RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,646
Posts: 5,428,308
Members: 24,810
Currently online: 538
Newest member: Damix

TrekToday headlines

Trek Messenger Bag
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18

Star Trek Live In Concert In Australia
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18

IDW Publishing December Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Sep 17

September Loot Crate Features Trek Surprise
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

USS Enterprise Miniature Out For Refit
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Comic Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Trek 3 Shooting Next Spring?
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek: Alien Domain Game Announced
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Red Shirt Diaries Episode Three
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Made Out Of Mudd Photonovel
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15


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 10 2009, 12:40 AM   #31
trekkerguy
Commodore
 
trekkerguy's Avatar
 
Location: Boise, ID
View trekkerguy's Twitter Profile Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to trekkerguy
Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?

btflash wrote: View Post
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.
Exactly.

NASA is fine, it's people are good and it's manned space programs have the right
goals which I am not sure they would have if it was a military run operation.

They just need better funding.
__________________
"I kept dreaming of a world I thought I'd never see, and then one day... I got in." - Kevin Flynn
trekkerguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10 2009, 01:45 AM   #32
Icemizer
Fleet Captain
 
Icemizer's Avatar
 
Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?

The real question is should NASA be running NASA?
Icemizer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10 2009, 02:21 AM   #33
iguana_tonante
Admiral
 
iguana_tonante's Avatar
 
Location: Italy, EU
Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?

While the OP may have some points, it's difficult to ignore the tone (and bad grammar). Chinaman? Eurobabble?
__________________
Scientist. Gentleman. Teacher. Fighter. Lover. Father.
iguana_tonante is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10 2009, 07:54 AM   #34
Neopeius
Admiral
 
Neopeius's Avatar
 
Location: OSF Headquarters
Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?

Squiggyfm wrote: View Post

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."
I don't think that's a fair characterization. They launched and then we launched. Absolutely true. We could have launched in 1956 but we chose to let the Soviets break that seal.

We almost beat them in the unmanned race to the moon. That was not reactive at all--the plans were laid down in November of '57.

As for orbiting, they beat us to it, but not because we waited for them to get there first but because our rockets weren't up to it.

And as for the moon, the Russians wanted to go there because Kennedy made it the American goal. And then, when the Russians lost the race, they pretended they'd never been in it.

You probably know all this anyway, but I thought it needed to be said.
__________________
'50s science fiction from the point of view of a '50s fan!

http://galacticjourney.org/
Neopeius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10 2009, 04:35 PM   #35
TheMasterOfOrion
Fleet Captain
 
TheMasterOfOrion's Avatar
 
Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?

Anyways I see over 70% strong no vote, now see how people feel about the USAF taking over NASA
TheMasterOfOrion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10 2009, 06:04 PM   #36
Meredith
Vice Admiral
 
Meredith's Avatar
 
Location: Abh Space
Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?

Only if they actually have a stargate and a fleet of X-304 ships.

Otherwise, no, but they could take over some of the launching operations to reduce costs.
__________________
Laws only work if everyone is honest, no piece of paper is going to stop a truly deranged person from doing something atrocious.
Meredith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 12 2009, 09:08 AM   #37
Dusty Ayres
Commodore
 
Location: ANS Yamato, Sector 5, Sol System
Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?

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.

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.
Do you know how much money it would cost to go to Mars? It would take billions just to get the ship built, plus you have to use nuclear engines to propel it. Most universities are already coming under fire in the alternative press for doing research like this (due to the links that the military industrial complex has with the space program). What Americans need to do is start voting in a bloc to ensure funding of NASA, just like the religious right does. Then a mission to Mars will happen, as well as a mission to the moon and other planets.
Dusty Ayres is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 12 2009, 04:46 PM   #38
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?

Dusty Ayres wrote: View Post
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.

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.
Do you know how much money it would cost to go to Mars? It would take billions just to get the ship built, plus you have to use nuclear engines to propel it. Most universities are already coming under fire in the alternative press for doing research like this (due to the links that the military industrial complex has with the space program). What Americans need to do is start voting in a bloc to ensure funding of NASA, just like the religious right does. Then a mission to Mars will happen, as well as a mission to the moon and other planets.
Why do you say the propulsion system for a ship traveling to Mars has to be nuclear powered?
__________________
Don't like my posts? Fill out a report.
Psssstttt - Dorian, my location.
John Picard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2009, 01:28 PM   #39
Dusty Ayres
Commodore
 
Location: ANS Yamato, Sector 5, Sol System
Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?

John Picard wrote: View Post
Why do you say the propulsion system for a ship traveling to Mars has to be nuclear powered?
Because in most likelihood, it will have to be a nuclear engine that gets us to Mars. Only nuclear engines have enough thrust power to get a ship there, and also, NASA had already developed a nuclear engine for just such a task, the NERVA, but budget cuts and Nixonian indifference killed its development. That project has to be started again, and carried to full completion this time, regardless of whatever anti-nuclear protests will happen. It's the only engine system capable of getting people to Mars in back in a few weeks, and it's that simple.
Dusty Ayres is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2009, 09:28 PM   #40
Herbert
Captain
 
Herbert's Avatar
 
Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?

Dusty Ayres wrote: View Post
John Picard wrote: View Post
Why do you say the propulsion system for a ship traveling to Mars has to be nuclear powered?
Because in most likelihood, it will have to be a nuclear engine that gets us to Mars. Only nuclear engines have enough thrust power to get a ship there, and also, NASA had already developed a nuclear engine for just such a task, the NERVA, but budget cuts and Nixonian indifference killed its development. That project has to be started again, and carried to full completion this time, regardless of whatever anti-nuclear protests will happen. It's the only engine system capable of getting people to Mars in back in a few weeks, and it's that simple.
I believe that in the current political climate, a NERVA (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application) engine is politically unacceptable. We're stuck with chemical propellants unless they can develop a Mach-Lorentz thruster, which is theoretical.

Another problem is that some in the scientific and space communities are opposed to manned spaceflight. They believe that sending fragile human beings to the Moon or Mars is much too costly and risky. It also takes funds away from robotic missions and they are skeptical how much science will be done during these missions.

Plus, like I said before NASA is doing a lousy job of selling "Project Constellation".
Herbert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2009, 09:53 PM   #41
Today
Lieutenant Commander
 
Today's Avatar
 
Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?

How about the UESPA, I hear they're pretty good at this kind of stuff
__________________
You have eight Earth minutes left. No Further Communication Will Be Accepted.
Today is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17 2009, 07:34 AM   #42
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?

Are you kidding? After the Valient, Horizon, and Archon incidents, I wouldn't trust UESPA to move my furniture, let alone manage human spaceflight!
__________________
* * *
"If you wanted to get a good meeting... just go in and
say 'darker, grittier, sexier' and whatever."
—Glen Larson, 2010
Maurice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17 2009, 05:54 PM   #43
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?

Herbert wrote: View Post
Dusty Ayres wrote: View Post
John Picard wrote: View Post
Why do you say the propulsion system for a ship traveling to Mars has to be nuclear powered?
Because in most likelihood, it will have to be a nuclear engine that gets us to Mars. Only nuclear engines have enough thrust power to get a ship there, and also, NASA had already developed a nuclear engine for just such a task, the NERVA, but budget cuts and Nixonian indifference killed its development. That project has to be started again, and carried to full completion this time, regardless of whatever anti-nuclear protests will happen. It's the only engine system capable of getting people to Mars in back in a few weeks, and it's that simple.
I believe that in the current political climate, a NERVA (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application) engine is politically unacceptable. We're stuck with chemical propellants unless they can develop a Mach-Lorentz thruster, which is theoretical.

Another problem is that some in the scientific and space communities are opposed to manned spaceflight. They believe that sending fragile human beings to the Moon or Mars is much too costly and risky. It also takes funds away from robotic missions and they are skeptical how much science will be done during these missions.

Plus, like I said before NASA is doing a lousy job of selling "Project Constellation".
I believe Dusty is confused about using nuclear for space flight. It doesn't produce "thrust" in the same manner as a chemical rocket engine, but rather heat. We learned in high school physics class (1987) that a small amount of heat would be enough to "set things in motion" much like how an MMU uses small jets of air to propel a space walker. IIRC (without looking it up) the Pioneer spacecraft have a very tiny nuclear reactor that powers the entire craft with something in the neighborhood of 5 Watts and has been going since 1979(?).

One issue I see with a nuclear propeled vehicle is having a nuclear physicist on board to monitor and adjust the reactor as needed.

I agree with Herbert in that (IMHO) we're better off *JUST FOR NOW* in sending probes for the initial intel gathering and analysis.
__________________
Don't like my posts? Fill out a report.
Psssstttt - Dorian, my location.
John Picard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17 2009, 10:53 PM   #44
Herbert
Captain
 
Herbert's Avatar
 
Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?

[quote=John Picard;2623455][quote=Herbert;2620075]
Dusty Ayres wrote: View Post
I agree with Herbert in that (IMHO) we're better off *JUST FOR NOW* in sending probes for the initial intel gathering and analysis.
I just want to point out that I am not advocating unmanned probes or manned space missions. I was saying that there is disagreement at NASA and in the scientific community of how best to spend NASA's budget and what NASA's goals should be.
Herbert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2009, 02:05 PM   #45
yellowdingo
Lieutenant
 
Location: Darwin, Australia
Re: Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?

btflash wrote: View Post
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.
I agree which is why I propose the Galactic Commonwealth borrows 5 billion-billion from the US government and hires NASA to send 10 million people one way to the moon in a 100 year window beginning in 2012, Terraform Mars as quick and dirty as possible then send 10 million colonists to Mars beginning 2115.
All the money gets spent employing people in the Space industry getting rapid growth to a Launch capacity of 50 payload/6 colonists per half hour.

No fancy cities or infrastructure sent. They simply live out of huge single stage Launch vehicles that serve as Lander and Habitat - after the first two years of food run out they will be expected to live off what they grow (hydroponics/fishfarm). Cities can be built by linking habs.

Expansion on the Moon will require Subterranean Mining to build an underground city for a billion, Mars will require a lot more.
yellowdingo 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 05:11 PM.

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