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

US drops to Number 2 in Space?

  1. Oct 8, 2005 #1


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    NASA has resorted to buying Russian spacecraft to filling its portion of support for the International Space Station (Senate clears NASA to buy Russian spaceships)

    This is a short term solution, but it might be the cheapest long term solution, as well. The shuttle costs an exhorbitant amount of money for each launch (at least $760 million per launch) and every problem results delays from months to years.

    The most cost-effective commercial American heavy booster already uses a Russian made rocket engine. The Atlas V heavy-lifter uses the Russian RD-180 engine and costs about $138 million per launch as compared to the Delta IV's American Rocketdyne RS-86 that launches for about $254 million per launch. France's Ariane 5 runs about $180 million per launch and Russia's Proton runs about $75 million per launch (Ukraine's Zenit runs about $45 million per launch, but they're still considered a little unreliable).

    The 'space race' isn't exactly the biggest problem confronting the US right now, but our current state is certainly a setback from the image the US enjoyed even 10 years ago.
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 8, 2005 #2
    I'd say we're dropping to number 4 or 5.

    JPL is facing recent additional cutbacks and hundreds of layoffs:


    The European Space Agency and the Italian Space Agency (Our partners on Cassini Huygens) have had brilliant successes over the last few years, and appear as likely to succeed in several areas (manned mission to mars, identifying extra-terrestrial life) as we do.

    The plus side is that space exploration is a good area for collaboration. We have a lot to offer still, and this is an area where collaborating makes sense.
  4. Oct 8, 2005 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    As far as I'm concerned, when you leave the planet, whether or not there is anybody else out there, you are an ambassador for Earth, not for the US. If there is any endeavor in which nationality should be put aside, this is it.
  5. Oct 8, 2005 #4
    I have a big concern about the technology we are losing. Just like the outsourced jobs, once it is gone is gone forever. If we outsouce our booster supply, will young persons want to get degrees that would be associated with building rockets.

    I can see the headlines now: "USA OUTSOURCES ROCKET SCIENCE":smile:
  6. Oct 8, 2005 #5
    has china been invited to join the International space station yet? Or are they going to properly rename it the Russo-US station
  7. Oct 8, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    When I was a (very) young person back in the late 80s, I had already given up my interest in aerospace engineering, which was probably the first career I ever saw myself going into, because of the cutbacks that were already taking place then.
  8. Oct 8, 2005 #7
    Good one!
    I am concerned about individuals that believe losing is possible after they made the particular, the nation, their priority. Those individuals use the word "we" to represent ONLY individuals that reside on a particular part of the planet, rather than the entire human race. "we Americans" vs. "We humans".

    Had they realized prior to establishing that priority that when the whole is given the priority, losing is not possible.

    So, annihilate every nation on the planet and "outsourcing" is not possible.

    Is being "American" your priority, or is being human your priority?

    And no, you can't have it both ways!
  9. Oct 8, 2005 #8
    Unless you are referring to a definition of "being human" that is unique only to you, actually yes I can have it both ways. I feel that I have done it sucessfully for the last 65 years. It is all in ones point of view.

    The people of this nation are my first priority. Again, that is either good or bad based on ones own point of view. Until there is some kind of global standard backed by a one world government which dictates what my point of view must be, I will just keep relying on my own.
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2005
  10. Oct 8, 2005 #9
    Clearly, you have 'pigeon-holed' yourself.

    At the point your "self" pledged allegiance to "America", your "self" immediately alienated you from all other human beings that you perceive to be not "American".

    And, are you a "Democrat" or "Republican"?

    At the point you pledged allegiance to either the "Democratic Party" or the "Republican Party", your "self" immediately alienated you from all other human beings that you perceive to be not in the particular party that you believe you are "in", which in reality, is "in" you.

    To be a true human being is to not be "in" any political party, and hence, not have any particular party "in" you.

    So, you're a "Democrat"? Are you a "Liberal Democrat", or a "Conservative Democrat"? Division within division within division within division, etc...

    Every particular positive number that individuals pledge allegiance to has the same common denominator, yet rarely, if any, individuals pledge allegiance to the common denominator.

    That particular association which your "self" pledged allegiance to was not the unifying entity that many thought it was; it was only a one-of-a-kind bottomless pit that only you could have fallen into, and did.

    The only way to get out of that pit, and rejoin the "whole human race" is to renounce all allegiances to any particular party that you believe you have.

    The point of view that you thought was your own, and the freedom of choice that you thought you had, was dictated to you the moment you pledged allegiance to that particular thing. You, the true you, is not who your "self" thinks it is.

    The moment you renounce any allegiance you believe you have to any particular party, at that point, you have joined the whole human race in the one world government, that is yet to be empowered, and have chosen to dictate your own point of view, and to rule your "self". Until then, and until the one world government is empowered, you will always be dictated to, and your "self" will always rule you.

  11. Oct 8, 2005 #10
    I understand what you are saying, but I doubt that things will turn out that way although it would be great if it happens.

    If and when that one world government comes about, it will be controlled by big corporations. Everything will be controlled from an Exxon mentality. Peoples individual points of view will be skewed in any and every direction that will allow them to survive and/or prosper in the new world order.

    Which of course is not much differen't than what is happening now. A persons own ideas and view points are the most difficult for anyone or any government to take away.

    Although I will be the first to admit that in recent years politicians have learned how to get varied points of view to focus in one direction. By using a variety of key words in speeches and slogans they can assemble a voting block to support them. Ironically each person or group appears to believe that the politician represents only their individual view point.
  12. Oct 8, 2005 #11
    A one world government is ONLY one big corporation, and each individual is a shareholder.

    People's individual point-of-view/perspective shall be right; that of the first-person/3D. No more shall individuals be pre-occupied with any thoughts. They shall be free from thought and fear, to see the planet as it is. Reality.

    The 'dog-eat-dog' mentality, struggling to survive thinking shall be made extinct.

    There shall be cooperation between all individuals and the knowledge that every individual will have that which is NEEDED. No guilt, no shame, no burdens.

    And there shall NOT be any politicians jockeying for an "office" with a one world government.

    It has been said many times by many people in many places "We'll never see that in our lifetime".

    I say that "you" are in for a surprise.

  13. Oct 8, 2005 #12
    Curious Jimmie. You are advocating that no human should be considered superior to another human?

    How would you respond, if I stated that this should be expanded even more so, to include other seemingly intelligent animals, dolphins, perhapse dogs.

    How would you respond if I stated that it should be expanded even more to encompass all life, that a human is no better nor worse than a snail. Or even more so, If I encompassed this to all matter.
  14. Oct 8, 2005 #13


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    The only impression I got is that Jimmie is saying no human is superior to another human because of nationality.
  15. Oct 8, 2005 #14
    There are only three types of beings on the planet: plant beings, animal beings, and human beings.

    All life holds value. Value = the balance one being is able to preserve.

    Balance is the level of awareness that is distributed equally between the four rooms: physical room, emotional room, mental room, and spiritual room.

    A human being is capable of preserving a higher balance, due to its mental and physical capabilities, than a dog or a tree. Hence, the higher value.

    However, value does not equate superiority.

    A plant being is what it is, an animal being is what it is, and an individual human being is what it is, and each particular being is unique.

    As far as "matter" is concerned, if you are referring to things such as rocks, or inanimate objects, it does not matter. Matter also is what it is.

    And that's just the way it is.

Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: US drops to Number 2 in Space?
  1. US and Isarel (Replies: 15)

  2. Education in the US (Replies: 4)

  3. If The US falls (Replies: 40)