Where, specifically, have Americans benefited from the space shuttle missions in the past 20 years?

[bigtree]

I still think they're a disgusting waste of our money, especially since the bulk of their missions are made to support military projects and military boondogles like 'missile defense' and money siphoned off to facilitate the 'next generation' of nuclear ambitions, including the new 'usable' mini-nukes envisioned by the Bush administration.

I think that with strains on the borrowed money we use to run these things, there should be some visible benefit to spending so much money, other than just producing some neat trick that thrills and entertains.

[JJ]

1. Hubble, ISS, SpaceLab...

etc.

[TomInTib]

5. Space Lab was a failure, and Hubble was an expensive telescope/camera.

ISS employs 30,000 people who cannot fix shit.

[TZ]

12. Wow.

Do you have ANY idea of what Hubble has contributed to our knowledge of astronomy and the universe in general?
But hey, knowledge isn't worth what it used to be right?

[TomInTib]

37. Help me, here. How, exactly does this benefit you/ me?

Going anywhere, soon?

Like Dick Gregory said, we could have taken all the dollar bills, spent, stacked 'em up, and walked to the goddamned moon.

[geckosfeet]

78. Shortsighted head in the ground ignorance. eom

[exboyfil]

104. Unmanned flight yes. Manned flight???

I think the Space Shuttle overall has been of limited effectiveness when compared to what it accomplished. The ISS was, and still is, a joke. The amount of scientific knowledge generated from it compared the $s has been depressing at best. I think of how many unmanned probes could have been sent out for the money wasted on it.

As for the Hubble, the Space Shuttle was necessary to initially repair the Hubble, but I have to question if it would not have been better to build and shoot Hubble type telescopes on a regular basis versus funding manned missions to the Hubble with the upgrades etc. Someone would have to sit down and look at the costs. Manned space flight is very expensive.

The Hubble and its sister telescopes have advanced our knowledge in astronomy and astrophysics more than any other experimental tool since the invention of telescopes.

As far as if space flight makes sense at all (ie the scientific gains match the pay back to society), I would have to say yes. Experimental and theoretical physics go hand in hand, and physics is the midwife to engineering which is what improves our lifestyle. GPS is one recent example and communication satellites an earlier example. There are many more. One big potential future payback is the reduction of risk related to an asteroid impact (ie early detection and a space infrastructure able to address it).

Our understanding of geology and climate has advanced by the study of other examples in our solar system. If we ever discover extraterrestrial life, then the advances in biology, genetics, and biochemistry would be truly astounding.

Technological advantages that may come from space include giant solar collectors and the harvesting of minerals and metals.

Folks may not want to hear it, but what would a significant Chinese or Russian presence at the top of the gravity well mean for our future security? Surely an argument for manned flight.

Finally, what other science and other activities do you think we should defund? Ocean exploration? The various social and humanities studies?

[struggle4progress]

189. Unmanned is the way to go. It's much cheaper

[ZombieHorde]

166. Um...

we could have taken all the dollar bills, spent, stacked 'em up, and walked to the goddamned moon

The Universe does not work that way.

[Pithlet]

178. Wow

Who needs knowledge... :crazy:

[TZ]

84. Hubble

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x46202
And if you can't see how this is important, I don't understand why you are in a party thats supposed to VALUE science.

[bigtree]

106. the line about questioning party membership and supporting Hubble is outrageous

The notion that we all have to agree on your scientific preferences to be good Democrats is hysterical. It is possible to oppose specific science and still support science. The line about 'valuing' science is just bullying to make your biased point. You really expect unanimity of opinion regarding science? What planet are you on?

[ZombieHorde]

167. "the line about questioning party membership and supporting Hubble is outrageous"

I have to agree, even though I love NASA.

[bigtree]

17. you mean these benefited Americans in a substantive way?

Hubble? I don't believe the images, no matter how intriguing and interesting, were of such a benefit that they merited the expense of borrowed money to sustain. I think it served as a ride on a mechanical pony for Americans while NASA was draining our credit card inside the store.

Aren't most of the projects done aboard the ISS commercial and military?

[TZ]

80. A new articicial heart pump? Oh noes saving peoples lives!

So gathering scientific knowledge isn't important anymore? Am I on freerepublic now?
Why don't you go into the science forum and make this claim. I guess Big Bang, New Planets, learning about new galaxies doesn't matter.
Wow. More anti-science here.

[bigtree]

93. all the ridicule you're spewing is as obnoxious as any freeper's

and you make this claim about Hubble?

Remember, the OP was in the form of a question. If you think that calls for your smug ridicule then it's your* anti-intellectualism and fear of questioning of the public investments in the space program which belongs on FR.

[JANdad]

117. No...Your OP was NOT in the form of a question...

It was your opinion presented under the guise of a question. When you pose a question and then immidiatley launch into a slam on scientific research that your short-sidedness keeps you from realizing any percieved benefit...well you get what you asked for...

[bigtree]

120. a 'slam on scientific research? Bull. That's the strawman you've constructed to defend the program

The OP is a question and an explanation of where I stand. At the worst, a premise.

The question:

Where, specifically, have Americans benefited from the space shuttle missions in the past 20 years?

The premise:

I still think they're a disgusting waste of our money, especially since the bulk of their missions are made to support military projects and military boondogles like 'missile defense' and money siphoned off to facilitate the 'next generation' of nuclear ambitions, including the new 'usable' mini-nukes envisioned by the Bush administration.

I think that with strains on the borrowed money we use to run these things, there should be some visible benefit to spending so much money, other than just producing some neat trick that thrills and entertains.
__________________________________

Interesting how you ignore the dominate military mission of the shuttle and the dominate military expenditures and applications in the space program and focus solely on these scientific advances as if they were the primary mission of the space program. They may well have been, at one time, but now, any benefit or advance that may occur is ancillary to the military missions and ambitions.

However you perceive this thread, it's certainly not an invitation for you to supplant my question with the strawman you've constructed about some opposition to science I supposedly expressed in the op.

Maybe you can tell me what amazing advance is being made in the present shuttle mission?

[alarimer]

192. I am sick of the anti-science bullshit in this party too.

the fact is that there are many intangible benefits of space science in general. Just because some thing does not benefit us immediately is of no consequence when it comes to a larger understanding of how the universe works. The Hubble in particular has taught us many things about the universe that ground-based telescopes are unable to do (largely because of the atmosphere on Earth). The Space Shuttle may have outlived its usefulness (and there are bureaucratic problems with NASA, etc.) but we have learned a tremendous amount from those missions, including things like how weightlessness affects the human body, how animals develop in weightlessness- which would help us if we ever have to colonize other planets or the moon.

I agree that it is often more effective (and cheaper) to send probes to planets. Look at how much we have learned from the Mars landers.

[TZ]

2. Medical improvements

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/moonandmars/med.html

There is ALOT of stuff that was discovered by studying astronaut health along with a bunch of zero gravity experiments.
I think that a lot of hematological knowledge alone has been worth it.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

77. There are zero gravity facilities that can be used here on Earth.

[TZ]

83. Uh where?

Star Trek sets?...either the vomit comet or outer space.
Did someone invent a way to turn off gravity on earth that I don't know about?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

94. Ummmmmm NASA, where they train the astronauts.

[exboyfil]

108. The Vomit Comet

The Vomit comet is the only way to simulate zero g gravity for any length of time (25 seconds). The astronauts train in water mostly (not a great representation but the best we can do in gravity well) with neutral buoyancy (not the same thing as zero g).

When you invent that zero g generator, can I be your first investor? It will be HUGE.

[Posteritatis]

130. Yeah, that swimming pool would make a *great* lab

Dumbass.

[uppityperson]

147. But but but, it is the NASA pool!

So much better and less gravitiousnessish than other pools!

[123infinity]

90. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That has to be one of the funniest/goofiest posts I have ever seen.
:rofl: :rofl:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

105. Try NASA.

[dysfunctional press]

115. are you really that dense?

do you honestly believe that there are 'zero-gravity facilities' somewhere on the planet?

:shrug:

[galileoreloaded]

144. Oh. My. God.

This statement alone is the reason we need NASA.

[Realityhack]

149. Please tell me you were not let into a college. n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

190. Your parents must be proud that they raised such a lovely human being.

:sarcasm:

[TomInTib]

3. I agree, bigtree.

The shuttle and the space station are a joke.

Do you know that NASA employs over 30,000 people on the failed space station?

The whole thing is designed to divert attention while NASA launches communication and defense sats at tax-payers' expense.

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. I strongly disagree

We have greatly benefited from the space program.

[TomInTib]

40. In what way?

Velcro?

Turning piss into water?

Tang?

Fuck the space program, I'm staying in Marin.

Music sounds like nothing, in a vacuum.

Tom

[proud2BlibKansan]

53. In millions of ways

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at_home.html

http://space.about.com/od/toolsequipment/ss/apollospinoffs.htm

9 million hits on Google, Tom.

[TahitiNut]

58. Be sure to wear your Teflon cloak, bro.

:rofl:

[Cid_B]

140. Seriously..

I spend too much time here. I can't even tell if people are sarcastic anymore.

[IndianaJones]

4. Crystal Light singles. nt.

[TomInTib]

7. Tang, too. Single-handedly restored Strom Thurmond's hayuh.

"Who put the Tang on mah hayuh?"

D Barry

[cliffordu]

6. We learned to make water from pee.

[aquart]

8. It's the same raw research as stem cell research.

You against that, too?

[Oregone]

23. How so?

[davepc]

62. And I thought it was the Republicans who were anti-science

[Oregone]

64. That cliched line didn't answer the question

Strive to be more than a cliche

[onehandle]

9. Hubble (maintained by Space Shuttles) looks billions of years back into time.

Anything that proves that the world is older than six thousand years is worth its weight in gold.

[annabanana]

123. I see the flat-earthers didn't respond to THIS one. . . n/t

[HeresyLives]

10. I thought only Republicans

were anti-science?

[ChazII]

16. Apparently not. n/t

[Oregone]

25. Is being Anti-Nasa the same thing as being anti-Science?

I don't think so.

[TZ]

85. actually yes.

The repukes hate NASA and have done quite a job dismantling it. They are primarily the ones who complain about space exploration being a waste of money.

[KittyWampus]

97. Manned space flight is total and utter waste of money. It's far less expensive to send computers

into space and the technological advances yielded from sending those computers would be far more useful.

It's not about being "anti-science". It's about being against wasteful, backwards thinking science.

But since you're one of the psuedo-skeptics who demand everyone follow your rigid and narrow line of thinking, sensible assessments of how NASA operates won't matter to you.

BTW, my opinion of NASA's manned flight programs was heavily influenced by my Physics professor in University who worked on the programs and also in conjunction with the USSR.

And the OP'er raises an important, perfectly valid point about the use of NASA for screening money going into projects that are antithetical to a safe and peaceful planet Earth.

[bigtree]

28. I thought only republicans valued such ridiculous character tests

I believe that most of the substantive research touted by the shuttle could be easily replicated here on Earth. I also believe that your easy dismissal of my skepticism is anti-intellectual and does nothing to promote any of the understanding of any value of the space program that may exist. It's really just bullying.

[RichardRay]

11. For me, at least, the 'neat trick that thrills and entertains' is

the fact that we're still trying. I admit that I can't make a purely practical argument for continuing these missions, but my heart would break if we stopped. I can think of a lot of other things, including the Federal Highway System, I'd forgo before I'd give up the space shuttle.

YMMV, but I'm in favor of it...

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. We might not have computers if we didn't have a space program

Then there's Tang and freeze dried food. :)

[Oregone]

29. The thought that the space program has brought us computers is laughable

Computers of today are the natural evolution of logic systems, starting as early as 1936 with the Turing machine. Math and logic is responsible for the early evolution of computers, driven further by the demand for business machines.

[proud2BlibKansan]

35. And they were developed for use by NASA long before we all had home PCs

[Oregone]

50. Their evolution started long before and independent of NASA, period.

The academia and the private sector demand were massive contributors to development. It is insanity to attribute the PC to NASA. Any such contributions, no matter how small, were happening in parallel among other sectors. If you look at the early development of computers and their road map, it becomes clear that, because development was spread out among so many different pathways and contributors, that we would likely have ended up where we are even if scenarios placed a few road blocks on some of those routes.

[liberalpress]

171. You are corect

and if wasn't necessaryt o get the size of those computerds small enough to fit on, oh,let's say a space shuttle cockpit, ee'd each be spending about 10 million dollars for home PC's that would require a a temperature contolled room bigger than a studio apartment.. Bot yeah, you're right. Waste of money. Less for NASA more for Iraq.

[Thothmes]

180. Actually the demand for a computer

that could be used by the folks a Benchly to brake ultra codes.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. Benign and not that huge and Hubble.

Nasa is like 17B. Ok fine, you hate it, we scrap it, all 17B. Defense is over 600B. Interest on the debt is over 500B. Health and Human Services (which doesn't include SS) is around 700B. That 17B didn't really matter much.

I'm not convinced that the ISS or the Shuttle are worthwhile, but Hubble is, and the unmanned planet exploration missions are. Government funding of scientific endeavors of no commercial value is government doing something unique, something that the market will never do.

How about we figure out what we really need to spend to defend our borders and participate in a communcal defense of the planet's trade routes and cut our defense budget by about 50% (or more) instead?

How about a return to the Clinton era tax policies which, once we get through Bushitler's final parting gift, ought to get back on track toward reducing the annual deficit and slowly working down the fraction of the budget that goes to servicing the debt?

Hubble took a picture of a planet orbiting another star. C'mon, how cool is that?

[KittyWampus]

99. Scrapping Shuttle doesn't mean scrapping NASA and space exploration. We'd use computers

exclusively for the missions. Save a lot of money doing so.

[Warren Stupidity]

107. That was one of my points.

Then again hubble would not have been possible without manned vehicles.

[Starry Messenger]

15. Let's just say I prefer space exploration than pointless wars.

Which are a truly disgusting waste of money.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

79. I prefer Universal Health Care, ending poverty, state of the art schools & improved infrastructure,

myself.

[Posteritatis]

128. But since you think we can only do one thing at a time, which of those do you want first? (nt)

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

143. Please let me know where I said we must do one thing at a time. I gave a list of IMHO what should

be priorities and I said "and" and not "or".

Please reread.

[Posteritatis]

181. You implied the options are space exploration or that list

So feel free to explain to me why both isn't an option. Don't tell me about cost, either, since NASA operates on scraps.

[navarth]

19. Hands off NASA.

Anybody who wants to stop space exploration is an idiot.

[bigtree]

24. I might agree with the expense if it was targeted to credible research

. . . which didn't just benefit some corporation or serve to expand the military's ambitions in space. But, as the former NASA administrator said, you can't separate the military missions from these seemingly benign ones. And, it's not my interest to support some corporation's ambitions in space.

I notice that being so much smarter than me didn't compel you to actually answer my question.

[navarth]

34. I can't even believe this conversation is taking place.

Okay, so you would do what? De-fund NASA? WTF?? What is this Grover Norquist shit? Don't like how it's run? Then let's change it!!

I REALLY don't understand how any intelligent person can quack about NASA with all the other stuff going on.

Okay, okay...I hear you about the military-corporate influence. I don't care. NASA, science are our best hopes. You should be finding better things to complain about.

[bigtree]

42. of course, you didn't read ANYTHING here that said 'defund NASA'

That's just the type of hysterical nonsense that's allowed the boondoggles and military meddling to dominate the space program. I understand that you don't care about the military meddling, but it's a fact that the space program wouldn't exist in it's present form without the inflow of 'defense' dollars. I find that bargain despicable.

[navarth]

121. Okay, you don't want to de-fund NASA? Then what do you want?

Maybe we can agree on something. You want NASA to be purely civilian research? Hey, I'm with you.

Let's have it. What do you really want to do with NASA? So far you sound like you don't want it.

[bigtree]

122. yes, purely civilian

. . . that means directly justifying these scientific missions; on their own, without the pressure of 'national defense' hanging over each approval of nervous cash.

And, an elimination or lessening of these military commitments and the feathering of their ambitions in space would allow more resources to become available for the actual science that most everyone supports.

Also, with the military on it's own there would be more competition for contracts outside of these death merchants who we've opportunistically tied our space program to.

Without that separation, though, this will ALWAYS be a moral issue to me first and foremost.

[navarth]

124. bigtree, my friend...you could have saved a lot of trouble if

you had come across that way in your original post.

Know what I'm sayin'?

[bigtree]

126. you know what?

I've gotten some good answers on this thread to the question I posed. I've learned a few things.

But, not so many responses directed at my concerns about the military. I'm really not satisfied knowing that worthwhile science is tied up in this devil's bargain with the military. It's a major folly without any seeming end. Know what I'm sayin?

[Realityhack]

169. That may be because you never spelled out what your issue with the millitary invovement is.

So what is it that you think is so unacceptable about NASA being use in part for military missions? What specifically do you think the alternative to the current setup is?

[navarth]

184. well yeah...that's kinda my point, bro

we started out sounding like anti-NASA, but...we're really not, are we?

Nope, I don't think we have a fight here at all! Sorry...please carry on...

[proud2BlibKansan]

52. I hear ya

Mind blowing, isn't it?

[Posteritatis]

129. I think he thinks science should only be for consumer applications

Kind of like that bullshit emasculation of Bell Labs that happened a few months ago, where they were suddenly forbidden from doing basic research anymore. I guess OP'd like that, since it doesn't require any real foresight to see the "benefit" of a smaller cell phone or slightly faster CPU as opposed to that physics sorcery that's clearly just equations and other stuff that can't go on a store shelf.

I'm remembering this study put out a couple years ago where people were asked to guess NASA's budget. Most of the critics thought it was on par with the defense budget, which depressed me. I'm assuming the OP doesn't, since people have mentioned how absolutely miniscule NASA's budget is time and time again, but given his rejection of every answer in the thread so far I'm assuming this is as much an I'm-right-and-the-facts-are-wrong issue as any other religious argument.

(And there's also the fact that Bush has occasionally said positive things about NASA; I'm sure that makes it absolute anathema to some DUers in perpetuity.)

[bigtree]

132. most of the commercial applications should be privately funded

. . . but it's just not credible to claim that NASA stands apart from the military, no matter how the budget is written.

-Sean O'Keefe, former NASA Administrator who was on a paid advisory board of Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon, and who just happened to serve as Navy secretary, as well as comptroller and chief financial officer at the Defense Dept., was quoted while he was in office declaring that NASA and the Pentagon were practically inseparable.

Bruce K. Gagon, Coordinator of the Global Network against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space quotes O’Keefe’s declaration that, it is “imperative that we have a more direct association between the Defense Department and NASA.” O’Keefe continued, “Technology has taken us to a point where you really can’t differentiate between that which is purely military in application and whose capabilities are civil and commercial in nature.”

[KittyWampus]

100. space exploration doesn't have to be done with humans in capsules. Computers do the job much more

efficiently.

[liberalpress]

172. Like for instance

a computer could have made the snap decision to take over piloting the Lunar Landing craft to avoid the poor landing spot the robots didn't find. Computers are smart. Humans are smarter.

[POAS]

20. It keeps lots of scientists

off the welfare rolls.

[cherokeeprogressive]

21. How many people, including subcontractors, are employed by the space program?

I know of a small machine shop in Santa Fe Springs, CA that employs about sixty people. 75% of the things they machine are for one part of the space program or another.

Lotsa people out of work in it's suddenly all shut down.

On the other hand, all that talent, floorspace, machinery, and technology could be put to work making a fuel efficient commuter car.

[Oregone]

22. Velcro, Sci-Fi movies and Cheetos

Don't you research anything before you post? The contributions are endless

[arcadian]

26. It cracks me up thinking about all those little ant farms getting all fucked up in zero G.

Stupid ants.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. Among many other things --

They do studies and experiments in crystallography and nanotechnology that might someday cure diseases like cancer, diabetes and Alzheimer's. http://spacescience.spaceref.com/msl1/pcg_why.htm

I thought only Republicans were anti-science.

[bigtree]

36. This is the new attack on skeptics of the NASA boondoggles?

Attack critics as 'anti-science?' I thought only republicans engaged in such anti-intellectual character attacks.

I'm not convinced that most of these applications and experiments couldn't be replicated here on Earth. I do think the crystal research and development in space is worthwhile and important if managed well, and is something which is unique.

from your link:

What has crystal growth in space provided so far?

Since 1984, protein crystal growth experiments have been performed on over 20 shuttle missions. From over 33 proteins, ranging from insulin to HIV reverse transcriptase, the microgravity environment for crystal growth improved over the best-case Earth-grown crystals in the following ways:

* Larger Crystals in 45.4% of the cases
* New Crystal Structures in 18% of the cases
* At least a 10% increase in the X-Ray Crystallography Brightness in 58% of the cases
* Less thermal motion in 27.2% of the cases
* An X-Ray Crystallography resolution improvement of ~0.3 Angstroms in 42.4% of the cases
* An X-Ray Crystallography resolution improvement of 0.3 to 0.5 Angstroms in 9.9% of the cases
* An X-Ray Crystallography resolution improvement of 0.5 to 1.0 Angstroms in 9.9% of the cases

* Cancer
o $104 billion per year according to the American Cancer Society
o Proteins such as epidermal growth factor, apocrustacyanin C, interferon a-2b play important roles in the disease.
* Diabetes
o $92 billion per year according to the American Diabetes Association
o On USML-2, an artificial sweeter called Thaumatin was crystallized in space
* Alcoholism
o Affects more than 18.5 million Americans according to Alcoholics Anonymous
o Liver transplants cost more than $250,000 On USML-2, the enzyme responsible for metabolizing alcohol (alcohol dehydrogenase) in the liver was crystallized in space.
* AIDS
o Projected to affect more than 40 million people world-wide
o HIV protease, HIV reverse transcriptase were crystallized in space The latter showed significantly improved internal ordering in the space-grown crystals
* Alzheimer's
o Projected to cost $215 billion per year by 2015 according to the American Alzheimer's Foundation
o Proteins involved in the death of cells, such as CcdB are part of ongoing experiments Most recently flown on USML-2 in 1995.
* Chagas Disease
o This parasitic disease affects many people in Latin and Central America.
o On MSL-1, in cooperation with a consortium of nations from this region, including Mexico, Costa Rica, and - for the first time - Brazil, proteins related to this disease will be crystallized for study on the ground after the mission.

At a rate of six shuttle flights per year, each successfully producing crystals to reveal the structure of 1,000 different proteins per flight, we would not learn the structure of all the human proteins for another 35 years.
__________________

This is good stuff, of course. I'm not convinced, though that this is actually the main thrust of the space program or if it's just an incidental justification, as I believe. In my view, the space program has become little but a front and a tease to keep Lockheed, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and others on the public dole. And, I'm certain that the bulk of the expense for space programs is military in nature, rather than in support of important research as you've pointed me to here.

[TZ]

88. Then you'd be wrong

Mars landers mean nothing as well? You ought to have seen the movie made about that. I am convinced that the rovers are the pinacle of engineering achievement and if you don't think that we can learn all sorts of things from that alone than you are very misinformed.
Funny how I almost never hear complaints about the space program being a waste from any scientist. Its the people who aren't that seem to have a problem

[bigtree]

91. What has the Mars landing produced of value to our struggling population?

NASA's new mission claims to place a high priority on the search for life beyond Earth. NASA touts recent discoveries on Mars and the moons around Jupiter, which they say indicates that there may be or have been habitable environments on these worlds that supported the development of life.

That's the official story.


I believe that what's actually behind the White House's hawking of this space mission is their desire to promote and legitimize the industry's new nuclear propulsion technology needed to support such missions. These would be added to a long list of moneymaking boondoggles for the aerospace industry.

NASA, the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy are currently working together to develop the technology base for what they term, Space Nuclear Reactor Power.

This program will develop and demonstrate in ground tests the technology required for space reactor power systems from tens of kilowatts to hundreds of kilowatts. The SP-100 nuclear reactor system is to be launched ‘radioactively cold.' When the mission is done, the reactor is intended to be stored in space for hundreds of years.

The reactor would would utilize new blends of "recycled" uranium fuel.

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a division of the California Institute of Technology, manages the Mars Odyssey mission for NASA's Office of Space Science. Additional science partners are located at the Russian Aviation and Space Agency and at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Lockheed Martin Astronautics, Denver, is the prime contractor for the project to develop and build the orbiter. Mission operations are conducted jointly from Lockheed Martin and JPL.

Included in NASA plans for the nuclear rocket to Mars; a new generation of Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs) for interplanetary missions; nuclear-powered robotic Mars rovers launched in 2003 and to be launched in 2009. NASA touts future mining colonies on the Moon, Mars, and asteroids that would be powered by nuclear reactors.

To develop and demonstrate these new nuclear power and propulsion technologies, President Bush's budget proposes $279 million; ($3 billion over five years) for Project Prometheus, which builds on the Nuclear Systems Initiative started in 2003.

Project Prometheus includes the development of the first nuclear-electric space mission, called the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter. This mission will conduct extensive, in-depth studies of the moons of Jupiter that may harbor subsurface oceans. Only advanced nuclear reactors could provide the hundreds of kilowatts of power the craft would need.

The Prometheus Project is based on an archaic notion that began in the '50's with a space project named Orion.

Project Orion was a propulsion system that depended on exploding atomic bombs roughly two hundred feet behind the space vehicle.

Orion was developed at the old General Dynamics Corporation, under the guidance of several former Manhattan Project scientists.

In the late 1950's, Freeman Dyson, physicist, educator, and author, joined the Orion Project research team. The project's participants proposed exploding atomic bombs at regular intervals at very short distances behind a specially designed space ship in order to propel it to the Moon and other planets in the Solar System far more quickly and cheaply than with chemical-fuel rockets.

The motto for Orion was, 'Mars by 1965, Saturn by 1970'; hauntingly reminiscent of the administration's line about Project Prometheus exploring Mars and Europa's moons.

Orion ran out of money and needed the government's help. The military agreed to take up the project, but only on the condition that it adapt itself to a military purpose. The project was later abandoned because of uncertainty about the safety and efficacy of nuclear energy, and the high cost of the speculative program. Also, because the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963 outlawed it.

"Technology must be guided and driven by ethics if it is to do more than provide new toys for the rich," Dyson, 76, said, as he received the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion 2000.

Dyson once commented that, "Project Orion is a monument to those who once believed, or still believe, in turning the power of these weapons into something else."

The White House wants you to know that the nuclear space project will prove new technologies for future NASA missions. Like space-based weaponry.

The decision by George W. Bush to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty allows research beneficial to orbiting space-based lasers as part of a global missile defense shield to resume; orbiting space lasers on permanent space platforms.

Despite the administration and industry talk of Europa's moons, the Prometheus Project will pave the way for the original Pentagon plan to mount nuclear reactors on space-based platforms to power their nuclear lasers. And of course, as the Space Command also asserts, ". . . the United States must also have the capability to deny America's adversaries the use of commercial space platforms, for military purposes"

Enough! This Promethus project is a cynical attempt to commit the nation to their Star War's nonsense. Bush and Europa's moons? I don't believe them.

[treestar]

177. Spend the $$ directly on the search for cures for cancer and diabetes

It ain't rocket science. :rofl:

We don't have to go to Mars to cure cancer. The answer is right here.

[Warren DeMontague]

30. NASA needs more money, not less.

Science and knowledge always pay off in the long run.

No, I'm not going to debate it. You will not change my mind.

[Withywindle]

32. Thank you.

Humans are at our very best when we pursue knowledge. It's what we're here for, IMO.

The money we're flushing down the toilet to kill people in Iraq is money utterly wasted.

Money spent on space exploration and any form of scientific research is NOT.

I'd rather have one beautiful photograph of a distant nebula from the Hubble than every brutal, useless war we've ever been in. But no one's asking me what I think.

I was 2 weeks old when the moon landing happened, but the way my parents talked about it, I grew up thinking it was utterly fabulous. They were deeply ashamed of Vietnam, but they were proud of that. As it should be.

[bigtree]

38. Not until we can seperate their seemingly benign missions from the military ones.

Not debating the issue of the expense and direction of the space program just deepens the misunderstandings. It's shameful the way the 'scientific community' has shielded and looked the other way as the military has had free run to facilitate the production and development of their missiles and nuclear ambitions. Shameful.

[Warren DeMontague]

54. The military has something like 10,000 times the budget of NASA

I don't think the military really needs to piggyback on NASA to get missiles or other projects up and running. They have more than enough resources to do whatever they want on their own.

[bigtree]

57. no, the space program relies on the military to keep it afloat

. . . and has allowed their seemingly benign missions to be overshadowed by the military meddling. That's just indisputable.

[joshcryer]

194. You could cut the military budget 1000 times and it would not affect NASAs operation.

Please look at the graphs.

[cobalt1999]

81. I agree completely.

The OP sounds just like any anti-science or anti-research person asking "What's in it for ME?".

Bush killed the large collider in this country because of that same pathetic attitude.

[GrantDem]

31. Memory foam mattresses

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[MsTryska]

39. Satellites? And Satellite repair?

(don't know - just guessing)

[bigtree]

45. that's a pretty good function

. . . although I remain highly suspicious of the new satellite surveillance program that purports to track environmental disasters.

[MsTryska]

47. And OnStar. i don't trust the OnStar

but sat tv,radios and phones are pretty cool.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

41. Of course they're a waste of our money, but you know what a bigger waste is?

The monstrous amounts landing in the pockets of the CEOs of the military-industrial complex of companies.

[bigtree]

44. well, yeah

-Sean O'Keefe, former NASA Administrator who was on a paid advisory board of Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon, and who just happened to serve as Navy secretary, as well as comptroller and chief financial officer at the Defense Dept., was quoted while he was in office declaring that NASA and the Pentagon were practically inseparable.

Bruce K. Gagon, Coordinator of the Global Network against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space quotes O’Keefe’s declaration that, it is “imperative that we have a more direct association between the Defense Department and NASA.” O’Keefe continued, “Technology has taken us to a point where you really can’t differentiate between that which is purely military in application and whose capabilities are civil and commercial in nature.”

[Sarah Ibarruri]

49. I think it's time to put the defense department on a diet, and as for NASA.....

.... they need to have a NASA 24-hour TELETHON and whoever wants can donate. They can also have folks that do the rounds to rich people for donations. No more NASA support with our tax money.

[Dogmudgeon]

43. "Tang and Velcro," said Governor Palin

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/">NASA Spinoffs Page

Actually, Velcro was invented by the French.

--p!

[DangerousRhythm]

133. Spinoffs

I was just going to link that!

Instead, I'll link another page, same subject:

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

:D

[DavidDvorkin]

46. "Madam, of what use is a baby?"

[bigtree]

48. a baby what?

[DavidDvorkin]

65. Faraday, replying to Queen Victoria,

who had asked him of what use his electrical experiments and machinery were.

[bigtree]

66. not all machines and experiments have merit enough to fund in the billions

[Random_Australian]

186. Sure, so let's let the people who know what they are talking about decide merit.

aka the scientists, not you.

What did they decide? To build the Hubble, Chandra, Compton & Spitzer, for example. Have a guess which agency built them and put them there.

[PinkoDonkey]

51. Dead Irish Writers

Anytime people question the practical, real world value to scientific research (which I think clearly includes space shuttle missions) I end up thinking of the West Wing episode "Dead Irish Writers."

As the dying physicist in the episode says:
"Great achievement has no roadmap. I mean the x-ray's pretty good. So's penicillin. And neither was discovered with a practical objective in mind. I mean when the electron was discovered in 1897 it was useless, and now we have an entire world run by electronics. Hayden and Mozart never studied the classics. They couldn't. They invented them."

Now where is that Lagavulin...:)

[bigtree]

55. The argument that questioning the value of the space shuttle is 'anti-science' is bull

As long as it is publicly funded, by money borrowed from future generations, it will always be prudent to question it's purpose and value in a specific way. And, it's just an amazing abdication of responsibility to continue to allow the program to be hijacked by the military industry just to keep it going. Despicable, really.

[PinkoDonkey]

59. Let me clarify

Of course we should always question our spending priorities.

I just happen to think that government investment in scientific research, including space exploration and the shuttle program, is something worth spending money on. In no way, shape or form do I think civilian space exploration and research should mix with the military.

As far as borrowing money from future generations goes: I think future generations will thank us for investing in scientific research. Now is not the time to reduce government spending--quite the opposite actually! Once the current economic crisis passes, I'd love to see balanced budgets and the debt paid down as quickly as possible. But to reduce government spending now is dangerous. I don't think my position on deficit spending is at all unusual--just look at Krugman's recent articles. Uncle Sam right now is the spender of last resort and may soon have to be the employer of last resort.

[bigtree]

61. well, that's about where I am

reduce the military 'priorities' in space and elsewhere and there's more than enough capital to continue the science.

But the industry is a monster that we created with our reliance on them for missiles and other weapon systems which now form the bulk of the appropriations from government and the bulk of their profit.

Instead of letting these companies rise or fall on their actual scientific value, they've been propped up and perpetuated by an unending flow of taxpayer dollars which is represented by a 'backlog' of projects (mostly military) which facilitate the stock investments that they rely on to enrich their precious selves.

It's an easy proposition to take the military money away and devote that to the 'scientific research' that most folks would agree is important, but there's a stubborn insistence from defenders in and out of Congress that any opposition against the dominate, military portion of the space monster is an attack on science. The fact is that the scientific missions are being held hostage to the military ones. The industry insists that they can't survive without the military spending. That's something which can be solved by some honesty from supporters about the relationships and by taking responsibility for the enabling of the military industry monster as a bargain to continue the science. It's a matter of congressional will, as well.

[mitchum]

56. But...but...but...regular labs are just so boring!

It's a fucking colossal waste of money

[OxQQme]

60. Advanced warning of Planet X's arrival.

Imagine the worldwide chaos that would ensue if, all of a sudden, it was visible to earth bounder's naked eyes.

[marybourg]

63. Someday we're going to have to leave this planet

(global warming? nuclear holocaust? incoming asteroid? runaway pollution?overcrowding? something as yet unknown? ) and we have to at least begin to know how to do it.

[MadHound]

67. Simple question for you

Why are you obsessing over 0.6% of the Federal Budget when there are much larger areas of the budget that need cutting such as the war, corporate welfare, etc. etc.? What, spending 0.6% of the budget to further our knowledge base is so abhorrent to you?

[bigtree]

69. who said I was obsessing? For shit sakes, we can concern ourselves with more than one thing at once

And if you include the military applications of the space program, the costs are much higher than the figures you've presented here.

Here are a few examples of the space program's incestuous relationship with the military industry that I outlined in 2003:

Congressional contributors such as Hughes, Raytheon, TRW, Madison Research, Texas Instruments, Teledyne, Northrop-Grumman, Lockheed, Boeing, and Rockwell all have ongoing co-mingled defense and space projects that requires them to work together on a contractor/subcontractor basis to develop their military projects.

Peter Teets, former undersecretary of defense under Bush, and former Lockheed president, is a major promoter of the Rumsfeld Commission's January 2001 report on the Military in Space, which warned of a "space Pearl Harbor" if the U.S. does not thoroughly "dominate all aspects of space."

"Clearly, space is the high ground, and we need to capture that high ground and then exploit it," said the former chief executive of the aerospace contractor.

Despite the Bush administration's mad rush into military space, the renewal of the missile defense program didn't begin with them.

In response to the call from some in the Clinton-era's Republican Congress for the rapid acceleration of national missile defense development, "leading to deployment of a defense system as soon as possible," the United Missile Defense Company (UMDC) was formed in 1997 as a joint venture; equally owned by Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and TRW.

In fiscal years 1996 through 1998, the Republican congress authorized and appropriated a total of $1,174 million more for missile defense than President Clinton's budget requested for those years.

Despite President Clinton's opposition, a multimillion dollar contract was signed in 1998 for a "Space-Based Laser Readiness Demonstrator" with Lockheed Martin, TRW, and Boeing as the contractors.

On the 25th of April 1997 the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization announced that two contracts for the concept definition study phase of the National Missile Defense (NMD) Lead Systems Integrator were awarded to United Missile Defense Company, Bethesda, MD, and Boeing North American Inc., Downey, CA.

According to a 1997 U.S. Army Space and Strategic Defense Command news release, the then- commanding general of the Training and Doctrine Command, Gen. Hartzog, and the then- commander of the SSDC, Lieut. General Anderson signed a memorandum of agreement to recognize SSDC as the Army's specified proponent for space and missile defense.

The MOA also permitted SSDC to establish the Space and Missile Defense Battle Lab. (now disbanded and spread out among other space projects)

The Space and Strategic Defense Command was set up as the Army's specified proponent for space and national missile defense and an "integrator" for theater missile defense issues - recognized by the military establishment as a "one stop shop".

The Space Battle Lab is intended to develop "warfighting concepts, focus military science and technology research, conduct warfighting experiments, and support exercises and training activities, all focused on space and missile defense."

Lockheed Martin Space Systems and Northrop Grumman Space Technology ended up with the contract for the Space Battle Lab.

Today the Lockheed Space Systems website describes the corporation's ambitions in "space-based telecommunications; remote-sensing; missile systems; and the capability to integrate these complex elements into a total "system of systems," as an enterprise built by heritage aerospace companies including Lockheed, Martin Marietta, RCA, GE and Loral.

Lockheed Martin Space Systems is one of the major operating units of the Lockheed Corporation. It designs, develops, tests, manufactures and operates a variety of advanced technology systems for military, civil, and commercial customers.

Chief products include space launch and ground systems, remote sensing and communications satellites for commercial and government customers, advanced space observatories and spacecraft, fleet ballistic missiles and missile defense systems.

Everything for the next-generation of meddling in space. Everything for a down-on-his-luck weapon's manufacturer to get his blood money-grubbing career back on track.

Specific defense projects for the Lockheed Space Battle Lab:
-Global Positioning System IIR (GPS).
-Defense Meteorological Satellite Program
-Space Based Infrared System (Space-Based Lasers)
-International Space Station
-Theater High-Altitude Area Defense
-Airborne Laser
-Trident II D5 Fleet Ballistic Missile: The D5 is the latest generation of submarine launched ballistic missiles
-Trident II D5 Fleet Ballistic Missile: (UK FBM). The D5, built by LM Space & Strategic Missiles, is the cornerstone of the United Kingdom Ministry of Defense's strategic nuclear fleet.

Lockheed Space & Strategic Missiles, has to date, built and orbited more than 875 spacecraft for military, civil government and international commercial markets.

It should be remembered that there is no pot of money sitting around unneeded to dip into for these space projects. No starry-eyed mission to the moons of Pluto can be sustained without the military bonanza of nervous cash; and you can't easily turn this industry off once you've given them the money and license to fiddle.

[MadHound]

92. I said you were obsessing, what, can't you read?

You don't like that, too bad because that's the way it looks from where I sit. You're sitting here trying to pull in all sorts of defense projects into the rubric of "spending money on space", such as sub based ballistic missiles(Navy expenditure), the missile defense program (which is ground based) and the UK FBM, which is built for the British. In fact, if you eliminated all NASA funding, we would still be left with all these missile programs because they are not funded under the rubric of NASA, but rather under the rubric of defense. If you look at my OP in this thread, I actually agreed with you, we need to cut quite a bit of defense spending. Your attempt to lump anything that gets shot into the air as part of the "space program" is disingenuous at best.

Also, you should realize that a lot of these programs are up for review, whether to be approved for funding or not, so you really can't add them to your total for defense spending yet.

And once again, let me emphasize that NASA spending is 0.6% of the Federal budget Got that? All the rest of what you are grousing about is part of defense spending, and again, as I said earlier, I'm all for cutting back defense spending.

But my question stands, what the hell do you have against spending 0.6% of our Federal budget in the pursuit of knowledge? You remind me of those on the right who obsess over Federal welfare spending, which is only 0.8% of the Federal budget.

You really need to get your priorities straight. If you want to cut out a lot of fat and pork, again, go after defense spending and corporate welfare.

[bigtree]

102. All I see from you here is smug assholeness

Until the military aspects of the space program are separated from the seemingly benign applications, the military missions will dominate. The scientific applications are no more than incidental to the purpose of the industries who facilitate the space program. Somewhere along the way you lost support for funding the science and you accepted the military money. Now you're up to your neck in complicity for the propping up of this monopoly of military industries.

I don't really believe you could justify the expenditures right now to the public based on specific missions and get the money you need. That's because we're tapped out with the majority of our money going into defense. It's not enough to just give lip service to cutting back defense spending. The fact is that there is no separation right now between the military missions and the science you are defending. To pretend otherwise is to contradict the very folks who run the space program. They know who butters their bread.

[hughee99]

68. Satellite imaging, sensors used to help fight fires,

Those silver blankets used for disaster victims and marathon runners, software that helps diagnose heart disease (software coupled with ultrasound used to precisely measure arterial thickness), Oil spill cleanup products, environmentally friendly waste treatment and water purification processes, portable X-Ray device, wireless headsets, UV blocking sunglasses, longer lasting "shock absorbent" shoes, freeze-drying food, solar panel technology, anti-icing systems for planes, plasma screens, artificial limbs, and a couple of other things.

This is, of course, not to say that NASA itself builds the products that go to the consumer market, but without the research provided by NASA, we may not have many of these things.


If you click on the NASA home and City link, you can look at a lot of things.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/nasalife/nasalife_features-noblinds_archive_2.html

[bigtree]

87. I think a lot of those advances were incidental to the space program

. . . and really makes a lousy case for continuing the present co-mingling of these space programs which produce these important scientific advances with the military applications.

I believe public interest in the scientific applications of space travel couldn't sustain enough support from legislators to continue to appropriate the billions needed to keep the scientific missions going. The defense dollars provided a ready and dependable appropriation of cash as the purely scientific missions weren't selling or were the subject of difficult and intractable debates over the purpose and effectiveness of the research.

I think the purposes and results of these space missions should be justified before the public who funds them. If they fail to garner support then they should be set aside like any other appropriation. I wonder how many of these industries which are involved in facilitating space research and development would survive if they had to justify their mission on a purely scientific basis?

[Algorem]

70. it's classified.

[AngryAmish]

71. Because huge explosions are bad

This is what happened when the shuttle stopped flying for some years.

[suston96]

72. Dunno if this has been mentioned.......

In all military and space spending there have been billions in Research and Development for innovation that ordinary civilian companies could have never afforded on their own.

Some of our civilian aircraft were military planes first - the Boeing 707 - and others. ALL of our micro-electronics that made such things as the cell-phone, GPS and all the Integrated Circuitry used in virtually all our present day communications and related entertainment systems possible came about as a result of tax-payer provided R & D funding.

Not to mention medical equipment that today saves the lives of millions of us and our loved ones.

And lastly, open your eyes and take a deep breath - the planet is dying and nothing can save it. Thank God we started looking for new worlds many decades ago.

[Burma Jones]

73. If Space is to become militarized, I want to have the biggest stick

and space will become militarized whether the US does it or not.

[Octafish]

74. NASA made it possible for you to communicate with me and the rest of the planet.

Not just satellites, but the very computer we use is due - directly - to the space program.
NASA needed to find a way to squeeze a computer into the Lunar Module, so a genius at Texas Instruments came up with the Integrated Circuit - work that originated in making better computers for ICBMs.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Apollo-Guidance-Computer

Because the United States of America is a free and open society, the idea was shared with the world.
Some companies - cough, countries - were quick to adapt the new technology into proeducts like TVs and cameras.

Thankfully, a couple of guys in a California garage figured out if it was good enough for NASA.
Now just about everybody with access to electricity can use a computer.
And that has helped make ours a better world.

[suston96]

103. That's a great link and it matches my first contact with an IC.....

....mid 1960s in the USAF. I was in Computer Maintenance and in another part of the building a friend in the Radio shop called me over and asked me if I wanted to see something. It was a black box with some circuits in it and this small thing I didn't recognize that caught my eye.

He said: it's an integrated circuit. And that means, I asked?

Transistors, resistors, capacitors - all in that little thingy. The box was a classified jungle snooper recorder to be used in Southeast Asia to pick up enemy movements by recording their conversations and transmitting them to our side.

About Steve Jobs and Steve Wosniak taking those early ICs and creating the really first production model personal computers? Yeah, I remember that too.

Whatta great time to have been alive - the moon landings made possible with all these technological developments and so much more....

And now I sit in a very comfortable golden age playing with my Satellite TV and my DVR and my Macintosh computer and I am very grateful for all this technology - especially to all those engineers and technologists that contributed to making it all possible.

What's left? Outer space and the riddle of the universe......Use some imagination and maybe you too can be as thrilled with what's coming as I have been with what has passed.

[Bandit]

75. Ever used a GPS or Cell Phone

:shrug:

[bigtree]

76. truthfully, no

but, I'm a dinosaur.

Are those advances specific to the space shuttle?

[LeftyMom]

174. GPS uses sattelites launched via- you guessed it- the space shuttle

I think the Europeans and China have their own systems up now, or are planning to.

[vanderBeth]

82. We did get that pen that writes upside down.

Whaddya mean the Russians used pencils?

[MyNameGoesHere]

86. About as much as they did from the bailout i think.

See you have to wait for the technology to be scooped up by corporate pigs and marketed to consumers at a ridicules profit.

[123infinity]

89. Thousands of technological advances, thousands of jobs...things that neo-Luddites

don't give a fuck about.

[bigtree]

95. you come on here with your smugness

How about answering the question in the op. Tell me specifically where we have benefited from the space shuttle and then explain to me why those advances are worth the incestuous relationship the space program has developed with the military industry. The disconnect you seem to have from the negative aspects of the space program's association with the military industry is stunningly irresponsible and that blind support in the name of whatever scientific advances have been enabled by that linkage borders on complicity with every dime spent on the destabilizing, deadly, weaponry which has become their dominate mission.

[pimpbot]

114. You're the one on here with smugness!

Just read through the entire thread. Lots of people have attempted to show you the value of the space program, and you have ignored EVERY SINGLE ANSWER. All of your replies are either a dig on the space program or a personal dig on the poster.

What exactly would be a valuable contribution in your mind? You already admitted not using GPS or cell phones, both of which have completely changed our culture in the last 20 years.

[mdmc]

96. these missions have inspired countless generations and

challenged us to look toward the future.

[Jim__]

110. I favor the space program, but, realistically, we can't say that it ...

... has inspired countless generations. Will inspire - maybe.

[mdmc]

111. the dream has always been there

before the space program there was the dream of a space program.

[baldguy]

98. "Leif Ericson! Where the hell have you been?"

"Out exploring again, eh? A waste of time & money if you ask me! ha ha. Where? Land west of here? Yeah, right! And what could be better than here in Greenland? Grapes? You say you call the place Vineland? Grapes are for sissies & Frenchmen! It's got trees? We have trees! Well, "tree" anyway - there used to be more. Scralings? What the hell are scralings? OH! You mean unfriendly neighbors! Killed a few, didn't you? No wonder they're unfriendly. No thank you! Greenland was good enough for our fathers & grandfathers, it should be good enough for us!"

[leftofthedial]

101. crashes, explosions, endless Discovery Channel episodes

on same

Now THAT's entertainment

[SidDithers]

109. Knowledge...nt

Sid

[trudyco]

112. Aren't the Indians and Chinese looking into mining the moon for H3?

Seems like that might be a better use of the money. You can still do space experiments but have a commercial goal, too. Isn't it H3 for that new generation of nuclear energy (supposedly with no toxic byproducts)?

Of course basic research in any field is long term and we stopped investing in that in the 80's unfortunately. A shortsighted idea to cut government spending.

[bigtree]

118. right, In military terms, the moon has been described as 'the ultimate high ground'

Our military envisions space-based nuclear platforms for space-based lasers to defend their satellites. The moon project wouldn't have as much steam if it didn't have that military component driving it, complete with the standard fearmongering about China and the rest gaining some sort of military dominance in space (before Americans do).

[bigtree]

119. and it's interesting how the present NASA administrator favors the moon mission over the shuttle >>>

. . . and at the expense of the 'science' and research most supporters on this thread have been so adamant about:

from WIKI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin

Griffin has been criticized by space research organizations such as NASA Ames Research Center life sciences group for shifting portions of NASA's budget from science to manned spaceflight. Griffin had stated that he would not shift "one thin dime" of funding from science to human spaceflight, but less than six months later, in February 2006, NASA revealed a budget that reduced space research funding by about 25%, including indefinite deferrals of planned programs such as the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter, the Terrestrial Planet Finder, and the Space Interferometry Mission.

Funding for a New York company to research the Prometheus space nuclear program has also been put on hold, although Griffin has said he is anxious to pursue Prometheus after the earlier-priority development of the new spacecraft is completed. Earlier, in November 2005, funding for life science research conducted largely out of Ames Research Center was cut by 80%, prompting representatives of the Ames life sciences group to write a scathing letter to Griffin criticizing this cut.


from USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2005-09-27-nasa-griffin-interview_x.htm

9/27/2005

NASA administrator says space shuttle was a mistake

The space shuttle and International Space Station — nearly the whole of the U.S. manned space program for the past three decades — were mistakes, NASA chief Michael Griffin said.

In a meeting with USA TODAY's editorial board, Griffin said NASA lost its way in the 1970s, when the agency ended the Apollo moon missions in favor of developing the shuttle and space station, which can only orbit Earth.

"It is now commonly accepted that was not the right path," Griffin said. "We are now trying to change the path while doing as little damage as we can."

[earth mom]

113. I so agree! How about some health care for all instead? nt

[liberalpress]

175. Healthcare can't be accomlished

woth 0.6 percent of the budget NASA uses. Besides, you can't guarantee that money would be used for healthcare.

[earth mom]

183. Well, would the 700 Billion Bailout cover it? That money was squandered too.

IMO, this countries priorities are totally screwed up.

[dysfunctional press]

116. we'd be better served by exploring the ocean depths than outer space, imho.

as far as gaining practical knowledge that can benefit society.

[annabanana]

125. “Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?”

We will never know what it is we don't know unless we ask "useless" questions.

[bigtree]

127. and, as for my own 'useless' questions . . .?

The sudden blood of these men! at a word-- Praise them, it boils, or blame them, it boils too. I, painting from myself and to myself, Know what I do, am unmoved by men's blame Or their praise either . . . Speak as they please, what does the mountain care?


Robert Browning's poem is an interesting choice you've made for a quote here. The subject had spent all of the money that was to be used to buy paintings and for his own works for the French court and spent it on a house for himself and his wife. He's in the house reflecting on how his life would have been successful if he had fulfilled his original mission and had not been so self-indulgent. He's reduced to merely dreaming about painting in the heavens instead of actually accomplishing anything of merit.

[johnaries]

131. Man's knowledge has been expanded exponentially.

They have run countless experiments in weightlessness that could not have been performed on Earth. The shuttle has placed numerous satellites in orbit which have been invaluable in collecting information about Earth and the environment. not to mention technological innovations, far beyond computer technology - including lithium battery technology. We are gaining a wealth of knowledge from the shuttle missions, which affect every aspect of our lives.

The knowledge we have gained is beyond price.

For your perusal:

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/oct/HQ_08255_SPINOFF_08.html

"The results of NASA research and technology are all around us, providing benefits to many aspects of our daily lives and well-being," said NASA's Deputy Administrator Shana Dale.

Several examples of these benefits are described in Spinoff 2008, including:
- Advanced polymer coatings for implantable devices to help avert heart failure
- Robotic technology used for minimally invasive knee surgery
- Space suit-derived textiles to help protect firefighters and race car drivers
- Drag reduction research applied to record-breaking swimsuit development
- Astronaut food supplements in worldwide use to improve baby formula
- Carbon nanomesh technology applied to filtering safe drinking water
- Rocket engine valve technology reducing emissions for power generation.

[bigtree]

135. good points here

I have to point out, however, that more than a few of these advances could have been achieved independent of the space program if we committed ourselves to do so. As it stands, many of these advances were just incidental to the program, rather than its primary mission.

If we are to cite these incidental advancements as benefits, then it's fair to point out the negative aspects of the program's relationship with the military and the results of that collaboration and make a similar judgment about the program's efficacy and appropriateness.

[johnaries]

139. "could have been" means nothing. They weren't. It's also highly

unlikely that they would have been.

And the military has their own space program independent of NASA. So any argument involving the military is moot.

[bigtree]

141. They employ the same military corporations for overlapping missions and projects

I've listed countless ways that the two are inter-meshed. Any claim that they aren't connected at the hip is an amazing disregard of the reality. I can prove the connection. Can you prove the disconnect you're claiming?

DOD may well operate outside of NASA, but in space, they are certainly indistinguishable, with the military assuming its typical dominance.

[johnaries]

146. I did not say they are not connected, I'm sorry if I implied it.

My point was that if not for NASA the DOD would still have gone forward with their space plans. However, without NASA is is highly unlikely that these "spinoff" advances would have occured.

Further, the military use of space has primarily been used for intelligence, which is designed to save lives. Personally, I support the military - it's the way that the military has been mis-used by this administration that I have a problem with.

But despite anyone's opinion of the military and their use of space, they would have gone forward with or without NASA and therefore blaming NASA for the military use of space is a strawman argument.

[CBGLuthier]

134. Very simple short answer

Because with all the fucking idiots on this planet (more than a few of which have posted in this thread) we better make plans to live elsewhere unless the extinction of the human race means nothing to you 'cause sooner or later the fucking luddites will probably win out.

[depakid]

136. Some spinoffs...

Some of the most frequently asked questions about the U.S. space program are "Why go into space when we have so many problems here on Earth?" and "What does the space program do for me?" These are legitimate questions and unfortunately not enough people have been made aware of the vast benefits the space program provides that increase the quality of our daily lives.

Applications on Earth of technology needed for space flight have produced thousands of "spinoffs" that contribute to improving national security, the economy, productivity and lifestyle. It is almost impossible to find an area of everyday life that has not been improved by these spinoffs. Collectively, these secondary applications represent a substantial return on the national investment in aerospace research.

Have a look: http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

(the list of course is far from exhaustive).

[bigtree]

138. some other 'spinoffs'

-space-based laser

-star wars missile defense

-space battle lab

-Trident II D5 Fleet Ballistic Missile: The D5 is the latest generation of submarine launched ballistic missiles

-Trident II D5 Fleet Ballistic Missile: (UK FBM). The D5, built by LM Space & Strategic Missiles, is the cornerstone of the United Kingdom Ministry of Defense's strategic nuclear fleet.

[depakid]

145. On balance, I kinda like advanced weather forecasting and GPS

because they save lives all of the time.

I like velcro too (though Star Trek fans might note that there could be a question as to the terrestrial origin of velcro- ;) ).

Actually, velcro wasn't a "spinoff" but an application of a then obscure little deal- which was popularized by the unique needs space program.

More in the way of spinoff's here:

Down to Earth Uses for Space Materials

http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/fall2006/backpage.html

[RandomKoolzip]

137. Actually, we have it all backwards.

Space exploration is exactly what human beings SHOULD be doing, all of us united in a single goal: that of understanding everything in the universe, finding out the meaning of life, expanding the definitions of "being" and "existence." We already know what the Earth is all about; humans are so intelligent that they COULD create the means of exploring the rest of the universe and everything in it.

BUT, instead, we're always bickering about stupid shit like religion, war, poverty, inadequate health care, racism, etc. We look at the globe and all we see are the borders. We think of "country first" instead of "humanity first." We're always fucking other people over, competing, winning or losing - as if life is some sort of fucking GAME instead of the fleeting and precious gift is really is. We can't seem to stop fucking with each other's happiness long enough to grasp that humanity ought to be progressing and evolving as a single entity, improving and refining itself exponentially as it creeps in its petty pace until the last syllable of recorded yadda yadda yadda.

And if nothing else, the exploration of space should have, but obviously didn't, disprove the whole "god" thing. Humans still believe in that shit and kill others over it and oppress others over it instead of coming together in peace and curiosity to acheive a common goal, secure in the knowlege that the previous understandings of the universe, as defined in the Bible, the Koran, etc, are all flawed and based in ignorance.

We have it all backward: we shouldn't HAVE to keep spending money on stopping wars, aleviating poverty, etc. - humanity's goal ought to be more expansive than that. There's untold wonder out there, ours for the experiencing, ours for the learning. Maybe when we get these other problems solved we can start FINALLY moving forward as a species; I guess a lot of us see the space program as useless because right now our Right-wing friends seem intent making sure the problems that keep us from each other stay permanent, and overcoming ANY of that looks like such an ass-kicking task. It's just insanely depressing that we're STILL fighting wars based on picayune religious differences, STILL fighting economic wars with each other, fussing over dominance of this tiny speck of real estate in an expanse of mystery so vast one cannot even begin to begin to comprehend it, instead of striving for and possibly finding out the meaning and purpose of existence.

[Evoman]

165. Awesome post.

On this planet full of the short-sighted and incurious, it's nice to meet someone who thinks sort of like me.

[RandomKoolzip]

185. Thank you, sir.

And although I don't post in there, I've read many posts of yours in the religion/atheism forum-group-thingys and found them congruent with mine own mind. Keep the lack of faith, man! (sorry, couldn't resist a corny atheist's play on words)

[leftchick]

142. Not Americans unless they are Defense Contractors

it is all a ruse to get the US into Space Weapons before anyone else. Isn't that the American way?

:mad:

[bigtree]

155. that's my view

foot in the door, nose under the tent, elephant in the room . . .

[Realityhack]

148. Reguarding Millitary and Corporate influence... I like my GPS.

I also like living in a country with a thriving aerospace industry, top notch physics establishment, etc. etc.
You are looking for grade school 'direct benifits' from a large complicated program.

Now go back to free republic where you belong.

[bigtree]

150. It takes a really small mind to deflect questions by calling someone a freeper

What I can't understand is why you think that sort of attitude toward questions about the efficacy of the intermingling of our space program with the military (Bush's at the present) reflects Democratic values and principles?

To me, that sort of assholeness is more typical of freerepublic (a place where I've never had a moment's interest in visiting, reading, or reading about) than anything in the op.

You're response is that if I don't like how my government is operating than I should leave or shut up. What a load of shit. Realityhack is apt.

[Realityhack]

162. There isn't much in your OP to respond TO.

It is devoid of any deep thought whatsoever. You seem ignorant of ANY non-military advances from the space program. There is a reason you are attracting childish debate. You posed a childish question.

[annabanana]

151. 151 responses and not a single rec

must be some kind of record

[bigtree]

152. plenty of posts without recs

And I've remained fully engaged with most of the respondents. Count my posts. Your ridicule is really petty and pointless.

Or, were you looking for some backslapping approval of your little insult from like-minded yokels?

[annabanana]

153. not ridicule, merely an observation. . .n/t

[bigtree]

154. no, it's just petty, trifling bullshit flamebait

[dailykoff]

156. Rec'd. It's a question well worth asking.

If space exploration has been co-opted by the MIC like every other sector of the US economy, it needs to go. Sorry.

[friendly_iconoclast]

188. The Net had its origins in a Defense Department project

Are you and the OP going to disconnect your Internet service?

Cause it derives from ARPANET. Funded by the Defense Department.

Or are military spinoffs "okay" once they reach civvy land?

[noamnety]

157. I agree with you, but

I didn't recommend the post because it's so filled with knee jerk reactions. :)

Science = good

Public funding = we need to look at a cost-benefit analysis before spending that kind of money on anything. It's not that there's "no" scientific benefit, it's that the benefits don't justify the cost. There are more targeted and efficient ways to spend that amount of money to advance research.


People here are I think not getting that point. They are looking at it in a very rigid black/white sort of thinking. Maybe that's a reflection of our political climate, I'm not sure. "WHAT? YOU ARE AGAINST NASA? YOU MUST OPPOSE ALL SCIENCE, YOU FREEPER." Sigh. I don't know why it's so hard to read what you wrote - the bulk of the funding is going to destructive militaristic operations, not beneficial research. Along the same lines - ALL THOSE PEOPLE ARE EMPLOYED BY THOSE PUBLIC FUNDS.

It's as if they are incapable of seeing options other than "keep the shuttle missions or fire everyone and stop all research." To me, it's pretty obvious you are implying we could do so much more, so much more important work, with that number of jobs and that expense. We aren't using our resources in smart ways.

[backscatter712]

158. Diplomacy for the win.

I'll leave it to others to explain the technological and science achievements of ISS, Hubble, Mir, Spacelab, Shuttle, etc.

But I want to mention the diplomatic payoffs of NASA, which started with the Apollo-Soyuz joint mission in the 1970's, continued with the Shuttle missions to Mir, the joint efforts of the U.S. and Russia to build the ISS (large pieces of the ISS are Russian), and Soyuz capsules are a regular part of the missions there, and the continued joint presence of U.S. astronauts and Russian cosmonauts there.

They proved that two superpowers which were in a constant state of tension, that pointed nuclear weapons at each other, could come together and work together for joint purposes, and do tremendous things that each nation could not do alone.

If it weren't for our joint space efforts, our relationship with Russia would likely be very different, and probably for the worse.

[noamnety]

159. There are pros and cons in everything.

The space/arms race had some devastating effects on the people when their governments were racing to bankrupt their countries in a show of superiority.

[backscatter712]

160. Yeah, but Apollo/Soyuz, Shuttle/Mir and the ISS turned that around.

Those investments are paying off for everyone on Earth every day.

[noamnety]

161. How much money do those cost?

It's sort of like the Iraq war funding. It's not coming from unlimited resources. The funds for that come at the expense of other things.

It's not really a useful analysis if you aren't willing to look at other options that money could have been used for ... and then determine WHICH of those options would do the most good for mankind.

Or ... forget the Iraq war. Maybe this is a better analogy. There's a starving kid. We give him a snickers bar. We got the OP saying "you know, snickers bars aren't all that healthy. Maybe there was something else we could have bought with that investment that would have been better."

Then the reaction is to say "What, you wanted him to starve?!!! You must hate kids. The snickers bar allowed him to live. The thousand snickers bars we gave out to the whole camp of kids saved their lives!!!"

And nobody is saying ... well, hold on, what if we'd spent that money on lentil soup, we'd have been able to afford 10 times more of it for the same price, we could have saved more lives, it would have been more nutritious, etc." Snickers bar is not the only option that could have been considered - a true analysis shouldn't be a binary thing. And a true analysis should involve weighing pros and cons, and I don't see a lot of people willing to engage in an honest discussion of that. "There were pros - so shut up!"

Eh, I think the cons need to be discussed - perhaps more urgently so.

[backscatter712]

164. Pennies compared to the war in Iraq.

Seriously, NASA isn't a very big part of the budget, especially when compared to the Iraq War, or all the no-bid contracts to companies like Halliburton and Blackwater.

I consider NASA a worthy investment, which has paid off in spades.

Granted, NASA isn't perfect, especially now with our fatass defense contractors constantly fucking things up there - we've been through how many replacements to the shuttle that ended up as total clusterfucks. We need some hardasses in there that can keep those fat fuckers on task so we can have a space vehicle that's a lot cheaper, safer and better than the Shuttle. It seems the defense contractors, if they're not reined in, want these projects to fail - they collect the cash whether they succeed or not, and if it fails, that just opens the door for the next project...

But if we can get NASA to be less wasteful with money and get them and the contractors to get their shit together, we still have the potential for greatness such as Apollo. The paybacks from inspiration and imagination are incalculable.

[Retrograde]

163. kept me employed for a bit

although that was more than 20 years ago.

It costs a lot less than Bush's wars, both in monetary and human costs.

[ZombieHorde]

168. Here are a few tidbits from the last several months.

The new microsphere powder is pretty awesome. You mix it with paint and that paint becomes an insulator. It is strong enough to use on a space shuttle and is nontoxic.

Many of the launches are a joint effort of several countries. Some would argue that this cooperation is beneficial for diplomatic reasons.

NASA has launched a 'carbon sniffing' satellite. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/oco-20081112.html

Some people claim to be benefited by education, NASA educates those Americans (and others) who wish to be educated on certain subjects. I use their website to assist with my homework assignments.

[liberalpress]

170. I am not going to sit here

and explain to you the advances in scientific knowledge, human endurance and just plain science that the manned space program has provided. They are just too numerous and I'll be here all night. But what I will address is the the fallacy that some people (maybe even you) have that if we didn't "waste" money on the space program we could use to cure cancer and feed the poor.

Horse shit.

The fact is if there was a national will to cure cancer or feed the poor we would have done it already. There is absolutely no indication -- none -- that money taken from NASA would go to better purposes. In fact, during the last 8 years, most of that money would have probably gone to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As for direct benefits to you? Well OK. Just one. Advances in computer chips make possible your cell phone and the inexpensive computer you know type on.

I'm all for knowledge. The more the better. You apparently are not. That's OK. I'm curious enough for the both of us.

[Pithlet]

179. What you said.

:thumbsup:

[Realityhack]

182. +1 n/t

[Lorien]

187. Great post.

:thumbsup:

[LeftyMom]

173. We found out that the universe is expanding and not oscillating.

We found amino acids and other building blocks of life in distant reaches of the galaxy. We located extrasolar planets. We confirmed the existence of black holes at the centers of galaxies, and located and studied supernovae.

That's just stuff I remember from Astronomy 300 a couple years back. I don't know a damned thing about advances in medical telemetry, or electronics miniaturization, or new construction materials, or robotics... but if I'm not mistaken those have all benefited as well.

[krispos42]

176. I thought all those weather satellites were kinda nice

Being able to warn people of storms, predict weather patterns, etc.

And the communications satellites seem kinda important, and the GPS satellites, too.

And all those downward-looking cameras that watch for soil changes for agricultural, wildlife, and geological purposes seem useful. As well for urban, surburban, and rural planning, forestry management. And having ground-penetrating radar to look for buried archeological treasures seems to be kind of nice, too.

Not to mention the obvious military and intelligence advantages of being able to see your enemy (and your friends) at all times.

[friendly_iconoclast]

191. The weather satellites alone have paid for NASA several times over

And the VELA satellites have pretty much ensured that no one starts a suprise nuclear war.

Look, ALL space technology is dual use. Any rocket that can launch a medium-sized spacecraft
can be used as an ICBM. Russia, the European Space Agency, China, and now India all have space
programs and all have elements with nuclear weapons. We can't get out of the game even if we wanted
to. And we should be directing as much effort as we can to see that the peaceful uses of space continue.

[alarimer]

193. Here is a list of things

# The most accurate topographical map of the Earth. This data is used to develop safer navigation techniques and better communication systems.
# Ultraviolet protection suits for people with rare intolerance to UV light, known xeroderma pigmentosum.
# Heart pump based on technology of space shuttle's fuel pumps. It's two inches long, one inch in diameter, and weighs less than four ounces.
# Efficient autos and planes benefiting from NASA wind tunnel and aerodynamic expertise.
# New metal alloys based on research for the space station program.
# Thermal protection blankets used in everything from fire fighters suits to survival gear for cold environments.
# Robots and robotic software with wide-ranging uses that include auto-assembly plants, hazardous material handling, monitoring in dangerous environments, distribution and packaging facilities, etc.


More

http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/benefits_of_space_program.html

[Hanse]

195. Well, a few aerospace contractors got rich.

Other then that, it's been a massive boondoggle. A massive pit to shovel money into.

Everything the shuttle did could have been done cheaper, faster, safer, and better other ways.