SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the what-would-Ian-Betteridge-say? dept.
Should the Trump administration succeed in establishing a Space Force or something like it, the move may have serious consequences for NASA. Depending on its mission, the Space Force is likely to require launch capabilities for satellites and perhaps human missions. Although a Space Force may be able to purchase these services from companies like SpaceX, if they choose to develop an in-house launch system, they may duplicate already existing NASA efforts. Doing so would also likely cause a brain drain at NASA as in-house engineers and experts migrated to the Space Force with promises of new missions and new funding.
There is also a question of whether the Space Force may simply take over current NASA missions. In the wake of the Space Force announcement, the Trump campaign sent out an email to supporters asking them to vote on a potential logo. Although this was a fundraising maneuver, one of the "logos" was themed around Mars with the wording "Mars Awaits." Given that the overall mission of the Space Force remains unclear, there could be a push for human spaceflight efforts to be subsumed under a Space Force. NASA's recent failures in the development of the Space Launch System, or SLS, and the James Webb Space Telescope only further reinforce the image of a NASA spread too thin to accomplish major space endeavors.
Finally, NASA's budget is already quite low considering its mission: US$19.7 billion in 2017 with $19 billion requested for 2018. This represents less than 0.5 percent of the overall federal budget. A Space Force could feasibly take away funding from NASA, especially for the development of human spaceflight capabilities thus cannibalizing NASA's already low budget.
Service means citizenship.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Saturday October 20 2018, @12:39PM (2 children)
One way to get funding for basic research is somehow spin it as a defense project that will protect against something or other, or that can be weaponized and we wouldn't want to have a weapon gap with our enemies, you know, sort of like the dreaded basselope gap.
While that can work to get desperately needed funding, there's a high risk that the military boys will slap secret and top secret classifications over everything, and bury it. Makes getting the results published a bit of a problem.
But the US has been in a fearful mood for quite a while now, pretty much since 9/11. Anti-intellectualism and anti-science are also on the rise. It has become a lot harder to get funding for basic research. Really, I am amazed NASA has been able to survive and largely stay clear of all the fearmongering, unlike FEMA which got merged into the Department of, wait for it, Homeland Security.
As to space, I recall that we have treaties that forbid the weaponization of space. Seems that just starting a Space Force would be a violation of those treaties.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by legont on Saturday October 20 2018, @01:05PM
Still better than private business stealing everything.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 21 2018, @12:50AM
How does creating an Earth-side bureaucracy weaponize space?
Let us also note that it is trivial to withdraw from the relevant Outer Space Treaty. Just give one year's notice.