TedTAce
Topic Author
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:21 am

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.
This space intentionally left blank
 
theCoz
Posts: 3933
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 11:06 am

RE: I Want Nasa To DIE?!?!?!?!?

Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:25 am

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.
 
TedTAce
Topic Author
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:30 am

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.
This space intentionally left blank
 
Cadet985
Posts: 1958
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 6:45 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:34 am

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
 
andz
Posts: 7627
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 7:49 pm

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:36 am

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...
 
Pyrex
Posts: 4051
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:24 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:37 am

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!
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:43 am

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?
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
TedTAce
Topic Author
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:55 am

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.
This space intentionally left blank
 
Bobster2
Posts: 1523
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:04 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:58 am

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.
"I tell you this, no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn." Jim Morrison
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:59 am

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.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8590
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Fri Sep 16, 2005 7:04 am

>> 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.
 
Roger136913
Posts: 461
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 1:19 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Fri Sep 16, 2005 7:06 am

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.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8590
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Fri Sep 16, 2005 7:12 am

>> 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
 
SATL382G
Posts: 2679
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 12:02 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Fri Sep 16, 2005 7:14 am

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
"There’s nothing quite as exhilarating as being shot at and missed" --Winston Churchill
 
MidnightMike
Posts: 2810
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:07 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Fri Sep 16, 2005 7:22 am

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
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Fri Sep 16, 2005 7:28 am

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.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
B744F
Posts: 2927
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:52 pm

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Fri Sep 16, 2005 7:28 am

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
 
MidnightMike
Posts: 2810
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:07 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Fri Sep 16, 2005 7:35 am

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
 
Springbok747
Posts: 4007
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 9:13 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Fri Sep 16, 2005 7:41 am

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
 
4holer
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2002 1:47 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Fri Sep 16, 2005 8:06 am

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.....................
 
B744F
Posts: 2927
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:52 pm

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Fri Sep 16, 2005 8:16 am

Yes, the moon is a good fuel stop on the way to anywhere, unless we invent better technology like solar wind sails
 
satx
Posts: 2771
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:26 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Fri Sep 16, 2005 8:19 am

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...
 
Bobster2
Posts: 1523
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:04 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Fri Sep 16, 2005 8:19 am

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.
"I tell you this, no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn." Jim Morrison
 
Ozair
Posts: 1380
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Fri Sep 16, 2005 8:28 am

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.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8590
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Fri Sep 16, 2005 9:15 am

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?
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8590
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Fri Sep 16, 2005 9:22 am

>> 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.

That was the intention of the Space Shuttle in the 1980s.

NASA was to use the Shuttle for commercially-viable flights, but the problems with the early Shuttle program meant NASA was pouring more into flying the vehicle than revenue they were taking in. The launch schedule required to keep the Shuttle profitable would have come to an absolute collapse in either 1986 or 1987 because of the corners NASA was cutting to simply fly the vehicle. Columbia was virtually stripped of parts to allow Challenger to fly STS-41L. The program was simply in shambles.

After the Challenger disaster, the commercial industry pulled back from the Shuttle and NASA decided to slash commercial payloads. This is what gave the Delta-II its chance to shine...
 
TedTAce
Topic Author
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Fri Sep 16, 2005 9:27 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 9):

Most of those are pre-apollo developments

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 10):
and after Apollo.

Like?

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 13):
Why didn't you post this in Mil/AV? Hmm?

 stirthepot  Something about a bigger audience, and the fact that this $100B is relevant to ALL United States citizens, not just us space junkies.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 12):
We can get more value, but we're getting our money's worth compared to Amtrack

Direct hit!!

Quoting MidnightMike (Reply 14):
Tang, Microwaves, fiberoptics

Microwaves were pre Mercury, Tang was JUST post apollo (Skylab), and the people doing most of the Fiberoptics research was Corning/3M

Quoting Pope (Reply 15):
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.

Perfect.. this will be our Breakfast @ Tiffany's

Quoting B744F (Reply 16):
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

Good, but I would say HAS BEEN crippling...

Quoting Springbok747 (Reply 18):
humanity won't survive the next thousand years

 rotfl  I wish this was incorrect  Sad but honestly I think it's optimistic.. 150-250 tops, we are MORONS

Quoting 4holer (Reply 19):
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?

Your remembering what you have been told. Stopping at the moon and getting gas is idealistic. You would be much better served making a few trips to the ISS to create a suficient supply.

Quoting B744F (Reply 20):
Yes, the moon is a good fuel stop on the way to anywhere, unless we invent better technology like solar wind sails

Our resident expert, who knows nothing of the problems involved with putting infrastructure on the northernmost part of the moon. Put it this way, Antartica during the dead of it's winter is a bit more hospitable, and at least gets SOME light where as the north pole of the moon goes months with out sun light, which means no way to generate energy for a base (at least not without burning up the energy you intend to use). Nice try commander keen.

Quoting SATX (Reply 21):
It really looks more like typical pork-barrel politics combined with a PR stunt to get our minds off our real problems.

Yeah, why worry about the corrupt politicians when we don't know if the astronauts are going to return home (oh horror)

Quoting SATX (Reply 21):
if treated properly

You are the optimist

Quoting SATX (Reply 21):
millions of years yet

1 billion according to wikipedia, and that's presuming NOTHING else happens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_civilization

Quoting SATX (Reply 21):
However, some folks apparently figure it would just be easier to simply let it go to shit and then find a new home

Oh the Irony of the rich huh?

Quoting Bobster2 (Reply 22):
Life has flourished on this "too small and too fragile" planet for billions of years. If humans can't last another thousand, screw 'em.

 thumbsup 


Besides those with FANTASIES of leaving this planet are deluding themselves. EVEN if we could make the hop to a habitable planet in under a generation, what next? That planet will die eventually and so on and so on... Eventually the universe as we know it wil recycle, and let me tell you.. I'll be stunned if ANYTHING survives that.
This space intentionally left blank
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Fri Sep 16, 2005 9:28 am

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

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 astronomical compared to melting the H2 and burning straight from a region that the gravity is 20% what it is here. The operation cost would be cheap but requires a heafty development cost that could take billions and decades. Sadly, people are too me-me-me, you're not gonna see it happen because they are ignorantly isolationist (as are some on this forum).

With the issue of privatization, f*ck it. A private company only gives a damn about the bottomline, how much profit they get back. Pure research is going down in this day in age. Why spend on something that can be better for you in the future, but that you dont know yet, and not spend equal on something that does work and is good enough for your customers now? Why do you think there are so many 737's? Why is most popular music hiphop/dance based? Why do people buy SUV's?

Answer: Do what works (i.e. don't try anything new - reduce development costs by iteration).

There is no profit in exploring space, there is profit in satelites. Do any of you honestly think a private space venture would risk loosing their investors/shareholders to do something that cannot be gauranteed like going to Mars or the moon? No. Only an organization made by a government to explore will. They wouldn't/shouldn't have investors, just procurement reports detailing the importance of and the usefulness of them DOWN THE LINE. The latter implys nothing new is immediately useful. Cellphones are everywhere now, were they always, no. Were they when they came out, no. But cellphones allow us to be unstrapped by the supposed government phone access lines and their lack of features, at a price.

But in the end, a private company WILL not service all, only who'what is in THEIR best interests. Why do some of you people believe that privatization is the key? Do you even know how a business works? They won't give a damn for you unless you either own the company or are a sustantial investor.

If you lived out in the middle of nowhere and needed mail delivered to you, in this country, USPS (government run) will deliver it to you. UPS/FedEx/DHL will not do it because it is not worth the money to send it to you (unless you have a lot of crap mailed or are rich.)

Private companies only care for what they get back in time for quarterly earning reports to their investors, the point here is that they want something back in time to enjoy it. NASA should be unbiased by those investing. I say should only because they are now unfortunately biased. With Bush's moontrip idea and no real increase in funds, NASA has to cut funding from anything non-space related, which includes its aerospace programs. NASA would have been the only outlet to supersonic tranport research (regardless of market). Heck, they are the National Aeronatics and Space Administration!

Why are people (even here) so self-centered?
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
Ozair
Posts: 1380
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Fri Sep 16, 2005 9:57 am

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 reducing the payload to orbit is not really an effective solution in my opinion. I do think a permanent base operating on the moon would provide a valuable training area and location to support orbital operations.

Mars should be the focus though of course and many studies have shown that the moon is not essential in this effort. Mars direct is a good example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct

With regards to commercial NASA use, now with the space station in orbit surely there is demand for zero gee crystals etc to be produced and sold. There has to be a hundred different things NASA could use the station for that would allow for profit. Granted the station is not owned by NASA and the US but with the existing structure in place it would be a simple procedure to expand upon the current format.

Yes the Deltas are the key to future growth; I think a sustainable reusable vehicle is just not possible yet at an affordable cost.
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Fri Sep 16, 2005 10:49 pm

Quoting MidnightMike (Reply 14):
Just a few off the top of my head: Tang, Microwaves, fiberoptics

Mike,

You forgot the biggest one of all.....

VELCRO!!!  rotfl 
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
TedTAce
Topic Author
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Sat Sep 17, 2005 12:13 am

Quoting Boeing nut (Reply 29):

You forgot the biggest one of all.....

VELCRO!!! rotfl

Once again... Apollo aged.
This space intentionally left blank
 
Pyrex
Posts: 4051
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:24 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Sat Sep 17, 2005 12:39 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 10):
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.

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 planet in our immediate vicinity that has conditions to sustain intelligent life as we know it. Any dreams of our survival as a race passing through space colonies are just that, dreams fuelled by too much science fiction.

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 27):
There is no profit in exploring space, there is profit in satelites.

I completely agree with you in that pure research can never be the responsibility of corporations. They just don't care about anything that takes more than 5 years to pay itself. What the US really needs is a civil DARPA.

There is a role for NASA, I won't contest that. As an aerospace engineering student a moon program is great for jobs for me and my colleagues but I just think there are other priorities in scientific research in general and space in particular. They should start by pumping more money into NASA's dying aeronautical research program.

With $100 billion dollars we can completely end our dependence on fossil fuels, for example. Just think about what is more important.

Miguel
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Sat Sep 17, 2005 2:23 am

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 30):
Once again... Apollo aged.

But still created from space exploration.
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
TedTAce
Topic Author
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Sat Sep 17, 2005 6:49 am

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 32):

But still created from space exploration.

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 benefits us? They come out with Warp drives and I'll STFU, but until they do; I'm gong to ride them hard.
This space intentionally left blank
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8590
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Sat Sep 17, 2005 7:42 am

>> Nasa has done nothing NEW for the past 30 years

Nothing? You really think that?  eyebrow 

And to answer your ridiculous question, NASA developed the first fly-by-wire aircraft in the 1970s after the Apollo program was completed. You can also thank them for the high-bypass turbofan engine next time your board any commerical aircraft.

>> What is the point if they aren't developing something new that really benefits us?

For the sake of the challenge numbnuts, which is a heck of a lot more than a pleathora of other agencies can say. The Shuttle was something, it just wasn't all that it could be or all that NASA could do. Here's one benefit: we know that isn't the best way to fly into space anymore.

>> They come out with Warp drives and I'll STFU

Will VASIMR suffice  Yeah sure

>> I'm gong to ride them hard.

Shut up, who the hell are you to say that  Yeah sure

As I say again, per dollar, NASA has provided more tangible scientific return and national prestige than any other institution I can name. The entire NASA budget since 1995 has cost each taxpayer $16 dollars. That's not two cheese pizzas without a coupon.

If this really upsets you, write your Representative instead of bitching that NASA hasn't given you a teleporter to dodge the morning commute. As a matter of fact, I was preparing a template letter to send to the Space and Aeronautic Subcommittee, supporting NASA's decision to persue "rapid prototyping" and "incremental development." These two concepts are an abrupt U-turn from the way they have conducted business for 30 years, and should help increase the value of manned missions.

I'll be the first (and consistantly have been) to say NASA has room for improvement, but I'll damned if no-nothings like you continue to criticize the abilities of NASA.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8590
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Sat Sep 17, 2005 7:44 am

>> 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't. But for investing what amounts to the annual DoD spending in terreforming, and we could potentially have a second habital planet in our vacinity. It's a very real possibility, and incredibly dumb not study further.
 
Bobster2
Posts: 1523
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:04 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Sat Sep 17, 2005 8:40 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 35):
But for investing what amounts to the annual DoD spending in terreforming, and we could potentially have a second habital planet in our vacinity

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 Earth, why do you think they would make sacrifices to live on Mars? Are you prepared to live on Mars without a car? If yes, are you willing live without a car right now on Earth? It would make more sense to send primitive life forms from Earth to other planets and let them adapt to the new environments.

The universe seems to have zero tolerance for life forms that destroy their own planets. That's why the habitable places are so far apart. If there was a way for failed species to jump from planet to planet, all the good places would be ruined already.
"I tell you this, no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn." Jim Morrison
 
Thorny
Posts: 1508
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:44 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Sat Sep 17, 2005 10:29 am

Quoting TedTAce (Thread starter):
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.

Actually, it is quite clear that the post-Columbia modifications reduced foam shedding by somewhere around 90%, which is a triumph. If you were expecting perfection (100%) you must not have noticed the endless times NASA reminded the public that STS-114 was a TEST FLIGHT.

Quoting TedTAce (Thread starter):

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.

Well, there are two complete tanks already at the Cape. They can be modified there. (I think NASA is now saying 'nevermind, the damage at Michoud isn't as bad as was feared', but the point remains.) Most of the new work to reduce foam shedding is going to be computational fluid dynamics, which can be done anywhere with a supercomputer (Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, maybe.)
The actual bending metal (spraying foam) for the fix was a while down the road anyway.

Quoting TedTAce (Thread starter):
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

$100 Billion is about 70% of NASA's existing budget for 10 years, by the way.
Keep in mind that the Columbia Accident Investigation Board found that the lack of a clear goal for NASA contributed to the Columbia disaster. The moon (and later, Mars) objective allows NASA to begin working toward a clear objective, instead of a myriad of independent and generally unrelated projects, like Columbia's final mission.

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?

Ah, the old "Apollo Argument". "Why spend money in space when we have so many more important things to do on Earth?" Apollo was killed to free up money for LBJ's Great Society welfare program (inherited largely intact by Nixon) and the war in Vietnam. NASA was spending a lot more money then, as a fraction of the federal budget, than it is now. That money went to end poverty (via welfare and other social programs) and win the war against the commies in Vietnam. But the end of Apollo didn't make a dent in poverty and we all know how Vietnam ended. Sure, let's go down that road again...

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

Wonderful. Throw thousands more people on the unemployment ranks and shut down one of the biggest employers in New Orleans while you're at it. Sure, that will be a real boost to the economy.

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.

Landsat
Voyager 1 & 2
Viking 1 & 2
Hubble Space Telescope
Pioneer-Venus
Magellan
Gamma Ray Observatory
Galileo
Cosmic Background Explorer
Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO)
TOPEX-Poseidon
Cassini
Lunar Prospector
NEAR-Shoemaker
Mars Pathfinder
Mars Global Surveyor
Mars Odyssey
Spirit and Opportunity

Quoting Bobster2 (Reply 8):
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.

Hubble is fully operational already. The next servicing mission would be needed to keep it running longer, as parts are destined to start failing soon. Hubble was designed and built for a 15 year lifetime in orbit. It was launched in 1990. You do the math.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 26):
Tang was JUST post apollo (Skylab)

No, Tang dates from the 50s and was popularized by (not invented for) Apollo.
NASA tends to be credited with inventing Tang, among other things. It didn't. See also the integrated circuit. NASA didn't invent them. But they were by far the largest early customer for them (the military was still leery of trusting them for national security payloads, but they were worth the risk to NASA as they solved a great number of problems for Apollo) and played a key role in launching the information age.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 12):
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!

It's actually closer to $7B. $3.5 Billion for Shuttle and another $3B or so on Station, plus incidentals.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 31):

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...

For some reason, the phrase "don't pull all your eggs in one basket" comes immediately to mind.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 25):
Columbia was virtually stripped of parts to allow Challenger to fly STS-41L.

That's a garbled account, evidently. The Challenger disaster (STS-51L... there was no STS-41L) was launched one week after Columbia landed on STS-61C. There was a lot of part-swapping going on prior to the Challenger disaster, but the main 'victim' was Discovery, which was at the time waiting for Vandenberg AFB to become operational. NASA was in a hurry to launch Challenger on STS-51L because they had to get her back with enough time to ready her for the Ulysses launch scheduled for four months later. Columbia was scheduled for another flight in March, followed by Atlantis in May (within a week or so of Challenger's next flight.) So that really only left Discovery as a source of spare parts.
 
drgreen757
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2001 1:50 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Sat Sep 17, 2005 1:16 pm

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 squabble about money. It really is sad that we as a planet have limited ourselves by what we can do according to how much money it costs. Fricking sad.
Save the grey ghosts.
 
Thorny
Posts: 1508
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:44 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Sun Sep 18, 2005 2:17 am

Quoting Drgreen757 (Reply 38):
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 squabble about money. It really is sad that we as a planet have limited ourselves by what we can do according to how much money it costs. Fricking sad.

"The surest sign of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us."
-Calvin
 
SATL382G
Posts: 2679
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 12:02 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Sun Sep 18, 2005 2:27 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 34):
NASA developed the first fly-by-wire aircraft in the 1970s after the Apollo program was completed.

That FBW aircraft used a modified FBW apollo digital autopilot... FYI
"There’s nothing quite as exhilarating as being shot at and missed" --Winston Churchill
 
TedTAce
Topic Author
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Sun Sep 18, 2005 3:56 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 34):
And to answer your ridiculous question, NASA developed the first fly-by-wire aircraft in the 1970s after the Apollo program was completed. You can also thank them for the high-bypass turbofan engine next time your board any commerical aircraft.

Two things that CERTAINLY could have been done by any aircraft manufacturer/engine maker.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 34):
Here's one benefit: we know that isn't the best way to fly into space anymore.

at the MERE cost of 14 Astronauts and a few civilian contractors, really cheap by apollo Standards right?  Yeah sure

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 34):
Shut up, who the hell are you to say that

a TAX PAYING CITIZEN just like your dumb ass.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 34):
VASIMR

http://www.space.com/businesstechnol...nology/vasimr_rocket_020807-1.html
No. But I do believe this is the kind of thing they SHOULD be researching.

Quoting Thorny (Reply 37):
If you were expecting perfection (100%) you must not have noticed the endless times NASA reminded the public that STS-114 was a TEST FLIGHT.

The endless SPIN of 'we spent all this money and we THINK we fixed it'. Thorny you are the voice of reason, but I expect even you were hoping for less drama.

Quoting Thorny (Reply 37):
Landsat
Voyager 1 & 2
Viking 1 & 2
Hubble Space Telescope
Pioneer-Venus
Magellan
Gamma Ray Observatory
Galileo
Cosmic Background Explorer
Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO)
TOPEX-Poseidon
Cassini
Lunar Prospector
NEAR-Shoemaker
Mars Pathfinder
Mars Global Surveyor
Mars Odyssey
Spirit and Opportunity

So, lots of cool pictures and an understanding of how stuff outside our planet works. SOHO is great for those dependent on cellphones and other 'vulnerable' technologies, but I think it's the only one in the list society as a whole benefits from.

Quoting Drgreen757 (Reply 38):
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 squabble about money. It really is sad that we as a planet have limited ourselves by what we can do according to how much money it costs. Fricking sad.

Direct hit!!!

Quoting Thorny (Reply 39):
"The surest sign of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us."
-Calvin

Touche'
This space intentionally left blank
 
Thorny
Posts: 1508
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:44 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Sun Sep 18, 2005 5:24 am

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 41):
The endless SPIN of 'we spent all this money and we THINK we fixed it'. Thorny you are the voice of reason, but I expect even you were hoping for less drama.

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 computer models for aerodynamics around the PAL ramp were completely wrong. So hopefully, our understanding of fluid dynamics / aerodynamics will improve a little thanks to STS-114. But I am annoyed that it will be another year before the Shuttle flies again.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 41):

So, lots of cool pictures and an understanding of how stuff outside our planet works.

That is kind of the point, isn't it? Do you want to shut down the National Science Foundation, too? All they're doing is research into lots of boring science stuff. What's in it for me?  Smile
 
TedTAce
Topic Author
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Sun Sep 18, 2005 5:51 am

Quoting Thorny (Reply 42):
National Science Foundation, too?

If they aren't doing anything practical. I'll look them up and get back to you on this one..
This space intentionally left blank
 
TedTAce
Topic Author
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Sun Sep 18, 2005 5:54 am

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 43):
I'll look them up and get back to you on this one..

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 on how to F-ing WALK?!?!? I think it would have been better spent on teaching us to get up and walk in the first place instead of sitting on a.net all day long...
This space intentionally left blank
 
cloudy
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:23 pm

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:26 am

Do NASA's manned missions have significant benefits?

Yes, but not nearly the enough benefits to justify their cost if one considers science alone. Other science projects have far better return for the ammount of money spent. The output per dollar could go WAY up with competent management, but probably not enough to compete with other science projects.

BTW....Comparing NASA manned spending to spending like the war, etc. confuses matters. It is better to compare it with spending that aims toward similar goals. What goals deserve the most money is a seperate issue that should be discussed seperately.

Do NASA's manned missions have significant non-science benefits like national prestige, inspiring young scientists and engineers, etc?

No, because they don't go anywhere except low earth orbit. And they won't untill someone else threatens to get there first. Count on it. That is just the nature of any organization without true competition. The good young people we have now are inspired by NASA's unmanned program. And by the IT industry. And biotech. There is where truly new and groundbreaking stuff is done. There is a reason the Mars Pathfinder website got far more hits than the space station's, even though the station spent far more money.

If NASA were to do truly new things at reasonable cost, however, this may be a valid reason to pursue manned space flight. We need to be able to have national heros and risk-takers, and tangible national goals, when there is no war to keep us united. Also, pretige does matter. Especially in the third world. Having sent a man to the moon helped us in the cold war. Sending someone to Mars would help us in the war on terror, etc. It makes democratic capitalism look more attractive. This is something to consider.

Is our current space exploration comparable to what Columbus did, etc?

No. Those were different times with completely different circumstances. It was cheaper in relative terms to explore back then, and people were willing to accept a higher degree of risk. There were also far more incentives to explore and settle the "New World" back then then there is to settle space now.

Part of the problem is we know to much about space. There is no mythical seven cities of gold to egg us on. There is no Northwest passage to Asia, there are no endless riches for the taking. Our probes and telescopes have shattered all our illusions about our own solar system, and we won't be going beyond our own solar system anytime soon. We don't have legends and myths to egg us on like Colombus did. All we have is cold, hard reality.

And it is a cold, hard reality indeed. There are no natives to exploit or convert. There are currently no exploitable commodities. There is no place in our Solar System more inhabitable or easy to reach than our own oceans, or Antarctica. These places are literaly thousands of times cheaper to reach then any place outside earth. Yet virtually no one actually lives in these places. A few people go for science or to extract resources, and then come back. No mass migration, no true new worlds. Even if space travel became as cheap as air travel, this is all we would ever see given what we know about our Solar system.

We should not think that the current manned space program will open whole new worlds to humanity, because it will not. EVENTUALLY, with MUCH cheaper technology, it MAY allow us to use the solar system the way we use the oceans or the Arctic now. If that ability is truly needed, it will be developed by private industry.

IN SHORT.... Niel Armstrong is not Columbus. Eileen Collins is not Magellan. Our current manned space exploration program is more like the polar explorations of Cook or Perry than it is like the voyages of Columbus. There is less at stake, there is less to see, and there is less promise for the future. This would be true even if we did go back to the moon and on to Mars, or even out to the Kuiper belt. Unless something changes drastically in our knowledge, there will be no reason the solar system will ever be settled in the next century. And by something drastic, I mean something like intelligent life on Europa or an Earth like planet in our own solar system hidden by alien technology. Something REALLY wierd, big and unnexpected. Microbes on mars won't do it. Sorry folks.
 
Bobster2
Posts: 1523
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:04 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:25 am

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 45):
there are no endless riches for the taking.

That is not correct according to people like Jack Schmitt (Apollo 17 astronaut/geologist). After the Apollo missions it was discovered that the lunar soil contains helium-3 that could potentially be used as a fuel source for nuclear fusion. Schmitt has said that one metric ton of helium-3 is worth about $4-5 billion in crude oil.

Here is a link about Schmitt, and a link to a web page with a lot of information about resources that can be harvested from space:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/11/1
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533.html
"I tell you this, no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn." Jim Morrison
 
TedTAce
Topic Author
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:59 am

Quoting Bobster2 (Reply 46):
That is not correct according to people like Jack Schmitt (Apollo 17 astronaut/geologist). After the Apollo missions it was discovered that the lunar soil contains helium-3 that could potentially be used as a fuel source for nuclear fusion. Schmitt has said that one metric ton of helium-3 is worth about $4-5 billion in crude oil.

Here is a link about Schmitt, and a link to a web page with a lot of information about resources that can be harvested from space:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/11/1
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533.html

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 to the gravatational relationship of these two bodies? I'd guess mathematically nothing if you are talking about a pure two object relationship in the middle of nowhere in space.

I'm guessing, however, that there will be less resistance for the moon to move further away and affect our tides and weather. Would this much mass make a noticable diference? Maybe not, but then again who really wants to bet our planet on that?
This space intentionally left blank
 
Bobster2
Posts: 1523
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:04 am

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Mon Sep 19, 2005 11:57 am

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 47):
Let's take 400 million metric tons from the moon and put it on the earth.

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 tons.

The mass of the Moon is 70,000,000,000,000,000,000 metric tons.

[Edited 2005-09-19 05:00:15]
"I tell you this, no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn." Jim Morrison
 
cloudy
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:23 pm

RE: I Want Nasa To Die?!?!?!?!?

Tue Sep 20, 2005 5:29 am

Quoting Bobster2 (Reply 46):
That is not correct according to people like Jack Schmitt (Apollo 17 astronaut/geologist). After the Apollo missions it was discovered that the lunar soil contains helium-3 that could potentially be used as a fuel source for nuclear fusion. Schmitt has said that one metric ton of helium-3 is worth about $4-5 billion in crude oil.

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 interested in Helium 3. No power companies, no environmental groups, nobody. At least nobody significant is spending any real time or money on it. The main people pushing it seem to be space junkies. This says something to me. It tells me that Helium 3 is not seen by people in the know as a serious bid to make money or solve energy problems. It is mainly pushed by space people grasping at straws.

2. We do NOT know that practical fusion would be any easier with Helium 3 than with other forms of hydrogen or helium. It may even be harder. We simply haven't experimented enough to know yet. The stuff is tough to get. We can mine it from the moon or make small amounts in particle accelerators. This is one reason the energy guys aren't interested yet.

3. Oil is primarily used to power vehicles, NOT generate electricity. No kind of fusion could not replace oil unless it was used to generate hydrogen or electricity that would then be used to power vehicles. To do this, it would have to compete with a number of more promising, readily available power sources. There is enough Uranium in seawater to supply our civilization for thousands of years if we simply reprocessed the spent fuel. Fission power with reprocessed fuel is very cheap, safe and clean. If the global warming situation is real and fixable - we will simply go back to fission. We will stop listening to the scaremongers. When all other options are out, men and nations do behave rationally. Before we get THAT rational, we can go to clean coal technologies, more hydro, wind and solar. There's no need to go to space.

There is no shortage of good, clean ways to generate electricity. That is largely a fake issue created by NIMBY's and so-called environmental groups.

There IS a shortage of ways to power transportation, since fossil fuel use does create a lot of environmental problems. . A battery with the same energy density as gasoline or diesel would be many times more valuable to mankind (and profitable to an investor) than practical fusion energy. The truth of this is even easier to see if you look at where people are spending their OWN money. Lots goes to fuel cells, superconductors, etc. Investors spend on new ways of STORING and TRANSMITTING energy, not GENERATING it. Most of the money going into fusion is being spent by governments - and most of that is not done for the sake of fusion energy, but to replace weapons testing.

IN SHORT.... Controlled fusion of any sort, as an energy source, is mostly hype. Even if it could be done there is no guarantee it would be superior to fission, which is already pretty good. Since it cannot directly power vehicles it cannot be compared to fossil fuels, nor can it replace them. At least, it cannot without technologies that would do as well with any other power source.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests