Can we put a man on the moon?

[Craig234]

This is a different time, with different problems.

Actually, not really, as you yourself show by making the issue the very same 'space versus dometsic benefits' tradeoff that is the same issue then and now.

If the govt. were to take on a huge project now it really shouldn't be going to the moon even if we hadn't already.

I was just about to respond to that by saying you should be consistent and point out you would take the same position on the original moon landing, when that's what you do next:

They should take on a project which would benefit humanity much, much more. In fact they would have been better off doing this back then as well, as by now they would have reaped greater rewards than going to the moon.

This simply puts you squarely in the pro-domestic benefits camp, and the difference I noted is that then, this was able to be defeated as a minority view.

A question is how our political culture has changed, that likely now that would be a majority view and prevent the project.

They should conquer, clean up and control the one part of space that is the most screwed up and threatens this nation's and even all of humanity's future the most.

The human mind.

That sounds an awfully lot like some scary bizarre government project of citizen control.

What in the world kind of 'government project' are you suggesting?

If by that you mean something like a great increase in public education as super-majorities of Democrats passed in the middle of the 20th century, I'm fine with that.

(Of course the right wing wants to jump in here, so let's give them a mention, the John Birch society warns against the government mind control project of fluoride in water. The same John Birch society co-founded by the father with the same sort of ideology as his two sons who are perhaps the most powerful influenced in our country today, behind the very anti-government radicalism I'm discussing, the Koch brothers).

 

[cabri]

Based on the original OP

Kennedy was able to parlay the Soviet threat and national pride into generating the momentum for the space program. He provided a target, what the concept of failure would be, the current starting field and the time frame to meet that target.

Obama does not have the capability to create that vision nor the ability to lay out the problem due to (IMHO)

• No perceived national threat
• Divided country with no national pride of unity
• He up to this point, has not identified any type of target to be shot for. (ACA was political not professional)
• Without a target, there is no measurement of failure, starting block, etc

There are still many targets that could be useful for the country, but it takes a leader to outline what they are and layout a decisive plan on getting there and the country to back the vision

• There used to be a plan for controlling health care costs
• There used to be a plan for energy independence
• There used to be a plan for space exploration/mining/etc
• There used to be a plan for deep water exploration/mining/etc
• There should have been plans to correct the off shoring of employment/work
• There should have been plans to rebuild our internal infrastructure.

So, YES, we can "put a man on moon", but without the leadership to lead and provide the vision, it will not happen

 

[Craig234]

Cabri, thanks for the on-topic comments. I think you make some valid points, but miss some of the issues that prevent the sort of political activity like a moon shot.

The rise of the 'tea party' as a rabid anti-government movement and manipulated by right-wing billionare agendas - which not only has its own candidates but pulls basically every Republican far to the right - is not without cost. The conversion of the south to Republican - triggered by the same president who primarily led the moon program passing civil rights - is not without cost. The increase of money in politics drastically, of lobbyists growing from hundreds to over 35,000, of most Congress and staff going to work as lobbyists and therefore wanting to do favors for lobbyists while in office - are not without cost.

There's a reason that a study recently found that the American people have about zero influence on Congress. Money does.

Let me also mention another cultural difference just for interest, the greater sense of it being 'our country', not 'their country'. Ford Motor Company had always been run by the Ford family up until around 1959 or 1960, when the first outside was made President. He was looking at a hell of future as a major US executive.

Then John Kennedy was elected president, and based on a recommendation, Kennedy asked that new Ford President in the position for months to leave business and become the Secretary of Defense. There was a culture then of closer to 'when the President asks, you don't say no', and he did. That person was Robert McNamara.

If President Obama asked the head of GM to leave to become Secretary of Defense, I suspect there might be a different answer (though they are pretty experienced in manufacturing dangerous vehicles). The Libertarian movement has gone from a few Ayn Rand nuts to a far more popular ideology. This is not without a cost.

There seems to be an irony that the worse our economy is, the bigger projects we seem able to do, and the better our economy, the more we feel we can't do anything.

I think we have things to learn from thinking about the difference in sour ability to put a man on the moon today compared to when we did, and you hit on a few but not all.

 

[norseamd]

The problem is we have been to space and there is just not much there. Other then a bunch of high concept science that hardly anyone actually understands, there is nothing worth the cost of doing it. I'm a huge supporter of the space program and even I have to wonder if it is worth going to the moon again.

There are millions of good reasons to operate human spaceflight programs.

 

[SMOGZINN]

There are millions of good reasons to operate human spaceflight programs.

Other then pure research? Oh, good. Please name a few.

 

[norseamd]

Other then pure research? Oh, good. Please name a few.

Research and Resources.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Research and Resources.

As I already said research just doesn't get the public panties wet anymore. As for resources there is nothing out there that is worth the cost of getting to it. Even if you found an asteroid made of pure gold it would still be cheaper to find and mine that same amount of gold right here on Earth.

There is still lots of resources left untapped here, the only question is how much will it cost to get to those resources. The answer is less then to get them from space.

 

[norseamd]

Well right now I am only advocating for establishing a base on the moon for research and early prototyping of the extraterrestrial resource industry. We also need to start exploring and colonizing the ocean which is even more unknown than outer space and is full of life, habitat space, and resources.

 

[Hugo Drax]

No, America already jumped the shark. We are a nation on a slow decline, think Ottoman Empire starting around 1820s.

 

[Brovane]

We could if people where allowed to innovate. On the internet there is a NASA study done on using Propellant Depot's in Earth Orbit instead of building large rockets like the Space Launch System. You would use something like a Delta-IVHeavy or Falcon Heavy to launch a Depot into Earth Orbit that can store Cryogenic fuel. The fuel is brought to Earth Orbit using additional launchers. The entire concept is instead of build one massive launcher to replace what we had with the Saturn-V we us commercial launchers so we don't have to pay for launcher development. For around $60 Billion total over 18 years you could have a lunar program that is launching a mission every 2-year with crewed landing.

However the idea was shot down because NASA and Congress wants the Space Launch System rocket that will easily cost 20+ Billion to develop. So pork barrel politics triumph over science again.

The report is all right here - http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/21.jul2011.vxs.pdf

 

[manimal]

No, America already jumped the shark. We are a nation on a slow decline, think Ottoman Empire starting around 1820s.

There is innovation and change going on around you. Are you in the camp that holds its breath and asks an inevitable force to please move aside or are you doing anything about it?




Seems to me thinking like this lets the terrorists win



On topic



There is a real threat to our future and its this notion that science is being corrupted by politics. The trends out there dismissing established facts for feelings and discrediting the scientific community is having real effects on our innovation centers and research. I find it sad that we have lost the sense of wonder and exploration.


Slowly we are eroding our ability to react to change and the future. Green technology is considered a four letter word and Research is painted as pork by people who choose to remain ignorant of the changing world.


I sometimes think that teaching creationism in school was the gateway drug to stupid among so many. When you accept something so cognitively dissonant your able to be swayed by emotional fear and charlatans.

We could end this new dark age with a base on the moon and mars. Why? BECAUSE WE CAN!


Its a long game but its doable....


My solution is to require the military to allocate 40 percent of its budget to guarding us from space! Space is evil man! it likes to throw rocks and stuff at us. We need a iron dome more than Bibi!

 

[OverVolt]

Preferably a small man since its like $10,000 per kg.

 

[MongGrel]

Cabri, thanks for the on-topic comments. I think you make some valid points, but miss some of the issues that prevent the sort of political activity like a moon shot.

The rise of the 'tea party' as a rabid anti-government movement and manipulated by right-wing billionare agendas - which not only has its own candidates but pulls basically every Republican far to the right - is not without cost. The conversion of the south to Republican - triggered by the same president who primarily led the moon program passing civil rights - is not without cost. The increase of money in politics drastically, of lobbyists growing from hundreds to over 35,000, of most Congress and staff going to work as lobbyists and therefore wanting to do favors for lobbyists while in office - are not without cost.

There's a reason that a study recently found that the American people have about zero influence on Congress. Money does.

Let me also mention another cultural difference just for interest, the greater sense of it being 'our country', not 'their country'. Ford Motor Company had always been run by the Ford family up until around 1959 or 1960, when the first outside was made President. He was looking at a hell of future as a major US executive.

Then John Kennedy was elected president, and based on a recommendation, Kennedy asked that new Ford President in the position for months to leave business and become the Secretary of Defense. There was a culture then of closer to 'when the President asks, you don't say no', and he did. That person was Robert McNamara.

If President Obama asked the head of GM to leave to become Secretary of Defense, I suspect there might be a different answer (though they are pretty experienced in manufacturing dangerous vehicles). The Libertarian movement has gone from a few Ayn Rand nuts to a far more popular ideology. This is not without a cost.

There seems to be an irony that the worse our economy is, the bigger projects we seem able to do, and the better our economy, the more we feel we can't do anything.

I think we have things to learn from thinking about the difference in sour ability to put a man on the moon today compared to when we did, and you hit on a few but not all.

I like this man, he seems to have a firm grasp of reality.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[norseamd]

The orbital fuel depot is a very good idea along with the Lunar orbital space station.

 

[OverVolt]

There is innovation and change going on around you. Are you in the camp that holds its breath and asks an inevitable force to please move aside or are you doing anything about it?




Seems to me thinking like this lets the terrorists win



On topic



There is a real threat to our future and its this notion that science is being corrupted by politics. The trends out there dismissing established facts for feelings and discrediting the scientific community is having real effects on our innovation centers and research. I find it sad that we have lost the sense of wonder and exploration.


Slowly we are eroding our ability to react to change and the future. Green technology is considered a four letter word and Research is painted as pork by people who choose to remain ignorant of the changing world.


I sometimes think that teaching creationism in school was the gateway drug to stupid among so many. When you accept something so cognitively dissonant your able to be swayed by emotional fear and charlatans.

We could end this new dark age with a base on the moon and mars. Why? BECAUSE WE CAN!


Its a long game but its doable....


My solution is to require the military to allocate 40 percent of its budget to guarding us from space! Space is evil man! it likes to throw rocks and stuff at us. We need a iron dome more than Bibi!

Oh yea science has gone downhill. Thats what happens when Phd's have to fight for grant money like a free ipod advertisement on the side of yahoo fights for clicks.

 

[Sattern]

I don't understand why we don't make a better spacecraft so we can explore more than the small amount of planets we have now.

At this rate I don't think we will have any alliances with other humanoids as well as other species. To ensure our survival and prosperity we need a new generation of explorers just like Christopher Columbus, except this time to modernize our falling infrastructure.

Yes there are other life forms in this world they spend so much analyzing the billions of galaxies in existence but fail to do anything about discovering/exploring them further.

We need a technological revolution give it 50 years and maybe they will start thinking about the importance of extra-terrestrial alliances...

The knowledge and innovation that can come as a result of space exploration will far exceed the costs in the long run.

Once they figure out how to mine asteroids and transport the resources they might start taking this seriously.

 

[silicon]

No, I don't mean the fact we already have.

Imagine we hadn't. And then imagine President Obama gave John Kennedy's speech announcing his desire to do so for hundreds of billions. Could we do it today?

Think about how the politics have changed. Then, we had a 'cold war' where we were afraid of the Soviets surpassing us in technology and space travel. Then, we had a super-majority of Democrats, and a far more 'liberal' Republican party by today's standards, in Congress and a more 'activist' Democratic President.

The arguments existed then about 'small government' and 'don't waste so many billions of dollars to put a man in space when our people here at home need food and roads.'

A difference is, then they lost. A president could 'lead' on an issue like that. The space program was a massive project - up to 5% of the federal budget (at a time of the Great Society and Vietnam, yet we avoided a large deficit, but that's another subject). Those were the disgruntled minority voices on the right and left, respectively.

Today, it seems unthinkable. The obstructionism, the rise of anti-government ideology, the dominance in our politics of the agenda of narrow interests and lobbyists objecting to any diversion of funds to the 'national interest' over their own interests, all seem like factors that suggest there would be few if any votes for such a project today.

Is that a good or bad thing? If bad, what do we do about it?

(I'm not looking for a discussion of public versus private space efforts, the current private ones greatly benefitting from the work of NASA previously).

Obama gave a speech about how he wants the country to do 'big things'. Both President Bushes tried to ride the wave of excitement of the idea of sending a man to Mars.

Doesn't this example suggest a worse situation about our country being able to 'do big things' as a country/democracy/people/public effort, as opposed to what companies do?

The only area we seem to maintain the ability to do big things is the military, where the scope and technology are leading the world.

its impossible now given that NASA gave way to diversity of the workforce years ago. They have neither the skilled nor the talented people anymore for the job. Too much dumbing down was required to allow certain folks to have a job. The best they can do now is try to make nice to the Mooslems.

 

[norseamd]

its impossible now given that NASA gave way to diversity of the workforce years ago. They have neither the skilled nor the talented people anymore for the job. Too much dumbing down was required to allow certain folks to have a job. The best they can do now is try to make nice to the Mooslems.

What the fuck? Literally!

 

[silicon]

What the fuck? Literally!

yes that is what i said!!

 

[norseamd]

yes that is what i said!!

 

[norseamd]

Can we get this conversation rolling again and without the prejudiced hate that is currently filling the rest of the forum here on Anandtech?

 

[Brovane]

I hope so. Do people also realize how NASA contracts work? For example the Space Launch System, NASA engineers are not building it or designing. Private companies are contracted to design and develop the hardware. NASA oversees the operation. Even if you look back at the Apollo hardware. The closest that NASA came to building and designing a part of the hardware was the S-IC stage for the Saturn-V. The Marshall Space Flight center designed and built the first couple of the S-IC stages but then Boeing took over the production. With the other stages they closely watched but the S-II(North American Aviation) and S-IVC(Douglas) built and designed the 2nd and 3rd stages of the Saturn-V.

 

[silicon]

good ole JLP!

 

[norseamd]

I hope so. Do people also realize how NASA contracts work? For example the Space Launch System, NASA engineers are not building it or designing. Private companies are contracted to design and develop the hardware. NASA oversees the operation. Even if you look back at the Apollo hardware. The closest that NASA came to building and designing a part of the hardware was the S-IC stage for the Saturn-V. The Marshall Space Flight center designed and built the first couple of the S-IC stages but then Boeing took over the production. With the other stages they closely watched but the S-II(North American Aviation) and S-IVC(Douglas) built and designed the 2nd and 3rd stages of the Saturn-V.

Depressing. Could NASA for once just build some type of open-sourced heavy lift and spaceflight system that is not constrained by how companies want to rule the government. You would think something like adapting already designed and produced systems like the space shuttle equipment into some type of heavy lift system would not be as expensive or hard as they are turning it into for everyone and America.

 

[FerrelGeek]

There are no big new projects. There is no innovative thought process. This Administration castrated one which could have provided affordable medications to the poorest nations. It's all about preserving the status quo for election purposes.

Pretty much this. This whole thread is moot as Obama is NO JFK; not even close. He's not a visionary and it's pretty apparent that he wants the US to take a step backward on the world stage. Remember, he's the 'lead from behind' guy.