The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   Science and Technology (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=36)
-   -   Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA? (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=82061)

TheMasterOfOrion February 8 2009 02:35 PM

Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?
 
Well maybe not take over all NASA like Solar science, search for aliens, environment watching satellites, Jupiter probes etc :shifty:
but maybe the USAF should take over "Manned" space exploration :techman:

Taken from the last science and tech thread
Quote:

Squiggyfm wrote: (Post 2586478)
If NASA is funded at it's current levels, we won't get to Mars until the middle of the century...probably a decade <i>after </i>the Chinese.

:cardie:


Here are the Obama rumors
Griffin is gone :eek:
Quote:

Just days after inauguration, it's looking increasingly like President Barack Obama's pick for NASA administrator may fail to launch. Retired Air Force General Jonathan Scott Gration, a former fighter pilot and Obama's buddy, was rumoured to be the new president's first choice to run the space agency.
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegrea..._fading_1.html
Quote:

Latest NASA Administrator Speculation

Political Tensions Hamper Search for NASA Chief, Wall Street Journal

"Disagreements between the White House and some senior Democratic lawmakers have complicated the choice of the next U.S. civilian space chief -- and led to the emergence of a possible compromise candidate. Retired four-star Air Force Gen. Lester L. Lyles is now viewed as new contender to head the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, according to lawmakers and aerospace industry officials. Gen. Lyles once headed the country's missile-defense program and more recently participated in blue-ribbon commissions studying manned space exploration."
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20..._nasa_adm.html
:o

btflash February 8 2009 03:43 PM

Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?
 
what makes you think the air force can do it any better than nasa? it's the lack of funding that's the problem , not nasa.

John Picard February 8 2009 04:17 PM

Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?
 
^^ Exactly. NASA doesn't receive 1/10th the funding of either the Department of Energy or Department of Education, and those two are an economic black hole.

Both were created during the Carter Administration and neither has produced anything worthwhile or meaningful.

TheMasterOfOrion February 8 2009 04:30 PM

Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?
 
NASA has lost its cojones after Apollo got cancelled. They should have then immediately pushed for a long distance Mars mission. NASA should have been thinking of Record breaking feats of history such as the early long distance flights between Scotland and South Africa or long distance record breaking journeys between the United States and Europe. Instead of record breaking journeys NASA was thinking about launch another 50th robot at Venus or Mars.

I don't know why science fiction is so Navy centric with stories constantly involving naval officers, if you ask me its the wrong mindset for putting a man on Mars. NASA's next logical step after the Moon should have been Mars but instead it was a story of going around in circles trying to repair satellites, or build navy style space stations so people would carry out petri dish experiments in zero G or carrying out Navy like drills ie astronauts ringing bells to mark arrival of space tourists on a Russian taxi, or footage of Com specialists reporting uninteresting stuff to CNN about the the thousandth and one space walk, astronauts doing laundry etc If you ask me NASA's best days are behind it while we should either sell most off to the private sector or allow the US army or Air Force to step in and own manned flight sections since the military guys got more backbone when it comes to pushing the envelope even if it comes with an unfortunate the cost of men.

NASA should also reconsider the use of nuclear rocketry which was banned during the 70s, this kind of power can cut travel time down to a few weeks making travel more like a space plane rather than spending a year sailing a Navy style vessel to Mars and taking another long year to get home. By that time many of your astronauts could be starving or sick or sterile from long term exposure solar radiation. Shuttle was not an Airforce mindset, the Air Force knows it can lose men but it tries its best to keep everyone safe and at least equips its pilots with ejector seats. Saturn-V and Soyuz had great escape mechanisms, Shuttle safety was more like a 19th century mindset, more like the Titanic death trap supported by an outdated Navy plan. If it hit a glitch, there were no lifeboats, no ejector seats and the people on board were most likely doomed.

John Picard February 8 2009 04:39 PM

Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?
 
Quote:

TheMasterOfOrion wrote: (Post 2588903)
NASA has lost its cojones after Apollo got cancelled. They should have then immediately pushed for a long distance Mars mission. NASA should have been thinking of Record breaking feats of history such as the early long distance flights between Scotland and South Africa or long distance record breaking journeys between the United States and Europe. Instead of record breaking journeys NASA was thinking about launch another 50th robot at Venus or Mars.

I don't know why science fiction is so Navy centric with stories constantly involving naval officers, if you ask me its the wrong mindset for putting a man on Mars. NASA's next logical step after the Moon should have been Mars but instead it was a story of going around in circles trying to repair satellites, or build navy style space stations so people would carry out petri dish experiments in zero G or carrying out Navy like drills ie astronauts ringing bells to mark arrival of space tourists on a Russian taxi, or footage of Com specialists reporting uninteresting stuff to CNN about the the thousandth and one space walk, astronauts doing laundry etc If you ask me NASA's best days are behind it while we should either sell most off to the private sector or allow the US army or Air Force to step in and own manned flight sections since the military guys got more backbone when it comes to pushing the envelope even if it comes with an unfortunate the cost of men.

NASA should also reconsider the use of nuclear rocketry which was banned during the 70s, this kind of power can cut travel time down to a few weeks making travel more like a space plane rather than spending a year sailing a Navy style vessel to Mars and taking another long year to get home. By that time many of your astronauts could be starving or sick or sterile from long term exposure solar radiation. Shuttle was not an Airforce mindset, the Air Force knows it can lose men but it tries its best to keep everyone safe and at least equips its pilots with ejector seats. Saturn-V and Soyuz had great escape mechanisms, Shuttle safety was more like a 19th century mindset, more like the Titanic death trap supported by an outdated Navy plan. If it hit a glitch, there were no lifeboats, no ejector seats and the people on board were most likely doomed.

Going to Mars -- WHY?

Most of the original Mercury astronauts were Navy/Marine, not Air Force.

Nothing of what you've posted makes any sense (either philosophically, technologically, or economically) and you have shown zero understanding of the branches of the military.

Forbin February 8 2009 04:48 PM

Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?
 
No, it's time for the civilian sector to take over. For example, a Mars mission for purely exploration purposes should be run by by a private organization such as the National Geographic Society, probably in financial association with several universities and private donors.

Then we wouldn't have to listen to whiners who think "we should solve our problems on Earth before we spend money go to other planets." If it's private money rather than gov't money, they'll have nothing to whine about.

Squiggy February 8 2009 04:53 PM

Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?
 
Quote:

TheMasterOfOrion wrote: (Post 2588903)
NASA has lost its cojones after Apollo got cancelled.

NASA lost it's balls because the American public lost it's balls. "We won the moon race so why keep spending billions? We beat the Soviets. USA. USA. US...hey...disco!"

We were VERY reactionary back then. They launched then we launched. They launched a man into space then we did. They orbited then we did. They started looking at the moon then Kennedy said "Hey, we should go to the moon and do that other thing."

People think NASA gets billions more money than it already does. They're convinced that NASA wastes the "endless supply" of cash on pointless endeavors and to be honest, what NASA has done for the past 30 years hasn't been "sexy". We've pretty much been mass transit or a construction crew since Skylab. No exploring. We're building. We're watching how peas grow and how mice fuck in 0g. No one wants their tax dollars spent on that!

Now the question of "Mars, why?" Because we can. It'll be hard and cost a lot of money but Apollo united the country in the 60s in a way few other things aside from war can. It's good for the nation and would resolidify our superpowerness.

John Picard February 8 2009 05:04 PM

Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?
 
Quote:

Squiggyfm wrote: (Post 2588948)
Quote:

TheMasterOfOrion wrote: (Post 2588903)
NASA has lost its cojones after Apollo got cancelled.

NASA lost it's balls because the American public lost it's balls. "We won the moon race so why keep spending billions? We beat the Soviets. USA. USA. US...hey...disco!"

We were VERY reactionary back then. They launched then we launched. They launched a man into space then we did. They orbited then we did. They started looking at the moon then Kennedy said "Hey, we should go to the moon and do that other thing."

People think NASA gets billions more money than it already does. They're convinced that NASA wastes the "endless supply" of cash on pointless endeavors and to be honest, what NASA has done for the past 30 years hasn't been "sexy". We've pretty much been mass transit or a construction crew since Skylab. No exploring. We're building. We're watching how peas grow and how mice fuck in 0g. No one wants their tax dollars spent on that!

Now the question of "Mars, why?" Because we can. It'll be hard and cost a lot of money but Apollo united the country in the 60s in a way few other things aside from war can. It's good for the nation and would resolidify our superpowerness.

Just because we "can" go to Mars doesn't justify that we should. I'm all for space exploration, but I think remote rovers (at a few million a pop) are money better spent than BILLIONS to send a manned crew. Other monies could be spent on on developing other types of space craft and even mining asteroids for energy to haul back to earth.

Leroy February 8 2009 05:26 PM

Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?
 
Quote:

TheMasterOfOrion wrote:
NASA should also reconsider the use of nuclear rocketry which was banned during the 70s, this kind of power can cut travel time down to a few weeks making travel more like a space plane rather than spending a year sailing a Navy style vessel to Mars and taking another long year to get home.
Is this true? Are nuclear rockets that much faster than conventional ones?

TheMasterOfOrion February 8 2009 05:28 PM

Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?
 
Quote:

John Picard wrote: (Post 2588916)

Going to Mars -- WHY?

Explain to me - WHY NOT?

Quote:

John Picard wrote: (Post 2588916)

Nothing of what you've posted makes any sense (either philosophically,
technologically,
or economically)
and you have shown zero understanding of the branches of the military.

Or course it makes sense
1philosophically, yes! do you want the first colonists on Mars to be speaking Chinese or worse come form of Eurobabble like French? If this were to happen it will send the wrong philosophical message, signaling the American century has come and gone and the next 100 years belongs to another dominant cultural force
2technologically
tech benefits, yes ! the medicine for hospital air filters, the satellites for tracking forest fires, the alpha particles used by neuro surgeons in attacking brain tumors all come from spin offs from government funded sciences
3 economically
How far would NASA be if it got funded in 2010 by a 700 Billion Dollar Bailout like Wall St got? Eisenhower was a good President but wasn't very good on the economy, postwar Americans had money again but he never capitalized on it, the economy was starting to buckle and he allowed the Soviets to get ahead. JFK's Moon vision wasn't just about planting a flag on the Moon, it was also a jobs program and inspired the sciences and industries throughout America.

Quote:

John Picard wrote: (Post 2588916)

Going to Mars -- WHY?

Most of the original Mercury astronauts were Navy/Marine, not Air Force.

Tell me how I "have shown 0 understanding of the of the military"? You seem to be defending the Navys infleunce in space during Mercury, the Soviets had the first dog in space, first spacestations, first long duration flight while United States still had a lot of catch up to do in Mercury. You're not one of these people who daydreams about your days at sea everytime you watch a StarTrek epsiode? I also remember stories of the US Navy trying to bribe their way into space during the early years by paying off congress men and it resulted in a very public failure of the US Navy resulted in headlines across the world like "Kaputnik" and "Flopnik".
Personally I don't think the military should be involved in space, I think Mars needs geologists, biologsts, and other scientists who would perhaps run artfical farms but the military connection is probably unavoidable. If we need the military I say the USAF is the way, since you've got the whole pilot experience and the fastest flight ever recorded by man was Apollo-13 at something like 44 000km/h, its clear we need a new space plane if we want to crank up the speed and get people to Mars.



Quote:

Forbin wrote: (Post 2588937)
No, it's time for the civilian sector to take over. For example, a Mars mission for purely exploration purposes should be run by by a private organization such as the National Geographic Society, probably in financial association with several universities and private donors.

However for manned flight big government is a necessary evil. Private isn't always successful, and when it comes to space these guys will be offering peanuts in comparison to a government one. Let's imagine for a second somebody like Rutan or Brason builds a private ship for manned flight and some big mega star like Oprah Winfrey and BillGates decides to give them every penny they own - adding up to 70 billion. (this is highly unlikely since the private sector is not going to spend so much on something that's not very profitable and high risk to astronauts)
However for arguments sake let's say the mega rich back up the private sector of space flight.
A government funded program in China or any other big country can still out spend them by 30 to 1, if your leader of a country of a billion Chinese you just set aside a percent of the GDP and put 2 Trillion into making sure the first Mars colony is a Chinese one. A country like China could be willing to risk some lives to put people on Mars, while the private sector will go bankrupt after the first loss of life.

Quote:

Leroy wrote: (Post 2589004)
Is this true? Are nuclear rockets that much faster than conventional ones?


http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=1708=1
"12 percent of the speed of light "
Apollo probably flew at 0.00001 percent

Don't ask me how they planned on slowing down this nuke rocket

Squiggy February 8 2009 05:30 PM

Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?
 
Quote:

John Picard wrote: (Post 2588964)
Quote:

Squiggyfm wrote: (Post 2588948)
Quote:

TheMasterOfOrion wrote: (Post 2588903)
NASA has lost its cojones after Apollo got cancelled.

NASA lost it's balls because the American public lost it's balls. "We won the moon race so why keep spending billions? We beat the Soviets. USA. USA. US...hey...disco!"

We were VERY reactionary back then. They launched then we launched. They launched a man into space then we did. They orbited then we did. They started looking at the moon then Kennedy said "Hey, we should go to the moon and do that other thing."

People think NASA gets billions more money than it already does. They're convinced that NASA wastes the "endless supply" of cash on pointless endeavors and to be honest, what NASA has done for the past 30 years hasn't been "sexy". We've pretty much been mass transit or a construction crew since Skylab. No exploring. We're building. We're watching how peas grow and how mice fuck in 0g. No one wants their tax dollars spent on that!

Now the question of "Mars, why?" Because we can. It'll be hard and cost a lot of money but Apollo united the country in the 60s in a way few other things aside from war can. It's good for the nation and would resolidify our superpowerness.

Just because we "can" go to Mars doesn't justify that we should. I'm all for space exploration, but I think remote rovers (at a few million a pop) are money better spent than BILLIONS to send a manned crew. Other monies could be spent on on developing other types of space craft and even mining asteroids for energy to haul back to earth.

You can only explore so much using a rover...and the people at large don't tend to give a fuck.

MIB February 8 2009 09:33 PM

Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?
 
Quote:

John Picard wrote: (Post 2588964)
Quote:

Squiggyfm wrote: (Post 2588948)
Quote:

TheMasterOfOrion wrote: (Post 2588903)
NASA has lost its cojones after Apollo got cancelled.

NASA lost it's balls because the American public lost it's balls. "We won the moon race so why keep spending billions? We beat the Soviets. USA. USA. US...hey...disco!"

We were VERY reactionary back then. They launched then we launched. They launched a man into space then we did. They orbited then we did. They started looking at the moon then Kennedy said "Hey, we should go to the moon and do that other thing."

People think NASA gets billions more money than it already does. They're convinced that NASA wastes the "endless supply" of cash on pointless endeavors and to be honest, what NASA has done for the past 30 years hasn't been "sexy". We've pretty much been mass transit or a construction crew since Skylab. No exploring. We're building. We're watching how peas grow and how mice fuck in 0g. No one wants their tax dollars spent on that!

Now the question of "Mars, why?" Because we can. It'll be hard and cost a lot of money but Apollo united the country in the 60s in a way few other things aside from war can. It's good for the nation and would resolidify our superpowerness.

Just because we "can" go to Mars doesn't justify that we should. I'm all for space exploration, but I think remote rovers (at a few million a pop) are money better spent than BILLIONS to send a manned crew. Other monies could be spent on on developing other types of space craft and even mining asteroids for energy to haul back to earth.

You're starting to talk about an entire space infrastructure there. The catch is there's no way in hell we can pull something like that off completely remotely. Like it or not, we're going to have to start sending people up. And to do that, we're going to have to develop the tech to do that cheaply. As others have pointed out, rovers and probes can't do everything.

philbob February 8 2009 10:26 PM

Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?
 
NO becuase the airforce cant even get their own procurments or cost control in order, KC-X, F-22, F-35, C-SAR(X).......

philbob February 8 2009 10:27 PM

Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?
 
But that got some new digital cameoflauge that is i heard is nothin but FAIL

Dayton3 February 8 2009 10:47 PM

Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?
 
Quote:

Squiggyfm wrote: (Post 2589017)
Quote:

John Picard wrote: (Post 2588964)
Quote:

Squiggyfm wrote: (Post 2588948)

NASA lost it's balls because the American public lost it's balls. "We won the moon race so why keep spending billions? We beat the Soviets. USA. USA. US...hey...disco!"

We were VERY reactionary back then. They launched then we launched. They launched a man into space then we did. They orbited then we did. They started looking at the moon then Kennedy said "Hey, we should go to the moon and do that other thing."

People think NASA gets billions more money than it already does. They're convinced that NASA wastes the "endless supply" of cash on pointless endeavors and to be honest, what NASA has done for the past 30 years hasn't been "sexy". We've pretty much been mass transit or a construction crew since Skylab. No exploring. We're building. We're watching how peas grow and how mice fuck in 0g. No one wants their tax dollars spent on that!

Now the question of "Mars, why?" Because we can. It'll be hard and cost a lot of money but Apollo united the country in the 60s in a way few other things aside from war can. It's good for the nation and would resolidify our superpowerness.

Just because we "can" go to Mars doesn't justify that we should. I'm all for space exploration, but I think remote rovers (at a few million a pop) are money better spent than BILLIONS to send a manned crew. Other monies could be spent on on developing other types of space craft and even mining asteroids for energy to haul back to earth.

You can only explore so much using a rover...and the people at large don't tend to give a fuck.

Agreed.

Someone once said that support for space exploration in the United States is a mile wide......but only an inch deep.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.