The US has long dominated in space technology. Arguably, this has kept us ahead in technology overall.

Today's American Thinker criticizes Senator Obama's position on the future of the US manned space program. They claim that according to Senator Obama's website, he plans to cut it.

Obama's plan for NASA

Obama's position from his website:

Hillary Clinton's postion (closest I could get): http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=3566



McCain has less details: http://johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/736...c08d601d8ee.htm

Question for Debate:

Should the candidate's position on the US's Space Program factor into this election?

How important is the US Space Program?

Is Obama correct in cutting the Space Program budget to fund education?

Should the candidate's position on the US's Space Program factor into this election?
How important is the US Space Program?

Great topic, I don't hear this brought up much in regards to the elections but Its among the top 5 things I find important when looking at a candidate. Its also highly overlooked in terms of importance. The problem is many people don't understand the technologies that have derived from our space program. Things like Communications, Satellite TV, various technologies used in aviation, Solar power technologies, battery technology, and even things people wouldnt think of like Polarized sun glasses which are based on technoligy that was developed exclusively for the Hubble space telescope to reduce UV light and glare, also new forms of glow in the dark paint that can stay lit many times longer than older types, they last long enough to be used in many public places like exit signs in office buildings, as well as other types of lit signs, letters on glow in the dark keyboards, and even toys I read, among other things.. Glow in the dark paint alone probably generates millions or even billions a year in profit by conserving electricity and through the various gadgets sold that incorporate this technology, and this is one of the smallest contributions our space program has given to us.

You add everything I mentioned up plus things like robotics, and some microchip technology, and its clear that our space program has paid for itself many many times over. It will continue to do this in the future as well. That I consider a (side benifet) of exploring space. The biggest rewards will not all be noticed overnight. Staying interested in space will go as far as to prolong the longevity of this planet we live on as well as the human race which will likely outlast this planet altogether. It is so important that we keep our space program moving forward in so many ways some people don't realize.

Is Obama correct in cutting the Space Program budget to fund education?

Nope, the space program has undergone massive budget cuts already, which began in the early 70's after the Apollo program expired. NASA gets only a small fraction of what it did in the 60's if you consider inflation. They don't need any more cuts. For anybody wondering why we haven't gone back to the Moon , or even to Mars yet, its because of budget cuts, not a lack of technology. 90% of the technologies and understanding required to put a man on Mars was developed in the 50's and 60's in our efforts to develop our space program early on. Today we could go to the moon for a fraction of the cost we paid n the 60's and there is no doubt we could put a man on mars within 10 years if we really pushed for it. While NASA has accomplished some great things since Apollo, our manned exploration program has felt the brunt of these budget cuts, I think they need a slight raise in funding if anything.

Should the candidate's position on the US's Space Program factor into this election?
How important is the US Space Program?

The US Space Program would probably rank just below Global Warming on issues that people are voting on when given a myriad of choices. The voters care about the now which means the economy, war, immigration, health care. You can stir the imaginations of the people, but you will be hard pressed to find someone who supports spending millions on a rocket to nowhere instead of a new school. Its just a utility decision and I respect it. Surprise surprise, I support more liberalization of space in allowing private enterprise to explore and do research. Obviously complete laissez faire liberalization is impractical, but there is much room for improvement. I am not a scientist, and I am sure many who find a hobby in science would disagree...but i do not see a whole lot of benefit in having the government fund a space program. I think that it is mostly a waste of resources and is of little benefit to the people.

With that being said, there is some opportunity to be had in space. The brain drain from government, particularly from NASA, is because the private sector employs the best minds and is willing to pay for it. Not only would the best minds be working on space research, but they have the profit motivation to produce results. The only worry that I have is the cooperation between the private sector and government. I can certainly see a situation where the liberalization of space actually turns into the monopolization of space. Its an interesting subject since it arouses some of our basic instincts for knowledge. However, there are many ways that it can go wrong.


Is Obama correct in cutting the Space Program budget to fund education?

Right to cut it, but not to fund education (for another debate). Let the private sector more access to space and allow them to conduct their own R&D. This way, its private risk and not taxpayer risk.

Should the candidate's position on the US's Space Program factor into this election?

No. On the scale of most important priorities for the next president, the space program doesn't make the Top 40.

How important is the US Space Program?

Unimportant. I believe lederuvdapac is correct in suggesting the government should get out of the space exploration business. Turn it over to the private sector and maintain the national interest through observation, regulation and cooperation.

Is Obama correct in cutting the Space Program budget to fund education?

Yes. I would rather invest in better educated schoolchildren than sending millionaires, politicians and amateurs into orbit.

Space exploration is a indulgence, not a necessity. But if it can be used as a pretext for yet another "Bashing Barack" thread, it'll do, right, Amlord?

lederuvdapac






Is Obama correct in cutting the Space Program budget to fund education?



I disagree overall to the first comment. The problem many don't realize about exploring space and privatizing it is in regards to the cost. There are many new technologies that are bringing the cost of exploration down, primarily by bringing efficiency up. However the space program is nowhere near ready to go substantially privatized. The cost is still far too high, and if it were to rely solely on private funding the current pace of progress would probably at the very least be cut in half. Its a nice thought, but NASA is not ready for that and I'm sure you understand the budget cuts NASA has received in prior decades percentage wise.........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NASA_bu...inegraph_BH.PNG

The line on this graph that is most relevant is the orange one that shows funding levels with recent currency levels applied, this factors in inflation which gives you an idea of the % of the national budget that our gouvernment dedicated to NASA. In 1996 dollars, we spent about 26 billion a year in the mid 60's. Today we spend 14 billion a year in comparison. This is up slightly from the late 70's and 80's where we spent as little as 10 billion a year but its still far lower than what it was in its prime. In todays money I think somewhere between 16 - 19 billion a year is a fair amount, and it would speed things up a great deal.

The important thing to remember is that if you combine the revenue generated by technologies developed by our space program I wouldn't doubt if our Space program is responsible for generating at least a half a trillion dollars a year. There are countless technologies that have either been developed or improved because of our space program and that alone makes it worth it. Not to mention the things we could discover in space, I'm under no impression that the human race will live out the rest of its existence on planet Earth, not at all. Unless we get unlucky that is, and get hit by a huge Asteroid, or some other unforeseen thing threatens our existence soon. In another 200 years or so our interest in Space may go as far as preventing any future asteroid/comet impact to earth, and its things like this that make our interest in space vital to our survival in the long run.

nighttimer



When men like Christopher Columbus came up with the Idea to explore our oceans, people such as yourself were saying....................

Why spend resources on journeys that are dangerous, and untested?

Why explore our oceans when many people believe the earth is flat, and doing so will possibly end your life and waste money and time?

Why do these things when we have mouths to feed, and we have so many problems here in Brittan that need our attention?


Well man if that type of thinking would have prevailed in those times, which it never does, but supposing it did there would be no America, and therfore I wouldn't exist and neither would you. Everyone would be crammed in the old eastern continents ignorant to the fact that there is so much more out there to be discovered. Apart from Native Americans that is, Ohh but wait I take that back because if they showed a similar lack of interest in the unknown they would have never ventured this way either.

There needs to be a balance in priorities where we take care of our problems here, as well as continuing to venture out. Balance is essential. As it stands now education receives over 91,000 billion a year from the national budget, NASA receives 14,000 billion a year. If you ask me education outweighs our space program in terms of importance, but it already receives many many times more than NASA in funding. I think NASA needs a very small budget increase, as for education I think it receives much already, not to mention the private funding it gets. I'm not saying cut it, I think there are other things that can be cut or done more efficiently. The war in Iraq for example has spent billions on a strategy that was flawed, had some better choices been made we could have accomplished more with the same amount of money or slightly less even.

You often hear McCain talking about unnecessary spending in many fields. The other candidates talk about it as well. We need a smart president who can cut what is unnecessary and put that money in other areas. I don't think our Space program or education in general is where these cuts should be made.
A smart idea would me to make very small budget cuts in key areas, and abandon any programs that are proving ineffective.


BTW I find it interesting how you managed to pull an argument that Obama "your fav" is somehow being bashed by Amlord. He asked some simple questions, and in fact I don't even remember him saying where he stood on the issue, he just asked some questions and provided some links, so be cool n stuff, its ok.

How quickly the lessons of the past are forgotten

Once upon a time America led the world in rocket science. You might think it was always thus, but it was not. The American space programme today is not the brain child of Robert Goddard, as it ought to have been, but is actually the collected wisdom of Europe's rocket science. Almost all your acheivements in space science have come about because America had the money and possibility to inherit, to buy and to import those acheivements.

America had the opportunity to lead the world in rocketry, but no one cared. Robert Goddard was the worlds leading rocket scientist in the 1920 and 1930's. He practically invented the whole idea single handedly, working in his tiny workshop to build the worlds first liquid fuelled rockets and what support did he get from private enterprise or from the American population?

Precious little but ridicule. Only the Guggenheim family cared to support Goddard to any great degee and even their cash dried up eventually. American private industry were not interested in the hundreds of patents Goddard received, including fuel pumps, multi stage rocket designs and all the small details which go into designing rockets. Certainly some American scientists were interested but Goddard rebuffed their advances. America was left on the side lines whilst Germany developed the idea's Goddard had theorized into practical applications. Oberth and von Braun built the rocket designs which, paid for by American tax money eventually put Neil Armstrong on the moon.

Today, Russia and Europe lead the world in space tech, not the USA. Your vehicles are old, unreliable, ridiculously expensive and even your best new engines, like the Rocketdyne RS-68 are just technical extrapolations of decades old Soviet designs. The American led international space station only functions because the Russians have the means to send up small cheap capsules riding on rockets designed in the cold war. The technical innovation of space science is the only field of research which can compare to military science and currently the latter is the real engine for America's next generation of technological invention. If your waiting for private businesses to catch up and start doing space research, then like Robert Goddard you'll be waiting until you die. They're too busy squabbling over 'defence contracts'.

Ironically for this debate, the only astro-field in which America leads today, is in unmanned, long range probes that send back valuable information but do very little for the development of terrestrial technical innovation back home. NASA is brilliant at building and operating these probes, and unlike the ISS they do real science too, but when it comes to anything else, NASA's only real purpose is to buy services from other countries.

I agree with most of what you say apart from what I put in bold. Its true that we got a later start in the space race than Russia. Also, some of the brilliant minds that migrated here such as Werner Von Braun, who was the one most responsible for the development of the Saturn 5 rocket, were not born Americans.
However Ive researched our space program and space in general more than any other topic Ive ever debated, and I don't see anything that puts Russia or the European Space Agency in our league, let alone ahead of us. The ESA may have a nifty little system for launching satellites, and they have come far, but I just don't see proof for what you said there. Could you be specific?

For example the number of probe touchdowns on other planets compared to other countries?
The number of manned touchdowns on the moon compared to other countries?
The number of sophisticated satellites we have in orbit in comparison to other countries? ( heck Ive never even heard of anyone else so much as having a space telescope)

How about comparing the number of deep space exploration programs we have sent out in comparison to other countries?

We lead in almost every field and while some other nations are making some substantial headway, we are still comfortably dominant with our space program today.
Most recently we have been the country most responsible for the creation and funding behind the International Space Station, if you want to get into specifics on that just let me know I will show you who designed and built most of the existing modules and who is bearing the brunt of the funding. Lets see..... We sent two new rovers to Mars that are far exceeding their expectations, and thanks to those we now know Mars once had oceans which is important if your looking to find life on Mars, have any other nations even gone beyond discovering anything about another planet of any significants in comparison to the U.S.? 90% of all successful missions on other planets and the moon have been American, or were the combination of our efforts with another nation. The recent mission Deep Space 1 was the first to land on an asteroid, not to mention other missions, and ones still in development.

Europe (our closest competitor) is not even a single country its a continent containing like 2 dozen different countries, so the funding and effort put fourth by the ESA is divided among many different nations yet about the only thing they have over us is the cost effectiveness of the Ariane 5 launching system that is used almost solely for cost effective satellite deploying. In any case I root for any nation with the means to get as far as they can in exploring space.

You seem to know way more than I do, but I'm almost absolutely sure most of the rocket science came out of Germany at the end of the 2nd world war (not Europe collectively). The Germans, before the war, were easily at the forefront of physics. The advances in rocket science after the war were mostly due to us stealing the best scientists Germany had to offer.

The other small point

Once again, I'm not an expert at rocket science history, but I remember that the Russians and Americans went two very different ways with their rocket designs. The Russians essentially grouped together six or so rockets, bundled them, and fired: Russian rocket .

The Americans took the multi-stage approach were familiar with.

Once again, sorry for the chest thumping, but I think the capacity in this instance is more important than the actual technology. The US, thus far, is the only country to have a manned mission to the moon. A similar feat will be attempted by Russia in 2025.

I guess if we got our act together, we have the know how to do it sooner than that.

Guys, theres no money in space. Zero. A profit opportunity needs to exist in order for the free market to work its magic.

Space exploration should be a long term goal of the human race. If the governments job is to do the things no one else wants to do, then adequate funding for NASA is essential.

If you want to cut stuff, cut the stuff that people can do on their own, like welfare.

More money to education? God knows we haven't tried that .

That and the gigantic energy billl which subsidies burning food makes me feel buyers remorse.

And to my way of thinking the space program falls into that category.

If you want to be a hopeless romantic, net2007, that's fine. Pass the hat or set up a lemonade stand or do whatever you wanna do to raise money for NASA to bring home another pile of moon rocks home. That's cool. Just don't tell me the only way space gets explored is if the government does it. Show the private sector where the profit is to be made in space exploration and then get the hell out of the way. One dope with more money than good sense, once gave the Russians $20 million dollars just so he could hitch a ride into space. You don't think there are enough millionaires and billionaires and entrepreneurs willing to foot the bill to keep the space program going? Get real.

I thought conservatives supported private enterprise over government-run programs?



That's the way you see it. That's not the way I see it, so you be cool and let me interpret things my own way.

If I need help figuring something out I'll ask for help and I won't be asking you.

Come on, this is absurd. There isn't a rich-man space ride market, just a few eccentrics.

Theres no viable market in space.

nighttimer



Please don't make straw man arguments, I never said the only way space gets explored is if the government does it However privatization of our Space program will not be an overnight process. Rocket Designs are more efficient now than they ever have been, and the overall cost of doing things has come down somewhat. If a multibillionaire decides to fund a mission great, problem is too many people understand about as much regarding the importance of space travel, and the money it generates, as you seem to. I'm not against privatization but the idea that priavte funding and private programs can maintain the type of results we get from NASA is unrealistic to say the least. As time goes on we will be able to make space exploration cheap enough for more privatization to occur, but like I said its not going to happen overnight.





IT depends on what your talking about, if private funding, and independent companies, can maintain effective production then its the way to go, if not whats wrong with our government taking space seriously enough to fund it? Isn't it important?

In fact, list the number of privately funded space missions that were also privately operated here _________________________

BecomingHuman


Actually most of our rocket science was built and developed here, not in Germany or Europe. Arguably in recent years the ESA has exceeded Germany with their space program, but not much of our space technology comes from the ESA so your right about that.

What your hearing about is Germans like Werner Von Braun, but to be specific on him and his team first off I'll just say that he is in many ways the father of the modern rocket. The first modern rockets that could effectively carry payloads long distances were the V-1 and V-2 rockets which were liquid fuel designs. Before that your pretty much talking about Chinese bottle rockets. If it weren't for him and his men space exploration would have been set back probably for years if not decades.

However those rockets were made in Germany, while funded by Hitler in WW2 to be used as a weapon against Great Britain for a cause that personally Von Braun did not agree with. He wanted to use his science to explore, not destroy, but talk about pressure the Third Reich takes the cake on that man. He literally escaped from Germany by the skin of his teeth, becoming a naturalized American Citizen.

It was at this point when he developed some of his most impressive and influential rocket designs based on multiple stages as you suggested. So as an American, fighting for an American cause, that was also supported and funded by America makes anything he created here American. This is true of Scientist like Albert Einstein as well. Once you become a citizen here and begin working with Americans, while supported by them that changes everything. America is the melting pot of the world, everybody has a history that traces back to other countries, including Native Americans. That doesn't mean that what they create here is from their country of origin, because that county obviously were not involved in supporting such projects.

Thats what I think, but all that being said there are many great inventions that come from all over the world, including space related inventions.

Net, for sure all the actual building and alot of the research was done here.

Just wanted to point out that physics and talent that promoted the research came out of Germany, not Europe collectively.

Or, as my Economic History professor said: "Why did America win the Space Race? Because the German scientists we stole were better than the ones the Russians stole"

I don't know if we stole them or if they ran away, lol its hard to steal someone from the Germany of the 40's, 50's, or even 60's. They were happy to ditch a nation being ran by a psychopath, and inspired by eliminating Jews.

I know what your getting at though, your History professor sounded funny.

As for the comments I made Regarding Europe, when I said things like they are our closest competitor today, I just meant they have a solid space program, not that our technologies come from their more than Germany.

That 'nifty little system' as you call it, has the lions share of the commercial space industry. The ESA doesn't make waves. It doesn't broadcast its acheivements much at all, but the Ariane series puts more satelites into successful orbit than any Russian or American equivalent. Its also cheaper than any American rocket, and far less likely to fail.


I've already said that America still leads the world in long range probes. What more do you want me to say about that?


And when was the last one? And how many of those touch downs took place in a rocket design that wasn't essentially German?


By Space telescope I assume you mean the Hubble since that is the only space telescope I am aware of. It is a magnificent acheivement. A true feather in the cap as one might say. Its also (like the shuttle that put it there) a very old design now (originally designed in the 1960's) and is hardly an example of contemporary American technological prowess. In fact when you get down to it, you'll find that the Hubble is a perfect example of the American space programme's many problems. It was commisioned in the 70's, but took so long to build and deploy (partly due to technical problems and partly due to Challenger blowing up) that it didn't reach orbit until 1990, and even then it turned out the mirror was flawed and a rescue mission had to be carried out to save the Hubble in 1993. By the time of its launch, the Hubble, which had been budgetted to cost 400 million USD, eventually cot 2½ billion (with the Europeans forking out 600 million Euro's to help out). Since then there have had to be three further launches to 'service the Hubble'.
And, in case your not aware of it, the Hubble is currently dead in space after the redundant power to the spectrograph system failed and will require yet another 'service mission' to make it work again. This 'final servicing mission was supposed to take place already, but it didn't, they're going to try again later this year. The shuttle fleet as you are probably aware is now down to only three vehicles and these are booked up with the ISS.

Originally the shuttles were designed to be back in space within a week or two of their previous missions. They were a part of an original US space programme which envisoned a moon base and a space station kept in operation by the shuttles. The reality was the Vietnam war shut down the moon base idea and the space station plan was put on ice, then resurfaced as Reagans Space Station Alpha, then frozen down again and then when the Soviet Union fell and the Mir reached the end of its long life, resurfaced as the International Space Station. NASA went ahead and built the shuttles anyway. The shuttles have done some good missions in their time, they took Americans to the Mir space station for example, Shannon Lucid broke the record for the longest mission time of any American astronaut in space whilst aboard the Mir, thanks to the US tax payers propping up Mir long enough for the ISS to be built. Like all old tech however the Mir is now long gone. The shuttles however remain. Whilst the ISS is built with the latest technological advances, it is serviced by out dated cold war designs. The Russians have the advantage however since their design is both cheaper, safer (even the recent re-entry failure of the Soyuz capsule and subsequent over shoot of 400 km didn't kill the crew) and much easier to use.

Getting back to the Hubble though. Its done some really good work in its time, but its not been a shining example of American technological superiority. The only eye looking outward the Hubble exists in marked contrast to the hundreds of American spy satelites which look down on us, and which really do represent American technological superiority. Strange that no one whines much about their cost... perhaps because no one knows how much they've cost?


I've already made this point so why are you repeating yourself to repeat me?


Thanks, I already know. Incidently, in case your not aware of it, there is a really good site here that moniters NASA and chronicles its many problems.

I also know that from a purely scientific perspective, the ISS is a complete waste of time. It is in fact a political entity and exists only because of political pressures. The fact of the matter is, the Soviet Union had a manned space station in orbit for all of thirty years prior to the ISS and the American designers took their lead from Russian experience and Russian designs so its not like America is 'leading the way here', its more like America is following a very well trodden path. Not only is the ISS based on the Mir, it even incorporates parts built for the Mir 2 space station which was scrapped when the Russians ran out of money. No one knows more about space stations than the Russians do and no one makes more flights to keep the ISS in orbit than the Russians do. Check the ISS crew rosters, the Russians pull their weight in every way. Prior to this INTERNATIONAL collaboration, the only purely American attempt to put a space station into orbit was the flawed Sky Lab.

My point is that America buys its success in space science. When you boil it all down the USA has not lead the way since the world does not follow the USA. If you look at the other national space programmes they are virtually all based on cheaper, more effective Russian designs. The Japanese, the Indians and the Europeans have gone their own way, and no one copies American designs, (unless you count the Buran).

America has always ignored its own acheivements and concentrated its money on wasteful projects that looked great but actually did nothing to advance the cause of space science. How many of the men NASA put on the moon were actually scientists?


Like most Americans you consistently underestimate the Russians who out performed the USA in almost every way imaginable and you over estimate your own space programme based on the examples of a few spectaular white elephants.

As I said in my previous post, NASA's only real scientific credit must go to its long range probes. The irony is these receieve the least interest from the American population, and usually cost far less than the ISS, space shuttle missions and the Hubble.
It will be interesting to see how much GW Bush's manned mission to Mars will cost, if it ever actually happens. I'm also curious to read of any scientific benefits with regards to sending Humans on a trip to Mars. So far I've not seen any.

The ESA is not much of a competitor to NASA. This is because the Europan nations have long since understood that space science pays very little scientific dividend and is a game largely for bluster. The European nations prefer to put funding into other, more impressive area's of scientific research, for example CERN, the worlds leading particle physics laboratory. Not only is CERN the latest word in scientific research, but its also far cheaper than a space programme.


edited to add the following because I pressed the reply button instead of the preview button:


Correct, though the Russians had made a few advances of their own and that is why I wrote European rather than German.


The earliest Russian rockets were designed by Korolev who favoured the grouping of boosters around the main rocket, but beneath those additional boosters the design still incorporates a multi stage rocket. Other Soviet designs did not have the boosters on the outer hull.

But I was refering specifically to the actual rocket engines, specifically the most recent American designs, which were designed to cut down the cost of rocket fuel whilst giving more power. In order to do this, a Soviet engine was replicated and updated (by Boeing if memory serves me right). The Soviets had planned a super rocket in the 1960's called the N1. It was for their planned moon shots but they scrapped it when the designs proved too expensive and the N1 rockets kept failing on the pad. Consequently the engines for the remaining N1 fleet were surplus to requirements and left in storage for three decades. Boeing bought them during the post cold war bargain sales when the Russians were selling any and everything they could to keep their space programme afloat and those engines were what the latest RS-68 rockets are based on. The RS-68 is the most powerful rocket engine of its type. Its a technological marvel and all credit is due to the engineers who built it, but the fact remains that this 'American engine' is just an extrapolation of a forty year old Soviet design.


Yes. What was actually acheived by the USA by putting men on the moon?

As far as I can see America won 'a race' and once that race was won, utterly lost interest in the moon and prefered to go and fight expensive wars instead. The lunar missions today are supremely ironic as no one has returned to the moon ever since. As for the Russians, I'll believe it when I see it.


What do you mean? We've had the know how for decades. Its not knowledge thats missing, its a reason to actually go there. There is no real reason to go to the moon. There's not much there we can do at this stage. There never was. Apollo was just showing up the Soviets. Like giving some one the finger as you drive by them in the faster car you can afford and they can't.

The Soviets never went to the moon because they realised early on that it was a fools errand. Certainly the Soviet space programme was given the green light to build a rocket that could put a man on the moon, but that programme was kept to strict budget costs because the Soviet Union was never as rich as the USA. You have to remember that Russia was essentially a peasant country when the Soviets took over. It was the poverty and ignorance that enabled the communists to take over, but it was this same poverty and ignorance that kept them behind the USA, that and fighting most of the Second world war in their countrys and having brutal leaders who were wont to have people murdered for no good reason...

What ever the reasons, the bottom line is the Soviets concentrated on orbital installations and didn't care much about going to the moon. I think they realised that they would never be able to do it within the limits of their budget so they gave up when their super cheap N1 rockets didn't work. America was essentially running the race to the moon against nothing more substantial than rumours and Nikita Kruschev's bluster. Still it worked and they did it and you can be proud that the stars and stripes floats on the moon to this day.


Exactly. There is nothing out there thats going to pull in investors for any of the high profile programmes that we see today. It would be more to the point if America simply concentrated on those long range probes that NASA does so well and replaced the space shuttles with a cheaper alternative, based on the tried and tested Soyuz design if needs be.

Of course thats probably never gong to happen because the USA must be seen to 'lead the way', even when it doesn't.


Now back to net2007

Actually von Braun was not the father of the modern rocket. Goddard was. Thats my point. Goddard, an American, invented the liquid fuel rocket, but because the United States was a capitalist society, no one bothered to support him. In Germany, Oberth and Von Braun took Goddards work, and supported by the state, extrapolated on it to make the first practical rockets as weapons.

The point being it was European state funding, specifically Nazi state funding, which led directly to the Apollo moon missions. There is no denying this fact. Had rocket science relied on support from American private interests, then there would be no rockets today. Everything the human race has ever put into orbit stems directly from the Nazi's funding Oberth and Von Braun to build weapons whilst Goddard was regarded as a cracked pot and largely ignored .


Simply not true I'm afraid. In actual fact most of Von Brauns later designs were based on work done at Peenemunde. The multi stage rocket for example was not an American design. It was already under development as far back as 1940 as the A9/10, an intercontinental ballistic missile design intended to hit targets in the USA. Von Braun used these existing designs to build the Mercury Atlas rockets. The Nazi's even had a manned rocket designed, the A4b.

Even the mighty Saturn V, the apex of American space technology, was based on a pre existing Nazi design; the A12:Link.

The Nazi's ran out of time and money, but they hold the credit for the designs. I don't care how many years Von Braun lived in the USA before he built the Saturn V, it was never an American design. Don't feel bad though, the N1 was based on the same idea's, but the Soviets just couldn't afford to keep up.

I repeat my point. For as long as you expect American corporate interests to drive your space science industry, then you won't have any. The history of American space science industry demonstrates this amply.

Should the candidate's position on the US's Space Program factor into this election?Yes.

How important is the US Space Program?In American priorities for funding rating of one to ten it is a one.

Is Obama correct in cutting the Space Program budget to fund education?Sort of, but way off target in the reality of our governments abilities within the budget. The federal government is in deficit and all priorities should be directed towards mandatory spending.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/glossary.html

The federal government has extreme projections of unfunded liabilities and any new spending on non mandatory spending should be offset by cutting unproductive programs or managing existing programs to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse. Projected liabilities in mandatory spending are real and must be addressed prior to starting new mandatory spending expansion(s).

The U.S. Constitution establishes some priorities for the federal government.
http://www.house.gov/paul/constitution.html#art1

In short the government has trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities for mandatory spending created by law and a constitutional responsibility to provide for defense. Both to these mandatory spending agendas are out of control and project bankruptcy due to too much spending of borrowed money. I would suggest that it is irresponsible to increase any federal mandatory spending program until there is a balanced budget that recognizes liabilities that already exist. Continuing programs that are "nice to have" or are otherwise justified are, in fact not justifiable unless they are funded by bonds sold to the American people to fund them. An alternative might be selling gold, federal lands or mineral rights in possession of the federal government to fund such programs to put the "reality" of where the US Federal budget stands on Mandatory Spending relating to being responsible for such decisions.

Surely the US exploration of space is just a roundabout way of subsidising R&D in America?

Yes - there have been clear trickle down benefits of space exploration in terms of technological development, but that would be true of any goal that the US govt chose be it exploring space, eradicating disease, blowing up the moon etc - so long as they channelled enough tax dollars into the R&D to make it happen. Europe and Japan are taking the same approach with developing nuclear fission reactors - keep channelling money in and you will see technological developments - it's just a very very expensive way to achieve your goals.

As an efficient way of pushing back the frontiers of human knowledge, it really sucks and it is far better to let R&D spending be determined by the market...

I also think that there may be diminishing returns in the technological benefits of the space program. Esssentially the extra technology we would need to go to Mars is going to be pretty minimal in comparison to going to the Moon from scratch, so we may well have already seen the lion's share of technological gain from this particular white elephant.

And finally, the point was made earlier - there is nothing useful in space. It'll be centuries before it become cost effective to mine asteroids, oil would only exist on satellites / asteroids / planets if there had been an abundance of organic matter there in the past, there aren't any other human-habitable planets in the solar system (unless you really think its worthwhile to go freeze to death on Mars) and getting to other solar systems would take years EVEN if we could travel at the speed of light, which we can't.

Moif - I really think your post demonstrates the universal trend - scientists all over the world make discoveries, but it is America that finds a use for them.....

Such as the internet?

Frankly, helping the USA stay on the cutting edge of technology in every major field of endeavor is a worthy goal of any Federal government, be it space exploration, production technology, strength and materials engineering, computer engineering, etc. The nation with the leading technology will generally have a leg up on other nations in many areas, including economic productivity and defense.

Also, the space program has suffered from drift ever since the moon shots, as Congress wanted to kill NASA so it had to sell the "reusable" shuttle concept to stay alive, which it knew full well was expensive and ill-conceived, but the promise of "scheduled" space flight (one day) wooed the Congressional naysayers.

I also can understand why Obama would pick NASA to cut. It doesn't have a very big constituency and won't scream too loudly. Also, as the USA turns out so few black engineers and scientists, it isn't a program in his "sweet spot".

From the "Making Strides" website:

"African Americans have made some progress in increasing their participation in the science and engineering enterprise. Their test scores have risen; the number graduating from high school and entering college is increasing; the number receiving baccalaureates and going onto graduate school is increasing. But the proportions doing so are not large enough or climbing sufficiently to make much of a difference in the total makeup of the pool. If the U.S. wants to continue its world’s leadership in science and technology, it must utilize the talent of all of its citizens, capitalizing on the many advantages of diversity. The traditional base of our science and engineering enterprise, white males, is decreasing. We cannot afford to wait several generations for significant change to occur. "

http://ehrweb.aaas.org/mge/Reports/Report1/Uphill.html

moif



Well your speaking of its advantages as a launching system, and it does have some. Listen I don't consider this much of a race at this point Id be happy if we all worked together more than we do, and mind you that has been the rising concept. The ESA isn't just launching European equipment into space you know. It also doesn't launch anything but earth based satellites into low earth orbit, or geosynchronous orbit so like the Space Shuttle, which is about to be retired mind you, it does have limits.

Even though the Shuttle is highly dated it can do more than the Ariane 5 series. First off the shuttle can launch and support manned missions in earth orbit, where Ariane 5 is strictly designed for launching unmanned payloads. The ESA scrapped the idea for its Hermes launch vehicle which is why Ariane 5 looks like a Space Shuttle launching system with one small exception. It has no shuttle. Otherwise the design is similar apart from the fact that the Solid Rocket Boosters on the Ariane 5 are not reusable.

The concept of putting men into orbit with the payload opens up the prospect for complex retrieve and repair missions.

Other advantages to the Shuttle is that it can carry a larger payload. The Ariane 5 carries 21,000 kg worth of payload (Maximum) which is actually very impressive, but the shuttle can carry a payload of 24,400 kg, and this thing is 25 years old for goodness sake and its still doing things other successful launching systems can't. No wonder they have taken so long to decide to retire it, it was decades ahead of its time.

Also its only catastrophically failed twice in 25 years, making it one of the safest launching systems, if not the safest. Ariane 5 already failed twice from what I read, including the first launch which blew up in 1996 just after takeoff because they loaded Ariane 4 trajectory software into their new rocket thinking it wouldn't cause any problems. This caused it change its pitch prematurely just after launch and it blew up. Of course nobody was killed because those missions are all unmanned........

http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%...f%20Rockets.htm

I like the Ariane system though, I think its a good system, especially Ariane 5. Primarily what it has over any other launching system is cost effectiveness, rather than ability. I believe its the most cost effective satellite launching system in the world. Today it also out launches any other single launching system from what I know, and thats a great accomplishment. However the U.S. continues out perform any other nation in overall ability and the range of missions we do and the amount of money we spend. You also have to consider the U.S. doest rely solely on the shuttle for launches whether they be to earth orbit or elsewhere.

We use other smaller less complex systems as well such as the Delta , Pegasus, and Atlas launching systems, among others. We have a different launching system for every type of launch, which explains why so many other nations pay to have their payloads launched by us to other planets. Again the satellite launching area is where the ESA has arguably taken a lead, however thats one aspect of a very broad space program that we have, which continues to do a broader range of things than anyone else including the ESA.

However when you compare the U.S. to any other single country thats where we take the lead in every field apart from maybe space stations, because the ESA is supported by many different countries in Europe. Your comparing our Nations space program to that of several nations, and even then the ESA still falls behind in most areas.

Not like I care, hell I would love to see the ESA progress forward with manned and robotic exploration of deep space. The more the merrier man, I think at this point we should start combining our efforts as a planet to get as much done as we can.






The most notable things we lead in are....

Long Range Probes into Deep space.

Orbital Planetary based probes in deep space.

Probes and rovers that have touched down on other planets, and now an asteroid.

We have the most sophisticated satellites in orbit by far.

We lead in the number of manned launches into space by far. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astronauts_by_name

Last but not least we are the only county to have put a man on the moon, or on anything for that matter. May be a dated accomplishment but I haven't seen anyone else do it then or now.

The ESA leads in....

Current launch frequency of earth based unmanned payloads into orbit, and thats only recent. The U.S. still launches the most sophisticated satellites, and has the most sophisticated ones in orbit.

The Soviets/USSR lead in...

Knowledge of Space Stations, they still hold records for longest stay in space because of the Mir Space station and of course even earlier on they had a more developed space program altogether and set many records like first satellite in space, first dog in space, first man in space, first woman in space, ect ect. Since then however their program has really suffered and fallen behind. The most impressive thing they did after we landed on the moon was their progress with space stations.

As a final note on this, our space program has been able to rely on some technology that is dated like the Space Shuttle simply because that technology was so far ahead of its time. Apart from being pretty expensive to launch the Space Shuttle set records that still stand today. It remains the only successful partially reusable manned space vehicle today but it is about to be replaced by a newcomer.

S.S.T.O. or (Single Stage to Orbit) Will be an awesome milestone for whoever accomplishes it first. We lead in experimentation on this and will likely be the first nation with such a craft. The x-33 project was a stepping stone that resolved many of the technical issues regarding a craft such as this. Nobody to date has launched anything into orbit on one stage. A space craft like this can be made to be 100% reusable, and has fewer moving parts so it will be far more safe, efficient, as well as cheaper to launch and operate.

We lead in this type of technology and research, and already have launched several prototypes into the upper atmosphere, but the technology may be too late to replace the Shuttle in the immediate future. This would be what such a craft would look like.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:X-33_Venture_Star.jpg

Although a full scale prototype has never been made, smaller prototypes and years of research will probably ensure us that the the U.S. will have the first craft such as this.

In the meantime we will be relying on tried and true designs, with a modern makeovers. The CEV, Crew Exploration Vehicle also known as the Orion will connect us to the International Space Station when the shuttle retires, and likely bring us back to the moon within another 12 years, which is the current plan.

This newcomer will be a cross in design between the Saturn 5 and Space Shuttle launching systems and will incorporate the best of both designs but with many technological advances, and an ability to carry a larger crew and payload, due to having what looks to be the largest Solid Rocket boosters ever made. It will also be safer and cheaper overall than any manned system we've used in the past and will be partially reusable like the Shuttle.

This is what the crafts will look like on top of our new Aries series of manned launchers.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Size_Comparison2.png

The Aries 1 is scheduled for a first full scale test flight in June of 2011........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_I





Were not planing to go back to the moon for another 12 years, but we do have other missions in progress now and launch them all the time so I don't know where you have been. Look for yourself......

http://www.nasa.gov/missions/index.html

Nothing designed in this nation is essentially German either so I don't know what your getting at. Like I said everyone in this nation has come from somewhere else or descended from someone who migrated here, this is Americas story. We are the melting pot of the world, often still referred to as the new world. However anything designed here by citizens of this country is American. Same is true of other nations, if a Mexican goes to Russia and designs a new car while a citizen of Russia, being helped by other Russians, then that car is Russian not Mexican.





Yea I was referring to optical deep space telescopes, but we also have have most and best non optical telescopes like infrared and gamma ray telescopes among other types, and they are among the most sophisticated in the world. As for the mishap of Hubble yes the lens was out of focus because they didn't factor in that launching a lens into a vacuum would have such an effect which was their fault. However the fact that we were able to fix it with the shuttle and a good crew is a testament to the versatility of the Space Shuttle and the excellence of our astronauts. Had the ESA had done the same thing, and mind you they have their share of foul ups, I'm pretty sure that their telescope would have either had to have been fixed by us, or would still be nothing but a huge paper weight. By the way do they even have a manned launching platform? Just wondering.

The Hubble has gone on to discover more about space than any other single object ever launched, and its still proving its worth today. So yes its a sign of technological superiority, among other things we've done in space, and continue to do. Not to mention that I'm sure the sales of polarized sunglasses alone paid for that telescope 10 times over by now. You do know polarized sunglasses derived from Hubble telescope technology right? Thats a side benefit of spending money in space, all of the spin off technologies we take advantage of at home many times not even knowing that many of these products find their roots in our space program, and other space programs.





I have nasawatch bookmarked already but thanks

Also the Russian Federal Space Agency was formed in 1992, so technically your referring to the Soviet Space Program.

Anyway yes they have always had an advantage in space stations, and I never said otherwise. However I disagre with the ISS being a waste and so do the Russians cosmonauts and scientist involved, the Europeans involved as well. Its highly ambitious and a great platform for continued research in various fields. Some types of medical research and other research is best performed in 0 g environments.

Anyway I'm not getting into it but I Don't believe it to be a waste. There are many technologies and companies investing money in this, everyone from Boeing to Intel are promoting and developing technologies on the ISS which happens to be the largest Joint space mission to date......

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space_...tion/about.html

Not to mention scientist of various fields who will be using it for research, paying money to have there experiments done. This station will be half the size of a football field for goodness sake, and visible from earth with the naked eye. Lots of room for all sorts of experiments.






Lol, Astronauts are all cross trained on everything from medicine to science. Not all of them are scientist per say, but what the heck do you think they spent most of their time doing up there? Doing experiments and making sure they didn't kill themselves primarily. Other than that there wasn't much time for other things.




Oh for goodness sake I'm not about to do a checklist of accomplishments but everyone knows thats nonsense, the Soviets had an advantage early on but we exceeded them decades ago with the exception of Space Station knowledge, thats about it. The ESA on the other hand never had an overal advantage over us, it was established in the mid 70's.







Let me guess your European right, I'm starting to get that feeling. To be blunt Who cares? I care about our progress as a species but since you want to make this an East v.s West game, I figured Id get technical on you.





No, work in this nation lead directly to the Apollo program, and thats it, not a debate. If there were Germans turned Americans involved, which we all know there were, in any case anything built in this nation by an American, is American. Where they were born is irrelevant, unless of course they were still being supported by their county of origin and assisted by scientist who were still citizens of another county, which everyone knows wasn't the case. If Germany hadn't treated their scientist so damn poorly some of them wouldn't have jumped at the opportunity to come here. Thats their fault, now its a little obvious you see this as an east vs west contest aparently, personally I don't see it that way, but if it were a contest anyone who can read knows the U.S. leads in most areas. Not all areas, but most and thats true today just as it was in 1969. The only time that wasn't true was the early 60's and prior, and it wasn't the ESA that had the lead by they way it was the Soviet Union and arguably Germany although they were more interested in military applications for rockets.

To state a more specific opinion on Robert Goddard and Wernher Von Braun its strictly a matter of opinion as to who was the most influential and it depends on how you look at it. I always viewed both as brilliant, but thought of Von Braun as more influential.

He was behind the developments of the first rockets that found useful military applications and were used extensively by the German gouvernment that being particuarly the V-2 rocket. Now Von Braun actually came into the picture later than Goddard and Von Braun also learned some from Goddard himself in fact. While Goddard was the first of the two to launch rockets, it was more Von Braun who turned theory into product. To be honest both men have been referred to as the father of modern rocketry. In any case they both flew like bats out of hell to the U.S. where they did their most significant ground breaking work. If you don't believe me read up more on their history I'm not doing it for you, they were not treated well and therefore both men were happy to come here, and got to work in better working conditions as well.

I never said the USA didn't have serious technical advantages over its competitors. I said the USA has always bought its successes, specifically with tax payers money and not through private funding of American innovation.


You posted all that to a point I already agreed to... why?


I don't know what your talking about or how this is germane to the thread, or even germane to the question I asked. Maybe if I rephrase myself you'll get the point?

Going to the moon, was a tax funded political gesture in response to perceived competion from the Soviet Union. Had the USA relied on private funding, it never would have reached low Earth orbit, never mind the moon.

No one has ever been back to the moon, because there is no practical reason to go there.

Do you understand? No private business venture is going to fork out billions of dollars on anything as remote and uncertain as manned trips to the moon.


English isn't your first language perhaps? Did you miss the quote at the end of my last post? The Saturn V design was not designed in your nation. Saturn V was an extrapolation, a copy of a previous German design, called the A12. What part of that don't you understand?

Long before the Saturn V was built, a group of German rocket engineers, funded by the Nazi's, sat at drawing desks at Peenemunde, and drew up the designs for a multi stage, liquid-fuelled rocket. One of those engineers just happened to be the very same Werner Von Braun who later would go to America and over see the construction of a rocket that was practically identical.

Changing a few details here and there to modify a design doesn't mean you made a whole new design.

Here's another quote to help you:

Link.

In other words, the original design for the American Saturn V was German, and it was paid for by the German government, and not by private German funding. You don't seem to have undestood this point at all, but maybe if I repeat it enough times, you'll get over your bruised national ego and understand what I'm trying to say.

If you rely on private interests to fund your space science industry, then you'll never have any space science industry.


Yes, if you design a new car in Russia then that car can be called a Russian design.

If however you merely take the design for a Rolls Royce car, update it slightly and paint your national flag on the side, then it is still a Rolls Royce design.


This is yet more stuff I'm not contesting. My point is, you don't get those spin offs from space science by waiting for private industries to fork out research money. Only governments can fund research on the scale of the Hubble, and even your government with its enourmous cash assets still needed the Europeans to pay 20% of the Hubble's pre launch 2½ billion dollar price tag.

I hope I'm getting my point across here, because it tedious to have to repeat it so many times. Relying on private companies to build something like the Hubble means you won't get something like the Hubble, nor even close.


There is no practical difference between them except in the name.


In other words, you don't know.


You built some excellent probes no one cares about. I'd say these are actually the best things NASA ever did. They don't cost much when compared to the big white elephants and they acheive spectacular results.

You won the race to the moon for purely political reasons (picking up some rocks didn't justify the billions of dollars the Apollo programme costed, beating the communists did). It was a great acheivement from an engineering perspective, but from the scientific perspective, it was a waste of resources.

You built a space telescope which has been astronomical in cost, and which has constantly broken down leading to further expensive 'service missions'. Hubble has done goo d science, but lets be real, the costs have been utterly ridiculous.

You built a fleet of space shuttles which never did what they were built to do (re-fly every few weeks to service a space staion which was never built) and which have also had astronomical costs ($145 billion as of early 2005), and which are only flying today because no credible alternative has been built... please don't tell me about the Venture star (a real American design) it was scrapped in 2001 when they couldn't get it to work and the Aries series has yet to be built, so