NASA's moon plan too ambitious, Obama panel says

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

retrospooty

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2002
2,031
74
86
Originally posted by: Darwin333
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: Newbian
Originally posted by: PieIsAwesome
Why is it that this was done 40 years ago but cannot be done now? :confused:

Lack of interest and there is no reason to go back to the moon at this time unless we plan on building some sort of colony there.

Not to mention competition was the main goal back then since we were competing against the Ruskies.

Heck they almost beat us to it but their spacecraft crash landed on the moon a few hours before our shuttle lifted off.

That and the rediculous amount of money we spent to do it... The reasons to do it no longer exist and the fact is, once we got there we found a lifeless useless rock. Why waste money - there isnt much of that going around these days.

MAybe in another 20-30 years, tech will exist that makes it cheaper to accomplish gettng there, building a permanent colony and mining the hell out of it - but intil that is economically feesable, forget it. - right now its THOROUGH waste of money.

Lol, NASAs budget is pennies compared to what we are spending right now. Besides the pure science aspect they also provide a ton of high paying jobs across the nation. We can't have any of that though, Congress needs some new gulfstreams.

Congressional waste is all about corruption, and its been going on for 50+ years, its not like a new thing. reps and dems all do it, always have and always will - if a 3rd party ever gets into power they will do it as well. You are right, but that is a totally separate topic.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
It's only too ambitious for the naysayers caught up in their mediocrity and daily troubles unable to see the potential like a frog looking up from its well.

At least America had a President with the ambition at one time.


President Pitzer, Mr. Vice President, Governor, Congressman Thomas, Senator Wiley, and Congressman Miller, Mr. Webb, Mr. Bell, scientists, distinguished guests, and ladies and gentlemen:

I appreciate your president having made me an honorary visiting professor, and I will assure you that my first lecture will be very brief.

I am delighted to be here and I'm particularly delighted to be here on this occasion.

We meet at a college noted for knowledge, in a city noted for progress, in a state noted for strength, and we stand in need of all three, for we meet in an hour of change and challenge, in a decade of hope and fear, in an age of both knowledge and ignorance. The greater our knowledge increases, the greater our ignorance unfolds.

Despite the striking fact that most of the scientists that the world has ever known are alive and working today, despite the fact that this Nation's own scientific manpower is doubling every 12 years in a rate of growth more than three times that of our population as a whole, despite that, the vast stretches of the unknown and the unanswered and the unfinished still far outstrip our collective comprehension.

No man can fully grasp how far and how fast we have come, but condense, if you will, the 50,000 years of man's recorded history in a time span of but a half-century. Stated in these terms, we know very little about the first 40 years, except at the end of them advanced man had learned to use the skins of animals to cover them. Then about 10 years ago, under this standard, man emerged from his caves to construct other kinds of shelter. Only five years ago man learned to write and use a cart with wheels. Christianity began less than two years ago. The printing press came this year, and then less than two months ago, during this whole 50-year span of human history, the steam engine provided a new source of power. Newton explored the meaning of gravity. Last month electric lights and telephones and automobiles and airplanes became available. Only last week did we develop penicillin and television and nuclear power, and now if America's new spacecraft succeeds in reaching Venus, we will have literally reached the stars before midnight tonight.

This is a breathtaking pace, and such a pace cannot help but create new ills as it dispels old, new ignorance, new problems, new dangers. Surely the opening vistas of space promise high costs and hardships, as well as high reward.

So it is not surprising that some would have us stay where we are a little longer to rest, to wait. But this city of Houston, this state of Texas, this country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them. This country was conquered by those who moved forward--and so will space.

William Bradford, speaking in 1630 of the founding of the Plymouth Bay Colony, said that all great and honorable actions are accompanied with great difficulties, and both must be enterprised and overcome with answerable courage.

If this capsule history of our progress teaches us anything, it is that man, in his quest for knowledge and progress, is determined and cannot be deterred. The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in this race for space.

Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolution, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it--we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding.

Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading space-faring nation.

We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say that we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours.

There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation many never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

It is for these reasons that I regard the decision last year to shift our efforts in space from low to high gear as among the most important decisions that will be made during my incumbency in the office of the Presidency.

In the last 24 hours we have seen facilities now being created for the greatest and most complex exploration in man's history. We have felt the ground shake and the air shattered by the testing of a Saturn C-1 booster rocket, many times as powerful as the Atlas which launched John Glenn, generating power equivalent to 10,000 automobiles with their accelerators on the floor. We have seen the site where five F-1 rocket engines, each one as powerful as all eight engines of the Saturn combined, will be clustered together to make the advanced Saturn missile, assembled in a new building to be built at Cape Canaveral as tall as a 48 story structure, as wide as a city block, and as long as two lengths of this field.

Within these last 19 months at least 45 satellites have circled the earth. Some 40 of them were made in the United States of America and they were far more sophisticated and supplied far more knowledge to the people of the world than those of the Soviet Union.

The Mariner spacecraft now on its way to Venus is the most intricate instrument in the history of space science. The accuracy of that shot is comparable to firing a missile from Cape Canaveral and dropping it in this stadium between the 40-yard lines.

Transit satellites are helping our ships at sea to steer a safer course. Tiros satellites have given us unprecedented warnings of hurricanes and storms, and will do the same for forest fires and icebergs.

We have had our failures, but so have others, even if they do not admit them. And they may be less public.

To be sure, we are behind, and will be behind for some time in manned flight. But we do not intend to stay behind, and in this decade, we shall make up and move ahead.

The growth of our science and education will be enriched by new knowledge of our universe and environment, by new techniques of learning and mapping and observation, by new tools and computers for industry, medicine, the home as well as the school. Technical institutions, such as Rice, will reap the harvest of these gains.

And finally, the space effort itself, while still in its infancy, has already created a great number of new companies, and tens of thousands of new jobs. Space and related industries are generating new demands in investment and skilled personnel, and this city and this state, and this region, will share greatly in this growth. What was once the furthest outpost on the old frontier of the West will be the furthest outpost on the new frontier of science and space. Houston, your city of Houston, with its Manned Spacecraft Center, will become the heart of a large scientific and engineering community. During the next 5 years the National Aeronautics and Space Administration expects to double the number of scientists and engineers in this area, to increase its outlays for salaries and expenses to $60 million a year; to invest some $200 million in plant and laboratory facilities; and to direct or contract for new space efforts over $1 billion from this center in this city.

To be sure, all this costs us all a good deal of money. This year's space budget is three times what it was in January 1961, and it is greater than the space budget of the previous eight years combined. That budget now stands at $5,400 million a year--a staggering sum, though somewhat less than we pay for cigarettes and cigars every year. Space expenditures will soon rise some more, from 40 cents per person per week to more than 50 cents a week for every man, woman and child in the United States, for we have given this program a high national priority--even though I realize that this is in some measure an act of faith and vision, for we do not now know what benefits await us. But if I were to say, my fellow citizens, that we shall send to the moon, 240,000 miles away from the control station in Houston, a giant rocket more than 300 feet tall, the length of this football field, made of new metal alloys, some of which have not yet been invented, capable of standing heat and stresses several times more than have ever been experienced, fitted together with a precision better than the finest watch, carrying all the equipment needed for propulsion, guidance, control, communications, food and survival, on an untried mission, to an unknown celestial body, and then return it safely to earth, re-entering the atmosphere at speeds of over 25,000 miles per hour, causing heat about half that of the temperature of the sun--almost as hot as it is here today--and do all this, and do it right, and do it first before this decade is out--then we must be bold.

I'm the one who is doing all the work, so we just want you to stay cool for a minute. [laughter]

However, I think we're going to do it, and I think that we must pay what needs to be paid. I don't think we ought to waste any money, but I think we ought to do the job. And this will be done in the decade of the Sixties. It may be done while some of you are still here at school at this college and university. It will be done during the terms of office of some of the people who sit here on this platform. But it will be done. And it will be done before the end of this decade.

And I am delighted that this university is playing a part in putting a man on the moon as part of a great national effort of the United States of America.

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.

Thank you.

John F. Kennedy - September 12, 1962
 

StinkyPinky

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2002
6,766
784
126
One day we can hopefully put aside petty nationalism and have a global space agency with ten times the funding nasa has. Mankind working towards a common goal....yeah, like that will ever happen.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,448
7,511
136
Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
One day we can hopefully put aside petty nationalism and have a global space agency with ten times the funding nasa has. Mankind working towards a common goal....yeah, like that will ever happen.

Mankind will look to the stars when it is no longer looking for food.

So long as our population continues to grow, we'll always be desperately looking for food and resources for a starving population.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
LOL - In the 60s they got to the moon in what....8 years?

Apollo program was started in 1961
Apollo 11 launched in 1969

Gotta love government....
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,599
19
81
Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
One day we can hopefully put aside petty nationalism and have a global space agency with ten times the funding nasa has. Mankind working towards a common goal....yeah, like that will ever happen.
:(
No nationalism?
But our imaginary lines in the dirt are so very important to us! What other silly, arbitrary means can we use to separate "us" from "them?"


I like to think about what would happen if something like NASA were to get the funding of the US military. We'd likely have fusion-reactor-powered spacecraft, and a probe in orbit of Alpha Centauri already.

But unfortunately, our species holds up bloodshed and revenge as extremely important things, even to the point of romanticizing and glorifying them.



Originally posted by: Patranus
LOL - In the 60s they got to the moon in what....8 years?

Apollo program was started in 1961
Apollo 11 launched in 1969

Gotta love government....
Google gives figures of $135-$150 billion for the original Moon landing, adjusted for inflation.

So I guess if they boosted NASA's yearly budget a bit, and devoted ALL of their resources to another Moon landing, they'd be able to do it.

Also bear in mind, they can't just dig out the old plans and build clones of the Lunar Lander and Saturn V for a low, low price. It's not like Digikey or McMaster-Carr stock 1960s components.


 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,656
687
126
Originally posted by: Newbian

Heck they almost beat us to it but their spacecraft crash landed on the moon a few hours before our shuttle lifted off.

I think you need to read up on the subject a little more, as this is not even close to what happened.
 

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2003
38,416
4
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Mankind will look to the stars when it is no longer looking for food.
NASA can help with food production.

converting any inedible plant parts into biofuels, food, or chemicals

Colonization of space could help to ease the population burdens of Earth in the future, just as the discovery of America helped ease a bulging Europe's population. We just need to find (or terraform) habitable worlds and develop the means to get there. Currently, NASA is our best hope in this effort.

Also, NASA does plenty of R&D for planet Earth. Who knows, watching the skies might prevent another mass extinction (fortunately, the short-term chances of this are low).

One day we can hopefully put aside petty nationalism and have a global space agency with ten times the funding nasa has.
Competition driven by nationalism can be a solid way to motivate the masses (unfortunately, it is like playing with fire), such as the space race between the Soviet Union and the US. Unfortunately, the limit of public interest in our current international effort seems to be regarding broken toilets. IMO, there is the hope of cooperation between the ESA, JAXA and NASA given that space technology can be "ported" to military technology and the governments of those nations mostly share the same enemies and allies.
I like to think about what would happen if something like NASA were to get the funding of the US military. We'd likely have fusion-reactor-powered spacecraft, and a probe in orbit of Alpha Centauri already.
It would be a good idea to divert a significant portion of the military's budget to NASA as it is a bit high for the current relative peace in the West, once the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan finally end. Although, current spending levels (overall, not just for the military and NASA) are far too high, but IMO NASA should be low on the chop list given the return on investment it has produced over the years.

It should be noted that military funding does not always go towards pure killing R&D. At my old university, there was a military project dedicated to researching the long term effects of a post-war environment on people and wildlife for the purpose of minimizing the suffering of the people and the flora / fauna.

If you are interested in some of the R&D that military projects conduct that have plenty of peaceful civilian applications, check out some of the podcasts of Armed With Science.

Also bear in mind, they can't just dig out the old plans and build clones of the Lunar Lander and Saturn V for a low, low price. It's not like Digikey or McMaster-Carr stock 1960s components.
Very true, the money should go towards Constellation rather than reintroducing deprecated tech from the 60s.
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
5,346
1,522
136
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: Newbian
Originally posted by: PieIsAwesome
Why is it that this was done 40 years ago but cannot be done now? :confused:

Lack of interest and there is no reason to go back to the moon at this time unless we plan on building some sort of colony there.

Not to mention competition was the main goal back then since we were competing against the Ruskies.

Heck they almost beat us to it but their spacecraft crash landed on the moon a few hours before our shuttle lifted off.

What alternate universe are you residing in?

:laugh::confused:::shocked::(

Actually this is kind of accurate, except for the shuttle part. We launched a Rocket to the Moon with a capsule not a Shuttle. The Soviets where trying to send a unmanned Probe to the Moon around the same time of Apollo 11 landing. The probe would land on the moon and then return rock and soil samples back to Earth. The Soviets want to get the samples back to Earth before Apollo 11 and then make the Americans look silly for sending men when then Soviets could to the same thing much cheaper using a unmanned probe. However the probe crashed into the Moon's surface and the Soviets basically covered it up. It didn't come out until decades later what happened.
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
5,346
1,522
136
Originally posted by: PieIsAwesome
Why is it that this was done 40 years ago but cannot be done now? :confused:

It is kind of the same reason that nobody has gone back to the Marianas trench. Just lack of Interest. Also if we wanted to go back right now we don't have a vessel than can carry Humans down to 35,000 feet and return. We did this back in the 1960 and we cannot do it today with current vessels. We would have to spend time getting the technology together again to repeat the feat.
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,865
10
0
We could do it forty years ago, but now, it's too ambitious. Must bail out failing companies!
 

ultimatebob

Lifer
Jul 1, 2001
25,135
2,445
126
Originally posted by: Newbian
Originally posted by: PieIsAwesome
Why is it that this was done 40 years ago but cannot be done now? :confused:

Lack of interest and there is no reason to go back to the moon at this time unless we plan on building some sort of colony there.

Not to mention competition was the main goal back then since we were competing against the Ruskies.

Heck they almost beat us to it but their spacecraft crash landed on the moon a few hours before our shuttle lifted off.

Yeah... screw the moon. Been there, done that. We should be shooting for Mars!

Honestly, I'm rooting for the Chinese space program right now. Once THEY land some men on the moon, hopefully we'll feel motivated to get the space race restarted.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
31,600
10,003
136
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Originally posted by: Newbian
Originally posted by: PieIsAwesome
Why is it that this was done 40 years ago but cannot be done now? :confused:

Lack of interest and there is no reason to go back to the moon at this time unless we plan on building some sort of colony there.

Not to mention competition was the main goal back then since we were competing against the Ruskies.

Heck they almost beat us to it but their spacecraft crash landed on the moon a few hours before our shuttle lifted off.

Yeah... screw the moon. Been there, done that. We should be shooting for Mars!

Honestly, I'm rooting for the Chinese space program right now. Once THEY land some men on the moon, hopefully we'll feel motivated to get the space race restarted.

get your ass to mars </total recall>
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
One day we can hopefully put aside petty nationalism and have a global space agency with ten times the funding nasa has. Mankind working towards a common goal....yeah, like that will ever happen.
:(
No nationalism?
But our imaginary lines in the dirt are so very important to us! What other silly, arbitrary means can we use to separate "us" from "them?"

That's damn narrow minded. I suggest you read up on the historical evolution of societies and the development of nations. You may discover the complex nature of social and political growth over 1000s of years. It's such a simplistic cliche of an outlook on the world most libs don't even subscribe to it. Do you really believe human beings were/are capable of some sort of peaceful global anarchy?


I like to think about what would happen if something like NASA were to get the funding of the US military. We'd likely have fusion-reactor-powered spacecraft, and a probe in orbit of Alpha Centauri already.
If NASA had gotten the funding of the US military we would be a failed state due to either bankruptcy or warfare.

As far as the moon plan, I wish the executive was more supportive. The cost-benefit aspect alone is good reason, but the scientific and philosophical gains are just as important.


 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
The moon would make a good launching platform. It has low gravity so it would take less effort to launch from there. There is not much atmosphere so it might also make a good location to put up a telescope or even used to spy on the earth or to get views of storms. It is innovation and scientific discoveries that will bring a brighter future. It might be that the moon may have some good sources of raw materials of some kind that we do not know of. I would rather waste money on space exploration than on government programs.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,999
109
106
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Originally posted by: Jeff7

I like to think about what would happen if something like NASA were to get the funding of the US military. We'd likely have fusion-reactor-powered spacecraft, and a probe in orbit of Alpha Centauri already.
If NASA had gotten the funding of the US military we would be a failed state due to either bankruptcy or warfare.

As far as the moon plan, I wish the executive was more supportive. The cost-benefit aspect alone is good reason, but the scientific and philosophical gains are just as important.

Lets face it, the military as we have it now IS bankrupting us. Shifting a good portion over to NASA will yield a much bigger bang for our buck in terms of innovation, space capability, jobs, and other economic factors. I don't think that he is saying we should fund both organizations at the same time to the extent that we currently fund the military...that is economic suicide.

We should already have a reliable, cheap moon transport capability on our way to mars. We should be looking at Alpha Centauri the same way we look at Mars currently...if we had been funding NASA properly. Nasa needs two thing: goals and a budget to meet them. For a while, we had neither. As things stand now, they are starting to see their mission more clearly, so it is time to pony up the cash and make history again.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
I fully support government funding of high technology agencies like NASA, but I'm not entirely convinced that an "Apollo on steroids" rocket vehicle is the way to go. Shouldn't that funding go towards something more exotic? And what are some of the specific research benefits we can hope to see with a permanent moon base?

I consider the end goal of space technology to be to ensure that continuation of the human race - that is, enabling us to establish colonies outside the reach of the sun when it eventually ceases to support life on this planet. Maybe a permanent moon base is a really critical first step towards that goal? I can't help but think that the delivery vehicle of choice is the wrong way to go.
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Originally posted by: Jeff7
I like to think about what would happen if something like NASA were to get the funding of the US military. We'd likely have fusion-reactor-powered spacecraft, and a probe in orbit of Alpha Centauri already.
If NASA had gotten the funding of the US military we would be a failed state due to either bankruptcy or warfare.

As far as the moon plan, I wish the executive was more supportive. The cost-benefit aspect alone is good reason, but the scientific and philosophical gains are just as important.

Lets face it, the military as we have it now IS bankrupting us. Shifting a good portion over to NASA will yield a much bigger bang for our buck in terms of innovation, space capability, jobs, and other economic factors. I don't think that he is saying we should fund both organizations at the same time to the extent that we currently fund the military...that is economic suicide.

I disagree that the military we have now is bankrupting us... as a % of the GDP or budget, it's not out of the ordinary. That's not to say it couldn't be cut though. It should be.

I'm all for more money going towards NASA but Jeff7's little rant was not well thought out.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,133
219
106
Sadly, I see a dim future of NASA. Obama doesn't want to spend money and bush hardly gave them any money to work with but Obama is giving them even LESS.

So, once the space shuttle get's mothballed and Hubble burns up and falls back into earth orbit because we can no longer maintain it. It's gonna be a long and bumpy road unless Obama pulls his head out of his ass and gives them more money. Maybe the next election who knows.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: ericlp
Sadly, I see a dim future of NASA. Obama doesn't want to spend money and bush hardly gave them any money to work with but Obama is giving them even LESS.

So, once the space shuttle get's mothballed and Hubble burns up and falls back into earth orbit because we can no longer maintain it. It's gonna be a long and bumpy road unless Obama pulls his head out of his ass and gives them more money. Maybe the next election who knows.

Bush gave NASA decent increases.

Hubble should have been dropped a long time ago as it would be far cheaper to build a new better hubble and replace it, than to send the shuttle up to fix it.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,568
3
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: ericlp
Sadly, I see a dim future of NASA. Obama doesn't want to spend money and bush hardly gave them any money to work with but Obama is giving them even LESS.

So, once the space shuttle get's mothballed and Hubble burns up and falls back into earth orbit because we can no longer maintain it. It's gonna be a long and bumpy road unless Obama pulls his head out of his ass and gives them more money. Maybe the next election who knows.

Bush gave NASA decent increases.

Hubble should have been dropped a long time ago as it would be far cheaper to build a new better hubble and replace it, than to send the shuttle up to fix it.

And once that replacement has been funded, designed, built, and is on the launch pad, I'd be happy to support the retirement of hubble.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: irishScott
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: ericlp
Sadly, I see a dim future of NASA. Obama doesn't want to spend money and bush hardly gave them any money to work with but Obama is giving them even LESS.

So, once the space shuttle get's mothballed and Hubble burns up and falls back into earth orbit because we can no longer maintain it. It's gonna be a long and bumpy road unless Obama pulls his head out of his ass and gives them more money. Maybe the next election who knows.

Bush gave NASA decent increases.

Hubble should have been dropped a long time ago as it would be far cheaper to build a new better hubble and replace it, than to send the shuttle up to fix it.

And once that replacement has been funded, designed, built, and is on the launch pad, I'd be happy to support the retirement of hubble.

But instead of that, we spent a couple of billion to fix what would have cost a billion to replace.
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
5,346
1,522
136
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: ericlp
Sadly, I see a dim future of NASA. Obama doesn't want to spend money and bush hardly gave them any money to work with but Obama is giving them even LESS.

So, once the space shuttle get's mothballed and Hubble burns up and falls back into earth orbit because we can no longer maintain it. It's gonna be a long and bumpy road unless Obama pulls his head out of his ass and gives them more money. Maybe the next election who knows.

Bush gave NASA decent increases.

Hubble should have been dropped a long time ago as it would be far cheaper to build a new better hubble and replace it, than to send the shuttle up to fix it.

Well they are working on a replacement. The James Webb space telescope. However you do bring up some interesting observations about space telescopes and there cost. I have seen some estimates for the Overwhelmingly Large Telescope (100m) would cost around 1-1.5Billion dollars. This telescope could detect objects 1000 times fainter than Hubble. For visible light telescopes I wonder if it is better to invest in ground based telescopes because of the high cost of space based telescopes at this present time? It seems like the great strides in adaptive objects is allowing these telescopes to get incredible resolution even through the Atmosphere. I understand for some observations outside the visible light spectrum nothing can beat a space telescope.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Brovane
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: ericlp
Sadly, I see a dim future of NASA. Obama doesn't want to spend money and bush hardly gave them any money to work with but Obama is giving them even LESS.

So, once the space shuttle get's mothballed and Hubble burns up and falls back into earth orbit because we can no longer maintain it. It's gonna be a long and bumpy road unless Obama pulls his head out of his ass and gives them more money. Maybe the next election who knows.

Bush gave NASA decent increases.

Hubble should have been dropped a long time ago as it would be far cheaper to build a new better hubble and replace it, than to send the shuttle up to fix it.

Well they are working on a replacement. The James Webb space telescope. However you do bring up some interesting observations about space telescopes and there cost. I have seen some estimates for the Overwhelmingly Large Telescope (100m) would cost around 1-1.5Billion dollars. This telescope could detect objects 1000 times fainter than Hubble. For visible light telescopes I wonder if it is better to invest in ground based telescopes because of the high cost of space based telescopes at this present time? It seems like the great strides in adaptive objects is allowing these telescopes to get incredible resolution even through the Atmosphere. I understand for some observations outside the visible light spectrum nothing can beat a space telescope.

The james webb is not a replacement as it does not going to work in the visible light spectrum.