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

[Bret Kulakovich]

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

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


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

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

I think the secret is out.

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


Wouldn't that be nice?


Bret K

On Mar 9, 2005, at 5:42 PM, BillK wrote:

> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 13:34:28 -0500, Bret Kulakovich wrote:
>>
>> Crew Exploration Vehicle and Prometheus?
>> I heard flight testing for 2008 and 2010 respectively.
>>
>> NASA is ordering reactors from the US Navy.
>>
>> If getting humans to the orbit of Jupiter in 2 mos. travel time isn't
>> doing science, I don't know what is.
>>
>
>
> Getting humans to Jupiter is engineering, not science. And they don't
> 'plan' on even getting humans back to the Moon until 2015-2020.
>
> The American Physical Society is the world's largest professional body
> of physicists,
> representing over 45,000 physicists in academia and industry in the US 
> and
> internationally. For more information: <htp:/www.aps.org>
>
> In Nov 2004 the APS issued a report on how they expected the Moon-Mars
> project could seriously damage scientific research. The full pdf file
> can be linked to from their home page.
>
> The Press release summary is:-
>
> NASA'S MOON-MARS INITIATIVE JEOPARDIZES IMPORTANT SCIENCE
> OPPORTUNITIES, ACCORDING TO AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY REPORT
>
> Washington, DC - November 22, 2004 - Shifting NASA priorities toward 
> risky,
> expensive missions to the moon and Mars will mean neglecting the most
> promising space
> science efforts, states the American Physical Society (APS) Special
> Committee on NASA
> Funding for Astrophysics, in a report released today.
>
> The committee points out that the total cost of NASA's ill-defined
> Moon-Mars initiative
> is unknown as yet, but is likely to be a substantial drain on NASA
> resources. As currently
> envisioned, the initiative will rely on human astronauts who will
> establish a base on the
> moon and subsequently travel to Mars. The program is in contrast to
> recent, highly
> successful NASA missions, including the Hubble Space telescope, the
> Mars Rover, and
> Explorer missions, which have revolutionized our understanding of the
> universe while
> relying on comparatively cheap, unmanned and robotic instruments. It
> is likely that such
> programs will have to be scaled back or eliminated in the wake of much
> more expensive
> and dangerous manned space exploration, according to the committee.
>
> The following findings are among the most important points in the APS 
> report:
>
> * The recent spectacular successes of NASA's space telescopes and the
> Mars Rovers
> amply demonstrate that we can use robotic means to address many
> important scientific
> questions.
>
> <snip>
>
>
> This is the toned-down official view of the APS.
> But you can get an awful lot of telescopes and robotic missions for
> the money that is going to be thrown at the man in space money pit.
>
> BillK
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>