What is Digg?94 Comments
- EmitStop, on 07/12/2009, -3/+93***** this, NASA should get however much money they want. Space is ***** awesome.
- michaelpinto, on 07/12/2009, -2/+75The real issue is that NASA is underfunded - it's less than 1% of the entire federal budget. Not only should we be sending that rover to Mars, but there should be a couple of humans added to the trip as well. NASA has been underfunded since the 70s, and the United States is going to look very stupid when China lands on the moon in a few short years, We need to aggressively invest in this area which benefits the rest of the economy via the R&D.
- Sludgehammer, on 07/12/2009, -0/+40FTA:
"But even that will not be enough. In a 'breach report' due to be handed to the US Congress by the end of July, NASA will report that the troublesome mission, now also called Curiosity, needs $15–115 million more"
To put this into perspective, that huge amount of extra money Curiosity needs is 10.9%-83.6% of the cost of a single new F-22 Raptor (going by Wikipedia's numbers, some sources list the cost of a F-22 as being around 350 million per unit). Wow.... how will we ever get by without a extra fighter jet? - jman583, on 07/12/2009, -0/+36I remember reading something about how the money spent on the war in Iraq could have funded twelve MANNED mission to mars.
EDIT: found it, just remember that this was from two years ago:
http://www.burtonmackenzie.com/2007/09/instead-of- ... - zephyear, on 07/13/2009, -3/+28here's an idea: cut the $600 billion defense budget by a third and use it to spend money on stuff that actually matters instead of enemies that disappeared after 1991
- jezsik, on 07/12/2009, -2/+25The problem, of course, is that no one REALLY profits in space exploration. War, on the other hand ...
- S1ngular1ty1, on 07/13/2009, -1/+24I would rather have the government spend money on this rover then bailing out failing banks and insurance companies who are still paying their employees millions in bonuses.
- Ghostalker, on 07/13/2009, -0/+19This really isn't NASA's fault here. Remember, NASA doesn't 'build' these things, they're contracted out to private industries. Boeing and Lockheed won the contract for $1.63bil, and if they can't do it for that price, NASA should get its money back.
Companies bid so low on these things, then demand so much money later on that it might have been cheaper to go with another company who could have actually done it for less. I'll give them this though, that's one hell of a ratchet they got going; profit at the expense of progress. - mfc5200, on 07/13/2009, -0/+19One of my old professors from undergrad use to work for NASA, and he was explaining to me why it was one of the FEW government agencies that was actually productive and did good things with their budget, as opposed to every other such as the department of education that magically seems to blow through $60 billion yearly without any results.
First he said, it has had a great lineage. They've been damn good at passing the reigns from astronaut to scientists to astronaut to scientist, etc, etc. They've never really allowed bureaucrats to enter their ranks. As opposed to other agencies, NASA employees are just as good if not better than private sector employees. For example, NASA engineers are often better than Boeing or Lockheed engineers. That is not common at all with government agencies.
Just another example I looked up from wikiepdia: The Secretary of Education Mr. Duncan, " has extensive experience in educational policy and management, but has not been a teacher."
The head of the department of education has never actually been a teacher. He has simply been a government bureaucrat his entire life by working on school boards and other useless ***** that somehow seem to absorb the majority of school funds up while simultaneously doing nothing.
NASA doesn't have that *****, hence it is effective. It's an oddball within our government.
Second, they have to work with a small budget. That forces them to be extremely efficient with their funds, and only hire smart and competent people. So they can get as much done with as little as possible. - Thoughtmonk, on 07/13/2009, -2/+21It is really sad how little the U.S. cares about space. Seriously, how many people knew that Endeavour was supposed to launch today, but was delayed until tomorrow?
On a side note, I am actually working as an intern at the JPL for the summer. Some of the stuff you get to see here is amazing. For instance, there are actually observation decks that look over the construction areas for the MSL and it's lander, as well as one that looks over the rover test area, where they are trying to figure out how to get Spirit unstuck. I was even able to check out ATHLETE on Friday. NASA, I feel, has earned these funds by creating some of the most amazing and durable (Spirit and Opportunity) things. Why don't we support one of the best organization our nation has created? - TheMachine1, on 07/13/2009, -2/+17A federal tax on legal pot could get a man on Mars.
- danwgre, on 07/13/2009, -0/+13How about using a little tiny bit of all f-ing stimulus money.
- theghoul, on 07/13/2009, -1/+13Bah.
Space exploration and furthering mankind shouldn't be a financial issue. How idiotic. - viper001, on 07/13/2009, -0/+12The second China land on the moon, NASA will get the funding it needs. International competition is what breeds success, and only the fear of other countries getting to Mars first can get Congress' fat ass moving.
- pstroll, on 07/13/2009, -3/+14It is time for a global space agency.
1. Russians do the manned-space-flight
2. Americans build the probes
3. ESA design the logos
4. Chinese supply take-out to launch control
5. Canadians will be loved the world round - bakamas, on 07/13/2009, -0/+10Excellent. This means I still have some time to make ***** ton of money, start my own space program and then take over mars and ban everyone else from going there.
- skektek, on 07/13/2009, -1/+11Your common sense has no place here in the US of A.
- noupsell, on 07/12/2009, -1/+10They should let them run as long as possible until their dying breath for a multitude of reasons. Just the information they're gleaning from a long term operational standpoint is highly useful for future mission planning/problem solving. There's no substitute for experience.
- LittleDas, on 07/13/2009, -0/+8Jesus Christ that's depressing...
- jp2535, on 07/13/2009, -0/+8AMERICA, ***** YEAH!
- Volath, on 07/13/2009, -0/+7Of course people ***** profit from space exploration. Tons of ***** has been invented and or improved for space exploration that has made it into the private sector.
- novenator, on 07/12/2009, -0/+7I think one of the central keys to the ISS is it's ability to form a stable environment in orbit, much like how Mir once did (may she rest in peace). This further keeps the imaginations stoked of many earthlings, and keeps the funding going for less sexy space projects (such as Chandra, Fermi, etc.)
- inactive, on 07/13/2009, -0/+7It's true.
- realeskimopimp, on 07/13/2009, -0/+7I know because I live in Florida and people watch it everyday.
Floridians care about space. - protodon, on 07/13/2009, -0/+7They can send me there for free, One way! I bet if they put some ads out looking for people like that, they'd get a ton.
- toxicityj, on 07/13/2009, -0/+6Exactly! we should terraform the hell out of mars. ***** soil samples and tests that well help us figure how and where to set up shop on mars! hell no to that noise! let's just throw people and spaceships at it.
- jasdf, on 07/13/2009, -0/+6Not true, the same "defense contractors" happen to be "aerospace contractors" a large percentage of the time. I'd much rather Boeing, Lockheed, and Northrop get rich off of space ships than war machines.
- ptron, on 07/13/2009, -0/+5hmm, except you know it's a private company that's designing and building the actuators that are the main cause of them being behind schedule and overbudget.
- FrameWraith, on 07/13/2009, -0/+4Cheney isn't ever gone and Bush is just hiding in plain sight.
- TabControl, on 07/13/2009, -1/+5Someone should start an X-Prize for a Mars Rover from private enterprise.
I'm positive that a private company can do it for much less than what it's costing NASA. - diggduggjoe, on 07/13/2009, -0/+4The ISS is important for one thing, learning to live long term in space. Mars will not be a daily commute for decades, if not centuries. Any Mars mission of any length will need very reliable equipment and proven skills to pull them off.
Space stations will be important in the future as we learn build transports in space. Having manned missions start from orbit would be far safer. The most dangerous part is lifting massive spacecraft off the face of the earth.
The only thing I would like to see is aggressive work in making the ISS a real colony in space. We need teams in space year round. Too bad we spend so much cash blowing up each other. - Thoughtmonk, on 07/13/2009, -0/+4Look up a picture of the ATHLETE robot. When it is finished, it is going to be a 6 legged, building moving monstrosity. That isn't even taking into account Tri-ATHLETE, a robot that can combine and break apart.
The landing craft of the MSL is going to act like a crane, except with rockets instead of supports. It will stabilize itself long enough to drop the MSL to the martian surface, then crash off in the distance.
And last but not least, the rovers Spirit and Opportunity have been working on mars for the last 5 years. That is 4 1/2 more years than they were expected to run. If that is not a spectacular feat of engineering, and don't know anything that is.
Just because things don't explode, or have the ability to destroy the world, doesn't mean they aren't astounding feats of mankind. Of course, you could just have a different standard of amazing than me. - S1ngular1ty1, on 07/13/2009, -0/+4Yeah, the defense companies always low ball estimates to win contracts and over run and simply ask for more money later. Because if any one company didn't their competitors would and the government is required to get competitive bids on large contracts.
- inactive, on 07/13/2009, -0/+3forget space, put all the money on creating the new technological singularity. After that everything will be easy.
- linagee, on 07/13/2009, -0/+3NASA - $17.6 billion budget for fiscal year 2009
Bank bailouts - $200 billion in 2009
Banks received more than 10x of NASA's budget this year. Think of the amount of space exploration that could have bought. (Bank of America alone received around the same amount as NASA's *ENTIRE* budget. NASA does more than space exploration with that money as well.) - protargol, on 07/13/2009, -0/+3Return sample mission to Mars would be very helpful. For one, it could help us date the surface instead of just swinging at it. Also it would be nice to know other isotopic data on its minerals
- L0C0loco, on 07/13/2009, -0/+3The problem is that JPL can't control the costs. Combine that with the fact that there is at best a 50:50 chance that MSL will splat onto the planet surface because we have never landed anything this large on Mars, and you are looking at the potential for a huge waste of money badly needed to do other worthwhile science. JPL has not done the proper research on Entry Descent and Landing (EDL) technologies (primarily because the research can't/won't be done at JPL). The one thing I will miss most about Mike Griffin, the outgoing NASA administrator, is that he did not bow in awe of JPL. Hopefully the next admin will realize that JPL needs to be kept in its proper place. Given the budget priorities in the new budget, it looks like Obama wants to have a balanced program.
New topic: I also agree with the other poster who questioned the wisdom of Mars Sample Return (MSR). The technology to do that mission has always been 20 years out and it still is. We should take the money for that mission and send a human crew on a one way trip to Mars. It would be a lot easier, faster, and sound to send the first crew to Mars to stay and then keep them supplied with more one way missions. It is simply too complex and costly to develop a round trip mission. Ask and you'll see that there would be many volunteers to be the crew for the first manned mission to Mars - even if it is one way. I don't see why the obvious options are not on the table. - chevyorange, on 07/13/2009, -0/+3It doesn't matter that we beat the Communists in the first round if we just lose to them now. Fund NASA!
- linagee, on 07/13/2009, -0/+3Hippies in space?
- Super6, on 07/13/2009, -0/+3SpaceX (private space company that sold PayPal) is going to start it's Falcon 1 and 9 launches this year and plan to be in full force late 2010. Since they can put astronauts on the ISS cheaper than NASA they'll have more money to spend on stuff outside earth orbit and don't have to dedicate staff to the shuttle so they can work on mars more.
But what can I say, I'm a nut for private space. I think that NASA should be less about launching rockets and more about the science (like these rovers). That said, their budget compared to the rest of government waste is tiny. - spriggig, on 07/13/2009, -0/+3Space exploration is not a national achievement, it is a human achievement. It is a monument to our intelligence, perseverance, bravery, and curiosity. As such it must continue.
- arunforce, on 07/13/2009, -2/+5Yeah except it's not feasible yet, and it won't be ready in 2011 without a series of "miracles." Unless you want a couple of dead astronauts on your hands.
Too many hindering factors, like say, space radiation, or travel duration. I'd rather see them spend their money on establishing a moon base sooner than yet another rover. Sure, the rovers are helpful, but it won't be able to beat the knowledge anytime soon from a series of astronauts on Mars. - tgc1, on 07/13/2009, -0/+3It's all going to bankers and their bonuses and severance packages. Sorry.
// Hates what's become of the states. - tgc1, on 07/13/2009, -0/+3As far as i'm concerned, NASA should get a good chunk of change. I mean if the country is pissing away money on wars that don't matter, banks that don't matter, car companies that suck, and a whole bunch of other useless ***** and you STILL DON'T HAVE NATIONALIZED HEALTH CARE... then you have to sit back and ask yourself. Just what the ***** are they doing with all this money!?
You could just as soon pile up all that money piss on it and light it on fire and it would accomplish the same thing it is now. Which is being wasted by ***** bureaucrats who have been bought and paid for by special interests. It's a ***** disgrace.
Money doesn't disappear. Someone is benefiting somewhere. If you follow the money, it sure as ***** isn't the average American. - brim4brim, on 07/13/2009, -0/+3Same problem Ireland had building roads. The only way we got it sorted was constant media attention on every project over running its budget for 2 years and the government changed all their contracts so the private company built it for the price they said they would or finish it and take the loss themselves or give the contract and money back.
Result, roads that were taking 6 months longer than they were supposed to and up are now built 6 months and sometimes a year early as they want to get them done to tender for other government projects.
The station that covered the issue most. RTE our state owned broadcaster. - NiftyG, on 07/13/2009, -2/+4Finding life on Mars would forever change the way we view our place in the universe. Give them the money and keep building more rovers so we can figure out if life is/was there.
- LittleDas, on 07/13/2009, -0/+2@zoomaKabu
The technology does not exist because there's no use for it. If NASA had a significant research budget, there would be a use for it and it would eventually be created. I mean, look at something like the atomic bomb. The technology required to create one did not exist before the United States government decided it wanted one and began pouring huge amounts of money into the research and development of one.
How else are you supposed to create the technology to send a person to Mars except by deciding, I WANT TO SEND A PERSON TO MARS and throwing the cash behind it to make it happen?? - realeskimopimp, on 07/13/2009, -0/+2https://secure2.convio.net/mpp/site/Advocacy?cmd=d ...
Put your voice where your mouth is. - tgc1, on 07/13/2009, -0/+2Don't forget that the Russians beat America into space. Sputnik anyone?
- buckrogers1965, on 07/14/2009, -0/+2They already have a rover design that works great. It uses off the shelf components that are fairly cheap. They need to set up an assembly line and start sending a dozen of these a month to the moon and mars and any other surface that will support their small weight. Mass producing them will reduce their already low costs. You can add in a few small changes each year and try them out to see what works and what does not and move forward with the changes that work great.
If a design works, don't change it without a hugely great reason. -
Show 51 - 98 of 98 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is