Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?  
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6623 times:

Those in Military Space will let you know that I'm an ardent supporter of NASA and manned missions to space, until lately.

Lately, after the Discovery flight and the 'revelation' that the two years and billions of dollars spent making the shuttle safter was little more then a boondogle that did little to accomplish that end realistically.

Now with devastation at the facility that produces those funny foam shedding Orange tanks out of business for a while, this further delays the STS program costing yet more millions of effectively wasted dollars.

Then today there is this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9355479/
NASA to unveil plan for moon mission in 2018
White House officials briefed on $100 billion proposal

In the wake of a WAR we no longer want, and a disaster that could have MUCH more easily been paid for had the war not occured, do we really need to be spending our federal dollars in this manner?

The X-prize and Richard Bransom will be proving the viability of commercial spaceflight over the next few years. I say that unless there is an object we need to destroy before it destroys us, I think NASA ought to effectively go on the shelf until we as a country pay off our debt.

79 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTheCoz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6609 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Thread starter):
In the wake of a WAR we no longer want, and a disaster that could have MUCH more easily been paid for had the war not occured, do we really need to be spending our federal dollars in this manner?

I think so.

Quoting TedTAce (Thread starter):
White House officials briefed on $100 billion proposal

Money spent in the area of space exploration is a great investment. That money comes back to us many fold.


User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6598 times:

Quoting TheCoz (Reply 1):
That money comes back to us many fold.

Name 1 thing that has benefited society as a whole from NASA since Apollo, and please don't confuse GPS with NASA.


User currently offlineCadet985 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 1551 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6577 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Thread starter):
I think NASA ought to effectively go on the shelf until we as a country pay off our debt.

NASA contributes a lot to mankind. For example, I was born two months premature, and sometimes stopped breathing. I am alive today because of a monitor that was developed by NASA to monitor astronauts.

Marc


User currently offlineAndz From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8443 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6567 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 3):
I am alive today because of a monitor that was developed by NASA to monitor astronauts.

Details please.



After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says WTF...
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3951 posts, RR: 28
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6567 times:

Why, besides a sense of human pride, would someone go to the moon again?

In the words of Officer Barbrady: "Move along people, there's nothing to see here."

Seriously, as much as I like aviation and space it is just useless to go there again.

Miguel



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6556 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 2):
Name 1 thing that has benefited society as a whole from NASA since Apollo

Boeing.
Lockheed Martin.
The American airline industry.

Want me to continue? NASA is much more than a moon shot money pit. They do much work in aviation safety and development, as well as with commercial space payloads.

Until we start acting grown up and realising that an international agency would be much more effective, with multiple funding sources, then it's the best you can hope for. Our increasiongly xenophobic planet and reactionary leaders in politics and even religion will ensure that never comes about.

Just think...a global agency merging NASA, ESA, Russia and China's programs as well as funding sources. What could that achieve in a friendlier, co-operative world?


User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6542 times:

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 6):
Boeing.
Lockheed Martin.
The American airline industry.

Boeing, LM, and airlines were around long before Apollo, they along with the Airline industry have benefited from the 'free' research that NASA has provided, but those gains could have been made with private funding if they were 'so necessary'.

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 6):
What could that achieve in a friendlier, co-operative world?

You are mistaking NASA with the military. The Airforce and LM/Boeing will have plenty of military and commercial spaceflights. I'm saying that the shuttle, the CEV and the projects NASA is PRIMARILY responsible for ought to be shelved until such time as we have the money to pay for it.


User currently offlineBobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6533 times:

I think NASA should fix the frickin' Hubble Space Telescope. If they happen to lose a space shuttle in the process, that leaves two more shuttles to try again. After Hubble is fixed they can go to hell.

User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6533 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 2):
Name 1 thing that has benefited society as a whole from NASA since Apollo, and please don't confuse GPS with NASA.

A few exerpts from http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/54862main_benefits.pdf:

Linking the World’s Telephones
When friends and family call from other parts of
the country or overseas, they sound as if they are
right around the corner. The scope, clarity, and
reliability of our long-distance telephone system is
the result of communications satellite technology
developed by NASA over a 30-year period.
Vital Signs for Critical Moments
The monitoring systems used in intensive care
units and heart rehabilitation wards were developed
from the systems used to monitor astronauts
during the first space missions in the early 1960s. A
single nurse can now monitor several patients in
critical care situations. Countless Americans
recovering from heart attacks and other serious illnesses
or injuries owe their lives to this technology,
a direct result of NASA’s space program.

Food Safety for Astronauts Sets the Standard
The Food and Drug Administration and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture credit NASA with
developing the comprehensive food safety system,
referred to as Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
Point (HACCP) that the nation uses today. This
system, originally developed for astronauts,
includes principles for preventative food safety
such as minimum cooking temperatures to kill bacteria
and methods of dealing with food safety
hazards. HACCP has become the accepted safety
standard for the food industry worldwide.

Planes, Trains, and Guitars
NASTRAN is a computer software program that
saves time and money by using a computerized
design process to identify the strengths and deficiencies
of a product before it is manufactured.
NASTRAN was originally developed by NASA for
human space flight and aeronautics. Private-sector
versions of this software are now used to design
everything from chemical plants, refineries and
trains to next-generation fighter aircraft, cars,
acoustic speakers, electric guitars and skyscrapers.
The software generates over $1 billion of revenue
annually and affects hundreds of billions of dollars
worth of consumer products.

S.O.S. to Space Provides Global Rescue Capability
NASA’s research in developing and demonstrating
space-based beacon locators was used to create an
international, satellite-based search and rescue system
that has helped save almost 13,000 lives
worldwide (as of January 2002). The system automatically
detects and locates transmissions from
emergency beacons carried by ships, aircraft or
individuals. The system then alerts appropriate rescue
authorities. A total of 30 nations participate in the
system, which operates 24 hours a day year-round.

Getting the Groove On Airport and Highway Safety
NASA researchers determined that cutting thin
grooves across concrete runways reduces the risk of
hydroplaning. The grooves, which create channels
for excess water to drain, have been shown to
improve aircraft tire friction performance in wet
conditions by 200 to 300 percent. As a result, hundreds
of commercial airports around the world have
had their runways grooved. This technique is now
used nationwide on highway curves and overpasses;
pedestrian walkways, ramps and steps; and food
processing plants and cattle holding pens. The use
of grooves on highways has contributed to an 85
percent reduction in highway accidents. This could
be NASA’s most successful technology in terms of
lives saved and injuries and accidents avoided.

New “Fields” and Better Yields for Agriculture
NASA-sponsored researchers working on methods
to grow plants in space have produced worldrecord
crops on Earth using hydroponics, a
technique that uses intense lighting and high levels
of carbon dioxide to grow crops in water. The
researchers produced a laboratory wheat crop five
times larger than a typical field-grown crop.
Several growers and large corporations are using
NASA’s techniques to increase potato production.

Space-Observation Keeps Hurricanes in Clear View
NASA and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are now
able to monitor weather patterns from space to
enhance hurricane track, landfall and intensity
forecasts. Measurements from NASA’s Tropical
Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) and
QuikScat Earth-observing satellites help to
improve predictions about hurricanes and other
tropical systems as they move from the open ocean
toward coastal regions. Improved hurricane forecasting
reduces property damage and saves lives by
giving local residents and municipalities advanced
warning to prepare and evacuate as needed prior to
a hurricane’s landfall.

Big Functions in a Small Package
Microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) are
extremely small devices and sensors (comparable
to the size of a human hair). MEMS applications
are directly traceable to the miniature accelerometers
NASA developed in the 1970s to measure
changes in speed during human and robotic space
flight. MEMS technology is used now in consumer
products to trigger automobile airbags, regulate
pacemakers and even keep washers and dryers balanced.
MEMS-based products have grown into a
$3 billion per year industry. The original NASAsponsored
work on an MEMS accelerometer is
referenced in 83 patents; the earliest reference was
made in 1975 and the latest in 2003.

NASA Technique Benefits Animal Research
NASA developed the hind limb suspension technique
to simulate the effects of weightlessness on
astronauts’ physiology. Variations of this technique
have been used for almost 25 years by animal
researchers to study bone, muscle and cardiovascular
atrophy. The technique is the model of choice for
independent medical experts and researchers worldwide.

Wildfire Management
Wildfires are a continual concern for communities
in the western United States. In the summer of
2000, for instance, wildfires consumed 8.4 million
acres in this region. NASA has worked with the
U.S. Forest Service to develop a rapid-response
capability for wildfires based on Moderate
Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS)
broadcasts from NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites.
These broadcasts provide daily images of fire patterns
nationwide, helping federal, state and local
governments manage wildfires more effectively.

Breast Cancer Diagnosis
Breast biopsies (mammographies) are essential for
the detection and treatment of breast cancer. As a
result of technology developed through the Hubble
Space Telescope program, biopsies can be performed
with a needle instead of a scalpel. The needle
biopsies benefit patients by leaving only a small
mark rather than a large scar and by costing significantly
less—an average of $850 compared to
$3,500 for a traditional biopsy.

Lifeshears
This powerful hand-held rescue tool can quickly
cut through cars or other enclosures to free persons
involved in an accident or other dangerous situation.
Lifeshears were used by rescue workers
searching for survivors at the Oklahoma City
bombing in 1995 and the World Trade Center in
2001. The tool, which was developed through the
joint efforts of the Hi-Shear Technology
Corporation, firefighters and NASA, uses the same
power source used to separate solid rocket boosters
from Space Shuttles. Lifeshears are lighter, cheaper
and easier to use than traditional rescue equipment.

Shedding New Light on Cancer Treatment
New lighting technology originally developed by
NASA for plant growth experiments in space is
improving the treatment of brain and skin tumors
and other medical problems such as wounds.
Doctors at the Medical College of Wisconsin are
using the technology to improve a chemotherapy
technique called photodynamic therapy. This
technique uses focused light to activate medicines
that kill cancerous tumors. In the past, photodynamic
therapy has used a laser light source; the
new light source is more efficient, versatile, accurate
and less costly. NASA and medical practitioners
also are investigating the use of this technique to
accelerate the healing of wounds both in space
and on the ground.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 962 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6519 times:

>> The X-prize and Richard Bransom will be proving the viability of commercial spaceflight over the next few years. I say that unless there is an object we need to destroy before it destroys us, I think NASA ought to effectively go on the shelf until we as a country pay off our debt.

X-Prize? Richard Branson? Give me a break.

T/Space? Maybe.

>> Name 1 thing that has benefited society as a whole from NASA since Apollo, and please don't confuse GPS with NASA.

Microprocessors, modern synthetic materials, and fuel cell technology have all been heavily advanced by NASA research before and after Apollo.

>> Lately, after the Discovery flight and the 'revelation' that the two years and billions of dollars spent making the shuttle safter was little more then a boondogle that did little to accomplish that end realistically.

I was in the Teague Auditorium with a few thousand JSC employees when Discovery lifted-off. They needed STS-114 for no other reason than to get back on their feet before they could move on, no matter what the cost. I was told never to applaud at Shuttle launches until MECO, but a T=0 the room exploded. They needed it.

It's too hard to say "screw the Shuttle" again. NASA will have to rebuild those processing facilities for almost anything they peruse in the future. The CEV heavy-lift would be assembled at the same site, and there are no alternatives for finishing the ISS. If you want to sink the Shuttle, you have to sink completion of the ISS.

>> Just think...a global agency merging NASA, ESA, Russia and China's programs as well as funding sources. What could that achieve in a friendlier, co-operative world?

Way too kumbaya...

China is in space for national interest. Co-operate with the westerners? Not likely. Short of being same-name and same-budget, NASA, ESA, and Russia already co-operate on tons of stuff.

>> Seriously, as much as I like aviation and space it is just useless to go there again.

That couldn't be further from the truth.

Sure, Columbus came to the New World because Spain wanted to one-up the rest of the Euro crowd. Same for U.S. and USSR re: Apollo. But imagine if the Western Hemisphere hadn't been colonized?

We have an entire planet in our solar system that, by conservative estimates, could be terreformed to support human life in less than 1,000 years. If our leaders could get over their shortsighted nature and put us on a path to incremental gain, that's a reality that could happen. Not in our lifetime, but in several generations we can be a two-planet species.


User currently offlineRoger136913 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 473 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6516 times:

TedTace

I am all for it, though I think they can trim those by more then a few Billion.
With a new trip to the Moon, comes contracts and they trickle down.
The problem with the Shuttle is the payload, and since some idiot threw away the plans to make the Saturn rockets it's cost a lot more to send a Shuttle into to place payloads.

I have not looked at NASA's site in some time, but to me this is exciting.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 962 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6511 times:

>> I'm saying that the shuttle, the CEV and the projects NASA is PRIMARILY responsible for ought to be shelved until such time as we have the money to pay for it

Are you joking or are you ignorant?

The entire NASA budget for 2005 was only $16 billion dollars, and 2005 was a "good" year. That's for everything NASA did, all of their payroll, all their research, all of their procurements, and all of their missions. A sum of $16 billion dollars is nothing in the governmental and aerospace scope.

By the way, manned flight is only $4 billion of that $16 billion! That's less than one tenth of one percent of the federal budget!

We can get more value, but we're getting our money's worth compared to Amtrack.  Yeah sure


User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6506 times:

Ted,

If you want to save money in the federal budget you could do a lot better than NASA. There are federal agencies that consume double digit percentages of the budget and produce exactly zip, whereas NASA with it's half of one percent actually produces a return.

One very valuable thing produced by NASA is the weather sat technology that allows us to see hurricanes coming...

Why didn't you post this in Mil/AV? Hmm?

regards


User currently offlineMidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6496 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 2):
Quoting TheCoz (Reply 1):
That money comes back to us many fold.

Name 1 thing that has benefited society as a whole from NASA since Apollo, and please don't confuse GPS with NASA.

Just a few off the top of my head: Tang, Microwaves, fiberoptics

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

WATER PURIFICATION SYSTEM - NASA-developed municipal-size water treatment system for developing nations, called the Regenerable Biocide Delivery Unit, uses iodine rather than chlorine to kill bacteria.

SCRATCH-RESISTANT LENSES - A modified version of a dual ion beam bonding process developed by NASA involves coating the lenses with a film of diamond-like carbon that not only provides scratch resistance, but also decreases surface friction, reducing water spots.

SOLAR ENERGY - NASA-pioneered photovoltaic power system for spacecraft applications was applied to programs to expand terrestrial applications as a viable alternative energy source in areas where no conventional power source exists.

FIRE RESISTANT MATERIAL - Materials include chemically-treated fabric for sheets, uniforms for hazardous material handlers, crew's clothing, furniture, interior walls of submersibles and auto racer and refueler suits.

DIGITAL IMAGING BREAST BIOPSY SYSTEM - The LORAD Stereo Guide Breast Biopsy system incorporates advanced Charge Coupled Devices (CCDs) as part of a digital camera system. The resulting device images breast tissue more clearly and efficiently. Known as stereotactic large-core needle biopsy, this nonsurgical system developed with Space Telescope Technology is less traumatic and greatly reduces the pain, scarring, radiation exposure, time, and money associated with surgical biopsies.

BREAST CANCER DETECTION - A solar cell sensor is positioned directly beneath x-ray film, and determines exactly when film has received sufficient radiation and has been exposed to optimum density. Associated electronic equipment then sends a signal to cut off the x-ray source. Reduction of mammography x-ray exposure reduces radiation hazard and doubles the number of patient exams per machine.

LASER ANGIOPLASTY - Laser angioplasty with a "cool" type of laser, caller an excimer laser, does not damage blood vessel walls and offers precise non-surgical cleanings of clogged arteries with extraordinary precision and fewer complications than in balloon angioplasty.

ULTRASOUND SKIN DAMAGE ASSESSMENT - Advanced instrument using NASA ultrasound technology enables immediate assessment of burn damage depth, improving patient treatment, and may save lives in serious burn cases.

HUMAN TISSUE STIMULATOR - Employing NASA satellite technology, the device is implanted in the body to help patient control chronic pain and involuntary motion disorders through electrical stimulation of targeted nerve centers or particular areas of the brain.

PROGRAMMABLE PACEMAKER - Incorporating multiple NASA technologies, the system consists of the implant and a physician's computer console containing the programming and a data printer. Communicates through wireless telemetry signals.

ENGINE LUBRICANT - A NASA-developed plasma-sprayed coating is used to coat valves in a new, ten-inch-long, four-cylinder rotary engine, eliminating the need for lubricating the rotorcam, which has no crankshaft, flywheel, distributor, or water pump.

FIREMAN'S AIR TANKS - Lighter-weight firefighter's air tanks have been developed. New back-pack system weighs only 20 lbs. for 30 minute air supply, 13 lbs. less than conventional firefighting tanks. They are pressurized at 4,500 psia (twice current tanks). A warning device tells the fireman when he or she is running out of air.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6478 times:

I think you guys are misunderstanding Ted's point. He isn't against the innovation that NASA has fostered in the past. He's just saying that better results on a more cost effective basis could be made if the effort were privatized. I for one agree.

User currently offlineB744F From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6477 times:

NASA may be beneficial, but only when you have the funding to pay for it. Unless Lockheed, Boeing, etc want to shell out their own money to fund the missions, I think this expensive corporate welfare needs to take a back seat to our countries problems including a growing debt that will cripple our economy in the near future

User currently offlineMidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 14
Reply 17, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6473 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 15):
think you guys are misunderstanding Ted's point. He isn't against the innovation that NASA has fostered in the past. He's just saying that better results on a more cost effective basis could be made if the effort were privatized. I for one agree.

I did not understand, I answered his question........

As for Privatization, maybe in the future, right now the technology is just not there......



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineSpringbok747 From Australia, joined Nov 2004, 4387 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6466 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 5):
Why, besides a sense of human pride, would someone go to the moon again?

Why to see what the aliens are doing on their secret base of course...  Wink

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 5):
Seriously, as much as I like aviation and space it is just useless to go there again.

Stephen Hawking says that humanity won't survive the next thousand years unless we colonize space.

I believe that we should go and colonize space, if we're to survive. Earth is just too small and too fragile.

Some interesting sites:
http://www.nssnyc.org/amillionreasons.html
http://www.futureshuttle.com/whygo.html
http://www.techcentralstation.com/022702B.html

And of course..if we don't go to space...how can we build ships like Galactica, or Enterprise in the future?  biggrin 



אני תומך בישראל
User currently offline4holer From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2999 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6441 times:

BTW, for those questioning the new Moon missions, I believe that the Moon will be the launch point for any manned mission to Mars (and beyond). Am I remembering that correctly?


Ghosts appear and fade away.....................
User currently offlineB744F From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6436 times:

Yes, the moon is a good fuel stop on the way to anywhere, unless we invent better technology like solar wind sails

User currently offlineSATX From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 2840 posts, RR: 7
Reply 21, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6430 times:

Quoting TheCoz (Reply 1):
Money spent in the area of space exploration is a great investment. That money comes back to us many fold.

It comes back to Corporate America. Sometimes we are allowed to purchase products that are largely the result of our tax dollars already. Hey, that sounds a lot like our pharmaceutical market as well. At any rate, I think this was more the case in the past than today. I just don't feel that $100,000,000,000 to send man back to the moon is money well spent. It really looks more like typical pork-barrel politics combined with a PR stunt to get our minds off our real problems.

The time to kill corporate welfare was last century. Giving it any longer to live is just plain wrong. I'm tired of giving away our tax dollars simply for the possible ability to purchase a better mousetrap in the future.

Quoting Springbok747 (Reply 18):
Stephen Hawking says that humanity won't survive the next thousand years unless we colonize space.

The earth will still be around and, if treated properly, able to host humans for millions of years yet. However, some folks apparently figure it would just be easier to simply let it go to shit and then find a new home.



Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...
User currently offlineBobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6430 times:

Quoting Springbok747 (Reply 18):
I believe that we should go and colonize space, if we're to survive. Earth is just too small and too fragile.

Life has flourished on this "too small and too fragile" planet for billions of years. If humans can't last another thousand, screw 'em.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 845 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6428 times:

Quoting B744F (Reply 20):
Yes, the moon is a good fuel stop on the way to anywhere

The ice deposits found on the pole are what they really want to get at. It becomes ready made rocket fuel.

The problem is that there has been 100 billion allocated. There are numerous plans going around that envision doing this for far cheaper let alone the huge sums sought for a Mars mission which could be done safely and securely for a third of what is requested.

I agree that NASA does some great stuff with what they have but maybe it is time to reinvent the agency, give it a new name and a new focus. There are so many new ideas emerging related to space industry and adventure that would benefit from a new direction.

Has anyone considered a commercial arm of NASA that has the ability to earn commercial profit that can be pumped straight back into the NASA budget to supplement existing funding? eg you earn more you can spend more.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 962 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 6400 times:

Please don't call the moon a "fueling stop" for anything in the next 50 years. It really isn't.

The difference in escape velocity for a translunar and transmartian trajectory are something like 2-3 km/s. That much delta-V can easily be accomplished by reduced mission mass or a larger upper-stage. A crew of four people and mission supplies for a 6 month transit and 6 month surface mission can be launched with nothing more than SRB and SSME derivatives. Consider that:

- The actual viability of lunar fuel production has not been established, and doing so would require billions and billions of additional funds.

- Using lunar fuel would require entering another planet's gravity well, descending, ascending, then performing another escape burn. The economics don't stack-up, even if you're simply refueling in lunar orbit.

Launch with a 4 man crew instead of 6-8, aerobrake instead of retroburn, and launch the return vehicle separately, and landing on the Moon is completely superfluous to any real exploration. Going back to the Moon is like repeating the late-60s instead of the early-60s.

It's a deader than dead planet. Mars has unimaginable potential, lets stop wasting our time, shall we?


25 DfwRevolution : >> Has anyone considered a commercial arm of NASA that has the ability to earn commercial profit that can be pumped straight back into the NASA budge
26 Post contains links and images TedTAce : Most of those are pre-apollo developments Like? Something about a bigger audience, and the fact that this $100B is relevant to ALL United States citi
27 Lehpron : Fuel. The moon's north pole is an ice cap, but not of water: Hydrogen. The energy to gather up fuel from Earth to send shit into space is astronomica
28 Post contains links Ozair : I can see how you think the moon would not be an effective refuelling base although I feel the returns are more beneficial than you suggest. Simply re
29 Post contains images Boeing nut : Mike, You forgot the biggest one of all..... VELCRO!!!
30 TedTAce : Once again... Apollo aged.
31 Pyrex : So, we screwed up a planet and now it's time to screw up something else? It is much easier to try to live sustainably at home... Earth is the only pl
32 Boeing Nut : But still created from space exploration.
33 TedTAce : But you missing my point: Nasa has done nothing NEW for the past 30 years. What is the point if they aren't developing something new that really bene
34 Post contains images DfwRevolution : >> Nasa has done nothing NEW for the past 30 years Nothing? You really think that? And to answer your ridiculous question, NASA developed the first f
35 DfwRevolution : >> So, we screwed up a planet and now it's time to screw up something else? It is much easier to try to live sustainably at home... Not saying it isn
36 Bobster2 : Humans could not live on a terraformed planet because conditions would be too primitive. If people are not willing to make any sacrifices to save the
37 Thorny : Actually, it is quite clear that the post-Columbia modifications reduced foam shedding by somewhere around 90%, which is a triumph. If you were expec
38 Drgreen757 : You know, if there is advanced civilizations out there watching our planet...they're probably laughing there asses(if they have them) off while we squ
39 Thorny : "The surest sign of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
40 SATL382G : That FBW aircraft used a modified FBW apollo digital autopilot... FYI
41 Post contains links and images TedTAce : Two things that CERTAINLY could have been done by any aircraft manufacturer/engine maker. at the MERE cost of 14 Astronauts and a few civilian contra
42 Post contains images Thorny : Yes, I was. I think the PAL ramp failure took everyone by surprise. After Discovery landed and the data was analyzed, NASA discovered that their comp
43 TedTAce : If they aren't doing anything practical. I'll look them up and get back to you on this one..
44 Post contains links TedTAce : My Initial response based ONLY on : http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.js...?cntn_id=104454&org=olpa&from=news Shut them down NOW!! We need research o
45 Cloudy : Do NASA's manned missions have significant benefits? Yes, but not nearly the enough benefits to justify their cost if one considers science alone. Oth
46 Post contains links Bobster2 : That is not correct according to people like Jack Schmitt (Apollo 17 astronaut/geologist). After the Apollo missions it was discovered that the lunar
47 TedTAce : OK, how about a little forward thinking here. Let's take 400 million metric tons from the moon and put it on the earth. Now what is going to happen t
48 Bobster2 : Forty metric tons of He-3 would provide the electricity needs of the U.S. for one year. The mass of the Earth is 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 metric
49 Cloudy : That would be relevant if Helium 3 were actually comparable to crude oil. It is not - for these reasons. 1. I haven't seen that many energy junkies i
50 Bobster2 : It's relevant because you said there are no resources in space that can be exploited. Helium-3 was found by accident on the surface of the Moon. That
51 Centrair : I don't want NASA to die. I just want the Federation of Planets to be created. I hope by the time we start these missions, the vehicles will be upgrad
52 Atmx2000 : Well, the problem with that idea is that there won't be any sort of budget parity given the differences in economic output between the countries. Div
53 Post contains images TedTAce : If Honda wants to pay us for that research so they can use it on thier robot, good for them!!
54 Cloudy : If by resources you mean stuff that is economically harvestable with foreseable technology, there are truly none. That was what I meant when I said "
55 Bobster2 : I agree with that. At least there is no reason for a big rush to send people into space. Let the machines try first and send people only if it's real
56 SATL382G : The problem is Columbus wasn't looking for the thing that he discovered. If we only do research on the "practical" we will miss many discoveries that
57 Thorny : Actually, the moon and Mars are probably the strongest reasons for humans in space. Field geology and dealing with the unexpected are two areas where
58 Bobster2 : The Apollo astronauts didn't have enough time to dig up samples from below the surface. They only picked up the easy stuff. Robots could spend years
59 SATL382G : Whoa there buddy. I agree with your response in general but people on earth put there left foot into serious trouble just about everyday. It's there
60 Post contains images DfwRevolution : >> a TAX PAYING CITIZEN just like your dumb ass. Like I said TedAce... NASA has cost you, the individual taxpayer, an amount roughly equivelent to a
61 Thorny : No, they can't. Robots have finite lifetimes as well, especially on the moon where there are two-week-long nights that drop to -250 degrees (none of
62 Post contains images TedTAce : X-tra Large Pepperoni and Black olives Cool, now tell them to make it 30X faster... to start. I don't think a trip to Mars and back should take much
63 SATL382G : You might want to go do some research on the Mars Exploration Rovers. They have systems and software that does exactly that, and it's on Mars right n
64 Bobster2 : I didn't know that. That would be a problem if the robot can't survive at night. The core samples were regolith. Regolith is relatively easy. That's
65 Thorny : But they do it by stopping, taking a picture, and then deciding if it is a cliff or boulder, or whatever, not in real time. And they frequently are s
66 Bobster2 : I should have said below the regolith. I've been thinking about robots surviving the lunar night. How do they get probes to Jupiter, Saturn, and even
67 Post contains images JBo : I think the surest sign intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us yet. Of course, I do think that
68 TedTAce : And who said that LONG before you did? It's really sad when you TRY to be funny.
69 SATL382G : During lunar night a robot on the lunar surface is in the moons shadow and receiving no solar radiation whatsoever. A spacecraft cruising to another
70 Post contains images TedTAce : Hummm.. I never liked such extremes... so you are saying that out of all those probes we launched the (say for example) Earth's shadow NEVER eclipsed
71 Cloudy : This is an argument for space exploration that I support. It is indeed a good argument for all kinds of pure science. However, pure science is not th
72 Bobster2 : I'm aware of that. I'm assuming that engineers can design a garage or do whatever is needed. Why can't they store heat when the sun is shining for tw
73 Thorny : Oh, they definitely can be solved. The two leading candidates are nuclear reactors and regenerative fuel cells. But both will be very expensive, and
74 SATL382G : Not during cruise, at least not in a way that mattered. Say a probe is 20 million miles from the side of of earth away from the sun and the probe, ea
75 Thorny : And when there were eclipses (Galileo's Jupiter Orbit Insertion and Cassini's Saturn Orbit Insertion, for example) they were close enough to the plan
76 Thorny : I'm not surprised by this at all. However, based on the dates mentioned it looks like this was an OMB fact-finding operation in the immediate post-Ka
77 Lehpron : I think the trick is to make new things fun, I know it may be a cliche but think about it. The business industry is not interested in (in their view)
78 Pyrex : About making things fun: I don't know, I am usually very sceptical of scientific divulgation programmes. Most of the time they end up being something
79 Cloudy : Thank you for the correction. However, resources from the moon most likely would be returned in a form that either would not be very large or would n
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Senate Clears Nasa To Buy Russian Spaceships posted Mon Sep 26 2005 10:47:26 by Centrair
Where's Nasa Planning To Bring Orion Down? posted Wed Sep 6 2006 02:01:14 by RC135U
"Orion" Said To Be Name Of NASA's CEV Program posted Fri Jul 21 2006 10:42:36 by AerospaceFan
Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey.. posted Sun Jul 3 2005 16:38:12 by AirRyan
Want To Join The Usaf posted Wed Dec 1 2004 00:33:28 by USAF757300
NASA: Shuttle Resumption To Be Delayed Further posted Fri Oct 29 2004 23:37:50 by ConcordeBoy
Nasa Streamlines To Support Exploration Goals posted Fri Jun 25 2004 22:44:46 by AvObserver
After College, I Want To Enlist...Please Help! posted Tue Mar 30 2004 05:12:51 by 174thfwff
Air Force One To Changi? posted Sun Nov 12 2006 11:17:31 by Shinkai
US Senate Approves Selling 100 F-35's To Turkey posted Thu Nov 9 2006 11:30:01 by Wing

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format