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

[StageLeft]

They aren't getting $30 billion IIRC. They are getting a $1B boost to their yearly budget to about $17B a year -- only this time, 40% of it won't be devoted to the Constellation (Moon) program.

So then they are actually growing.

 

[So]

All I have to say on the matter is said by this guy: http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/rocketaday.html

Rockets don't *need* to be expensive, but having tens of thousands of NASA engineers standing ready year round to do less than ten launches each year makes it expensive.

 

[SunSamurai]

Without reading all the BS Id say they are not going as fast as Id like. Whatever reasons why, I do not care. But they really need more funding. Space, though portraied as some scifi adventure, really is teh next frontier. I want humanity to get to that. Stop BSing about earthy shit we KNOW how to fix already.. but somehow arnt...

 

[Cogman]

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.

Woops, sorry about about that, I thought you changed brblx post right above you to "ah, cornerstone of the republican agenda." I didn't realize he had actually posted that, My mistake.

I can't think of a single technology that we would need to test that we couldn't test in orbit of earth. The moon is quite a bit different then mars is in many respects, the earth is a much closer cousin.

 

[nick1985]

Space exploration kicks ass. I'd rather fund space exploration than shaniqua and her 15 fatherless kids.

 

[TheRickRoller]

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?

We can either:

1) Build a rocket umpteen million times the size of Saturn 5, powerful enough to throw a crew, a years supply of food, and equipment, from the Earth's ground

2) Ship up the pieces in much smaller, MUCH CHEAPER rockets, assemble in space. Now you wouldn't need a behemoth because you don't need so much energy, you can build a leaner craft. Notice how the space station wasn't built on Earth, only pieces were which were then shuttled into orbit and assembled?

Even if they decided to land it all on the moon, build, and launch again, thats still nothing compared to launching from the Cape.

 

[So]

We can either:

1) Build a rocket umpteen million times the size of Saturn 5, powerful enough to throw a crew, a years supply of food, and equipment, from the Earth's ground

2) Ship up the pieces in much smaller, MUCH CHEAPER rockets, assemble in space. Now you wouldn't need a behemoth because you don't need so much energy, you can build a leaner craft. Notice how the space station wasn't built on Earth, only pieces were which were then shuttled into orbit and assembled?

Even if they decided to land it all on the moon, build, and launch again, thats still nothing compared to launching from the Cape.

What the hell is wrong with you people? Moon dust is aluminum and silicon oxide, and there is no atmosphere to slash the output of solar power.

1. Send up a solar "forge" for building aluminum structural elements out of moon dust, and set up a small outpost, like 10x the mass of a single moon mission.
2. Operate it 24x7 building spaceship parts.
3. Launch to mars for the cost of one moon mission plus ground operations.
4. Have a factory building spacecraft to explore the entire solar system for cheap.

 

[TheRickRoller]

What the hell is wrong with you people?

I dunno, what the hell is wrong with you? I was talking about what can be done now, not what should be done 10-20 years from now.

 

[So]

I dunno, what the hell is wrong with you? I was talking about what can be done now, not what should be done 10-20 years from now.

This can be done now. We have the technology. We had the technology in 1975, but funding got cut. A direct Mars mission would take just as long, since we would need to ship a much higher mass to LEO and the delta v off the lunar surface is so low.

 

[FoBoT]

we have no more money to spend or borrow for this
the coming hyper inflation is going to cause most space adventures to be forgotten as the world economy collapses

 

[techs]

First off, get your facts straight.

The new plan is to encourage and support private venture manned space travel.

I don't disagree with this, as the current vehicles that are being developed are rife with cost overruns and have turned into a fiasco. Without being partisan, lets just say that corporate influence has returned to the worst days of when the military-industrial complex just sucked money like it was their right.
Going to a private venture vehicle is just about right at this time. Enough is known of rocketry, materials, etc for private industry to build a cost effective launcher.
Nasa will indeed be the customer, at least at first, for these vehicles.

Going to the moon was really never going to happen. Fiscally it was doomed when America decided huge tax cuts and spending increases were somehow good for America over the long term. At least with the new plan we are not only keeping on with industrial advances, but we should eventually reach the point where launching the huge amount of materials a Mars mission will need, can be done cheaply.

Going to Mars with a manned mission is so far in advance and so costly and dangerous we weren't going for at least 20-40 years, even with a near Apollo type effort. There are just problems that are so insolvable given current technology that it is unfeasable.

An un-manned there and back mission to Mars is feasible and, I believe, doable, if the US was willing to join with say the EU on a joint venture. I'd say in about 10-15 years we should be ready.

 

[JeepinEd]

We can either:

1) Build a rocket umpteen million times the size of Saturn 5, powerful enough to throw a crew, a years supply of food, and equipment, from the Earth's ground

2) Ship up the pieces in much smaller, MUCH CHEAPER rockets, assemble in space. Now you wouldn't need a behemoth because you don't need so much energy, you can build a leaner craft. Notice how the space station wasn't built on Earth, only pieces were which were then shuttled into orbit and assembled?

Even if they decided to land it all on the moon, build, and launch again, thats still nothing compared to launching from the Cape.

You forgot a couple of important advantages:

1. Water - no need for large rockets to take water into space. It's already on the moon.

2. Fuel - all the necessary fuel can be generated from resources easily available on the moon.

 

[Schadenfroh]

NASA is a government agency that produces solid results: loads of scientific data, economic stimulus, tons of innovations, national pride, etc.

It would be a shame to see Constellation canned. I would make cuts to compulsory charity (social welfare) programs and the military long before I touched NASA. I agree that the bureaucracy needs to be reduced, but that goes for just about all government agencies.

 

[Printer Bandit]

you guys know that this is only the death of the "public" space program? there is a secret one that will still continue on.

 

[JeepinEd]

you guys know that this is only the death of the "public" space program? there is a secret one that will still continue on.

First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price? /Contact

 

[Nik]

I'm fuckin livid.

 

[K1052]

Going to Mars with a manned mission is so far in advance and so costly and dangerous we weren't going for at least 20-40 years, even with a near Apollo type effort. There are just problems that are so insolvable given current technology that it is unfeasable.

There are presently no unsolvable technological impediments to a Mars mission.

 

[So]

There are presently no unsolvable technological impediments to a Mars mission.

There were no unsolvable technological impediments to a Mars mission in 1959. Today it will be immensely cheaper due to lighter computers, higher efficiency engines and better composite materials.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Yeah, but the ocean sustains life and provides us with resources. The moon is a big fucking rock.

What the fuck are we gonna do, make the moon the most expensive strip mining venture?

You do understand the Earth has finite resources. If humanity is to survive it MUST reach to the stars. You don't go from being a baby to a marathon runner over night. It takes a long time to get there.
Also, by staying on one planet and one solar system wee keep all our eggs in one basket. As it is, 1 asteroid/meteor hit on Earth and it can kill us all.

The Moon isn't the answer. The Moon is a stepping stone, as is Mars.
But some peoples responses in this thread explain why this is happening. America has become soft. they see the death of a few people attempting to better humanity as to high a price to pay. The people that put their lives on the line do so willingly and with the understanding that they may die, but they do it to help humanity. Idiots that chant life is to valuable do know the true value of life as they are unable to see the whole picture when it comes to saving the lives of a civilization.

 

[techs]

There are presently no unsolvable technological impediments to a Mars mission.

Yes, there are. No human could withstand a two year round trip weightless trip to Mars and land and explore in between.

There is also no way to protect a manned vehicle against meteorites and space debris that would exist in the path of a Mars trip. In fact, the larger the craft that went to Mars, the more mass it would have, making it far less manoevarable in terms of avoiding space obstacles. And when you get that big you need a lot of fuel to even slightly adjust your trajectory, then get back on course.
I have read that it would require some type of Star Trek type "shield" to protect the craft, especially if the speed of the craft were to include constant acceleration to keep up a percent of a Gee, to keep the humans alive.

Check out the physiological changes that have occurred in astronauts who have stayed in space even one year. Now double that.
And add a stay on Mars in between. IIRC the longest term astronaut could not walk for weeks after he returned to earth.

 

[OutHouse]

ah, cornerstone of the republican agenda.

fuck off. that is the cornerstone of America no matter the stupid political party.

 

[OutHouse]

how many jobs will be lost because of this and i just dont mean NASA jobs...

 

[RESmonkey]

^^^ What OutHouse said

 

[JoshGuru7]

Today it will be immensely cheaper due to lighter computers, higher efficiency engines and better composite materials.

And tomorrow it will be cheaper still due to lighter computers, higher efficiency engines, better composite materials, more efficient solar cells and plenty of things we don't know about yet.

 

[K1052]

Yes, there are. No human could withstand a two year round trip weightless trip to Mars and land and explore in between.

There is also no way to protect a manned vehicle against meteorites and space debris that would exist in the path of a Mars trip. In fact, the larger the craft that went to Mars, the more mass it would have, making it far less manoevarable in terms of avoiding space obstacles. And when you get that big you need a lot of fuel to even slightly adjust your trajectory, then get back on course.
I have read that it would require some type of Star Trek type "shield" to protect the craft, especially if the speed of the craft were to include constant acceleration to keep up a percent of a Gee, to keep the humans alive.

Check out the physiological changes that have occurred in astronauts who have stayed in space even one year. Now double that.
And add a stay on Mars in between. IIRC the longest term astronaut could not walk for weeks after he returned to earth.

Who said it would be weightless? It is certainly possible to use centrifugal force to create artificial gravity for the journey (and even on Mars), also transit times can be reduced to as little as 6 months using high energy mission profiles.

Micrometiorites while an issue probably aren't severe enough to threaten the mission since numerous craft have made it to mars before.