Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Lunar Prospector Ready To Land On Moon

Hemos posted more than 15 years ago | from the wham-bam-thank-you-moon dept.

Science 70

SEWilco writes "Lunar Prospector survived dead batteries caused by eclipse. Shoemaker will hit the moon at 09:51 GMT [05:51 EDT], July 31 1999. At least 21 telescopes will be watching for a water or dust plume. Amateur astronomers see lunarimpact.com. "

cancel ×

70 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Re:$$ (1)

Pulsar (4287) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773474)

Don't worry, people like you are *well* represented in Congress and have seen to it that NASA is dying though ever more and more restrictive budget cuts.

Oh, and they're not looking for evidence of life - they're looking for water and mapping out other resources so that they can improve the life on Earth. But I'm not even going to detail the benefits man could reap from going to the moon - it's kinda obvious you (and tons of other /.'ers) are just going to reply and say it's all a waste of money.

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds" - Einstein

A futile attempt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1773475)

If there is any water in the Moon pole, wouldn't by crashing the probe expose all the ice to the Sun's heat, causing all the water to be evaporated and escapes Moon's gravity, ending up wasting the potential water resource?

Re:$$ - get real (1)

Pulsar (4287) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773476)

You have a good point about social programs - most of these programs actually are based on programs began in the 30's and were an attempt to pull America out of a depression. And for some reason the government is still pumping obscene amounts of money into them and ignoring exploration, both physical and technological.

Except, that is, whenever they take credit for the advances of scientists they've never even met and probably cut the salary of in yet another round of partisan budget fighting.

Re:DS-1 (1)

Pulsar (4287) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773477)

Yup - interesting fact I heard - DS-1 flew closer to the asteroid than any craft has flown by an object without landing. Or so the news said.

Another cool thing - I never realized it was a semi-autonomous probe, I knew it was testing new tech, but I didn't know AI was one of them. This little probe is basically piloting itself and NASA is talking about releasing a flock of them to all explore the solar system.

"Lunar Prospector Ready To Land On Moon" (1)

Pulsar (4287) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773478)

Anyone else notice the title of this story? "Lunar Prospector Ready To Land On Moon"

Erm, this is equivalent to crashing your car at 1,100mph. Somehow I think "land" isn't quite the right word.

Re:$$ (1)

Gregg M (2076) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773479)

I think they'd fare better to spend that money improving the life they've already found.. on Earth.

Yea, Like feeding all of the hungry children. Yea that's a good idea!

Never mind the fact that no matter how good it's been in the US we never... ever had enough to feed all of the children. We might as well wait till we fix all of the problems on earth before going to the moon.

Are we going back? (1)

Pulsar (4287) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773480)

From one of the NASA reports -

"Lunar Prospector was the first of NASA's competitively selected "faster, better, cheaper" Discovery-class missions. The $63 million mission is managed by NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA."

Discovery-class missions? Anyone know what these are, what missions are planned, etc? It's nice to hear NASA is still alive despite Washington's best attempts to kill it through massive budget cuts (have you written your congressmen about that yet? maybe you should).

uh..... (1)

The Queen (56621) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773481)

...does it bother anyone else that they didn't plan for the eclipse? Aren't they supposed to KNOW about that sort of thing?
"Gee, sir, won't the batteries go dead when the sun is blocked by our big fat earth?"
"Shut up, twit, I'm the boss! Me! I'M THE BOSS! You're NOT! ME! ME! --- LAUNCH!!!"

The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk

Re:We are back to the Moon! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1773482)

We're not even at the Surveyor level of technology. It's back to Ranger.

No Visible Dust Plume (1)

dkm (42942) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773483)

There was no visible dust plume seen from the
impact. So basically, this didn't work. There may
still be results but there seems to be some disappointment.

http://www.boston.com/news/daily/31/moon.htm

Re:$$ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1773484)

Shhhh... no one tell him that the Voyagers, Vikings, and Cassini each cost in the bilions. :) I can't wait till Cassini starts returning data from Saturn. That's going to be a spectacular mission.

Not $63 Million to crash it but for the whole proj (1)

dkm (42942) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773485)

It's not $63 million to crash the lunar prospector into the moon. This is, in effect, value added. The original project was to survey the moon using remote sensing techniques.

That project is over. The satellite has lived out it's useful life time and planned mission. The possibilities are: 1) leave it as space junk, orbiting the moon until it's orbit decays or 2) get more science value out of it.

I doubt the whole effort to crash it cost much at all.

And $63 million is dirt cheap for a space project anyways. To see what you can get for the price,
check out the vegetation canopy lidar:
http://essp.gsfc.nasa.gov/vcl/

As someone who works with remote sensing, this is the coolest idea to come along in ages.

Re:What happens if we do find water? (1)

Ektanoor (9949) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773486)

On any missions it's better to forget it. Russia is battling to at least save MIR. NASA's budget was axed once more and now even Earth-bound satellites were cutted down. China will probably try to send someone to orbit but it is already clear that it is a pure PR boost.

So be happy. You have lived not only in a time when Man walked over the Moon but also satellites crashed on it...

Shuttle CAN make it to the moon! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1773487)

Of course, a pre-mission(s) to put extra fuel/tanks in earth orbit would be needed (to break earth orbit). The next shuttle then launches, hooks up to the tanks, and away to the moon. The shuttle won't land on the moon, but could easily carry a lander module in it's cargo bay. Nearly a dozen of the original moon landers could fit in that bay. Breaking lunar orbit to return to earth requires no extra boosters and reentry is as usual. Yeah, this could be done. And it'll be trivial compared to the difficulties encountered in the Apollo missions.

primus inter pares (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1773488)

3800 mph! (0)

z1lch (35931) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773489)


"can't we bomb [www-b-l-a-m-m-o.com] the moon?"

"we don't really need it, do we?"

Pesky peice of green cheese.. (1)

Bowie J. Poag (16898) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773490)

I hear that a portion of that guy's remains will be aboard the thing which crashes into the moon. Talk about an expensive burial. ;)

Bowie
PROPAGANDA [themes.org]

$$ (1)

RoLlEr_CoAsTeR (39353) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773491)

the article mentioned that it was a $63 million dollar [project].

Good grief! What do they think they're doing? Spending money like that, simply so they can go to the moon and look around for evidence of life?!? I think they'd fare better to spend that money improving the life they've already found.. on Earth.

Re:Isn't this dangerous? (1)

Exanter (2171) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773492)

You are kidding, right? How big do you think Lunar Prospector is for cripes sakes? It's akin to a fly running into you, less than that even...

Isn't this dangerous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1773493)

What is this not going to do something bad to the moon, possible change it's orbit or something?

Space:1999 (1)

Ian Schmidt (6899) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773494)

Well, IIRC the back story of Space:1999 has it that the moon will be knocked clear out of the solar system on September 13, 1999.


Somehow I doubt the Prospector packs enough wallop to do that though ;)

Re:$$ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1773495)

The earth is fucked. I wanna live on a new planetm like mars. Ever read The Martian Chronicles? pretty damn good book.

Re:$$ (to improve life on Earth) (2)

Sun Tzu (41522) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773496)

Yeah, like buying another round for everyone in Florida! Or, any of a thousand other worthy projects. Naturally, if you give government a lot of money, it will eventually find ways to offend all of us. Me, I'm not offended by this one... After all, it is cheap! ;)

Here's the little bugger (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1773497)

Here's a picture and QTVR movie of the spacecraft [nasa.gov] .

Re:$$ (1)

poohbear_honeypot (9704) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773498)

Maybe i'm humor impared, but this is written just on the line to make me wonder whether it's a joke or not...

I *hope* it's a joke. $63m is *absolutely nothing* today.


---
Joseph Foley
InCert Software Corp.

Anti-matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1773499)

Only if it carried some antimatter. Talk about your "Big Bang".

There WAS life on the moon,. (1)

MonkeyPaw (8286) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773500)

I can see it now,.

Prospector smashes into the only place on the moon that could have sustained life. Whoops.

Wouldn't that be a bummer.

commemorative quote (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1773501)

"So we're actually going to land in a minute?" said Arthur.

"Well, not so much land, in fact, not actually land as such, no... er--"

"What are you talking about?" asked Ford sharply.

"Well," said the Captain, picking his way through the words carefully, "I think as far as I can remember we were programmed to crash on it."

"Crash?" shouted Ford and Arthur.

"Er, yes," said the Captain, "yes, it's all part of the plan, I think. There was a terribly good reason for it which I can't quite remember at the moment. It was something to do with... er..."

Ford exploded.

"You're a load of useless bloody loonies!" he shouted.

"Ah yes, that was it," beamed the Captain, "that was the reason."

(Fair use quote from Douglas Adams [douglasadams.com] , The Restaurant at the End of the Universe [douglasadams.com] , chapter 24.)

May he rest in peace (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1773502)

I can't think of a more appropriate place for him to be buried.
"We will always know when we look at the moon, that Gene is there."

Re:Pesky peice of green cheese.. (1)

AaronW (33736) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773503)

It is a fitting end, considering how much has been learned from his discovery of the comet that impacted on Jupiter. His discovery eliminated any doubt as to what would happen to the Earth if a comet or large asteroid shoul impact. What better than to be part of another impact which could potentially change our future with respect to the moon.

Re:There WAS life on the moon,. (1)

toast0 (63707) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773504)

It wouldn't be a bummer, it would be an evil government conspiricy :)

or something

What happens if we do find water? (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773505)

So like, is the next mission to the moon going to be manned? What ever happened to that silly idea of TAKING THE SHUTTLE TO THE MOON. Hook me up with a leet moon pad.

That's OK, we can always clone whatever was there! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1773506)

Remember the extinct NZ bird thay plan to clone from DNA samples!

Re:What happens if we do find water? (1)

Tom Rothamel (16) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773507)

The shuttle can't make it to the moon. (Not enough fuel.) Even if it could, you really wouldn't want to use it to get there. The shuttle's wings (for example) are utterly useless in an airless environment, and are just one more thing that'll need to be accelerated into a lunar transfer orbit.

The right way of doing it is to use the shuttle to launch a crew module, and use a shuttle-C or an EELV or some other large cargo ship to launch the fuel.

(Of course,.we can all hang out and wait for the day that nanotech makes it possible for us to extrude a Saturn V right in our backyard. (But what would the negihbors say?))

That's OK, we can always clone whatever was there! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1773508)

Remember the extinct NZ bird thay plan to clone from DNA samples! I'd be wary about bringing any moon life back to earth, though. It may well kill us all as earth life will have not developed any immunity to moon bugs.

I don't like this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1773509)

I don't like the idea of crashing something in the moon. We have no idea if we could upset some ETs or disturb some mystical artifact that is blocking some evil creature (worse than Shub-I... well you know who) from attacking us.

Crash it or lose it (2)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773510)

Yes, when it ran out of fuel Lunar Prospector probably would have crashed on the Moon. Another choice was to use the last fuel to put it in higher orbit to let the instruments run a little longer. But the Moon's attraction is weak enough that it would have been too easy to escape from the Moon, and then there would be a piece of debris wandering about that could have been tossed anywhere in the Solar system by the Earth-Moon gravity (although it probably would have simply incinerated above the Earth, it would be a shame if it hit something else we'd put in orbit).

This end of mission was a brilliant way of using that convenient package of kinetic energy to try to gather a little more data. And although this is within the mission's purpose of searching for water, I would not be surprised if future Lunar missions with different purposes will duplicate the experiment.

Re:$$ and food (2)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773511)

Well, we're wandering off topic. Although humans probably are producing enough food, it is not evenly distributed. That might be easier if all humans were in one place. Did you know that all 6 billion people could fit in Texas with 1200 squar feet each? Multiply the 260,000 square miles [texasalmanac.com] by the number of square feet (5280*5280) and divide by 6,000,000,000. Grouping family square footage, installing roads, and space for business is left as an exercise for the developer. Bonus: Everyone becomes a Texan!

Re:What happens if we do find water? (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1773512)

You shouldn't discount China. They have one of the largest growth rates (GNP) in the world, AND they have a growing unemployment problem. Chinas way of getting rid of unemployment is to start huge projects - thus you have for instance gigantic dam projects, plans to lay a country wide fiberoptic network, AND their space program. Basically, their strict government controlled economy allow them to throw huge resources at gigantic programs just to keep people employed.

After all, they have to pay whether people work or not, so it's much better for them to put people to work in projects like this.

The paradox here, is that their space program is one of the areas that require relatively low tech (after all, we're talking 1969 tech here to reach the moon), and thus is a lot easier to reach than for instance building up a up to date consumer electronics industry. It also has a very high PR value, as you noted. Just consider how the Soviet Union used Sputnik to scare the US into the realization that Soviet actually was a force to be considered, and the resulting race to beat them to the moon.

What do you think would happen if China would launch a moon mission? (Yeah, they have a lot of work to do, have they even launched a manned mission yet?) They would be the second nation to reach it. And it could spark another space race...

For imagine the PR consequences for the US if the Chinese end being the first to send a manned mission to Mars?

New mission paradigm (1)

dkm (42942) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773513)

NASA is trying to change how these missions are put together. Rather than have large projects that have multiple objectives, are designed by comittee, and run by NASA, these are smaller self-contained projects.

Basically the PI, conntrols the whole project from sensor design through the collection and analysis of data. NASA gives a fixed budget and then is not involved, other than for oversight is my understanding.

The idea is that the mission can be put together faster and for less money than the tradtional apporoach.

There are examples of their earth science projects following this approach at:

http://essp.gsfc.nasa.gov/

I'm not familliar with their space exploration projects along this line.

Re:uh..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1773514)

They probably didn't plan for it because when the mission was originally planned, it was supposed to be over by now - that's why they could crash it... The crash has just been a nice added value to a mission that was already completed.

Re:Peanuts (2)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773515)

Fortunately businesses are starting to move toward space. We should have been using suborbital flights ten years ago for intercontinental travel. Our first trip to the Moon should have involved several landing craft. The Lunar missions should have been assembled next to the first space station thirty years ago. Maybe we'll do better when we don't funnel everything through governments.

Re:$$ and food (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1773516)

Wow, never realized that. Considering that Texas is 7% of the US land and water, if everybody lived in the US, they would get about 17000ft^2 (1580 m^2), about 4/10 of an acre. Which isn't too bad.
I'd like to add that there actually is usually a very large surplus of food produced in the US. It mostly used for feeding animals for meat... The amount of meat produced for the amount of grain used (think about all the grain it takes to raise an animal, then the little meat you get out of it) really isn't worth it when it could be feeding more people.

Re:Pesky peice of green cheese.. (1)

Tom Rothamel (16) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773517)

Actually, the burial's free, it's just the funeral procession that cost a bit.

Seriously, though, this is quite fitting, and I have no problems at all with NASA doing something like this to honor a man who said that his greatest disappointment in life was "not going to the moon and banging on it with my own hammer."

This seems to me to be the next best thing.

Re:What happens if we do find water? (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773518)

It may not be pretty but you could burn to the moon and back with the shuttle without spending another $64 million.. but yer, I agree.. it's not the way to go.

NASA's plans to build a self-assembling station on the moon are far fetched at best, nanotech will save the day but that's not for another 8 years.. oops.. I mean 25.. yes.. that's what I mean.. (I have no future knowledge).

Re:Space:1999 (2)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773519)

Well it probably wouldn't have gotten knocked out of its' orbit if it hadn't been for the runaway planet that hurtled between the Earth and the Moon in 1994, according to such a sage source as Thundarr the Barbarian.

Just imagine the cool new OSS projects in an age of 'savagery, super-science, and sorcery.'

Speaking of NASA (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1773520)

By the way, what ever happened to that ion propelled craft? Is it still going ever faster?

Impact delayed by 1 minute (1)

Morgaine (4316) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773521)

If the impact has been delayed by one minute owing to a stronger de-orbiting burn than planned, doesn't this mean that the satellite won't land in the intended crater after all, and that therefore the likelihood of releasing water vapour from a cold crater is now greatly reduced?

Peanuts (1)

Morgaine (4316) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773522)

63 million is peanuts. Bill Gates could pay for it out of petty cash, and vastly more is wasted away on completely worthless political campaigns.

Giving money to politicians and governments is *not* the way to improve life on Earth, but the way to destroy it.

We are back to the Moon! (2)

Ektanoor (9949) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773523)

Yeah that's it. 30 years from the first landing. Almost 25 since anything there we are back! By crushing a spacecraft in to the surface...

It looks like we passed all these years of Space exploration to return to the years of Surveyor's and Luna probes. A typical "back to the trees" mood.

Sincerly isn't any other way to explore the Moon? Can anyone take the care of sending at least a Pathfinder-like robot to explore those same craters? Let us note that there is some good probability that this "experiment" will be unsuccessful. A boulder will be enough for its failure.

So we maybe we will still not know anything about water on the Moon for the next 30 years. When another Surveyor/Luna probe is sent to crash on the surface. Great way to study our neighbor!

Despite that, we'll be there soon (1)

Morgaine (4316) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773524)

Don't worry about it. Nanotech isn't too many decades away from giving us total control over materials and dropping the main added-value cost of manufactured goods to near zero. When that does finally happen, the Moon will become just another tourist trap.

Re:I don't like this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1773525)

I hate to continue the off topic, but you've been watching too much Power Rangers. The evil Lord What's-His-Face? is released by astronauts on the moon.

Re:What happens if we do find water? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1773526)

How much do you think Shuttle launches cost ? I don't think flying the shuttle over there (even if you could reach the higher orbit needed to go to the moon without wasting all fuel (why do you think sattelites need to fly themselves to geostationar orbit ?) would be so much cheaper.
The shuttle has been notorious for being one of the most expensive ways of doing space travel, they use it just because it's easier to use repeatedly, at least to the best of my knowledge.

Re:Isn't this dangerous? (2)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773527)

This will not affect the Moon's orbit. It's like a car hitting it. If the impact point were in the center of the visible side of the Moon it would be too small to see. And with the naked eye you can see that there have been impacts a lot larger and the Moon is still in a reasonable orbit.

Re:There WAS life on the moon,. (1)

rde (17364) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773529)

Funny you should say that...

12 Clangers Dead in Moon Crash [irelands-web.ie]

Re:"Lunar Prospector Ready To Land On Moon" (1)

conform (55925) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773530)

maybe that explains why people get so mad when i "park" my car sometimes.

moderated up for ignorance. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1773531)

The Lunar Prospector's neutron spectrometer gave us the first strong evidence of water, about 3e9 tons worth, in the lunar poles. There were other important observations as well. The crash landing, scheduled _after_ the formal completion of the mission, was intended for shits and giggles.

Umm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1773532)

How do you think all those *craters* got there? If a bunch of big honkin' meteors didn't knock it out of orbit, I don't think one puny satellite will...

Re:What happens if Chinese find water? (2)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773533)

This BBC article [bbc.co.uk] suggests that the first unmanned launch of China's manned rocket may happen in October, on the nation's anniversary. They've also been refitting space tracking ships. [bbc.co.uk]

Lunar Travel Guide (2)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773534)

You asked for it.

Re:Shuttle CAN make it to the moon! (1)

Tom Rothamel (16) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773535)

Actually, this would be much less possible than you seem to think. The shuttle's heat shield wouldn't be able to stand the lunar reentry, and there's still no need to lug along things like wings which don't help, but merely add to the weight which needs to be brought to and from the moon.

Re:3800 mph! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1773536)

Yes. The selfish human view would be the loss of surfing. The biological aspect of it would disaster.

Re:What happens if we do find water? (2)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773537)

If plans are made for another manned mission, there certainly would be more unmanned missions to study the possible landing areas. Remember the many Surveyor crash landings before Apollo? Taking pictures down to impact...but the data rate was too slow back then to get good closeups just before impact.

DS-1 (2)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773538)

Deep Space 1 flew by asteroid Braille [bbc.co.uk] on Thursday. 15 miles above asteroid at 35,000 MPH (KPH in above link).

Re:We are back to the Moon! (2)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773539)

Several people are trying to put rovers on the Moon. Long-lived devices which people might pay to drive remotely for a few minutes.

My understanding... (1)

John Karcz (6939) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773540)

... is that it wasn't a strong de-orbit burn, but rather a strong initial burn. That would have put Prospector into an orbit slightly higher than predicted. The de-orbit burn could then be adjusted, to aim at the same spot from a slightly different angle than was previously planned.

John

Re:We are back to the Moon! (1)

Ektanoor (9949) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773541)

:)
Ok can you tell me where's the nearest dealer? Besides are there any rules on how to drive them? As far as I know someone has been selling Moon lots for quite a sometime now. What if I trespass private property while driving my li'll LegOS/Linux HeavyStorm Moon Rover? Really I don't want to be fined for such thing. So it would be cool to get a roadmap of the Moon also... ;)

Don't wait for nanotech! :) (2)

John Karcz (6939) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773542)

While taking two nanorobots and having them build a nanoconstruction crew and then a space cruiseliner is sweet idea and all, I'm not holding my breath. :)

I suspect we are going to go back much sooner than that, for very practical reasons.

Constellations of communcication satellites are up and down linking huge amounts of data at wavelengths at or near those radio astronomers need to observe at. Since the number and bandwidth of these constellations is not going to go down, radio astronomers are going to become more and more blind.

I suspect, then, that the next people to walk on the Moon will be radio astronomers. They will tend radio telescopes on the other side, using the Moon as a shield to block all of the stray interference from Earth.

It's just a thought, but it seems to be the way things are going, especially given the amount that launch cost are expected to plummet over the next few years.

John

Re:$$ - get real (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 15 years ago | (#1773543)

as others have noted, 63MUS$ is pocket change in reality. It is likely the amount of money Americans spend on snacks PER DAY. George W Bush raised 40M$ for his OWN political campaign.

You do touch on an issue. There are people that believe that the NASA money should be spent on social problems, poverty or disease, but really, those programs have been around for decades with trillions down the tube with little improvement (our poverty level hasn't changed by much more than a percent since the 60's). And the NASA budget is peanuts compared to the social programs that we have.

The issue is rarely money. This government has not proven that it is capable of wisely spending what it has, and making all sorts of strange and costly stipulations in order for companies to get a government supplier contract.

Don't forget that mankind should always keep an eye on the future. Eventually our sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us, it'll take with it Marylin Monroe, Lao Tzu, Einstein, and everything we've accomplished was for nothing, unless we leave the cradle and go to the stars. (Babylon 5 plug)

I would like some of the money I earn go to something that won't just be consumed by me or someone else without some investment into the future.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?