NASA Plans to De-Orbit $100B ISS in Q1 2016

[Noname Given]

Hopefully the US executive branch will have someone in place that really understands the value of the manned space program before 21 Jan, 2016

We haven't had anyone like that since John F. Kennedy. Hell, LBJ just continued to fund the U.S. space program because he saw it as kennedy's legacy in a large sense. Nixon CUT the last 3 planned moonshots - and no President since has really seen a reason to adequately fund or continue with a manned space program. Hell, for the cost of a single aircraft carrier, the U.S. could probably put men on Mars; but NASA will NEVER see that kind of funding ever. Even the 'planned' return to the moon project is trying to AVOID new technological development as mush as possible believing that the basic, exsisting technology we used to go there in the 1960ies (we'll have better CPUs though ) is good enough to get the job done 40 years later.

 

[FordSVT]

Hopefully the US executive branch will have someone in place that really understands the value of the manned space program before 21 Jan, 2016

We haven't had anyone like that since John F. Kennedy.

Kennedy wanted to beat the Soviets to the Moon in order to prove American dominance in space, that's it. He did not understand the value of the manned space program in the way we wish politicians did today. Well, unless the only reason you want to go back to the moon and on to Mars is to beat the Chinese there.

Even the 'planned' return to the moon project is trying to AVOID new technological development as mush as possible believing that the basic, exsisting technology we used to go there in the 1960ies (we'll have better CPUs though ) is good enough to get the job done 40 years later.

That's not necessarily a bad idea. Millions of man hours were put into engineering spacecraft in the 1960s. If something works well, why drastically change it? It's great in theory to say "let's reinvent the wheel because it's 2009 and we should have been flying around in Discovery One eight years ago", but if you're in charge of the NASA budget and you can shave millions from a project by using something "off the shelf" without compromising safety or performance, that's what you're going to do. Of course the materials, safety features, computers, etc. will be modern, and there is all kinds of new technology being developed for new space suits, rovers and habitats for the moon and Mars.

 

[Johnny Rico]

The dems were the leaders of the charge to kill the space program. And while neither party really treats the program all that well, it seems that dems fund more in the way of science programs and probes while republicans buy into the idea of manned missions big time (while at the same time spending same or less).


Do you have a chart of budget vs presidential admin too?

Where have the Republicans funded manned space flight? Bush told NASA to go to Mars but didn't give NASA any damned money to do it, which is why NASA is being forced to end the shuttle program.

Presidential admin is irrelevant. Congress funds NASA, not the White House.

Ummm, call me crazy, but the shuttle isn't designed to go to Mars, Squiggy.

Besides, Mars Mission is going to take a whole new kind of spacecraft. Even the Orion system isn't going to do the job. Can you imagine spending 6 months travel time in the Orion Capsule?

No, for a manned mission to Mars to succeed, we're going to need a big honkin' spaceship to hold all the supplies that we'll need to get there AND back. We're talking a ship that is probably BIGGER than the ISS is now.

But to answer previous inquirey about Dem Congresses vs GOP Congresses...it's always the Dem polticians and their foolish and short-sightedness voter bases, that say, "Stop wasting money in space, and let's spend it here." Well, if this Congress and Administration is any indication of that, now we know what "Spend it here" really means. The Feb. '09 $782 Billion stimulus plan was 40 TIMES the annual budget of NASA. 40 FREAKIN' TIMES. And yet, NASA is still hurting for funding.

 

[Squiggy]

Correct. The shuttle isn't designed to leave Earth orbit.

Correct. Orion was never designed to go to Mars, only to the moon.

Incorrect. People of both parties screw NASA, it's not the just Dems. If you're going to make that claim you're going to need to back it up unless you wanna get smacked again for bringing politics into a science thread.

When Bush directed NASA to start planning to go back to he moon in 2004, he never pushed for extra funding to do so - so NASA has been forced to do more with the same amount of money, so other directorates have had to tighten the belt so Orion can be developed from the ground up.

There has never been any directive from any President or any member of Congress regarding putting NASA on Mars. The earliest timeframe this is possible using current funding is the mid to late 2030s.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

When Bush directed NASA to start planning to go back to he moon in 2004, he never pushed for extra funding to do so - so NASA has been forced to do more with the same amount of money, so other directorates have had to tighten the belt so Orion can be developed from the ground up.

There has never been any directive from any President or any member of Congress regarding putting NASA on Mars. The earliest timeframe this is possible using current funding is the mid to late 2030s.

You're forgetting That Bush 1 proclaimed that we'd get to Mars by 2030. George Herbert Walker, not his kid, but the WWII pilot and successor to Reagan. There was even a jump up in the NASA budget at that point. Probably mostly pointed a ISS, but still...

http://www.space.com/news/bush_1989speech_040114.html

http://www.happynews.com/living/space/manned-trips-planets.htm

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FA14Aa01.html

George proposed 400 Billion Bucks, the legislative branch said no.

 

[Squiggy]

Saying "go there" in a speech is vastly different than actually seriously planning how to do it.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

Well, once he got bitchslapped over the budget for it, there wasn't much of a point in further planning.

 

[Squiggy]

And I think some of that money NASA got was related to payment for Challenger. It wasn't all just an infusion for a Mars proposal.

 

[tharpdevenport]

Do we get our money back for HUGE waste?

 

[Squiggy]

You mean your .1 cents per tax dollar?

 

[tharpdevenport]

You mean your .1 cents per tax dollar?

Waste is waste, no matter how spread out.

 

[Squiggy]

It's not "waste". The money to build the station wasn't burned in a heap. It was spend on contractors to build the components and the contractors in turn PAID THEIR EMPLOYEES. Said employees then bought goods and services and in turn paid taxes on those goods and services and the cycle continues.

 

[Data Holmes]

The ISS was a missed opportunity.

 

[Squiggy]

Yeah. NASA waited too long into the shuttle program, didn't have another vehicle ready, and had to deal with Columbia.

 

[Admiral2]

I say deorbit the sucker now and start fresh with an All-American station. We paid for and built most of this one anyway.

 

[Squiggy]

No. We didn't "pay for it". We paid for our sections and took the stuff up there.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

Squiggy is right. ISS is essentially Space Station Freedom attached to Mir II via an American made interface module with some optional modules built by partner nations.

 

[Data Holmes]

Yeah. NASA waited too long into the shuttle program, didn't have another vehicle ready, and had to deal with Columbia.

I still love to look at the von braun plan for space exploration. He had a vision.



We should have had Freedom up long before the turn of the 90's We should have had a second generation shuttle up and running by the end of the 90's to cater toward "station operations" and been on the way to building Freedom II, A return to the moon mission and setting up semi-permanent outposts, and started early planning for a mars mission.

 

[timelord1010]

Data Holmes, it's funny you should mention Werner Von Braun, I just finished reading up on him and watching his Disney episodes on Youtube. He had a incredibly aggressive plan to explore space and it was a plan NASA should have followed. A rotating space station first and then from there to the Moon and Mars with permanent bases at each instead of quick trips and then home.

If NASA and the US Air Force would have followed the original plan and flew into space instead of using military missiles we would be on Mars by now. The Dynasoar vehicle was ready to fly and just before construction was cancelled and the X-15 took pilots right to the edge of space. The 1960's were great times for aeronautical research.

 

[arch101]

My Father told me that, back in the '60s, most people he knew would call their congressman or go to an event with their representative and implore them to vote for more money for Apollo. Nobody liked the idea of the Soviets "owning" the moon. By 1971, most people were thinking more about Vietnam than Apollo, therefore the sense of urgency to continue funding the space program fell off dramatically. Today, I'll bet many congresspeople NEVER hear a single call or request from a constituent about the ISS or Constellation. The average person just doesn't care about space travel. Their mind is more on American Idol or The Bachelorette. If the average voter doesn't care, Congress simply won't put a priority on funding, no matter how competent the leadership or "vision" is. If the average Joe hadn't gotten behind Apollo, it wouldn't have gone anywhere either. Space travel is a niche interest, unfortunately. Now, if the average person could be educated about how many resources are available for the taking on the moon and outer planets, that might change.