NASA To Drastically Cut Mars Mission Funding 191
DesScorp writes "Faced with budget cuts, and forced to choose between deep space observation or a mission to Mars, CBS reports that NASA will kill most of its Mars exploration programs. Sources in NASA say that of the $300 million being cut from the space agency's budget, two-thirds were for a joint US-EU program for Martian exploration. NASA spokesman David Weaver said that, just like the rest of the federal government, the space agency has to make 'tough choices and live within our means.'"
Good lord. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry folks... (Score:3, Insightful)
The days of America's manned space program are over now that Medicare and Social Security are running deep into the red.
We just lost the Mars. (Score:5, Insightful)
If only there were a bank on Mars that needed bailed out... by god then we would get there! I wonder if there is enough atmosphere on the red planet to fly a helicopter from which we could drop money.. or lacking the funds... turkeys.
1.7% cut? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Mars mission was a distraction anyways (Score:1, Insightful)
The real priorities of NASA should be to inspire kids to learn math and science, expand our international relationships, and to get involved in Muslim outreach.
How can NASA inspire children to be interested in math and science when NASA is busy wasting time on some Mars mission? You think any kids in this country cared when we landed people on the moon? Or that the moon landings inspired hundreds if not thousands of hours of films and documentaries and books that have immeasurable academic value especially for kids.
And how does going to Mars help NASA with its international diplomatic goals? When is NASA going to become IASA? We need to reach out to other countries with diplomacy before we can reach out to Mars.
And there are no Muslims on Mars. (Or are there? I'm not really an expert). So that's not going to help with the critically important 'Muslim outreach' program that is a top priority for the space teams. How can we possibly waste the time and effort of our nation's leading scientists and minds when the Muslim world doesn't feel good about its contribution to science.
Let's face it. NASA is slowly, or rapidly, becoming nothing more than a political punching bag to beat up on during election cycles. The government floats the organization enough to keep a lot of people in work but won't commit to anything extraordinary like the Apollo Program. And every few years a politician gets to make some insane claim like 'Moon Bases' to excite people into getting out the vote.
Managerial Incompetence (Score:3, Insightful)
NASA is a bankrupt bureaucracy plain and simple. Instead of axing the funding (many billions) on space adventures for man (mars, moon, whatever) and 'heavy lift' vehicles they axe funding in the one area where one could say they have a legitimate role - pure scientific exploration. There are no good reasons to race to get men on Mars. And there is no reason any longer for NASA to be developing rockets when private industry can take over and perhaps profit now that the government funded competition is out of the way. Imagine taking just 25% of what is planned for manned missions and associated vehicles and applying it to basic exploration like voyager, cassini, etc. NASA would have more than enough funding to focus on the things they do best.
Re:So, how much do they spend on... (Score:5, Insightful)
Illegal aliens can't take advantage of welfare, if by welfare you mean TANF [wikipedia.org]. They pay property taxes, sales tax and the federal gas tax. Existing outside the federal income tax system they're also unable to take advantage of the EITC [wikipedia.org], which many would qualify for if they were filing federal returns.
I also like how you simultaneously complain about a lack of federal education spending and rail against the socialist nanny state. What do you think free, compulsory public education is?
Some of you are too excitable (Score:2, Insightful)
OTOH, if we halt major projects for a short time, AND get private space going, THEN, we can obtain CHEAP ECONOMIC LAUNCHES. In addition, we would have red dragon quickly available. With red dragon and Falcon Heavy, we can send new missions to mars every 2 years for less than 300 million. Keep in mind that falcon heavy will allow MULTIPLE sats and a lander to go to mars. That is huge.
If you are going to whine, then whine about the fact that neo-cons are gutting NASA by turning it into a job's bill, rather than keep it as a National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Re:Good lord. (Score:5, Insightful)
If that's what it takes to convince the politicians to fund NASA instead of the DOD and entitlement programs, then sure, I'll play along.
[/unzips]
Re:Sorry folks... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you cut the income level, where does the money come from?
The top tax rate in 1960 was 90%, now it is 35%. You need to pay and the Federal Government accomplished all of the great space goals like putting a man on the moon, building our highway system, and educating many.
Check out the facts:http://tcftakingnote.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54ffb9698883301543328d90e970c-popup
Medicare and Social Security are successful programs as well. You have plenty of opportunity to succeed in America and successful entrepnaures do not complain about the tax rate, they complain that we do not have enough skilled, educated workers to compete with other countries. Germany, which makes some great products has a higher tax rate than us and is still very competitive.
Blaming the decline of the space program on Medicare and Social Security is far too simple.
Re:1.7% cut? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is, but I'll let you in on a little funding secret:
If you adsorb the losses by being more efficient then no-one notices and you can't use that money as a last ditch buffer (we forgot we need this widget, tighten up the ship, so we can buy it out of our existing budget). If you instead cut something noticeable you "make them pay" for cutting your budget. Happened to our IT department where I work. They had a 5% cut to their budget so they cut a service that saved labs all around the world untold $$$ by being essentially an internal craigslist to connect surplus equipment with labs that needed the kit. it was run by two dedicated staff, that's it. The rest of the 5% cut near as I can tell was adsorbed, but they made sure everyone noticed that this service was cut due to the budget constraints.
-nb
Re:Sorry folks... (Score:5, Insightful)
The days of America's manned space program are over now that Medicare and Social Security are running deep into the red.
Not that I particularly like Medicare and Social Security, but I prefer both of those to our huge military build up and foreign wars.
Re:Good lord. (Score:4, Insightful)
Naah.. speaking as a European, I think you shouldn't see it as "a slap in the face of the US when it comes to technological competence". It just means, that the cultural "focus" of the USA is not aimed at its own *technological* competence any more. You could if you wanted, but you don't want those kind of things anymore.
From our perspective, it seems you're currently more aiming for euh... let's label it juridical competence and financial world supremacy.
Hold a questionnaire amongst USA schoolkids, tally how many want to become astronauts or doctors, and how many lawyers / rich. I'm curious.
Re:Managerial Incompetence (Score:5, Insightful)
The only really significant thing the manned space program has done in 20 years is fix the Hubble. That was pretty awesome, and you couldn't have done that without a manned program. But according to the numbers on Wikipedia, building the Hubble cost around $2.5 billion, whereas the Shuttle program cost around $170 billion. For the cost of two shuttle missions you could have built a replacement Hubble.
Astronauts are basically a PR stunt, a way of literally putting a human face- and in particular, an *American* face on space exploration. Putting a man on the moon was a PR stunt, a way to show off America's power. The Saturn V was a monument to the power of the United States in the same way that the pyramids were a monument to the dynasties of the Egyptian pharaohs. I'm not arguing that this kind of stuff is meaningless. On the contrary, it's really important. The space program is a form of soft power that compliments the aircraft carrier. The aircraft carrier projects power in the form of threat; the space program projects power in the form of inspiration. The aircraft carrier says we're more powerful than the other guys, the space program says that we're ultimately about something more than just brute force.
Here's my argument: the manned program has outlived its usefulness as an instrument of soft power. When you're flying Lord British and the dude who developed Microsoft Word on the ISS, the manned space program has degenerated into a form of adventure tourism for the superrich. That doesn't inspire the nation, and it doesn't inspire the world. The unmanned program, however, continues to project what's best about the United States as a country- our ingenuity, our creativity, our daring, our need to explore, and our refusal to settle for second place. I'm not arguing we should give up on space- I'm saying we should double down on the unmanned program, because that's where the real exploration, inspiration, and science is all happening.
Re:Good lord. (Score:5, Insightful)
Before you criticise national dick-waving contests, the usual form those take is called WAR . Space programs, high speed rail, big dams or just about any other ways of competing without applying communal skill at high energy physics just to deliberately kill people are much better alternatives.
See, you don't get to say "I've got a really brilliant opinion if the lion will just lie down with the lamb first to make it not a stupid opinion.". Fix war, and then you can criticise anythng that at least subliminates the normally violent dick-waving, for still having a dick-waving element.