Study of fresh martian craters reveals water ice!

[Crazy Eddie]

This water stuff is exactly the kind of thing that could tip the balance politically.

Seriously? Water?

I don't think you've noticed the kinds of people we have running this country, but there's only one thing they could possibly find on the moon that would make it a landing even REMOTELY politically feasible: OIL, and gigantic quantities. Since every geologist in the solar system knows there aint any on the moon, nobody's in a hurry to go there in person.

It's not about Obama. It's not even about congress. Hell, it isn't even about NASA. It's about the fact that America's political machine is basically dominated by profiteering gluttons who will kill ANY program that might compromise their profit margins. Hell, there are probably some insurance lobbyists who would privatize the police department if they thought it would allow them to raise premium. The only reason the space shuttle program lasted as long as it did was because Tom DeLay wanted to keep a few thousand high-paying engineering jobs in his congressional district; the only reason Orion lost funding is because the districts that will get those jobs are now being represented by people who don't have the clout to arm-twist NASA into giving them a better deal.

In the golden age of I Can't Believe It's Not Bribery, NASA isn't going to get any funding unless they start hiring lobbyists. Otherwise, there's no chance of going to the moon OR to mars until someone out there--probably the Rutan-Branson connection and some other brainguys--get around to turning manned space flight into an actual thriving business that doesn't depend (exclusively) on government funding.

Politicians don't really care about science. They care about perception.

They don't even care about that much. There's a LOT of quid pro quo going on between American politicians and the lobbyists who--half the time--actually write the bills for them to sign into law. Strictly speaking, the only reason for the moon mission in the first place was because Lockheed wanted something new and shiny to charge NASA for.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I wonder if any neighboring planets have energy resources which could be tapped into, or unfamiliar non-replicable resources which could be mined and used for industrial purposes.

Titan, apparently, has entire SEAS made out of natural gas. I suspect that an awful lot of things in the Saturn system will eventually end up the property of Nicor.

Now, if somebody at NASA told the White House that they had discovered a way to build a big blaster nuke-ray weapon into one of those Mars craters, we'd be up there by the first of next month...

Only if they also discovered the Martians were trying to enrich uranium.

In all seriousness, though, don't expect any government funding until someone comes up with a feasible way to extract useable fuel from a space-based source. Something profitable, like a space craft that can go to Titan and return with 120% of its mission cost worth of natural gas. Until then, water on Mars is interesting... and that's about it.

 

[sojourner]

the only reason Orion lost funding is because the districts that will get those jobs are now being represented by people who don't have the clout to arm-twist NASA into giving them a better deal.

Just a minor point here. Exactly when did Orion lose funding? From what I have seen it is still being funded at the rates the program started with.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

the only reason Orion lost funding is because the districts that will get those jobs are now being represented by people who don't have the clout to arm-twist NASA into giving them a better deal.

Just a minor point here. Exactly when did Orion lose funding? From what I have seen it is still being funded at the rates the program started with.

Strictly speaking, the funding promised by the Bush administration never materialized. Primarily this is because--as needs to be remembered especially in discussions like this--the President doesn't write budgets, and doesn't make those kinds of decisions, which makes those kinds of promises inherently empty.

IOW: Orion lost funding when the government's check bounced and it turned out the people who were supposed to pay for it weren't all that enthusiastic about the idea.

 

[sojourner]

IOW: Orion lost funding when the government's check bounced and it turned out the people who were supposed to pay for it weren't all that enthusiastic about the idea.

This is slanted. "Orion never received additional funding increases" would be the more correct statement to make.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Semantics. The overall point is that a mission was called for, but the resources necessary to carry it out were never provided. This is like giving your son seventy five cents and telling him to go buy a carton of milk.

 

[sojourner]

^This is more accurate.

The semantics can be important if it leads people to make the wrong assumptions. Your earlier statements gave the impression that a recent administration had canceled funds, leaving the wrong people in a bad light.

Now, if you want to bash the current administration, you need to wait for Obama's reaction to the Augustine Commission's report. Which he is due to make in October. Feel free to bash away then!

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^This is more accurate.

The semantics can be important if it leads people to make the wrong assumptions. Your earlier statements gave the impression that a recent administration had canceled funds, leaving the wrong people in a bad light.

Actually, my point was that the PREVIOUS administration had canceled the funds. That is to say, the funds they were supposed to provide for the program went AWOL because of a lack of political will in congress (where "political will" is equivalent to "what's in it for me?").

I don't see Obama being all that enthusiastic about a moon mission anyway since he knows good and damn well it won't provide significant benefits to anyone who doesn't already have extensive connections to the military industrial complex; that's money well wasted at a time when we can't afford to loose it. I suspect he'd rather get NASA to contract with SpaceX or Bigelow Aerospace, since a boom in a legitimate spacecraft industry would create new business and maybe some jobs on top of it. In any case, the Orion will probably remain in limbo, and NASA's days (IMO) are numbered.

 

[sojourner]

^Agreed, NASA as we know it needs a fundamental change. COTS is step in the right direction, but not enough.