Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

[Admiral2]

Johnny Rico wrote:

---

This just in...

Obama's Space Plan just axed NASA's plan to return to the moon.

Well, so much for the Messiah reaching for the stars.

So who wouldda thunk that 'Dubya' was the "space/science-friendly" President?

Anybody who voted for him twice, like moi.

[Alpha_Geek]

For those of us that have a dog... errr... senator or congressman in this fight, make sure you write them and tell them that if they want your vote next time, they damn well better support manned spaceflight to the moon, mars, and beyond.

[Saquist]

It's the right choice. Nasa has been run incompetently for the last 12 or so years.
The return to the moon is a waste money entirely aswell as a Mars project and every other probe project NASA.

NASA doesn't stand for Exploration its an air and space adminstration and they've done nothing but play with toys and dump millions of dollars into the ocean to make space travel and air travel easier.

Frankly I'm done with NASA's faux projects. They're never going to have a budget as large as the military's 700 billion dollars annually and at this point I say just let the military absorb it.

[sojourner]

^So, are you saying we shouldn't explore space at all, or just that NASA is incompetent?

The problem with NASA is that they have had to play too much politics to get thier funds, so instead of just worrying about achieving goals, they also have to worry about spreading the money to as many states as possible when handing out contracts. This generates jobs in those states, making the people happy there and in turn making the senator/congress man representing them happy. Which all leads to making congress more favorable to providing more money. This does not lead to the most efficient spending habits.

[Saquist]

Exploration is fine. But it shouldn't cost lives. It is commendable that we give our lives from exploration than for war but we shouldn't expect that lives should be lost as part of the legal tolerance of NASA.

The Space Shuttle is pretty fool proof system, unless fooled with. Both shuttle losses were due to ignorance and neglect not unforseeable occurences. What are we the USSR, Stop taking this cheap route and do the job right. Really, I don't want to see any more astronaut's name on any more Elementary Schools.

Let's fix Health Care, let's fix the economy, terrorism, a declined education system, corprate and political corruption, So many more things to do than to go into outer space. They won't just go away after we discover warp drive like Star Trek proposes. Yes, I think it's the right call to get rid or downscale NASA until they can figure out a more purposeful direction than to blow money children could be using for medical care, out the air-lock.

It's not that I think the US will ever fix these probelms or that I hope they ever will...It's that we all believe Space Exploration is important enough to ignore more pressing problems. If you put it into perspective NASA is costing lives not just money, how many early warning medical scans could have caught cancer apart of health care plan for everyone, how many young atheletes will die on the field for a heart defect.

This isn't a private organization it government. They're spending massive amounts of money on a organization who's regular goal is....."to circle the earth." Do you know how much they get paid for that?

[Lindley]

Saquist wrote:

---

Stop taking this cheap route and do the job right.

They'd like to, but they need more funding to do so.

[Saquist]

Or they could focus on one worthy objective.

[sojourner]

Let's fix Health Care, let's fix the economy, terrorism, a declined education system, corprate and political corruption, So many more things to do than to go into outer space. They won't just go away after we discover warp drive like Star Trek proposes. Yes, I think it's the right call to get rid or downscale NASA until they can figure out a more purposeful direction than to blow money children could be using for medical care, out the air-lock.

I was never a fan of this type of argument against space exploration. It's akin to someone in a lifeboat saying "Hey! we need to solve our water and food problem before we go looking for a way to get to shore!".

[diankra]

Saquist wrote:

---

[CUT TO LIMIT QUOTE]
The Space Shuttle is pretty fool proof system, unless fooled with. Both shuttle losses were due to ignorance and neglect not unforseeable occurences. What are we the USSR, Stop taking this cheap route and do the job right. Really, I don't want to see any more astronaut's name on any more Elementary Schools.

Let's fix Health Care, let's fix the economy, terrorism, a declined education system, corprate and political corruption.
[SECOND CUt]

Shuttle is not a fool proof system: it's an inherently flawed system, and those flaws are the result (in part) of Congressional and Budget Management Office budget cuts during the development phase during the 1970s, which cut costs then, and produced a flawed system that cost more to run. For every dollar saved in the 1970s, 100s of dollars have been lost in the resultant running costs, without considering the two crew losses.

As for fix Health Care, etc, the report suggests that NASA needs 3billion more each year to make Ares workable; according to President Obama's speech yesterday, fixing health care will cost 900billion, which he added was less than the cost of either the Iraq or Afghan wars (or a few other things, but that would lead to the Neutral Zone).
I don't mean to comment here on whether healthcare reform or the wars are justified; the point is that in governmental terms, they cost dollars and funding NASA costs cents.

Cap Weinberger, back in the Nixon administration, commented that NASA's budget was going to get cut 'not because it deserved to be cut, but because it could be cut.' Very true.

[Bluesteel]

NASA has a $3 Billion dollar shortfall? Well I have an answer.





The EU Nations have a lot of money being wasted every year. Obama should spend time getting them onboard. Once they sign an agreement no one nation will back out for fear of political embarrassment or bad relations. Especially the French. They NEVER want to embarrass themselves in front of Americans. If Congress or Senate (who ever the legislative branch are in USA) won't cut funding off either. To much politics involved.

Lindley wrote:

---

It gives us a good testing ground for Mars technologies, while still being in emergency-return range of Earth.

I mean, we need to figure out how to set up automated mining systems somewhere, and helium-3 gives us something to dig for at least.

You know I'm really tired of hearing about Helium-3. Fusion is a long,long,long,long time away from being productive let alone commerically viably to make the moon worthwhile.

From what I've heard to be honest. We're better off skipping the moon and going straight to Mars. The environment of these two heavenly bodies are different and remember. Everything you launch from the moon to Mars involves launching it from Earth first. I shudder at cost of it all.

1:Launch to the Moon
2: Land in the Moon.
3: Launch to Mars
4: Land in Mars

The fuel bill would be horrendous. This one looks much better though.
1: Launch to Mars
2:Land in Mars

[Lindley]

Launching from Mars is the real problem which needs to be overcome. Getting off the moon when we went there was relatively easy, but Mars has a significant gravity well; and you know how complicated an Earth launch is.

What this means is that we need to get some infrastructure over there first, which means automated construction at least to a degree.

[T'Girl]

Saquist wrote:

---

.....we shouldn't expect that lives should be lost as part of the legal tolerance of NASA.

Both shuttle losses were due to ignorance and neglect not unforseeable occurences.

This is going to sound mean spirited, but I disagree sir. Given what we asking of NASA, yes we should expect to have lost people and continue to lose them (hopefully in rare numbers). and for every astronaut killed, we also lose on average four or five ground personel as well.

Yes we should of re-designed the booster after the first burn thru.

Yes there should of been a second shuttle prepped.

[Bluesteel]

Lindley wrote:

---

Launching from Mars is the real problem which needs to be overcome. Getting off the moon when we went there was relatively easy, but Mars has a significant gravity well; and you know how complicated an Earth launch is.

What this means is that we need to get some infrastructure over there first, which means automated construction at least to a degree.

Do you really need an infrastructure to launch from Mars? Why not just refuel in Mars using the atmosphere to make the fuel and then go up,up,up,up,up.

[Lindley]

I'm not quite sure how you intend to use atmosphere to make fuel.

However, Mars gravity is 1/3rd that of Earth. This makes it easier to get off, but my bet is that you'd still need a booster stage---the onboard fuel of a landing capsule probably won't cut it.

[sojourner]

There are many Mars mission profiles that use insitu propellant production. Mars' atmosphere has a high enough methane content to produce a return fuel load.

Most mission profiles using this method would have an automated production facility landed in advance of the manned mission. Thus assuring the fuel is ready and waiting before the manned mission arrives.

Mars gravity IS low enough for single stage to orbit. I have never seen a mars mission profile requiring 2 stages to achieve orbit from the surface of mars.