Obama Trashing Space Exploration

Please. As important as the space program is to many people, it is far from the most important thing on our agenda at the moment. We have to fix our environment first, fix foreign relations second, and try to keep the species from destroying itself. In that vein, I've heard the argument that the space program is the last hope for escaping the dying planet. This is, clearly, some kind of joke, since no amount of funding will make this possible before, well, the human race has ceased to be. Hillary calls Obama naive, but she's the one who needs to stop thinking science fiction and consider humanity.

We have to fix our environment first

Sounds great. got any idea's ? If we turn the key off on NASA which does have somewhat of a very key role in earth orbit satellite's that happen to monitor our environment we tend to lose a tremendous amount of information that was once right there at our fingertips. Opps no more Google Satellite Maps, no good weather maps, Satellite Attitude control backup on GPS can suffer so good luck on hiking to those spots to do the environmental "fixing" however that task is going to be done which so far has not been determined. "Fix foreign relations" is more talking with people, NASA does not have too much to do with that, however China did make the US look pretty sad when they shot down a satellite a few months ago and showed that we have slipped far behind in Space Technology.

Humans have never been a species that have been limited to one task and only one task. Why can we not carry on with a Space Program and also solve some of the things you talk about ?
As far as what you refer to as "science fiction" well over 1400 inventions have come out of NASA they have had a hand in developing just about every synthetic material in existence today, detailed maps of the earth, looking at the impact we have on the environment, updating/upgrading computer technology and medicine. I would hardly call that Science Fiction, rather solid engineering and design.

Many people that are not involved with the sciences are not aware just how much impact NASA has had on our everyday lives. There have been few major inventions in the last 40 years that have not had some routes traced back to NASA.

To close those doors would be throwing us back to the dark ages.

Please. As important as the space program is to many people, it is far from the most important thing on our agenda at the moment. We have to fix our environment first, fix foreign relations second, and try to keep the species from destroying itself. In that vein, I've heard the argument that the space program is the last hope for escaping the dying planet. This is, clearly, some kind of joke, since no amount of funding will make this possible before, well, the human race has ceased to be. Hillary calls Obama naive, but she's the one who needs to stop thinking science fiction and consider humanity.

Christian

What are your credentials to make such a definitive statement?

It is the mantra of the vast majority of writers on population that the Earth cannot sustain a population of the 9.1 billion souls that we expect to be here in the year 2050. Indeed the World Wildlife Fund put out a press release a few years ago that it would take the equivalent of two more earth's to adequately provide resources for the 2050 population.

The fact is that we have hundreds of thousands of worlds within our technical grasp today. For example, the smallest metallic asteroid that we know of, named 3554 Amun is worth ~$30 trillion dollars in metals such as iron, nickel, cobalt, and Platinum Group Metals (PGMs). In a study a few years ago by the British government it was pointed out that there was not enough PGMs in the earthly inventory to fully support the cross over from the internal combustion engine to fuel cells and the hydrogen economy.

In my own book and other writings on the subject I have pointed out that the Moon is a place where these asteroids have crashed over the last several billion years and that therefore the PGM resources are as close as the Moon. This was verified by the Apollo program samples.

What we need today is only a modest amount of funding increase to begin the process of exploiting these resources, far less than the increase from $28 billion per year to $61 billion per year for the department of education has brought in results.

We need to also provide tax incentives to businesses that take the risk of going out there.

Before the human race has ceased to be? Clearly this is a statement borne of uninformed emotion rather than any assessment or understanding of the state of the art in technology and space development today.

To develop the resources of the solar system is the ONLY way that we will be able to provide the resources to a hungry planet earth and its soon to be 9.1 billion citizens. This will usher in the world's first planetary civilization and provide a way to do it without having to resort to war, something that I would think that a lib would support. Space is our future, whether you understand this or not.

when people complain about nasa.. i like to point out that it is chump change compared to what we waste yearly. SHoot our interest payments to china are .5 trillion dollars a year.. about 50 times nasa budget and we get nothign at all for this not even a reduction in our principle. If the gov quit spending our money like a teenager with dads credit card we could pay for worth while educational programs.
More importantly NASA is the a shineing example to the rest of the gov, year after year, it does the most with the least. The gao constantly ranks it the most financially responsible agency. It is the least corrupt, least pollitical, most functional governement agency ever created.
and he wants to destroy that?? no i say we us nasa as training for the heads of our other programs and maybe they could be half as effective as nasa.

Christian,
You made the comment "As important as the space program is to many people". From what you have stated, I assume you have never worked with NASA or any kind of Space Agency nor realize the very complex infrastructure that is involved. The Europeans have The European Space Agency (ESA) which is made up of 17 member states (i.e. Countries). We have NASA one organization. In many ways, NASA is like one large University where some of the best research minds gather together. Also NASA is two distinct groups. National Aeronautics concern about flight dynamics (airplanes) and Space Administration.

A short time ago Eddie French put together a list of just some of the contractors that would be effected if NASA was shutdown or scaled back. As you can see, it is a rather long list.

Boeing Co.
Lockheed Martin Corp.
California Institute of Technology
Northrop Grumman Corp.
Alliant Techsystems Inc.
Raytheon Co.
Morton-Thiokol
Computer Sciences Corp.
SAIC
Johns Hopkins University
QSS Group
Ball Corp.
United Technologies Corp.
Honeywell Inc.
Swales Aerospace
Wyle Laboratories Inc.
Stanford University
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
Assoc. Univ. Research & Astronomy
Spacehab Corp.
Systems Assessment & Research
Gencorp Inc.
Smithsonian Institution
Orbital Sciences Corp.
Mississippi Space Services
ACS

Christian, you are a poor judge of the future.

This is, clearly, some kind of joke, since no amount of funding will make this possible before, well, the human race has ceased to be.

Says who? It's not like the human race is going to "cease to be" anytime soon, you realize, doomday scenarios notwithstanding....

I propose Iraq

I have a feeling Obama's more compassionate than me though.

Because Bush is leaving us with the bill for the Iraq War. All domestic spending will suffer as the next sane president tries to pay that off.

I'll pray for a sane President as well. Do you know of any?

Why can't we do both?

Because people like you wanted to to go into a useless war and don't want your taxes raised to pay for it. You won't vote for anybody who proposes "pay as you go". You want everything on a credit card. The Chinese are holding our debt and are starting a space program of their own.

All this because conservatives don't want to pay for the goodies they ask for. When a Democrat comes in to fix it, you start screaming like a child about either higher taxes or your pet project that is on the chopping block.

At least Obama has the guts to recognize this problem and honestly confront it rather than just telling you what you want to hear.

That's leadership.

You define leadership by pulling money from our space program and putting it into education, therefore equalling 'guts?!'

You didn't sell me on the candidacy of Obama. If you can in this context please do so. I'm willing to listen.

All I gained from your overly emotional post is an attack on another political party. *yawn*

If Obama was elected (doubtful) and he ACTUALLY did something about our education system. If he made major changes I would be shocked.

Does this EVER happen? Doesn't this just sound like another empty campaign promise to bolster votes and prod opponents?

You can't put so much faith in one politician and hold anger towards political parties. Your fanaticism will cloud your ability to see the truth on either side.

What are the real-world results our country will see from the next president. I doubt they'll be that different from the previous Bush, Clinton, Bush. It's the same old song and dance (and no I'm not bitter).

You could have fooled me, babin... but I'm just a lowly fanatic that supports Obama as well. ;-) I guess we that would rather vote for a possible change than a known failure are a silly lot. It's much better to simply take what we have coming to us stoically and not try to change our fate, no?

No, vote for him. I'll be surprised if he wins, which has nothing to do with my personal preference. I truly hope we get someone in office to break the cycle. Not Mrs. Clinton, Not Gulianni

I suppose I'm too young to remember a President that stood for something besides all these twisted agenda's. I remember being a kid and liking Reagan, but then I learned about his arms deals. I learned what is was like to be led by a puppet. Who's leading whom? It's something you can't take from history books. If Obama gets in office will someone be pulling his strings? We're straying from topic here. Pre-election promises don't hold much water with me. Rather honest or not they seem hard to uphold. The role of the American president has been tainted. These are my views and I want to be proved wrong for the benefit of everyone. :)

I've read that people spend more on pet food than the NASA annual budget.

They're only spending money on pet food because they HATE CHILDREN! If they had any decency they would stop buying food and ask for their taxes to be raised to fund schools. Why I volunteer for 130% taxes, how about you? Won't somebody think of the CHILDREN???

:)

few billion from the military budget

I doubt the military would even miss it at the rate that they spend money. Good idea !

All the Chinese exported tainted food my Great Dane can't eat. I wonder if the constantly tearing fabric of the space shuttle is made of soilent green as well.

First, trashed is sensational.

Second, it remains your personal subjective opinion, and is not an accurate description of the article itself.

Third, Operation Constellation is expensive but still just a fraction of the Space Exploration program.

Fourth the characterizatoin of "elimination manned spaceflight" for 5 years is not accurate either since the mission to the moon is not the only manned spaceflight. You falsely equate delaying a trip to the moon with the elimination of all manned spaceflight.

The fact is that according to the article it changes the time frame of a trip to the moon from having the timeframe of 2018 - 2020 to 2023 -2025. This in itself assumes that techonological advances in the meantime may serve to lessen that impact.

There is no evidence that going to the moon by 2020 or even 2025 is essential to manned spaceflight. Nor is it clear that Operation Constellation was particularly well thought out in the first place.

The assertion that this somehow trashes all space exploration is simply not rationally supported. You seem to assume that throwing money at any problem is the solution and that Operation Constellation was absolutely essential to the space program and that a five year delay is disaster. Your speculation isnt particularly convincing.

ComSen, I'm a little confused, it seems to me that slashing the budget of a bureaucratic government program like NASA would appeal to conservatives. Why not let the free market fulfill our space exploration goals, if it truly does (and I believe it does) benefit the U.S. and has economic benefits.

It seems to me you're trying to hypocritically use the story for partisan gain to trash Obama, or do you actually believe that we can't get to the moon without a goverment-funded program?

I don't think that non-government funded manned lunar exploration is possible in the near future (50 years+).

I'll take that bet.

In 1986, a multimillion dollar grant was awarded to the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Engineering department to study commercial applications of space. The grant was for research in food production, the use of robots, and to study the feasibility of mining Helium 3 on the Moon. Helium 3 is a gas which is not present on Earth but is known to be plentiful in space. This gas is seen as a critical component in the development of the emerging technology of nuclear fusion.

The manufacture of materials in space such as crystals, alloys, and pharmaceutical are as potentially lucrative, if not more so, then the current computer revolution and the emerging field of genetic engineering. The Future of Space Mining

Fourth the characterizatoin of "elimination manned spaceflight" for 5 years is not accurate either since the mission to the moon is not the only manned spaceflight. You falsely equate delaying a trip to the moon with the elimination of all manned spaceflight.

The fact is that according to the article it changes the time frame of a trip to the moon from having the timeframe of 2018 - 2020 to 2023 -2025. This in itself assumes that techonological advances in the meantime may serve to lessen that impact.

What you are missing is that in delaying constellation you are delaying the replacement for the Space Shuttle and it does mean that you have an increased five year gap where the U.S. will have no capability of flying people into space.

I am as much of a fan of Elon Musk's efforts as the next guy but he is also many years away from a manned effort.

I just wanted to note that I didn't find the headline sensationalist, and it does a better job describing the article than "Space vs. Education".

I just wanted to note that I didn't find the headline sensationalist, and it does a better job describing the article than "Space vs. Education".

You do a good job of demonstrating how some people are blind to sensationalism when they agree with the opinion expressed.

The title may describe your opinion but it does not describe the article since no where in the article does the author even remotely claim that space exploration is being trashed.

The article is about taking money from space for education: "Advocates for space exploration are noting with dismay that he'd take billions of dollars from NASA to pay for the educational programs he'd like to expand."

Perhaps you should rely more on what is actually written than upon your emotions and feelings in judging the title of the article.

What you are missing is that in delaying constellation you are delaying the replacement for the Space Shuttle

I am not missing, you are assuming it. You are also assuming that the 500 million will not be allocated for that. You are also assuming that any delay is tantamount to trashing the whole space exploration program. Furthermore, you are assuming that any delay in manned exploration therby trashes all space exploration. What you arent doing is supporting your extreme opinion. Furthermore, it is your opinon and not the article which in direct contrast to your personal subjective and sensational characterization concludes as following:

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

You obviously have concluded that not only is it bad, but extremely bad - again you are entitled to your opinon, but its not what is in the article. Newsvine asks you to describe the articles you seed, if you cant do that then perhaps you should write your own articles or seed ones that share your opinion rather than mischaractering articles.

You do a good job of demonstrating how some people are blind to sensationalism when they agree with the opinion expressed.

Catch22, the original headline didn't even indicate which politician was talking about space. This one does. You seem to be the only person complaining about it being sensationalist, perhaps you are being over-sensitive.

Catch does seem to be a mite touchy on this one.

I have posted many many links to things where Gore de-emphasized the fusion program, I just could not be bothered as he is getting hysterical.

I just could not be bothered as he is getting hysterical.

Yet another ad hominem. What do you base this slur on? I politely pointed out that your headline was sensational and not accurate. The evidence is fairly compelling however you obfuscate it. Your inability to support your opinion and my pointing it out hardly makes it hysterical and offering that as your lame excuse not to is childish. Its not a coincidence that every year in the dozen years after the GOP took control of Congress that fusion funding declined.

Not my headline.

I have shown on numerous occasions Gore's impact on the fusion efforts.

Not my headline.

No but they are your unsubstantiated insults in a discussion about the headline.

I have shown on numerous occasions Gore's impact on the fusion efforts

Shown or merely alleged? When you have something factual showing that but for Gore we would have had an operational 500MW fuison reactor last year but for Al Gore, please share.

You are knowledgeable enough to know that such an assertion is "hysterical" and false, but will you admit it? Instead of throwing insults about an issue and making unsubstatiated claims why not add something of substance?

I cannot for the life of me see where I insulted Mr. Obama. I have pointed out your histrionics on this subject but that is another thing.

Here ya go Catch, just for you I did your research to show what happened.

This is from a Lessons learned doc:

http://www-project.slac.stanford.edu/lc/local/scenario/documents/ITER-lessons.pdf

space guy,

You provide more empty insults and "research" that supports my point all all along.

As some of your collegues might say "Thanks for playing."

I cannot for the life of me see where I insulted Mr. Obama. I have pointed out your histrionics on this subject but that is another thing.

Nice irrelevlvant obfuscation. I never said you did. Nice additional insult since you have not pointed out any histrionics. Fine example of your continued unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks and lack of any substance. Pretty good example of your style of "argument".

Here ya go Catch, just for you I did your research to show what happened.

Your "research" says zero about Al Gore, it does reflect my point all along that funding delined and that the project was terminated under the direction of the GOP controlled congress.

You can throw out all the insults you want but the facts have completely suported my position.

Catch

Calm down, you actually have to read a few of these things and understand how Washington works to see how Mr. Gore influenced this. I saw this happen with NASA as well during those years. If the Clinton administration had wanted fusion to happen, it would have as we see the commitment that Bush has given it and now it is funded. Bush has spoken out about the benefits of fusion numerous times, never did you see this level of support during the Clinton/Gore years.

Calm down

Actually your imagined psychological states are neither accurate nor relevant. Actually you are the one making the hysterical claim that the fusion reactor would have been operational last year but for Al Gore. If you approached it calmly you would acknowledge that was a ridiculous assertion. Your failure to approach it rationally and instead interjection of emotion demonstrates your lack of perspective.

you actually have to read a few of these things and understand how Washington works to see how Mr. Gore influenced this

I have. I understand how Washington works. I am a lawyer and I have worked in Washington. I have read a lot about Gore. You are the one who remains blinded by hatered of Al Gore. I have provided facts about what happened. You provide angry opinion. You keep claiming to have provided actual evidence to back your opinion and have failed to provide any.

Bush has spoken out about the benefits of fusion numerous times, never did you see this level of support during the Clinton/Gore years.

Yes Bush talks about a lot of things. Since you claim to understand Washington, you should know that and that talk is cheap. The fact remains that the GOP controlled Congress cut funding and the GOP controlled Congress made the US back out. Why? You want to blame Gore. The fact is the Republicans when in control have cut fusion funding again and again. The fact is they were not all that happy about the proposal for it to built in France. The fact is that the program was expensive and had run into a lot of problems. The Russians are the ones the reduced funding in 1993.

If you knew how Washington works and approached the issue calmly you would see that blaiming Gore is ridiculously simplistic and silly. If you approached the issue calmly and rationally you would admit that your claim it would have been operational last year is totally unsupportable. However you refuse, and instead repeatedly project emotional claims upon me. Its not my fault you make unsupportable claims and that you have failed to support them. You are certainly entitled to your opinion on Al Gore, but sad that you engage in such simplistic attacks.

Dare I mention time constraints? Is there any point in going back to the moon in 2018-2020 when China will have already gotten there, claimed its resources and be in a position to repel us defensively in the first bit of space combat? If we would like the moon back we're going to have to colonize the thing sooner than 11-13 years from now.

Right, which is why private industry, through incentives like the Google Lunar X Prize is the future of space exploration, as oppossed to a slow-moving bureaucracy like NASA.

I am curious how that is going to interface with an expansionist Chinese government, Infohack. Private industry under US govt. protection?

Which is why I said non-military space exploration. The military has their own program, as Synthesis documented in his excellent two part series "Infinity and Beyond: Is the USAF Back in the Spaceplane Business? "Part 1, Part 2.

Rather than hide defense spending within NASA's budget, we should incentivise private funding for the civilian space program and make the military accountable for it's space-based defense need through the budget process.

It seems to me that privatization would appeal to conservatives, if they weren't so busy trying to hypocritically use the story for partisan gain to trash Obama.

If it works I say great! American youth are very poorly educated and yes something MUST be done.

However, I feel this underlying skepticism in my gut. I can see the bill going through, the money being diverted, space put on hold, education never being reformed due to some hold up in Congress and then our focus put on an air attack Iran which puts the cash in a military and 'homeland defense' budget. Once again the worker class is left poorly educated and overwight. Bahhh Bahhhh. You know this is done on purpose right? This leads into a 'conspiracy theory' so I'll leave it at that...

Then the question becomes is the space program worth having at the current level? Even then, I don't think we've got something so valuable in NASA that we don't have from the multiple universities that currently fund armchair space travel. There's that old saying that we never learn so much in medicine than when we're at war. That doesn't appear to be true anymore. That usefulness has run its course, and only dedicated study will advance it more. I think NASA has reached the end of its usefulness insofar as it produces useful byproducts. So is it good in and of itself to go to the moon? Maybe if they're planning a colony, but not much other than that (and that can be funded ad hoc).

You have to be careful here because the advances on Mars and the approaching pass on Pluto will give us very useful information about our universe that will (not to be callous here) benefit the world community way beyond the lives of inner city youth unable to get proper literacy and math skills.

Please understand I know this sounds harsh and there probably are enough funds that can benefit both goals, but if we're talking one or the other and the grand scheme with long term results...my money is on Mars.

Counterpoint. We must educate our current youth at all levels to maintain a living standard otherwise the information gained on Mars etc. will be of no use in 3 or 4 generations. All speculation I know.

My vote is reduced military spending (which we all know is the priority in this country) and push education and science advances!

It must also be remembered that NASA fulfilled one of its primary goals scientifically already which was to gather data from space flight and zero gravity. It has gathered reams. I would rather elect Obama and write him and my Congressman a letter than to vote for someone else simply because I want to return to the moon sometime in my lifetime. There's far too much Obama can change to vote against him because he is going to reduce funding for NASA.

babin:
You're right, that was harsh. As I said in my very first post on this thread: If something isn't done about our current education system that is forcing us to bring in foreign science and math geniuses, there won't be a NASA to worry about not getting properly funded. Again, I would rather try to do something than resign in defeat to doing nothing.

If he is elected and truly does change things for the better than we'll all benefit. I hope you're right.

BUT I think it will take more than one elected official to steer this nation in the right direction. There are a lot of hands in the pot.

babin:
I don't mean to be harsh myself, you could be right. However, I know that a vote for Obama stands for a vote for change and sending him into office with a mandate in Congress could empower him to change some things possibly. I will cast my lot and see how the rest of America goes.

How can you guys say that you would seriously not vote for him because he's prioratized education over the space program? Now don't get me wrong, going to Mars would be cool, but is that any more important than having stronger education and less debt?

Education without purpose is mental masturbation.

Contrary to what everyone thinks here, the Bush administration has raised the education budget from $28 billion in 2001 to $61 billion today.

NASA's budget in the mean time has increased from $15 billion to $17 billion per year.

If that's the case then I don't see the need in slowing the space program. Has Obama and the rest of us missed something? Those numbers pale in comparison! It can't be that obvious.

Space guy -

I guess it helps to read the article eh? Or at least cite it:

The Constellation Program is NASA's $104 billion effort to send astronauts back to the moon in the 2018-2020 time frame, as an initial step toward wider space exploration and settlement. Although the policy paper doesn't lay out the figures, our own First Read political blog said Obama would keep Constellation on a $500 million-per-year maintenance diet during the five-year delay - with the implication that the timeline would be shifted to 2023-2025 for the first 21st-century moon landing."

This is the program that would be slowed and the monies pulled from.

I know what is in the article and the policy people behind it as well.

The shift in funds is miniscule in comparison with the increases that the Bush administration has given the education department.

The $104 billion is over 16 years and none of the increases really happen until 2011 and most of that is from the retirement of the space shutttle. The actual increase is no more than about 15% of the NASA budget today.

How can you guys say that you would seriously not vote for him because he's prioratized education over the space program? Now don't get me wrong, going to Mars would be cool, but is that any more important than having stronger education and less debt?

Bush has increased the education department budget from $28 billion in FY 01 (the last Clinton Budget) to $61 billion today. How much more do you want?

Exactly. The idea that education can be fixed by throwing money at it is just wrong. We spend more than other industrialized democracies, and rank lower in nearly every measurement.

I'm sorry but I have to believe that that is being short sighted. That's like the Wright Brothers saying that we should no longer improve upon air planes because they've already been in the sky a couple of times. As time progresses we can see this trend:

1. If you can control the land and sea you can control the world.
2. If you can control the sky you can control the land and sea.
3. If you can control space you can control everything.

Developing space technology is not an American en devour (though it would be to my advantage if we were to pioneer it) it's a human one. We can't sit on this planet forever, eventually at some point we're going to drain the world's resources, and when that happens, like the common analogy of a virus, we must move somewhere else. If that technology isn't available at that time humanity will die out.

I'm not saying education is not important, in fact the two go hand in hand, but one can not be cut to save the other.

Returning to the moon is almost a bigger waste of money than funding the Iraq war. We've already been to the moon multiple times, why the hell do we need to go back? Let's focus NASA funding on more productive endeavors.

The Moon is where we learn to live off the planet and many of the technologies will feed back to the Earth to help with closed loop industrial processes, including water reclamation and pollution reduction, both major boosts to the terrestrial economy.

How do you reply to individual posts? Is newsvine so primitive that threading is impossible?

Learning to live on the moon won't help us learn how to live off of Earth because the moon has no valuable natural resources. Until we find a planet that does, which will undoubtedly be outside our solar system, there is no point in sitting around on the moon. We are going to need to develop technology that can bring us outside our solar system and then we can begin to figure out how to live on another planet, if there is one with resources we can use. NASA's goal should be to find ways to approach the speed of light so we can get outside our solar system. Giving NASA the goal of going to the moon is a waste of time and resources because we know how to get there and we know what is there, and doing it again won't necessarily advance technology or knowledge, especially if the endgoal is space exploration and extending humanity onto other planets. Going to the moon will hinder valuable time and money that could be better spent on more productive research on planets outside the solar system, and how we can get there.

Finally, if we actually did practice living on the moon, first of all, the lack of resources there means we would be practicing shuttling resources from the earth to the moon. Your theories of potential planet catastrophe would make the shuttling of resources impossible. Without resources on the moon, there is nothing there that could support us. Living on a planet without natural resources is not an option, lets focus on living on planets that could support us.

Learning to live on the moon won't help us learn how to live off of Earth because the moon has no valuable natural resources.

I beg to differ, in fact I wrote a book about it. Search for Moonrush on Amazon.com

There are vast quantities of Titanium, Cobalt, Nickel, Iron, Magnesium, and Platinum Group Metals derived from asteroids that have impacted the Moon. There is about 1,000 times more Platinum Group Metals on the Moon than on the Earth. Today the best ores for PGMs is about 3 grams per ton. This ore has to be processed with flourine based chemicals. Today we produce over 100,000 kilograms of Platinum and Palladium and other PGM's per year. That means we have to chemically process millions of tons of ore. The waste products of this process take decades to become less dangerous and destroys prime farmland in south africa.

We must have Platinum Group Metals for disk drives, LCD screens, fuel cells, catalysts for the chemical industry and a plethora of other uses. I for one would rather see this material obtained off planet.

Not only obtained off planet, but manufactured off planet too. Space is the ideal place for heavy industry.

I don't think so, there's not a large NASA installation in NY yet Hillary is not agreeing with Obama. Before you make that kind of remark why don't you back it up with something please.

I'm thinking this was a joke. Although not strikingly funny.

Hillary is not agreeing with Obama on this as she has a lot of really good space advisors on here campaign. I am no fan of her's but I do know about this as I know many people in that circle.

she has a lot of really good space advisors on here campaign

huh, i didn't know that. (for real, no sarcasm)

Well I am working with the Fred Thompson team at a distance right now and hope to get this on the candidate's agenda soon.

I will Seed her position on space. (Trust me I would vote for any repub over the hillmeister but this is her position.

I was making a reference to the history of Nasa. Nasa has big facilities in Alabama, Mississippi and Texas because of Senators Sparkman, Stennis and LB Johnson.

It was a tongue in check reference.

Fair enough, I recant my statement, the joke was just simply lost on me.

As an ex-instructor as the University of Chicago, he should know space exploration fosters education in the long haul.

What? Do you have any evidence of this? And why would he know it from his instructor job in Chicago?

space combat" (with China, no less),

China did shoot did a satellite in orbit. That would have caused a war years ago during cold war days and something that caused panics many times when the "Star Wars" Program was going on with Regan. You might laugh at it, but we came very close to war at one time over that exact thing. You should look at history just a little bit.

U.S. official: Chinese test missile obliterates satellite
"The United States logged a formal diplomatic protest."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/01/18/china.missile/index.html

Here's a list of ridiculous terms I've seen within this article and the comments following it: "Trashing" (sensational journalism right in the title), "hotels on the moon", "Earth orbit hotels", "space combat" (with China, no less), "global warming run-away", and, of course, "space based defense need" (presumably in connection with the space combat).

Then you may need to get your ridiculous meter recalibrated. Mr. Robert Bigelow has already launched two subscale prototype habitats that will lead to a space hotel within the next decade. www.bigelowaerospace.com for more information. Elon Musk is already building a private human space vehicle www.spacex.com for more information. As Ted pointed out China this year destroyed a satellite in orbit (it was one of theirs) which was a warning to the U.S. that they now have this capability.

The world is changing and it is interesting to note how far behind many otherwise intelligent people are in grasping this. Space is a real solution and the beginnings of this are underway even as we speak.

So clearly the solution then is to throw us back into a third world country and shut down NASA and the US educational system ?

Have you ever worked with NASA ? Do you have any concept just how much of your current life is affected by NASA and what has come out of the space program ? Would you be OK if all the weather forcasts were just turned off and you had zero warnings about storms, hurricanes coming your direction ? No GPS systems ? No Google Maps ? What about the close to 30 major US firms that support NASA ? That is almost 10,000 employee's that just went without a job. Do they all go apply at Wal-Mart ?

You might want to do just a little bit of homework.

Well, I agree with you somewhat Ted - NASA should remain and do the atmospheric science that they are good at. But manned space exploration - which is what this "article" was about isn't something they should be involved in.

GPS was military by the way, though I'm sure NASA had their hand in it. Just saying - since you are doing your homework and all.

And those 30 major US firms should have plenty of work in a competitive free market system. If they close down, it means they couldn't compete, which means they weren't producing anything worth while. Which means we, as taxpayers, are subsidizing their poor business practices right now.

Vulgrin,
I am very well aware GPS is military, I worked on the design and getting it operational. But NASA provides the backup attitude control of the satellites for the military system and helped in the launch and placement of the spacecraft. It was and is a massive joint effort between the two agencies. Of course the main use is for the military. (well pleasure use of GPS is at a all time high these days also)

As far as the firms having work if NASA goes away. I am not sure if that would happen. Who would co-ordinate the whole program ? Who would generate work for those firms other then the military ?

The Europeans did a excellent job with ESA getting a 17 member nation to get there space program organized. Somebody here would need to pull off basically the same thing. If not a NASA type group, I am not sure who that would be ?

It is not a easy problem to solve and I do agree with you on the rotten business practices of many of those firms that are involved with major contracts. It happens across the board with any type of contract with the US Government, far too much money is wasted in sloppy accounting and fraud.

I actually agree with:

NASA is nothing but a big bloated ineffective self-serving bureaucracy, like the US educational system.

NASA is a problem but killing the money for space will not solve that problem. What we need to do is support legislation that will support the development of commercial space. Here is a link to legislation that we were able to get introduced into congress to have a tax holiday on commercial space activities. This bill, called the Zero G Zero Tax bill, would not tax any space activity that does not currently exist. Therefore it would not cost the treasury any money (the bill specifically excludes existing services such as communications or remote sensing spacecraft) and would have a 20 year duration. This is what kick started the Internet revolution and this is what we need for commercial space.

Excellent comment space guy. In addition to incentives, I think the government needs to work out the rules of the game - what are the licensing requirements, who bears liability, who coordinates launches at spaceports, etc.

ezeques says:

"NASA is nothing but a big bloated ineffective self-serving bureaucracy, like the US educational system."

This comment is uninformed and incorrect. When ezeques says, 'like the US educational system', I can tell right away he does NOT live in the United States. There is nothing wrong with this, but he is uninformed on the NASA issue, without a doubt.

He does not quote any sources for his view, as well.

Yeah! We should stop all research and all be religious fanatics. I'm going to go with Scientology since they don't thing medicine is such a good idea, but at least they still have electricity. Which idiocratic organization are you going to join?

Yep Total waste of Time no question about it

Every day, in a variety of ways, American lives are touched by space technology. Since 1976, about 1,400 documented NASA inventions have benefited U.S. industry, improved the quality of life and created jobs for Americans.

NASA Inventions Benefiting Our Daily Lives

I'm going to go with Scientology

I was thinking the same thing. We could hide from the Aliens in Tom Cruise's Alien proof bunker under his house :-)

So, we couldn't have discovered those inventions and more by pumping the same billions of dollars of waste into the private sector versus NASA's bureaucratic rats nest?

I don't think so. 1400 inventions doesn't sound like it was worth the budget we've spent. Look at how many "inventions" have been discovered by private industry during the same time period.

There is no reason that our races' space aspirations need to be tied to world governments who can't even manage the evacuation for a hurricane, let alone going to another planet. Turn it over to the private sector.

Or better yet, find some space aliens and start a war. If there is one way to get money thrown at something in this country its to make it into a conflict and unleash the war profiteers.

"Yeah! We should stop all research and all be religious fanatics."

I don't get this at all. Why do people think that cutting NASA we'd be cutting space spending and research? Move it to the free market where it belongs.

For some reason, there are a lot of people with this romance that NASA is the Apollo project - there ARE better ways than letting Government run things.

1400 inventions doesn't sound like it was worth the budget we've spent.

Many of those medical. Are you qualified to put a price on those lives ? Any facts that can say that a private company in that time period has come up with 1400 inventions ? That is not a small number.

Comparing NASA to FEMA's connection to Homeland Security and the mess with Katrina has no impact on NASA. Yes the government has far to much red tape, same with NASA, both need to be cleaned up in many ways.

"Any facts that can say that a private company in that time period has come up with 1400 inventions?"

Go do a patent search for Pfizer or Merck or any number of medical device, equipment or pharmaceutical manufacturers. I guarantee you'll get more than 1400 for more than 30 years of research.

1400 inventions over 30 years is not that many. Think of how different the world is from 30 years ago. Sure, NASA technology has helped people's lives, but that doesn't mean its cost effective compared to other systems.

And yes, I WILL lump NASA and other government organizations together. Government, especially one like ours where the folks making the decisions roll over every couple years, has NO place in long term science research. People change, parties change, and priorities change, and you simply cannot run a large organization efficiently under those circumstances.

And if "free market" gives people the heebee jeebees, and understandably so, considering the corruption and other problems that can sometimes result - then set up a private foundation instead. Move the scientists and engineers at NASA to a foundation that is outside of Government influence and politics, and can be set up to provide reasonable funding and a place to work.

Something similar to CERN.

And if "free market" gives people the heebee jeebees, and understandably so, considering the corruption and other problems that can sometimes result - then set up a private foundation instead. Move the scientists and engineers at NASA to a foundation that is outside of Government influence and politics, and can be set up to provide reasonable funding and a place to work.

Something similar to CERN.

They would still need funding.

Vulgrin, I think the free market is great - but for some things, like clearing up the environment, it simply does not work because individual people do not see the benefit. That is why a larger body is needed to organize such a program (although, my ideas on a solution are a bit different on that issue), and it is the same with space exploration until the price drops to where it is reasonable for individuals to get into the business for profit.

Personally, I support X-Prize style funding over direct funding - but that still requires funds.

It's time for us to stop being alarmist whenever someone says "cut NASA's budget" and not take it so personally,

Have you worked in the industry for 25 years ? Some of us have and we tend to take it somewhat to heart as we do have alot of feelings and time invested in the field.

Manned space travel is an absurd, adolescent obsession. The scientific value so far has been worth 1/1000th of the cost.

Here are a two questions:

1) When was the last time human beings set foot on another planetary body?

2) How much lost benefit has this (the time intervall in #1) resulted in?

My own answer to question #2 is zero.

NASA is a PR monstrosity and a scientific dwarf.

Vulgrin: I concur completely with your analysis.

I strongly advocate robotic space exploration, BTW, so the weepers and the wailers can calm down a bit.

Also, I'll just mention that the attacks on religiosity above are particularly dumb in my particular case. Not that they advance this discussion one millimeter under any circumstances.

Manned space travel is an absurd, adolescent obsession. The scientific value so far has been worth 1/1000th of the cost.

Here are a two questions:

1) When was the last time human beings set foot on another planetary body?

2) How much lost benefit has this (the time intervall in #1) resulted in?

My own answer to question #2 is zero.

NASA is a PR monstrosity and a scientific dwarf.

This is just too easy.

Lets see the last time man set foot on the Moon was in 1972. Since then we have had three energy crises, two wars, and about a $350 billion dollars a year going out of the USA to the middle east for their damn oil.

If we had continued with the economic development of the solar system that was started then in all probability we would have fusion reactors today, be driving non polluting fuel cell cars, and the U.S.A would have a trade surplus.

Oh and oil would be about $2 a barrel as its only use would be for lubrication.

Oh and that global warming thing. Not happening as the use of oil would be about 1/100th what it is today.

The economic development of the solar system is beyond what NASA's charter is but the technologies embodied in the Saturn V and what they were doing at the time, if we had not cut the budget "to take care of things here on the earth" we would be far better off today.

The problem with remote exploration is twofold.

1) Long distance makes instant correction of problems impossible. It takes 2 1/2 seconds for radio signal to get to the moon and back OR the other direction. If an instantaneous response from a human were possible, the correction would be that late.

2) Artificial Intelligence - the true availability of AI is long away.

The first moon landing would have been a wreck if the astronauts had not manually moved the landing site.

2) Artificial Intelligence - the true availability of AI is long away.

Forty years, maximum.

That's what they said 40 years ago ...

The first moon landing would have been a wreck if the astronauts had not manually moved the landing site.

Same with many of the critical docking maneuver to recover damaged satellites and the Hubble Telescope.

That's what they said 40 years ago ...

Forty years ago they were guessing. Today, we have the law of accelerating returns.

Science wins over guesswork every time.

Big Blue still lost to the human.

AI extrapolates from past experience, humans can try news things not limited by past experience.

That's what they said 40 years ago ...

No that's when the term was first coined at Dartmouth College, Summer 1956. Same year & season I was born. That date happens to stick in my head. Nobody at that time said anything about it being ready for use.

With the coming of LISP and "fuzzy logic" it has progressed and the Artificial General Intelligence Research Institute (dot.org) is certainly doing some interesting work in the field.

Forecasts as far as when ? We already have limited AI applications now. Thats a tough one to pin down. as the rules for "fuzzy logic" and "guessing algorithms" are dynamic, they are not static.

40 years ? Sounds like a reasonable number to me.

Big Blue still lost to the human.

Deep Blue beat Kasparov the second time around.

I used to work at Symbolics (the makers of LiSP AI language) and was used to hearing their propaganda about AI. It was BS then and still is.

Traditional AI is a dead end, and always has been. It has a completely false idea of what the mind is, that it's some series of logical rules. Now genetic programming is showing some serious promise in recent years, along with other forms of biologically inspired computing.

Artificial intelligence is as simple as replicating the human brain with something other than brain matter. AI is hard because we don't have the computing power, and we don't know enough about the human brain. The computing power will come by 2030 (in fact, $1000 will buy you a computer with the power of all human brains in 2050). With advances is neurology, we will be able to better understand the workings of the brain - and reverse engineer is by that time.

This is not some fairy tale, this is expected change. Do I think we'll have androids running all over the place? Not necessarily, but artificial intelligences will be utilized in everything from video games to government.

This is a misconception. Nobody in AI is trying to replicate the human brain, and they never have. They're trying to use simple rules to do what the brain does, and failing. There is only one current major project trying to replicate a brain, and they're starting with one neuron from a rat brain at at time. It will take a decade or so to complete.

http://www.forbes.com/2005/06/06/cx_mh_0606ibm.html

This is a misconception. Nobody in AI is trying to replicate the human brain, and they never have. They're trying to use simple rules to do what the brain does, and failing.

No one is doing this now because it is impossible now. That said, it is the most likely way to create a true, strong artificial intelligence. Top-down rules will never succeed.

Replicating a human brain means what? Replicating the connections between neurons? That's trivial. Replicating the behaviour of each synapse? Piece of cake. Replicating the biochemistry of each and every neuron? Woah! That's hard!

I don't doubt that, barring environmental/economic collapse, we might be able to create a device as interconnected as neurons in a brain in a generation or two. But that doesn't replicate a brain because our artificial neurons have nothing whatsoever in common with real biological neurons. Biological systems have behaviours on all scales and timeframes, and we know just about nothing about the behaviour of the brain on their most detailed scales.

Plus all existing connectionist AI hits exactly the same combinatoric problems we find in classical AI. We can make a system that can recognize the letter "A" in multiple fonts. We can make another system that can recognize the letter "B" in multiple fonts. But we have no way of plugging these systems together to tell us whether a letter is more likely "A" or "B" without a bunch of heuristic procedural hokum.

And that's why, despite the fact that we can build connectionist devices that are more than Moore's-Law equivalents of a butterfly brain, we still don't have anything like something that can claim the Limpinwood X-Prize. Not close, not on the horizon, not something that any AI researcher would even dream of doing today.

So your 40 years is as much a pipe dream now as it was 40 years ago. It's based on wishful thinking and nothing to do with actually understanding biological systems. Billions of dollars have been spent on wishful AI in the last 40 years and all hit combinatoric limits. What we have to show for these billlions can't do anything in 100,000 fast neurons that a real butterfly can in 3,000 slow ones.

You show me an electronic butterfly, or even a bit of a one, and I'll listen to the rest. Until then what you're suggesting doesn't even pass the Las Vegas Test.

Replicating a human brain means what? Replicating the connections between neurons? That's trivial. Replicating the behaviour of each synapse? Piece of cake. Replicating the biochemistry of each and every neuron? Woah! That's hard!

Yeah.... you might want the read the article I linked on exactly that topic. It's about a programs to replicate a brain, neuron by neuron, and it is hard.

Peter, let's each put $100 each year into a joint mutual fund. In 40 years, the funds should increase and after accounting for inflation the winner would get the equivalent of $36900 (enough for a nice computer in 2047, even if you end up correct). If strong AI exists, I win - if it doesn't exist, you win.

Care to put your money where your mouth is?

Henry,

If you go googling you'll see that I'm actually a strong-AI proponent. I was chief architect at Omnigon with David Gifford, Ken Happel, and all the little grey aliens. I just feel the program you're advocating isn't something you've thought through. Blind faith in connectionism has so far yielded diddly over squat.

But I invite you to think it through. I'm all ears. I don't want to bet on this stuff - I want to understand it. I'd be delighted to find out I'm mistaken. Enlighten me.

Brian,

Apologies, irony doesn't communicate well online ;)

Change is not a straight, linear line. Change grows exponentially. So, from 2001-2100 we will not have the same number of innovations as from 1901-2000; we will have change equivalent to 20,000 years. It is common for people to believe that change is linear, because that is the way they perceive the world.

The easiest place to see this change taking place is in computers, as seen in Moore's law, but it applies to the entirety of human innovation and invention. Ten years from now, computers will not be ten times more powerful than they are today - they will be roughly 1,000 times more powerful. People will laugh at a 500 GB hard drive like we would laugh at a 500 MB hard drive today. By 2027, computers will reach the equivalent of 1,000,000 times more powerful than they are today.

Do you think people will be using all of this computing power on spreadsheets?

Do you think people will be using all of this computing power on spreadsheets?

Sheer computing power does not translate into AI. Eleventy billion PCs running solitaire and some youtube video is not much different from one PC doing that. Supercomputers today are capable of huge numbers of computations but are no more intelligent than PCs. I fully expect the future to be very different, but I don't know if it will have AI.

There is a thing in engineering called the Law of Diminishing Return. There is a limit to everything. The analogy an engineer uses is making each step half the way to the wall. The first steps make great progress. As you get closer the steps are smaller and smaller. There is not infinite computing power. There is a limit. The speed of the processors incresed rapidly at first. Now the speeds have pretty much stabilized with small increases if any. The first computers were a room. As the computers began making the chips smaller and smaller the minimum size has almost been reached.

It is magical thinking to believe that there is no limit to the power of computers in the future.

Change is not a straight, linear line. Change grows exponentially. So, from 2001-2100 we will not have the same number of innovations as from 1901-2000; we will have change equivalent to 20,000 years. It is common for people to believe that change is linear, because that is the way they perceive the world.

So how do you explain this?

150 years ago we were inventing electrical generators, radio, AC current, internal combusion engines, and airplane wings. 100 years ago we were inventing quantum mechanics and relativity. 50 years ago we were inventing transistors, computers, satellites and moonrockets. Today we're inventing ... um, really special AJAX layouts for a whole new kind of PHP ...

Human progress proceeds in fits and starts. It doesn't trend monotonically upward. What's done the most for innovation over the past 150 years is the use of petrochemicals to automate agriculture and thereby increase human population exponentially. More minds means more genius means more progress. But now the oil's running out that trend is at its end. If we don't create some real strong AI here, now, with our own brains, no amount of Moore's Law magic will do it for our children.

Dr Know, there is a limit. That limit is the atomic level. We won't reach it until long after we have the power to create a strong AI.

Peter Merel, that's only one way to judge innovation. Here are 15 other lists (in graphical form) that support my side. It isn't a smooth line, but over time - paradigm shifts do follow a logarithmic graph. It is impossible for us to create strong AI with the computers of today. They simply do not have the computing power. When we have the computing power, and a deeper understanding of the human mind - then we will create a strong AI. Thinking that computing power is irrelevant is quite unwise.

The speed of the processors incresed rapidly at first. Now the speeds have pretty much stabilized with small increases if any.

That's actually incorrect. The speeds are increasing as fast as ever. We're just at the point where it really doesn't matter that much any more. The increase from 2 GHz to 3 GHz speed is just as significant in absolute terms as the one from 1 GHz to 2GHz. The difference is 1 to 2 doubles the speed, while 2 to 3 only increases it by 50%, and 3 to 4 is only 33% faster.

Dr Know, there is a limit. That limit is the atomic level.

That's actually incorrect as well. Quantum computing offers an entirely new paradigm where billions of possibilities can be evaluated simultaneously and instantly, conceivably far, far faster than any atomic based form of computing once we get up over the few qubits we're at now.

Hi Henry,

I followed the only 3 links provided on your T.Modis page to look at the sources of their data. I find the methods used comparable with those preferred by believers in natal horological astrology. If you're seriously arguing that strong AI is round the corner just because, hey, look at the time, I'm going to give up right here.

As for computing power, we may not have sufficient for emulating a human - I think it's worth arguing that in fact we do, just the VNA is holding us back - but we certainly have enough to emulate the behaviour of a simple organism. Hence the Limpinwood prize. The day you can claim that prize is the day you can start estimating when we can expect Strong AI. Until then the correct answer will remain a resounding "We Don't Know".

If you're seriously arguing that strong AI is round the corner just because, hey, look at the time, I'm going to give up right here.

Clearly, I am not saying that - so I give up. You are looking at the past and seeing minor change. You don't account for change accelerating in the future, so your view of the future is bleak. If it makes any difference, we've simulated half of a mouse brain - which is about what we can do on today's hardware. Of course the correct answer is "we don't know," but we can certainly estimate without some prize being won.

They simulated 1 second of their model of the wiring in half a mouse brain, accomplishing no "useful work" of which a mouse is capable nor forming any "structures" they believe are important patterns in a mouse brain ...

What does this let you estimate?

As to my view of the future, it's far from bleak. In fact I'd say most of it is going to be a hell of a lot rosier than 2008. But we're going to have to stop fooling ourselves for a living.

The fundamental problem in AI is simply combinatorial complexity. After twenty years of wrestling with large problems and large systems I'm stupid enough to think I've learned one way to go about dealing with that. Maybe. But it has nothing to do with pretending an unscalable VNA simulation of "neurons" will magically wire itself together to become half a mouse!

High. Higher if you wear a red shirt.

What's the risk of our entire race being killed by starvation if we just sit here huddled together and breed at our present rate?

Certain. Whether or not you wear a red shirt.

Think about that, groundhog.

Well, we see where this thread is going.

I'm outtahere.

Well, we see where this thread is going.

I'm outtahere.

Locking on coordinates and beaming up shortly...

I'm outtahere.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.....

Going back to the moon to set up a permanent trailer park

FEMA already tried that once with the Katrina mess and it didn't work on earth either.....

Quick question - what provides the vast majority of school funding?

what is more important children having a nice environment to learn in or having a man in space? what benefits come from having man spaced flights? what benefits come from children learning? come on, think about it, space exploration is ridiculous.

It is my understanding that Children centuries ago had an environment nice enough that they grew up to invent calculus, engineering, science, biology, and just about everything we have today.

During the Apollo program we trained more scientists and engineers than at any point in our nation's history. Think about that today when you see the declining numbers of enrollments in those disciplines today. Enrollments have declined because engineering has become just another job for many people and science is boring.

The expansion of mankind into the solar system is exciting, especially when you know that what you are doing can make a difference in building a sustainable civilization for everyone on the planet.

i think space exploration is exciting and i myself enjoy doing alittle studying on the subject but it does not have many benefits or purpose to go grab rocks from the moon.

yes most of school fundings come from state government, which often leaves many schools poorly funded. this wouldnt happen if you took some from nasa and gave it to schools.

Children centuries ago worked in the fields from "can see" (sunrise) to "can't see" (sunset). With the advent of the Industrial Revolution they worked in the factories until the Child Labor Laws were passed.

I was in the first generation of my family to attend college. My grandfather finished 8th grade (all that was required to get a job in 1897). My father did not graduate high school (1929 required him to go to work).

I would like to know where your understanding that:

Children centuries ago had an environment nice enough that they grew up to invent calculus, engineering, science, biology, and just about everything we have today.

comes from.

i think space exploration is exciting and i myself enjoy doing alittle studying on the subject but it does not have many benefits or purpose to go grab rocks from the moon.

yes most of school fundings come from state government, which often leaves many schools poorly funded. this wouldnt happen if you took some from nasa and gave it to schools.

The federal contribution to education has increased from $28 billion to $61 billion since 2002. A couple more billion is not going to make a difference. Also, science & technology are actually motiviations for people to get degrees. I was able to convince several kids to do so in order to work on cool space stuff.

Alexander, how much funding do you think gets to schools nationwide from property taxes? And how much from the federal government? Even the entirety of NASA's budget would be a drop in the bucket in school funding. It couldn't possibly make a big difference, and there is no evidence that increasing federal funding of schools under Bush has done anything to improve school performance.

As space guy pointed out above:

Contrary to what everyone thinks here, the Bush administration has raised the education budget from $28 billion in 2001 to $61 billion today.

In fact, Bush has complained that states have left up to $6 billion of available federal funding unclaimed and unspent. If $33 billion made no significant difference, what could be done with the few billion taken from NASA?

In fact, Bush has complained that states have left up to $6 billion of available federal funding unclaimed and unspent.

Well, those 6 billion come with stipulations. It isn't really funding education if you're forced to skip teaching proper sex education to get the funds.