|
Author
|
Topic: Constellation cancelled: NASA's new approach
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-15-2010 06:32 PM
   
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
Obama's "flexible" plan
Again, the "flexible path" (or plan) is not what has been proposed by President Obama, or at least not how it is being applied here. The "flexible path" as coined by the Augustine committee refers to a multiple destination approach to space exploration. It has nothing to do with commercially-sourced vs. government-contracted rockets. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 02-15-2010 06:37 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
I acknowledge the will isn't there, but if it were the money would be too.
Whose will? If you're talking about the President's, this statement is demonstrably untrue. Bush had the will, but never fully funded the program--nor did Congress do so in his stead. If you're talking about the will of the people, you're living in a different world than I am. If it were up to me, we'd devote about 50% of the defense budget to space, and have colonies on Mars within the next decade. But it would be foolish to expect such a miracle to ever occur. Not under any president or Congress. Obama's budget request is a starting point. One viable compromise solution would be to extend the shuttle program until the commercial sector is able to take up the slack. This will cost more than what Obama has proposed, but much less than the $3 billion a year that Constellation would need. I can easily see Obama agreeing to adding funding for the shuttle--provided he didn't have to take the heat for the additional cost. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-15-2010 07:05 PM
I stand thankfully corrected regarding the application of the word "flexible", both in terms of applying it to the phrase "flexible-PATH" (not "plan"), and that the Augustine Commission meant it to apply to possible multiple space destinations rather than commercially-sourced vs. government-contracted rockets.But that also somewhat strengthens my point; if there really isn't much or any flexibility, vis-a-vis commercially-sourced vs. government-contracted rockets, it makes Obama's gamble all the greater. Why should America be put in the position of taking such a chance, when it isn't necessary? I very much agree with cjh5801 that "one viable compromise solution would be to extend the shuttle program until the commercial sector is able to take up the slack"; this would be a great improvement over the current direction currently carved out for NASA. (I must respectfully disagree however with the assertion that political will can't bring about different realities. A President can be very convincing regarding priorities and allocations, but the case must be made convincingly and forcefully -- rhetoric that rings hollow, no matter how artfully delivered, ultimately won't carry the day). |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-15-2010 11:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cjh5801:
If it were up to me, we'd devote about 50% of the defense budget to space
Now that's the best suggestion by far.Funny how some commentators (not necessarily here) keep attaching sinister motives to China's human spaceflight ambitions. China has barely accumulated two weeks of crew time in space. Yet we're expected to believe it will soon conquer the Moon(!) So what was the imperative for NASA to return to the Moon by 2020? Nine billion dollars was spent on Constellation until it's demise with nothing much to show for it (the equivalent a few months overheads for occupying Afghanistan). |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-16-2010 01:20 AM
Though China hasn't accomplished all that much in space (when compared to the U.S. or Russia), the fact they've put men in space is, by itself, an impressive feat; their stated goal of reaching the moon certainly shouldn't be treated lightly.As for their intentions, well...any country with one-sixth of the world's population that shows few qualms with killing thousands of its own citizens and continually thwarts American attempts to slow Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons is one I'd say the U.S. shouldn't view benignly. And even if China was the sole reason for funding Constellation (though I don't believe that is the case), just because the prior administration didn't do what it perhaps should have doesn't mean it's a good idea for this one to repeat the mistake. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-16-2010 01:29 AM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
...their stated intentions to reach the moon certainly shouldn't be treated lightly.
If China had actually said they were going to the Moon, then I would agree. But they haven't. Take for example the "China is sending humans to the Moon" story, which persists despite any evidence at all to support it. Claims of a Chinese human lunar program are all built on a solid foundation of marshmallows and Cool Whip, but that has not prevented them from appearing periodically in articles over the past five or six years....the Chinese have in fact talked quite a bit about their future human spaceflight plans, and they do not include the Moon. Although Chinese space officials have stated that they could eventually send humans to the Moon, they never speak about this as if it is an actual, real plan. Over the past several years, Chinese space officials have given presentations on their human spaceflight program and they have made it abundantly clear that their plans for the next decade involve several man-tended mini-space stations -- what the Chinese call "space laboratories" -- to be followed by a multi-segment space station. They have also made it abundantly clear that their lunar plans for now are entirely robotic. ...the Chinese are not completely transparent about their civil space plans, but they have actually provided a substantial amount of information about their civilian space goals. They are more open than the Soviet Union was during the Cold War. And when they do talk about their space goals, they never say that they are planning on sending humans to the Moon, only that they may study it someday. Anybody making the assertion that the Chinese do have plans for sending humans to the Moon should at least provide the equivalent data to support it, rather than basing their argument on mistranslated news conferences, or the paranoid view that you know when a Communist is lying because his lips are moving. History doesn't echo, it reverbs, The Space Review, Dwayne Day, Feb. 15, 2010. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-16-2010 01:50 AM
The internet is replete with sources stating China does have designs on the moon (either a manned landing or just lunar-orbiting probes), so it's hard to know just who actually knows what with any certainty. (Not to mention...if the Chinese officially came out and declared they had no intention of going to the moon, should they be believed just on the basis of a press release?)In any case, moon or no moon, the Chinese have shown they are serious players when it comes to space; it would be imprudent for the U.S. to assume such capabilities were for the betterment of all mankind. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-16-2010 07:25 AM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
In any case, moon or no moon, the Chinese have shown they are serious players when it comes to space; it would be imprudent for the U.S. to assume such capabilities were for the betterment of all mankind.
So what is the long-term US motive for returning to the Moon? Establishing a military base under the guise of scientific research. Your insinuations about China are no different to those about the USSR during the 1960s Cold War space race. Who then could have known that America and Russia would be partners in the International Space Station? |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 02-16-2010 08:06 AM
Russia is in the International Space Station because they were broke. If they had had the money to go it alone, they would have never signed on... it's in part about international prestige.About China and space... while it's probably a thread that would be much longer than this one, it's in part about world perception. A space program, besides pushing technology (for example, the computer I am using now would probably not be available for another 5 to 10 years were it not for Apollo), it's a giant billboard... an advertisement about what a country and it's people can do. It also creates a perception about their products and makes the country a leader on the world stage. It's as much about technology and commerce now as it was military power in the 60s. There are many many other reasons, but that's a quick answer. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-16-2010 08:35 AM
So is it fair to say that the human spaceflight programme of the USA is not for "the betterment of all mankind"?Today's laptops were spin-offs of Apollo and not the actual reason for the billions poured into it. It was to beat the Soviets. Armstrong's claim "We (the USA) came in peace for all mankind" was hogwash (I presume). Which is why I find this outcry about Constellation confusing. Either it's about the loss of lucrative government contracts in Alabama, Florida, Texas and Utah. Or, the paranoia of American conservatives that US pre-eminence (translate that into hegemony/imperialism) in space is being handed over to China. But facts suggest China is more intent upon cooperating with the USA in the ISS. |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 02-16-2010 09:41 AM
With all due respect, why does it have to be one or the other? The reasons are many. Some reasons are jobs and commerce which result directly and indirectly, some are about being a world leader, others are the promotion of the understanding of our place in the universe, advancement of science, and.... It's not one or the other. Now, back to the topic of this thread. |
Mercury7
Member Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 02-16-2010 09:48 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
Either it's about the loss of lucrative government contracts in Alabama, Florida, Texas and Utah.
I wish I could say you were completely wrong but the truth is that the main people you will see fighting the Obama anti-NASA program in your papers are doing so because of dollars signs.But most of us here that are fighting it is just because we have a pure passion for space exploration. We feel Apollo should never have been cancelled and that Constellation was our last best hope in returning to the glory days of Americas can do spirit of competition that the whole program represented. Even more so we are further devised in to smaller groups that find the moon one of the most important bodies to colonize. Sure it is a great training ground for Mars and has all kinds of neat undiscovered benefits for mankind. But also it is close, accessible, you need only to look up and see it's promise. It is the undiscovered country. I think we should master the Moon even before heading off to Mars. Apollo was Columbus, Constellation was to be Jamestown. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2486
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 02-16-2010 10:01 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Mercury7:
Constellation was to be Jamestown.
My American history may be a little shaky, but wasn't Jamestown something of a disaster?Further, Columbus didn't have exploration on his mind when he sailed. It was the riches of China and large profits. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-16-2010 11:58 AM
To paraphrase a Chinese saying, "The longest journey begins with a single step"....so if Apollo was step one, Constellation was step two.And if I may carry the idea just a little bit further,...right now we're just standing looking down at our shoes.  |
Mercury7
Member Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 02-16-2010 12:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
My American history may be a little shaky, but wasn't Jamestown something of a disaster? Further, Columbus didn't have exploration on his mind when he sailed. It was the riches of China and large profits.
I am sorry you didn't get the Columbus, Jamestown analogy... Should have just spelled it out for you, discovery followed by settlement. |
Mercury7
Member Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 02-16-2010 01:25 PM
Check this article out... if this turns out to be true then a lot of us will be happy campers. The Space Review: Will NASA's embrace kill NewSpace? The cancellation of the Constellation program proposed in the 2011 budget is facing a bipartisan firestorm in Congress. It is doubtful that the President will want to make a special effort to support the new NASA program. His threat to veto the 2010 defense budget if it included money for the alternative F-35 engine turned out to be empty. The thousands of jobs and the irreplaceable expertise that this new plan throws away are far more important to the members of Congress, especially in the current economic climate, than are the arguments and promises from the new team at NASA. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-16-2010 01:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mercury7:
discovery followed by settlement.
30 years too late. Settlement was the next logical step, but it has not been a priority for any US administration ever since.I think most Americans aren't too bothered that Constellation fell by the wayside. Nor should they be. But they should ask why certain members of the US House and Senate want to keep space travel from becoming accessible to them in their opposition to Obama's "flexible path". |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2486
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 02-16-2010 01:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mercury7:
I am sorry you didn't get the Columbus, Jamestown analogy... Should have just spelled it out for you, discovery followed by settlement.
I think the big problem is that I did get it. But then I'm a realist not a dreamer.  |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-16-2010 02:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
...keep space travel from becoming accessible to them in their opposition to Obama's "flexible path".
This may seem like semantics to some people, but the distinction is important: the "flexible path" is not what President Obama proposed.The "flexible path" -- sending humans to multiple locations, rather than just one, beyond low Earth orbit -- would (as proposed) benefit from the President's plan to turn over low Earth orbit access to private companies and return NASA to its research and development roots, but the two plans are not mutually exclusive. Even were Constellation restored by Congress, one would hope that a "flexible path" plan be adopted, sending Orion not just to the Moon, but to the ISS, to the asteroids, to Mars' moon Phobos, to the Lagrange points and more. Those who complain we have become mired in low Earth orbit should be very supportive of the "flexible path" as it insures we do not become mired elsewhere in the future. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 02-16-2010 03:06 PM
Those wacky liberals, former Republican Representatives Newt Gingrich and Robert S. Walker, support Obama's space plan in The Washington Times. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-16-2010 04:03 PM
The "flexible-path" is like saying the family can take a trip to the Grand Canyon, or Disney World, or New England... now all we need is a car, some maps, a timetable... As for (tongue-in-cheek) "wacky liberals" supporting the "new direction", I'm sorry this debate is seen by some as a conservative vs. liberal issue; I try to look at it from a viewpoint of whether it makes realistic sense or not, and though I realize this puts the doubters at odds with some very intelligent people like Newt Gingrich and Buzz Aldrin, we're not exactly shortchanged by being aligned with the likes of Harrison Schmitt and Charles Krauthammer either. I guess what much of this comes down to is where you want to put your faith, and how big a gambler you are (though that's admittedly a vast oversimplification of the detail-specific issues involved). |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 02-16-2010 04:17 PM
Actually, my position is probably closer to that of the National Space Society, which I understand to be support for Obama's plan, while calling for more money to travel beyond low-earth orbit and the setting of some specific mission objectives. I no longer think Constellation is the way to get us there, but I'm still hoping we'll return to the Moon before 2030. I think this can be done under Obama's plan, but some more money and a clearer vision wouldn't hurt. On edit: I should probably acknowledge that Bolden has promised a clearer vision in the next few months, so what I'm really holding out for is a bit more money. |
Mercury7
Member Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 02-16-2010 04:37 PM
I think we have all said in this debate that at the very least it was a huge mistake to unleash this plan without a timetable or mission. It really is like a politician running for office. All of the promises with none of them being realized, if any of you have ever run a business or even watched someone run one, it is all about goals and deadlines, nothing gets done without them.Those of you who keep saying this announcement is not done yet, all I can say is prove it, I don't see nothing but lip service. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-16-2010 04:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mercury7:
I think we have all said in this debate that at the very least it was a huge mistake to unleash this plan without a timetable or mission.
Quoting Norm Augustine, speaking on Monday morning at the American Physical Society (via Space Politics): Not having an immediate firm direction for the human spaceflight program now isn't a problem, he said, so long as this state doesn't last for more than a few years. "I would be concerned if we wait a decade to make a decision as to what we're going to do," he said after his talk. "But if, after a few years, we were to make a decision that, for example, we're going to follow the Flexible Path... then I think that's a better plan than the one we have today." |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-16-2010 05:06 PM
If that is the thinking the Augustine's Commission was based on I'm much clearer on why it is so disagreeable to me.It MAY be acceptable to not have all the hardware ready, but COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE to have no idea what we should be aiming for in SPECIFIC TERMS. Can anyone imagine the same kind of thinking being applied to our country's defense forces? Whether people understand it or not (and I don't really think Obama does, and to be fair, that Bush did either), America's space program isn't just some exploration and science factory; it is VITAL to the well-being of this nation, and by extension, the world (at least if you believe the U.S., as a superpower, sets the best example for the rest of the world to follow). |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-16-2010 09:50 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
Whether people understand it or not...
I understand what you're saying but I fail to see how empowering private enterprise and putting faith in American ingenuity is a poor role model for the rest of the world.As far as goals go, shouldn't the overall objective be to enable the most people to reach the most destinations using the best technology has to offer? |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-16-2010 11:59 PM
Empowering America's private sector is a GREAT idea and a fine example to the world of what free-market capitalism can accomplish; in fact I believe it's the main reason Newt Gingrich is so supportive of the new direction. But as others here have pointed out, this approach has its limitations. If there were a robust and mature private "space sector" ready to step right in (something akin to turning the role of the U.S. Postal Service over to companies like DHL, UPS and FedEx) it would make sense. But even proponents of the "new way" acknowledge America would be left COMPLETELY dependent on others for rides into space for who knows how long. (This isn't only unwise, but frankly, humiliating -- the country that once led the world in space exploration reduced to hitching rides with the Russians for YEARS, with no clear goal or space destination even on the table). Also, even the more mature companies, like Boeing, can hardly be expected to do much more than their usual NASA contracting in the area of space travel -- look how long its taken that company just to get their 787 Dreamliner into successful production, and THAT'S THEIR BREAD and BUTTER! As for enabling "the most people to reach the most destinations using the best technology has to offer", my question is this: if the private sector is as capable as you seem to think it already is or can very readily be, what's stopping it from demonstrating that ingenuity while America stays on a track to return to the moon at the same time? Let's put it this way - if going into space is profitable, the private sector can't be stopped... and if it isn't profitable, it will have to be done and PROPERLY FUNDED by our government. Much has been said and made of NASA returning to its roots; well, NASA was created to put Americans in space, to get us to the moon, and then to take it from THERE. The sooner the better. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-17-2010 12:45 AM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
America's space program isn't just some exploration and science factory; it is VITAL to the well-being of this nation
Are you blurring the distinction between the US civil space programme and the military space programme? All these years I thought NASA is about "exploration and science" unless we've been misled. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-17-2010 01:00 AM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
NASA was created to put Americans in space, to get us to the moon, and then to take it from THERE. The sooner the better.
In 51 years, NASA has never put an ordinary American in space let alone the Moon. And that's the problem as far as I'm concerned. How can others follow when NASA makes space the preserve of government astronauts at the people's expense? You seem happy to let things stay as they are for decades to come. Well, at least America has a president who wants all his citizens to have a chance to be proactive in human spaceflight. Clearly, the likes of Shelby and Olson do not. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-17-2010 01:46 AM
For starters, the first man on the moon was a civilian, and Barbara Morgan was a teacher (and Christa McAullife would've preceded her by around 20 years if not for the Challenger tragedy) so I'm not sure about the veracity of your claim about [Nasa] having never put an "ordinary" American in space, OR on the moon. (BTW, just what is your definition of "ordinary"?...I ask because I don't see how ANYONE going into space could ever be described as "ordinary").Perhaps the more important question however is why you seem to feel it is Nasa's mandate or obligation to be providing "rides" into space for "Joe Blow". Who exactly should foot the tab for that, and why? Even more to the point....what's stopping Joe from ponying up for a ride into space, ala Dennis Tito (and as American astronauts will soon need to do as well), or paying for a seat aboard one of Richard Branson's spaceplanes once they're up and running? Last, what good is it that Obama (IF you're correct) wants "all HIS (strange choice of wording, that) citizens to have a chance to be proactive in human spaceflight?" I'd surmise he'd like us all to have beachfront condos on Waikiki too, but it's not his role to allocate financial resources for it. Besides, the fact you're posting at Robert's cS means you're already proactive in human spaceflight...but going further than that is up to YOU, I'm afraid....not Obama, Nasa or Joe Blow (the taxpayer). |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-17-2010 02:09 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
Are you blurring the distinction between the US civil space programme and the military space programme? All these years I thought NASA is about "exploration and science", unless we've been misled.
It's possible you have allowed yourself to be misled. Being the LEADER in an endeavor as bold as space exploration is what makes NASA's role vital to America. To put it in more blunt and modernistic terms, it gives us "street cred", and makes everyday Americans, and rational people WORLDWIDE, beam with pride when wondrous things are accomplished. A militaristic component wasn't part of that jubilation and pride in the 60's and isn't an essential component now. What IS crucial however is that the world see the continuation of that type of achievement carried out by a nation that stands for basic freedoms and liberty and recognizes the dignity and rights of human beings. To have a nation that doesn't uphold such values blazing the newest paths into space would be not just a mistake, but a tragedy (especially for those on this planet victimized by opposite values and therefore most in need of hope). (OK, I'll try stepping down from my soapbox now) |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-17-2010 02:20 AM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
Perhaps the more important question however is why you seem to feel it is Nasa's mandate or obligation to be providing "rides" into space for "Joe Blow".
NASA had the "Citizen in Space" programme in the 1980s. It should have been allowed to revive it. NASA is a taxpayer-driven programme. So why not let a few non-professionals have the experience and communicate it in their own way? I'm perfectly aware of the educator-astronauts. But how about musicians, writers and others? They may well relate to the masses in a way someone in NASA cannot. Incidentally, Armstrong was ex-military. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-17-2010 02:28 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
NASA is a taxpayer-driven programme. So why not let a few non-professionals have the experience and communicate it in their own way?
That was Reagan's aim with the teacher-in-space thing, which I thought was a mistake at the time, and still think so today.What you advocate is, to my mind, a publicity stunt; the Space Visitor Centers, the Smithsonian and IMAX films do a good job, and reach far more many people. If that's not enough, I'd suggest making launches more accessible to many more people; it's awe inspiring and would allow that much more good word to go out about heading off into "infinity...and beyond"! (Oh, oh... did that sound too Obama-ey?) (Whoops, I forgot, those magnificent launches will be coming to an end real quick... and probably won't be back anytime soon either.) |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-17-2010 02:34 AM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
A militaristic component wasn't part of that jubilation and pride in the 60's and isn't an essential component now.
So you see human spaceflight, and spaceflight in general, as an ideological battle? Excuse me if I don't share that viewpoint. But my idea of space travel is one of hope and optimism for the entire human race. Otherwise, what's the point? |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-17-2010 02:39 AM
No, I see human spaceflight as wondrous exploration and thus a cause for hope and optimism... with the added benefit that our ideological adversaries can be made to look bad if they can't keep up. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2486
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 02-17-2010 04:33 AM
I've only dipped into this discussion so apologies if these points have been made by others. However, there are basic questions that need to be addressed before a reasoned conclusion can be reached.The only comparable analogy we have is the 'golden age' of exploration and discovery, i.e. the Elizabethian. This was all done, even Columbus, by private enterprise. Yes, I will admit that kings and queens helped, but they did so as individuals and not as Governments. Why did they do it? Because they knew that there would be tangible returns on their investments. At the time it was know that the riches of the east beckoned the brave and adventurous. Now ask what returns are to be had, aside from the science, from a return to the Moon, or even Mars? A colony on the Moon may be an exciting prospect, but is it practical given today's economic climate and for what return? Surely, for the moment, we have reached a point where there has to be some over-riding benefit to offset the expense of going. And is there any? OK, a colony might be self sufficient but all the traffic would be one way. What, if anything would come back and at what expense? Going back to my opening statement, the purpose of colonies was to enrich the homeland with new materials and wealth. Unless a robotic probe uncovers something that is so necessary here on Earth as to make the expense of going worthwhile it isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future. In the 'golden age' mentioned earlier our intrepid adventurers used vessels that were barely adequate to the task. We are at this stage today with our current spacecraft. But look what has happened in the years since. Huge technical advances have made journeys to the New World commonplace for everyone. At the beginning of the last century the Wright brothers struggled to fly the length of a modern aircraft. Now look at what has developed on the back of those first tentative steps. The impetus came from a need for something better. It was a world war that forced governments to invest in the new technology and spurred on the development. Without this a more civilised way was available through private investment and it would have taken much longer. Aren't we in this position today? It can be argued that a pause is both economically sound and necessary to give us the time to develop new the technologies which will enable us to economically continue our journey to the stars. We may not see it, but there can be no doubt that spaceflight will see the same astounding advances in a hundred years as made by aviation and one day there will be a return by Man into space with renewed vigour. Unfortunately, the days of doing it "because it's there to be done" are over where governments are concerned unless there is an over-riding political advantage to be had for doing it. I believe that today no such advantage exists. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-17-2010 07:25 AM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
A colony on the Moon may be an exciting prospect, but is it practical given today's economic climate and for what return?
There is no identifiable, quantifiable or tangible return from a lunar base.If such a gargantuan project was ever undertaken it would be international, and paralleling bases in Antarctica as well as offshore oil/gas platforms. What the purpose of such a base would be is debatable. But here is a novel idea from Japan, as long as it was located near the lunar south pole's "peak of eternal light". |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5246
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-17-2010 07:38 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
All these years I thought NASA is about "exploration and science" unless we've been misled.
Then you are mistaken. There has always been a DOD component to NASA's human spaceflight program with inflight experiments conducted during the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions (some which remain classified) and we have had 20 Shuttle flights dedicated to military/national security missions. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-17-2010 07:56 AM
I knew of the secret Shuttle missions, and I'm sure it perturbed many within NASA.Perhaps the civilian face of NASA is in robotic spacecraft? Its human spaceflight programme has always had an ulterior agenda. |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 02-17-2010 08:26 AM
Not having an immediate firm direction for the human spaceflight program now isn't a problem, he said, so long as this state doesn't last for more than a few years. ... " So Mr. Augustine has changed his mind already? Is not the lack of direction for NASA consistently cited as a problem by reviews when discussing NASA? While I respect Mr. Augustine's opinion, is his the only one that counts? President Obama is not going with one of Mr. Augustine's suggestions. So now, upon reflection, Mr. Augustine would change his report to match President Obama's plan? In my opinion, the last thing we need is any government agency spending billions more dollars with no reason and no direction. This lack of a clear policy also makes NASA an easy target for future budget cuts. NASA needs more money, not less. A realistic budget for NASA (more money, but not a lot more), from a perspective of NASA's [former] goals and also in line with federal budget realities, makes this discussion moot. |
Topic Closed
advertisement