Depressing State of US Space

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

The only country on the planet to have astronauts walk on the moon, and we've been reduced to hitching rides on Russian rockets out of Kazakhstan to send our people to the ISS.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/three-man-crew-blasts-off-to-international-space-station/ar-AAoYNwR?OCID=ansmsnnews11

Quote:A three-man crew from Italy, Russia and the United States on Friday blasted off from Kazakhstan for a five-month mission on the International Space Station.

Footage broadcast by Russia's space agency Roscosmos showed the Soyuz craft carrying NASA astronaut Randy Bresnik, Russian cosmonaut Sergey Ryazansky and Paolo Nespoli of the European Space Agency take off from the Baikonur cosmodrome.

"Everything is ok," said Russian mission control.

The arrival of the three astronauts will boost the ISS back up to its full capacity of six for the time since April, after Russia decided to cut the number of its cosmonauts to two.

NASA has responded to Russia's reduction by boosting the number of astronauts that will operate in its half of the ISS.

In total, four astronauts -- Peggy Whitson, Jack Fischer, Bresnik and Nespoli -- will now conduct experiments in the NASA-run segment, with Ryazansky joining Fyodor Yurchikhin to man the Russian section.

Bresnik said at a pre-launch press conference on Thursday that the extra member would help the crew conduct experiments as well as carry out repairs.

"There is a ton of science to do," he enthused ahead of the six-hour flight.

Bresnik -- who is on his second flight -- also praised the work of Whitson, Fischer and Yurchikhin, already aboard the orbital lab.

"They've really got their groove on. They are working very, very well. They have good technique and tempo," he said.

Ryazansky, 42, who is embarking on his third stint aboard the ISS said at the press conference that he would be taking a small gnome into space in tribute to a song beloved by his family.

At 60-year-old and with 174 days logged in space, Nespoli is the most experienced of the three fliers, but the Italian made it clear his love for space travel hasn't faded over time with a tweet showing him pulling his space suit on Friday.

"Beam me up S…oyuz! Hitching another ride soon to the ," he wrote.

The $100-billion ISS space laboratory has been orbiting Earth at about 28,000 kilometres per hour (17,000 miles per hour) since 1998.

Space is one of the few areas of international cooperation between Russia and the US that has not been wrecked by tensions over Ukraine and Syria.

[Yojimbo]

Whatever saves a buck we can spend on more bombs.

[GMDino]

While spending as dropped since the 60's/70's it has remained pretty constant for the last decade or so.



(This falls under the "we're not cutting, we're lowering how much more you will get" stance of congress and the right.)

People (elected officials) aren't excited about space because they can't use it to get votes so it's an easy cut.

Heck the current administration does care about science at all...I'm surprised they didn't name this guy head of NASA:


Especially given his stellar background:

Quote:Tsoukalos is a 1998 graduate of Ithaca College in Ithaca, New York, with a bachelor's degree in sports information and communication.[2] For several years he worked as a bodybuilding promoter and a volunteer in IFBB sanctioned bodybuilding contests, including Mr. Olympia.[2][12] He produced and directed the annual San Francisco Pro Grand Prix in years 2001-2005.[2][13][14][15][16][17]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giorgio_A._Tsoukalos#cite_note-17][/url]

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-29-2017, 09:07 AM)GMDino Wrote: While spending as dropped since the 60's/70's it has remained pretty constant for the last decade or so.

Pretty constant, but still shrinking. '00 to '15 shows a drop of roughly 0.25%, which considering how 2016's budget was just shy of $4t, so 0.25% would be ~$10b.

I mean, I am glad the private sector is starting to pick up some of the slack, what with SpaceX and such, and NASA is still doing some cool stuff, like the New Horizons probe, until you realize it was launched in '06, meaning it used funding from previous years to build. The Juno probe is more recent (launched in '11, so build using '09-'10 money, probably).

Just kind of depressing when you realize that almost 60 years ago we had the ability to put human beings on the moon, and now we don't even put our own astronauts onto the ISS.

[Millhouse]

I think what is pretty sad is that there are too many people that think spending money on NASA and space exploration is a waste, and not worth it. But in my opinion, exploring space and developing new technologies to do so is going to be the only way humanity will survive. Granted none of us will be around for then nor the next few generations I am guessing. But the longer we stay on this planet, the closer our extinction looms. Its just a matter of time.

Food for thought too. There are at least 100 billion stars in our Milky Way galaxy, some estimates are 200-400 billion. There are also at least 100 billion planets by estimate (billion, not million either). That is a lot of planets out there. To really put it in perspective, the most popular estimate of the number of galaxies is 100 billion. Even if it was 1 million galaxies, that is still insane to try to think about in our puny little brains. 100 billion galaxies with maybe 100 billion stars & 100 billion planets within each galaxy. Insane.

So life exists out there. To think otherwise is being very homocentric. It just pisses me off I wont be around when the day comes we discover it as fact. Unless the governments around the world finally spill the beans on aliens visiting us.

[Dill]

(07-29-2017, 03:04 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Pretty constant, but still shrinking. '00 to '15 shows a drop of roughly 0.25%, which considering how 2016's budget was just shy of $4t, so 0.25% would be ~$10b.

I mean, I am glad the private sector is starting to pick up some of the slack, what with SpaceX and such, and NASA is still doing some cool stuff, like the New Horizons probe, until you realize it was launched in '06, meaning it used funding from previous years to build. The Juno probe is more recent (launched in '11, so build using '09-'10 money, probably).

Just kind of depressing when you realize that almost 60 years ago we had the ability to put human beings on the moon, and now we don't even put our own astronauts onto the ISS.

Almost 60 years ago, tax revenues and government revenues were very different from the present.

The US is pulling back from world leadership in technology to ease the tax burden on certain groups.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-29-2017, 04:50 PM)Dill Wrote: Almost 60 years ago, tax revenues and government revenues were very different from the present.

The US is pulling back from world leadership in technology to ease the tax burden on certain groups.

Except GMD just showed a graph using % of the budget.

So easing tax burdens has absolutely nothing to do with it. If it did, then NASA's % would stay the same and they might get less money because the overall $ is shrinking.

But no, this is just NASA getting a continually shrinking % since '90 or so, meaning that money is just being spent on other things.

[Dill]

(07-29-2017, 05:09 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Except GMD just showed a graph using % of the budget.

So easing tax burdens has absolutely nothing to do with it. If it did, then NASA's % would stay the same and they might get less money because the overall $ is shrinking.

But no, this is just NASA getting a continually shrinking % since '90 or so, meaning that money is just being spent on other things.

I am not an economist. Just looking for information to help me interpret your OP.

Would you maintain that 1) the effective tax rate for the top quartile has not gone down since the early 60s, and 2) that spending on NASA over the last three decades has not been reduced as part of an overall effort to reduce government spending?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-29-2017, 06:07 PM)Dill Wrote: I am not an economist. Just looking for information to help me interpret your OP.

Would you maintain that 1) the effective tax rate for the top quartile has not gone down since the early 60s, and 2) that spending on NASA over the last three decades has not been reduced as part of an overall effort to reduce government spending?

1, yes.
2, no.

The government has done anything but try to reduce spending. Hence the $20t in debt. They just spend it on other things that are probably more focused on their special interests/lobbyists. Like $1t+ fighter jet programs that are overpriced, late, and shitty.

Or on a recent example, I saw where some program called myRA (never had heard of it) was ended. It was supposed to help low income people save for retirement, who didn't have a program to do so through their work.... except only 20,000 people actually put money into it in 2 years ($34m, or $1,700 on average/$500 on median) and it cost the government $70m to run.

We spent $70m to be a piggy bank for 20,000 people's $36m. "Give me your $2 so I can help this other person save $1, please." Just absurd to think about.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Our elected government officials think that the private sector can do what NASA did and is happy to spend the $25 million for tickets to the ISS from Russia rather than spending billions on their own transportation since there is no more military need for rocket development...in other words, we have our Inter Continental Ballistic Missles to deliver multiple nuclear warheads on up to and more than 10 targets anywhere on the planet.

Now, when resources start to run low for certain things like Helium which is really low right now, our elected government officials may start with pumping money into the private sector to help speed along development for long range, multi year exploration to Mars and maybe beyond. Then when things aren't moving fast enough, they will buy the brightest minds from around the world and fire up NASA again after stealing what others have done.

I find it incredibly stupid and very frustrating that we humans, the world doesn't have stations on Mars right now with a space vehicle that can travel back and forth from Mars in a couple of months.

With the way technology has accelerated from the Wright Brothers first flight to the Bi-Planes of WWI to the Mustang with bladders to carry the fuel in WWII to the Jet fighters of Korea to landing people on the Moon with LESS COMPUTING POWER THAN THE FIRST NINTENDO GAMEBOY, we SHOULD be on Mars right now.

I'm done, I'm getting pissed.