RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,896
Posts: 5,386,925
Members: 24,717
Currently online: 511
Newest member: teriankhoka

TrekToday headlines

Gold Key Archives Volume 2
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Takei Documentary Wins Award
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Cumberbatch To Voice Khan
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Shaun And Ed On Phineas and Ferb
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

New Ships Coming From Official Starships Collection
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

Trek Stars Take On Ice Bucket Challenge
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

Retro Review: Profit and Lace
By: Michelle on Aug 16

Eve Engaged
By: T'Bonz on Aug 15

Shatner’s Get A Life DVD Debuts
By: T'Bonz on Aug 14

TV Alert: Takei Oprah Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Aug 14


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Science and Technology

Science and Technology "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." - Carl Sagan.

View Poll Results: The USAF can get NASA to Mars?
Strongly agree 4 9.09%
Agree 4 9.09%
Maybe 7 15.91%
Disagree 5 11.36%
Strongly disagree 28 63.64%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 44. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 8 2009, 02:35 PM   #1
TheMasterOfOrion
Fleet Captain
 
TheMasterOfOrion's Avatar
 
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
but maybe the USAF should take over "Manned" space exploration

Taken from the last science and tech thread
Squiggyfm wrote: View Post
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.



Here are the Obama rumors
Griffin is gone
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
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
TheMasterOfOrion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2009, 03:43 PM   #2
btflash
Captain
 
btflash's Avatar
 
Location: usa
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.
btflash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2009, 04:17 PM   #3
John Picard
Vice Admiral
 
John Picard's Avatar
 
Location: Waiting for Dorian Thompson to invite me to lunch
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.
__________________
Don't like my posts? Fill out a report.
Psssstttt - Dorian, my location.
John Picard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2009, 04:30 PM   #4
TheMasterOfOrion
Fleet Captain
 
TheMasterOfOrion's Avatar
 
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.
TheMasterOfOrion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2009, 04:39 PM   #5
John Picard
Vice Admiral
 
John Picard's Avatar
 
Location: Waiting for Dorian Thompson to invite me to lunch
Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?

TheMasterOfOrion wrote: View Post
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.
__________________
Don't like my posts? Fill out a report.
Psssstttt - Dorian, my location.
John Picard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2009, 04:48 PM   #6
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
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.
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2009, 04:53 PM   #7
Squiggy
LORD SHIT SUPREME
 
Squiggy's Avatar
 
Location: Not on your life, my Hindu friend.
View Squiggy's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Squiggy
Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?

TheMasterOfOrion wrote: View Post
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.
__________________
ENOUGH OF THIS TURGID BASH WANKERY!
Squiggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2009, 05:04 PM   #8
John Picard
Vice Admiral
 
John Picard's Avatar
 
Location: Waiting for Dorian Thompson to invite me to lunch
Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?

Squiggyfm wrote: View Post
TheMasterOfOrion wrote: View Post
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.
__________________
Don't like my posts? Fill out a report.
Psssstttt - Dorian, my location.
John Picard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2009, 05:26 PM   #9
Leroy
Fleet Captain
 
Leroy's Avatar
 
Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?

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?
Leroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2009, 05:28 PM   #10
TheMasterOfOrion
Fleet Captain
 
TheMasterOfOrion's Avatar
 
Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?

John Picard wrote: View Post

Going to Mars -- WHY?
Explain to me - WHY NOT?

John Picard wrote: View Post

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.

John Picard wrote: View Post

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.



Forbin wrote: View Post
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.

Leroy wrote: View Post
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
TheMasterOfOrion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2009, 05:30 PM   #11
Squiggy
LORD SHIT SUPREME
 
Squiggy's Avatar
 
Location: Not on your life, my Hindu friend.
View Squiggy's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Squiggy
Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?

John Picard wrote: View Post
Squiggyfm wrote: View Post
TheMasterOfOrion wrote: View Post
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.
__________________
ENOUGH OF THIS TURGID BASH WANKERY!
Squiggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2009, 09:33 PM   #12
MIB
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Someplace where I can watch you
Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?

John Picard wrote: View Post
Squiggyfm wrote: View Post
TheMasterOfOrion wrote: View Post
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.
__________________
The sooner we get this relief in the hands of the American people, the sooner they can begin to do their job of being good consumers.--Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio
Government: To them we are not citizens anymore. We're mindless machines.
MIB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2009, 10:26 PM   #13
philbob
Commander
 
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2009, 10:27 PM   #14
philbob
Commander
 
Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?

But that got some new digital cameoflauge that is i heard is nothin but FAIL
philbob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2009, 10:47 PM   #15
Dayton3
Admiral
 
Location: Monticello, AR. United States of America
Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?

Squiggyfm wrote: View Post
John Picard wrote: View Post
Squiggyfm wrote: View Post

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.
Dayton3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
nasa, usaf

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:06 PM.

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