A meaningful goal for NASA
 

If NASA is going to exist, what would you have it do?

I'd like to see a permanent human settlement on the moon. If NASA could start such a settlement, I suspect the foothold would eventually become valuable real estate if they were open to renting to all comers and didn't put roadblocks in the way of development. What do you want NASA to do or not do?

I would found the autonomous land of Griffbeeria and raise the first lunar hops.

I think it'd be cool if they could get up near the computer industry, or at least Apple: bi-annual announcements of frequently elite breakthroughs/new versions of things/whatever.

As long as I can remember (not long), there hasn't been much NASA-public interaction; they're just kinda there, and every once in a while they send off rockets.

I'm for pretty much any nifty thing they come up with, really. I suppose some sort of "go live on the moon" thing'd be nice. We haven't really spent much time there lately, anyway.

So, yeah. If they come up with a new earth->space->earth ship, and go revisit the moon with it, they'd be rockin'.

China might give us someone to compete with.

Sno-cones for Peace
 

Sno-cones at the South Pole Aitken basin. Water. Silicon. Aluminum. Raw materials all set and ready to produce solar panels and rocket fuels. Silicon for glass and silicone for habitat domes. Aluminum for power cables, silicone to insulate them. A furnace on the moon consists of a big concave mirror concentrating the sun's rays into a ceramic vessel. A low escape velocty from the moon. Just set up linear accelerators, and shoot stuff into trans-earth orbits. Heck, keep it on the moon, reinvest and build. Cool. I'm there.

Re: A meaningful goal for NASA
 

I want it to be my personal job trough, much like I will make the mayor's office of Philadelphia if elected in November.

Uryoces and Syc both have good strong hard headed purposes for NASA. Unfortunately, only one of you can get your way. Smart money is with Syc especially if he moves to a Bush state.

I'm not a fan of Florida...Texas though...ah, I dunno. I wouldn't mind it, but the lady might have some issues with that.

I hate to say it... no, I really hate to say it... we're talking about somebody who not only grew up with Star Wars and Star Trek (when he could catch a TV station broadcasting it in the semi-rural burg he grew up in) but could also explain the difference between the spacecraft used for Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo and could describe in numbing detail every phase of the Apollo flights to the moon at the age of 8.

And what I hate to say is that it may be time to bag manned space flight. I'm still processing this one, big time... and I'm of the proper age that my formative "where were you" memory was "where were you when you head about the Challenger explosion", so of course like everybody else who has strong memories of that, this is deja vu all over again... (and damn I wish Richard Feynman were still with us) so I may change my mind... but even before this, I was starting to wonder if the effort to put human beings up there is worth it.

If you asked me to name the glorious achievements of our civilization in space, I'd have to say: Apollo. Pioneer. Voyager. Dammit, I used TRS-80 Model III computers in junior high that probably had more juice than Voyager. Viking. Galileo. Hubble. Pathfinder. And unless something goes wrong, Cassini is going to kick some butt in a couple years.

Needless to say, the common denominator is that none of these were manned EXCEPT Apollo. (And yes, Hubble was essentially useless as delivered, and a shuttle mission fixed it, and then another one upgraded it beyond original specs. And then adaptive optics brought into question whether it was worthwhile to have an orbiting telescope.)

So what happened with Apollo? My answer would be that it happened at a time when it was politically feasible to throw the money that was needed on the problem. Most of you probably know that we sent men to the moon and back several times, 30 years ago... and that even though we did it 30 years ago, we couldn't do it again tomorrow if we wanted to since we stopped (again for political reasons) developing the technology. I guess what I'm saying is, do it right or don't do it, and I can't see that there's any hope of it being done right in the near future, so we might as well stick with robotic exploration craft.

Either way I'm all for mothballing the shuttles. If you really want to expend capital (monetary and other wise) sending people up, then go back to the drawing board and design something new but informed by everything we've learned in the last 20 years. The basic shuttle design dates from the late 70s or so, and the last one (Endeavour) was built over 10 yrs ago in the wake of Challenger. If we haven't gotten our money's worth out of them by now, we never will.

With spare parts, mind you.

How about true renewable power sources via space. i'm mean there is plenty of energy out there, how about finding some good way to harness them? What i say true i mean a power source that generates more power in it's lifetime that it costs to create.

Macintosh computers suck and so does the Apple corporation. They have nothing to say about advanced technology since they don't have any.

I'd like to see NASA privately funded through R&D for various companies, or other interested parties. Whether or not that included tourism is up in the air. I'd like to see us travel to mars in the next 20 years using the new shuttle with the new propulsion system designed a few years ago.

NASA could be profitable if they did missions to orbit sattelites or to fix ones already in orbit and through doing the R&D mentioned previously. With their profits I'd like to see advances in medicine, etc.

I don't think we can gain much by colonizing the moon. I don't know anyone who would choose to live there if we did. But if we could use minerals or things like that to improve life on earth, I'd be all for it. Eventually (long after I'm dead) it would be cool if we could travel to another solar system and return.

I'm just curious what you would call Quartz Extreme then. Or Rendezvous.

dave, youre wrong! when will everyone realize that if radar says it, its immutable truth! i was thinking about buying a powerbook actually. until radar said that apple sucks. now im back on the windows bandwagon. because as radar says, theyre the best.

~james

or airport extreme, or the incredible powerbook design or......

Shut up and bring me another beer, bitch. When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you.

HB shakes his head. "It's so hard to find good help these days. We've got friggin' bartenders babbling about hardware design... sheesh. Next thing you know, we'll have MCSEs trying to explain network administration!"

Personally, I think NASA should be intensifying and expanding its efforts in the area of manned space flight, with an eye toward eventually merging NASA with the Federal Bureau of Prisons...

Hubris, that's beginning to sound like a "Falkenberg's Legion" novel!

We need a replacement for the shuttle, and something along the lines of Soyuz/Apollo. Russia can launch many Soyuz missions to one shuttle launch.

I must respectfully disagree with this notion. There is more public information about the space program, and more easily available, than ever before. NASA maintains email lists about a myriad of topics, virtually every non-secret aspect of both manned and unmanned space exploration is available on the Web, and to top it off, you can watch the (almost) daily feed of briefings, interviews, multimedia, etc. on cable TV (if your distributor carries it...mine does).

As someone who has followed the space program pretty faithfully for almost 40 years, I can say unequivocally that NASA has *never* done a better job than they are doing now of getting info out to the public. Hell, I've even sent emails to project directors and gotten personal replies. These people are very, very accessible.

I think you hit the issue square on the nose, Steve. While Apollo (and to a lesser extent, the shuttles and the ISS) have served a useful public relations functions while expanding our quest for more knowledge about our surroundings, they have been woefully short in the bang-for-buck analysis.

Unmanned vehicles are an order of magnitude cheaper and are developed much faster. The risks we run are also a lot smaller. "Yep, another probe crashed into Mars. Oh well, back to the drawing board. Fire that guy at Lockheed who couldn't convert feet to meters correctly, and we'll try it again."

People love the thrill of manned space flight, of kids saying "I want to grow up to be an astronaut!" -- but let's face it, there is a lot more good science that can be done a lot more cheaply without the presence of a human being in the payload.

Here I am, arguing against manned space flight. When I was five, all I ever wanted to do was be the first person to reach Mars... :(


- Pie

PS: and oh, yeah -- Macs rock! :)

NASA got adictted to big buck projects. Its next objective was a flight to Mars. That could not be funded in whole. So NASAs objective was to put those pieces in place. Space Shuttle, then space station Freedom. Once they got that, then construction of space vehicles in orbit, followed by a Mars launch.

Note the concentration on unmanned spacecraft to Mars. All part of the program.

But NASA of years previous was a scientific research organization mostly in the fields of areonautics and space vehicles and the science associated with that field. Before the space shot, NASA was about many various, low visibility science projects. That is what NASA must return to.

Freedom was suppose to be a science platform. Problem was that few science experiments needed the resulting ISS that require too many people to remain operational. First three occupants must do nothing but station maintenance. Only with a fourth and more crewmembers does science get done.

What are our long term objectives? Do we need to explore Mars yet? Columbus discovered America in 1400's. But the new world remained mostly ignored until the late 1600s. We've been to the moon and now know what is there. Next step is to think up a good reason to return - or to go to Mars to find out if there is any reason to return.

NASA needs a new strategic objective. But currently, that means doing what NASA did best - little perspective and so productive science and research. Money and will is not there for anything more ambitious. Currently we would spend more money on a rediculous and non-functional anti-ballistic missile system since George Jr promised such a program to major campaign donors.

If HB spent the rest of his life in the persuit of computer knowledge he would still pale in comparison to what I know. I've forgotten more about computer networking than HB will ever know. The fact that I'm a great bartender doesn't lessen my ability as a fantastic computer network engineer and administrator.

If you really knew what the hell you were talking about, you would at least back up what you said.

As you have offered no proof and no reason behind your statement, no one believes you.

All hail the god of MSCE, Radar. Make regular sacrifices (LCII or above) or your winning streak in Minsweeper and Solitaire will be crushed.

Nice recycled insult. It was funny the first time I heard it - ten years ago.

Also, try running spellcheck.

dammit juju. hes not here to provide facts. hes here to win fucking arguments! remember? :)

~james

Steve Dallas: Good Post
 

Please tell me, in the nutshell: what were the political reasons for
discontinuing moon flights? I could search Google but it is
more fun asking you. Thank You, Mathu

I'm going to type this very slowly so maybe you will get the historical implications of this idea. Our previous experience with this concept begat Australia. If Jag is a fair representative of the outcome of such a system, the obvious question is, do you want say 2 million Jags looking down at the great blue marble, using their Mac computers to plot trajectories?

Well actually I might be persuaded by a mission to land some people on Ganymede. Oh, OK, or Mars either. If funded properly... I think there is something to be said for the exploratory spirit of the human race and it would be truly breathtaking and awe-inspiring.

But having a contest to see how many times we can orbit the earth? forget it. I guess that's what I meant when I said "do it right, or don't do it."

Re: Steve Dallas: Good Post
 

I'll give you my opinion... for what it's worth, off the top of my head! :cool:

Some people will say that there is no justification for paying for space flight because there are so many important unsolved problems down here on earth. (war, poverty, etc.) This was no less true in the 60s than it is now. However, the funding for Apollo was obtained. Pardon me for not looking up the exact number, but it cost a lot. The reason all this cash was shaken loose was because we felt that we had to beat the Russians.. we had to make Sputnik irrelevant. This was partly for cold-war-ish PR reasons and partly because there was genuine concern (concern that may look silly in hindsight) about military advantages of having a foothold in space.

After we actually went a few times and it became clear that not only were the Russians not going to get there before us, they weren't going to go at all, there was no reason to continue.

Re: Re: Steve Dallas: Good Post
 

Well, it's actually not all that silly. One reason that low Earth orbit isn't brisling with weapon satellites is because a treaty was signed to prevent it. If the USSR had been able to take control of space, that treaty would probably have been similar to all of our nuclear weapons treaties - the first ones there get to keep making them, but the johnny-come-latelys get none.

*gales of derisive laughter*

Don't make me pull IT rank on you, clown. You don't know who you're talking to.

I really enjoyed this line the first time I saw UT use it. I've been waiting for my chance to try it, too.

The only thing you're pulling is your pud.

pud? Whats a pud? Must be one of those MSCE things the unwashed are not enlightened about.

jag, it's Radar, he's right your wrong end of story, it doesn’t matter what sort of fucked up terminology he uses, he's right and your wrong.

I think he meant spud. Thats it, HB is pulling potatoes. Some kind of agricultural slur I guess...

So for a man as computer educated as Radar would it really be that difficult to use spell check. I mean really.

"Pud" is actually another word for "penis". Doesn't make Radar any less of one though.

I believe we still need manned space flights so that we can continue to perform experiments in space. Experiments in Low gravity has led to some interesting discoveries. I found this site interesting on the topic of microgravity research. Experiments in Microgravity

Hey!
 

Hey! The only one who should be pulling HB's pud is ME.

Just wanted to get that straight.

With no disrespect intended, as I hold you both in the highest possible regard (given the fact that I don't know either one of you), I've got to inquire...isn't HB allowed to pull his *own* pud, or is that strictly your job by some sort of mutual agreement (an agreeable agreement, to be sure)? :) :confused: :)

Now how many of these were done on a space station and how many were done in a much less expensive shuttle flight?

No one is disputing the need for manned space flight. It would just be nice if even 50% had some scientific purpose. Many of those experiments were performed just as easily in robotic vehicles that are substanically less costs. Estimates are as much as 1/10th cost. Manned flight only for the sake of manned flight makes no sense. Manned flight to solve problems, ie Hubble, have a purpose. With three out of four shuttles virtually dedicated to building a station that has little scientific value, what is the purpose in most cases?

Regarding A meaningful goal for NASA, this person has an interesting proposal that rings true and makes a lotta sense.

I like it.

Which guarantees and entrenches the French as world leader in satellite launch business. Because of the Shuttle program, US long ago lost out to France as commerical satellite launch leader. Now the French or Russians become the world leader in heavy launch vehicles.

Amazing how many #1 rankings of importance the US will surrender because politicians - not engineers - make technical decisions. Top of the list for why the US loses leadership in other, productive industries: anti-ballistic missile defense system - that does not work but creates lots of jobs. Jobs that result in nothing productive.

If the shuttle fleet stops flying, then the $150billion for the ISS will also become a flaming meteor.

Heard today that the US has asked Russia to bring back three astronauts on ISS. Not sure if this means the ISS will be abandoned for a while. Without Shuttles, ISS cannot be maintained except for short periods using supplies from Soyus capsules.

Universe expansion is accelerating - a mystery discovered by Hubble. One suggested reason was dark matter. Currently, not enough matter (Hubble number) has been found to account for the big bang. Science speculates that 'dark matter' must exist.

Also to confuse quantum mechanics theories is a shortage of anti-matter. In theory, matter and anti-matter should be in equal quantities.

Noble prize winner Samuel Ting of MIT leads a 16 nation space mission to find these answers. The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) is a multi-purpose particle detector to perform three experiments including a search for dark matter and to locate the missing anti-matter. Previous attempts using high altitude ballons discovered nothing. The detector must get outside earth's atmosphere.

Normally AMS would be launched into high orbit by expendable rocket. But ISS was so desperate for any real science (previous NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin had to justify ISS existence). A free shuttle launch without the usual NASA restrictions was offered. Entire AMS program will cost $840million. AMS would still be exposed to earth's atmosphere in low earth orbit (LEO). But free launch and eliminated attitude control would make the bird both simpler and less expensive. Also the bird could be recovered three years later so that data can be 'tweeked' by recalibrating an aged space vehicle.

Expected launch data was 2007. That was until George Jr annouced his 'man to Mars' mission. AMS may be bumped this summer when NASA reevaluates all science not directly traceable to a manned Mars mission. Just more good and essential science being undermined for the glory of George Jr's wish to become another Kennedy - without first learning facts. "We're going through a rethinking process," says Bernard Seery of NASA's biological and physical sciences office.

If AMS does get bumped, then the bird will require massive changes to fly freely; including hardening of its structure, enlarged power systems, and a flight control system. Messy job after the bird has been designed and is being constructed. But then George Jr better understands what science needs do. Politics being more important.

Instead of creating another thread with the same topic, I found this one and figured we a bump was in order ...link
NOTE** I linked this site because the liberal and the conservative sites just started with their spin instead of giving the actual info. This one actually quoted what was said.


I am not familiar with NASA's goals from the past, but I would have thought they would be more about the functioning of the organization and space travel/exploration - not about this stuff which seems so much more diplomatic in nature.
I think these are worthwhile things, but not his responsibility. Anyway - thats all I'll say on it for now. I'm interested in what you think.

I think there were an awful lot of pepople who spent 8 years claiming science is best served by keeping political objectives far, far away. They were right then and they would be right if they said it today under a different president.

IMO, NASA should be about space exploration for the benefit of the US. Participation in mulitnational programs should be pursued when it is in our national interests.

I don't see how making a religious group feel good about themselves intersects with space exploration at all.

Sorry, wrong button !

Having been alive and interested i NASA since it's inception, I disagree with most of what Bolden said, and definitely about the politics Obama injected into it and foisted onto Bolden.

I guess you're gonna re-task that space mission Griff.

Oh, and I'd put a massive frigging telescope on the moon and repeaters on as many planets as possible, then Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control it all the way baby!

1) Has always been a NASA goal. Perhaps one of its most important goals, albeit one that has become much more difficult as people became more jaded to space news. Administration of current space projects is fine, but the future strength of the nation is based on the future engineers of the nation.

2) Gets more and more important, especially with the ending of the Shuttle. NASA will rely on foreign vehicles for transportation, for a while at least. During the Cold War, NASA was a de facto diplomatic channel, for both competition and cooperation with the USSR.

3) Seems out of place, but both it and its relative prominence ("perhaps foremost") are probably owed to the venue of the interview. I agree that, as stated, it doesn't seem to be relevant to NASA, but I also agree that it is a "worthwhile thing". If Obama made that a goal, and then picked NASA to do it, that would be odd. But if Obama has a general goal for all of his foreign policy, and wanted NASA to consider that goal with particular focus on engineering in its international dealings, that would make sense.

Well said... in fact (1) was a primary goal when Sputnik caught the US by surprise

For (3) it's not an unknown practice for Obama or the US to try.
Think of a model of what happens with military production contracts... that is, spread the manufacture of parts around thru every state in the union and you immediately have support from each Senator and Representative if/when problems arise.

The reaching out to "Muslim nations" was rather crudely put, but the concepts and pressures are the same.

Well said, but it just seems out of place. I tend to agree with Lookout.
I didn't know that...

I'd like to see NASA build a space elevator, and found a permanent settlement on Mars. Including muslims may reduce the chance that they would fly a plane into the space elevator.

Then, there's always this:

With our countries increasing and in many ways exclusive reliance on near earth vehicles to control much of our current navigation we had best not neglect rapid movement and defense of space and the equipment it occupies. To do so would be to do so at our own peril.

The North Koreans have pulled ahead. :3_eyes:

"I'm going to pee any second now!" :eyebrow:

HAAAAA! :)