Slashdot Mirror
NASA Moon Launch May Be Delayed After 2020
krou writes "The Guardian is reporting that NASA is quietly revising its internal estimates of a 2018 launch for its Ares V rocket. Although publicly the date given for the launch was 2020, the internal launch date was set for 2018. The shift in dates seems to be linked to 'growing budget woes,' and 'engineers say that means the public 2020 date to send humans back to the moon is in deepening trouble.' NASA administrator Mike Griffin blamed the White House, and the previous Bush administration, saying funding for Ares V and other projects fell from $4bn through 2015 to just $500m. 'This was to be allocated to early work on the Ares V heavy-lifter, and the Altair lunar lander. With only a half-billion dollars now available, this work cannot be done.'"
Maybe, this time, we will make it to the moon!
I fear the Y2038 bug
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/nasa_embarks_on_epic_delay
That's what NASA does.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I'd rather dates get pushed back a bit, and we do this right, than go off half assed and mess up. The moon isn't going anywhere anytime soon, and as much as I love the idea of space exploration, and think it is the single greatest thing we can do as a race, I think we also need to look to our own backyard and clean that up as well.
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
If you ask me, We should have focused on Ares V and Orien first. We could have use EELV for human launch and later develop the Ares I.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
As more people want things at home, mission to moon and the entire manned space programme shall be delayed indefinitely.
Once the shuttles are retired, I have my doubts whether the entire manned program doesn't get canned.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
For the last time it isn't theft. It's copyright infringement.
My addiction: Arguing with idiots. AKA Slashdot!
just thinking about this. Musk wanted to figure out a way to fund a monster rocket. My guess is that if Falcon 9 and heavy are successful, he will get his chance. The reason is that congress will probably want to kill all funding for Ares V. It is possible that Direct will get a chance, but I do not think so. The reason is that it will be the same set of ppl and companies that did Constellation. As such, I could easily see Congress saying enough is enough.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Planning a project and then cutting the budget is a common tactic used to divert more of the work and cash to contractors. In this case the intention was to cut the booster program and use already available hardware such as the Delta Heavy instead. This sort of behavior was an epidemic during the previous administration, but the present one showed signs of staying the course. Not long ago Obama was (mis)quoted as saying that possibly we should use available "military" hardware. The misquote, or possibly misstatement on his part, was in the fact the the hardware is used by the military, but comes from civilian sources that already supply the same to NASA.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
So America has given up on the space race, huh?
I guess it's up to China and India now.
NASA administrator Mike Griffin blamed the White House, and the previous Bush administration, saying funding for Ares V and other projects fell from $4bn through 2015 to just $500m.
Okay, the cost of the entire Apollo program was $25.4 billion dollars. That's 25,400,000,000 1969 dollars - about $135 billion in today's dollars. So why is it so much cheaper this time around?
I put it down to the fact that technology has advanced quite a lot since 1969* - The film industry in particular, if you're making a movie there's a heck of a lot more you can do with that kind of money than you could have in 1969.
-
*Disclaimer: All sly remarks on the redundancy of this sentence being used on slashdot are hereby inherently redundant.
This post was made in complete sincere seriousity; as such any attempts to derive humour are doomed to instant failure.
From a secret launch site in the Florida Everglades, with a really big trebuchet. They are rounding up alligators as we speak, to fill the counterweight basket. It's gonna take a lot of gators!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
We went from having no rocket program of any kind in 1945, to deciding to put a man on the moon in 1960, to actually doing it in 1969. Now, we decide we want to go to go back, and can't make any progress at all.
Our national labs are filled with nothing but bureaucracy and useless political management. There's no sense of urgency, there's no focused direction.
Seriously, we can't do in 20 years today what we did in 10 half a century ago? Come on. This shit's just sad.
From the time JFK announced his challenge to go to the moon it took us eight years to actually do it. Now we have all the technology from all of our space research for the past 40 years, we have five years sunk into the current plan to return, and they are saying they can't finish it in another nine years? This is the fruit of our lousy political and education systems!
Bringing a semblance of a Republic to a nation of 25 million is more impressive than putting a man on the moon in my opinion. Of course, there has been big mismanagement and could have been done faster and for less, but that could be said of almost all government projects.
I don't give s*** about the Iraqis and would much rather have the >$1 trillion. I don't know how the rest of the US feels about that...
For all its grand announcements and associated fanfare the United States government has no intention of going back to the moon. The reason. There are no people, that is no eligible voters on the moon, so there is not point in going there.
However, China does not care whether there are possible eligible voters there or not they just want the high ground. So they will go.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Good Fast Cheap (Pick two)
First off, Griffin isn't NASA Administrator anymore, since Obama accepted his resignation as Obama was being inaugurated.
Next up, I don't notice Griffin taking any responsibility himself for leaving NASA in disarray after years running it. Even though he messed up its budget. Yes, Bush deserves blame for messing up NASA, including by putting a CIA Star Wars hack in charge of it, who wasted our time suppressing climate change research results. But Griffin doesn't have any standing to criticize anyone else until he owns up to his own bad work setting back our space program, now apparently by decades.
--
make install -not war
Then they'd get a $3 trillion bailout like Wall Street did.
This sounds like flamebait but I swear it's not. I would love to hear someone knowledgeable explain to me why (at least as it seems to a layman like myself) NASA did amazing things for so long then hasn't done anything to capture the public's imagination for decades. I understand how massive the funding was in their heyday, but every other technology sector seems to do more with less over time - is NASA's mission just impossible to accomplish for less than 3% of GDP? Or did they hire worse and worse recruits over time? Or did the wrong people get put in charge? Or does this stuff just get harder to do?
This has baffled and saddened me for years. I really do want to hear an answer from someone who has some insight...
"95% of all Slashdot
Look, guys. Got to face this sometime.
America just isn't as young as it used to be.
Forty years ago? Sure. We could get a rocket up, in little time at all. And though we'll certainly never forget that first time - we were ready to go again just a few short years later.
But face the facts, people. The country isn't a spry 193 anymore. Let's just have hope that NASA is trying its best, Although its worrisome that the launch date doesn't seem very firm, just keep in mind - nothing would be worse than a premature launch.
We don't intend to disappoint.
"Strangers have the best candy" -Me
If we had a vote between spending whatever was needed to get to the moon again and bailing out another banker, I'll bet we'd vote to go to the moon. At least then we'd see some results from the spending.
There was a MASSIVE infusion of technology and expertise from German Scientists that had been working on the "Rocket Problem" since the '30's. Also, there was significant military research in the U.S. before, during, and after WWII as well.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Well I completely completely sympathise for NASA having difficulties with the gov't - I think for $0.5B, I could get a gang together to pull all this off.. lol - of course, NASA probably has a lot of that money allocated to non-Aries, etc related projects, perhaps such as maintenance
If we were willing to spend the money, to dare the risk, America might one day find she has what it takes to get an American to the moon and return safely. What lessons we must learn from that mission: the physics, the materials science, the computer and communications technology might drive a surge in American eminence in science and engineering. Yes, it is not easy. We should go to the moon and do these other things not because it is easy but because it is hard. It is an opportunity to prove that we have the grit, the intelligence and the skill that others do not, and we'll reap the benefit of taking that journey for a generation.
Or maybe we could just get ILM to do it in CGI and save budget. Is Bruce Willis available? Think of the product placement opportunities!
/Co-channeling JFK and Spielberg.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
WE may see a private enterprise moon landing before NASA can be bothered to go back.
Good-bye
What the HELL is taking so long?
When these things are delayed, the true cost escalate massively.
It's mind boggling to me that Obama is shit-eating happy to hemorrhage 2 Billion a week at Iraqistan, for nothing and no one, but the space program gets fucked up the ass.
This isn't about going to the moon at all: it's about retaining the expertise that America paid dearly for in the 60s! The huge sums invested (yes, "invested") in the space program kept US aeronautics and engineering at the top of the world for 50 years.
But now the Euros make better planes, and US engineering is being rapidly eclipsed.
As expertise is lost, so the budgets escalate, and the delays get bigger, further escalating costs.
Pretty soon the USA is an "also ran" in space, and shortly thereafter it becomes an "also ran" on Earth. The writing is on the wall: only massive investment in science, technology and expertise can save the USA from utter collapse under the weight if 53 trillion dollars in entitlements.
While space investment (under NASAs most specific commission - to provide all their data to any US firm) return well in excess of a dollar for every dollar invested, there are a couple of things that the USA simply MUST do in order to avoid total melt down.
1) Don't start any more wars, and finish the ones you got going on now.
2) Invest heavily in space technology
3) Secure the supply of energy to the world for the entire future.
Number 3 can be achieved by singlehandedly getting Fusion power tamed. I'm not talking about that ridiculous ITER thing - because the only thing which will come from that fiasco is a pile of Ph.D.s about 10 metres tall - and most of them won't be 'merkin Ph.D.s!
No, the small-scale, tiny fusion efforts like Focus Fusion and Bussard's Polywell reactor - if practical will yield results for sums under a billion - while the potential payoff is measured in the hundreds of trillions of dollars in this century.
How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
It'll be done when they can play Duke Nukem Forever on it.
This sig is false.
If it really costs 4 billion dollars to put a man on the moon, is it worth it? What resources can be economically gained from going to the moon? Is the moon made of pure Gold? If so, the shuttle's 22,700Kg cargo capacity full of pure, refined, 24 karat gold 22 would need to have a value of $1,762.12 per gram in order to make the trip economically break even. With today's gold value somewhere under $100 per gram, and the fact that the moon is not made of refined 14 karat gold, I think it will be a long time before a trip to the moon is economically viable at a cost of 4 billion dollars. ;)
- James
How many died so that we (and the Russians) could do that?
Look at how much the loss of Columbia set back the shuttle program. The public have forgotten that every space shot involves strapping frail humans to a few thousand tons of explosives and lighting the fuse. People sue when their kid falls over in the mall and gets a scratched knee.
If they said "fuck the safety" I am sure they could have something as safe as the 60's-70's space program ready to go in 2-3 years.
Why can't we just dust off the rocket we have and make it run again. Surely it can't be that hard. We did it the first time on computing power that is a fraction of a 486. Wal Mart still runs a lot of their operations on 1970's technology. Why are we re inventing the wheel ???
In 1961 the Apollo program was founded when US President John F. Kennedy announced a goal of landing a man on the moon by the end of the decade. On July 20, 1969 it was accomplished when Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong landed on the moon. It took eight years. I was four years old at the time they landed. I watched breathlessly each launch, each landing, and all the reports in between. I actually recall trying to convince some of the adults in my life the significance of these events. The Moon! That ball in the sky! Men are walking on it! I failed miserably. I lived in Watts at the time. They didn't care then and they don't care now.
It had never been done before. Practically none of the necessary materials science, engineering and physics were even understood at the time. They performed orbital vector calulations sometimes using computers, and sometimes using banks of people operating calculators.
40 years later we carry computers in our pocket that have more power than all the computers in the world at that time. Our cars have better navigational equipment. It has been done before. The problem has been solved - we've done it many times. The physics, mechanics and materials are well understood. But now we can't figure out a way to do this again in under a decade. It's over. We're officially sliding into decay.
Now I point to that ball in the sky for my son who's five, and I say "That ball in the sky! We knew how to get there once. My parents did it, but we forgot how when I grew up. If you study hard - if you really want it - you might go there too." And then we point the telescope at Mars.
/And it's Orion. Try and spell it write, ok?
Help stamp out iliturcy.
We thought we won it, then we scrapped all the equipment we won it with. Now China will repeat what we did, cheaper, before we're able to.
To thank the scumbags in the Bush administration and the cadre of Wall Street sycophants in Congress who've leveraged our futures to bankrupt the American nation so that I will not live to see humans walk on the Moon again in my lifetime.
Sig this!
First, I was 10. I remember Apollo 1. Second, My parents were INTO this and pushed me. Third, my 5 y.o. knows the planets, and can tell the difference between Mars and Moon via pics. Fourth, my 2 y.o knows some of the planets. And finally, spelling can go to hell when putting a 2 y.o. to bed who is too tired and very fussy.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Don't get me wrong, NASA has done an absolute wonderful job in helping move mankind into the stars thus far. From their original moon landing missions to the continued effort to probe space via advanced optics platforms and missions to other planets, it has been a wonderful help in getting mankind past the boundaries of its own planet.
Nonetheless, keeping a space program under the thumb of the U.S. federal government is doing little more than holding back the field at this point. When space programs (and technology) were just starting to blossom, it was important to monitor them due to their potential military uses as well as the safety issues involved in working with such experimental technology.
Nowadays, however, companies such as SpaceX, Bigelow Aerospace, Blue Origin, and a plethora of others are showing that space exploration is capable as a commercial entity (granted, none of these organizations are sending probes past Earth orbit yet, but the potential is there). That being said, there is very little reason to continue to spend federal money on an entire space program. NASA employs some of the most intelligent and capable people in this industry. They have a plethora legacy and in-house knowledge that could benefit the public sector endlessly. It seems that, at this point, the NASA entity should be closed entirely while a private sector entity is set up to absorb most of, if not all of, its employees. If NASA were to break free of the federal government (and all of the political staging and pressures and general BS) it could perform unimaginably well in the private sector.
It seems to me that it is time for the government funded (and unfortunately, controlled) entity of NASA might as well be dissolved and a private equivalent PASA (Public American Space Agency or some other such acronym) could thrive better in its place. Of course, I am not a business major so I can't say I know much about a potential business model, but from a science and engineering standpoint, it would behoove progress greatly if NASA could get free of the government.
Keeping NASA under government control would be like keeping a booming computer company like Microsoft under government control during the early years of the computing industry, it would have just hampered progress and the dissemination of computer technology. Similarly, federal control of one of the most (if not THE most) advanced space exploration entities is just hampering the progress of mankind's expansion into the stars.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Congress messed up the Hubble Space Telescope project a few decades ago by similarly setting unrealistically low budgets. The scientists agreed to the budget because that was the only way to go forward. Perkin Elmers, the prime subcontractor for the lens, had to take all sorts of shortcuts to meet that budget. They had to skimp on quality control. Instead of multiple tests, they used the same system that guided the polishing of the lens to verify the polishing was correct. It turns out that a bolt was inserted backwards in the measuring laser. Of course, this meant that the mirror was wrongly-ground and that the error was not caught.
The Ares Project is more important not only because it represents the next generation of American rocketry, but also because lives will be depending on the rocket. The early Apollo and Shuttle projects claimed lives because of shoddy work. History is in danger of repeating itself.
Congress and NASA should either do it right, or not do it at all. Astronauts assume the risks at every launch, but we should not let them take that risk if it is too significant. NASA should just put the ball down and walk away if it believes that the project cannot be done correctly on the current budget. Not for political gamesmanship, but to protect astronauts.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
But in 1969, we were in an arms race with the Soviet Union at the time, so we not only spent a gazillion dollars on nuclear missiles, we also managed to get to the Moon?
Either we need to pay more taxes, or we need a more efficient use of our money.
By the time they get there, they'll find a Chinese flag, an Indian flag, a Canadian flag, some monument to commercially-sponsored space travel, and a McDonald's.
Do you want fries with that?
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
They should have enough intelligent people working at NASA to figure out how to get a man to the moon for 500 million dollars.
My posting suffers too when the littles want to bang on the keyboard. I understand that.
I was actually just using your post as a launching point for my own rant because it was neutral, short, and properly positioned. I barely read it. I'm sorry if I came off as too critical. Try not to take my post as a personal thing, because I really was being a bad person and not replying to the thread at all.
But it's beautiful prose, isn't it? C'mon - read it again.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
NASA administrator Mike Griffin blamed the White House, and the previous Bush administration, saying funding for Ares V and other projects fell from $4bn through 2015 to just $500m.
It doesn't mention it in the summary, but people need to keep in mind that figure's only for the Ares V, which is supposed to be building on the Ares I. The GAO (which is certainly historically better in its cost estimates than NASA) has estimated that the Ares I and Orion capsule will cost more along the lines of $40-50 billion.
For comparison, funding SpaceX to finish developing commercial crew transport to the space station would cost $500 million. SpaceX would need to have a 100x cost overrun to cost as much as the Ares program.
Somehow seeing the words 'only' and '0.5 billion dollars' in one sentence gives me a strange feeling in my stomach.
-- Cheers!
or the amount paid in interest alone on the national debt every four days (although that amount is on its way up very soon).
We each have a different lens through which to observe the expenditures of government. Personally, I'd rather see space money increased, and re-allocated toward unmanned probes and robotics. Extraordinarily more bang for the buck...but less emotionally satisfying for some. Either way, I prefer spending money learning about black holes than pouring it into black holes.
Take a look at the stimulus bill broken out by line and I'll bet you can find a dozen ways some of that money could be better "re-purposed" toward creating and maintaining high-quality aerospace jobs building spaceships, probes, and engineering infrastructure.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pV-c6t5fOVmNorqMpHvnCMw
In the late 40's Arthur C Clark was writing stories about the British going to the moon. He thought that Britain was still enough of a superpower to be able to do it. Nowadays, we look back at his writings and say 'You've got to be dreaming. Britain is too poor to afford anything like that.'
I venture to say that in about 40 years time we will look back to NASA's pronouncements about going back to the moon (much less going to Mars) and we'll say 'You've got to be dreaming. The US is too poor to be able to afford anything like that."
I agree with this post in every particular. I have no insight to add. The detail is outside the scope of my experience and training.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Great. So we'll miss the 50th anniversary of the first moon landing, and probably trail the Chinese by several years. We'd better make sure our astronauts speak Mandarin, or they won't be able to order noodles at any of the lunar luxury hotels they'll land next to...
Actually, I had read it the first time and DID like it. Just had been beaten up in another place so was cranky. On a side note, the reason why the pressure earlier, is that everynight (and every nap where my 2 y.o is home), we do a blastoff. He likes to bend backwards at the knees, so that he has has reclining position. I am holding him parallel to the ground. Then we do a countdown with engine ignite at 3 and of course a liftoff at 0. All the way to the fan where he gets to knock the on-off chains on it. So, I have combined that with the SpaceX movie to keep the kids interested in space.
On a side note, I wish that SpaceX would hire a web specialist. Have that person create constant media like the recent cots-d movie. Also should show the work that is going on. For example, show the shots of the dragon. Any simulation of being inside it would be way cool. When I was growing up, my dad was a b-47 pilot in USAF, and then later a commercial pilot for AA. He had plastic layouts of the cockpit panels that my brother and I played with. I would pay for something similar from SpaceX for the 5 y.o. to play with.
In addition, I have written Bigelow to suggest the same numerous times. Bigelow does not realize that they NEED to get citizens enthused about what they are doing. For example, it would be useful to them to have ppl calling for America to buy the first sundancer and BA-330 to attach to the ISS. I would LOVE to see us do that and get Bigelow moving forward on getting a station in orbit. At this time, Bigelow has all but checked out. Really sad.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You'll find yourself in one.
We arent going to have a moon! Damn procrastinators.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
I wished I got to see the moon landing live in the old days. I was hoping it would happen for Mars, but at this rate many of us and I will be dead when a human finally lands on Mars. Building a base on Moon would be cool too since we already landed there in the past. Someone frakkin please get going to space exploration in person.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
NASA is stuck on ARES to the point where any alternative is dismissed out of hand. Engineers are being forced to pare down the Orion capsule, removing safety features so that ARES can lift it. Progress tests have been redefined to allow ARES to pass inspection. There have been reports of persecution for disagreeing with Griffin's cronies. The Stick Must Fly.
Some NASA engineers thought differently. They got together and dusted off some alternatives from the shuttle design days, modernized them, and came up with the Jupiter/Direct plan. They have had their designs and budgets independently (but unofficially) reviewed and verified. They can get to the moon faster, cheaper, and safer. But sorry, not NASA approved.
It is the Cathedral and the Bazaar all over again.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
It probably won't be as comfy as the NASA version, but it will get there and back.
When its international espionage I think it has always been referred too as theft. Or treason. Or something that gets dam close to the death penalty when caught.
You don't really want to give a spy just a $750-$10000 dollar fine do you?
In these cases its really not copyright law thats involved.
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
"And it's Orion. Try and spell it write, ok?"
o_O
So, we just cut the budget on this project from $4billion to $0.5billion.
And in the meantime, we also just gave $700billion to a bunch of banks. To save them from bankruptcy that was of their own making.
WTF !?!?!
Give NASA some funding - like maybe a tenth of what is being spent in fixing the financial crisis? At least then we know it will be spent on achieving something great.
-- the only thing we have to fear is really scary things
RISK
.
The picture in the link you posted has been reported as a fake.
You don't even need to go all the way to Boeing to get to the truth in this case, since the fake Boeing blended wing has a glaring technical error that's obvious at first glance to any aerospace engineer: the turbine intakes are located above the wing in a low-pressure region. If you compare it with existing blended wing or large delta wing aircraft, the turbine intakes are either at or near the front edge of the wing, as in the B-2, or under the wing, as in the Concorde or the XB-70
Also, passenger airplanes need a big pressurized cabin. Making it different from the cylindrical shape used today would be wasteful, it would need much more strength at the walls and would be heavier.
When I read your first sentence, I thought I was reading this post again.
The world has changed and we all have become metal men.
ie the bat wing type plane prototyped by boeing, but market research still wants 2 rows with windows, even tho it only represents 2/12th with windows.
For the record, both orientation women like phallic objects ;-)
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
I do worry that has become the situation. If so, W and the neo-cons have bankrupted us while the dems stood by allowed them. Hopefully, the dems push COTs and actually provides 500M or 1B for COTs-E that can do the large booster if Constellation is to be cut. It will be sickening because we had DECADES in which to do this. Bad leadership and politics will be blamed for throwing away such opportunities.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I once read an anecdote about Von Braun that might explain this.
In his engineering training there was a six month course where each student was given a rough lump of cast iron at the start of the course. The goal was to convert that lump into a cube. The size didn't matter, but it had to have six flat faces, each edge had to have the same length, and all angles had to be ninety degrees.
Each student was left to his own, he had to research among the different tools and processes available at the university labs how to perform the task. In the end, the student was graded on how perfect the cube was.
I think this anecdote (if it's true, I don't know) would explain a lot about how Germany was able to rebuild itself into a technological superpower twice after being destroyed at war in the twentieth century. Their engineers were trained at solving problems, they were trained to research and find practical solutions.
Unfortunately, too many engineering students in many countries today do not have the slightest idea on how machines work, they are trained in management instead, because becoming a manager is the only way an engineer can reach a higher salary level.
I'll take "Irony" for $600, Alex.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
It's like reading "they wandered for 40 years" in the Torah. It's just meant to signify a very long time that you're not really going to care about. In a few years it will be pushed out again, and again and again. You see we're NEVER going back to the moon and manned spaceflight will be a memory by 2020. The ISS will be gone. The Shuttle will be gone, The Russians and Chinese will have focused on satellites and space based weapons. The Indians will also be in the commercial satellite business. The Europeans will will simply declare space science an unaffordable luxury of the Evil White Man. With no heavy lifters, no missions and no stomach for the challenge and the risk, mankind will have seen the end of manned spaceflight. Perhaps in a hundred years we'll take another look at it, but who knows? It will probably be against Sharia by then.
The whole Bush administration Moon and Mars programs were just smoke and mirrors to shift funding away from the Space Station and other NASA programs, then cacel or push back the Moon and Mars missions. NASA put too many eggs in once basket with the poorly concieved Space Shuttle program and we are now paying the price with no good booster to get humans into Low Earth Orbit. I only hope the Obama administration has the imagination to keep the Space program growing in ways that are productive and that help spur the economy. What is the U.S. going to get more out of in the long run? An active space program or planting trees along a highway?
Well, you're a bit confused about the timeline. It only seemed to take eight years - but in reality it took over a decade to get all the pieces in place for the 1969 landing. Development of the F1 engine started in 1956, and development of the Apollo capsule in 1960.
Apollo also had virtually a blank check, which the current program does not.
That's what nearly forty years of NASA propaganda, journalistic hype, and urban legend would lead you to believe. But it's completely wrong. In reality, NASA managers explicit avoided new technology and risky development wherever possible. (Just one example: This is why the Apollo inertial platform had three gimbals, rather than four. The design was frozen in 1963 - before four gimbal systems were proved in flight by the Gemini program.) They took, wherever possible, existing pieces or technologies well along in development.
Have you seen some of the women that go to that school? It won't take as many as you think. Double and Triple wides have several meanings in the south.
They are the Official School of the Bedonkadonk!
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
last 100 years, to us.... WOW so relavent, to aliens, ahh just a small blip. 40000 years is significant.
Whos to not know that the govts have made contact but are keeping it secret like the 10000 other secrets, now you know why lawyers become politicians.
Its like a tribe in Brazil saying, "we have seen no tribes for 5 generations, the whole world must be wiped out"
Get over it, either aliens dont give a rats ass, or they have morals and leave us alone, or are waiting for slowmotion take over taking 2500+ years.
Even if we are alone, the thought/hope of aliens is enough to make us want to explore other planets so that we eventually will do what we thought aliens will do just so we preserve our selves. Else all this usual locallized 'life' is just boring dull and none sustainable.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Give them a break - they are trying something that they have never tried before.
I have a VERY IMPORTANT meeting on the Moon, and I HAVE to be there by 2020! You can't just postpone flights and expect to stay in business!
-- Of course I'm paranoid. I'm a sysadmin.
In several occasions in the books/games/... they mention they have the lost the knowledge of some technologies. I always thought that was a bit "strange" (as far as we can define strange in such a science fiction universe). But your post made me wonder if we, people of today, are also not constantly losing knowledge of stuff we might need later.
The space station operation seems to working fairly well, even though I think it is too expensive for its results. For a while, the US had to subsidize the Russian space program during Russia's hard times last decade. Now Russia has to subsidize the US with the only manned launch vehicle. The ESA provides an annual unmanned supply ship, with its first success last year. Japan and Canada have built ISS modules.
The largest missing player is China. They have their own slow, but successful space program.
They probably delayed this mission because of when the machines are suppose to try and take over.
[groucho marx voice] She's a better man than I am.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
And they will go there to hunt to them and instead they will end up singing songs about it.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
/And it's Orion. Try and spell it write, ok?
Try to.
...we are already there (moon base on the dark side of the moon), see the book: Dark Mission
I've been saying for a while that the US will never land on the moon again. This doesn't change anything, it's happening because the US no longer has the national will to commit to anything that big. No foreseeable amount of technology is going to change that, even if it solved all the other problems we have (that are more pressing.)
I see the 60's as pretty much the high point of modern civilization Project Apollo happened to come along at the only time in human history thus far when both technology and society were capable of it, and society started to seriously decline about that time.
China may make it to the moon; I doubt anyone is going to Mars, at least not until we've been through a new dark age and (hopefully) renaissance.
Every time that a space and lunar exploration story has run on Slashdot for the past three years, I have answered it with a reminder that space and lunar exploration is a fantasy because the USA is ...well... stone dead broke.
And every time that I point this out, my message gets zapped to -1. And I always get replies that I am (1) a luddite, (2) a moron, (3) an asshole, (4) a fool who doesn't understand how absolutely important space and lunar exploration to human existence, and (5) a twit who doesn't realize that the space and lunar exploration programs are already blasting off because the money has been fully allocated for the next lunar and martian Apollo missions and vast teams of engineers are working on it right now as we speak.
Well, as it should have been obvious to anyone who is not collecting a fat pay check from NASA or isn't a total Tekkie buffoon, the USA actually is broke, politicians lie, budgets can be quietly revised, and whatever importance space and lunar exploration actually does have for human existence, it's going to have to wait for another hundred years or so. Get used to it because it is your reality.
You aren't going to see people walking on the moon or Mars in your lifetime. You will be lucky if in thirty or forty years from now if you can rent a tiny car once a year and drive to what once a shiny mall back in the glorious Lindsey_Lohan-cute_superstar era (before she converted to Islam and became president).
So, be a mensch, and stop modding me down to -1 for simply pointing out the plain honest truth to you'all. Be thankful that someone is willing to do it.
Come'on Slashdaughters, the 20th century is over. The boom times generated by cheap oil is passing. There will continue to be fantastic scientific discoveries, but they won't be implemented in the same way that they were in the era of your youth. With exploding populations, financial disintegration, and environmental collapse, we will be lucky if we are able to marshal all our scientific, engineering, and political skills to maintain a lifestyle for our special class of people that is equal to 1900, forget about returning to the era of 2000, which will only be available to the rumored ultra-rich 'cloud people'.
So get real, delicious Slashdaughters, and stop thinking about space and think about place. Your place in the real world. The cold dark world.
Thank you. Posting in lieu of modding up. Pet grammar peeve.
Frankly, we shouldn't be blowing money on trips to the moon, Mars, or anywhere else not within Ionosphere. All that funding should be directed to more earthly endeavors. The exception is the research that leads technology and understanding that allows to put satellites up there. NASA's funding would be better spent on advancing green-themed initiatives so that we can maybe remain on this planet longer.
Later,
-Slashdot Junky
.
Landfill Mining Co.
Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
The Dems stood back and ALLOWED it?
Do you remember when Bush pushed through a prescription drug plan for Medicare? The Dems opposed it vigorously, because it didn't cost enough to suit them.
Did you notice that when the Dems got control of Congress back the deficit didn't go down at all?
Have you noticed that Obama's budget for 2010 (which does NOT include the various stimulus packages) will have a deficit three times as big as Bush's biggest deficit?
The problem isn't that the Democrats "stood by and allowed them", the problem is that the Democrats actively encouraged them, and are actively pursuing policies that will make GWB look fiscally restrained.
Only hope I have out of all the spending planned for the next decade or so is that a chunk of it goes to NASA....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Do you remember when Bush pushed through a prescription drug plan for Medicare? The Dems opposed it vigorously, because it didn't cost enough to suit them.
Yes, a group that had ZERO power in congress VIGOROUSLY opposed it. RIIIIGGGHHHHTTT. And it was the neo-cons that insisted that we pay FULL PRICE for the drugs.
The dems allowed the irrational neo-con spending.
As to the deficit not dropping, the dems ONLY got control about 100 days ago. At this time, they are busy putting out neo-con fires.
Of course, my question is how much really was needed? In addition, once the fires are out, then what? Will they push towards a balanced budget like Clinton did? WIll they push a balanced budget amendment? What is funny is that pubs had TOTAL control of congress for 12 years, had total control of our gov for 6 and even had a split congress for the last 2 years and what did they accomplish in terms of balanced budget, controlling deficits via amendments or controlling term limits?
Not a damn thing.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Ooh. Well if this is a competition you'll find my son's picture on a tribute site to manned space travel that's named after SpacePort 1.
/because I am that kind of geek.
//He's a cute boy.
Not being critical. I like your posts. I think we share an enthusiasm for manned spaceflight that is missed by most folk. I think if we inspire our kids properly we will win Darwin's game and our critics will not.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
No, the Dems got complete control of both houses of Congress two years ago. They've been writing the budgets they wanted since then.
And the Dems had total control of Congress for, let's see...40 years before the Republicans got it in 1994. And two years since. And they did how much? "Not a damn thing" fits quite well.
Note that the first two years of Clinton's terms, the Dems had House, Senate, and Whitehouse.
Carter's term included complete control of House, Senate, and Whitehouse by the Dems.
And in none of those periods did fiscal restraint seem to be a goal. Note that during Carter's term, the debt increased by about 30%, which is a larger increase than Clinton managed in two terms.
The big problem with focusing on the period of the Republican control of the Congress is that the Democratic control existed for a much longer period (40 years of either Democratic control or divided control before the Republicans got control of the House in 1994).
So it's pretty clear that both Parties spend like drunken sailors when they have the chance.
Clinton didn't balance the budget. National Debt increased each year he was in office. The highest rate of increase in National Debt during Clinton's terms occurred when he had a Democratic House and Senate to back him up.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"