Aye that there's the point. Seriously -- Tang and Velcro? Would you stick with a team's GM if he could only point to the triumphs of 40+ years ago to bolster his resume?
The BBC had a spokesman for the Planetary Society on who seemed to think that this was good in the long run for manned space travel. The whole organization needs to be blown up and reconstructed down the line. The money really isn't that large in the grand scheme, but as Rhad says, the manned space flight program is broken, with the inmates running the asylum. Maybe in a dozen years, China will go to the moon and the people who matter will freak out and rebuild the program with a sense of urgency. Also, it is wonderful how Republicans talk big about cutting waste and the evils of free-spending until their it is their personal waste and pet free-spending that is at issue.
OH! The IRONY!. Republicans and Conservatives b**** about BIG GOVERNMENT....and yet when the natural evolution of Space Travel is Commercialization....They b**** and whine....LOL. This is a HUGE OPPORTUNITY for Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Etc.....to stop relying on Public Tax dollars and try to make money in the FREE MARKET! Isn't this the Conservatives' wet dream?
Buzz Aldrin supports the move. http://buzzaldrin.com/statement-from-buzz-aldrin-a-new-direction-in-space/
Buzz supports it because he wants liquid rockets and a Mars Direct mission. Mars direct is not what the president wants. I support Mars Direct also but anyone debating that the space program does not have huge direct and indirect benefits is a tard.
I have really mixed emotions on this one, but I think in the long-term this is the best move. With the costs of keeping the ISS in low earth orbit can you imagine how much money we would burn through keeping a moon base running smoothly? As for Mars - there is no way using current technology we could pull it off. A three year round trip is just not possible IMO and even if it was few are going to support a 100+ billion dollar mission. We need to put serious financing into next gen propulsion because without it all of our missions are going to be stuck in low earth orbit or one-offs. Until we have something besides chemical rockets the only thing exploring Mars are going to be rovers.
Well, it's all part of the pre-conceived gameplan. [GlenBeck] Obama is a communist and we know this because he puts his pants on by leading with the LEFT leg. That was also true of Stalin. (whisper from junior staffer) Now hold on. Apparently that was just a ruse. Insider information now tells me that he puts his pants on leading with the RIGHT leg. This too is incredibly rare and was only done by HITLER. This is all the proof we need that Obama is a nazi. [/GlenBeck]
As derisive as I've been in this thread, I'm pretty sure our entire modern communications and computing industry and an obsene amount of modern academic research is built on the gains and demands of the space program. Thank God the Russians did it first, I can't think of any other reason a bunch of glorified Teamsters and Robber-Barons would've spent 1950s billions on rocket ships. They'd probably all grown up riding wagons and hadn't seen an aer-e-o-plane until they got elected to Congress.
When I get around to it, I'm going to make a post made up of quotes from this thread. Some of the things I've been reading from members I hold in high regard simply blows my mind.
Yea but it was all from 40 years ago or could have been developed just as easily for unmanned probes. If Al Qaida could build a rocket you might have a point. Since they can't and there's no PR race ala the Soviet Union, what's the point?
I don't think the space program has given us anything technologically in the last 20 years that would justify the cost.
They are liquid rockets. (well, not the SRBs, but the main components are) Direct benefits? Limited. NASA is, essentially, white collar welfare. Indirect benefits? Average. NASA makes cool stuff, but as of late technological breakthroughs have been few and far between (over-reliance on "safe & proven" technology coupled with not-built-here syndrome). From a science standpoint, the ISS has been an enormous waste of money. The huge amounts of data are not really happening. ISS has been a great experimment in terms of costs/strategy/operation of a space outpost though - but I'm not sure that justifies the effort and budget. Several buddies of mine still working in the Cx program office have privately told me they hope ISS has a huge issue that necessitates de-manning it - simply so that they can free up the budget and kill off the LEO requirements for the Ares I that are bungling up the whole design. Mars direct is extremely difficult. People advocating that really have no idea what they are talking about.
What are the benefits of having a space program anyway? Will sending humans to Mars suddenly reverse the global depression, make food cheaper or all our debts go away? Its not like Mars is some kind of amazing planet teeming with natural resources, NASA already sent an unmanned space probe and nothing useful was found. You spend Billions and billons of money on something where the benefits aren't even known? That's really a r****ded way of thinking IMHO.
I truly support the big notion of essential human exploration. But let's try this analogy: for every Detroit auto company, there is eventually a Toyota or Honda. I really do think we need a new start on manned spaceflight. And I do think it should be multinational -- why wouldn't it be, since it's ultimately more centrally about our species than anything else we discuss, and that includes climate and global poverty? The largest physics projects are now funded with international collaborations (LHC, for instance), so why not space, which is going to be even more expensive?
Care to guess a year NASA will send someone / something to the station after shuttle? Or a year NASA will send a man beyond low Earth orbit? There also speculation of Obama dismantling the Astronaut corps. (now that's inspiring) My guess is never.
Historically, most exploration on Earth has been driven by the promises (at least through stories) of great riches in the as yet undiscovered territory. That's not analogous to the situation with Mars, where we know there's nothing there worth the effort to send people.
Here's the thing about commercializing space....it won't work. Anyone who thinks that commercial companies are actually banking on space tourists (LOL ) is out of their mind. I think that commercialization of space is needed, BUT NOT RIGHT NOW. There is no bottom line profit to be made and any projects will be abandoned quickly by commercial corporations. The real issue is "the gap". The gap is the lull period that will occur due to no U.S. manned space program that causes a critical break in knowledge to a point where it is not be revived. Basically, our ability to do things that only a few countries can do will be lost as more and more university level students choose not to become Aerospace engineers, astrophysicists, etc. The knowledge dies with the people. Manned space exploration is a very long term investment. We can't be so short-sighted to let other issues completely negate a progam that costs only about .6% of the budget. Don't hate on NASA just because a bunch of conservatives republicans happen to be the most vocal about it. Now NASA is not just another, run of the mill, govt program. Space exploration is just a necessity that humans in general have. That's why we go watch Star Wars and Star Trek and the almost infinite amount of other space related movies. You just can't sit there and think that the .0000000000000000000001% of the universe which we call Earth....is it....is all we have to work with. Space Exploration will continue, I have no doubt about that. It's just that we as a country will not be at the forefront of it. Although this loss can't be quantified, I believe that it is a GREAT loss and as Americans we'll pay a dire price in the future. (To the person that said JFK's support of the moon missions was just anti-soviet propoganda, shame on you, you're pathetic) As for what NASA has accomplished so far, at the very least, we as a country have "broken even" in terms of finances. But there is more to this program that just jobs creation, Tang and memory-foam matresses. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just plain ignorant. For the record, I lean more liberal according the clutchfans standards (call me a liberal if you like) and yes I do work for NASA. Please don't bash my points with "ZOMG conservatives, you saying it cause you hate obama" type of BS.
