PDA

View Full Version : NASA’s Ames Director Announces “100 Year Starship”



Fraser
2010-Oct-20, 12:50 PM
The Director of NASA’s Ames Center, Pete Worden has announced an initiative to move space flight to the next level. This plan, dubbed the “Hundred Year Starship,” has received $100,000 from NASA and $ 1 million from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). He made his announcement on Oct. 16. Worden is also hoping [...]

More... (http://www.universetoday.com/76195/nasas-ames-director-announces-100-year-starship/)

Trakar
2010-Oct-20, 05:03 PM
The Director of NASA’s Ames Center, Pete Worden has announced an initiative to move space flight to the next level. This plan, dubbed the “Hundred Year Starship,” has received $100,000 from NASA and $ 1 million from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). He made his announcement on Oct. 16. Worden is also hoping [...]

More... (http://www.universetoday.com/76195/nasas-ames-director-announces-100-year-starship/)

Interesting, but I'm not holding my breath.

Rowen
2010-Oct-21, 01:54 AM
This post was lamer then my next one, so I am removing the text. But in order to keep this post viable:

Can someone explain the propulsion method Mr. Worden proposed they would use?

Rowen
2010-Oct-22, 05:40 PM
Edited:

I have just realize that I was way too wordy (again). So as a brief to-the-point summary:

It's a waste of time, money and resources to start work on a starship now. Climate change and degradation of society will kill us off before such research becomes useful, anyway. Starships can wait, reversing climate change cannot, so let's keep our focus on the right job at the right time.

Van Rijn
2010-Oct-23, 12:33 AM
If all our effort that we can put into this is put into this, maybe, just maybe we can solve the problem before the 2055 extinction deadline. That’s only 44+ years from now.


Er, what? What extinction deadline? This sounds like it's outside of mainstream scientific arguments.

Rowen
2010-Oct-23, 01:16 AM
Er, what? What extinction deadline? This sounds like it's outside of mainstream scientific arguments.

In 2004 climate scientists projected 30 years before climate change is irreversible. Once it is irreversible, it cannot be undone. Seems pretty mainstream in the way of argument. If it is not, please provide the evidence.

Van Rijn
2010-Oct-23, 01:31 AM
Again: What extinction deadline?

Rowen
2010-Oct-23, 01:34 AM
Would you like me to edit the post and use a different couple words to describe the same thing?

{edited}
Actually I changed that post. No more extinction deadline wordage to trip anyone over. ;)

Van Rijn
2010-Oct-23, 01:41 AM
If you can show the mainstream scientific source for the "2055 extinction deadline" claim, it would probably be a good idea to start another thread, in another section of the board.

Edit: Okay, you retracted your claim.

Rowen
2010-Oct-23, 01:44 AM
With respect I disagree. This post was about the starship announcement from the Ames Director. It was my understanding that any thoughts related to that can be posted here. My post is extremely related and I indicated so.

Am I being moderated?

Rowen
2010-Oct-23, 04:14 PM
If you can show the mainstream scientific source for the "2055 extinction deadline" claim, it would probably be a good idea to start another thread, in another section of the board.

Edit: Okay, you retracted your claim.

Yes I did. It seemed to distract from the rest and I did see your point. So, that was the only problem you saw with my input in this thread? Honestly checking here. Thanks.

Van Rijn
2010-Oct-24, 05:28 AM
I'm not going to get into a discussion on the climate claim, but if you're going to argue that money should be spent elsewhere, I'd suggest focusing on other areas that get far more money and resources. This is a million dollar (well, $1,100,000) dollar research program - a drop in the bucket.

Van Rijn
2010-Oct-24, 05:29 AM
Am I being moderated?

I have no idea. I didn't report your post, though, if that's what you're asking.

Rowen
2010-Oct-24, 07:17 AM
The thing is, recent news of someone projecting a mars colony by 2030 followed closely by this announcement makes me really wonder. Sure at the moment it's only a wee bit, but why do I get the sneaking suspicion that that will be followed by the alpha-wolf's share? But, yeah, I agree that other areas that not less important should be cut back, but those other areas are not the topic of this thread. ;)

Trakar
2010-Oct-25, 06:24 PM
I'm not going to get into a discussion on the climate claim, but if you're going to argue that money should be spent elsewhere, I'd suggest focusing on other areas that get far more money and resources. This is a million dollar (well, $1,100,000) dollar research program - a drop in the bucket.

Well, I'm sure you understand how it is, but there is often a fundemental misunderstanding of how federal program budgeting works. A big consideration is that every dollar for every piece of every program (at least with regards to NASA) is line-item budgeted by congress, its not like NASA is asked to estimate how much money they are going to need for the next year (or ten) and congress cuts them a check and allows them authority to shift funds around as they see fit. If a project is approved and monies provided, you either use that money on that project or you don't get the money. Most of the federal budget is like this, there really is very little independent, departmental budgeting authority.

Based on this, you are really arguing each program on its own merits not in comparison with each other.

Its not like we can either have a cool space ship, or we can have a livable planet.
The two projects are not mutually exclusive (might even be complementary - in some respects, or at least with some technological and science overlap).

If, however, what Rowen is getting at is that we aren't likely to have a very robust economy over the coming century due to needing to address a variety of complexly inter-related issues such as dealing with/adapting to, climate change and it's impacts, increasing struggles and international competition for energy and mineral resources, etc., and because of this such a program is unlikely to be fundable, then that's an argument to be made.

Personally, I've little problem with white papers, I just don't think anyone should get too excited about every considered speculation that goes into them.

Rowen
2010-Oct-25, 08:44 PM
Well, I'm sure you understand how it is, but there is often a fundemental misunderstanding of how federal program budgeting works. A big consideration is that every dollar for every piece of every program (at least with regards to NASA) is line-item budgeted by congress, its not like NASA is asked to estimate how much money they are going to need for the next year (or ten) and congress cuts them a check and allows them authority to shift funds around as they see fit. If a project is approved and monies provided, you either use that money on that project or you don't get the money. Most of the federal budget is like this, there really is very little independent, departmental budgeting authority.


No, I'm Canadian and not required to know American political processes. But for the record I didn't really focus on NASA or Ames themselves, but on who ever it is that makes these decisions.



Based on this, you are really arguing each program on its own merits not in comparison with each other.


All our political systems are screwed in this way. There can be no concerted effort with them.



Its not like we can either have a cool space ship, or we can have a livable planet.


Political procedure aside, and speaking from a strictly philosophical and moral POV, it is exactly that. We can either have some cool space ship and colonies (etc) or we can save our world.



If, however, what Rowen is getting at is that we aren't likely to have a very robust economy over the coming century due to needing to address a variety of complexly inter-related issues such as dealing with/adapting to, climate change and it's impacts, increasing struggles and international competition for energy and mineral resources, etc., and because of this such a program is unlikely to be fundable, then that's an argument to be made.


Sorry for deleting all my text I posted. This was opposite to the intended point. I am saying that if countries continue to fund projects not related to solving climate change, there will be less of the pie to use toward that end.

Trakar
2010-Oct-27, 09:54 PM
(...)

If, however, what Rowen is getting at is that we aren't likely to have a very robust economy over the coming century due to needing to address a variety of complexly inter-related issues such as dealing with/adapting to, climate change and it's impacts, increasing struggles and international competition for energy and mineral resources, etc., and because of this such a program is unlikely to be fundable, then that's an argument to be made.

Sorry for deleting all my text I posted. This was opposite to the intended point. I am saying that if countries continue to fund projects not related to solving climate change, there will be less of the pie to use toward that end.

I'm not sure I see the clear difference between these two statements?