|
Author
|
Topic: Review of US Human Space Flight (Augustine)
|
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 09-09-2009 12:22 AM
   
quote:
Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
Let's face it, the glory days for U.S. manned space flight are over.
Well, that's not really a surprise, is it? I've been waiting for a "renewal of the glory days" since 1986. It's been a long, long wait.  |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 09-09-2009 05:55 AM
So another Augustine panel with another set of options to save NASA from its death throes. But where is the stimulus package for it? Without the promise of tax dollars this is more empty rhetoric. Right now, President Obama is intent upon providing healthcare to every man, woman and child in the USA. That's noble. So is a civilian space programme that can inspire change and hope - the very words that got him elected. Certainly, the ISS must continue operating beyond 2015. And the next destination HAS to be Mars otherwise NASA will sink ignominiously. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-09-2009 06:52 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
But where is the stimulus package for it? Without the promise of tax dollars this is more empty rhetoric.
The summary report is less than a day old; the reason it was delivered before the final report was so the White House and NASA would have the time to incorporate its findings into the President's budget request in October. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 09-09-2009 07:06 AM
Americans will need to accept the fact that there is not enough money to go around.It's my belief that spending an extra 5 billion a year on manned exploration would do more for the economy and the betterment of the USA than corporate bailouts and taxpayer supported social programs. Obama is a politician (as is every President of either party) he will do whatever will get him the most votes. NASA needs to step up and articulate a clear vision to replace the murky image they have with the taxpayer. |
Mark B
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 09-09-2009 07:12 AM
Issues with the next planned moon landing already. No money, well what a surprise!Plus I was under the impression other countries were involved in the Apollo missions previously anyway... For sure the next major manned space mission should be a joint venture between many countries with regards to funding but the US is already in a great big funding hole as it is, pointless to keep printing money. I can sort of see the point with what they are saying, so it's back to the drawing board it seems. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-09-2009 07:35 AM
The Augustine Commission addresses the question of funding within the introduction to its summary report: Whatever space program is ultimately selected, it must be matched with the resources needed for its execution. How can we marshal the necessary resources? There are actually more options available today than in 1961 when President Kennedy challenged NASA and the nation to "land a man on the Moon by the end of the decade."
First, space exploration has become a global enterprise. Many nations have aspirations in space, and the combined annual budgets of their space programs are comparable to NASA's. If the United States is willing to lead a global program of exploration, sharing both the burden and benefit of space exploration in a meaningful way, significant benefits could follow. Actively engaging international partners in a manner adapted to today's multi-polar world could strengthen geopolitical relationships, leverage global resources, and enhance the exploration enterprise.
Second, there is now a burgeoning commercial space industry. If we craft the space architecture to provide opportunities to this industry, there is the potential--not without risk--that the costs to the government would be reduced. Finally, we are also more experienced than in 1961, and able to build on that experience as we design an exploration program. If, after designing cleverly, building alliances with partners, and engaging commercial providers, the nation cannot afford to fund the effort to pursue the goals it would like to embrace, it should accept the disappointment of setting lesser goals. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 09-09-2009 08:12 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Mark B:
Plus I was under the impression other countries were involved in the Apollo missions previously anyway...
Not really that I am aware of.If the US would approach the possible future moon landings in an ISS like fashion it would be debacle. The US needs to either do it right, do it alone, or not do it at all. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 09-09-2009 08:57 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
Americans will need to accept the fact that there is not enough money to go around.
There's enough money. We're the richest nation in the history of the planet. We just need to decide whether or not it's worthwhile to spend a little extra to build a future for humankind.I paid about $10,000 in federal income tax last year. Roughly $55.00 of it went to the space program. Adding 2 billion to the NASA budget would raise that by about $6.50 to $61.50. It would be worth it to me. |
alanh_7
Member Posts: 1267
From: Ajax, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 09-09-2009 10:39 AM
One thing that is clear in the Augustine summary is that no matter what direction NASA continues, they need more money. Someone said earlier in this tread that NASA needed to provide a clear goal for the future of the program. But it has never been NASA's job to provide that goal. To my understanding the U.S government provides that goal and it is NASA's job to carry it out. Reading the summary I actually have a good feeling about the Augustine report. It is my mind that report is clear that no matter which direction NASA takes, there must be more support from both its own government and International support. As someone living in Canada, but also spent 9 years living in the United States, one thing I do understand about the American people, is that the very idea of being left behind in anything, is hateful. This report in my mind defines the fact that with out more money, the U.S Space program will be left behind. If that were to occur, one day the American Tax payer will want to know why that was allowed to happen.
The legacy of every President is an important one. I am willing to bet President Obama does not wish to be known as the man who allowed the manned space program to die. A program his own party was instrumental in building. Perhaps I am being naive but I think the Augustine report may be a tool to be used towards obtaining more funding for NASA. |
LCDR Scott Schneeweis
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 09-09-2009 11:23 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cjh5801:
There's enough money. We're the richest nation in the history of the planet.
The answer's very simple, print more money and continue to ask the Chinese to buy our debt; that has been the panacea of late applied to every fiscal problem. No this country doesn't have the money (would any responsible individual manage his finances in an analogous manner?)In my opinion, the commission missed a critical opportunity to advocate clear linkages between human spaceflight initiatives and return on investment. Most of the American public will not be strong advocates for human space flight if they are not personally vested in the outcome; the way to achieve that is by ensuring (and effectively communicating) that any program is intended as a primary objective to produce economic benefits which WILL result in measurable improvements to individual quality of life and the nation's security without becoming a net liability to our coffers. Bootstrap U.S economic interests in space as a first priority; the profits and associated advances in S&T affiliated with, for example standing up and servicing a Spaced Based Solar Power architecture can be leveraged to further the nation's scientific goals on the Moon and deep space. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 09-09-2009 11:48 AM
quote:
Originally posted by LCDR Scott Schneeweis:
The answer's very simple, print more money and continue to ask the Chinese to buy our debt...
If you'll go back and read my post, you'll see that I wasn't advocating printing more money or adding to the national debt. I was suggesting that I, for one, would be willing to add $6.50 a year to my tax bill to pay for an expanded space program. Wouldn't you? The money is there, if we choose to spend it. quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
If the US would approach the possible future moon landings in an ISS like fashion it would be debacle. The US needs to either do it right, do it alone, or not do it at all.
I wouldn't be so quick to rule out the international option. While there would no doubt be inefficiencies introduced by relying on international cooperation, I'd like to see an actual analysis done to determine if the combination of resources would be significant enough to bring us out ahead in the long run. I don't have a problem with sharing the glory, as well as the expense, with the rest of the world. |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1733
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 09-09-2009 12:41 PM
It would be nice to be able to "go it alone" and invite other nations to participate, but not have to rely on them. That, however, simply is not going to happen. The public doesn't want to pay for it, and the politicians won't disregard them and pay for it anyway.Arguing over international participation vs. doing it ourselves is like a bunch of homeless people arguing over whether to have filet mignon or chateaubriand, when all they've been given is a coupon to Denny's. In other words, not based on reality. |
tegwilym
Member Posts: 2339
From: Sturgeon Bay, WI
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 09-09-2009 01:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Delta7:
It would be nice to be able to "go it alone" and invite other nations to participate, but not have to rely on them.
Outsource to other countries and it would end up like the Boeing 787 that keeps getting it's first flight delayed.
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-09-2009 01:23 PM
Or, it could end up like the Canadarm and Candarm2 programs, two very successful robotic manipulators for the space shuttle and space station programs. Or for that matter, like the ATV and (as of tomorrow) HTV, not to mention Progress, which have provided reliable resupply to the station. Or Columbus and Kibo, science platforms that rival the United States' own Destiny laboratory. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 09-09-2009 01:47 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Or, it could end up like the Canadarm and Candarm2 programs...
Precisely. ISS may be considered a "debacle" by some, and it has certainly cost a lot more than was originally planned, but has anyone shown where it would have been cheaper or better if we hadn't opened it up to international partners? Getting it up there has been a bit messier than we had hoped, but the combined resources of a number of nations got it done. |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1733
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 09-09-2009 01:54 PM
It seems to me the biggest ongoing obstacle to getting the ISS completed has been the shuttle, specifically the Columbia accident and the usual launch delays. That's not meant as a slam on the shuttle, simply a statement of fact (as I see it). |
Apollo Redux
Member Posts: 346
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Registered: Sep 2006
|
posted 09-09-2009 06:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
Not really that I am aware of.
Read "Arrows To The Moon". |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 09-09-2009 09:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Apollo Redux:
Read "Arrows To The Moon".
I believe "Arrows to the Moon" documents Canadian and British born engineers who worked for NASA and/or industry to complete project Apollo. Certainly, other countries assisted in Project Apollo, particularly those who accepted payment from the US to allow us to set up tracking stations. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 09-09-2009 09:29 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Or, it could end up like the Canadarm and Candarm2 programs, two very successful robotic manipulators for the space shuttle and space station programs. Or for that matter, like the ATV and (as of tomorrow) HTV, not to mention Progress, which have provided reliable resupply to the station. Or Columbus and Kibo, science platforms that rival the United States' own Destiny laboratory.
All of which, under current plans, will be de-orbited in 2015 under several Augustine report scenarios. Best case, ISS gets de-orbited in 2020. Or, maybe the international partners will pony up the cash to keep ISS in space... I don't think so.I am going to wait to see what decision is made regarding NASA's future before I pass judgment. However, I believe that any plan that relies heavily upon "international cooperation" for success will be doomed to underachieve. Nation-states never, ever do anything because they "like" another country. Nation-states act in their self-interest. When that self-interest changes or evolves, you can safely expect their behavior to change as well. It is this very dynamic that makes international cooperation on long-term projects an unreliable prospect. It will be interesting to see how it comes out. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 09-09-2009 11:10 PM
The Augustine Commission did a fine job of making recommendations and providing numerous manned spaceflight options. The problem here, as in previous years, stems from the White House. Can anyone think of a time since Nixon became President that a President put out a little political capital for NASA, just for the sake of exploration? While the President may not want to be the one who ends manned U.S. spaceflight, like other Chief Executives, he will not do much for it, except take photographs and make a few phone calls to crews or show up at a memorial service. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 09-10-2009 12:07 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cjh5801:
I wouldn't be so quick to rule out the international option. While there would no doubt be inefficiencies introduced by relying on international cooperation...
Inefficiencies? Such as? quote:
I'd like to see an actual analysis done to determine if the combination of resources would be significant enough to bring us out ahead in the long run. I don't have a problem with sharing the glory, as well as the expense, with the rest of the world.
You do realize that with such statement, you're contradicting yourself? You don't have a problem with sharing the expenses provided that in the long run, you win (by "crushing" the nation you've cooperated with?). If anybody still wonders as to why international cooperation (at least with the US) is so problematic, there's the answer. It's a disturbing post - unless I've misunderstood what you've meant. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 09-10-2009 12:45 AM
Interesting to read all of the recent comments, but one thing has not been mentioned. Why? Why send people beyond LEO at the cost of hundreds of billions? To reinvigorate ailing economies? To plant the Stars-and-Stripes on the surface of another planet? This is why I find the Augustine options disappointing. Not one gives meaningful purpose to human spaceflight 40 years after Apollo 11. It's a little late to try and build upon Apollo. That should have been done in the late 1970s. So why now? I can only envision two real answers: tourism and the survival of the human race. Yet neither are mentioned at all. If China wishes to land taikonauts on the Moon purely for national prestige or hegemony, it will quickly find that route unsustainable. ISS is the only realistic blueprint for sustainable human space endeavours - united we stand, divided we fall. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-10-2009 12:54 AM
Only the summary has been released; the full report is expected to contain much more detail about the reasons behind the commission's chosen options. However, the summary does address the question "Why?": There is now a strong consensus in the United States that the next step in human spaceflight is to travel beyond low-Earth orbit. This should carry important benefits to society, including: driving technological innovation; developing commercial industries and important national capabilities; and contributing to our expertise in further exploration. Human exploration can contribute appropriately to the expansion of scientific knowledge, particularly in areas such as field geology, and it is in the interest of both science and human spaceflight that a credible and well-rationalized strategy of coordination between them be developed. Crucially, human spaceflight objectives should broadly align with key national objectives. These more tangible benefits exist within a larger context. Exploration provides an opportunity to demonstrate space leadership while deeply engaging international partners; to inspire the next generation of scientists and engineers; and to shape human perceptions of our place in the universe. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 09-10-2009 01:30 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
Inefficiencies? Such as?
Adding partners adds complexity in any operation. Changing world situations results in missed deadlines, or re-ordering of priorities. The trick is creating enough benefit from the partnership to out-weigh the problems. quote:
You do realize that with such statement, you're contradicting yourself? You don't have a problem with sharing the expenses provided that in the long run, you win (by "crushing" the nation you've cooperated with?).
Where did that come from? Note that my "us" was in lower case. I didn't mean that the U.S. "wins" or crushes anyone, I meant that we'd want the partners (i.e., "us") to come out ahead in the end. In other words, despite the problems inherent in bringing in partners, we should expend the effort to determine whether the combining of resources would provide a greater return than going it alone before we just outright dismiss the international option (as jimsz appears to have done). quote:
If anybody still wonders as to why international cooperation (at least with the US) is so problematic, there's the answer.
See, there's another problem with international partnerships. Difficulty in communicating. Hopefully it's something we can overcome. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 09-10-2009 01:59 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Delta7:
The public doesn't want to pay for it, and the politicians won't disregard them and pay for it anyway.
That's why we need to find better ways to educate the public. According to The Space Review, the American public thinks that 24% of the national budget already goes to NASA. We know, in fact, that it is less than 1%. We should be asking ourselves what we can do to change this misperception on the part of the general public. quote:
Arguing over international participation vs. doing it ourselves is like a bunch of homeless people arguing over whether to have filet mignon or chateaubriand, when all they've been given is a coupon to Denny's. In other words, not based on reality.
That's the point. We have more than a "coupon". We just need to find the will to kick in a few dollars extra at tax time to make it happen. If we brought NASA's budget up to the amount suggested by the Augustine Commission, you'd only be adding about 0.06% to your federal tax bill. Compared to the total taxes that virtually anyone pays, it's an insignificant amount. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 09-10-2009 06:25 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Only the summary has been released; the full report is expected to contain much more detail about the reasons behind the commission's chosen options. However, the summary does address the question "Why?"...
I read the summary and it could have easily been a paragraph from a NASA website. The arguments put forth, while rational and reasonable, don't connect with the public at large. The public, especially in the USA, has been told for five decades now that NASA would make space travel commonplace and routine. Yet NASA contradicts such aspirations by stating how dangerous and experimental the shuttle continues to be. No space tourist has ever flown on a US spacecraft and Orion will be no different. NASA's staunch opposition to the flight of Dennis Tito in 2001 proves it wants orbital space to be the preserve of government astronauts. So tourism may happen, but no thanks to NASA. If survival of humanity depended upon NASA then its plans to return astronauts to the Moon can hardly be viewed as a precursor to that. NASA's whole mission statement needs redefining to make it relevant in this new century. Augustine offers options but no solutions, and that is what is disappointing. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 09-10-2009 06:46 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cjh5801:
There's enough money... I paid about $10,000 in federal income tax last year. Roughly $55.00 of it went to the space program.
I agree there should be enough money. I'd be willing to spend more money on a manned space program (as long as it was doing more than circling the earth in LEO or being used as a hotel for the wealthy).Money is an issue because politicians while happily taking 10k from you have already spent 11k and have borrowed the other 1k and NASA still has not received what they need. I think a manned space program is imperative for the US. Not a joint venture with other countries, it has to be US centric and the US going alone. Go in with other countries and the US taxpayer will then be paying the freight for others as we do with the ISS and the cost of the shuttle. Joint ventures are good for limited and specific projects but not for an entire program and focus. It is not the "American People" who are not supportive of new exploration, it is "American Politicians". |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 09-10-2009 08:07 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cjh5801:
Where did that come from? Note that my "us" was in lower case. I didn't mean that the U.S. "wins" or crushes anyone, I meant that we'd want the partners (i.e., "us") to come out ahead in the end.
A misunderstanding it was, then!  |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 09-10-2009 01:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
I agree there should be enough money. I'd be willing to spend more money on a manned space program (as long as it was doing more than circling the earth in LEO or being used as a hotel for the wealthy).
I can agree that the concentration on LEO for the past few decades has been extremely disappointing. I originally opposed the idea of a space station as an unnecessary and time wasting diversion from our eventual expansion into the solar system. But now that it's up there, I have to admit that it is quite an impressive achievement.I guess we'll have to disagree about the potential benefits of international cooperation, however. Although the US is bearing the brunt of the fiscal responsibility for the ISS, there's a real possibility that we would have had to permanently abandon the ISS if it hadn't been for our international partners after the last shuttle disaster. So it appears to me that there are benefits to utilizing the resources of other spacefaring nations, even where they may be relatively meager compared to our own financial investment. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-10-2009 05:17 PM
quote:
Originally posted by capoetc:
All of which, under current plans, will be de-orbited in 2015 under several Augustine report scenarios. Best case, ISS gets de-orbited in 2020.
Former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin addresses this point in a memo he wrote, which the Orlando Sentinel obtained. He writes: The continual reference to the supposedly planned cancellation and deorbiting of ISS in 2016 is a strawman, irrelevant to consideration of serious programmatic options. While it is certainly true that Bush Administration budgets did not show any funding for ISS past 2015, it was always quite clear that the decision to cancel or fund the ISS in 2016 and beyond was never within the purview of the Bush Administration to make. In the face of strong International Partner commitment to ISS and two decades of steadfast Congressional commitment to the development, assembly, and utilization of ISS, it has never been and is not now realistic to consider cancellation and deorbiting of ISS in 2015, or indeed on any particular date which can be known today. The fact that some $3+ billion per year will be required to sustain ISS operations past 2015 is, and has always been, a glaring omission in future budget projections. Sustained funding of the ISS as long as it continues to return value - certainly to 2020 and quite likely beyond - should have been established by the Commission as a non-negotiable point of departure for all other discussions. Failure to do so, when the implications of prematurely canceling ISS are well known to all, is disingenuous. The existence of future exploration programs cannot be traded against sustenance of the ISS on an "either-or" basis, as if the latter option was a realistic option. If the nation is to lay claim to a viable human spaceflight program, the requirement to sustain ISS while also developing new systems to go beyond low Earth orbit
is the minimally necessary standard. If the nation can no longer meet this standard, then it should be so stated, in which case any further discussion of U.S. human exploration beyond LEO is moot for the next two decades. Griffin is scheduled to testify before the House Science Committee on this topic and the Augustine Commission's findings in general on Tuesday, September 15. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 09-10-2009 05:27 PM
Options I was quoting are directly from the Augustine report. None of the proposed options allow for ISS extension beyond 2020.The report does suggest that it would be a better return on investment to keep ISS operational until 2020, but at an estimated $3B per year, that will be a large chunk out of a NASA budget that is unlikely to see an increase. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 09-10-2009 06:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by capoetc:
The report does suggest that it would be a better return on investment to keep ISS operational until 2020, but at an estimated $3B per year, that will be a large chunk out of a NASA budget that is unlikely to see an increase.
Don't know how much credence to give to this, but it might give some hope of a budget increase: There is a bit of gossip going around Washington that President Obama once mused that he'd give NASA money - a lot more money - if only they'd do something inspiring and relevant once again. The President talks repeatedly about sending humans to the Moon in the 1960's as an example of what America can do when it puts its collective mind to something. He supposedly sought out Leonard Nimoy in a hotel once so he could give him the Vulcan salute. He talks about sitting on his grandfather's shoulders watching Apollo crews welcomed home. There is no need to instill any notions about the inspirational value of space exploration in this man's head. He's got plenty of it already. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 09-10-2009 07:16 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cjh5801:
Don't know how much credence to give to this...
Not much, I'm afraid. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 09-10-2009 07:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cjh5801:
Although the US is bearing the brunt of the fiscal responsibility for the ISS, there's a real possibility that we would have had to permanently abandon the ISS if it hadn't been for our international partners after the last shuttle disaster. So it appears to me that there are benefits to utilizing the resources of other spacefaring nations, even where they may be relatively meager compared to our own financial investment.
This is the exact reason why a multi-nation effort would not be of benefit to the US.It would simply be a money pit that took an increasing amount of money with little return for the US and the US taxpayer. I'll happily pay to send US astronauts to the moon and Mars to explore. I have no interest and am unwilling to pay to send a Russian, French, British astronauts, etc. to explore. The ISS would not have been possible without the US but could have been done without the others. I keep believing that the American people are willing to fund a manned space program but it is the American politicians who are not. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-10-2009 08:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
I have no interest and am unwilling to pay to send a Russian, French, British astronauts, etc. to explore.
So much for going to the Moon "for all mankind". What difference does it make where the explorer was born? So long as the explorer is human, then it should be well worth the investment. We can take pride in our nation for having the ability and forethought to take others with us into space. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 09-10-2009 10:24 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
The ISS would not have been possible without the US but could have been done without the others.
Maybe this is more about politics than about the actual benefits or problems with international partnerships. If it's about politics, I'd rather not go there. But in case it isn't, here's a breakdown of the ISS costs, according to WhatItCo$t$:Total estimated costs: - U.S.: $100 billion
- Europe: $14 billion
- Japan: $10 billion
- Russia: Unknown
- Canada: $2 billion
Leaving out Russia, our international partners have contributed $26 billion for the construction of the ISS. It may only be a little over a quarter of what the United States has paid, but it isn't chump change. For the foreseeable future, the U.S. will probably continue to be the richest country on the planet. In any international partnership, we'll probably end up paying the bulk of the costs -- but that doesn't lessen the value of the contributions made by the rest of the international community. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 09-11-2009 06:40 AM
If human spaceflight is done for national prestige then the hoopla for crewed mission to Mars will end after the first flight. The American people will then likely ask the same questions as many did after Apollo 11: "why?" and "such a waste". International collaboration is the only way forward. That US-centric view of the world must change and embrace the rest of the world's spacefaring nations. They are pulling their weight - ATV, HTV, Progress, Soyuz have virtually proven themselves to be as reliable as the Shuttle. So imagine where these combined efforts could take us to beyond ISS? |
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 09-11-2009 08:54 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
So much for going to the Moon "for all mankind".
The US did not go to the moon for "all mankind" or any other altruistic purpose. It went in order to place an American on the moon via the US manned space program. That's not meant to be harsh or mean spirited but let's not be revisionists. The group hug moment was a benefit of the original goal but it was not the the goal.The American Taxpayer is plenty concerned who benefits from the space program they fund. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 09-11-2009 08:59 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cjh5801:
Leaving out Russia, our international partners have contributed $26 billion for the construction of the ISS. It may only be a little over a quarter of what the United States has paid, but it isn't chump change.
No, it is not chump change - but it still proves my point - the U.S. could have built the an ISS type station on it's own (maybe even better and with a more focused purpose minus the tourists?) but no other country or group of countries could have built the ISS without the US.Don't get me wrong. I am not anti-other countries. The more countries building the capabilities to start a manned space program, the more exploration that is possible to take place. Multi-country cooperatives do not work with something like this. The US always ends up doing the heavy lifting, the project ends up as a watered down shell of the stated purpose and the taxpayer gets the shaft. Much more can be discussed but I fear the thread is getting too far off topic. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 09-11-2009 09:43 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
The American Taxpayer is plenty concerned who benefits form the space program they fund.
Well, at least one American Taxpayer, apparently. |
Topic Closed
advertisement