said Scott Pace, a former NASA official who heads the Washington-based Space Policy Institute. “But the questions are exactly the ones the Obama team needs to ask.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Demian McLean in Washington at [email protected].




Have you read any of this, omsigdavid?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2009 07:55 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:



Quote:
Have you read any of this, omsigdavid?

I did not, Ed.
Thank u for calling it to my attention; very good of u.

If Obama promotes the Space Program, he will deserve credit accordingly.
I avidly hope that Obama will prove me rong.

Ferdinand n Isabella of Spain were very wise,
and most fruitful, in THEIR space program.

The Earth was Man 's cradle; it shoud not be his grave.







David
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2009 10:13 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

Brandon feels we can colonize the sun, provided we go there at night.

I presume this is your desperation play, not being able to argue against anything I actually did say.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2009 10:55 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

I seriously doubt that even were the electorate willing, the United States possesses the resources to engage in a large-scale, wide-spread exploration of and exploitation of the solar system.


Define 'large-scale.' Humanity and our endeavors are self-replicating; we only need to fund a small-scale space program long enough for it to begin growing on it's own.

Mining an asteroid and building industrial facilities in space is a reasonable goal. It could be done for a few hundred billion dollars and some travel time. We will probably screw up a few times in the attempt. But the rewards outweigh the costs many times over.

Cycloptichorn
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2009 11:32 am
@Cycloptichorn,
It's not going to be worth it unless you can practice ecnomies of scale--otherwise, it makes more sense to continue mining the earth, and possibly to attempt to mine the moon. A definition of large-scale would be the deployment of sufficient resources to make possible the economies of scale which would make the effort profitable. As i've stated consistently here, there would have to be a perceived return on investment to get such efforts funded.

As i've also consistently stated--and something which seems to elude everyone who newly arrives to argue the matter with me--i personally consider the exploration of space to be a very good idea, and on which i support. However, i consider that the pragmatic considerations of government are such that it is unrealistic to expect a lot of cash from that source, and you can't expect any cash from private capital unless and until you can plausibly show a prospect for a quick return on investment. Knowing that the probability of heavy funding for space exploration is unlikely is not the same as saying it shouldn't be done.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2009 11:35 am
@Cycloptichorn,
You left a couple of necessary items off your list Cyc, food, water and air.

While mining may seem easy, providing the components necessary for life in space aren't quite as easy. We couldn't even do it on earth in a closed capsule when we attempted a few years ago.

I doubt you could get a dozen humans to an asteroid for the amount you proposed, let alone enough equipment to sustain them and and do any major mining operations. The international space station is estimated at over $100 billion in cost in 2000 and we have to send up supplies constantly.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2009 11:49 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Ferdinand and Isabella, as Walter has pointed out, risked nothing on the first voyage of Columbus. As i have pointed out, their subsequent lavish underwriting of his voyages did not return the investment they made. The Spanish empire in the "new world" did not begin to make a significant return on investment until early in the 16th century, when Ferdinand and Isabella were already dead. Even then, in influx of gold and silver into Europe from the Spanish possession, much of which was stolen from them by their English, Dutch and French enemies, resulted in a run-away inflation which no one then understood, and which bankrupted the Spanish monarchy in quite a bit less than two centuries.

Governments these days are as cautious as Ferdinand and Isabella were when Columbus first applied to them, and considerably more cautious than they were in their subsequent expenditures on his voyages. Had Columbus attempted to get private capitalist support for his endeavor, he'd have kicked his heels in Seville until the end of his days.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2009 01:02 pm
@parados,
Water and air are not as much of an issue as you might think.

Plenty of the asteroids have frozen ice/oxy mixes in them which can be mined the same way metal can. Ceres, in particular, could have more frozen water than the entire earth -

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050907_ceres_planet.html

I have little doubt we could make a mission to do what I proposed for the cost proposed. The monies spent on the ISS are all great initial research for the types of things we would need to build to get a permanent facility up and running. The ISS has to have constant resupply b/c there's no raw material for them to exploit and supply themselves; presumably the

The simple fact is that we haven't tried. Until we try we won't know. It isn't as if we don't know how to make rockets or how to do the math or how to mine rocks or ice. We know how to do each and every step involved. So we ought to go about doing it. The rewards are incalculable and from a Defensive point of view it is critical that we get a foothold at the highest possible point as quickly as possible...

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2009 01:09 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Whoops, left out a line -

Presumably a mission to the asteroid belt would not suffer the resource constraints that the ISS does, for the simple fact that there are a lot of resources there and none in LEO.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2009 02:56 pm
Ok. In the short run the exploration of space wouldent pay. Neither did the exploration of the Americas in the short run. But who out there can deny that the Americas have paid for itself many times over. We need a government which can look at the far future instead of tomorrow. I know I am blowing in the wind because our politicians can only see to their next election run. All the problems of space exploration have been worked out in thorey, all that needs to be done is to apply them.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2009 03:10 pm
@rabel22,
Quote:
We need a government which can look at the far future instead of tomorrow. I know I am blowing in the wind because our politicians can only see to their next election run.


You provide the objection to your own call for foresight on the part of government.

Quote:
All the problems of space exploration have been worked out in thorey, all that needs to be done is to apply them.


That is a little disingenuous. People believed this about space exploration until data from the Russians showed the effects of even a moderate term of exposure to very low gravity. One of the very good reasons for continued manned flight in space is to reveal the problems so they can be solved.

Once again, i don't oppose the principle, i just doubt the likelihood of overcoming the pragmatic problems of funding, at least in the short term.
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2009 03:32 pm
@Setanta,
What we seem to be discussing here is governments ability to finance exploration. They are the only organization with the ability to do so. I hope and believe that government will finance exploration in spite of the idiot politicians. Perhaps we will eventually educate the public so they will elect politicians who truly have the good of the public in mind. More blowing in the wind!!! We are doing things that were deemed impossible 100 years ago why not even more changes in the next 100 years. Our main problem is the inability too look into the future and hope for change. Like it or not big business is one of the things that are holding us back. They invest a dollar and than squeeze it untill it returns 2 dollars. Good for business but most times not so good for the public.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/30/2024 at 09:56:06