Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[10ebbor10]

Hopefully NASA will get additional funding so they can continue their scramjet program. Once we have an economic scramjet getting material into LEO will be very easy, or at least so compared to using rockets.

Doubt it. NASA's budget has been cut constantly since the Sixties.* Nearly all recent major NASA projects (Orion, Several ESA co-op budget issues,...) have been cancelled mainly due to budget issues. In some parts (For example, the planetary exploration budget which is among others responsible for Curiosity) cuts are as high as 20%.

The only hope seems to be the CHinese/ North Korea/ India sparking a Second space race or commercial spaceflight, which currently mostly thrives on mainly governement researched technologies. 

EDIT: *On average. There was a temporary increase in 1991 to 1 %. Current is 0.46%.  It was 4.5% in the sixties.

[darkrider2]

Once we can weaponize space ships, the defense department will basically absorb NASA and we'll see space travel.

~ Darkrider2, oracle services 2012.

[palsch]

One thing about NASA; I don't really like ROI arguments as evidence for increasing NASA's budget.

ROI isn't the point of NASA and never should become the point. NASA is about discovery and exploration. Making about financial gain is to set the wrong priorities.

Using a financial argument for NASA leaves them vulnerable to arguments about what they are doing. If ROI becomes the purpose then you start trying to measure and optimise it, distracting from the scientific merits on which such programs should be assessed.

NASA being a good financial investment should be entirely incidental to the decision to invest in it.


I think this next decade is going to need a examination of how US science is divided between departments and maybe even an overhaul of NASA's own internal divisions. The danger always is that any restructuring causes further cuts and semi-parasitic departments that provide vital services from within other organisations get entirely lost.

As for a presidential pardon, I personally believe his treatment has already justified it.  Studies have shown it takes only two months of solitary confinement to cause permanent psychological damage 100% of the time.  While I believe I've seen that he's no longer being held in those conditions, he was still subject to over a year of it before even being charged with a crime.  But Manning's well-being is secondary to me.  The #1 reason for me to call for a pardon is it would be the first act Obama has taken in the spirit of his original campaign, and that truly recognizes America's overwhelming frustration with corruption and secrecy.  It would be a strong enough act of good faith towards my values, my frustration with the status quo, and the kind of president I thought Obama was making himself out to be during his campaign, that I would actually re-evaluate my opinion of the guy.  I realize this reasoning is not shared by a majority and has about zero likelihood of happening, but most of my political opinions are that way and I'm kind of used to it.

I think the political divide here is interesting.

I view presidential pardons as a last resort for repairing injustices that the legal system can no longer address. So long as someone has legal remedies open to them the president stepping in is a political bypassing of the system. Such measures are extraordinary and should not be taken outside of the most extreme circumstances.

Obama using a pardon to entirely bypass a trial here would be at complete odds with his persona as a thoughtful law professor with great respect for the rule of law. That is the man who campaigned in '08, at least as far as I remember.

As for it showing awareness of, "overwhelming frustration with corruption and secrecy," sort of. In the most empty, politically cynical and pointless manner possible. It is an action that would change nothing as far as the secrecy system or government corruption (two grossly different problems in my view) goes. Undertaking a full review of secrecy standard, the classification system and clearance would be my main priority for demonstrating action in that area. I'm also not a fan of using people's lives to make political points, but that's just me.

Now, if Manning is given an extensive custodial sentence and appeal isn't an option, then Obama stepping in would make sense, considering Manning's treatment and time served.

Similarly I feel that his mistreatment should be taken independently of his actual legal case. It should only be part of his trial so far as it effects evidence submitted or causes obstacles to his defence, and as mitigation taken during sentencing. The potential legal problems with his detention should be addressed separately, preferably by him bringing his own case and through an internal review by the military.

[10ebbor10]

Once we can weaponize space ships, the defense department will basically absorb NASA and we'll see space travel.

~ Darkrider2, oracle services 2012.

Sadly, space ships were weaponized before they even existed. They are, after all, missiles with the explosives left out.

Current gen spaceships can be used as fairly effective precision bombing equipment(Especially the Soyouz ones and other single use pods). Weaponizing sattelites wouldn't be that hard. Russians have done it before(Though that one failed because they forgot to account for recoil and shot themselves out of orbit).

The only reason no active space militarization is being done is because there's an official agreement not to do it(Though the US didn't sign it) and that it wouldn't be very cost effective and rather provocative.(Launching a mass drop sattelite into orbit would be the same as arming ballistic rockets. Both only need a short time to destroy a rather large area)

One thing about NASA; I don't really like ROI arguments as evidence for increasing NASA's budget.

ROI isn't the point of NASA and never should become the point. NASA is about discovery and exploration. Making about financial gain is to set the wrong priorities.

Using a financial argument for NASA leaves them vulnerable to arguments about what they are doing. If ROI becomes the purpose then you start trying to measure and optimise it, distracting from the scientific merits on which such programs should be assessed.

NASA being a good financial investment should be entirely incidental to the decision to invest in it.


I think this next decade is going to need a examination of how US science is divided between departments and maybe even an overhaul of NASA's own internal divisions. The danger always is that any restructuring causes further cuts and semi-parasitic departments that provide vital services from within other organisations get entirely lost.

Sadly the interest in pure science in the USA seems to be near nihil, while the interest in something that stimulates the economy is rather high.

At the very least it debunks the statements of people who say that NASA is a useless waste of money

[darkrider2]

NASA's economic ROI is at the very least 200% of the money put into it, and that's using the most conservative estimates out there. So again, even ignoring everything else NASA does; putting aside planetary defense, inspirational value, national pride, and all the other 'soft' contributions made by NASA; even if we treat it the same as if it were some sort of government financial operation, it is STILL one of the most successful government programs in existence. That we give it as little as we do is, quite frankly, pants-on-head-retarded.

underlined for importance.

Actually now that I think about it, space colonization scares the hell out of me, I mean we don't use nukes now since it would harm the whole planet, but what if we're on a different planet? Interplanetary nuclear missiles are just about my nightmare of the future.

[10ebbor10]

With a travel time of 1.5 years at best, we can safely say we can intercept them in time.

Also, we don't use nukes because the others have nukes too. (Also we're not crazy enough). Even more so with interplanetary colonies, since there's much more time for a (nuclear) counteroffensive

[MonkeyHead]

I think number of casualties is more of a deterrent than effect to environment when you consider they have been used in anger twice and multiple times in tests.

Would NASA be better off acting as the hub of a more unified approach to space technology - ESA and ROSCOS have shown a willingness to work together well on a number of times over the last decade, and together would achieve more than apart. Cant see India or China willing to contribute much, but JAXA might.

[10ebbor10]

Who's/What ROSCOS ? Google directed me to some kind of sugared donut like thing, so I doubt it's correct

[MonkeyHead]

Roscosmos, the Russian space agency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Federal_Space_Agency

[10ebbor10]

Ow, them.

As for China not wanting to cooperate. They have some joint projects with both the ESA and Russia currently. Nowadays almost all space agencies cooperate constantly. Curiosity was partly build by the Russians, after all.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I certainly hope China refuses to cooperate. We need a second space race, and only China will be able to scare politicians enough to re-fund NASA.

Saying Curiosity was partially built by the Russian Space Agency is slightly misleading. They provided the neutron emitter/detector, but that is only one part of very many.

[MonkeyHead]

China wont co-operate on a large scale. They want to get to the Moon and then to a NEO by themselves. US politicians will scoff at the Moon "as its been done" which totally misses the point, but when China land on an NEO you can be sure NASA will be given blank cheques to get to Mars/the belt.

[10ebbor10]

China wont co-operate on a large scale. They want to get to the Moon and then to a NEO by themselves. US politicians will scoff at the Moon "as its been done" which totally misses the point, but when China land on an NEO you can be sure NASA will be given blank cheques to get to Mars/the belt.

Hope so, doubt it._{Besides, Cameron will beat them to it}

EDIT: Besides, I'm pretty sure NEO's have been done before too.

[MonkeyHead]

Nope, no human has ever gone to an NEO. NASA has mulled the idea over as part of a return to the Moon as a build up to a Mars push though.

[10ebbor10]

Nope, no human has ever gone to an NEO. NASA has mulled the idea over as part of a return to the Moon as a build up to a Mars push though.

Ow, talking about humans. I know we landed robots to take samples.
There's not much to do there, except for the possibility to get into a stable orbit using a bike and a plank. Then again, doing scientifically and economically pointless things that look awesome might just be what needs to be done.

Also, Random fact: Canada apparently contributes to the ESA(0.5%). Doesn't actually suprise that much, as they also participated in a variety of other European projects.