I think you're missing the point. It's not NASA's budget that's being picked on but what it's doing with the money on the manned space program side.
I think you're missing the point. It's not NASA's budget that's being picked on but what it's doing with the money on the manned space program side.
Brainonska511
Lifer
- Dec 10, 2005
- 29,629
- 15,193
- 136
boomerang
Lifer
- Jun 19, 2000
- 18,883
- 641
- 126
I say keep NASA rolling and quit supporting all these whining, sniveling countries that hate us and wouldn't lift a finger to help us if we needed it. Let them find out what life is like without those American dollars flowing in.
Just think of the things that could be accomplished here at home with that kind of money.
Just think of the things that could be accomplished here at home with that kind of money.
The ISRO is not your typical government run organization. DRDO yes but ISRO no. It's extremely well managed and run. The Indian space program is one of the most cost efficient in the world so read up a little before you post your crap.
The Space Elevator is awaiting the development of mass production on Carbon Nanotubes for the cables...
When will that happen? Could be in 2 years, could be 20...
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
It's silly to talk about underfunding NASA - while much of it is welfare to genius PhD's much of it is also putting defense networks up and inventing great products keeping us leading edge. I assume he thinks sending the cash to the ghetto is a better investment despite 40 years of dubious returns.
frostedflakes
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2005
- 7,925
- 1
- 81
Please tell me when Obama said he was going to end the Constellation program (good luck, because you can't). At one point I think he talked about delaying the program a few years, but he's since reversed his position. His transition team is just doing their job and scrutinizing *everything*, but Griffin is being very uncooperative.
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
It will take years to evolve from the Aries 1 human transport rocket to using the Aries V vehicles for heavy launch,
and the are made as compatible systems.
The solid boosters that have been used for decades will be used in concept as the first stage column booster, 5 segments.
The shuttle uses 4 segments on each side, plus the skirt segment, and the nose segment.
Aries adds a stge, uses the skirt, eliminates the nose and replaces it with an aero-fairing.
Liquid fuel 2nd stage mates to capsule/module, and tractor rocket (Rescue).
Seats six, refurshible capsule.
Aries V is larger than the Shuttle tank, back to the size of the Atlas V, but updated to todays material science.
It includes the use of the solid boosters, and maintains compatibility characteristics with the Aries 1 system.
Heavy lift, unmanned drone to carry and deliver supplies.
ISS supplied by Aries V, cargo staged in lunar parking orbit, tragectory placed supplies
in 2 or 3 month intervals in transit points on path to Mars
for rendezvous and re-supply and waste containment stops going out and coming back.
You have to have food and water, and dispose of used items and waste managment.
Command Module can fly to and mate with cargo vessel or transit vessel, use it to propel and direct to next rendezvous, & piggy back onward.
Meeting with orbiting landing craft, they can land a protective pod and supplies for a fun weekend for 2, all expenses paid.
Departing the Mars Landing site, they could leave a function pod housing for the next crew to occupy during a future excursion.
After Mars departure, and re-mating with a pre-staged transit vessel, and start the return voyage.
It's at least 6 months travel each way, so you have to deal with food, water, medical necessities and waste managment for a year.
30 days of trash accumulation, water recycling, and air purification is quite the task to overcome.
And you have to do it without error - at least 12 consecutive times.
This is what the Constellation in beeing designed for.
In the meantime, NASA has a lot of solar panel, battery development, and ecco system work to do and develop.
why not start that work now with the intent to use it now on the earth to make the shift to energy independance,
funded and performed by NASA, and reap the early benefits in tecnology,
and as it advances - the advanced results will become the flight hardware.
Rememember the Jupiter and Saturn Fly-bys? We launched those before the was electronic equipment capable of receiving their signals.
We had two years to make receivers before they reached their destinations.
There is a 20 year window to perform the Constellation missions, and many gains to be made and profited from.
and the are made as compatible systems.
The solid boosters that have been used for decades will be used in concept as the first stage column booster, 5 segments.
The shuttle uses 4 segments on each side, plus the skirt segment, and the nose segment.
Aries adds a stge, uses the skirt, eliminates the nose and replaces it with an aero-fairing.
Liquid fuel 2nd stage mates to capsule/module, and tractor rocket (Rescue).
Seats six, refurshible capsule.
Aries V is larger than the Shuttle tank, back to the size of the Atlas V, but updated to todays material science.
It includes the use of the solid boosters, and maintains compatibility characteristics with the Aries 1 system.
Heavy lift, unmanned drone to carry and deliver supplies.
ISS supplied by Aries V, cargo staged in lunar parking orbit, tragectory placed supplies
in 2 or 3 month intervals in transit points on path to Mars
for rendezvous and re-supply and waste containment stops going out and coming back.
You have to have food and water, and dispose of used items and waste managment.
Command Module can fly to and mate with cargo vessel or transit vessel, use it to propel and direct to next rendezvous, & piggy back onward.
Meeting with orbiting landing craft, they can land a protective pod and supplies for a fun weekend for 2, all expenses paid.
Departing the Mars Landing site, they could leave a function pod housing for the next crew to occupy during a future excursion.
After Mars departure, and re-mating with a pre-staged transit vessel, and start the return voyage.
It's at least 6 months travel each way, so you have to deal with food, water, medical necessities and waste managment for a year.
30 days of trash accumulation, water recycling, and air purification is quite the task to overcome.
And you have to do it without error - at least 12 consecutive times.
This is what the Constellation in beeing designed for.
In the meantime, NASA has a lot of solar panel, battery development, and ecco system work to do and develop.
why not start that work now with the intent to use it now on the earth to make the shift to energy independance,
funded and performed by NASA, and reap the early benefits in tecnology,
and as it advances - the advanced results will become the flight hardware.
Rememember the Jupiter and Saturn Fly-bys? We launched those before the was electronic equipment capable of receiving their signals.
We had two years to make receivers before they reached their destinations.
There is a 20 year window to perform the Constellation missions, and many gains to be made and profited from.
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
The reason why is simple, it inspires people.
The reason we went to the moon the first time wasn't because it was profitable , it was done as a "We can do it if we really try and work together" moment.
With all the crap that is happening in the world, humanity needs these moments.
You can't tell me that when the pictures were sent back from the mars rover that people all over did not stop for just a moment and think about the bigger picture. Other things like Mount Rushmore and the Statue of Liberty have no monetary value directly and are even costly to maintain. But they do serve to inspire and lift peoples spirits to make them think about something other than themselves, if only for a moment.
We don't do anything great like that as a nation anymore. All we ever hear about now is wars, money, politics. There isn't anything that pulls the people together now except space. Don't let anyone take that away.
The reason we went to the moon the first time wasn't because it was profitable , it was done as a "We can do it if we really try and work together" moment.
With all the crap that is happening in the world, humanity needs these moments.
You can't tell me that when the pictures were sent back from the mars rover that people all over did not stop for just a moment and think about the bigger picture. Other things like Mount Rushmore and the Statue of Liberty have no monetary value directly and are even costly to maintain. But they do serve to inspire and lift peoples spirits to make them think about something other than themselves, if only for a moment.
We don't do anything great like that as a nation anymore. All we ever hear about now is wars, money, politics. There isn't anything that pulls the people together now except space. Don't let anyone take that away.
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
And, that's one outstanding reason to continue to fund NASA. However, there is absolutely no need to fund human exploration. We already know we can send humans to the Moon. And, we know it's incredibly expensive. Humans to the moon, humans to mars, even the ISS are just boondoggles. Few projects could possible have less "bang for the buck."
How much would it cost for a mission to explore part of the ocean of Europa, especially compared to the cost of a manned mission to Mars? Modelworks mentioned "inspires people." How inspirational would it be to find other life out there, rather than a couple of people on another planet would could report back "that's another small step for mankind." Such a mission would be just as likely (if not more) to spawn new innovations that help mankind.
We've already landed on the moon. What's the difference between the moon and Mars, other than Mars is farther away (and greater gravity)? What can we learn about Mars that we can't learn from a robot sent to Mars (at an incredibly small fraction of the expense to send a human to Mars?) The greatest innovations often come from doing something new, not repeating something that's been done before.
The only positive thing of more manned missions would be to foster more interest in the sciences for school-aged children on earth. That's about the only crowning achievement for the ISS - having our kids talk to a couple of scientists floating around the earth has spawned a new generation of students dedicated to learning the sciences in the U.S. Uhhh, wait a second... maybe it didn't. Let's see... oh yeah... the international space station is a crowning achievement in showing that our country can work well together with other countries. Uhhh, oh, wait another second. Hmmmm...
fallout man
Golden Member
- Nov 20, 2007
- 1,787
- 1
- 0
I heard that it was a hoax! :shocked: :shocked: :shocked:
From what I read on the internets, the entire Moon mission was an elaborate hoax to plant Obama's Indonesian birth certificate in a deep ocean trench!
XMan
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 12,513
- 50
- 91
Yeah, let's just forget about trying to go back to the moon.
I mean, it's not like there isn't enough Helium3 there to get us off oil, coal, natural gas, and replace nuclear fission as well.
I mean, it's not like there isn't enough Helium3 there to get us off oil, coal, natural gas, and replace nuclear fission as well.
We could make it work, but at what cost and what return on investments? Do we want another Apollo style program whose basic aim was to beat the Russians to the moon? I can't see anything more in the Ares/Constellation technology. And what would happen if there was an Apollo 13 moment or worse on the way to Mars? One of the reasons that the Apollo program was cut short was to avoid the PR nightmare of fatal space accident.
I think the basic aim of the manned space program should be to develop a set of life-sustaining and transportation systems that are industrially replicable and launched at reliable intervals at a reasonable cost and which prove themselves in earth-orbit. That in itself should be the goal. Maybe we can put the Space Station to good use as the interim destination (a space "drone", if you will) to get this right. I know it doesn't sound as sexy as building moon and mars rockets but it is the key to getting there and not the hand-made products that NASA is touting.
Russia has approximated this approach and is the reason it has permanent manned access to space.
In that sense, the Obama team's request for NASA to look into the Delta and Titan programs is a step in the right direction. Maybe they cannot be qualified for manned use, but their workhorse nature is what is the need of the hour.
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
And, even if we wanted helium-3, why send humans to the moon to get it? Why not robots? Furthermore, why don't we take the money that had been proposed originally for manned missions to the moon and to Mar, and actually invest a significant amount of money in fusion research. Simply having more He-3 isn't going to get us any closer to nuclear fusion.
Babbles
Diamond Member
- Jan 4, 2001
- 8,253
- 14
- 81
I think this is a bad idea. Outside of funding unknown future technology, and as somebody mentioned above, there is a massive psychological cohesiveness that large NASA projects create. It is undeniable the impact that the Apollo projects had on the social fabric of the country; not every asset is easily quantifiable by a number. The US, for the time being, is the leading country in space exploration and I think it is in our country's best interest, and frankly the best interest of the entire world, to continue our leadership in that role.
So you're in HS and you want to be an astronaut and because funding will be cut you will be screwed? Well what about the thousands and millions of kids who were taught to become engineers during the 90s only to see all their jobs going overseas to Taiwan, Korea, Japan, and now India and China? Good lord. It's like when we grew up wanting to be policemen and firefighters, but reality sets in. You need to adapt to today's economy and world.
Gibsons
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2001
- 12,530
- 35
- 91
Is it fair to say that, in general, there are three schools of thought here?
1. Cut funding to NASA and space exploration in general, it's not practical.
2. Keep (or increase) funding space exploration, but do so in a cost-efficient manner (in particular, use robots and do about 20 (or a hundred...) robotic missions instead of one human one).
3. Keep (or increase) funding human exploration of space.
I think a lot of arguments for category 2 are being misinterpreted as category 1.
I fall strongly into the category 2 train of thought and generally favor an overall increase in NASAs budget. I can begrudgingly accept 3, but only because it's better than 1.
1. Cut funding to NASA and space exploration in general, it's not practical.
2. Keep (or increase) funding space exploration, but do so in a cost-efficient manner (in particular, use robots and do about 20 (or a hundred...) robotic missions instead of one human one).
3. Keep (or increase) funding human exploration of space.
I think a lot of arguments for category 2 are being misinterpreted as category 1.
I fall strongly into the category 2 train of thought and generally favor an overall increase in NASAs budget. I can begrudgingly accept 3, but only because it's better than 1.
Yep, Space Superiority is the next step. Everyone must realize this is why India and China are pouring so much into their space programs.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter