Slashdot Mirror
Obama Outlines Bold Space Policy ... But No Moon
The Bad Astronomer writes "In front of a mostly enthusiastic audience at NASA's Kennedy Space Center today, President Obama outlined a bold, new space policy. It's a change from his previous policy; the Constellation rockets are still dead, but a new heavy-lift rocket system is funded. He specifically talked of manned asteroid and Mars missions, but also stated there would be no return to the Moon. This is a major step in the right direction, but still needs some tweaking."
I think a giant telescope on the moon would greatly increase our knowledge of the universe. Maybe our current technology is not sufficient for longer distance space travel and gaining more knowledge about the universe might be better for now.
The reaon is that NASA is going to get private space off the ground. As long as we adhere to this and get BIGELOW AEROSPACE off the ground, then we will hit the moon around 2020. Bigelow and Musk have BOTH said that they want on the moon around that timeframe.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The Chinese have no interest in going to the Moon. They are planning a manned space station, to be completed by 2022.
No amount of screaming "the reds are under the beds!!" is going to bring back the unique set of cold war circumstances that made Apollo a success.
How we know is more important than what we know.
ummm.. you're aware that the bulk of the money of the commercial crew program will be going to the same old contractors that have been sucking of the NASA teat since it was begun right? It's not like pork is a new thing.. the difference is that this time NASA might actually get their money worth (maybe). In the mean time, the COTS program continues (it was started under the previous administration) and, if successful, will be some of the most efficient money NASA have ever spent.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Had space travel been in a coma, you'd have a point. But it hasn't. Instead we've actually had what all the space fans claim to have wanted for years - a routine workaday program. Turns out they were lying, what they want is stunts and spectaculars and big penile substitutes.
And really, Obama's program is something of a bust - a modest amount of money, a booster with no mission (I smell pork), and a capsule that might be adapted to have a mission at some date in the misty future. No clear goals, no timetables, no roadmaps nothing but warm fuzzy rhetoric.
I hope you're not referring to the Apollo program, because that was pure politics through and through.
I can only assume that you are a moron.. but let's try to educate you a little here. That 600 million metric tons that I said? That's approximately 1/100,000,000th of 1% of the mass of the Moon. So even if, over the period of hundreds of years, we cleared out the entire mass of the water ice that is expected to be at the north pole of the Moon, you next have to divide that by the square of the distance between the center of the Moon and the center of the Earth to get the effect of the change of the gravitational pull of the Moon on the Earth. It's less than the fluctuation of the solar output has on light pressure on the atmosphere. And, just for shits and giggles, you said "and brought it back to earth", which isn't the intention, there's plenty of water on Earth, there's no sense in bringing it back here.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Yeah, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "backers of using private space companies" are talking about. It's not *heavy* cargo transport, it's not even about fundamental advancement. It's about *routine* transport (of both cargo and humans). It's been there, done that, got the t-shirt stuff.
The point is that we know how to do it, and it's time for robust, competitive private industry to make it cheap. Then NASA can focus on the next step instead of worrying about how to maintain and resupply the ISS.
[sigh] This urban myth again.
The US Navy would be surprised to learn that solids can't be shut off - after all, they only operated rockets using thrust termination (SUBROC, Polaris A-1, Polaris A-2, and Poseidon) for over thirty years. Solids *can* be shut off, and the technology is well known. NASA chose to omit thrust termination systems from the Shuttle because of weight and because the piggyback configuration meant that shutdown transients would shear the Orbiter off of the tank severely damaging it. A rocket with a tandem configuration (like Ares I or V) could use it with little problem.
"What can human beings do in space that robots can't?"
Not get stuck in two inches of sand on Mars.