Space Taxis?Follow

I'm sure someone on the right will complain about Obama telling NASA to outsource their shuttles, but isn't that what they want? The private sector to be pushing advancements, not government run/funded organizations?

I can see gbaji finding a way to spin on this too.

NASA's budget is actually being increased, it's just the Constellation program being nixed. I don't really see the point of risking the lives of highly trained astronauts instead of robots that can get the information in a far cheaper and more expendable fashion. It just seemed like expensive posturing.

On occasion, I'll tune into the local insaine right-wing radio station just to see what they're yammering about. Living in the Huntsville, AL area, I was sure they'd have something to say on the topic. The local guy they have in the morning actually said pretty much the same thing you did, though. The initial knee-jerk reaction people have here is "HEY! MY JOB!" but then if you're taking it out of a government run system and moving it to the private sector, it's not like the jobs are nessicarily going away. And it is precisely the kind of thing conservatives want.

Everyone else is pitching fits though.

And we have pleasure craft to do that in. Expensive? Indeed.

But the goal of exploratory space programs is not to give the astronauts an experience to remember. Perhaps if you were doing a colony operation, you could justify that as a reason to get people to risk their lives setting up the infrastructure, but that's not what we're doing at the moment.

I'm not speaking in terms of emotion, I'm speaking in terms of "it's expensive to train astronauts and they're a relatively rare commodity."

Also, the fact that robots were expendable was only one part of what I said--the other part was that they're cheaper and manned moon missions provide no real upsides, despite the higher cost.

5 billion dollars? Where the hell are you getting that number? The initial costs for building and launching the Mars Rover were about $800 million. The cost of the first four Mars rover mission extensions was about $104 million, the next one being $20 million. That's peanuts compared to the Apollo program, which in today's dollars would be about $150 billion.

It's not only the astronauts that are a part of the cost of manned spaceflight, though. The technology that keeps them alive in space is expensive, and they can't stay in space nearly as long as a robot without suffering severe effects from low gravity.



Edited, Feb 3rd 2010 2:06pm by Sweetums

I'm not debating the usefulness of technology NASA has helped develop, I'm saying that another manned moon mission doesn't have as good a cost:benefit ratio as robots at this point in time.

Of course, ideally I'd keep it going, because what we spend on NASA is a pittance compared to the rest of the national budget. The development of the infrastructure to support life in lifeless places such as the moon and Mars would definitely have valuable, far-reaching effects. A research station on the Moon and Mars would also just be sweet on a whole 'nother level of nerdity.

...but everyone ******* about the costs and NASA is always one of the first things to get cut, so robits it is.

I know it seems like I'm vacillating a bit, but I'm mostly just terribly unsure.

Edited, Feb 3rd 2010 2:41pm by Sweetums

Training an astronaut is more expensive than you might think. The planes, pools and other machinery used actually run up quite a tidy sum.

I know I for one have no problem with the outsourcing. I personally don't like the "we'll fund you if you scrap the moon thing" mandate. There are good reasons to go back to the moon.

Hell, as long as you get the units right.