Feb. 3rd, 2003

khaosworks: (Default)
Let's have a few quick and dirty figures here. The budget for FY 2003 for NASA is US$14.5 billion. Of that two-thirds goes to the International Space Station and the Shuttle program (source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2003/bud27.html). That's 0.06% of the entire budget for the US for FY 2003 (which is US$2128 billion).

For the same year, Social Security gets $472b. Medicare gets $231b. Medicaid gets $159b. Defence gets $368b. NASA's budget growth has been steadily cut since 2001, from a growth of 5% between 2000 to 2001, 4% from 2001 to 2002 and 1% in 2002-2003. In comparison, in the last year, FEMA's budget has leapt from 26% growth to 114%, presumably due to homeland security concerns, and Health and Human Services' growth has been cut from 10% to 9%. Average growth from 1998-2003: HHS: 12%. NASA: 1% (source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2003/bud34.html).

I'm no statistician, but I think these figures mean something.

I'm not saying that the concerns we have on earth are of no significance, but ultimately, even if you scrap NASA, the savings of $15b will not necessarily go to feeding the hungry, poverty programs, health programs, etc. That allocation depends on the benevolence of the federal government, which isn't looking very benevolent nowadays. Most likely, the Pentagon will suck it up and mount their own space progam - only this time purely militaristic. The only reason, really, NASA even gets that much is mainly because of the Shuttle program which provides heavy lifter capability for the Defense Department - let's have no illusions about that, either. But the additional sugar that is diverted to other research programs provides increases in scientific knowledge and research which may benefit medical science in the form of synthetic drugs (let's talk about pharmaceutical corporations and their evils as a separate issue) and a deeper understanding of biological sciences, among others.

In a larger context, Earth's resources are limited. We are going to use things up. This is inevitable, no matter how carefully we harness our resources, no matter how much we put into it. Some say the ecosystem is already too far gone to salvage. Perhaps. That aside, whatever we do, we got five billion years left, tops, before Sol cosumes us in a fireball. To say that we have time to fix the world before we go to the stars, is wrong-headed. There will be always something to fix. There will always be inequalities to right. If history has taught us anything, is that human beings have their own minds, their own opinions, and they're not going to always mesh. And that price of that is, some will be good, some will be evil, or some will be just selfish. There's the socialists, the capitalists, the social darwinists, the religious - to make paradise will require us to blend all into one homogenous whole. I don't know about you, but Star Trek future aside, that scares the crap out of me.

But I digress. We go to the stars because we are explorers, and because space beckons to us. The attitude that has to change is that it's all a flags and footsteps issue like the Moon. We could have gone further with Apollo, but Nixon cut NASA short, because there was no longer political capital in it. If Apollo had continued, we could have been on Mars by now, with a functional moonbase, and taking our first steps towards mining the Asteroid Belt and providing even more resources for Earth, and maybe, just maybe - becoming a proper Type One civilization instead of languishing as a zero society.

But even that isn't the goal. It's what's beyond the next mountain. It's what's beyond the next sea. Humanity's exodus outward is as inevitable as its expansion across the face of this planet. We are a curious species, and not to indulge that is to deny a fundamental part of ourselves. Yes, there are other problems to face on the planet, but to say that sacrificing our steps into space will solve them is uninformed at best, and reckless and naive in the extreme.

It is not throwing money away. It is not a money sink. We spend so precious little on it as it is - 0.06% of the total US budget. 10% of the money allocated to Medicaid. 20% of that allocated to Education. 4.2% of the Defense budget. This is not to say that the current space program is totally efficient. It is not. The Shuttle program is in desperate need of an overhaul. The number of people employed by NASA just to oversee the program alone is wasteful if you look at the numbers and what is actually being accomplished. The shuttle needs to be revamped, to get rid of essentially 70s technology. The X-Plane program needs to be ramped up, private enterprise needs to get involved in space exploration. We can even argue as to whether manned exploration is better than using robotics, or whether we should be looking more at science rather than piloted spaceflight. But these are arguments and reforms revolving around an already present space program, which will be impossible if the program itself is scrapped.

In the end, though, it comes down to this. We go to the stars because we have to, because our survival as a species, as a civilization, as a culture, does indeed lie out there.

As J. Michael Straczynski put it - "Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe and Lao-Tzu, Einstein, Morobuto, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes... and all of this... all of this was for nothing unless we go to the stars."
khaosworks: (Default)
7 dead on the shuttle Columbia, including Israeli Colonel Ilan Ramon, which breaks up over Palestine, Texas.

7 dead in an avalanche in British Columbia.

Earthquake in California South-East of San Ramon.

The cosmic joker is working overtime, isn't he?
khaosworks: (Default)
Suicide 101: Lessons Before Dying
Type "suicide" into an Internet search engine, and among the sites advertising therapy, hotlines and antidepressants, you'll find a handful of pages where suicidal strangers counsel each other on the best way to die.

The largest site, called alt.suicide.holiday, or ASH, combines a public newsgroup, chat rooms and guide files instructing visitors on how to kill themselves using everything from aspirin to rat poison.

Local news reports have so far linked ASH to three suicides. Wired News was able to confirm another seven deaths associated with the site in interviews with relatives over the last month. In addition, ASH itself lists another 14 suicides as "success stories," but those could not be verified because of the anonymous screen names used by the people who allegedly died.

Evidence exists that at least one person downloaded carbon monoxide poisoning instructions from the site before killing herself.
khaosworks: (Default)
N. Korea's Nuclear Plans Were No Secret
U.S. Stayed Quiet as It Built Support on Iraq
In November 2001, when the Bush administration was absorbed in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, intelligence analysts at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory completed a highly classified report and sent it to Washington. The report concluded that North Korea had begun construction of a plant to enrich uranium that could be used in nuclear weapons, according to administration and congressional sources.

The findings meant that North Korea was secretly circumventing a 1994 agreement with the United States in which it promised to freeze a nuclear weapons program. Under that deal, the North stopped producing plutonium.

Now, however, there was evidence that the North was embarking on a hidden quest for nuclear weapons down another path, using enriched uranium.

Although the report was hand-delivered to senior Bush administration officials, "no one focused on it because of 9/11," according to an official at Livermore, one of the nation's two nuclear weapons laboratories. An informed member of Congress offered the same conclusion.
khaosworks: (Default)
Conflicts rage across the globe
Iraq and North Korea have dominated the world's attention in recent months, yet in countries and regions around the globe, strife smolders with sporadic notice.

Civil war. Mutilations. Threat of nuclear deployment. Human trafficking. Starving babies. Those are some of the seeds and harvest of conflicts in Africa, Asia, Europe and South America.

Neglecting these conflicts is dangerous, said Arthur Helton, director for peace and conflict studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, a national think tank and publisher with headquarters in New York and offices in Washington.

"States that are weak and cannot police their own territories, that are involved in wars among their people, those are places that dedicated terrorists can inhabit," Helton said in an interview. Experts noted that is what happened in Afghanistan under the Taliban, where al Qaeda terrorists were able plan and train for attacks in the years before September 11, 2001.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan made a similar point recently when he told journalists that crises throughout the globe demand attention despite the current spotlight on Iraq and North Korea.

Though the U.N. Security Council is charged with focusing on Iraq at this time, Annan noted, "The international community should be focusing on some of the other agendas, other issues."

December 2011

S M T W T F S
    123
456789 10
11121314 151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 1st, 2025 02:44 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios