Yes, and you have no idea how far out there they are or who else is having a good laugh. Did you catch yllus's post by the way:
"As I mentioned in another thread, NASA is planning not only to return to the moon within the next ten years, but also set up a permanent base on it. To do this, they are well on their way in constructing the Constellation spacecraft and the Altair Lunar Lander."
Hehehehehe I'm off to see the Wizard, I'll catch you when I can.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,785
- 6,345
- 126
Originally posted by: cirrrocco
I def want to find a planet with 90 percent women. That would be sweet... Yeah they should be nekkid too..
You like 90% Naked Females? Why hello there!
UberNeuman
Lifer
- Nov 4, 1999
- 16,937
- 3,087
- 126
NASA is about exploration, the military is about national defense. If you have a problem with either of them not being a good stand-in for your masculinity, perhaps you should look into buying a fast sports car or suspiciously large truck. Because wasting large amounts of money to help you feel manly by proxy seems kinda silly to me.
That said, while we're on the topic of political viewpoints and space exploration...I find it ironic that Charles Krauthammer of all people is suggesting we put aside practical thinking and embrace the fact that Americans can and should remain able to explore space up close and in person. Of course I couldn't agree with him more. There is value in exploration for its own sake, and no amount of automated probes can replace people actually being there. We explore, that's who we are, and it's an important part of our national identity. Americans were first on the moon...and for those of you who question the value of manned space flight, imagine how you will feel if the first humans who step onto Mars have the flag of another nation on their space suits. It may be entirely symbolic since we landed unmanned craft there first...but tell me that wouldn't take a big chip away from who we are...
But that kind of idealistic thinking is usually dismissed as fuzzy-headed liberal nonsense when applied to any other area of human endeavor, by, among others, Mr. Krauthammer himself. There is a reason it was President Kennedy who pushed to land a man on the moon...exploration for its own sake, exploration because we just want to know what's out there, is modern liberalism at its finest. And I can't help but think that Mr. Krauthammer is for that kind of thing only because it gave him an opportunity to bash Obama.
Pliablemoose
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 25,195
- 0
- 56
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who needs an space rock when we can play global thermal nuclear war? Or better yet totally poison our environment?
Its all part of the Carl Seagan equation speculation, of the billions and trillions of planets that might develop intelligent life, what value to assign to the probability that any such planet will kill themselves off with mass stupidity and greed?
With a N of one as far as we know, we are well on our way to justifying a value of 100% for that variable. And we all know what zero times any numbers of numbers equals.
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
I disagree. We can send many robots for the price of one manned mission to any planet (or the moon.) They can accomplish virtually anything useful that a human could.
Furthermore, in regard to the warm fuzzy feeling we'll all get if we put a man on Mars - big deal. Imagine the implications on Earth if we're the first ones to discover life elsewhere. Perhaps on one of the moons of the gas giants. That would rank as one of the top 10 discoveries of the millenium. Mars. Pthhhhht. Big fucking deal.
We NEED manned missions, especially to the moon and mars. You will never get the public inspired and to stand behind NASA with a robot or two.
If the manned missions to the moon and to mars bring the level of interest that was aroused in 1969, then you could hail that as a huge success.
Also, we have not found any other intelligent life so far and it's possible we wont find any in the foreseeable future. While learning that we are not alone in the universe would hurt the relevance of a manned mission to mars, we shouldn't throw away the chance to rally the public behind space exploration. It could be a hell of a long time before SETI catches something.
We need the manned missions, for NASA's sake and for humanities future in space.
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
- Sep 22, 2007
- 33,655
- 688
- 126
FYI -- it was actually Drake that came up with the equation and the theories and speculation behind it; Sagan merely promoted it and popularized it for public consumption.
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
- Sep 22, 2007
- 33,655
- 688
- 126
I have to agree with you. I think if you could travel back to August of 1969 and tell one of the astronauts or NASA scientists the state of US manned spaceflight in 2009, he/she would be SHOCKED by the lack of progress. I recall hearing somewhere that at the time, they were speculating that the first manned mission would take place in the 1980s. Now, I am not even sure we will see a manned mission to Mars by the 2080s.
I could probably ramble on and write a book about this subject, but I think that the inspiration factor you mention in your post is grossly underestimated as well. I wonder how many people became scientists/engineers as a result of the space program in the 60s? Today, science and engineering majors are almost an afterthought and I think that is one of the big issues facing our nation. It seems everyone wants to be a lawyer or a "business person;" no offense to anyone out there who might have pursued these fields, but they do not advance humanity in my view. Scientists and engineers do and we need to emphasize and cultivate these fields.
nobodyknows
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2008
- 5,474
- 0
- 0
Yes, but all the smart people will be in the space ship headed for that world with the red sun where they will all be invulnerable and have super powers.
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
Fourteen months from today the U.S. will be incapable of sending anyone into Earth orbit. We'll be totally grounded.
That is pretty much true, except there is a way to extend the time-line.
There are only 7 more Extrenal Tanks left to support Space Shuttle Flight, and when those are used, it is over.
There is one additional tank that has been held for conversion into a museum display, but in theory it could be made fly-able.
The production line to build the tanks has closed, and nothing remains in the pipeline to manufacture any additional tanks,
but there is the possibility of re-starting that assembly line, but the through-put first unit would not be realized for 2 additional years.
If we take the remaining 7 tanks and only fly 2 missions per year, selecting access and return flights supporting the ISS, we can fly
one more flight this year, and 2 each in 2010, 2011, & 2012 which effectively extends Shuttle Program Flights another 42 months.
If the decision is made to convert the museum peice for flight, that conversion will take another year or so, and that unit could fly in 2013.
Only by manipulating the Shuttle Flight Schedule is it possible to extend any related flight activity beyond 2013,
and even then it would be difficult to arrange the flights to reach or cover any 2014 attempts.
Restarting the ET line now would provide the first unit in 2012, but that in itself would further delay deployment of the Aries, Orion, & Constellation -
since the Shuttle External Tank Program occupies the floorspace that is needed for conversion to placce the tools & workspace to build it's replacement.
Once that the ET tooling comes down to build the Ares I & Ares V Rocket segments, the ET and Shuttle are done forever.
Conversley, the longer the delay in making the decision to shut down the Shuttle, the more it delays the effort needed to convert the
Ares Launch Pads and enplace the tools and equipment that are needed to build the next generation of Space Flight Vehicles.
This applies to any atempt to convert to the 'Direct' concept as well - as it would be a derivative of the Space Shuttle, and requires as a minimum
an External Tank in order to fly. Iif there are no more External Tanks for the Shuttle, where do you get any External Tanks for Direct 2.0 or 3.0 Vehicles?
Nasa isn't going to make them, and Direct isn't going to take over the NASA tools and make them inside of a NASA facility if NASA is using that area for Ares,
and Direct isn't going to put up it's own building and tooling to make copys of the External Tank.
Some of those required tools now in use are the only ones in existance in the world, and would take years to duplicate or relocate.
As a side note - the Shuttle itself cannot be replaced, as that facility, buildings tools, et al, was taken apart last year: July 2008
That is pretty much true, except there is a way to extend the time-line.
There are only 7 more Extrenal Tanks left to support Space Shuttle Flight, and when those are used, it is over.
There is one additional tank that has been held for conversion into a museum display, but in theory it could be made fly-able.
The production line to build the tanks has closed, and nothing remains in the pipeline to manufacture any additional tanks,
but there is the possibility of re-starting that assembly line, but the through-put first unit would not be realized for 2 additional years.
If we take the remaining 7 tanks and only fly 2 missions per year, selecting access and return flights supporting the ISS, we can fly
one more flight this year, and 2 each in 2010, 2011, & 2012 which effectively extends Shuttle Program Flights another 42 months.
If the decision is made to convert the museum peice for flight, that conversion will take another year or so, and that unit could fly in 2013.
Only by manipulating the Shuttle Flight Schedule is it possible to extend any related flight activity beyond 2013,
and even then it would be difficult to arrange the flights to reach or cover any 2014 attempts.
Restarting the ET line now would provide the first unit in 2012, but that in itself would further delay deployment of the Aries, Orion, & Constellation -
since the Shuttle External Tank Program occupies the floorspace that is needed for conversion to placce the tools & workspace to build it's replacement.
Once that the ET tooling comes down to build the Ares I & Ares V Rocket segments, the ET and Shuttle are done forever.
Conversley, the longer the delay in making the decision to shut down the Shuttle, the more it delays the effort needed to convert the
Ares Launch Pads and enplace the tools and equipment that are needed to build the next generation of Space Flight Vehicles.
This applies to any atempt to convert to the 'Direct' concept as well - as it would be a derivative of the Space Shuttle, and requires as a minimum
an External Tank in order to fly. Iif there are no more External Tanks for the Shuttle, where do you get any External Tanks for Direct 2.0 or 3.0 Vehicles?
Nasa isn't going to make them, and Direct isn't going to take over the NASA tools and make them inside of a NASA facility if NASA is using that area for Ares,
and Direct isn't going to put up it's own building and tooling to make copys of the External Tank.
Some of those required tools now in use are the only ones in existance in the world, and would take years to duplicate or relocate.
As a side note - the Shuttle itself cannot be replaced, as that facility, buildings tools, et al, was taken apart last year: July 2008
retrospooty
Platinum Member
- Apr 3, 2002
- 2,031
- 74
- 86
What so in THIS economy, we are supposed to spend 100's of billions on going back to the Moon?
Be realistic - now is not the time. As time goes by and science progresses it will become cheaper and easier to get there - now is just not the time and the whole article you posted is short sighted and ill concieved.
sciwizam
Golden Member
- Oct 22, 2004
- 1,953
- 0
- 0
So you think the money just magically transforms into rockets?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget
retrospooty
Platinum Member
- Apr 3, 2002
- 2,031
- 74
- 86
No I do not. what's your point?
Are you saying we should spend 4% of our tax dollars to get to the moon again?
We have been there, and found it to be a barren rock... At this point in our technology - its worthless to us. At some point when technology has increased, we can create a base and maybe mine minerals or something. What is your urge to get back there at this stage? What is the gain?
sciwizam
Golden Member
- Oct 22, 2004
- 1,953
- 0
- 0
My point was it is not wasted money. I see it as better investment than the pork that gets passed in the budget. We don't have to spend 4% of our GDP, we know a lot more about space flight now than we knew then. And if do not commit resources to increase it, how does technology increase?
retrospooty
Platinum Member
- Apr 3, 2002
- 2,031
- 74
- 86
I am not saying don't do it ever... I am saying during the worst recession since the depression is not the time to spend that money.
As far as the pork that gets passed - that is a whole separate issue not related to space flight. That is a matter of human nature. Those with power take from those without. The reps do it, the dems do it. The last congress did it, the current congress does it, the next 10 congresses will do it. It happens in every country and every human organization on Earth. Its sucks but it is the way it is.
Originally posted by: cirrrocco
I def want to find a planet with 90 percent women. That would be sweet..
Death by snoosnoo!
retrospooty
Platinum Member
- Apr 3, 2002
- 2,031
- 74
- 86
I dont see that as happening. At this point it would be mostly R&D by a handful of rocket scientists. It not like hiring 100's of thousands of people.
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
How about preserving the pending jobs that will be lost?
Like at KSC
MAF @ Michoud
Because
If the workforce that has built manned spaceflight systems for 30+ years is released,
who do you turn to to perform the build, assembly, and launch preparations?
It's not just a job that the counter-clerk at McDonald's can be ready to perform, is it?
It will take a core group of a few thousand engineers and mechanics in many locations throughout the country 4 or 5 years
to produce, assemble, qualify, and prepare the rockets and capsules that will be needed to perform space flight missions.
While it would be nice to be able to use each vessel again and again, the propulsion stages are throw-aways, although the SRB's are re-usable
as is the capsule - unless it's a water landing.
Most components have a one use limit, and have to be constantly retrofitted or replaced in order to sustain the program's longevity.
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: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter