You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
GCNRevenger, I think you've proved my point. The fact that the majority of the funding goes towards ISS/STS launches shows that it is ISS centric.
International commitment? What for? What have these nations given us in return for our assistance in helping develop a space station we designed? It seems to me, that the US has shouldered virtually all the costs with little return. We exported valuable jobs overseas which could have gone to our own people, we provided training and experience in a 21st century job market which the US can not afford to give away to foreign powers. Yet, I do not see any benefits which the international partners have provided except in helping build the ISS. Why do we need their help to build a space station which won't even be ours and then say we have an international obligation to help them complete their shuttle when they've provided us with no economic or diplomatic incentives whatsoever?
Sorry GCN, I find the rationale for spending X-dollars on ISS / STS flights as wanting and I don't think any US taxpayer can be convinced that their tax dollars should go towards pork barrel ISS / STS spending to support some State Department internationalist propaganda. Honestly, did the international partners say "Help build this ISS or we'll do something bad to you?" I'd like to see them try it.
I would appreciate input on how to better present an argument for winning further support for non-ISS alternatives to how we spend our space program tax dollars for the next decade. ISS/STS seems like an unjustifiable expense and I can't think of any international obligations we have in completing the ISS. It profits the US in no way, shape, form or fashion whatsoever.
With the Space Shuttle in its current state, The Mars Society is a unique position to mobilize its popular support to compete for tax payer dollars as a viable alternative to the ISS-centric approach to the Moon / Mars.
Without the Space Shuttle, the ISS can not be completed. Nor, could the Space Shuttle complete the ISS, it is unrealistic to assume that NASA can maintain the shuttle with the launch frequency required to complete the station. Nor, does the ISS present the tax payer with any scientific, economic, or diplomatic incentives to complete it.
With NASA presenting its new "Vision" with a price tag in excess of $100billion to go to the moon by adhering to an antiquated and inferior paradigm of ISS-centric missions, and with other costs being beared by the US taxpayer, the current situation aligns itself for an opportune moment for the Mars Society to completely cut off funding of the ISS-centric Shuttle dependent approach.
The mandate of the US mission in the ISS was to study the longterm effects on human physiology for a future mission to mars. Stays on the ISS have exceeded the time that a mission to Mars would require. Therefore, the ISS no longer has intrinsic value to the American taxpayer. We must mobilize our energies to argue for funding of a new Moon / Mars paradigm free from the burdensome costs of the ISS / Shuttle.
With the currents costs, the US can not afford a wasteful ISS-centric approach to the moon / mars. Proponents of a viable, affordable, faster, better, cheaper approach must take this opportune moment to rally support to achieve the goal of Moon / Mars free from the burdensome costs of the ISS-centric Moon / Mars approach.
One possible selling point on this that could be used, is that an ISS-centric approach would inherently result in US jobs being exported overseas. The US can hardly afford to export valuable 21st Century jobs overseas to support something like an ISS-centric approach to exploring the Solar System. The US should not be wasting valuable resources and expertise training foreign workers to take American jobs at the expense of the American taxpayer. Nor can Americans afford to lose these jobs in the 21st Century by allowing them to be exported overseas.
Pages: 1