Houston, we have a problem...

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by razark

The money spent by NASA goes to two things. It pays wages, and it buys products.

You are making two faulty assumptions.
1. Canceling manned space programs does not mean canceling all programs. The unmanned programs still need workers.

One of the greatest benefits of the space program is the advancement of technology. Many products are developed from technology originally designed for spaceflight. Research in computers, robotics, medicine, materials, processes, and so on have been are still are being done by NASA.

2. You are assuming that these technologies were linked exclusively to the manned space program. This has not been demonstrated. Unmanned research in space will also garner technological breakthroughs.

As I wrote, I am generally in favour of space exploration. If we were not saddled with two expensive wars, an economy that more through luck than skill managed to avoid the becoming the really great depression, and our spending habits for the last 15 years or so, I would be in favour of us pressing on with manned space exploration.

I just don't think it is the right time now.

I just wonder how many on this forum would have also complained if President Obama announced some big expensive manned space program? How many here would be complaining about another big government program, technological welfare, irresponsible spending?

In my opinion, we simply can't afford it at this time. Maybe in a few years when we get a little more recovered economically.

I want our decisions about manned space exploration to be made when it is economically responsible. Not when some old astronauts predict that we will become "a "second or even third-rate" status as a space-faring nation", as if this would be some terrible thing.

When we get on firmer economic ground, then to infinity and beyond. Until then, let's pay our bills first. Space can wait.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by razark

You do realize that NASA does not, in fact, simply stuff cash into rockets and shoot it into space, right?

LOL classic !

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by razark

You do realize that NASA does not, in fact, simply stuff cash into rockets and shoot it into space, right?

With the costs of the EELV going to $200,000,000 per launch (and this is not counting the payload), I think NASA is insulating the rocket with cash.

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/.../EELV_main.htm

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Platapus

If we were not saddled with two expensive wars, an economy that more through luck than skill managed to avoid the becoming the really great depression, and our spending habits for the last 15 years or so, I would be in favour of us pressing on with manned space exploration.

I just don't think it is the right time now.

As I indicated in my last post a extensive space program could end the economic problems we currently have.

Current national debit: $11 Trillion
Estimated value of rare minerals on Eros: $ 26 Trillion
Question is what do you want to do with the remaining $15 Trillion? Buy the nation of Ghana?

As for expensive wars an extensive space program can help too...

[razark]

Originally Posted by Platapus

You are making two faulty assumptions.

Alright, I'll give you that. Most of that was my general anti-anti-space program rant.

Originally Posted by Platapus

1. Canceling manned space programs does not mean canceling all programs. The unmanned programs still need workers.

If we aren't going to space, why bother sending the robotic missions? I'm not planning on taking a trip to New Jersey any time soon, so why should I bother studying maps and reading travel information? Aside from that, under the current plan, NASA gets an increased budget. If there are programs that need workers, why are so many people either getting laid off, or living in fear of it?

Originally Posted by Platapus

When we get on firmer economic ground, then to infinity and beyond. Until then, let's pay our bills first. Space can wait.

You know what we haven't done for 38 years? We haven't gone beyond low Earth Orbit. There were a total of nine spaceflights beyond Earth. We went, we put down flags and footprints, we came back home, and we've done nothing else. How long are we going to wait? There's always "something else" that needs to be done before we can go explore. Now it's the economy. What will it be in two years? In ten years? In another thirty-eight years? You think our bills will be any more paid by then?

Imagine if Columbus had made his four trips to the Americas, and then Spain decided, "Well, we've been there, we've done that, we have other things to do", and never exploited the possibilities. Right now, we're cutting back on the human space flight. How long until someone decides that since we aren't sending people, we don't need to send robots? Or mapping missions? Since we don't have to worry about sending people for a while, we can cut spending by cutting these useless programs, too. I mean, we can always find ways to spend the money here. Was there nothing else we could have been doing in the 60s? Were there no other problems or wars that we should have been dealing with, instead of wasting our money in pissing contest with the Russians? We went to the moon and got nothing for it, except a few rocks and a few pictures.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by razark

You know what we haven't done for 38 years? We haven't gone beyond low Earth Orbit.

And look at all the technical breakthroughs, and advancements we have made in those 38 years. I could support your argument if we had been technologically static for the past 38 years. We seem to have done pretty well in those four decades without a manned deep space program.

But I like I keep writing, don't get me wrong. I like space exploration and I think the United States should be engaged in it. If we had been a little more responsible with our spending for the past four decades, we would be in a better position to afford this program.

As they said in the movie "The Right Stuff" No bucks, no Buck Rogers. Well, we aint got the bucks.... at this time. Hopefully soon we will have the bucks.

But hey, this is just one guy's opinion.

[razark]

Originally Posted by Platapus

..if we had been technologically static for the past 38 years.

I find that mildly amusing, considering how much of Constellation was basically ripped straight from the Apollo program.

Originally Posted by Platapus

As they said in the movie "The Right Stuff" No bucks, no Buck Rogers. Well, we aint got the bucks.... at this time. Hopefully soon we will have the bucks.

We've got the bucks. We're just spending them on other stuff. My main point is that the space program isn't exactly the huge money sink that people make it out to be.

Originally Posted by Platapus

But hey, this is just one guy's opinion.

It's better than some I've dealt with. At least you aren't claiming the whole thing was faked.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Platapus

And look at all the technical breakthroughs, and advancements we have made in those 38 years. I could support your argument if we had been technologically static for the past 38 years. We seem to have done pretty well in those four decades without a manned deep space program.

Technolgical but not Technical breakthroughs. We have lost a lot of knowledge we learned with Apollo. NASA scavenged though scrap yards and garage sales to get parts of Apollo to study to build Constellation.

How have we done well without a manned deep space program? We have landed a probe on only one world in the outer solar system and done two flybys! The Mars program has been somewhat more successful but not by much as we have yet to return any samples to Earth. In fact we have only done one Sample Return mission since Apollo. How many labs can you fit in a probe and how many can you fit in a University on Earth?

What about are space infrastructure? We got one Government funded space station, and one privately funded station which is home to a few cockroaches. Earth has had single space stations in orbit since just after Apollo ended.

If only we listed to Stanislaw Ulam and Freeman Dyson we would have Space Stations in orbit of Saturn by now...

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by razark

I find that mildly amusing, considering how much of Constellation was basically ripped straight from the Apollo program.

Well, personally I like the Faget design and consider that the way to go.

We've got the bucks. We're just spending them on other stuff. My main point is that the space program isn't exactly the huge money sink that people make it out to be.

At least we can agree on your first sentence. As soon as we stop spending money on the other stuff, we then can be in a position to spend it on "The Right Stuff" (sorry I could not resist)

At least you aren't claiming the whole thing was faked.

You sure about this?



I tell you what. Let's just ask Buzz Aldrin about this moon landing stuff



Uh on second thought, let's not ask him.

[mookiemookie]

So, when Obama says that the government should expand its role in healthcare, the opposition says the free market is king.

But when Obama says that the free market should play a larger role in space exploration, the opposition gets up in arms.

How can you take people seriously when they have no ideological consistency?