Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] USA - No Science, No space travel, No money ........

From: Bret Kulakovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 13:34:28 -0500

Greetings,

Crew Exploration Vehicle and Prometheus?

I heard flight testing for 2008 and 2010 respectively.

NASA is ordering reactors from the US Navy.

If getting humans to the orbit of Jupiter in 2 mos. travel time isn't 
doing science, I don't know what is.

Chin up.

Bret K

On Mar 8, 2005, at 5:14 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
> --- BillK <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> Over at "What's New?",
>> <http://www.aps.org/WN/WN05/wn030405.cfm>
>>
>> Friday, March 4, 2005
>>
>> 1. SCIENCE BUDGET: TAX REVENUES DOWN, WAR COSTS UP, BIG TROUBLE.
>> You don't have to be Alan Greenspan to know what happens when taxes
>> are cut during a costly war. And it's happening. Science, with no
>> champions in this administration, looks to be one of the big losers.
>> NASA, alone among science agencies, would get an increase under the
>> Bush request, but the entire 5%, and more, is destined for the
>> Moon-Mars Initiative, which has no discernible science content.
>> Meanwhile, Hubble will be dropped in the ocean.
>
> Actually, Alan Greenspan knows otherwise. He happens to know when you
> cut tax rates that tax revinues rise. Always.
>
> Nor is there "no discernable science content". Quite the contrary,
> further research in long term space habitation, testing of solutions to
> microgravity related physiological and psychological problems, testing
> long term use of nuclear space technology, research into remote fuel
> manufacturing technologies, and the granddaddy of them all is all the
> in person science that can be done by putting geologists,
> hydrogeologists, microbiologists, and biochemists feet on the ground
> with a multitude of research equipment.
>
> What the author really means is that there won't be a lot of science
> for the scientists who don't win the competition to become an
> astronaut....
>
>>
>> 2. MOON-MARS INITIATIVE: EXPLORING THE OUTER LIMITS OF POLITICS.
>> So what's really behind "The Vision"? Why is the administration
>> pushing so hard for a science initiative that scientists scorn, and
>> which won't take place on Bush's watch? Ah, but that's the plan. It
>> will be up to the next administration, stuck with a huge deficit, to
>> decide whether to go ahead with a meaningless but staggeringly
>> expensive program to see if humans can do what robots are already
>> doing. As one well-informed NASA watcher put it, "Moon-Mars is a
>> poison pill. It hangs responsibility for ending the humans-in-space
>> program on the next administration."
>>
>> And he hasn't even mentioned the growing Social Security problems as
>> well. Not a very optimistic outlook in the US.
>> It might be so bad in four years time that the Dems won't even try to
>> get elected.
>
> If ending the GOVERNMENT humans-in-space program on the next
> administration is the really the goal of the Bush initiative, so what?
> Then we have a future to look forward to entirely private space
> exploration by humans. How great is that? Whoever you quoted there
> sounds decidedly quite statist in their outlook, as if space can only
> be 'done' by governments. Gimme a break.
>
> There is going to be a space race, against China, for us to get into
> after the dollar tanks next year thanks to Chinese sabotage, and after
> the Chinese walk into Taiwan because the US won't be able to afford to
> fuel its non-nuke naval ships. American morale is going to hit the
> skids and the Chinese will be strutting their stuff, just the recipe
> for another big ticket space race.
>
> Mike Lorrey
> Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
> "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
> It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
>                                       -William Pitt (1759-1806)
> Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com
>
>
> 	
> 		
> __________________________________
> Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
> Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
> http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

---

From: BillK <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 22:42:33 +0000

> doing science, I don't know what is.

Getting humans to Jupiter is engineering, not science. And they don't
'plan' on even getting humans back to the Moon until 2015-2020.

The American Physical Society is the world's largest professional body
of physicists,
representing over 45,000 physicists in academia and industry in the US and 
internationally. For more information: <htp:/www.aps.org>

In Nov 2004 the APS issued a report on how they expected the Moon-Mars
project could seriously damage scientific research. The full pdf file
can be linked to from their home page.

The Press release summary is:-

NASA'S MOON-MARS INITIATIVE JEOPARDIZES IMPORTANT SCIENCE 
OPPORTUNITIES, ACCORDING TO AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY REPORT 
 
Washington, DC - November 22, 2004 - Shifting NASA priorities toward risky, 
expensive missions to the moon and Mars will mean neglecting the most
promising space
science efforts, states the American Physical Society (APS) Special
Committee on NASA
Funding for Astrophysics, in a report released today. 
 
The committee points out that the total cost of NASA's ill-defined
Moon-Mars initiative
is unknown as yet, but is likely to be a substantial drain on NASA
resources. As currently
envisioned, the initiative will rely on human astronauts who will
establish a base on the
moon and subsequently travel to Mars. The program is in contrast to
recent, highly
successful NASA missions, including the Hubble Space telescope, the
Mars Rover, and
Explorer missions, which have revolutionized our understanding of the
universe while
relying on comparatively cheap, unmanned and robotic instruments. It
is likely that such
programs will have to be scaled back or eliminated in the wake of much
more expensive
and dangerous manned space exploration, according to the committee. 
 
The following findings are among the most important points in the APS report: 
 
* The recent spectacular successes of NASA's space telescopes and the
Mars Rovers
amply demonstrate that we can use robotic means to address many
important scientific
questions. 

<snip>

This is the toned-down official view of the APS.
But you can get an awful lot of telescopes and robotic missions for
the money that is going to be thrown at the man in space money pit.

BillK

---

From: Bret Kulakovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:53:20 -0500

I can agree with all your points. But conversely, it is cheaper for a 
person to drive a tractor trailer across country than a robot. We need 
to get that relationship with space.

Also - it's not just engineering. There is a great deal science to be 
done. Look at breakthrough propulsion physics - we're not getting out 
of this system without something real and new.

Has anyone considered that this is an affirmation of some sort?

Why the push for manned exploration? Why so many countries saying so?

I think the secret is out.

In next 50 years, people are going to stop dying. And they know it.

Wouldn't that be nice?

Bret K

---

From: Bret Kulakovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 19:01:52 -0500

Given Bush's nomination of Griffin, I thought I would send along some 
of the information surrounding his nomination:

Some bio information:
http://planetary.org/news/2005/nasa_griffin_031105.html

Report he co-team lead in 2004 that people are referring to:

Extending Human Presence into the Solar System
http://planetary.org/aimformars/study-report.pdf

Of course one of the more savory bits is his being former COO of  
In-Q-Tel.

And another article relating to our earlier discussion about the crew 
exploration vehicle:
CEV: A different approach
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/226/1

Cheers,

BretK

---

From: Damien Broderick <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:55:28 -0600

Here's Zubrin's take:

Statement of Mars Society President Robert Zubrin on the Selection of Dr. 
Mike Griffin for NASA Administrator

Mike Griffin is a superb choice for NASA Administrator. I have known Mike 
for more than a decade. He is a real leader who is technically brilliant, 
highly creative, open minded to new ideas, well- experienced, and deeply 
committed for many years to the success of the American space program - 
emphatically including the new vision of reaching for human exploration of 
the Moon and Mars.

The Bush administration is to be commended for this inspired selection. 
There is literally no one better qualified to lead the new space initiative 
than Mike Griffin. For the job of 11th NASA Administrator, Mike is the 
right man, in the right place, at the right time. As President of the Mars 
Society, I offer him our full support.

---

From: Samantha Atkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:03:54 -0800

> to get that relationship with space.

Well yeah, people are cheaper in the environment people evolved to 
handle.  elsewhere in the solar system this is not the case.  Either 
reengineer humans or pay very high costs to support the meat.

- samantha