Remember all that flowery crap about Obama being a nerd?

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

Well, it's bullshit, because he just cockblocked any manned moon missions.

Which means you can say goodbye to manned missions to Mars in our lifetimes.

Gee, thanks a lot, nerdy-hipster prez. :rolleyes:



http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/27/obama-budget-drop-nasa-constellation-program/

Obama to End NASA Constellation Program

FOXNews.com

On the eve of the fullest moon of the year, NASA scientists were told they won't be able to visit any longer. In his new budget, President Obama plans to eliminate the space program's manned moon missions.

When the president releases his budget on Monday, a White House official confirmed on Thursday, there will be a big hole where funding for NASA's Constellation program used to be. Constellation is the umbrella program that includes the Ares rocket -- the replacement for the aging space shuttles.

NASA will receive an additional $5.9 billion over five years, some of which will be used to extend the life of the International Space Station to 2020. The official said it also will be used to entice companies to build private spacecraft to ferry astronauts to the space station after the space shuttle retires.



The story was first reported in the Orlando Sentinel, which detailed that the forthcoming budget will include no funding for lunar landers, no moon bases, and no Constellation program at all. Instead, NASA will outsource space flight to other governments (such as the Russians) and private companies.


NASA's Constellation program aimed to create a new generation of spacecraft for human spaceflight, consisting primarily of the Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles, the Orion crew capsule and the Altair Lunar Lander. These spacecraft would have been capable of performing a variety of missions, from International Space Station resupply to lunar landings.

But according to the Sentinel, White House insiders and agency officials say NASA will eventually look at developing a new "heavy-lift" rocket that one day will take humans and robots to explore beyond low Earth orbit years in the future -- and possibly even decades or more.
In the meantime, the White House will direct NASA to concentrate on Earth-science projects -- principally, researching and monitoring climate change -- and on a new technology research and development program that will one day make human exploration of asteroids and the solar system possible.

There will also be funding for private companies to develop capsules and rockets that can be used as space taxis, reports the Sentinel. These companies may take astronauts on fixed-price contracts to and from the International Space Station -- a major change in the way the agency has done business for the past 50 years.

NASA's budget, just over $18.7 billion this year, is still expected to rise again in 2011, reports Space.com, though by much less than the $1 billion increase NASA and its contractors have been privately anticipating since mid-December. A White House-appointed panel, led by former Lockheed Martin chief Norm Augustine, urged these changes on the administration in December.

The panel also said a worthwhile manned space exploration program would require Obama to budget about $55 billion for human spaceflight over the next five years, some $11 billion more than he included in the 2011-2015 forecast he sent Congress last spring.

A senior administration official told Fox News that rather than space programs, the president plans to use the address to renew his focus on jobs, calling for swift action on lagging bills providing tax cuts for job creation, new equipment purchases and the elimination of capital gains for small businesses.

[tleilaxu]

well i think this is horrible

[The Winslow]

Well, I'm not voting for him in 2012.

[Varaj]

Not surprised, not happy but not surprised. Obama has been gutting NASA since he took office.

[Hatter]

That sucks.

[Limper]

For someone who has gone on at length about the US needing to be on the cutting edge and to invest in the future he doesn't seem to have a bloody clue about the long term impact of NASA investments.

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

What I hate is, as you say Limper, the fact that the space program has always proven to be the cutting edge for new technologies, a huge side benefit for spending money on it.

I guess we'll have to concede this to China now, too? :mad:

[Droid101]

Ron Paul 2012.

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

We'll hear lots of stuff about having to spend the money at home (and really, was there ever a time when that couldn't have been used as an excuse?).

Of course we had blistering GDP growth this past quarter, and the recession appears to be in the rear view mirror.

[Limper]

Obama did finally show that he is absolutely no different than any other politician on Capital Hill... he is a liar, he doesn't have any more insight or a better vision of tommorrow, he is not willing to take the sacrifices to make anything happen.

He is just as much a proffesional liar as the other 544 twits he hangs out with.

He just exposed his educated idealism and stance on change and the future of our country is just stufff he said to get in office.

[Enk]

We'll hear lots of stuff about having to spend the money at home

IIRC, all NASA expenditures are to American companies. That's a pretty good track record for "spending the money at home."

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

IIRC, all NASA expenditures are to American companies. That's a pretty good track record for "spending the money at home."

Probably true, and something the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue should be reminded of.

[Varaj]

For someone who has gone on at length about the US needing to be on the cutting edge and to invest in the future he doesn't seem to have a bloody clue about the long term impact of NASA investments.

No politician, republican or democrat has for a long time. :mad:

Obama wants private industry to do what NASA does. Republicans should be all excited. :rolleyes:

[Limper]

Probably true, and something the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue should be reminded of.

So Stannis...

Now that you and I's opinion of Obama has been confirmed to be true... do you feel any better?

I can't say I do. There was that chance I was wrong and he was different and now thats been removed. He's just another shit head politician and a professional liar.

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

So Stannis...

Now that you and I's opinion of Obama has been confirmed to be true... do you feel any better?

I can't say I do. There was that chance I was wrong and he was different and now thats been removed. He's just another shit head politician and a professional liar.

Well, it's not surprising, but in this case no, I don't feel better. My criticism here I consider "nonpartisan"...no, wait, "postpartisan". :D I think the space program should be right up there with National Defense, it's a legacy to our future generations.

Instead we apparently want our legacy to be all about saving the millions of people who are apparently dying right in front of hospitals because they are being forcibly ejected by Blue Cross thugs whenever they try to seek treatment.

And despite what Varaj said, our last president was much more visionary when it came to space exploration, and I'll leave it at that.

[Varaj]

And despite what Varaj said, our last president was much more visionary when it came to space exploration, and I'll leave it at that.

Ahh yes his nice 2004 speech. Empty air. Talk about a vapor speech. The money never came. Griffin gave it an honest shot but Bush and congress failed him.

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

Ahh yes his nice 2004 speech. Empty air. Talk about a vapor speech. The money never came. Griffin gave it an honest shot but Bush and congress failed him.

I don't know, this apparently says that their budget went up in '06 to fund the very programs Bush talked about. Not sure what happened when the rubber met the road, but it sounds like they got their money.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6136-2005Feb7.html

NASA Gets Increased Funding to Explore the Moon, Mars

By Guy Gugliotta and Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, February 8, 2005; Page A21

NASA won a significant 2006 budget increase yesterday to $16.5 billion to fund President Bush's initiative to pursue human exploration of the moon and Mars in 2006, but killed plans to service the Hubble Space Telescope.

The NASA figures are part of a national science and technology budget that is generally flat, and in many respects smaller, than that of the current year. The departments of Energy and Defense, major drivers of federal research, saw research cuts.

"Taken together, the inadequate FY06 investments in research proposed by the administration would erode the research and innovative capacity of our nation," said Nils Hasselmo, president of the Association of American Universities, a group of 62 public and private research universities.

Bush "really believes that science is important," said John H. Marburger III, the president's science adviser and director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Although the budget is "austere," he said, "we are not going backward. We are not going down."

Although NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe acknowledged that science funding had declined for most agencies during "these challenging times," the "specific policy direction set by the president" for NASA had kept it from feeling the budget ax.

NASA's $16.5 billion budget request was 2.4 percent higher than 2005's final appropriation of $16.1 billion. "The president's endorsement is unabated," O'Keefe told reporters at a NASA headquarters budget briefing.

A little over a year ago, Bush announced a "Vision for Space Exploration" to return to the moon by 2020 and eventually travel to Mars. NASA plans to achieve these objectives in a series of "spirals," developing technologies to be used first at the international space station, then modified for subsequent expeditions.

NASA designated $753 million for development of the "crew exploration vehicle," the next-generation spaceship targeted to replace the space shuttle by 2014. The vehicle is the first major piece of hardware targeted for development under Bush's plan.

Despite NASA's reordered priorities, however, the administration allotted $6.8 billion for shuttle operations in 2006, the biggest single chunk of funding in the budget request. The shuttle is scheduled to resume operations in May or June after being grounded for two years after the Columbia disaster.

O'Keefe said difficulties in preparing the shuttle for flight made it too risky to use the orbiter in a mission to service Hubble. He also said skepticism expressed in a recent National Academy of Sciences study made it "incredibly difficult" for NASA to continue plans for a robotic servicing mission.

As a result, he said, NASA reduced Hubble funding to $93 million for 2006, with most of that to be invested in a mission to rendezvous with the telescope and steer it safely into the ocean when its gyroscopes give out in a few years.

O'Keefe backed away from his initial decision a year ago to cancel a servicing mission after a prolonged public outcry, and Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), whose state hosts the institutions that service the telescope and plan its science agenda, promised to "really fight" for $250 million for Hubble.

"The Bush administration has wanted to kill Hubble for two years," Mikulski said in a telephone interview. "Everyone in the scientific world says this is the greatest invention in astronomy since Galileo's telescope."

Hubble-like troubles were echoed elsewhere in the federal science budget. Energy Department basic and applied research dropped from $5.7 billion in 2005 to $5.6 billion, and Defense Department basic and applied research dropped from $6.4 billion in 2005 to $5.5 billion.

Although the National Science Foundation won a 2.4 percent increase to $5.6 billion, inflation and cost-shifting likely will result in fewer dollars to support research than in 2005. A new administration policy, for instance, requires NSF to pay tens of millions of dollars for Coast Guard ice breakers that assist in polar research.

NSF Director Arden L. Bement Jr. said his agency was billions of dollars behind in a congressionally authorized effort to double its budget. "I think we're going to get more and more behind before we get back on track," he said.

[Varaj]

I don't know, this apparently says that their budget went up in '06 to fund the very programs Bush talked about. Not sure what happened when the rubber met the road, but it sounds like they got their money.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6136-2005Feb7.html

NASA's Budget
2004 15.152 0.66% 15.559
2005 15.602 0.65% 16.016
2006 15.125 0.56% 16.085
2007 15.861 0.57% 15.861
2008 17.318 0.60% 17.138
2009 17.2 0.55% 17.2
2010 18.7 (proposed) 0.52% 17.7 (proposed)

In a report published February 4, 2007 by Florida Today, if Congress clears a mid-year spending bill as planned, it will be the seventh time since 1994 that lawmakers have approved a cut for the nation's space agency, according to an analysis of NASA budget documents. In the past, Congress has approved these cuts to NASA's budget:

* $553.8 million in fiscal 1995
* $155.5 million in fiscal 1996
* $131.7 million in fiscal 1997
* $61 million in fiscal 1998
* $51.3 million in fiscal 2000
* $10.8 million in fiscal 2004

According to the Florida Today report, five of those cuts were during Republican-led Congresses.

Unless the U.S. Senate changed the spending levels, NASA's total budget for the current fiscal year will be about $16.2 billion, about $500 million less than the previous year's spending level. At the time, President George W. Bush had requested the Congress to approve a budget of nearly $16.8 billion for NASA, approximately $545 million more than the level included in the spending bill the House passed on February 3, 2007 by a vote of 286 to 140.

On February 14, 2007, the U.S. Senate voted for their final passage of House Resolution 20, a stripped-down spending measure that was previously approved by the U.S. House of Representatives on January 31. Its passage denied NASA and many other federal agencies a budget increase for 2007. For NASA, passage of H.R. 20 means the agency's remaining budget for the current fiscal year is capped at $16.2 billion, about $545 million less than it had requested for 2007.

I don't deny Bush requested it. I just deny they got it. :)

[shiningbrow]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/science/space/29nasa.html?scp=2&sq=nasa&st=cse


The New York Times


January 29, 2010
Obama Plan Privatizes Astronaut Launchings

By KENNETH CHANG
President Obama will end NASA’s return mission to the moon and turn to private companies to launch astronauts into space when he unveils his budget request to Congress next week, an administration official said Thursday.

The shift would “put NASA on a more sustainable and ambitious path to the future,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. But the changes have angered some members of Congress, particularly from Texas, the location of the Johnson Space Center, and Florida, the location of the Kennedy Space Center.

“My biggest fear is that this amounts to a slow death of our nation’s human space flight program,” Representative Bill Posey, Republican of Florida, said in a statement.

Mr. Obama’s request, which will be announced on Monday, would add $6 billion over five years to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s budget compared with projections last year. With the increase, NASA would receive $100 billion over the 2011 through 2015 fiscal years.

The new money would largely go to commercial companies that would provide transportation to and from the International Space Station. Until now, NASA has designed and operated its own spacecraft, like the space shuttles.

The commercial rockets would displace the Ares I, the rocket that NASA has been developing for the past four years to replace the shuttles, which are scheduled to be retired this year. Companies expected to seek the new space taxi business include United Launch Alliance, a partnership between Boeing and Lockheed Martin that launches rockets for the United States Air Force, and Space Exploration Technologies, a start-up company led by Elon Musk, who founded PayPal.

Speaking at a news conference in Israel on Wednesday, Gen. Charles F. Bolden Jr., the NASA administrator, gave hints of the new direction. “What NASA will focus on is facilitating the success of — I like to use the term ‘entrepreneurial interests,’ ” General Bolden said.

Skeptics wonder whether the commercial approach would be significantly faster or cheaper than completing the Ares I and the Orion capsule that would carry the astronauts, and how astronaut safety would be maintained. NASA has spent about $9 billion on Ares I and Orion.

“We have already spent valuable time and billions of dollars developing this program,” Representative Michael McCaul, Republican of Texas, said in an e-mail statement. “It makes no sense to throw away a plan backed by 50 years of NASA experience and institutional knowledge in favor of start-up operations, which may encounter delays and unknown obstacles.”

Mr. Obama’s proposal would further dismantle what remains of the human spaceflight initiative started by the Bush administration in 2004. Last year, $3.5 billion in spending was cut from President George W. Bush’s NASA budget projection for 2011 through 2013, money that would have been used to develop the lander that was to return astronauts to the moon by 2020.

The proposed budget increase would also be much less than the $3-billion-a-year increase that a blue-ribbon committee appointed by the Obama administration said was needed for NASA to successfully pursue a human spaceflight program beyond low-Earth orbit.

As widely expected, Mr. Obama’s request will seek to extend the life of the space station five years, to 2020. It also proposes investments to improve the facilities at the Kennedy Space Center.

The retirement of the space shuttles will cost at least 4,600 of the 15,000 jobs at the Kennedy Space Center. The administration official said the commercial launching initiative could create up to 1,700 jobs in Florida, but that figure is based on projections of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, a trade group.

Sally K. Ride, a former astronaut who served on the blue-ribbon panel, said she was encouraged by the budget increase for NASA in light of the planned freeze on domestic spending over all.

“They plan to be sending people beyond low-Earth orbit, and they have a good formulation,” Dr. Ride said. “I think the way to evaluate this plan when it’s rolled out is to ask whether the administration has given NASA the funds for what it’s asked to do.”

“It appears to me the answer is yes,” Dr. Ride said, based on briefings she had received on the plans.

She said the administration took options the panel presented and “came up with an innovative approach for NASA.”


Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company
Privacy Policy Terms of Service Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map


So if I understand what rankles Theocrat of Poontang, the anger directed at Obama is because he wishes to privatize part of the space program that is directed at manned space travel, while placing greater emphasis on funding research as focused on the International Space Station. This is distorted in the Fox News report, a fact that comes as no surprise to me.

So, when the Republicans try to privatize parts of the government as a money saving measure, they are recommended for sainthood, but when Obama suggests similar strategies, he's a monster? Oy vey. Where's Maggie Thatcher or Ronald Reagan when you need them?

[Ancalagon]

I thought it was more of a transfer of money away from a moon *base* and towards other space exploration missions.

I don't know enough about the NASA budget to feel that I can intelligently comment. What I do know is that I'm very excited about the new plasma engines that could propel a ship to Mars and back in 40 days... that's something worth pursuing!

[Schizm]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/science/space/29nasa.html?scp=2&sq=nasa&st=cse



So if I understand what rankles Theocrat of Poontang, the anger directed at Obama is because he wishes to privatize part of the space program that is directed at manned space travel, while placing greater emphasis on funding research as focused on the International Space Station. This is distorted in the Fox News report, a fact that comes as no surprise to me.

So, when the Republicans try to privatize parts of the government as a money saving measure, they are recommended for sainthood, but when Obama suggests similar strategies, he's a monster? Oy vey. Where's Maggie Thatcher or Ronald Reagan when you need them?

Perhaps Theo feels that some services are too important for the private sector to provide, and therefor the government should be deeply involved in providing those services?

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/science/space/29nasa.html?scp=2&sq=nasa&st=cse



So if I understand what rankles Theocrat of Poontang, the anger directed at Obama is because he wishes to privatize part of the space program that is directed at manned space travel, while placing greater emphasis on funding research as focused on the International Space Station. This is distorted in the Fox News report, a fact that comes as no surprise to me.

So, when the Republicans try to privatize parts of the government as a money saving measure, they are recommended for sainthood, but when Obama suggests similar strategies, he's a monster? Oy vey. Where's Maggie Thatcher or Ronald Reagan when you need them?

This could be the most retarded post I've ever seen in all my years at NKL and NTL and CM and here. Do you realize the kind of money that one would need to develop a manned space program to the moon? It's not even worth explaining further, because I doubt you could grasp it. And casting this in the light of many other things that can (and many times should) be privatized is so silly that it deserves scorn.

Even if I was to play your game, I suppose I could turn it around 180 degrees and say that shiningbrow is now in favor of privatization because of all this, so he must be in favor of privatizing everything! Great, we'll start with social security, right?!

:rolleyes:

[Old Fart]

This is a terrible move. I could go on for hours about the technological benefits we have garnered as engineers tackled and solved the problems of manned space flight. The benefits of space superiority are equally undeniable.

Obama and Pelosi have sold out the future of our country and our species. For the basest of political reasons - to punish Richard Shelby for opposing the bailout of AIG (how much did they pay in bonuses this year, again?) and Parker Griffith for switching parties.

Edit: For the record, I live in Huntsville, AL. I'll be the first to admit the bias that would imply.

[TiQuinn]

Oh, what a crock of shit. Look at the poor bleeding heart conservatives crying at the fate of NASA. :rolleyes:

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

Oh, what a crock of shit. Look at the poor bleeding heart conservatives crying at the fate of NASA. :rolleyes:

Okay, so you're for Obama gutting NASA, thanks for going on the record.

[Schizm]

Theo and old fart, are the services provided by nasa better than the services a private company might provide?

[Utrecht]

Theo and old fart, are the services provided by nasa better than the services a private company might provide?

Honestly, no.

However, do you want Space privitized?

[Snatch]

Theo and old fart, are the services provided by nasa better than the services a private company might provide?

Is there really any answer to this? How many private space agencies are there to use as a comparison?

I agree with Utrecht - space should not be privatized. At least not at this point (and I'll concede that it may never be a good idea to privatize it).

[Ancalagon]

According to this article, the money removed from the moon base program is being directed towards researching new rocket technology.

Now THAT's the way to the future, if you ask me! Spend the money in a more productive way.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020101922.html

[Ergeheilalt]

I'd gladly trade a moon base for a space elevator.

[tleilaxu]

i'll go on record as predicting texas and florida will manage to protect constellation in the end.

[The Winslow]

I'd gladly trade a moon base for a space elevator.

Not me: (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/43.html)
http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=14997&d=1265071439

[Varaj]

Funding hasn't been cut from NASA, manned missions from from NASA has been cut. :mad:

[Droid101]

<person of one political party overreacts to and doesn't read all the facts about something the opposite political party does>

<outrage>

<more outrage>

[shiningbrow]

nicely put, Droid!

[TiQuinn]

Okay, so you're for Obama gutting NASA, thanks for going on the record.

Frankly, I couldn't give a shit.

[Harry]

Obama is canceling a Bush election year stunt that Bush refused to fund from day one, which was funded entirely to the detriment of every other NASA program, which was over budget anyways and nowhere near meeting even the most basic goals which had been assigned to it? Golly.

I love the space program. I've loved it since long before I had even the vaguest notion of politics. It was the most fantastic thing in the world to me when I was a child - I played astronaut and even dreamed that my Dad would be an astronaut someday, and maybe myself too when I got big. But the Bush program was shit, with no funding and pie-in-the-sky goals which had no hope of ever being met. Here was the timeline:

BUSH SPACE INITIATIVE
•Spend $12 billion on new space exploration plan over next five years. $1bn will be new money, the rest reallocated from existing NASA programs.
•Retire shuttle program by 2010
•Develop new manned exploration vehicle
•Launch manned mission to moon between 2015 and 2020
•Build permanent lunar base as "stepping stone" for more ambitious missions
•Complete commitments to International Space Station by 2010

Lessee, he retired the Shuttle. What else? Yep, the only thing he accomplished was killing the Space Shuttle, and with that the most fabulously successful space program of my adult lifetime - the Hubble. Way to go Shrub.

What was that about Obama again?

[Name Lips]

From what I heard, NASA is being shifted to a largely R&D role. But that's where the cool new technologies come from, right?

[Trainz]

From what I heard, NASA is being shifted to a largely R&D role. But that's where the cool new technologies come from, right?

Honestly, no-one on the board has a single clue about what this new development really entails.

Personally, I won't cast judgment one way or the other and see down the line where we're at.


--- centrist Spikey

[Varaj]

From what I heard, NASA is being shifted to a largely R&D role. But that's where the cool new technologies come from, right?

Often much of the new technologies come from rapid development driven by specific goals like the moon landing.

It is why pulling man from space into pure science is not a good idea in my mind.

100% agree the Bush plan was smoke and mirrors and Obama was putting things back to pre-2005 BS.

To be frank I don't like either.

My preference would be an realization of the Bush vision as laid out in 2004 without gutting NASA as originally planned.

[Ergeheilalt]

I like the idea of investing new money into a new rocket system. Rockets and nozzles and whatnot are all very exciting. I like it better than reusing the old rocket housings from the shuttle.

I found the space shuttle for be a very novel approach to getting stuff into orbit. The principle behind the design (reusable, quick turn around, and badassedness) was a great one. Unfortunately, it didn't work out that way. It was a beast, but I'm certain that there are plenty of old engineers at NASA who have outstanding opinions about how to make the Shuttle II. When I saw the Orion models, I was supremely disappointed. It's a step backwards, back to the Apollo days of sticking a dude on the tip of a V2 and flipping the ignition switch. And now that all these engineers, who have hands on experience in the design and operation of the systems are getting ready for a mass-retirement exodus. NASA is in for rough years ahead. And they have been for years.

[Snatch]

1And now that all these engineers, who have hands on experience in the design and operation of the systems are getting ready for a mass-retirement exodus. NASA is in for rough years ahead. And they have been for years.

That is quite true in many industries right now. The Boomers are retiring and there isn't the experience to replace them.

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

<person of one political party overreacts to and doesn't read all the facts about something the opposite political party does>

<outrage>

<more outrage>

<Johnny Come Lately doesn't see that many politically polar people agree in principle with that "one person" about the importance of manned missions>

<Liberals who supposedly hate "big business" are all of the sudden for the privatization of space, which also goes unnoticed by Johnny Come Lately>

<Eyeliner>

<More eyeliner>

[Schizm]

<Johnny Come Lately doesn't see that many politically polar people agree in principle with that "one person" about the importance of manned missions>

<Liberals who supposedly hate "big business" are all of the sudden for the privatization of space, which also goes unnoticed by Johnny Come Lately>

<Eyeliner>

<More eyeliner>

For the record, I'm not for the privatization of space, it just shocks me that you aren't either.

[Name Lips]

On the other hand, once space exploration becomes profitable to the private sector, it will take off like wildfire.

Right now it's subsidized by the government because that's the only way to get it done. There's no profit incentive.

[Old Fart]

Theo and old fart, are the services provided by nasa better than the services a private company might provide?
Since NASA for the most part conducts research via government contractors, the answer would be "obviously not" to might provide. However, you'd have to find a company with deep pockets to invest in R&D the way NASA does to make that "might" a "will."

Then, of course, there's the question of whether you're comfortable with the fruits of that research being the property of whatever company (or country) that funds it.
which was over budget anyways and nowhere near meeting even the most basic goals which had been assigned to it?Any engineer will tell you an under-funded program with very ambitious goals is unlikely to reach them, but will almost certainly go over budget trying. Given what the program has had to work with, it has been successful. With proper funding, Constellation will reach its goals, the same as any other NASA program.

Obama and Pelosi have proposed over $100 billion for job creation. They hope there will be benefit from this expenditure. There are only the vaguest of benchmarks for success. For 5% of that, they could secure the jobs of over 2300 people, and continue a program with identifiable goals, in a program with a pr oven track record for success. But then they couldn't screw over Shelby, Griffith, and a "red state." Too bad the incidental casualties include the other 49, not to mention future generations.

[obryn]

From a science/sci-fi blog - who are about as pro-space-exploration as you can get...

http://io9.com/5461719/its-time-to-get-serious-about-colonizing-space


Today the Obama Administration unveiled its new budget for NASA, which included a shocker: Plans to return to the Moon have been scrapped. So why are we optimistic? Because Obama's budget rewards science, and lays groundwork for human space colonies.

The big news from the budget, which has not yet been approved by Congress, is that it phases out the Constellation Program, which was the Bush Administration's project to send humans back to the Moon in a remake of the Apollo 11 mission.

Looked at another way: The budget junks a backward-looking program and funds a brand-new one that will focus on developing new space technologies, exploring the solar system with robots, and pushing humans closer to living offworld.

What The Budget Really Says: Robotic Exploration, New Engines, and Geoscience

If you're excited about going to space, you shouldn't be disappointed about the Constellation Program. Many have mistaken today's budget news to mean that the US is retreating from space, or that we can no longer afford a space program. In fact, that is untrue. Obama has proposed a budget increase to NASA of $6 billion over five years.

Under the new budget, we'd see a revamped NASA program focused on scientific innovation, rather than recreating old experiments. Specifically, as NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden said today:

[One program] funded at $7.8 billion over five years, will invent and demonstrate large-scale, new and novel approaches to spaceflight such as in-orbit fuel depots and rendezvous and docking technologies, and closed-loop life support systems so that our future robotic and human exploration missions are both highly capable and more affordable . . . [Another program] provides $3 billion over five years for robotic exploration precursor missions that will pave the way for later human exploration of the moon, Mars and nearby asteroids.

If this budget passes Congress, it would be a major step toward a common-sense approach to space colonization that involves robots and brand-new approaches to human spaceflight.

The new budget also earmarks over $3 billion for what Bolden calls "new engines, propellants, materials and combustion processes, ultimately leading to innovative ways of accessing space to go beyond low Earth orbit." An additional $4.9 billion goes to generalized space technology research, and $2 billion goes to satellites that will help observe climate change and other Earth processes. This is a boon to geoscience, and will give us more data than ever on how to predict what will happen as our climate transforms.

Again, notice that a lot of this money is going into innovation and funding for the basic sciences that will spawn crazy new technologies for everything from space habitats to terraforming. The idea is to pump money into research so that the next time humans explore space we'll know a hell of a lot more about it and can establish viable communities in orbit, on the Moon, or on other planets.

Privatizing Space Flight

Another part of the proposal that makes a lot of sense is that Obama is ceding space flight development to the private sector. He cited SpaceX and other aerospace companies who are very close to launching humans into orbit. So the government would be partnering with private industry to send astronauts to space. In addition, the budget calls for an extension to the International Space Station project - possibly into 2020. Funding will be provided to turn the ISS into a scientific laboratory to help us understand what's required to live in space. Hopefully, by 2015, companies like SpaceX will be ferrying astronauts to the ISS.

The budget also suggests that the US should work closely with the international research and aerospace community to share resources, much the way we share the ISS. Let's work together as a planet to explore space.

Drawbacks

Phil Plait, who runs Bad Astronomy, says that Obama's plan is solid - especially because it allocates so much funding to science. But he worries that it will get bogged down in Congress:

The other thing to remember is that this must pass Congress first. I honestly don't think that will happen. For one thing, two many Congresscritters have too big a stake in NASA to let go; if you don't believe me, read this article where Alabama Congressmen complain about the new budget. When Republicans whine about privatizing something, you know you're in for a fight, and it's not like Congressional Democrats haven't been all that useful in backing up Obama's plans.

Representatives from Florida and Texas, where there are NASA facilities, have also expressed concern about the plan.

One of the issues that concerns me the most is what will happen to all the talented NASA employees who have been working on Constellation and related projects. If NASA's plan is to outsource the development of space vehicles that can carry human cargo, then thousands of jobs will evaporate. Florida alone anticipates losing 7,000 jobs when the Space Shuttle program ends next year. Earlier today Obama told reporters, "We expect to support as many if not more jobs with the 2011 budget," but those will not be the same jobs. My hope is that some of this budget money that's been allocated for private sector companies can also be used to place NASA engineers into private sector aerospace jobs. We need to encourage knowledge transfer from NASA to private industry. That way, aerospace companies won't have to start from square one as they push humans into orbit.

Why You Should Be Optimistic

Despite the obvious problems - Congressional approval and job loss - I remain optimistic about the US space program, and NASA's role in it.

In Kim Stanley Robinson's classic Red Mars trilogy about colonizing Mars, he offers a scenario very like the one we're poised to create with Obama's new strategy. Before humans set foot on the Red Planet, a gang of robots are sent ahead to scout habitable locations and construct living quarters. This is by far the most feasible way of colonizing space: It makes no sense to send humans out at great risk and cost to break ground on colonies that can be more easily built by robots. That's why we need to be investing now in the technologies that will make such a scenario possible - and Obama's plan takes great strides toward that.

Even Buzz Aldrin, often an outspoken critic of the space program, is on board with Obama's plan. In a statement, Aldrin said:

I also believe the steps we will be taking following the President's direction will best position NASA and other space agencies to send humans to Mars and other exciting destinations as quickly as possible. To do that, we will need to support many types of game-changing technologies NASA and its partners will be developing. Mars is the next frontier for humankind, and NASA will be leading the way there if we aggressively support the President's plans.

Here's to the next phase in the whole Earth space program. Let's get serious about colonizing space, instead of just leaving footprints there.

-O

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

Whoa, robotic exploration precursor missions of the moon!! Don't think too far out of the box, now.

Seriously, it's pretty well understood that we will need some sort of manned colony on the moon to get to Mars. Eventually we will need to build something on the Moon to guide the way for us to do it on Mars.

[Droid101]

<Johnny Come Lately doesn't see that many politically polar people agree in principle with that "one person" about the importance of manned missions>

<Liberals who supposedly hate "big business" are all of the sudden for the privatization of space, which also goes unnoticed by Johnny Come Lately>

<Eyeliner>

<More eyeliner>

You seem confused about <meta> posts.

I also didn't state my opinion on the matter either way.

[DarwinOfMind]

Whoa, robotic exploration precursor missions of the moon!! Don't think too far out of the box, now.

Seriously, it's pretty well understood that we will need some sort of manned colony on the moon to get to Mars. Eventually we will need to build something on the Moon to guide the way for us to do it on Mars.
See I still don't agree with even that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct Fuck the moon, I don't want us privatizing space, but I don't give a shit about this Space Station, then Moon then mars, just fucking go straight there, now.

[obryn]

What I find hilarious about this is a little thought experiment I like to call, "How would conservatives have reacted to an Obama announcement that he was giving more funding to manned missions to the moon?"

I clearly have no evidence one way or the other, but I think the buzzwords would have been somewhere along the line of "wasting taxpayer money," "useless symbolic gesture," "multi-trillion dollar deficit," and the like. :) It's like playing mad-libs - only more like mad-cons, I guess.

-O

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

What I find hilarious about this is a little thought experiment I like to call, "How would conservatives have reacted to an Obama announcement that he was giving more funding to manned missions to the moon?"

I clearly have no evidence one way or the other, but I think the buzzwords would have been somewhere along the line of "wasting taxpayer money," "useless symbolic gesture," "multi-trillion dollar deficit," and the like. :) It's like playing mad-libs - only more like mad-cons, I guess.

-O

Yeah, you'd have thought that no conservative president within the last five or six years laid out a visionary plan for eventually going to Mars. :rolleyes:

[obryn]

Yeah, you'd have thought that no conservative president within the last five or six years laid out a visionary plan for eventually going to Mars. :rolleyes:
Yep, and conservatives loved it... at least while we had a conservative president!

It's amazing how that works!

-O

[Old Fart]

What I find hilarious about this is a little thought experiment I like to call, "How would conservatives have reacted to an Obama announcement that he was giving more funding to manned missions to the moon?"Again, I'll admit to an "I live in Huntsville" bias, but guess how I feel about the space policy of that bastion of conservatism, JFK?

[obryn]

Again, I'll admit to an "I live in Huntsville" bias, but guess how I feel about the space policy of that bastion of conservatism, JFK?
And, working in the insurance industry and living in an insurance town, you can guess how I feel about insurance-related issues, regardless of party lines.

There's a deep divide between pragmatic, personal concerns and ideological ones.

-O

[tleilaxu]

i don't care about politics in this.

i want my fucking moonbase, and my fucking mars colony. and my space freighters. 21st century blows so far. i want these things because they are so cool (also, underwater cities, why don't we have them?). it might be some sort of monkey brain thing, what with the pituitary gland and the medulla oblongota, but i can't see that such desires are bad for us as a species.

mostly i want to see people go to mars because i want to see a transcendent moment in my life, one that will echo for all humanity, and into the coming generations....

blargh

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

i don't care about politics in this.

i want my fucking moonbase, and my fucking mars colony. and my space freighters. 21st century blows so far. i want these things because they are so cool (also, underwater cities, why don't we have them?). it might be some sort of monkey brain thing, what with the pituitary gland and the medulla oblongota, but i can't see that such desires are bad for us as a species.

mostly i want to see people go to mars because i want to see a transcendent moment in my life, one that will echo for all humanity, and into the coming generations....

blargh


Pretty much this is my take on it, too. What some of you cretins fail to realize is that if McCain had won and done this I'd be just as pissed. But then we wouldn't have had Obryn reaching for thoughts from the blogosphere trying to defend it.

[Old Fart]

As Obama guts the US space program, look who's playing catch-up!

Iran sends mouse, worms, turtles into space (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35213146/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/)

Nice work, Hussein!

[TiQuinn]

As Obama guts the US space program, look who's playing catch-up!

Iran sends mouse, worms, turtles into space (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35213146/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/)

Nice work, Hussein!

:rolleyes:

[Name Lips]

Yeah. Next thing we know they'll have space platforms up there to drop nuclear bombs on us!

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

Yeah. Next thing we know they'll have space platforms up there to drop nuclear bombs on us!

Well if they do, we certainly won't be able to see them do it from the moon.

[Droid101]

Felt this was appropriate.

[Harry]

Lots of old astronauts have been belly-aching about this the past week, which blows my mind. The Bush plan was skylarking - it was never feasible. One man was taking Obama to task over the retirement of the shuttle. Ah, erm, wasn't it too late to take that one back before he was even inaugurated? Bush called for the closure of the shuttle program.

At any rate:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36563152/ns/technology_and_science-space/

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. - President Barack Obama predicted Thursday his new space exploration plans would lead American astronauts to Mars and back in his lifetime, a bold forecast relying on rockets and propulsion still to be imagined and built.

"I expect to be around to see it," he said of pioneering U.S. trips, first to an asteroid and then on to Mars. He spoke near the historic Kennedy Space Center launch pads that sent the first men to the moon, a blunt rejoinder to critics, including several former astronauts, who contend his planned changes will instead deal a staggering blow to the nation's manned space program.

"We want to leap into the future," not continue on the same path as before, Obama said as he sought to reassure NASA workers that America's space adventures would soar on despite the impending termination of space shuttle flights.

His prediction was reminiscent of President John F. Kennedy's declaration in 1961, "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth." That goal was fulfilled in 1969.

Obama did not predict a Mars landing soon. But he said that by 2025, the nation would have a new spacecraft "designed for long journeys to allow us to begin the first-ever crewed missions beyond the moon into deep space."

"We'll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history," he said. "By the mid-2030s, I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth. And a landing on Mars will follow."

Obama said he was "100 percent committed to the mission of NASA and its future." He outlined plans for federal spending to bring more private companies into space exploration following the soon-to-end space shuttle program.

He acknowledged criticism for his drastic changes to the space agency's direction. But, he said, "The bottom line is: Nobody is more committed to manned space flight, the human exploration of space, than I am. But we've got to do it in a smart way; we can't keep doing the same old things as before."

Obama said the space program is not a luxury but a necessity for the United States.

He noted that the Kennedy Space Center has inspired the nation and the world for half a century. He said NASA represents what it means to be American — "reaching for new heights and reaching for what's possible" — and is not close to its final days.

Obama sought to explain why he aborted President George W. Bush's return-to-the moon plan in favor of a complicated system of public-and-private flights that would go elsewhere in space, with details still to be worked out.

"We've been there before," Obama said of the nation's moon landings decades ago. "There's a lot more of space to explore."

He said his administration would support continued manned exploration of space "not just with dollars, but with clear aims and a larger purpose."

The Obama space plan relies on private companies to fly to the space station, giving them almost $6 billion to build their own rockets and ships. It also extends the space station's life by five years and puts billions into research to eventually develop new government rocket ships for future missions to a nearby asteroid, to the moon, to Martian moons or other points in space. Those stops would be stepping stones on an eventual mission to Mars itself.

Addressing concerns of job losses to space program workers, particularly in Florida, Obama said that "despite some reports to the contrary," his plan would add more than 2,500 jobs to the Cape Canaveral region over the next two years than would the plan worked out by his predecessor.

"We'll modernize the Kennedy Space Center, creating jobs as we upgrade launch facilities. And there is potential for even more job creation as companies in Florida and across America compete to be part of a new space transportation industry.

"This holds the promise of generating more than 10,000 jobs nationwide over the next few years. Many of these jobs will be created in Florida, an area primed to lead in this competition," he said.

Among his most vocal critics has been Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon. Obama did not mention Armstrong, who did not attend the speech, but he did praise Buzz Aldrin, one of Armstrong's Apollo 11 crewmates.

Aldrin did attend the speech — flying in with Obama on Air Force One.

Obama also said his administration would rescue a small part of the moon program: its Orion crew capsule.

But instead of taking four astronauts to the moon, the not-yet-built Orion will be slimmed down and used as an emergency escape pod for the space station.

The president said, "This Orion effort will be part of the technological foundation for advanced spacecraft to be used in future deep space missions. In fact, Orion will be readied for flight right here in this room."

White House science adviser John Holdren summed up Obama's program as "a faster pace in space, more missions to more destinations sooner at lower cost.

And:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8623691.stm

Barack Obama says it should be possible to send astronauts to orbit the planet Mars by the mid-2030s and return them safely to Earth.

The US president made the claim in a major speech to staff and guests at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

He was laying out the details of his new policy for the US space agency.

Mr Obama said he was giving Nasa challenging goals and the funding needed to achieve them, including an extra $6bn over the next five years.

"By 2025, we expect new spacecraft designed for long journeys to allow us to begin the first ever crew missions beyond the Moon into deep space," he told his audience. "So, we'll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history."

And then he added: "By the mid-2030s, I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth, and a landing on Mars will follow."

Mr Obama hopes his new timetable for action can win wide approval.

The White House has been under fire since announcing in February that it wanted to shut down Constellation, the current programme to replace the ageing space shuttle.

Mr Obama said the proposed Orion crewship, its Ares launch rocket, together with the rest of the project's Moon-bound architecture were on an unsustainable path, costing too much money and taking too long to develop.

"What we're looking for is not just to continue on the same path; we want to leap into the future," he said. "We want major breakthroughs, a transformative agenda for Nasa."

In the speech, the president did not change the broad outline of the vision for the US space agency he first expounded in his 2011 federal budget request.

He still proposes to extend the operation of the International Space Station (ISS) from 2016 until at least 2020; and he re-emphasised his desire to see commercial companies take over the job of launching astronauts to the orbiting platform.

However, there was a key concession in the speech.

This was a commitment to carry forward development of the Orion crew capsule. In the first instance, this would be just a simpler version of the ship designed to act as a "lifeboat" at the ISS.

However, he said in due course this revised vessel would also serve as the "technological foundation" for much more capable vehicles to take astronauts beyond low-Earth orbit.

Mr Obama also pledged to begin development of a new heavy-lift rocket no later than 2015, but he said it must contain new propulsion technologies. Mimicking the rockets of the past was not an option, he explained.

"The bottom line is: nobody is more committed to manned spaceflight, the human exploration of space, than I am. But we've got to do it in a smart way; we can't keep doing the same old things as before."

Addressing fears that changes to US space policy might result in thousands of job losses across Florida's "Space Coast", Mr Obama claimed his ideas would actually create 2,500 more jobs than under Constellation.

To emphasise his support for the space programme, he reminded his audience that Nasa was in the extraordinary position of having its budget increased at a time when other areas of government faced static funding or even cuts to try to constrain the national deficit.

Money spent on the space programme would reap huge dividends, he argued.

"For pennies on the dollar, the space programme has fuelled jobs and entire industries. For pennies on the dollar, the space programme has improved our lives, advanced our society, strengthened our economy and inspired generations of Americans. And I have no doubt that Nasa can continue to fill this role."

:astronaut:

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

NASA's a huge waste of money and the whole damn thing should be cancelled. Leave it to private enterprise.

[cnath.rm]

NASA's a huge waste of money and the whole damn thing should be cancelled. Leave it to private enterprise.It was a good way for years to keep a certain level of tech/scientists tied to/for the US and away from the soviets.

There is an argument that before the moon landings and such that we had been aimed at more useful tech, planes that could take off and land on the ground but would be able to fly to the edges of space. Some believe that had we not ditched those planes and another route that we would by now have better/faster/cheaper ways of transporting people/goods.

[Pigs in Space]

NASA's a huge waste of money and the whole damn thing should be cancelled. Leave it to private enterprise.

Leave the exploration of the universe and the advancement of our race to private enterprise?

Assuming it's not prohibitively expensive, I don't want private enterprise plundering whatever is available out there.

I think it should go the other way. Pool global funds and research to build something that can actually reach the stars.

[Varaj]

Assuming it's not prohibitively expensive, I don't want private enterprise plundering whatever is available out there.

What do you mean plundering? Are you worried that in asteroid mining we are destroying the ecology of the asteroid? That we are polluting nearby asteroids? Creating hazards for Mars with smelt waste?

[Pigs in Space]

What do you mean plundering? Are you worried that in asteroid mining we are destroying the ecology of the asteroid? That we are polluting nearby asteroids? Creating hazards for Mars with smelt waste?

Hey! You've been playing eve too much. Anyway, sure, why not? Why should we let mars be fucked up for profit?

I was more thinking of damage to possibly habitable planets, moons, whatever.

[Varaj]

Hey! You've been playing eve too much. Anyway, sure, why not? Why should we let mars be fucked up for profit?

I was more thinking of damage to possibly habitable planets, moons, whatever.

I think you may be misunderstanding the distances involved. If you are worried about asteroid mining impacting Mars you aren't understanding the distances involved.

What do you mean damage to possible habitable planets, moons, etc.?

The moon is habitable in the sense we can build a habitat on it, same with asteroids and other moons. They have no ecology to damage. We can't damage the bodies as a whole.

For bodies that could support life or do support life we certainly don't want to damage their ecologies but it is unlikely we have such bodies in our solar system other then Earth and nothing short of directly touching that body is going to impact it. The distances are too great.

[Name Lips]

All things being equal, I'd rather Mars be an industrial wasteland than Earth. Earth has a lot more to lose.

[Trainz]

I think all space exploration money should go in creating new and faster propulsion systems. Who cares about reaching a desert like mars? Concentrate on reaching different star systems.

[The Winslow]

Assuming it's not prohibitively expensive, I don't want private enterprise plundering whatever is available out there.
We're far from the point where plundering anything in space would be profitable.

I was more thinking of damage to possibly habitable planets, moons, whatever.
We're even further from the point where "habitable" whatevers (other than the Earth) would be within our reach.

[Varaj]

I think all space exploration money should go in creating new and faster propulsion systems. Who cares about reaching a desert like mars? Concentrate on reaching different star systems.

The technology to reach different star systems is likely hundreds of years away from being developed. Before we can accomplish it we will have to have the technology for intersystem travel.

The first line of industrial profit for companies will likely be space based energy harvesting (solar), space based manufacturing of materials that only form in micro gravity and He-3 mining on the moon.

[Janos]

The first line of industrial profit for companies will likely be space based energy harvesting (solar), space based manufacturing of materials that only form in micro gravity and He-3 mining on the moon.

And depending on how soon we're talking, large scale water harvesting.

[Schizm]

To be fair - the technology that will get us to mars will get us to the asteroids, or to anywhere else in the solar system (getting back from a gas giant is a whole different proposition, though).

The asteroid belt is a massive, unimaginably rich resource. Water, Iron, Uranium, Gold, Nickel, Platinum...

[Varaj]

And depending on how soon we're talking, large scale water harvesting.

I personally don't think water harvesting will actually occur for profit until we start regular intersystem travel.

Much cheaper and easier refine/purify water on Earth for Earth based use. Once enough industrial and fuel based needs exist in space for water then water harvesting in space will happen to support it.

[Varaj]

To be fair - the technology that will get us to mars will get us to the asteroids, or to anywhere else in the solar system (getting back from a gas giant is a whole different proposition, though).

The asteroid belt is a massive, unimaginably rich resource. Water, Iron, Uranium, Gold, Nickel, Platinum...

True enough. The asteroid belt will be where industry will move first after the moon and near Earth orbit.

[Schizm]

True enough. The asteroid belt will be where industry will move first after the moon and near Earth orbit.

yup. Gravity is expensive, and mars is a gravity well. Why fuck around with that planetary bullshit when we can hit the asteroid belt and get it all easier? Also, that leaves mars open for eventual terraforming without having to deal with industrial byproduct cleanup...

[The Winslow]

The asteroid belt is a massive, unimaginably rich resource. Water, Iron, Uranium, Gold, Nickel, Platinum...
The problem is getting the facility to harvest them there.
yup. Gravity is expensive, and mars is a gravity well.
It's incredibly expensive. I read somewhere an analogy (I think it was in an article about the lack of industrial usefulness in space stations) that if Rumpelstiltskin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumpelstiltskin) had to send the straw to the space station in order to turn it to gold, it would cost him a lot more than he'd gain. This was used to claim that stuff that can only be made in microgravity are unlikely to be cost-effective.

But if we did manage to get a permanent industrial base outside of a gravity well, it could slowly pay off. That said, I don't think this is something any corporation could or would do. Because before it you can start to recoup your investment, several generations will have passed. Something like the Channel Tunnel tested the limits of private investment, so the space program? By the time your mining bots come all the way to the asteroid belt, prospect one, and then come all the way back to deliver stuff, propelled by solar sails (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail) and ion engines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster) or whatever other stuff can get them working for dozens of years without needing a gas refill, your SpaceOreCorp will have bankrupted a dozen of times at the very least. Before that point, the space program will be a massive money bleeder. We very well may not see the day where it starts paying for itself. It's even unlikely our children will.

[Janos]

Much cheaper and easier refine/purify water on Earth for Earth based use. Once enough industrial and fuel based needs exist in space for water then water harvesting in space will happen to support it.

Recycled water technology may get to the point of meeting human needs in that regard, but I think we'll stop short of large-scale desalination because of the damage to world's oceans. That would drive water prices up significantly, and may tip the scale into feasible to import water from space. Without one of those two technologies seeing widespread adaptation, there isn't enough fresh water to go around.

[The Winslow]

I'm not sure if importing massive quantities of water from space would be such a great idea, what with the worries of rising ocean levels. Sure, a few years of drinking space water wouldn't have noticeable effect; but it couldn't be a long-term solution. And if it cannot be a long-term solution, then -- given the massiveness of the undertaking needed just to deploy the infrastructure to make delivery possible -- it cannot be a short-term solution either. Anything we do in space is something we must be prepared to do for countless centuries (or to use it as a transitory crutch to reach the next stage).

Anyway, it would be more cost effective to transport icebergs to artificial lakes in the Sahara than it would be to search for water in asteroids or other planets. That should say something about the prospect...

[Name Lips]

If we have so much water caught up in our industry and agriculture that we're using it faster than we put it back into the water cycle, and reaching the point where the lakes and oceans are actually getting lower, then I'll feel comfortable bringing in more from space.

Right now it would be cheaper to import ice from the arctic to melt for water than it would be to import it from space. Since we're not willing to even do that, I think needing to get water from space is still a long way off.

[Schizm]

You know, I don't know what bug winslow has up his ass about space programs, but he always likes to be debbie downer about the possibilities. It's really fucking annoying.

[DarwinOfMind]

I don't think the towing Iceburg thing is a not willing there are all sorts of technical difficulties surrounding it, just like we don't have the tech to harvest ice from space, I don't think we have the tech yet to safely move a iceburb to africa or whereever

[Name Lips]

What we need is an orbital factory. Capable of refining an asteroid and using the materials to construct things in space, with no need for materials to be transported to and from a big gravity well. If we build such a thing, it will be one of the greatest advancements in human history.

[Name Lips]

I don't think the towing Iceburg thing is a not willing there are all sorts of technical difficulties surrounding it, just like we don't have the tech to harvest ice from space, I don't think we have the tech yet to safely move a iceburb to africa or whereever

Oh we could haul an iceberg. Just not fast enough and in great enough quantities to be worth the time and trouble. How much water would it take to irrigate a drought region? A lot more than a few icebergs... you'd need a constant supply coming in every day. It's just cheaper to let the crops die and wait a few decades for the rain to come back.

[The Winslow]

You know, I don't know what bug winslow has up his ass about space programs, but he always likes to be debbie downer about the possibilities. It's really fucking annoying.

I'm just pointing out that I don't see the conquest of space going very far in corporate hands. Stuff that's actually already profitable, such as putting into orbit a telco satellite, will continue to be refined and improved. Stuff that's far-reaching and will take decades to complete, on the other hand, will only get done if it's government-driven because it requires means that only coalitions of powerful industrial countries have (I don't think even the USA could do it alone; or even the USA+EU... maybe USA+EU+China+Japan+Russia), and a vision other than being profitable within the next five years.

So, possible, yeah; likely from the private sector, no.