I had to look up the National Reconnaissance Office. Man, I'm just not as plugged into paranoia as I was during Bush the Elder's administration. Ah, high school... I'm not saying you're wrong about any of this. Going to Mars with humans means bringing them back as well. That means complex rockets, repeat propulsion, growing food onboard since the trip will take a long time, psychological analysis of people that cannot go outside for four or five years. You need government spooks and a really strong motivation. I'd just rather see us build high-speed train lines instead. We can make those just as sexy: "Park, buy your ticket, get your ass to Oakland in two hours total."
There's paranoia and there's reality. The space shuttle is the size it is because of the NRO. They built a launchpad at Vandenberg for military shuttle missions - IE, polar orbit. Fortunately, they had one roughed in for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory. 14 of 35 launches from Cape Canaveral were military. It would have been substantially more if it weren't for the Challenger; the Delta IV was developed specifically for heavy launch capability in the absence of the space shuttle. I wasn't clear before. I don't think any of this is about going to Mars. I think this is entirely about "give us money so we can pretend to go to mars while developing better methods and payloads for spying on people." That's what it's been since Sputnik first gave Eisenhower an excuse to deprecate U-2 flights in favor of the CORONA program.
I think that's incredibly cynical. There are loads of people in NASA that would absolutely love to go to Mars. Unfortunately, those people has very control over where the money goes. But the idea that NASA is intentionally misleading the public to secure public support for funding spy satellites is just absurd.I wasn't clear before. I don't think any of this is about going to Mars. I think this is entirely about "give us money so we can pretend to go to mars while developing better methods and payloads for spying on people."
Exactly. Meanwhile, the Space Shuttle doesn't happen without the NRO getting on board. Mercury doesn't happen without the Manned Orbiting Laboratory paying for most of its development. I'm not saying NASA is deliberately misleading anybody. I'm saying NASA isn't really relevant to the question of what the USA does in space. Look - NASA's budget is $18b a year. The NRO's, best as anyone has been able to determine, is $10b... but the NRO launches zero NASA payloads while it was originally envisioned for NASA to launch 100% of NRO payloads. Yay NASA. I've known three people who worked at JPL. I was part of the team that did this: ... but to argue that NASA exists solely for scientific benefit of all mankind is "just absurd."Unfortunately, those people has very control over where the money goes
Maybe I'm not clear on what "this" is. Is it the original tweet? NASA itself? Orion? SLS? I'm not arguing that NASA exists solely for the benefit of mankind (does anything?). I would argue that most of the people working on Orion, SLS, and "going to Mars" in general, are doing it primarily because they want to put people on Mars. The fact that it has substantial military/surveillance use cases is incidental to the people actually doing the science and engineering. I guess it comes down to perspective. From a political perspective, you're probably right. But from a NASA perspective, from the top on down it absolutely is about going to Mars.
From a political perspective, NASA is a beard for the NRO and the general militarization of space in general. That makes the "NASA perspective" not particularly relevant as they aren't driving the bus. A press release about Orion and "going to mars" is akin to a press release about a hood ornament and plans to drive to Niagara Falls. Orion is a payload, nothing more. The "science and engineering" in that payload is now and has always been a useful way to daylight the classified stuff ULA and others need public money for.
Obviously we're not going to come to any agreement on this subject, but I'm curious about one thing. Do you really mean "NASA" here, as opposed to say "the space program"? You usually chose your words carefully, so I'm thinking you did. Maybe I'm just hopelessly naive, but I would love to hear your opinion on how my work on integrating unmanned systems into the National Airspace System is actively contributing to the NRO.NASA is a beard for the NRO and the general militarization of space in general.
I mean "NASA." "The space program" is geopolitical and teeny-weeny by any real standard. As I recall, the Mars 2020 rover is slated to cost $130 million. An F-35 costs three times that. Rosetta cost a billion euros. A KH-11 Block 4 costs ten billion dollars. The world watches with bated breath as that rover does its thing; I was one of two dozen people who gathered to watch the last KH-11 go up out of Vandenberg. Note that I didn't say "ruse." Note that I didn't say "cover." I said "beard." NASA does a lot of cool shit and I love all of it. But it does what it does largely as a public, benevolent front for a private, militarized mission by the rest of the space industry. Do I think everyone that works at NASA (and remember - I've known a few) wake up every morning looking forward to a day of subterfuge? No. But I don't think NASA happens without defense purposes driving all major allocations, either. Besides which, integrating unmanned systems into NAS has a lot more to do with the CIA. (ducks)