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

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by Johnny Rico, Sep 8, 2009.

  1. Peter the Younger

    Peter the Younger Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2001
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA, USA
    Agreed. Unfortunately I don't see a lot of progress on that front. There is some speculation into improved oxidizers and some pretty whacky ideas about using suspended atomic hydrogen, but nothing has left the drawing board. The best bet is probably still space elevators, but that's also a long way off.

    Honestly, the biggest impact the administration could have on price to orbit would be to open competition up to more companies, and reform the process so we don't end up with the same three companies building everything. I think SpaceX is on the right track, for instance, using off-the-shelf parts whenever possible, with simpler engine designs. Give them some play, let the big boys sweat a little bit, and innovation might start flowing.
     
  2. diankra

    diankra Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    Take the party politics out of it: the blunt reality is that while some presidents have made pretty speeches about America's future in space, nobody since Johnson has put his political muscle behind getting Congress to actually authorise the necessary money to deliver.
    I don't like the report's conclusions, but they are realistic ones: trying to fulfil George W Bush's aims on the current budget is a recipe for another shuttle - something that could have worked with a bit more money, but ends up both costly and dangerous.
    It's time for put up or shut up - either fund the next programme properly, or get out of the game.
     
  3. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    You need to also consider when talking about cutting NASA's budget, that the manned space program isn't all they do.
     
  4. darkwing_duck1

    darkwing_duck1 Vice Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2001
    Location:
    the Unreconstructed South
    "Two wrongs" or "one bad bx justifying another" fallacy.
     
  5. darkwing_duck1

    darkwing_duck1 Vice Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2001
    Location:
    the Unreconstructed South
    I agree, and those programs (sat launch, etc) will continue.
     
  6. Buck Rogers

    Buck Rogers Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Location:
    Maryland,USA
    It's Helium 3,and water ice from comet impacts as well as Mineral rights will drive a return regardless if its NASA or a Civilian space effort once ISS is complete they're planing on deorbiting the station by 2015 unless there is a public outcry not to kill station.
    We need ISS for assembly of Orion translunar ship that will carry the new Lunar lander,and Mars mission spacecraft that is the purpose of having station in place even it means we need to form an new global space agency to take over operations.

    That's my two cents

    Signed

    Buck Rogers
     
  7. Lindley

    Lindley Moderator with a Soul Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2001
    Location:
    Bonney Lake, WA
    Money put into the space program creates jobs, stimulates the economy, and drives technological progress. It isn't wasted money to begin with.

    A bit hard to tell when the effort is half-hearted, but it would be more apparent if they actually gave NASA a bit of coin to play with.

    Someone should do a study and try to figure out what the ROI actually is for NASA's budget. My guess is that it was higher when their funding was higher.
     
  8. JustAFriend

    JustAFriend Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2002
    Location:
    South Florida, USA
    Hundreds of thousands of jobs, new scientific discoveries and another twenty-year leap in technology could be ours by the mere increase of a handfull of dollars per person per year to NASA.

    .....but no.....
     
  9. Red Ranger

    Red Ranger Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Location:
    New York City, the greatest city in the world!
    He fears TNZ. Punk! -- RR
     
  10. Alpha Romeo

    Alpha Romeo Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Location:
    Connecticut
    Such a waste to de-orbit the station. What the hell was the point of the whole thing if they're gonna fucking trash it?>??
     
  11. Peter the Younger

    Peter the Younger Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2001
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA, USA
    They aren't really going to trash the station, at least not by the "threatened" date. The Senate will swoop in to save it, I promise you. Too much invested, and all that.

    Now having said that, I'd be a lot happier with the thing if they moved it someplace interesting, like a La Grange point. But we'd need Ares (or something similar) to get back and forth to it then.
     
  12. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    Plus it boosts national pride

    Lindley, sorry but what is "ROI"?
     
  13. Maurice

    Maurice Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Location:
    Walking distance from Starfleet HQ
    The entire flipping word. It's verbatim, not verbatum.
     
  14. WeAreTheBorg

    WeAreTheBorg Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Location:
    Sector 001
    There is no point in going back to the moon. Massive waste of money, in trying times where every penny counts.

    Talk to me when the economy is turned around and we're talking about Mars or better.
     
  15. Lindley

    Lindley Moderator with a Soul Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2001
    Location:
    Bonney Lake, WA
    Return on Investment.

    I mean, it's not like we're pouring money down a black hole here. We get plenty back out of what we put in----nationally, at least. I'm sure NASA doesn't directly see the profits, because it's not a commercial enterprise.
     
  16. sojourner

    sojourner Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Location:
    A Long Time Ago...
    The shuttle system is not reusable. the shuttle is, the tank is not, and, contrary to popular belief, the SRB's require so much refurbishment per use that it would be cheaper to reduce cost through just mass producing them.

    :guffaw: You need to read about some of the problems with Ares before you make a comment like this. Try the Forums on WWW.nasaspaceflight.com for some good reading. Most of the posters there are space industry engineers including alot of nasa employees.
     
  17. Marc

    Marc Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    An Aussie in Canukistan
    Think the only ones who see the profits vis a vis NASA are the companies that actually build the stuff for them
     
  18. Lindley

    Lindley Moderator with a Soul Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2001
    Location:
    Bonney Lake, WA
    And the employees working for those companies, who in turn spend the money buying goods and services from other companies.

    Not to mention the eventual commercial value of any new technologies which are developed along the way. That's sure to be shared by a broad cross-section of companies.

    Pumping money into NASA pumps money into the economy just as well as anything else.
     
  19. Alpha Romeo

    Alpha Romeo Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Location:
    Connecticut
    I'm sorry but that's not true. A return to the moon would create a ton of jobs, new industry and might even be really cool.
     
  20. timelord1010

    timelord1010 Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2004
    Location:
    Sector 001
    I don't understand the Obama bashers. Regarding the space program Obama hasn't made any decisions yet on NASA's budget or future direction. Also, Obama can only recommend and submit a budget, it's up to congress to approve the budget. Instead of complaining about the money President Obama and congress are spending to repair our damaged economy why don't you complain about the Trillions of Dollars the Bush administration wasted on the war in Iraq? Can you imagine what could have been spent on the space program if we didn't have that drain on the national budget?

    It was easy for President Bush to give a speech saying NASA will return to the Moon and on to Mars but without funding the speech isn't worth the paper it was printed on. I think the Obama administration is going in the right direction, starting with the cancellation of the F-22 production run with each plane costing several hundred million dollars each. Cancel a few more over cost programs and there will be more than enough money for NASA to go to the Moon, Mars, hell maybe even send crews to the rest of the planets and moons in the solar system.