Is our space policy a "train wreck"

[dainthomas]

LOL at you people. If not for the Apollo program, you'd be banging out these ridiculous arguments on your typewriters and mailing them to each other.

NASA is a train wreck in its current form because it doesn't have ENOUGH money. Set a goal of building a self-sustaining lunar or Martian base, and the technological benefits for everyone would certainly be enormous.

 

[Jeff7]

I'd like to see a bit more effort put into looking for potential impact threats. Nukes and impossibly-agile space shuttles only work with a CGI effects department helping out.

That'd be one of the craziest things we could do as a species - we've developed to a point where we have the capability to prevent an extinction-level event, caused by an interplanetary object. Unfortunately, it's a situation that humans suck at handling: Low risk of it happening in the present time, but an almost-certain risk of it happening eventually, with a level of damage unlike anything in our history, partly because our history would effectively end with a sufficiently-large impactor.
Immensely high damage, but a low risk of it happening right now. Therefore, it's not a problem. Mhmm.

 

[Linflas]

LOL at you people. If not for the Apollo program, you'd be banging out these ridiculous arguments on your typewriters and mailing them to each other.

NASA is a train wreck in its current form because it doesn't have ENOUGH money. Set a goal of building a self-sustaining lunar or Martian base, and the technological benefits for everyone would certainly be enormous.

This. The problem with NASA post Apollo is there is no grand goal we are aiming at, putting a working colony on the moon with the goal of a manned mission to Mars should have been the logical follow ons to Apollo. Unfortunately my generation was too busy gazing at our collective navels and telling ourselves how great were to build on what was achieved.

 

[JeepinEd]

The gravity well is too deep for a meaningful space program to overcome with current thrust engines. The energy and infrastructure required to get to the moon was enormous. Either we need an energy source so cheap as to make the costs of rocket fuel trivial or we need to figure out how to build a bean stalk. Even there, the energy costs of lift are enormous.

That "bean stalk" could be a space elevator....If they ever manage to build it.

 

[Brovane]

NASA will continue to be messed up as long as Congress and the president keeps coming up with contrary goals. The President says one thing and Congress that controls the money says another and NASA is stuck in the middle.

Probably the next flag planted on the moon will be a Chinese flag.

 

[Brovane]

This. The problem with NASA post Apollo is there is no grand goal we are aiming at, putting a working colony on the moon with the goal of a manned mission to Mars should have been the logical follow ons to Apollo. Unfortunately my generation was too busy gazing at our collective navels and telling ourselves how great were to build on what was achieved.

From my understanding after Apollo NASA wanted to continue to leverage the Saturn V rocket as heavy lifter. The space shuttle would be strickly a people hauler. However Congress refused to give the money to do this. So they then needed to make the Shuttle into both a people hauler and a cargo hauler and it does neither very well. The Saturn V which was a great heavy lifter booster was abandoned. NASA wanted to go to Mars but the funding was cut since it was said we needed to solve the problems on Earth first.

 

[JeepinEd]

clip... NASA wanted to go to Mars but the funding was cut since it was said we needed to solve the problems on Earth first.

This is one of the main problems. Most people think short term. What will it get us now? If we keep waiting until the problems on earth are solved, we will never get off this planet.

 

[Brovane]

This is one of the main problems. Most people think short term. What will it get us now? If we keep waiting until the problems on earth are solved, we will never get off this planet.

I agree 100% with this statement.

 

[disappoint]

Look mommy, over there! What's that?

Honey that's the zoo where animals talk about shit they know fuck all about.

Oh.

First of all, NASA's budget is like 2% GDP, Whereas the Pentagon's is like what? 40%?

Second there is more to space exploration than your Sci-Fi education leads you to believe. Like LISA for example.

 

[DrPizza]

If we wanted to "save us!", we could simply build a station at the South Pole & never send them supplies. What could possibly kill those people off? Suppose the rest of the world has WWIII and it plunges Earth into a nuclear winter, causing massive extinctions. Well, it'd be a picnic at the South Pole, compared to being on the moon or Mars.

 

[TheTony]

Do people realize that there's still a lot of science being done on manned missions in LEO? More than can actually be scheduled? It doesn't entail the more compelling idea of space travel, interstellar exploration or colonization, but it is producing practical science that will lead to benefits here on Earth.

Also alluded to by a few others - the amount of "innovation" that came out of the space program, and has subsequently become part of many people's everyday lives is nothing to scoff at.

Not to say that NASA and the goals of space exploration don't need a good review, but the work being done there now isn't worthless.

 

[BoberFett]

Look mommy, over there! What's that?

Honey that's the zoo where animals talk about shit they know fuck all about.

Oh.

First of all, NASA's budget is like 2% GDP, Whereas the Pentagon's is like what? 40%?

Second there is more to space exploration than your Sci-Fi education leads you to believe. Like LISA for example.

Do you have any clue what GDP means? Clearly you don't, which makes the bolded that much funnier.

 

[DrPizza]

Do people realize that there's still a lot of science being done on manned missions in LEO? More than can actually be scheduled? It doesn't entail the more compelling idea of space travel, interstellar exploration or colonization, but it is producing practical science that will lead to benefits here on Earth.

Also alluded to by a few others - the amount of "innovation" that came out of the space program, and has subsequently become part of many people's everyday lives is nothing to scoff at.

Not to say that NASA and the goals of space exploration don't need a good review, but the work being done there now isn't worthless.

Such as?? As far as the spin-offs,
1. they work under the assumption that no one would have attempted to create certain products. i.e. scratch resistant coatings.
2. I'm just going to speculate here, but I'd guess that the bang for the buck is pretty low, particularly when you're looking at manned missions. But, for unmanned missions, well, it's quite possible that they get pretty good bang for the buck.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Think of it as single payer for space science.

 

[Vic Vega]

Certain people will always be against the space budget... mostly because man leaving Earth, having the ability to travel to another planet and settle it goes against their way of thinking which is controlling you. As long as man is confined to Earth the elites will control you and they like that control. They want to tell you who to marry, what to eat, what color to paint your house, where you can school your kids and how you can spend your money... the money they let you have after taxes. It's scary to these people that some day, portions of the population could flip them the bird and leave this planet. They don't want that, so kill the space budget.

We could have been to Mars already.

 

[IronWing]

Certain people will always be against the space budget... mostly because man leaving Earth, having the ability to travel to another planet and settle it goes against their way of thinking which is controlling you. As long as man is confined to Earth the elites will control you and they like that control. They want to tell you who to marry, what to eat, what color to paint your house, where you can school your kids and how you can spend your money... the money they let you have after taxes. It's scary to these people that some day, portions of the population could flip them the bird and leave this planet. They don't want that, so kill the space budget.

We could have been to Mars already.

The libertarian argument for taxing folks to pay for the ultimate elitist experience? I award one cookie.

 

[llee]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/science/space/25nasa.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=nasa&st=cseDoes anyone see the US funding a mission to Mars when Americans can't afford to send their kids to college, or fill up their gas tanks?

While you may feel morally obligated to save everyone, it just isn't possible. Regardless of what new technologies we discover, there will always be poor people on this planet. I believe the challenge is finding the thresh-hold between helping others who direly need the support and helping the human race as a whole by a space exploration.

 

[disappoint]

Do you have any clue what GDP means? Clearly you don't, which makes the bolded that much funnier.

Clearly. Of course. You are so right. I beg of you your excellency, please don't expose my ignorance upon the masses when I have them so fooled.

Clearly I have no idea what GDP is because I had oh so much time to write an article on economics given that it was the main topic in this thread.

Clearly you've began a plot against the president because you never mentioned you didn't. Traitor. You should be brought up on charges.

Yes I am well aware of the changeover from using GNP to GDP by politicians because of growing national debt.

And they love Raygun so much. ;-)

 

[Tobal-G]

Clearly. Of course. You are so right. I beg of you your excellency, please don't expose my ignorance upon the masses when I have them so fooled.

Clearly I have no idea what GDP is because I had oh so much time to write an article on economics given that it was the main topic in this thread.

Clearly you've began a plot against the president because you never mentioned you didn't. Traitor. You should be brought up on charges.

Yes I am well aware of the changeover from using GNP to GDP by politicians because of growing national debt.

And they love Raygun so much. ;-)

What the hell are you talking about? Do you know what 2% of our GDP is? It comes out to about $282 billion dollars. There's absolutely no way NASA would have that kind of money. I think you're referring to 2% of the federal budget....

I never post here, but your response made my brain hurt. D:

 

[ShawnD1]

If we wanted to "save us!", we could simply build a station at the South Pole & never send them supplies. What could possibly kill those people off? Suppose the rest of the world has WWIII and it plunges Earth into a nuclear winter, causing massive extinctions. Well, it'd be a picnic at the South Pole, compared to being on the moon or Mars.

The moon is such an interesting place. Because it has no atmosphere, it's about +100 Celsius during the day and -100 Celsius at night.

Some stupid creationist fuckhead once tried to tell me that if the earth were a few miles closer to the sun, all life would go extinct. Just looking at our own moon shows why that is completely retarded. Surface temperature --> more affected by an atmosphere than by distance from the sun. That and the hottest planet in the solar system is Venus even though Mercury is closer to the sun.

Think of it as single payer for space science.

That's a very accurate statement. Some of the more recent governments in my province slashed the healthcare budget, and guess what, it starts to suck just as bad as NASA sucks right now. Cutting funding = it's going to suck

 

[Nintendesert]

The moon is such an interesting place. Because it has no atmosphere, it's about +100 Celsius during the day and -100 Celsius at night.

Some stupid creationist fuckhead once tried to tell me that if the earth were a few miles closer to the sun, all life would go extinct. Just looking at our own moon shows why that is completely retarded. Surface temperature --> more affected by an atmosphere than by distance from the sun. That and the hottest planet in the solar system is Venus even though Mercury is closer to the sun.



That's a very accurate statement. Some of the more recent governments in my province slashed the healthcare budget, and guess what, it starts to suck just as bad as NASA sucks right now. Cutting funding = it's going to suck

He was probably just confused about the Habitable Zone and where we were in it. His concerns are based on actual science however wrong his "few miles" estimate was.

 

[disappoint]

What the hell are you talking about? Do you know what 2% of our GDP is? It comes out to about $282 billion dollars. There's absolutely no way NASA would have that kind of money. I think you're referring to 2% of the federal budget....

I never post here, but your response made my brain hurt. D:

Ok so it was 0.2%, I read the article a while ago, memory was a bit fuzzy. You really going to quibble over that? The gist of it is a small percentage is spent on NASA when compared to the military for example.

The fact that it's less than 0.2% makes my point even more so! FFS.

 

[Kadarin]

Personally I think it's sad that NASA (and our space program in general) has been allowed to devolve into the bureaucratic mess that it now is. The USA as a country has gotten far too used to thinking short-term, and it's eventually going to lead to our downfall.

 

[Pocatello]

When there is no pride, no goal, no leadership, or no clear purpose, you're not going anywhere.

 

[Minjin]

I think another space race could be just what this world needs. We need something to dream about and work towards.