2 steps back to the Moon, one step forward?
-
Christian Graus wrote:
How long do we expect to save any part of the human race ? How do we make life sustainable on the moon ? How do we decide who gets to go ?
Who knows, but do we just all throw up our hands and say, gee these are some hard decisions, let's just give up? I don't know the exact answers but 40 years ago we managed to put people up there with the equivalent of a TI hand held calculator and a really big firecracker. With all of the incredible research being done, if people got their stuff together something could be worked out. I just find the utter indifference of the public, and the (apparent) inabiilty of NASA to discipline itself and accomplish goals really, really sad. ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
Jim Crafton wrote:
inabiilty of NASA to discipline itself and accomplish goals
I've got to respectfully disagree with that statement. Keep in mind NASA is doing many many more projects now then they were doing when they did the first moon shot .. and all those programs must be kept running as well. Of course there is waste, as there is in all government, but I think NASA is doing really well with the limited resources we give them. "We need less government, not more. The idea that we can become a better society by having a bigger rule book is ridiculous, regardless of who is trying to change the rules" - Doug Goulden
-
Didn't the Bush administration just announce a huge round of funding for Nasa along with the plan for a Mars mission? I recall all the peanut gallery over at Slashdot saying the government is spending too much money and shouldn't be wasting it on Nasa.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Moral Muscle The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
Judah Himango wrote:
Didn't the Bush administration just announce a huge round of funding for Nasa
Nope, Bush said NASA had to do it without increased funding ... they have to, and have been, cutting other programs. "We need less government, not more. The idea that we can become a better society by having a bigger rule book is ridiculous, regardless of who is trying to change the rules" - Doug Goulden
-
Judah Himango wrote:
Didn't the Bush administration just announce a huge round of funding for Nasa
Nope, Bush said NASA had to do it without increased funding ... they have to, and have been, cutting other programs. "We need less government, not more. The idea that we can become a better society by having a bigger rule book is ridiculous, regardless of who is trying to change the rules" - Doug Goulden
Are you sure about that? Bush seeks $1 billion more in NASA funding[^]
-
First off: I am not a rocket scientist. In fact I'm not a scientist at all. So maybe I'm being a bit unfair, but when I read this: http://blog.wired.com/nasacev/[^] They say "NASA has recently announced plans for a manned mission to the moon in 2018." Huh? JFK was elected in 1960. Shortly thereafter he makes some speech about wanting a manned lunar mission before the 1960s are out. In 1969 we land on the moon. In *9* years we pull this off. How on earth does NASA require 12 friggin years to duplicate the feat? OK, yes they want this re-usable. Fine, I can see that being more complex, but good lord, isn't it true that in virtually every single area that would be related to this mission we have made massive advances technologically? Other than silly politics why would take so long? Why is there no at NASA that can just say "Make this happen". To me this reads as if we are literally starting from scratch. Sad :( ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
Jim Crafton wrote:
OK, yes they want this re-usable.
Yes,
Jim Crafton wrote:
Fine, I can see that being more complex, but good lord, isn't it true that in virtually every single area that would be related to this mission we have made massive advances technologically?
NO! Having spent 10 years on the X-30 project. I can promise you this little advancement is far from trivial. Also as others have pointed out the acceptance of some failures is just no longer tolerated. THAT is what caused the cancellation of the X-30 by the way. We could not GAURANTEE the first flight of the first vehicle would be orbital. Engine burn efficiencies and materials to withstand the heat from modified trajectories have a ways to go. "Every new day begins with possibilities. It's up to us to fill it with things that move us toward progress and peace.” (Ronald Reagan) -- modified at 21:33 Wednesday 15th March, 2006
-
Jim Crafton wrote:
inabiilty of NASA to discipline itself and accomplish goals
I've got to respectfully disagree with that statement. Keep in mind NASA is doing many many more projects now then they were doing when they did the first moon shot .. and all those programs must be kept running as well. Of course there is waste, as there is in all government, but I think NASA is doing really well with the limited resources we give them. "We need less government, not more. The idea that we can become a better society by having a bigger rule book is ridiculous, regardless of who is trying to change the rules" - Doug Goulden
David Patrick wrote:
Keep in mind NASA is doing many many more projects now then they were doing when they did the first moon shot
Yeah I know. I'd argue that perhaps it's doing too many. Or maybe not. But I think, or suspect there could be some trimming. ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
-
Jim Crafton wrote:
OK, yes they want this re-usable.
Yes,
Jim Crafton wrote:
Fine, I can see that being more complex, but good lord, isn't it true that in virtually every single area that would be related to this mission we have made massive advances technologically?
NO! Having spent 10 years on the X-30 project. I can promise you this little advancement is far from trivial. Also as others have pointed out the acceptance of some failures is just no longer tolerated. THAT is what caused the cancellation of the X-30 by the way. We could not GAURANTEE the first flight of the first vehicle would be orbital. Engine burn efficiencies and materials to withstand the heat from modified trajectories have a ways to go. "Every new day begins with possibilities. It's up to us to fill it with things that move us toward progress and peace.” (Ronald Reagan) -- modified at 21:33 Wednesday 15th March, 2006
Michael A. Barnhart wrote:
Also as others have pointed out the acceptance of some failures is just no longer tolerated.
And unless that changes, that is going to haunt us one of these days. :( ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
-
OK, well that pretty much sucks. But what about this: in the 1960s weren't many of the materials and processes for building these vehicles less well known than they are now? Surely it's cheaper/easier to build this stuff now due to progress with technology? ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
I will add one more item to Jeffry's comments. Many of those materials have since been found to be toxic and are banned. So a lot of starting over with new requirements to be met as you do the work now that did not have to be done then. "Every new day begins with possibilities. It's up to us to fill it with things that move us toward progress and peace.” (Ronald Reagan)
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote:
Also as others have pointed out the acceptance of some failures is just no longer tolerated.
And unless that changes, that is going to haunt us one of these days. :( ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
Jim Crafton wrote:
that is going to haunt us one of these days.
Umm, for myself, it already has. :( "Every new day begins with possibilities. It's up to us to fill it with things that move us toward progress and peace.” (Ronald Reagan)
-
Are you sure about that? Bush seeks $1 billion more in NASA funding[^]
Judah Himango wrote:
Are you sure about that? Bush seeks $1 billion more in NASA funding
... from the linked article : the other $11 billion would come from shifting funds from existing programs According to the article NASA's annual budget is $86 billion .. which makes this a 1.16% increase ... certainly insignficant compared to the corresonding requested objective. Could you, for example, replace all your automobiles ( I assume you have 1 or 2 ) with only a 1.16% raise in your salary? .. oh, and btw, those new automobiles must use technologies that dont exist yet and meet mileage and emission standards that no commerically available cars meet. "We need less government, not more. The idea that we can become a better society by having a bigger rule book is ridiculous, regardless of who is trying to change the rules" - Doug Goulden
-
Judah Himango wrote:
Are you sure about that? Bush seeks $1 billion more in NASA funding
... from the linked article : the other $11 billion would come from shifting funds from existing programs According to the article NASA's annual budget is $86 billion .. which makes this a 1.16% increase ... certainly insignficant compared to the corresonding requested objective. Could you, for example, replace all your automobiles ( I assume you have 1 or 2 ) with only a 1.16% raise in your salary? .. oh, and btw, those new automobiles must use technologies that dont exist yet and meet mileage and emission standards that no commerically available cars meet. "We need less government, not more. The idea that we can become a better society by having a bigger rule book is ridiculous, regardless of who is trying to change the rules" - Doug Goulden
I'm not interested in attacking or defending the Bush administration. You said NASA "went without increased funding", which isn't true, that's all I had to say. The corresponding analogy of salary doesn't work; not only are you ignoring the other $11 billion, but by no means does Nasa have to replace all its automobiles, figuratively speaking. Anyways, I'm not interested in getting into a political debate, so this will be my last reply on this thread.