How do you feel about the death of NASA / US Space Program?

[nobodyknows]

cornerstone of what it means to be human.

the exploration of space is all about the human quest for knowledge. to understand our universe more than we do now.

You support it, then you pay for it. I say we've been to the moon and done that, Why go back there without a good reason?

 

[Unheard]

The intentions of going back to the moon were to setup a base and launching pad for future deep space/Mars missions. It's a lot cheaper to get something into space when you are already effectively there.

 

[RESmonkey]

cornerstone of what it means to be human.

the exploration of space is all about the human quest for knowledge. to understand our universe more than we do now.

Thank you.

 

[RESmonkey]

You support it, then you pay for it. I say we've been to the moon and done that, Why go back there without a good reason?

Research and development. It's the reason we're on the internet.

 

[brblx]

feel free to hop on the next rocket to neptune.

spending money because it's there (or, rather, not there) is dumb. there is nowhere in space that we can feasibly go that would be of any use to us, and it's not because we just haven't tried. do you really think that if we put more money into nasa, we would suddenly be able to defy phsyics and travel at faster than light speed? even if we were able to match light speed (an impossible feat), we still would barely get anywhere.

you want to explore the great beyond, go smoke a doobie and watch star wars.

 

[K1052]

ah, cornerstone of the republican agenda.

"Many years ago the great British explorer George Mallory, who was to die on Mount Everest, was asked why did he want to climb it. He said, "Because it is there."

Well, space is there, and we're going to climb it, and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God's blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked."

 

[Cogman]

"Many years ago the great British explorer George Mallory, who was to die on Mount Everest, was asked why did he want to climb it. He said, "Because it is there."

Well, space is there, and we're going to climb it, and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God's blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked."

You're some sort of retard, aren't you?

This isn't a partisan issue, Obama is cutting the funding to nasa, not the republican party.

We have little to gain from going to the moon again, stop wasting funding there. Going to mars, on the other hand, may yield some good innovations.

 

[nobodyknows]

The intentions of going back to the moon were to setup a base and launching pad for future deep space/Mars missions. It's a lot cheaper to get something into space when you are already effectively there.

R U Serious?? LOL, we would have to blast everything into space. I mean ecerything, parts, fuels, everthing, then land it all on the moon, assemble it, and then launch it again?

 

[destrekor]

Everyone realizes that NASA isn't going anywhere, yes?
And more importantly, their goals have been shifted.

No longer will NASA be focused on doing something it has already done. Instead, it is back to the drawing board - focusing on new ideas and technology, with the goal of doing things they have no done yet.

I think that is more important. In the near future, sure, going back to the Moon would be cool. But there isn't much we can do there right now - we don't really have the capability to mine in space nor provide the necessary cargo transport. We don't even have technology that can make use of anything we could take from the Moon, and the tech to build large facilities on the moon is a long while away.
If Armageddon seems near, then watch as scientists scramble to develop a way to save us. But for now, research should be more practical. Practical by means of researching new things that could provide solutions for us in ways yet unknown, not doing something that has been done before.

They have the research for the Constellation program, so it can be revisited in the future should we wrap up what will be underway sometime soon.

But obviously, this will take the focus from the Moon and give Mars a bigger slice of our interests, but more importantly, re-thinking NASA's goals should help them start looking toward new space tech.
I'm definitely down with that. If we can get faster space travel out of this, hell yes. Constellation was going to be more of the same.

 

[nobodyknows]

Research and development. It's the reason we're on the internet.

So build a space station, I see no reason to go back to the moon at this point.

 

[K1052]

You're some sort of retard, aren't you?

This isn't a partisan issue, Obama is cutting the funding to nasa, not the republican party.

We have little to gain from going to the moon again, stop wasting funding there. Going to mars, on the other hand, may yield some good innovations.

You took it as a partisan attack while I took it as an explanation of why we bother to go anywhere at all.

Constellation was a stepping stone (to an eventual Mars mission) that would provide us a lot more time to test new technologies that will be needed for us to get there and return. As of now NASA will shortly have no shuttle, no Constellation program, no human rated rocket, and no specific goals.

 

[ProgressiveAthe]

Nothing- people read "Moon mission killed and Shuttles Ending" as "NASA is killed" for some reason. Last I read they were getting a $30 billion dollar boost in place of the moon project.

Huh, it isn't just the moon mission that is dead. There won't be any more manned space mission either. NASA will never said another person into space again.

 

[ProgressiveAthe]

Everyone realizes that NASA isn't going anywhere, yes?
And more importantly, their goals have been shifted.

No longer will NASA be focused on doing something it has already done. Instead, it is back to the drawing board - focusing on new ideas and technology, with the goal of doing things they have no done yet.

I think that is more important. In the near future, sure, going back to the Moon would be cool. But there isn't much we can do there right now - we don't really have the capability to mine in space nor provide the necessary cargo transport. We don't even have technology that can make use of anything we could take from the Moon, and the tech to build large facilities on the moon is a long while away.
If Armageddon seems near, then watch as scientists scramble to develop a way to save us. But for now, research should be more practical. Practical by means of researching new things that could provide solutions for us in ways yet unknown, not doing something that has been done before.

They have the research for the Constellation program, so it can be revisited in the future should we wrap up what will be underway sometime soon.

But obviously, this will take the focus from the Moon and give Mars a bigger slice of our interests, but more importantly, re-thinking NASA's goals should help them start looking toward new space tech.
I'm definitely down with that. If we can get faster space travel out of this, hell yes. Constellation was going to be more of the same.

WRONG, this will not give landing to mars a focus, and it will not give us faster space travel. They have already said that NASA will NEVER said another person into space. They want NASA to focus more on the earth NOT on space travel.

 

[NFS4]

R U Serious?? LOL, we would have to blast everything into space. I mean ecerything, parts, fuels, everthing, then land it all on the moon, assemble it, and then launch it again?

The image of that just made me burst into laughter for some reason

 

[destrekor]

WRONG, this will not give landing to mars a focus, and it will not give us faster space travel. They have already said that NASA will NEVER said another person into space. They want NASA to focus more on the earth NOT on space travel.

Sending people into space at this point is largely unnecessary. There is nothing they can do special at this point in time, not until there is significant inroads into space technology and an ultimate goal for development of any sort.

But please cite a source, or explain what you mean by focus on the Earth and not space. This is NASA we are talking about here, space is kind of their thing.
Research can be done - and the findings can be used - on Earth... but the goal for everything is what can be done in space.

Protecting Earth, and propulsion, are constantly a major research objective. Getting scientific data from Mars is right up there.

 

[ProgressiveAthe]

Sending people into space at this point is largely unnecessary. There is nothing they can do special at this point in time, not until there is significant inroads into space technology and an ultimate goal for development of any sort.

But please cite a source, or explain what you mean by focus on the Earth and not space. This is NASA we are talking about here, space is kind of their thing.
Research can be done - and the findings can be used - on Earth... but the goal for everything is what can be done in space.

Protecting Earth, and propulsion, are constantly a major research objective. Getting scientific data from Mars is right up there.

When I said earth, I was refering to the atomosphere and low earth orbit.

How can we have inroads and developement for space travel when all of the budget for such research is gone.

 

[K1052]

Sending people into space at this point is largely unnecessary. There is nothing they can do special at this point in time, not until there is significant inroads into space technology and an ultimate goal for development of any sort.

But please cite a source, or explain what you mean by focus on the Earth and not space. This is NASA we are talking about here, space is kind of their thing.
Research can be done - and the findings can be used - on Earth... but the goal for everything is what can be done in space.

Protecting Earth, and propulsion, are constantly a major research objective. Getting scientific data from Mars is right up there.

The only way to develop practical manned exploration technology is to actually do it, not sit around talking about it. Engineers can daydream until they are blue in the face but until their designs are actually tested under mission conditions they are of limited use. That was the main point in going back to the moon.

 

[Fear No Evil]

17 billion out of a budget of 3.8 trillion. Thats like a person making $40k a year saying they are cutting out one visit to McDonald's this month. Its a shame that Obama can find trillions to give away to banks and car companies but can't find anything for NASA.

 

[JoshGuru7]

I don't think we're spending too much on space exploration, but I do think we're likely spending it too early. Delaying spending means that when you do spend it can be done both more efficiently and also with a higher level of funding. You can't really kick the medical research can down the road and it's extremely polarizing whether you can delay environmental spending (I think you mostly can).

The US space program has probably been a net benefit for the world as a whole due to all of the positive externalities. A country like Australia is clearly better off today for having the benefit of literally hundreds of spin off projects let alone externalities like having asteroids diverted for them. To that end, I think the international space station (ISS) is a great idea and a good goal for a sitting president would be to get more countries paying for it, especially other first world countries like the UK. Even second and third world countries should be paying something for symbolic reasons if nothing else.

As far as the impact to the US itself, though, I think the results have been more mixed. The moon landing included a lot of intangibles (such as political benefits/costs) so it's hard to make many conclusions about that without a time machine. It is very likely that further space spending has been a net cost to the US, however. This is because the money that was spent on space exploration was not spent on other forms of development and research (energy, medicine), or more importantly left to the citizens to invest in the economy.

Personally, I would rather leave our children with a higher standard of living and wealthier with less unilateral investment into space exploration. When an opportunity arises they will have more resources to throw at the issue, be it faster than light travel, asteroid mining, or deflecting asteroids.

 

[Linflas]

They've been slowly killing NASA since the early 1970's.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I will know how I feel about the death of NASA / US Space Program if/when it happens. It probably won't happen during my lifetime though.

Manned space exploration is too expensive, and really, is not worth the price premium over unmanned space travel/exploration. no life support, less weight = can get so much more done with less... Hire MORE scientists while we are at it.

 

[IGBT]

Wait what? What's happening to NASA?

your obama is turning it into a fraud global warming watch dawg racket for his eco-KOOKS.

 

[Ruptga]

I'm bummed NASA has been gimped, but not surprised. While people with a long term outlook see the value of NASA, nobody else does, and short term thinkers are the majority. I don't see things changing appreciably until either we have something really compelling (like the Apollo program was), or there's a massive shift in what our culture values.

 

[RESmonkey]

your obama is turning it into a fraud global warming watch dawg racket for his eco-KOOKS.

:biggrin:

 

[destrekor]

The only way to develop practical manned exploration technology is to actually do it, not sit around talking about it. Engineers can daydream until they are blue in the face but until their designs are actually tested under mission conditions they are of limited use. That was the main point in going back to the moon.

Well they need to develop the vehicles and propulsion systems before ever putting a man on board, and they need to conduct launch tests unmanned as well. We're nowhere near that.

This isn't a permanent issue, where NASA is confined to strictly doing one thing and one thing only for the next 20 years. This is just an immediate time table thing, with the first issue right now being no more Constellation program. They have awhile before they will be ready to send man into space with new launch vehicles. Once they have concepts and research completed, then budget proposals can start getting more focused to bring manned space journeys back into the picture. For now, they just need to focus on what the hell they even want to do.

When I said earth, I was refering to the atomosphere and low earth orbit.

How can we have inroads and developement for space travel when all of the budget for such research is gone.

Budget is gone? They have the same budget, increased a little bit even, and have been ordered to scrap the Constellation program. Sounds like they will have quite a bit of funding with which to conduct research.