Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Government Politics

NASA Policy Includes Mars, Moon Missions 235

Posted by Zonk from the and-beyond! dept.
TopSpin writes "The US House of Representatives passed a bill establishing NASA policy for the next two years. The bill is seen as an endorsement of President Bush's Vision for Space Exploration, including returning man to the Moon and eventually Mars. The House struggled with compromising other NASA initiatives against new manned exploration, eventually deciding to expand the budget enough to accommodate both prerogatives. The bill also endorses a servicing and repair mission to the Hubble Space Telescope."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA Policy Includes Mars, Moon Missions More

NASA Policy Includes Mars, Moon Missions

Comments Filter:

  • Never give up, never surrender! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bigwavejas ( 678602 ) * on Friday July 22, 2005 @06:57PM (#13140392) Journal
    This is the perfect opportunity for the United States to peak childrens interest in science and mathematics classes. NASA should go to local schools to hang posters inspiring kids to set their goal on becoming an astronaut.

    I also think NASA ought to prepare the american people by making it clear human lives will be lost in this endeavor. With the last two disasters (Columbia and Challenger) each time it setback their mission years. In an industry such as this people must be made to understand it's not an accident, rather a probability.

    • Re:Never give up, never surrender! (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22, 2005 @07:03PM (#13140440)
      This is the perfect opportunity for the United States to peak childrens interest in science and mathematics classes.

      I think spelling needs some attention too.

    • Re:Never give up, never surrender! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @07:04PM (#13140447)
      This is the perfect opportunity for the United States to peak childrens interest in science and mathematics

      and english.
      • You punctuated it wrong. It should have been with an ellipsis (e.g., "...") in the front of the sentence fragment you're adding to the whole lot.

        Somehow, it's always less funny when you mess up your delivery in the same manner as the person you're making fun of. Now, one wonders if you'd have picked the right word to use in the context of the grandparent quote you're making fun of, in light of this...
    • Sloshdat Dictionary: peak - see pique. pique - see peak.
    • "hang posters inspiring kids to set their goal on becoming an astronaut."

      Excepting of course that at the rate the world, let alone NASA launches people in to space your odds as a kid of actually becoming an astronaut and worse making it in to space must be like 1 in a million. I'm thinking they should go for NBA, NFL, or MLB the odds are somewhat better, so is the pay and the sex. Also to become an astronaut you need to live a squeaky clean life as a perpetual over achiever and have a very high tolerance
      • No, it depends on what we do with our space program.

        If we just do a quick jaunt to and from Mars, yeah it's not going to do much.

        But if there is finally space industry, even if it's just solar power satelites and space-hotels, there will be much more opportunities for people to go up... although eventually they are going to just send up ironworkers instead of PhDs.

        I don't think that the problem with the sciences is really a matter of getting rich. The problem with the sciences is that people aren't even

        • Re:Never give up, never surrender! (Score:5, Interesting)

          by demachina ( 71715 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @07:58PM (#13140820)
          "...and space-hotels,"

          LOL there's the ticket. Hey, kids you should aspire to be astronauts so you can be a space janitor or a space maid in a space hotel. I wonder if illegal aliens will be able to make it in to space to fill these jobs.

          I totally agree that having a space industry would be nice but NASA ain't going to get you to any of these. You are going to have to hope some of the private ventures can scrape together the funds to build an afforable launch vehicle to LEO. It is a lot harder to do than Rutan's suborbital shots and more expensive.

          Not sure the solar power thing will fly anytime soon. Nuclear reactors on Earth are a lot better bet.

          The absolute pinnacle I can see NASA aspiring to is a moonbase which will end up looking a lot like an ISS except on the moon. People living in tin cans trying to find things to do on a place totally hostile to life.

          The only objective really worth doing in my book is flying people to Mars one way, and doing what it takes to keep them alive and to develop self sufficiency. At the point you have colonists on Mars and not Astronauts that is the point you have accomplished something, you have achieved a revolution and you will change the way humans think about the universe.

          Due to the ravages of long duration in low G's I doubt anyone would want to endure coming back to Earth and 1 G from a long mission to Mars anyway. I'm sure NASA will never break out of the round trip mode of thought but it is totally the wrong mindset for a Mars policy. Get as many people as you can and can keep alive, help them find the resources they need to live without depending on expensive and iffy space shots, and let them start manufacturing future colonists on site. Its way cheaper than flyng them from Earth.

          • Re:Never give up, never surrender! (Score:4, Informative)

            by Deinhard ( 644412 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @08:05PM (#13140855)
            If you really want to know what it will be like on orbit and on the Moon, read Orbital Decay [amazon.com] or Lunar Descent [amazon.com] by Allen Steele.

            His thoughts are that the comment about iron workers being the first to orbit isn't too far off. While his books are decidedly 80s-ish (pot smoking steel workers more interested in getting whiskey on a shuttle flight than working), I think he's on the right track.
          • Quite true. Mostly, the big appeal for me about space solar power is that it enhances our design diversity and ability to cope with problems with our ground-based nuclear power plants.... If I was running things, I'd probably keep some coal and natural gas fired plants going, too.

            I like your argument about Mars, but I think that actually works better on the Moon. Why? Because we don't entirely know how to do a closed-loop lifecycle exactly right, forever. So the Moon has a chance of being sold as some

            • Re:Never give up, never surrender! (Score:5, Informative)

              by Bad D.N.A. ( 753582 ) <baddna@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Friday July 22, 2005 @09:03PM (#13141185)
              "The problem, of course, becomes trying to establish the safety of childbearing in low Gs"

              No, that's not the problem.

              We can debate all of the "fufy" issues regarding space travel until the cows come home.

              Radiation. That's the major issue on the table. For short missions (a few months) it's a non issue. But for missions that take a year or so, like a mars mission, the people will be exposed to the continuous Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) and the solar cycle dependent solar energetic Particle (SEP) events... i.e. radiation. Our atmosphere shields us from the majority of these particles but when you put someone on the moon or mars you have to duplicate the shielding of the Earths atmosphere to achieve the same radiation protection we enjoy on Earth. Bottom line is that is a lot of mass and some of that mass has the nasty problem that it produces a lot of secondary particles (neutrons).

              To shield or not to shield... that is the question.

              There are a lot of people working on this problem. There is currently no solution. If we put someone in space for an extended period of time (years) there is a serious radiation problem. We will get there in the future but bringing issues up like childbearing, or the mental fatigue, or if masturbation in low G causes a tilted penis... etc... are orders of magnitude below the real current threats.

              • Re:Never give up, never surrender! (Score:5, Interesting)

                by demachina ( 71715 ) on Saturday July 23, 2005 @01:16AM (#13142349)
                "To shield or not to shield... that is the question."

                I think that question has already been answered, you have to shield.

                "There is currently no solution"

                Mike Griffin said in Congressional testimony before he became administrator:

                "Overall, however, the most difficult physiological issue is likely to be that of cosmic heavyion radiation. The human effects of and countermeasures for heavy ion radiation, encountered in deep space but not in the LEO environment of the ISS, have received little attention thus far. These are the essential technical and physiological challenges as I see them. Exploration missions will not be accomplished without human risk. While certainly worthy of our attention, however, none of these is so daunting that we should stay home."

                "There is currently no solution."

                Don't think that is true. Its just a question of how much to shield, with what, how bad the mass penalty is, can you push it to Mars, and where the mass comes from.

                The favorite sci fi based solution is you shield with a water tank around a safe room or maybe around the main habitat module in the ship. You need the water anyway. The other one is you manufacture shielding out of lunar regolith since its easier to get the mass off the moon, though it would take a lot of infrastructure to make there, or you have a heavy lift launch vehicle and launch shield from earth.

                When you are talking about the habitats on the moon and mars its a given the habitats should be buried to the extent necessary to be safe. Then you are just facing the problem of how much radiation astronauts face on the surface in rovers or space suits. Again shield as much as you can and yes there will be a field for medical study for treating the effects.

                When people set out to sail in to uncharted waters or cross the west in prairie schooners they encountered stuff that killed them too, scurvy on ships for example. It didn't stop them.
            • "I like your argument about Mars, but I think that actually works better on the Moon."

              Nope. Mars has resources, especially water, lots of water and you need that for...water and Hydrogen and Oxygen, and a thin atmosphere, and 1/3 G which would hopefully be tolerable to live in for long periods. It has temperatures that are survivable with some basic warm gear. A good shot of mineral deposits to mine, especially Iron. CO2 in the atomosphere for carbon.

              Moon is hard vacuam, extreme temperatures, 1/6 G,
              p
              • Read Kim Stanley Robinson's Red/Green/Blue Mars trilogy to spark your imagination. At times its pretty slow and dry but it has a vision that is captivating. A must read for geeks, space enthusiasts and sci fi fans.

                Or, if you'd like the same great vision without the endless pages describing Mars relief, try Greg Bear's Moving Mars [amazon.com], instead. It's short on poetic parts that are prominent in the Robinson's trilogy, but it's full of great ideas and characters.
          • Hey, kids you should aspire to be astronauts so you can be a space janitor or a space maid in a space hotel.

            I don't know about you, but (Roger Wilco jokes aside) I would give almost anything just for the chance to be a "space janitor." I'm sure many other people feel the same way.

            You are going to have to hope some of the private ventures can scrape together the funds to build an afforable launch vehicle to LEO.

            Like SpaceX?

            http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGA M .20050721.gtbcspace21/BNSt [globetechnology.com]
            • "I would give almost anything just for the chance to be a "space janitor." I'm sure many other people feel the same way."

              I'd take it in a heart beat too. I wager it would be way more fun that being a NASA astronaut to boot. It must totally suck working on the ISS and have the weenies in mission control planning every minute of your day, and micromanaging everything you do. Plus in a space hotel there would be lots of partying, and zero G sex.

              "Like Space-X"

              Well I wish them the best and Musk's heart is
          • I see the picture on newsweek already
            "marsbase alpha decimated by excessive flatulence!"

            I mean no politician would dream of making a promise like that that had a decent chance of failing so publicly.

            I mean great idea, but humans are just too damn stupid on average to cope with life beyond earth (and usually earth).
          • The absolute pinnacle I can see NASA aspiring to is a moonbase which will end up looking a lot like an ISS except on the moon. People living in tin cans trying to find things to do on a place totally hostile to life.

            I think it would make more sense to tunnel into solid rock for a moonbase. You would have a natural radiation shield, wouldn't have to worry about leaks as much, be protected from meteorites and expanding the base would be much simpler.
            • I doubt you are going to have the infrastructure to dig tunnels or make them in to livable habitats. Lunar soil is nasty and it wouldn't be surprising if tunnels would be unlivable without a liner. I think the idea is to land a tin can like the habitat modules planned for the original U.S. ISS or the Russian equivalent, and then bury them in regolith(dirt). Mike Griffin's desire was to use the original U.S habitat module for the ISS though it was cancelled long ago and replaced with the Russian Mir 2 mod
              • I doubt you are going to have the infrastructure to dig tunnels or make them in to livable habitats. Lunar soil is nasty and it wouldn't be surprising if tunnels would be unlivable without a liner. I think the idea is to land a tin can like the habitat modules planned for the original U.S. ISS or the Russian equivalent, and then bury them in regolith(dirt). Mike Griffin's desire was to use the original U.S habitat module for the ISS though it was cancelled long ago and replaced with the Russian Mir 2 module
    • The Yuri's Night people have made some nice PSA ads to pique children's interest in space:

      http://www.yurisnight.net/_multimedia/Reach.mpg [yurisnight.net]
      http://www.yurisnight.net/_multimedia/MARSPSA_QUES TIONS.mov [yurisnight.net]

  • returning ? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Jeet81 ( 613099 )
    ...returning man to the Moon...

    was "man" captured from the moon?

  • 2 years eh? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @07:01PM (#13140418)
    So NASA is supposed to do all that in two years? or will the expenditures carry on until the next president has another "vision"?

    What NASA does (or perhaps is forced to do) is waste money, because everybody knows none of these grandiose plans will ever occur. The Mars mission will be international or won't be at all, because there's no cold war to justify n-times the cost of sending some bozo to Mars where robots do just as well for cheaper.

    So, like Slashdot just told me very accurately, nothing for you to see here, please move along.
    • No its setting policy for 2 years with the presumption there will be another policy bill then which might stay the course or do a 180. Its pretty likely around 2008-2009 when another President takes office there will be a new policy direction and it probably will veer. George's dad had an ambitious Mars policy intiative too that went absolutely no where.

      Anyone have a link to the actual Bill. You can't trust a reporter's interpretation of it.

      The way I'm reading it NASA is under massive pressure to redire
    • First of all, the mission to Hubble has been in the works the whole time. It has just been a question of "Should we stop working on this?" I know for a fact that some of my coworkers have been working on the Hubble Battery situation over the last few months. And we're sort of latecomers to the project.

      As far as sending robots to Mars... didn't we just do that? Twice? Spirit and Opportunity did an excellent job, living far beyond their statistical MTBF. But what you get with sending humans to the moon

    • NASA's Budget Analysis (Score:2, Informative)

      by fsh ( 751959 )
      If you're really interested, you can see exactly what the plan entails over the full course of 15 years here:
      A Budgetary Analysis of NASA's New Vision for Space Exploration [cbo.gov]

      The link for the next five years is the interesting one:
      NASA's Current Five-Year Plan and Extended Budget Projection [cbo.gov]

      About halfway down is a comparison of the 2004 and 2005 budgets. You can see that the increase is only $292 million, a small fraction of the overall budget. If you compare NASA's current funding with the funding fr

  • "Returning" man to the "Moon"? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22, 2005 @07:02PM (#13140432)
    We can't return man there - that'd mean we were there to begin with.

    And, as we all know, the "Moon" is a ridiculous liberal myth.

    It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)

    Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.

    Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!

    Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.

  • Pay for results (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Colin Smith ( 2679 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @07:03PM (#13140443)
    Not programmes. If you pay for programmes, you get programmes, not results.

    Seriously, this [xprize.org] is basically how all successful exploration has proceeded in the past.

    • Don't be ridiculous. I'm sure that China will continue to loan us money forever, so there's no need for concern. More than half of our $400,000,000,000 annual deficit is purchased by foreign backers so thank goodness we can always trust them.

      Some of you may say that in 20 or 30 years, 20 or 30 percent of our total economic output will be spent on paying the interest on these loans. But who knows what new kinds of math will be invented in that time?? And it's nothing but bias that prevents people from see

  • /. Section (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hobotron ( 891379 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @07:04PM (#13140450)

    Politics, indeed. Since this is only one of the hurdles in getting the budget NASA needs to fulfill the promises by this administration, I am still wary. Ill believe it when I see cold hard funding translated into actual projects.

  • Amazing (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mensa Babe ( 675349 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @07:04PM (#13140451) Homepage Journal
    "The bill is seen as an endorsement of President Bush's Vision for Space Exploration, including returning man to the Moon and eventually Mars."

    Returning man to the Moon is nothing but returning man to Mars is what I really look forward. You are a true visionary, Mr. President.

  • Why the moon? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by FlamingWombat ( 901980 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @07:07PM (#13140474)
    I have to ask, why do we need to go back to the moon? Is there any real, scientific reason for it, or is it just our dear president trying to keep people's minds off other things with another moon mission?
    • Bush: We're whalers on the moon. We carry a harpoon. There aint no whales so we tell a tall tale and sing a whaling tune!

      Nerd: That's not how it happened!

      Bush: Oh really? I don't see you with a fungineering degree!

      Nerd: You are just using that as an excuse for your sorry attempts at presedency

      Bush: Terrorist!
    • > I have to ask, why do we need to go back to the moon? Is there any real, scientific reason for it, or is it just our dear president trying to keep people's minds off other things with another moon mission?

      Science: It'd be pretty neat if we could establish the presence of frozen water near the poles. It'd be really neat if we could use that water (and a few solar arrays) to support a moonbase. It'd be spectacularly neat if, while working on that moonbase, we discovered a useful means of extracting

      • Bah. If you want to end our dependence on foreign oil, you need not wory about He-3.

        Fission power works just fine. As does solar power. Except that fission power is currently looking like it's cheaper than solar power.

        Either way, if you want to really take advantage of solar power, it's much better to build, in space, solar power arrays, and then beam them down to earth.

        Wheras, we've been shoveling money down the gaping maw of fusion power for decades and all we've gotten so far is a big fscking bomb.
        • Wow.

          Fission power and solar power work just fine for automobiles? Did I miss the memo?

          We should keep shoveling money at fusion. It may solve A LOT of problems (it WILL if we can work out the right details), such as how to get into, out of, and around in space. We won't be running out of fuel any time soon either, and it's available pretty much everywhere. Hopefully it will be useable in cars, or smaller. Who knows.

          Fission is the nuclear equivilant of oil. It works (spectacularly well in some cases)
          • Huh?

            You do realize that even He-3 based "aneutronic" fusion puts off a crapload of neutrons out, don't you? There's no way you are going to have a fusion-powered car.

            No, if we do get fusion power plants online, they will be even bigger than fission power plants and just as dirty.

            The problem is that people keep thinking that 5-10 years from now, there will be a feasable design for fusion power. And then 5-10 years later, we're still no closer. Wheras fission power works now.

            Cars are one of the biggest
    • It should be noted that the plans for the moon aren't just some flags-and-footprints mission like we did 30-some years ago, but setting up a permanent, sustainable lunar base. We still have very little experience with making use of in-situ off-planet resources, and this is the perfect chance to be able to do that. An added benefit over Mars is that if something goes wrong, we can quickly go back.

      As far as science goes though, it probably won't have too much of an impact in the short term, except for possib

    • Re:Why the moon? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cyclone96 ( 129449 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @09:09PM (#13141216)

      I have to ask, why do we need to go back to the moon? Is there any real, scientific reason for it, or is it just our dear president trying to keep people's minds off other things with another moon mission?
      Good question.

      In my mind, part of the answer is for practical engineering experience. The moon is a less ambitious goal than going to Mars out of the chute, but much of the technology and simple organizational engineering experience can be leveraged towards Mars.

      I think folks often overlook the evolutionary nature of aerospace projects. One program provides the building blocks for the next. There are many elements in today's space program which are derived from Apollo. One example is the space shuttle main engines, which are the direct decendants of the old Saturn V J-2 engines in the second and third stage (and these engines have been surfacing as possible powerplants for the shuttle derived heavy lift vehicle that is likely to be used for the Exploration program).

      Even the ISS program, which has been criticized extensively for poor science, has provided invaluable engineering experience on how (and maybe how not) to build a vehicle to go to the moon/mars. For example, we've had serious problems with the gyroscopes on ISS, there's something going on in the bearings which only happens in zero-G that causes them to wear out. The opportunity to dissect a broken one after the next shuttle brings it back is going to be invaluable. The spacesuits we are using require a lot of maintenance - somehow we need to improve that. When I discuss this with my colleagues (I'm a NASA engineer, flying people in space is what I do), we often remark that if we had tried going to Mars in the '90s without the experience we gained on ISS, it would have been a mess.

      If we do Exploration right, we're going to leverage an aerospace workforce that has learned lessons from Shuttle and ISS, and use the moon as a proving ground. That experience is going to allow us to tackle the greater challenge of going to Mars.

      As far as Bush using this for a "distraction", I tend to find that argument pretty weak. The space progam ceased to be a daily headline news item (except for the occasional event) in the early 70's. Nobody realistically believes America is going to forget about Iraq and other major issues for a relatively minor government program.

      • Re:Why the moon? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by demachina ( 71715 )
        "Even the ISS program, which has been criticized extensively for poor science, has provided invaluable engineering experience on how (and maybe how not) to build a vehicle to go to the moon/mars. For example, we've had serious problems with the gyroscopes on ISS"

        Who says you need to use gyros on a Martian spacecraft in the first place. Rockets work just as well for attitude control and are a lot more reliable at this point. I think I would rather carry the fuel than the thousands of pounds of spare gyros
    • There's elements on the Moon that are in relative abundance compared to the Earth. Stuff that would be worthwhile to mine off of it.

      The Helium-3 is worth it alone, let alone the Titanium and Rare Earth Elements present there...

  • unfortunately (Score:4, Funny)

    by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @07:15PM (#13140518) Homepage Journal
    Neither Mars nor the Moon were available to comment.

  • I'm not impressed (Score:2, Interesting)

    by bogaboga ( 793279 )
    > NASA Policy Includes Mars, Moon Missions...

    I must admit I am an angry American. Why don't we first fix our health-care, education and economic systems before we tackle the moon and Mars? As our infrastructure crumbles, and our schools decline, and we continue to export [manufacturing] jobs, not forgetting senseless wars we are fighting abroad with mounting casualties, it saddens me to see that our president and his administration do not see what needs to be fixed first. Do not forget that he once men

    • Re:I'm not impressed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cmowire ( 254489 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @07:34PM (#13140644) Homepage
      Because you could completely remove NASA from the budget and the little piece of the budget you'd get wouldn't do a damn bit of good for the health-care, education, and economic systems. NASA doesn't take up that much of the federal budget, and most of the problems there are not a matter of money, but of dreadful mismanagement.

      And there's probably more that can be done with space technolgies, STILL, than trying to explore the oceans for new life that we'll probably make extinct anyways.
    • Where will our grandsons be? - duh, on the Moon. You are just not listenning, are you? ;)
    • kodak, ford, and gmc are becoming more irrelevant because they are old stagnant american companies, with enormous bureaucracies, which are almost completely unable to realign themselves for new economic factors. the laws of capitalism dictate they should die, and painfully, but hopefully new american companies will arise and the cycle will begin anew.

      What, you expected to lead the world forever? Read an economics book, this is part of capitalist life, like dying is a part of organic life. The resources and

  • it'll never happen (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sargosis ( 807169 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @07:23PM (#13140568) Homepage
    Nasa is by it's very nature too afraid to move on anything this quickly. To date, they've been too concerned with the possible loss of human life. if you look through history, america has made great progress riding on the corpses of great men who gaves their lives to the progress of success. Nasa should follow in these footsteps and begin launching rockets more often, with more emphasis on getting to the moon and staying there. Yes, i know i'm ripping on them, and they have done a lot. But oh well.

  • Federal, legislative support of NASA is refreshing given the saddening decline over the past decade. What I, however, would most like to see, is a collaborative effort between NASA and the fledgeling private sector space initiatives. Scaled Composities of X-Prize fame has some wonderful, far-sighted ideas. A collaborative effort might truly be the impetus for progress.

    On another note, who here feels that there is a place for community-based, (OSS??) space projects? Precedent [arrl.org] shows that grassroots effo

    • Not quite yet.

      But soon.

      The biggest problem right now is getting stuff up cheaply. That's what is holding us back.

      Because, if you think about it... If it wasn't so damn expensive.... National Geographic or the Discovery Channel would send out a mission to Pluto, no?

      The problem is that NASA hasn't been doing so well working on the one big problem that we need to solve.
    • What I, however, would most like to see, is a collaborative effort between NASA and the fledgeling private sector space initiatives.

      It's called the Centennial Challenges Program:

      http://exploration.nasa.gov/centennialchallenge/c c _index.html [nasa.gov]

      Basically, NASA's been partnering up with private organizations to offer cash prizes for space-related achievements. Congress has unfortunately put a limit on how much of their budget they're allowed to devote to competitive prizes, but they've still been able to o

  • Yay! Hubble! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Progman3K ( 515744 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @07:32PM (#13140631)
    Is it really true?
    They'll keep Hubble in service? The article doesn't sound positive on that.

    Maybe it's because the space shuttle isn't as reliable as first envisioned, but this is where Nasa could score; by offering monetary assistance to competing outside engineering firms who would come up with design improvements.

    Maybe scrapping the shuttle is not realistic, but a redesign is.
    • Well, the problem is that they should have built the Columbia and Challenger, realized this wasn't going to work, and started work on series-2 of the shuttle. There's just too much to change at this point to do any sort of good, without starting over.

      Or, more to the point, NASA should have been offering monetary assistance to competing outside engineering firms to make the Saturn IB + Apollo progressively more reusable and less expensive.

  • Show me the money (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Telvin_3d ( 855514 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @07:57PM (#13140817)
    If there is no extra money, and a long term cash commitment attached, then this is nothing but hot air. It is easy to SAY that we are going back into space, but it is only words untill they put the money where their words are.

  • Oblig S.R. Hadden Quote (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fbg111 ( 529550 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @08:28PM (#13140996)
    The House struggled with compromising other NASA initiatives against new manned exploration, eventually deciding to expand the budget enough to accommodate both prerogatives.

    S.R. Hadden: [atlyrics.com] "First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?"

  • Send money to Mars (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @10:20PM (#13141554) Homepage
    NASA should simply send an unmanned probe to Mars containing a well-sealed, well-protected capsule containing a check for $1,000,000,[insert your favorite number of zeroes here], payable to bearer.

    The first person who manages to get there and collect it gets to keep it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel

Close