Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

NASA budget/program cuts

  1. Feb 15, 2006 #1

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    FYI - The Planetary Society is asking for help to save some of NASA's programs...

    http://planetary.org/programs/projects/space_advocacy/
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 16, 2006 #2
  4. Feb 17, 2006 #3
    Statement of NASA Administrator Griffin

    You can’t really blame Mike Griffin for the choices he’s made, he’s being put in a very difficult situation, basically what the Bush administration wants is the Shuttle program funded and the ISS completed as a first priority, and well they aren’t providing enough money for NASA to do that, so as a result other programs get cut.
     
  5. Feb 17, 2006 #4

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Any thing that has human control is good for the media, but this may be the tip of the ice berg, has any one in the know heard any thing about CERN
    cut backs?
     
  6. Feb 17, 2006 #5

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I haven't seen any news about cutbacks at CERN, but US is cutting back in DOE as well as NASA.

    http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/45/3/6

    But hey, we can certainly find $100 billion for the war in Iraq! :rolleyes:
     
  7. Feb 17, 2006 #6

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    IMO, the terrestrial planet finder is (was) NASA's most important mission. Finding out if we are unique or alone is a huge deal and at the very least it could answer the first of those questions.

    Not to be too political, but I predict that after Bush leaves office the Mars/moon missions will be scrapped and NASA will go back to some variant of the 'smaller/faster/cheaper' mantra that worked so well for the past few years.

    I'm wondering about people's opinions of the shuttle and its potential replacements? Do we need a low earth orbit manned vehicle? Is repairing/retrieving satellites something worth the money for sending astronauts? How about the experiments performed on it?
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2006
  8. Feb 18, 2006 #7

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    In my opinion, the shuttle is a total waste, vast of mounts of money has
    to be spent on supporting human life, training astonaughts, etc.
    This when scientists have to design other mission as cheaply as possible.
     
  9. Feb 19, 2006 #8
    I think that it was a definite improvement to the craft used in the apollo missions, but its too old now, and NASA should be investing more in designing a replacement. Also, I think that the US should invest more in space travel, at least doubling NASA's current budget.

    No, I don't think a low orbit craft with men on is really needed, robotics could be used instead, it would cost less, they don't need food, never sleep, and no one really makes that big a deal if they "die".
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 19, 2006
  10. Feb 19, 2006 #9
    The more I hear about this the more it doesn’t make sense.

    If the Bush administration wants to go back to the moon, but doesn’t want to pay for it (won’t give NASA the extra funding it needs) then that forces NASA to cut their science programs to pay for it. So now we have to debate whether human space flight is more important than science, which is pointless because both are important and neither should be made more important than the other.

    Phil Plait discusses the budget cuts and George Deutsch on Paul Harris’s KMOX radio show: Mp3
     
  11. Feb 19, 2006 #10

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I question what the point of developing maned space flight is, at best we
    can land a man on mars, any thing he achieves when he is there can surly
    be done much cheeper with robotics, where else can a man be sent in space? asteriods may be, to set up ore extraction plants, i am sure the
    political and commercial will to under take such an opperation will not come
    about in this centuary.
     
  12. Feb 19, 2006 #11
    To a degree you’re correct. Technologically we probably do have the capability to put a man on Mars, but at what expense? This is the problem, the Mars/Moon vision is too grandiose, too expensive, and all to do with National pride.

    But. There are good reasons for human space flight as well, setting up Moon Bases, a Mars base and mining asteroids (I read somewhere that a 300 meter asteroid would be worth $4 trillion) But the cost has to come down before we can do any of that, which means the technology has to mature, and the reason for going into space reasonable, otherwise going to Mars or the Moon is no different than a tourist trip.
     
  13. Feb 19, 2006 #12

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  14. Feb 19, 2006 #13
    In my opinion, the moon/mars missions are everthing but important!
    Human beeings are just not made for space! Roboters are way more effective, when it comes to these kinda things.

    Most off the energy/time/costs on ISS is used by holding those people alive!

    Much more things could be done, if roboters where used. So in my opinion NASA should concentrate on roboter/AI research and other way more important projects than mars mission (or an odd moon visit)!
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2006
  15. Feb 22, 2006 #14

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    We'd better adapt!

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1749389.stm
     
  16. Feb 22, 2006 #15

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well, today I'm not too happy, and feel that the whole 'Man On Mars!', "Back To The Moon" thing was deeply cynical ... there was never any intention to do any of this, it was just a ploy to generate some excitement, and when the time (timing) is/was right, swift, sharp sword thrust to the heart (in this mode of thinking, the Bush team deserves more credit for their assiduous studies of Machiavelli, Sun Tse, Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, etc than they're otherwise given credit for - you don't need to know anything about the cosmos, just go read the bible).
     
  17. Feb 23, 2006 #16
    http://www.spacepolitics.com/

     
  18. Feb 26, 2006 #17
    Human beings are just not made for living in extremely or hot areas of the planet, but we use inventions to make life there more comfortable. Perhaps in 100 years the same will be true of space (for a small percentage of the population).
     
  19. Feb 26, 2006 #18

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The two major problems of long term habitation in space are: lack of gravity and radiation.

    Lack of gravity results in deterioration of bone and muscle structure, which primarily function in response to resistance to gravity. People who are confined to a bed for long time will also suffer similar debilatating effects. Any children born is space will likely be confined to space because their bodies will be adapted to zero-g. Artificial gravity is has not yet been conclusively demonstrated as a remedy - there are not long term (years) experiments. People living long term in space might require pressure suits in order to return to a planet with gravity.

    Radiation is inherent in space simply because space is full of charged particles, e.g. solar wind. Ionizing radiation damages cells. Young people (those with higher rates of mitosis) are particularly vulnerable to radiation, and that is why humans under the age of 18 are not supposed to be exposed to radiation unnecessarily. As people age, the ability to repare cellular damage decreases, particularly as age goes beyond the mid 40's.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: NASA budget/program cuts
  1. Meet NASA SOFIA aircraft (Replies: 10)

Loading...