If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Planetary Society)   The sorry state of planetary science funding In one chart   (planetary.org) divider line 62
    More: Sad, Planetary Science, Timeline of Solar System exploration, Planetary Society, raw data, charts, scientific research  
•       •       •

4022 clicks; posted to Geek » on 15 Dec 2013 at 10:17 AM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



62 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-15 09:01:30 AM
1: That's sad.  We need more good science.
2: As with all graphs that have a nonzero y-axis, that graph is bullshiat.  Yes, there's been a drop, but it's not "almost to zero", as that graph would have you believe.
3: Still need an increase in planetary science funding.
 
2013-12-15 09:14:07 AM

dahmers love zombie: 1: That's sad.  We need more good science.
2: As with all graphs that have a nonzero y-axis, that graph is bullshiat.  Yes, there's been a drop, but it's not "almost to zero", as that graph would have you believe.
3: Still need an increase in planetary science funding.


4. NASA hasn't proposed a sexy mission in ages. It's all Hubble deep field recolors, mars probes, and dorky "lulz microgravity" stuff on the ISS.

We need a manned mars mission. It's the only way.
 
2013-12-15 09:48:15 AM

doglover: We need a manned mars mission. It's the only way.


QUIET. You'll summon HIM.
 
2013-12-15 10:11:01 AM

doglover: dahmers love zombie: 1: That's sad.  We need more good science.
2: As with all graphs that have a nonzero y-axis, that graph is bullshiat.  Yes, there's been a drop, but it's not "almost to zero", as that graph would have you believe.
3: Still need an increase in planetary science funding.

4. NASA hasn't proposed a sexy mission in ages. It's all Hubble deep field recolors, mars probes, and dorky "lulz microgravity" stuff on the ISS.

We need a manned mars mission. It's the only way.


Leave Earth orbit and Geo Sync to commercial organizations. NASA needs to send people to the moon and Mars.
 
2013-12-15 10:21:47 AM
Don't worry. China has more manned space capabilities than the US. And we still need Russian soyuz launchers from the 60s just to put people in LEO.

What a joke...
 
2013-12-15 10:26:11 AM
China will drink your milky way shake.
 
2013-12-15 10:40:29 AM

doglover: dahmers love zombie: 1: That's sad.  We need more good science.
2: As with all graphs that have a nonzero y-axis, that graph is bullshiat.  Yes, there's been a drop, but it's not "almost to zero", as that graph would have you believe.
3: Still need an increase in planetary science funding.

4. NASA hasn't proposed a sexy mission in ages. It's all Hubble deep field recolors, mars probes, and dorky "lulz microgravity" stuff on the ISS.

We need a manned mars mission. It's the only way.



Yeah, misleading graph is misleading. Yeah, there appears to be a trend downward to a 30% final budget reduction since '03. They've also retired one of their costliest programs in that time...

Sexy programs may be the way to earn money, but they aren't always smartest choice or the best return.


www.popsci.com
 
2013-12-15 10:44:06 AM

doglover: dahmers love zombie: 1: That's sad.  We need more good science.
2: As with all graphs that have a nonzero y-axis, that graph is bullshiat.  Yes, there's been a drop, but it's not "almost to zero", as that graph would have you believe.
3: Still need an increase in planetary science funding.

4. NASA hasn't proposed a sexy mission in ages. It's all Hubble deep field recolors, mars probes, and dorky "lulz microgravity" stuff on the ISS.

We need a manned mars mission. It's the only way.


How about this for a sexy mission, Europa Clipper, it can go explore the most likely spot after earth for signs of possible livable conditions. Yet, nope that isn't sexy enough. Mars in nice, I like Mars but Europa is one the most interesting places in our solar system and we aren't sending a mission to it.
 
2013-12-15 10:45:01 AM
Someone should tell the DoD that something is blowing the universe up. We'd get funding if we did that.
 
2013-12-15 10:50:12 AM

Doktor_Zhivago: Don't worry. China has more manned space capabilities than the US.


Stopped reading there.
 
2013-12-15 10:52:34 AM

Doktor_Zhivago: Don't worry. China has more manned space capabilities than the US. And we still need Russian soyuz launchers from the 60s just to put people in LEO.

What a joke...


Nope. China has Souyz/Salyut/Lunokhod version 2.0. How not exciting and not very revolutionary! Also, gaps happen unfortunately but this one will end.

Last time we didn't have a ride, be thankful we do this time. In any case, I expect Space X to provide manned spaceflight by 2017 if all things go well.

The problem of going in circles in low earth orbit will be solved soon enough. The real problem is where does NASA go next and is the American public interested in exploring and pushing the boundaries of science?

So far the answer looks like a big fat no.
 
2013-12-15 10:52:43 AM

bbfreak: ow about this for a sexy mission, Europa Clipper, it can go explore the most likely spot after earth for signs of possible livable conditions. Yet, nope that isn't sexy enough. Mars in nice, I like Mars but Europa is one the most interesting places in our solar system and we aren't sending a mission to it.


Mars is orders of magnitude easier than Europa. Patience.. once we've gleaned all practical from Mars, we'll set our sights further.
 
2013-12-15 11:00:45 AM

The Bestest: bbfreak: ow about this for a sexy mission, Europa Clipper, it can go explore the most likely spot after earth for signs of possible livable conditions. Yet, nope that isn't sexy enough. Mars in nice, I like Mars but Europa is one the most interesting places in our solar system and we aren't sending a mission to it.

Mars is orders of magnitude easier than Europa. Patience.. once we've gleaned all practical from Mars, we'll set our sights further.


I don't know about "orders of magnitude" easier. Easier because it's closer, sure, but if you've solved the basic problems of getting people to Mars and back, you can easily solve the basic problems of getting people to Europa and back. It'll just take a bit longer.
 
2013-12-15 11:01:41 AM

hardinparamedic: doglover: We need a manned mars mission. It's the only way.

QUIET. You'll summon HIM.


Nothing can prevent the inevitable.
 
2013-12-15 11:04:49 AM
China can put a man into space on a domestically produced rocket.

The US cannot.

How is that a mistaken view?
 
2013-12-15 11:04:56 AM

qorkfiend: I don't know about "orders of magnitude" easier. Easier because it's closer, sure, but if you've solved the basic problems of getting people to Mars and back, you can easily solve the basic problems of getting people to Europa and back. It'll just take a bit longer.


I'm not even talking about people at this point, just probes/rovers. Distance is a -huge- factor just from a propulsion and communication standpoint and it is a much stickier math problem landing something on/placing into orbit around another planet's moon than it is another planet.
 
2013-12-15 11:06:56 AM

Doktor_Zhivago: China can put a man into space on a domestically produced rocket.

The US cannot.

How is that a mistaken view?


SpaceX could launch a manned vessel -right now- if they only had to adhere to China's safety guidelines.
 
2013-12-15 11:16:10 AM

The Bestest: Doktor_Zhivago: China can put a man into space on a domestically produced rocket.

The US cannot.

How is that a mistaken view?

SpaceX could launch a manned vessel -right now- if they only had to adhere to China's safety guidelines.


You mean those super special freedom and liberty safety guidelines that gave us Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbia?

The US is not exceptional or a leader in anything except sending robots past Jupiter to take cool pictures anymore.

Manned spaceflight drives space programs. People want to see people doing stuff in space. No matter how good the science might be from probes and satellites no one gets excited about robots
 
2013-12-15 11:19:44 AM

The Bestest: qorkfiend: I don't know about "orders of magnitude" easier. Easier because it's closer, sure, but if you've solved the basic problems of getting people to Mars and back, you can easily solve the basic problems of getting people to Europa and back. It'll just take a bit longer.

I'm not even talking about people at this point, just probes/rovers. Distance is a -huge- factor just from a propulsion and communication standpoint and it is a much stickier math problem landing something on/placing into orbit around another planet's moon than it is another planet.


Math is not a holdup; orbital mechanics are very well understood, and the sheer amount of computing power available renders this problem trivial. Distance in space is not as much of a factor for propulsion as it might be in a terrestrial environment, especially if it's an autonomous probe which doesn't need room for consumables and doesn't need a return trip, because you can boost and coast.

Communication lag is an issue, but it is not a solvable one, so there's no reason it should stop us from doing anything. The lightspeed barrier is not something we'll be able to fix, so we just have to deal with it.
 
2013-12-15 11:22:44 AM

Doktor_Zhivago: You mean those super special freedom and liberty safety guidelines that gave us Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbia?


Yes, I mean the guildelines that -resulted- from those accidents.

Manned spaceflight drives space programs.

No, the threat of a "bad guy" doing something before you is what drives space programs in the context you're referring to. What we ARE doing now with probes and rovers is what drives -actual science-.

Now, an argument could be made that manned programs spur innovation, in that it forces us to try to solve problems we otherwise wouldn't have to, but you would still need a valid REASON to first, and right now there isn't one.
 
2013-12-15 11:41:17 AM

The Bestest: qorkfiend: I don't know about "orders of magnitude" easier. Easier because it's closer, sure, but if you've solved the basic problems of getting people to Mars and back, you can easily solve the basic problems of getting people to Europa and back. It'll just take a bit longer.

I'm not even talking about people at this point, just probes/rovers. Distance is a -huge- factor just from a propulsion and communication standpoint and it is a much stickier math problem landing something on/placing into orbit around another planet's moon than it is another planet.


The only thing stopping us from sending an Europa mission in the near future is money, not math. The Europa Clipper is already in the concept stage, but considering the cuts to planetary science it seems unlikely to ever fly. The math is well understood, sure it's harder but doing hard things is what we do.

We land rovers on Mars with sky cranes, we orbit Mercury for the first time ever, NASA should be doing what is hard but that requires money. As it stands now, we can have Cassini or Curiosity next year. We can't have both because the funding isn't there.
 
2013-12-15 11:44:32 AM
Just wanted to pop in and say I've hopped on the Kerbal Space Program bandwagon. I've seen references to it in a few threads here and the other day watched a buddy of mine play for a bit. Many spectacular failures and a few even more spectacular successes convinced me the game was worth getting.
 
2013-12-15 11:54:55 AM
Pity there isn't a defense threat is space. Just a tenth of the military budget would make things happen.
 
2013-12-15 11:57:30 AM

bbfreak: The Bestest: qorkfiend: I don't know about "orders of magnitude" easier. Easier because it's closer, sure, but if you've solved the basic problems of getting people to Mars and back, you can easily solve the basic problems of getting people to Europa and back. It'll just take a bit longer.

I'm not even talking about people at this point, just probes/rovers. Distance is a -huge- factor just from a propulsion and communication standpoint and it is a much stickier math problem landing something on/placing into orbit around another planet's moon than it is another planet.

The only thing stopping us from sending an Europa mission in the near future is money, not math. The Europa Clipper is already in the concept stage, but considering the cuts to planetary science it seems unlikely to ever fly. The math is well understood, sure it's harder but doing hard things is what we do.

We land rovers on Mars with sky cranes, we orbit Mercury for the first time ever, NASA should be doing what is hard but that requires money. As it stands now, we can have Cassini or Curiosity next year. We can't have both because the funding isn't there.


Yup, that's basically it. Imagine the shenanigans NASA could get up to if it had a budget like the Department of Defense's. Hell, even 10%!

I do wonder sometimes about the stuff DOD is getting up to in space. I can't think of any real technological barrier to building things like orbital kinetic strike systems; we can build railguns, and by now we can probably build some pretty ridiculous satellites. Even simpler would be a satellite armed with a bunch of nuclear missiles.
 
2013-12-15 11:57:45 AM

italie: doglover: dahmers love zombie: 1: That's sad.  We need more good science.
2: As with all graphs that have a nonzero y-axis, that graph is bullshiat.  Yes, there's been a drop, but it's not "almost to zero", as that graph would have you believe.
3: Still need an increase in planetary science funding.

4. NASA hasn't proposed a sexy mission in ages. It's all Hubble deep field recolors, mars probes, and dorky "lulz microgravity" stuff on the ISS.

We need a manned mars mission. It's the only way.


Yeah, misleading graph is misleading. Yeah, there appears to be a trend downward to a 30% final budget reduction since '03. They've also retired one of their costliest programs in that time...

Sexy programs may be the way to earn money, but they aren't always smartest choice or the best return.


[www.popsci.com image 850x666]


$20 billion? We could've had 1 whole aircraft carrier for that!
 
2013-12-15 12:07:40 PM
To be fair, of that 40% drop about half of it was being wasted on the retarded shuttle program, though.

// The space shuttle was great... once.  To prove we could do it.  But once it was demonstrated that non-reusable reentry vehicles were vastly more efficient and effective in cost and materials terms, we really shoulda stopped with the one, saved the blueprints in case a similar problem came up, and gone back to doing things the right way.
 
2013-12-15 12:07:42 PM

qorkfiend: I do wonder sometimes about the stuff DOD is getting up to in space. I can't think of any real technological barrier to building things like orbital kinetic strike systems; we can build railguns, and by now we can probably build some pretty ridiculous satellites. Even simpler would be a satellite armed with a bunch of nuclear missiles.


We're bound by treaty not to.
 
2013-12-15 12:09:56 PM

hardinparamedic: doglover: We need a manned mars mission. It's the only way.

QUIET. You'll summon HIM.


Bevets?
 
2013-12-15 12:18:22 PM
If more of you sods had voted for Newt Gingrich we'd be well on our well to a moon colony.

The man just has too much vision.
 
2013-12-15 12:25:31 PM

Meatsim1: If more of you sods had voted for Newt Gingrich we'd be well on our well to a moon colony.

The man just has too much vision.


I honestly never understood the scorn people heaped on him for this one.  There's plenty to dislike the guy for, but when people that were otherwise supportive of space exploration started laughing at Gingrich for this, it just stunk of partisanship.
 
2013-12-15 12:33:29 PM
That sucks they used all their funding just for one chart.
 
2013-12-15 12:33:54 PM

JosephFinn: hardinparamedic: doglover: We need a manned mars mission. It's the only way.

QUIET. You'll summon HIM.

Bevets?


Basically.
 
2013-12-15 12:51:03 PM
If so much money on this planet weren't needlessly funneled into secret mass surveillance operations and pointless military initiatives, we could have already had something like this on the moon:

redicecreations.com

Admittedly, we need to fix our problems at home (of which we have many) before setting our sights on the stars.
 
2013-12-15 12:53:41 PM

SN1987a goes boom: $20 billion? We could've had 1 whole aircraft carrier for that!


Until a couple of years ago, $20B/year was the US military budget for air conditioning in Afghanistan and Iraq.
 
2013-12-15 12:55:00 PM
Funny thing is, there's starting to be a lot of space-oriented visuals in the zeitgeist. From Commander Hadfield's tweets to "Gravity" to Mars Curiosity to Space X, there's a growing buzz about space, and not just as a sci-fi "Trek Wars" fantasyland. I think some of it is because the kids (like me) that grew up in the 70s and 80s, and were promised vacations on the Moon, are starting to say, "Well, since no one else is doing it, why not us?" Hopefully, it will pan out that a groundswell of interest and support from people who realize that space exploration and exploitation is something that is happening here and now will boost not only NASA, but the whole field of space science as a whole.

Shameless plug: I'm not making movies and I'm not starting launching companies, but one of my long-term goals is to make Lunar Landing Day a national holiday. Yes, it's quixotic, but I think we should somehow commemorate one of the most amazing things we bald chimps have been able to do.
 
2013-12-15 12:57:20 PM

Erix: I honestly never understood the scorn people heaped on him for this one. There's plenty to dislike the guy for, but when people that were otherwise supportive of space exploration started laughing at Gingrich for this, it just stunk of partisanship.


It's just about the only thing Newt has ever said that I agree with.

blacksharpiemarker: Admittedly, we need to fix our problems at home (of which we have many) before setting our sights on the stars.


I strongly believe we can do both, if we weren't so fixated with blowing things up.
 
2013-12-15 12:58:19 PM

The Bestest: qorkfiend: I don't know about "orders of magnitude" easier. Easier because it's closer, sure, but if you've solved the basic problems of getting people to Mars and back, you can easily solve the basic problems of getting people to Europa and back. It'll just take a bit longer.

I'm not even talking about people at this point, just probes/rovers. Distance is a -huge- factor just from a propulsion and communication standpoint and it is a much stickier math problem landing something on/placing into orbit around another planet's moon than it is another planet.


Meh, we've already landed a probe on Titan, why should Europa be any harder?
 
2013-12-15 01:01:46 PM

HighZoolander: Meh, we've already landed a probe on Titan, why should Europa be any harder?


Gawd, I would love to have a Curiosity-sized mission to Titan. Wouldn't that just be the shiat? A nuclear-powered rover the size of a RAV-4 cruising around on gullies carved by ethane flash floods in rock-hard ice? Oops, I think I just jizzed in my pants.
 
2013-12-15 01:14:30 PM

Erix: Meatsim1: If more of you sods had voted for Newt Gingrich we'd be well on our well to a moon colony.

The man just has too much vision.

I honestly never understood the scorn people heaped on him for this one.  There's plenty to dislike the guy for, but when people that were otherwise supportive of space exploration started laughing at Gingrich for this, it just stunk of partisanship.


Part of the scorn was because he started talking about it right in time for the Florida primaries, so no one took it seriously because they all thought it was just naked pandering. Of course, given this was Newt Gingrich saying it, it's quite possible he thought it was a good idea but only came up with it because he needed Florida.
 
2013-12-15 01:18:27 PM
QA space mission: "It's still empty".
Total cost: 0$.

theorellior: HighZoolander: Meh, we've already landed a probe on Titan, why should Europa be any harder?

Gawd, I would love to have a Curiosity-sized mission to Titan. Wouldn't that just be the shiat? A nuclear-powered rover the size of a RAV-4 cruising around on gullies carved by ethane flash floods in rock-hard ice? Oops, I think I just jizzed in my pants.


So in order to assuage your bizarre proclivities, we need to send an expensive machine to a frozen dead rock to take pictures?

"Cruising around"! Oh the imagery! More like : "moving a millimeter per hour as the RTG's full 125W barely moves the rover once every two days as commands trickle in at 75 bps..."

My cheap RC helicopter from Future Shop puts out more power.
 
2013-12-15 01:21:22 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: So in order to assuage your bizarre proclivities, we need to send an expensive machine to a frozen dead rock to take pictures?


Oh, hi, QA, the rest home is letting you use the dialup again? Nice to hear from you again. Oh, just so you know, the guys and I have been thinking we'll have a nice wake in your honor when you kick off, which is gotta be pretty soon, right? It'll be sad, but such is life.
 
2013-12-15 01:30:47 PM

italie: doglover: dahmers love zombie: 1: That's sad.  We need more good science.
2: As with all graphs that have a nonzero y-axis, that graph is bullshiat.  Yes, there's been a drop, but it's not "almost to zero", as that graph would have you believe.
3: Still need an increase in planetary science funding.

4. NASA hasn't proposed a sexy mission in ages. It's all Hubble deep field recolors, mars probes, and dorky "lulz microgravity" stuff on the ISS.

We need a manned mars mission. It's the only way.


Yeah, misleading graph is misleading. Yeah, there appears to be a trend downward to a 30% final budget reduction since '03. They've also retired one of their costliest programs in that time...

Sexy programs may be the way to earn money, but they aren't always smartest choice or the best return.


[www.popsci.com image 850x666]


20 billion over 20 years?
How many of those programs were scuttled because of lack of funds. I'm not saying there's no waste, but really?

Just like the GOP approach to government: Underfund it, sabotage it, demonize it, then complain how crappy government is, rinse, repeat.
 
2013-12-15 01:56:45 PM
5. Launch Windows

(I'm a Kerbal Rocket Scientist)
 
2013-12-15 02:16:48 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: QA space mission: "It's still empty".
Total cost: 0$.

theorellior: HighZoolander: Meh, we've already landed a probe on Titan, why should Europa be any harder?

Gawd, I would love to have a Curiosity-sized mission to Titan. Wouldn't that just be the shiat? A nuclear-powered rover the size of a RAV-4 cruising around on gullies carved by ethane flash floods in rock-hard ice? Oops, I think I just jizzed in my pants.

So in order to assuage your bizarre proclivities, we need to send an expensive machine to a frozen dead rock to take pictures?

"Cruising around"! Oh the imagery! More like : "moving a millimeter per hour as the RTG's full 125W barely moves the rover once every two days as commands trickle in at 75 bps..."

My cheap RC helicopter from Future Shop puts out more power.


How about those Beatles, huh? Bunch of no good young whippersnappers. Say, have you heard of this new thing called 'semiconductors'? The boys are saying it'll change our civilisation forever. Hooey, I call it. What the heck is wrong with good old vacuum tubes anyway? Never let me down ever. Now, when I was a young 'un, we didn't have none of this technology nonsense, we had an onion on our belt - that was the fashion at the time, you see - and that was good enough for us.
 
2013-12-15 02:17:25 PM

blacksharpiemarker: If so much money on this planet weren't needlessly funneled into secret mass surveillance operations and pointless military initiatives, we could have already had something like this on the moon:

[redicecreations.com image 360x288]

Admittedly, we need to fix our problems at home (of which we have many) before setting our sights on the stars.


I have never understood this argument. We will always, always have problems as a species. ALWAYS! Also, it isn't like we spend a butt load of people trying to solve our problems here on earth. The United States spends more on its military than the 7 countries that spend the most after the US combined. We spend 2 trillion a year on a social spending. NASA's budget meanwhile is 0.6 percent in a good year of that 3 trillion a year we spend, science funding in general isn't even 3 to 4 percent.

Yet, instead of spending more or keeping funding level we are cutting science. >.> That makes absolutely no sense to me. Our western civilization was built upon an understanding of science. From roads, airplanes, home computers, and your phone in your pocket. None of that exists without an understanding of science first.

Not to mention that there could be real human benefits to a mission to Mars. Mostly because you have to live on Mars for two years once you get there. The technology from a manned Mars mission alone could make us more sustainable as a species. That's what happens when you invest in science and technology though. The consequences are far reaching and benefit humanity.

The Internet is a good example, it started with public research from DARPA and Cern and now we use it to look at cat porn!
 
2013-12-15 02:18:44 PM
*isn't like we don't spend a butt load rather. ARgh.
 
2013-12-15 02:20:52 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: "Cruising around"! Oh the imagery! More like : "moving a millimeter per hour as the RTG's full 125W barely moves the rover once every two days as commands trickle in at 75 bps..."

My cheap RC helicopter from Future Shop puts out more power.


And just how many millions of miles has it traveled..?  What number of cameras and research equipment does it carry..?  Does its battery charge last more than a year..a month..a day..?  How many advanced mathematical calculations were needed to land it on your kitchen table..?

At least it has the fact that its plastic chassis will long outlast your fleshy shell going for it, which is nice..
 
2013-12-15 02:42:28 PM
We can't fund science. Must make room for food stamps.
 
2013-12-15 03:10:51 PM
What a bullshiat chart format that cuts off the bottom billion.
 
2013-12-15 04:06:22 PM

limboslam: We can't fund science. Must make room for food stamps

tanks that get scrapped as soon as they're finished.

FTFY.
 
Displayed 50 of 62 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report