Scientists Warn of Diminished Earth Studies From Space

[W*GS]

NASA is being strongly pressured by the Bush administration to return to the Moon and send people to Mars; in the meantime, our ability to observe the Earth is decaying badly. Another thing Bush and his people are wrong about...

New York Times, January 16, 2007
Scientists Warn of Diminished Earth Studies From Space

By ANDREW C. REVKIN
The nation’s ability to track retreating polar ice and shifting patterns of drought, rainfall and other environmental changes is being put “at great risk” by faltering efforts to replace aging satellite-borne sensors, a panel convened by the country’s leading scientific advisory group said.

By 2010, the number of operating Earth-observing instruments on NASA satellites, most of which are already past their planned lifetimes, is likely to drop by 40 percent, the National Research Council of the National Academies warned in a report posted on the Internet yesterday at www.nas.edu.

The weakening of these monitoring efforts comes even as many scientists and the Bush administration have been emphasizing their growing importance, both to clarify risks from global warming and natural hazards and to track the condition of forests, fisheries, water and other resources.

Several prominent scientists welcomed the report, saying that while the overall tightening of the federal budget played a role in threatening Earth-observing efforts, a significant contributor was also President Bush’s recent call for NASA to focus on manned space missions.

“NASA has a mission ordering that starts with the presidential goals — first of manned flight to Mars, and second, establishing a permanent base on the Moon, and then third to examine Earth, which puts Earth rather far down on the totem pole,” said F. Sherwood Rowland, an atmospheric chemist at the University of California, Irvine, who shared a Nobel Prize for identifying threats to the ozone layer.

In an e-mail statement, John H. Marburger III, President Bush’s science adviser and director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, acknowledged that there were many challenges to maintaining and improving Earth-observing systems, but said the administration was committed to keeping them a “top science priority.”

The report, “Earth Science and Applications From Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond,” proposed spending roughly $7.5 billion in constant 2006 dollars on new instruments and satellite missions through 2020, saying that would satisfy various scientific and societal priorities while holding annual costs around what they were, as a percentage of the economy, in 2000.

“We’re trying to present a balanced, affordable program that spans all the earth sciences,” said Richard A. Anthes, the co-chairman of the committee that wrote the report and the new president of the American Meteorological Society.

The report is the latest in a string of findings from such panels pointing to dangers from recent disinvestment in the long-term monitoring of a fast-changing planet.

“This is the most critical time in human history, with the population never before so big and with stresses growing on the Earth,” Dr. Anthes said. “We just want to get back to the United States being a leader instead of someone you can’t count on.”

Satellite-borne instruments, using radar, lasers and other technology, have revolutionized earth and climate science, allowing researchers to accurately and efficiently track parameters like sea level and tiny motions of the Earth from earthquakes, the amount of rain in a cyclone and moisture in air, and the average temperature of various layers of the atmosphere.

The committee identified significant gaps in instrumentation or plans for satellites orbiting over the poles, around the Equator, and positioned so that they remain stationary over spots on the rotating Earth.

One of the most important aspects of such monitoring is launching new satellites before old ones fail. Without this overlap, it is hard to assemble meaningful long-term records that are sufficiently precise to uncover trends, the report’s authors said.

The report went beyond discussing ailing hardware and said the White House science policy office should do more to ensure that society and science were benefiting fully from the reams of data flowing from orbiting instruments.

Senior officials at NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration welcomed the report and said it would be considered as they sought to sustain Earth observations in a time of tight budgets.


Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

[Spider]

oh great more junk science ............. ;D

[Bronco_Beerslug]

NASA is being strongly pressured by the Bush administration to return to the Moon and send people to Mars; in the meantime, our ability to observe the Earth is decaying badly. Another thing Bush and his people are wrong about...
Which part?

[W*GS]

Which part?

All three - NASA needs to let the private sector figure out how to get to the Moon, abandon Mars, and get back to providing the scientific data on Earth (and the other planets). Forget the shuttle and the ISS as well.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

All three - NASA needs to let the private sector figure out how to get to the Moon, abandon Mars, and get back to providing the scientific data on Earth (and the other planets). Forget the shuttle and the ISS as well.So no good for the rest of us comes from space exploration?

[W*GS]

So no good for the rest of us comes from space exploration?

Space exploitation is best handled by private industry - and space exploration can be done much more cheaply and safely with robotic probes. Sending people into space, or even low earth orbit, is far too expensive and dangerous to be worth what we gain.

You know what the shuttle is for? To go to the ISS. Do you know what the ISS is for? A place for the shuttle to go to. Both have cost untold billions - a total waste.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Space exploitation is best handled by private industry - and space exploration can be done much more cheaply and safely with robotic probes. Sending people into space, or even low earth orbit, is far too expensive and dangerous to be worth what we gain.

You know what the shuttle is for? To go to the ISS. Do you know what the ISS is for? A place for the shuttle to go to. Both have cost untold billions - a total waste.So there is no experimentation, scientific study, etc... going on up there that would open new doors for us? I thought they were doing all kinds of stuff up there?

[W*GS]

So there is no experimentation, scientific study, etc... going on up there that would open new doors for us? I thought they were doing all kinds of stuff up there?

Nope. The scientific value of the ISS is nil.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Nope. The scientific value of the ISS is nil.
That's not what NASA says....

---------------------------------------
Space Station Benefits

Now with a permanent human presence in space aboard the International Space Station, the practical benefits to mankind are almost infinite. Not only will there be new advances in space technology, but there will be a chance for all types of different scientific fields to have new theories tested and experiments completed in microgravity.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#eeeeee" valign="CENTER"><td colspan="2"><table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td> Combustion science is a key element of many of modern society's critical technologies. Electric power production, home heating, ground transportation, spacecraft and aircraft propulsion, and materials processing all use combustion to convert chemical energy to thermal energy or propulsive force. Although combustion, which accounts for approximately 85 percent of the world's energy usage, is vital to humankind's current way of life, it poses great challenges to maintaining a healthy environment. The testing of combustion aboard the International Space Station will help humans deal better with the problems of pollutants, atmospheric change and global warming, unwanted fires and explosions, and the incineration of hazardous wastes.</td></tr></tbody></table> </td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ccffdd" valign="CENTER"><td colspan="2"> <table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td>http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/benefits/2.jpg Aboard the International Space Station the field of fundamental physics has a grand opportunity. Not only will the laws of quantum theory as they pertain to mapping of the relic of quantum gravity --gravitational waves generated from the Big Bang -- be tested. But the areas of high powered physics will be able to develop new, more precise atomic clocks with the combination of a new laser cooling technology and microgravity.</td></tr></tbody></table> </td></tr><tr bgcolor="#eeeeee" valign="CENTER"><td colspan="2"> <table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td>http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/benefits/3.jpg According to Astronaut Dan Bursch, "The National Institute of Health has said that protein crystal growth is the number one research tool that we'll be using in the next century..." In a normal gravity environment, protein crystals grow imperfections and impurities, though aboard the orbiting laboratories of the International Space Station protein crystals can be grown to almost perfection. This will allow the development of more pure pharmaceutical drugs, foods and an assortment of other crystalline-based products including insulin for diabetes patients.</td></tr></tbody></table> </td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ccffdd" valign="middle"><td colspan="2"> <table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td>http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/benefits/7.jpgThe ability to understand the Earth and its environmental response to natural and human-induced variations such as air quality, climate, land use, food production as well as ocean and fresh water health are some of the benefits expected from Earth science research aboard the International Space Station. The astronauts onboard, their work and the instruments used will provide a "window on the world", enabling scientists to monitor and understand the factors affecting quality of life.</td></tr></tbody></table> </td></tr><tr bgcolor="#eeeeee" valign="CENTER"><td colspan="2" align="left"> <table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td>http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/benefits/5.jpg In the fundamental field of biology, the scientists of the International Space Station will assist in answering some very basic scientific questions in a different environment. For example, what is the role of gravity in the processes of biological evolution? Also, how does acute or chronic exposure to altered gravity and other space-related factors affect normal physiology, metabolism and function of mature organisms? These are just two of a multitude of possible theories and hypotheses in the fields of biological research that the astronauts and cosmonauts could help answer.</td></tr></tbody></table> </td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ccffdd" valign="CENTER"><td colspan="2" align="left"> <table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td>http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/benefits/6.jpg Many of the new engineering technologies being developed on the International Space Station will lead to improved commercial space communication systems for personal phone, computer and video use. Also, they will lead to improvements to energy use efficiencies, air and water quality capabilities in private and commercial buildings, and to improvements in automated maintenance functions and new lower-cost building construction techniques. Advancements in space technology will significantly enhance the quality of life on Earth and will help make the utilization and exploration of space safer and more affordable.</td></tr></tbody></table> </td></tr><tr bgcolor="#eeeeee" valign="CENTER"><td colspan="2" align="left"> <table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td>http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/benefits/4.jpgThe space station research will bring knowledge and insight about the far reaches of space down to Earth. For instance, studies of the Sun's effects on Earth will improve forecasts of events ranging from the temporary disruption of telecommunications to the long-term alterations in climate. The practical applications here on Earth gained from space science on the International Space Station will be invaluable. This unique venue offers the opportunity to pursue investigations into solar studies, cosmic rays, the physical and chemical composition of the space environment, as well as the presence of dark matter in the universe.</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/benefits/index.html

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Canada seems to think's it's important as well for scientific research...

-------------------------------------------------------
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td height="20" nowrap="nowrap">
</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="titre" valign="top">Microgravity Sciences Research on the ISS</td> </tr> <tr> <td bordercolor="#000000" bgcolor="#006699" width="537">
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
<table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="450"> <tbody><tr> <td width="25">http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/img/b_arrow3.gif</td> <td> MIM Base Unit (http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/sciences/mim.asp)</td> </tr> <!--<tr> <td width="25">http://www.orangemane.com/asc/img/b_arrow3.gif</td> <td> ATEN Furnace (http://www.orangemane.com/asc/eng/sciences/aten.asp)</td> </tr>--> </tbody></table> The term "Microgravity Sciences" will become more commonplace in the era of the International Space Station. The specific disciplines of Microgravity Science, which will be studied on the ISS, include fluid physics, materials science, combustion science and biotechnology.
Fluid physicists are working to advance science and technology by increasing our knowledge of fluid behaviour. Microgravity reduces or eliminates sedimentation and buoyancy-induced flows, as well as other behaviours caused by gravity, which mask important underlying phenomena.

Materials science encompasses the study of the structures, properties and processing of materials. Conducting materials science research in microgravity gives scientists a unique opportunity to isolate and control gravity-related phenomena as well as investigate phenomena and processes normally masked by gravity effects.

Ultimately, this research may result in improvements to production methods and materials on Earth. Better electronic devices, improved optical fibres for telecommunication, optoelectronic and photonic devices, and even bio-ceramic artificial bones are possible outcomes.

Combustion research in microgravity may lead to enhanced energy efficiency and reduced pollution, improved processes for making high technology materials, and advances in fire safety for space flight.

The primary area of biotechnology that will be researched on ISS is crystal growth of biological materials (or protein crystal growth). Protein crystal growth is essential in understanding the structure and function of proteins. Protein crystals grown in microgravity conditions can have larger molecular size and greater perfection than those grown on Earth. These characteristics make determining their structure with X-ray diffraction much more effective. Once the structure is known, it may be possible to produce more effective medicines with reduced side effects. In addition, research on the ISS may prove helpful in understanding the structure of proteins in the human body as part of the international human genome project.
Canadian technology will ensure that microgravity experiments are not hampered by high vibration levels expected on the ISS. The Microgravity Vibration Isolation Mount (MIM) was developed over the past 10 years by the Canadian Space Agency. MIM provides isolation for a payload from the vibrations present on an orbiting spacecraft. Such isolation is considered to be essential for experiments that need true microgravity.

The ISS will be the only permanent laboratory where experiments can be conducted in the absence of gravity. By taking advantage of the research opportunities available to us on this unique space laboratory, we open the door to potential exciting new discoveries about the basic nature of things, be they human, non-human or non-living.


<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td class="titre" valign="top">Space Life Science Research on the ISS</td> </tr> <tr> <td bordercolor="#000000" bgcolor="#006699" width="537">
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
<table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="537"> <tbody><tr> <td width="17">http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/img/b_arrow3.gif</td> <td>EVARM (http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/iss/evarm.asp)</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="17">http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/img/b_arrow3.gif</td> <td>H-REFLEX (http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/sciences/hreflex.asp)</td> </tr> </tbody></table> The benefits of Space Life Sciences research will be twofold: it will help us understand life in space, providing opportunities for longer, safer stays in space for astronauts; and it will use the unique environment of space to provide information to help Canadians in everyday life on Earth.
Canadian life science research on the ISS will focus on bone and muscle loss, cardiovascular physiology, neuroscience, radiation, and isolation and cross-cultural psychology.

Bone loss is one of the principle factors limiting long duration spaceflight such as a flight to Mars. Astronauts lose about 0.5% of their bone mass each month while they are in space. Furthermore, when astronauts return from long flights they do not recover all of the bone mass they have lost.

Experiments by Canadian researchers have shown that the process of bone loss in space is similar to that in Osteoporosis on earth. Over 1.4 million Canadians, both men and women, currently suffer from this debilitating condition. One of the main causes of death in women over 60 is complications arising from fractures caused by osteoporosis. One in four women in North America will have an osteoporosis-related fracture in their lifetime (1 in 8 for men) and 20 per cent of patients die within one year of a hip fracture.

Space allows researchers to study bone loss in a rapid fashion. The normal rate of bone loss during osteoporosis is 0.5 to 1% each year. In space we see bone losses of the same magnitude each month. The accelerated bone loss allows us to screen treatments and medications as well as develop new understanding of the process, which can then be applied on earth.

Canada is a leader is space based osteoporosis research. Experiments performed by John Glenn on STS 95 provided an understanding of the relationship between ground based bone loss and that experienced by astronauts. Experiments on ISS will evaluate treatments and study how osteoporosis develops into the "silent killer". Space experiments will be performed in 2001 and 2003.

Muscle loss occurs in astronauts, particularly in weight bearing muscle. These muscles are not needed in space. The situation is very similar to that experienced by people confined to bed and could be quite significant in extended bed rest associated with high risk pregnancy. Studies to date have concentrated on understanding the process of muscle loss in space. Studies planned by Canadians early in the ISS era will focus on understanding treatments and the molecular processes underlying muscle atrophy.

The first Canadian experiment planned for the ISS is H-Reflex, launched on February 15, 2001. It will determine if human reflexes decrease during prolonged space flight. It is important to understand how reflexes are affected by lack of gravity as humans spend increasing amounts of time in space.
Canada's second experiment for ISS, Extra Vehicular Activity Radiation Monitor (EVARM), scheduled for October 2001, will measure radiation doses received by astronauts when they work outside the ISS. Again, understanding the affects of the harsh environment of space is vital to the safety of humans in space. The Canadian technology developed for this project is expected to serve a demand on Earth for real-time skin specific radiation monitoring for health care professionals such as doctors, nurses, radiation therapists and technicians.
http://tinyurl.com/2x3jrt

[W*GS]

That's not what NASA says....

Of course NASA will plump up the ISS. They get billions to play with it.

There's extremely little that can be learned or done at the ISS that cannot be replicated elsewhere; considering the cost, it's not at all worth it.

[alkemical]

I'm fine with nasa in some ways. But I have a hard time believing we had the stealth in the 80's - and we can't/don't have a replacement for the Shuttle.

[Spider]

I'm fine with nasa in some ways. But I have a hard time believing we had the stealth in the 80's - and we can't/don't have a replacement for the Shuttle.

Stealth Space Shuttle ...............
capt of Space Shuttle : attention space station , we are coming in for fueling over .....
Space station : what ever floats your boat hotrod over .........
Space Shuttle : 10-4 , we need to know how far we are from fueling port over ..
Space Station : How in the hell should we know you are stealth , cant see a damn thing over ...........
;D be funnier then hell on star trek

[Spider]

while I was trying to make a joke , I was hoping W*GS would pick up on the refueling part ;D
sending Robots is fine , but there are alot of things you need humans for ....

[bendog]

I can see the value of the ISS, but it seems to me we already send too many people up. The whole notion of "the space plane" is pretty illogical, because you're launching more payload that is necessary to get up whatever you're planning to send up ... be it an experiment for the ISS or a new comm sat.

manned exploration has never made sense to me.

I think bushii had a flashback to a flash gordon comic book, and came up with yet another stupid idea.

[bendog]

while I was trying to make a joke , I was hoping W*GS would pick up on the refueling part ;D
sending Robots is fine , but there are alot of things you need humans for ....

Get yer stinkin hands offa me, you damn Romulan.

[Spider]

Get yer stinkin hands offa me, you damn Romulan.

I take it being a romulan is a bad thing ;D

[W*GS]

NASA should stick with it does well - space probes (think Pioneer, Voyager, Cassini, Galileo, etc) and earth monitoring. Putting people in space just isn't worth it.

[Spider]

NASA should stick with it does well - space probes (think Pioneer, Voyager, Cassini, Galileo, etc) and earth monitoring. Putting people in space just isn't worth it.

says who ?

[maven]

Just think, if all the money that was used to fund the war in Iraq was applied to NASA, humans would be walking on Mars in 5 years.

NASA fiscal year for 2007 is a pathetic 16.7 billion dollars...

[W*GS]

says who ?

Says me and 17 dead astronauts - and for what?

[W*GS]

Just think, if all the money that was used to fund the war in Iraq was applied to NASA, humans would be walking on Mars in 5 years.

Likewise, if all the money that was used to keep terminally ill people alive for another few weeks was applied to NASA, we could teleport there for a nice weekend.

[Spider]

Says me and 17 dead astronauts - and for what?

Point is ?

[W*GS]

If people want to go into space, let Richard Branson or someone like that do it. NASA shouldn't be in the business of doing so, any more than they should be flying folks from NYC to LA or from Casper to Billings.

[Spider]

If people want to go into space, let Richard Branson or someone like that do it. NASA shouldn't be in the business of doing so, any more than they should be flying folks from NYC to LA or from Casper to Billings.
Bullshít .......... NASA can send people into space .........

[W*GS]

Bullshít .......... NASA can send people into space .........

I didn't say NASA couldn't - I said NASA shouldn't. It's much too expensive and risky.

What do you think we can learn from people in space that justifies the costs involved?

[alkemical]

Says me and 17 dead astronauts - and for what?

I wonder how many people have died using the free market airlines......

[alkemical]

I didn't say NASA couldn't - I said NASA shouldn't. It's much too expensive and risky.

What do you think we can learn from people in space that justifies the costs involved?

Velcro! Teflon! those are some good starts... ;)

[Spider]

I didn't say NASA couldn't - I said NASA shouldn't. It's much too expensive and risky.

What do you think we can learn from people in space that justifies the costs involved?

well we learned the moon isnt made of cheese , a few other things also ......

[maven]

I didn't say NASA couldn't - I said NASA shouldn't. It's much too expensive and risky.

What do you think we can learn from people in space that justifies the costs involved?

Expensive? Yes.

Risky? How so? Because people might die? It will happen, and that should be no reason to not go.

Populate and explore new worlds. Cannot live on this planet forever.

[maven]

Velcro! Teflon! those are some good starts... ;)

Hundreds upon hundreds of inventions were made because of the space race of the 1960's.

[W*GS]

I wonder how many people have died using the free market airlines......

Compared to the billions of people that have flown and have actually accomplished something that could be done in no other way...

[W*GS]

Hundreds upon hundreds of inventions were made because of the space race of the 1960's.

Such as?

[alkemical]

Compared to the billions of people that have flown and have actually accomplished something that could be done in no other way...

So if space travel is so risky, why would you want a corporate solution?

[W*GS]

Expensive? Yes.

Very expensive. Ridiculously expensive. Too expensive.

Risky? How so? Because people might die? It will happen, and that should be no reason to not go.

It's far riskier than NASA is willing to let us know. Granted, space travel is inherently risky - and for what we get out of people in space, far from worth it.

Populate and explore new worlds. Cannot live on this planet forever.

What worlds would we populate? Why put ourselves into yet another gravity well that's hard to climb?

[W*GS]

So if space travel is so risky, why would you want a corporate solution?

If space is to be made profitable and worthwhile, NASA ain't gonna find the way.

[alkemical]

If space is to be made profitable and worthwhile, NASA ain't gonna find the way.


Why not?

[W*GS]

Why not?

Because they aren't driven by market pressures. $400-$500 million per shuttle launch? C'mon!

[maven]

Because they aren't driven by market pressures. $400-$500 million per shuttle launch? C'mon!

Since when is space is suppose to be profitable when NASA is leading the way? NASA should let the private sector figure out how to get to the moon? It's been 38 years. What has the private sector accomplished so far? What worlds should we populate? Easy. The moon, mars, and any other plantet/moon that is deemed feasible to support life. It is far riskier to send people into space than NASA would let us know? Well holy damn, I thought it was easy to send people into space. NASA is a major FU for killing 17 people!!! So sending the shuttle is rediculously expensive? OMG it cost 4-500 million to send people up into space. That's rediculous(although nobody else has done it)! You don't think NASA should send people into space because it's expensive and risky. The key is risky, because that deserves a LOL. If people want to go into space, leave it to Richard Branson or someone? The X-15 goal is to get into sub-orbital. Hence, you're not going to space. If the private sector is so great, where have they been the past 38 years? NASA plumps the ISS? They were force fed that debacle via Reagan. 2009 it ends. The shuttle ends in 2010. If space exploration is best handles by the private industry what would we have accomplished? Sub-orbital flight? The private sector has proven it cannot handle the job. Even to this day. NASA is our only hope to venture the stars since it's clearly obvious the private sector doesn't have it's act together. For starters, how about raising NASA's budget 10 fold. Then you'll get real space exploration.

[W*GS]

Since when is space is suppose to be profitable when NASA is leading the way?

If it's so obvious that our future is in space, then someone will figure out a way to make money from making it possible.

NASA should let the private sector figure out how to get to the moon?

Why not? Would it be so abominable and tawdry?

It's been 38 years. What has the private sector accomplished so far?

Ever hear of Richard Branson, Burt Rutan, and their fellow space entrepreneurs? Consider what NASA with people in space since the last Apollo mission - not a whole lot, really, and at tremendous cost.

What worlds should we populate? Easy. The moon, mars, and any other plantet/moon that is deemed feasible to support life.

Familiarize yourself with the conditions on the Moon and Mars before you make such a silly statement. There are no other places in the solar system that are even remotely habitable by humans (Venus? Triton?) - and planning on populating extrasolar planets is a real fantasy at this point.

It is far riskier to send people into space than NASA would let us know? Well holy damn, I thought it was easy to send people into space. NASA is a major FU for killing 17 people!!!

The name "Space Shuttle" is a misnomer - even diehard NASA supporters concede that. It's not quite like the East Coast shuttle flights, is it? We were promised that the "Space Shuttle" would make access to space cheap, reliable, and quite safe. The opposite has proven to be the case. I think you take NASA's PR a little too earnestly - which is one of NASA's own problems - they take their own PR over reality. The aftermath of both the Challenger and Columbia accidents showed that NASA was getting rather cavalier about safety.

So sending the shuttle is rediculously expensive? OMG it cost 4-500 million to send people up into space. That's rediculous(although nobody else has done it)!

How much did a Soyuz launch cost? And "space" it itself a bit misleading - very LEO is as far as the shuttle goes. Hardly "space", as in "Space, the final frontier ...", wouldn't you say?

You don't think NASA should send people into space because it's expensive and risky.

Not so much the risky part (an honest assessment of the true risk from NASA would be refreshing - something Feynmann dinged them with during the investigation into Challenger) but the expensive part is truly the key. Others can give it a shot - and have started doing so.

If people want to go into space, leave it to Richard Branson or someone?

Exactly. Just as we don't need the Queen of Spain to sponsor Columbus sailing across the Atlantic (we let airlines do it for quite a reasonable price and a hell of a lot faster these days, you know), we don't need NASA to send a few handfuls of astronauts to the ISS to, well, send people to the ISS.

The X-15 goal is to get into sub-orbital. Hence, you're not going to space.

So? If there's no profit to be made from putting people into "space", then what's the real point of it? Sure, there's scientific exploration - which NASA is quite good at, as I've noted. But putting people up there makes for a lot harder, riskier, and astonishingly more expensive proposition. At this point, there's really very little gained by having people floating around in LEO - and when you toss in the exorbitant cost (to taxpayers), it's just asinine.

If the private sector is so great, where have they been the past 38 years?

Figuring out how to do space better and cheaper than NASA. It's kind of hard to compete with a multibillion-dollar government agency head-to-head.

NASA plumps the ISS? They were force fed that debacle via Reagan. 2009 it ends. The shuttle ends in 2010.

NASA didn't want the ISS? Reagan forced it on them? Do tell.

NASA is quite clever politically - they make sure their budget gets spent in just about every congressional district in the nation.

I'm not bashing NASA as a whole - I'm just saying that they should get out of the Moon/Mars/shuttle/ISS/people in LEO business, and concentrate on what they do really well - things like Cassini, Galileo, Voyager, etc. Is that so evil?

If space exploration is best handles by the private industry what would we have accomplished? Sub-orbital flight? The private sector has proven it cannot handle the job. Even to this day.

Patience. The private sector is just getting going, for the most part. Certainly if NASA was a company, it would have been bankrupt long ago.

NASA is our only hope to venture the stars since it's clearly obvious the private sector doesn't have it's act together. For starters, how about raising NASA's budget 10 fold. Then you'll get real space exploration.

How would making NASA a $200 billion/year agency push Mars closer? Or make Venus more habitable? Or somehow make Alpha Centauri a realistic destination?

It's not clear that NASA spends the money it gets wisely already - as always, the Challenger and Columbia accidents proved that. How does making their budget 10x what it is now make those problems go away, rather than making them far far worse?

[maven]

If it's so obvious that our future is in space, then someone will figure out a way to make money from making it possible.



Why not? Would it be so abominable and tawdry?



Ever hear of Richard Branson, Burt Rutan, and their fellow space entrepreneurs? Consider what NASA with people in space since the last Apollo mission - not a whole lot, really, and at tremendous cost.



Familiarize yourself with the conditions on the Moon and Mars before you make such a silly statement. There are no other places in the solar system that are even remotely habitable by humans (Venus? Triton?) - and planning on populating extrasolar planets is a real fantasy at this point.



The name "Space Shuttle" is a misnomer - even diehard NASA supporters concede that. It's not quite like the East Coast shuttle flights, is it? We were promised that the "Space Shuttle" would make access to space cheap, reliable, and quite safe. The opposite has proven to be the case. I think you take NASA's PR a little too earnestly - which is one of NASA's own problems - they take their own PR over reality. The aftermath of both the Challenger and Columbia accidents showed that NASA was getting rather cavalier about safety.



How much did a Soyuz launch cost? And "space" it itself a bit misleading - very LEO is as far as the shuttle goes. Hardly "space", as in "Space, the final frontier ...", wouldn't you say?



Not so much the risky part (an honest assessment of the true risk from NASA would be refreshing - something Feynmann dinged them with during the investigation into Challenger) but the expensive part is truly the key. Others can give it a shot - and have started doing so.



Exactly. Just as we don't need the Queen of Spain to sponsor Columbus sailing across the Atlantic (we let airlines do it for quite a reasonable price and a hell of a lot faster these days, you know), we don't need NASA to send a few handfuls of astronauts to the ISS to, well, send people to the ISS.



So? If there's no profit to be made from putting people into "space", then what's the real point of it? Sure, there's scientific exploration - which NASA is quite good at, as I've noted. But putting people up there makes for a lot harder, riskier, and astonishingly more expensive proposition. At this point, there's really very little gained by having people floating around in LEO - and when you toss in the exorbitant cost (to taxpayers), it's just asinine.



Figuring out how to do space better and cheaper than NASA. It's kind of hard to compete with a multibillion-dollar government agency head-to-head.



NASA didn't want the ISS? Reagan forced it on them? Do tell.

NASA is quite clever politically - they make sure their budget gets spent in just about every congressional district in the nation.

I'm not bashing NASA as a whole - I'm just saying that they should get out of the Moon/Mars/shuttle/ISS/people in LEO business, and concentrate on what they do really well - things like Cassini, Galileo, Voyager, etc. Is that so evil?



Patience. The private sector is just getting going, for the most part. Certainly if NASA was a company, it would have been bankrupt long ago.



How would making NASA a $200 billion/year agency push Mars closer? Or make Venus more habitable? Or somehow make Alpha Centauri a realistic destination?

It's not clear that NASA spends the money it gets wisely already - as always, the Challenger and Columbia accidents proved that. How does making their budget 10x what it is now make those problems go away, rather than making them far far worse?

Oy vey. Where's Gus?:gus:

[alkemical]

Because they aren't driven by market pressures. $400-$500 million per shuttle launch? C'mon!



Hmmph, i wonder why my cable bill has gone up and up and up and up with "market pressures".

[W*GS]

Oy vey. Where's Gus?

That's all you got? You need to make a stronger case for NASA putting people in space. So far, all you've done is make a bunch of assertions that are weak on support. I'm not impressed.

[W*GS]

Hmmph, i wonder why my cable bill has gone up and up and up and up with "market pressures".

So get a dish.

Besides, what sort of cable TV are you getting now compared to what you got way back when?

[alkemical]

So get a dish.

Besides, what sort of cable TV are you getting now compared to what you got way back when?


Still get basic cable, and the dish isn't really any cheaper. By the time you include any rental fees for equipment, etc.

[Spider]

That's all you got? You need to make a stronger case for NASA putting people in space. So far, all you've done is make a bunch of assertions that are weak on support. I'm not impressed.

why do you have to be impressed ?
the main reason to send man in space , is you cant conquer mans appetite to explore ,why do you think people climb Mt Everest ?
NASA gets what it wants , people get what they want .......... win win situation .......I do not have a problem with the private sector getting into the space race , .........
i forget what company it is , but they are working on way to fly from new any starting point to any destination point within 45 minutes , yes it involves space ..... as long as security is met , and rules are established , so you dont have fighting over space .......... let em have at it , but right now NASA is the best thing going .........

[Spider]

Still get basic cable, and the dish isn't really any cheaper. By the time you include any rental fees for equipment, etc.

I get 500 channels of nothing ... and damn happy about it ;D

[W*GS]

Still get basic cable, and the dish isn't really any cheaper. By the time you include any rental fees for equipment, etc.

Oh well. There's always "free" TV over the airwaves...

[W*GS]

why do you have to be impressed ?

I don't, not particularly. But if people like maven who think NASA should be given 10x the money can't make their case better, what are the odds they'll get all that taxpayer funding?

the main reason to send man in space , is you cant conquer mans appetite to explore ,why do you think people climb Mt Everest ?

I'm not saying that we should do space exploration - just that NASA isn't the obvious or best choice for doing so. Note that folks who climb Everest aren't taxpayer-funded to do it.

NASA gets what it wants , people get what they want .......... win win situation .......I do not have a problem with the private sector getting into the space race , .........

Good. However, NASA needs to mothball the shuttle and the ISS ASAP. Those two things alone (plus the nonsense of going to the Moon and Mars [!]) are taking funding away from the good science NASA does. That's not right.

i forget what company it is , but they are working on way to fly from new any starting point to any destination point within 45 minutes , yes it involves space ..... as long as security is met , and rules are established , so you dont have fighting over space .......... let em have at it , but right now NASA is the best thing going .........

I disagree. Others can put people in space better and cheaper.

[Spider]

I don't, not particularly. But if people like maven who think NASA should be given 10x the money can't make their case better, what are the odds they'll get all that taxpayer funding?
they will get tax payer funding , and they should , we the people would get more of our monies worth , then lets say a war in Iraq



I'm not saying that we should do space exploration - just that NASA isn't the obvious or best choice for doing so. Note that folks who climb Everest aren't taxpayer-funded to do it.
why isnt NASA the one to do it ?



Good. However, NASA needs to mothball the shuttle and the ISS ASAP. Those two things alone (plus the nonsense of going to the Moon and Mars [!]) are taking funding away from the good science NASA does. That's not right.
then what ? what if one of your satellites monitoring the earth breaks down ? send up R2D2 ?



I disagree. Others can put people in space better and cheaper.
Show me proof .......... where is this magic space faring company we are all so ignorant of ?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Still get basic cable, and the dish isn't really any cheaper. By the time you include any rental fees for equipment, etc.Much cheaper in my area than cable. Two receivers, HD package and about 180 channels for about $57 a month. Charter wants $80 for something that gets close to that package and they don't offer the NFL Network either.

[alkemical]

Oh well. There's always "free" TV over the airwaves...

Hmmm, satt. TV comes over the airwaves - i wonder if i can get that for 'free' (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=hack+the+dish&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8)....

[alkemical]

Much cheaper in my area than cable. Two receivers, HD package and about 180 channels for about $57 a month. Charter wants $80 for something that gets close to that package and they don't offer the NFL Network either.



Not so much in my area, and the rental fees on the units that are *waived* are usually only for "x" months. I found that out too.

[Spider]

Hmmm, satt. TV comes over the airwaves - i wonder if i can get that for 'free' (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=hack+the+dish&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8)....

if you know how to connect from the telephone pole ;D

[W*GS]

they will get tax payer funding , and they should , we the people would get more of our monies worth , then lets say a war in Iraq

The colossal waste of the war in Iraq doesn't let NASA off the hook.

why isnt NASA the one to do it ?

Because they do it too expensively and make it extremely difficult for private companies to try.

then what ? what if one of your satellites monitoring the earth breaks down ? send up R2D2 ?

How often does the shuttle go up, retrieve a satellite, and bring it back for repairs? Not often enough to justify the cost, certainly. Besides, a single launch is $400-$500 million - one could build a replacement satellite and launch it via an unmanned rocket for less.

Show me proof .......... where is this magic space faring company we are all so ignorant of ?

They're starting up. Certainly NASA has no intention of allowing us regular civilians into LEO...

[alkemical]

if you know how to connect from the telephone pole ;D

Spider, click on "free" in that post above -

[Spider]

The colossal waste of the war in Iraq doesn't let NASA off the hook.
why not ?



Because they do it too expensively and make it extremely difficult for private companies to try.
like the tucker torpedo ?
I doubt it , if anything it would be the government stopping people in the name of security



How often does the shuttle go up, retrieve a satellite, and bring it back for repairs? Not often enough to justify the cost, certainly. Besides, a single launch is $00-$500 million - one could build a replacement satellite and launch it via an unmanned rocket for less.
doe this include communication satellites ? hell they have repaired the Hubble how many times ?



They're starting up. Certainly NASA has no intention of allowing us regular civilians into LEO...
is there secret prisons involved also ?

[Spider]

Spider, click on "free" in that post above -
I did .....i was referring to Cable

[alkemical]

I did .....i was referring to Cable

Ahso

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Not so much in my area, and the rental fees on the units that are *waived* are usually only for "x" months. I found that out too.Yeah, I don't rent anything and own all my equipment but have to pay for access to the two receivers which is $4.99. Actually made $100 after rebates when I bought my receivers online.

[alkemical]

Yeah, I don't rent anything and own all my equipment but have to pay for access to the two receivers which is $4.99. Actually made $100 after rebates when I bought my receivers online.

Yep and i know of 5 of my friends that actually pay more for "comperable service" for what i have, when using the dish. (you still would have to factor in cost of equipment, yes it's a one time fee - but it's still "cost").

It all depends on the market. But i still have had to pay increases, and large increases over the past few years for a "de-regulated product".

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Yep and i know of 5 of my friends that actually pay more for "comperable service" for what i have, when using the dish. (you still would have to factor in cost of equipment, yes it's a one time fee - but it's still "cost").

It all depends on the market. But i still have had to pay increases, and large increases over the past few years for a "de-regulated product".No, I believe DirecTv gives all your equipment for free, (Dish now advertises this also) they did for me and advertise this across the country. And like I said, for my extra HD receivers I actually made $100 on them. I didn't pay one penny for anything but the service.

[alkemical]

No, I believe DirecTv gives all your equipment for free, (Dish now advertises this also) they did for me and advertise this across the country. And like I said, for my extra HD receivers I actually made $100 on them. I didn't pay one penny for anything but the service.



Dear BB,

If they give you the equipment free, you still will have to pay for a rental fee as well. They may waive it for a period of time, but it's there at some point in time.

I'm saying from my expierence and market - there is not any real difference and cost in cable v. satt. tv.

I honestly don't know what is so difficult to understand about this.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Dear BB,

If they give you the equipment free, you still will have to pay for a rental fee as well. They may waive it for a period of time, but it's there at some point in time.

I'm saying from my expierence and market - there is not any real difference and cost in cable v. satt. tv.

I honestly don't know what is so difficult to understand about this.Sorry, not true. DirecTv like some other companies use cost loss incentives to boost subscriber base (NFL Sunday Ticket being one example). This more than offsets any cost loss through equipment or subscriber content.

This kind of marketing is debated on CNBC often.

[alkemical]

Sorry, not true. DirecTv like some other companies use cost loss incentives to boost subscriber base (NFL Sunday Ticket being one example). This more than offsets any cost loss through equipment or subscriber content.

This kind of marketing is debated on CNBC often.



Funny, when i compare bills between my friends and I, they are pretty much all with-in $5-$10 of each other for pretty much the same packaging.

So i guess, as they say - the proof is in the pudding. I'd also take the proof that i can tangibly hold in my hands, over what CNBC states.

[maven]

That's all you got? You need to make a stronger case for NASA putting people in space. So far, all you've done is make a bunch of assertions that are weak on support. I'm not impressed.

There is no debate. Just a continued difference of opinion. And whether you are impressed or not is irrelevant.

NASA is the only one to put people in space from the good ole USA. You mention the private sector. Where are they? You mention how expensive the space shuttle & ISS is. They both end in 2009/2010. Building bridges to nowhere and a war with no purpose? Taxpayers expense. Atleast you can say NASA is building robotics and searching our universe. Humans also want to explore the universe themselves, and as of now, NASA is it whether it's a lunar base/trip to mars/or a base on Europa. There is no private sector as of today & for the next few decades. NASA's budget is weak and needs more funding. We agree to disagree.

[W*GS]

NASA's budget is weak and needs more funding. We agree to disagree.

NASA's budget for exploring space (and helping to monitor the earth) is more than ample if they stick to non-human missions. It's the inanity of putting people in space that's consuming a huge chunk of the NASA budget - we're losing science. That's the problem with adding people.

Quit putting people in space (LEO, really) and NASA's budget is fine. Besides, the cost of going beyond the moon is so amazingly colossal we as a nation can't afford it.

[alkemical]

I'd rather send people to space than, i dunno run a gov't study on tea.

[W*GS]

I'd rather replace the aging satellites in orbit around us that are critical for monitoring the weather (think Katrina) than send the shuttle up to the ISS for the purpose of sending the shuttle to the ISS.