Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

  collectSPACE: Messages
  Space Events & Happenings
  NASA unveils moon program (Page 2)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search


This topic is 3 pages long:   1  2  3 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   NASA unveils moon program
Astro Bill
Member

Posts: 1329
From: New York, NY
Registered: Feb 2005

posted 09-21-2005 06:59 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Astro Bill   Click Here to Email Astro Bill     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by KSCartist:

NASA is not going to ask for 100 billion to do this, it's supposed to come out of existing budgets. 8 billion/year over 13 years.

Tim


The existing approved NASA budgets were approved by the US Congress line by line - project my project (e.g., the mission to Pluto). Is NASA now asking Congress to ignore the previous authorizations and give NASA a "blank check" (max $104-billion) for development of the CEV and a Return to the Moon mission in 2018-19? If they are suggesting the use of previously approved funds, which NASA programs will be cut and which NASA centers will be closed to get the $104-billion?

Astro Bill
Member

Posts: 1329
From: New York, NY
Registered: Feb 2005

posted 09-21-2005 07:21 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Astro Bill   Click Here to Email Astro Bill     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
It bloody well matters to me! I'm not getting any younger and I want to see the next generation of space explorers continuing mankind's destiny.

The fact that we may want to see a return mission to the Moon and a mission to Mars in our own lifetime does not matter to NASA. It may matter to each of us individually. My opinion is that 2019 will be the 50th anniversary of the Apollo XI Moon Landing and that NASA and political leaders thought that it was time to plan for a return mission.

However, this was before Katrina was entered into the equation. Katrina reminded Americans that we have many other needs on Earth. Rebuilding the Gulf region may cost $200-billion. The war in IRAQ will cost over $100-billion. Now, NASA is suggesting a re-allocation of funds from many space science applications to a 7th manned mission to the Moon. While Americans were willing to support NASA's current ajenda for space research, a return mission to the Moon may be more than Americans are willing to spend.

mjanovec
Member

Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005

posted 09-21-2005 09:32 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for mjanovec   Click Here to Email mjanovec     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I think the same arguments were stated back in the 1960s as reasons why we shouldn't go to the moon (i.e. "Shouldn't we fix the problems at home before going to the moon?").

The problem is...we'll never fix all of the problems in the world. Waiting for that ideal moment when the world's problems are solved would be a foolish endeavour. It will never happen. There will always be new problems to replace the old problems. The "right moment" will never come when we can declare all of the problems of the nation/world to be fixed.

In the meantime, the human race needs to get on with the business of being human...following it's destiny to explore and learn. Going to the moon is not a joy ride for a few select individuals. And it's no longer a race for national pride (the race with China some are citing is non-existant). It's an exploration for all us...adding to the accumulated knowledge of mankind.

If we stop exploring space, then what next? Should we stop exploring the oceans too? Should we unplug all of our observatories? Should we stop all research that does not immediately solve our current problems? All of this research costs money.

Or should we continue working on solving the problems at home while we also continue working on advancing the frontiers of science and exploration?

I think there is room for both. And since the moon missions do not require an influx of new money to pay for them (ending the Shuttle in 2010 will save a lot of money, remember), it is the most fiscally responsible plan NASA has ever proposed for manned exploration of other worlds. Remember that the budget for NASA is but a drop in the bucket compared to the overall budget. As a taxpayer, I want to see a penny or two of my tax dollar continue to fund space exploration. It's really a cheap investment for a tremendous payoff.

Future centuries will look back and only remember a few things about our current century. Our initial explorations of other worlds will be viewed as one of the bigger acheivements of our era. The perspective of the future should tell us that going to the other worlds is the right thing to do.

And the sad fact is that the few billion that NASA gets each year, if given up to other causes, would be swallowed up in an instant without solving much of anything. Being just a drop in the bucket, NASA's budget isn't some magical allotment of money that will solve all of our remaining problems.

collshubby
Member

Posts: 591
From: Madisonville, Louisiana
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 09-21-2005 10:31 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for collshubby   Click Here to Email collshubby     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I agree with mjanovec above. Good post!

Maybe I am being naïve, but I am truly excited by the recent announcements about this. I never got to see Apollo. I am glad that we are moving on to something…anything! I don’t care if it is the Moon, Mars, and asteroid or the bloody surface of the Sun I am just glad there is talk of leaving LEO. Don’t get me wrong; I enjoy each and every shuttle mission and I think the ISS is a grand endeavor, but after thirty years we need to make another giant leap.

------------------
Brian

385th Bombardment Group
B-17 Bomber "War Horse"
http://warhorse.omegappg.com

Astro Bill
Member

Posts: 1329
From: New York, NY
Registered: Feb 2005

posted 09-21-2005 10:57 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Astro Bill   Click Here to Email Astro Bill     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I am NOT at all suggesting that we can solve ALL of the "worlds" problems or even all of our own problems or even some of our own problems. You took my statement to the extrems for no reason. I am suggesting that this IS a critical time for the US. We must be realistic and try to repair our coastal cities after the recent disaster.

I am also NOT suggesting that we end all space exploration. MANNED space exploration is the matter in question - manned space exploration in relation to recent developments with Katrina & Iraq. We can easily proceed with un-manned space exploration within our budget. If you add humans to the exploration process, the cost multiplies. In spite of your remark that NASA's budget is a "drop in the bucket", I still think that $20-billion/year is a great deal of money and that it should be spend in a reasonable manner.

In the 1960's we did not have these two problems (Katrina & Iraq). We had a "cold war" with the USSR and we had a Civil Rights struggle in the US. JFK had a vision of the future and proposed a manned landing on the Moon by 1969. The current "vision" of the President is not vision, it is a repeat of something that we did six times in the past. Yes, we will do it anyway. But we must plan it in a manner that will allow us to repair the cities in the Gulf region first. We must have priorities. Manned space exploration beyond Earth's orbit is a luxury. How many other countries do it - NONE. You are right, the speculation about a "race" to the Moon with China is nonsense. Let them try, if they can.

This is a very inappropriate time for NASA and this administration to propose such an expenditure of funds to place a 7th US flag on the Moon when thousands of Americans are dying because we did not have the funds to shore up the levees in New Orleans. It has been proposed that the new Prescription Drug Program should be delayed for one year to help pay for Katrina's damage. It has been proposed that many other improvements in lives of Americans should be delayed to pay for Katrina's damage. They may well be delayed. Now, it is proposed that men should return to the Moon for goals that can be accomplished by unmanned vehicles. At this time, it is an inappropriate allocation of funds, and MOST Americans (61%) agree with that.

[This message has been edited by Astro Bill (edited September 21, 2005).]

DavidH
Member

Posts: 1217
From: Huntsville, AL, USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted 09-21-2005 11:35 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for DavidH   Click Here to Email DavidH     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
So how much exactly would you want to remove from NASA's proposed FY06 budget, Astro Bill?

What would you cut?

Whose jobs would you eliminate?

Given that Stennis and Michoud are two locations that will be heavily involved in implementation of exploration, what is the benefit of cutting high-paying jobs in the area as it rebuilds?

How would you use the funds you cut?

Would the long-term difference they would make in your new application outweigh the long-term difference cutting them from NASA would make?

Would the long-term difference for the people involved outweigh the effects of creating large-scale unemployment in high-skill jobs?

Are you sure that there are not other places in the federal budget where the same cut could be made with less impact?

Would you really not be willing to pay an extra 7 cents a day to be able to do both?

Speaking only for myself, if the cost of returning to the moon AND funding Katrina relief is only a little over two bucks a month more than it would be not to go to the moon, hell, yeah, I'll pay the extra two bucks. Heck, I'd even go three.

But maybe that's just me.

------------------
http://allthese worlds.hatbag.net/space.php
"America's challenge of today has forged man's destiny of tomorrow." - Commander Eugene Cernan, Apollo 17 Mission, 11 December 1972

Aztecdoug
Member

Posts: 1405
From: Huntington Beach
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 09-21-2005 11:37 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Aztecdoug   Click Here to Email Aztecdoug     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I am reminded of something very odd I saw a few years ago. I was on my way to a public signing that Aurora had kindly arranged with Dave Scott in Santa Monica. Here I am on my way to meet one of the great astros of our time who not only walked on the Moon, but drove a car on the moon.

A Moon program cut short by three missions so that the money could be spent to save the World etc...

Here I am getting off the 405 Freeway at National when at the bottom of the off ramp I spy a gentleman. He is there is the usual end of the off ramp attire with a sign saying the usual, will do whatever for food...

And I tell myself, I can't be seeing this. Reminded that I am on my way to meet a man who has walked on the Moon. It can't be... The homeless problem, poverty etc... were solved by canceling the last three Moon landings!

I can't imagine that the naysayers could have misled the public back then...

100 billion over how many years? A drop in the bucket when you look at what the Federal Govt spends on everything else... Doesn't over half the Fed Budget go to cash hand outs? Aka entitlements?

I say give us a little Buck Rogers for all the bucks in taxes that are pried away from us every year...

------------------
Kind Regards

Douglas Henry

Enjoy yourself and have fun.... it is only a hobby!
http://home.earthlink.net/~aztecdoug/

collshubby
Member

Posts: 591
From: Madisonville, Louisiana
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 09-21-2005 11:38 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for collshubby   Click Here to Email collshubby     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Bill,

I think that you have a vaild argument, and that those are points to be considered.

True, we have social ills, the war, and now natural disaster.

However, if you look back to the 1960's, we had social ills, a war, and natural disasters. But they still found the money to fly Apollo.

The world was in turmoil then, it is in turmoil now, and it will still be tomorrow.

Perhaps we need manned Moon/Mars programs to give us something to hope for.

------------------
Brian

385th Bombardment Group
B-17 Bomber "War Horse"
http://warhorse.omegappg.com

mjanovec
Member

Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005

posted 09-21-2005 01:11 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for mjanovec   Click Here to Email mjanovec     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Astro Bill:
I am NOT at all suggesting that we can solve ALL of the "worlds" problems or even all of our own problems or even some of our own problems. You took my statement to the extrems for no reason. I am suggesting that this IS a critical time for the US. We must be realistic and try to repair our coastal cities after the recent disaster.

I know you personally weren't suggesting that we solve all of the world's problems before returning to the moon...my post was more aimed at the general assertion among some members of the public that we fix everything here on Earth before flying into space.

True, the damage from Katrina is extensive. But in terms of perspective, the damage to infrastructure and property will be mostly
repaired by the time the Shuttle stops flying in 2010...perhaps a lot sooner than that. Obviously some lives won't be repaired, due to the loss of their friends and relatives. But one natural disaster need not stunt human exploration and progress. There will be plenty of other natural disasters in our future as well. We can't give up visions for the future in fear of the next big hurricane or tsunami. We clearly need to plan for future disasters, but it need not stop space exploration efforts. After all, returning to the moon in 2018 relies on currently budgeted money. No additional funds are being asked for.

Manned exploration is hard to put a value on. People can fly spacecraft better than machines can. When something goes a little haywire on a Mars or moon landing approach, having a live human being there to instantly react and correct for it will make all the difference. A split second decision from a human is what it might take to save a mission. When the 1201 alarm started to ring on Apollo 11, it took a human to realize we didn't have to abort the landing. Mission control will have less input in landing on Mars, because of the time delay in communications. Having a human there will make all of the difference.

Having a human there on the surface will allow us to instantly identify geological formations and select the best rock samples to gather. While a robot can do similar activities, there is no subsitute to the perspective gained by standing there and seeing it in person.

And then there are all of the intangible benefits of having humans there. When a human walks on Mars, he or she will represent the entire species. It will be humans who will relay to us the emotions and perspective of the accomplishment. It was humans on Apollo 8 who noticied the significance of the Earthrise and could relay their emotions back to us (after all, photographing Earthrise wasn't on the mission agenda!). It was a human exploration that made the world stop to watch a man first set foot on the moon. It was human exploration that brought a broader global perspective to the frailty of our blue oasis in space. It was human exploration that gave us, even for one brief moment, a feeling of global unity. The value of that can't be measured by dollars.

The gulf coast will be repaired. Lives will go on. But to me, the world will be a much duller place if we just sit back and let robots do the work of humans.

Astro Bill
Member

Posts: 1329
From: New York, NY
Registered: Feb 2005

posted 09-21-2005 05:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Astro Bill   Click Here to Email Astro Bill     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This thread is very interesting and has led to many interesting comments. But what must now dominate our minds are the hurricanes that are attacking our southern border. Katrina was one thing, but Rita is now a Cat. 5 and it may repeat Katrina's damage in Texas this time, near Houston. It is the 3rd largest hurricane in US history. There is finally talk that these severe hurricanes MAY be caused by global warming. The ocean and Gulf are warmer than usual for this time of year. Some think that this cannot be proven.

So here WE are discussing a possible manned return to the Moon in 2019. The cost of Katrina is estimated to be $200-billion. The cost of recovery from more hurricanes will add to this. How can we even discuss such an expenditure for a Manned Moon Landing when we will need all the funds that we can get to repair the damage. Wouldn't that be irresponsible?

[This message has been edited by Astro Bill (edited September 21, 2005).]

Astro Bill
Member

Posts: 1329
From: New York, NY
Registered: Feb 2005

posted 09-21-2005 06:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Astro Bill   Click Here to Email Astro Bill     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by mjanovec:
Future centuries will look back and only remember a few things about our current century.

I agree, future generations will judge what we do. But we do not have to wait for future generations to do that. We can see for ourselves that the problems with the levees in New Orleans have been neglected for decades in favor of other more "urgent" considerations.

This neglect of a persistant problem has so far resulted in the death of 1095 Americans. To neglect this area of the country again will be seen by future generations as negligent and irresponsible.

You cannot always say that "We can do BOTH." Sometimes we cannot do both humanitarian things and launch an ambitious manned space program. These are NOT normal times, these are NOT normal problems. They must be addressed NOW and ALL of our efforts and funding should be devoted to repairing the Gulf Coast.

We can continue with a space exploration program, but a manned space program beyond LEO at this time would be irresponsible. Just look at the polls of Americans on this subject.

[This message has been edited by Astro Bill (edited September 21, 2005).]

Astro Bill
Member

Posts: 1329
From: New York, NY
Registered: Feb 2005

posted 09-21-2005 06:22 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Astro Bill   Click Here to Email Astro Bill     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by DavidH:
So how much exactly would you want to remove from NASA's proposed FY06 budget, Astro Bill?
What would you cut?
Whose jobs would you eliminate?
Given that Stennis and Michoud are two locations that will be heavily involved in implementation of exploration, what is the benefit of cutting high-paying jobs in the area as it rebuilds?
How would you use the funds you cut?
Would the long-term difference they would make in your new application outweigh the long-term difference cutting them from NASA would make?
Would the long-term difference for the people involved outweigh the effects of creating large-scale unemployment in high-skill jobs?
Are you sure that there are not other places in the federal budget where the same cut could be made with less impact?
Would you really not be willing to pay an extra 7 cents a day to be able to do both?
Speaking only for myself, if the cost of returning to the moon AND funding Katrina relief is only a little over two bucks a month more than it would be not to go to the moon, hell, yeah, I'll pay the extra two bucks. Heck, I'd even go three.
But maybe that's just me.


It is interesting to see how one's comments are twisted to conform to your point of view.

I did not suggest that NASA should make any cuts in its budget. It was stated several times in this thread above that the funds are already appropriated in NASA's budget and that THEY can be used (re-allocated) to the Return to the Moon Program.

I asked the question of what programs will be cut. You cannot now turn around and ask me the same question. My point was that the US Congress approved NASA's budget line-by-line and that to re-allocate them to a manned lunar landing would have to be approved by Congress and that they would have to make the cuts - not me.

I can see why you would make this mistake. You probebly think that the US has unlimited funds to use for every eventuality. We would, if we keep the presses rolling. This would lead to enormous deficits and we will get overextended and the faith in the dollar as a standard of value will plummet. We must be fiscally and morally responsible. The people of the Gulf Coast need the funds more than a manned lunar mission does.

[This message has been edited by Astro Bill (edited September 21, 2005).]

bruce
Member

Posts: 916
From: Fort Mill, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2000

posted 09-21-2005 07:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for bruce   Click Here to Email bruce     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I say approve the NASA funds and cancel the war.

Best,
Bruce

carmelo
Member

Posts: 1047
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004

posted 09-21-2005 08:32 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for carmelo   Click Here to Email carmelo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Astro Bill:

The people of the Gulf Coast need the funds more than a manned lunar mission does.


[This message has been edited by Astro Bill (edited September 21, 2005).]



The "Great Society"need the funds more than a manned lunar mission does.
The Vietnam war need the funds more than a manned lunar mission does.

The economic recession of 70s need the funds more than a manned lunar mission does.

The "Reaganomics" need the funds more than a manned lunar mission does.
The the war of Gulf need the funds more than a manned lunar mission does.

The Clinton's politics need the funds more than a manned lunar mission does.
The war in Iraq need the funds more than a manned lunar mission does.
The people of the Gulf Coast need the funds more than a manned lunar mission does.

YES,BUT THE FUTURE WHEN BEGINS ?


[This message has been edited by carmelo (edited September 21, 2005).]

capoetc
Member

Posts: 2169
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005

posted 09-21-2005 08:37 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for capoetc   Click Here to Email capoetc     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I must strongly recommend that we resist turning this into a political discussion. Perhaps the "cancel the war" comment was made tongue-in-cheek, but those of us who are routinely flying into the Middle East are decidedly unappreciative of such remarks.

Only bad things can come from letting the discussion go in that direction.

------------------
John Capobianco
Camden DE

Astro Bill
Member

Posts: 1329
From: New York, NY
Registered: Feb 2005

posted 09-21-2005 09:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Astro Bill   Click Here to Email Astro Bill     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by bruce:
I say approve the NASA funds and cancel the war.

Best,
Bruce


I agree, but that is apparently out of the question during this administration.

Astro Bill
Member

Posts: 1329
From: New York, NY
Registered: Feb 2005

posted 09-21-2005 09:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Astro Bill   Click Here to Email Astro Bill     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by capoetc:
I must strongly recommend that we resist turning this into a political discussion. Perhaps the "cancel the war" comment was made tongue-in-cheek, but those of us who are routinely flying into the Middle East are decidedly unappreciative of such remarks.

Only bad things can come from letting the discussion go in that direction.


I see nothing wrong with discussing where the funds will come from, as long as an American makes the comments. I do not consider this a political discussion. It is a discussion of the near future of the manned space program. The far future will of course see a return to the Moon, but now be have more pressing problems.

Astro Bill
Member

Posts: 1329
From: New York, NY
Registered: Feb 2005

posted 09-21-2005 09:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Astro Bill   Click Here to Email Astro Bill     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by carmelo:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Astro Bill:
[b]
The people of the Gulf Coast need the funds more than a manned lunar mission does.


[This message has been edited by Astro Bill (edited September 21, 2005).]



The "Great Society"need the funds more than a manned lunar mission does.
The Vietnam war need the funds more than a manned lunar mission does.

The economic recession of 70s need the funds more than a manned lunar mission does.

The "Reaganomics" need the funds more than a manned lunar mission does.
The the war of Gulf need the funds more than a manned lunar mission does.

The Clinton's politics need the funds more than a manned lunar mission does.
The war in Iraq need the funds more than a manned lunar mission does.
The people of the Gulf Coast need the funds more than a manned lunar mission does.

YES,BUT THE FUTURE WHEN BEGINS ?


[This message has been edited by carmelo (edited September 21, 2005).][/B][/QUOTE]

I agree that you make a valid point here. But during the entire period covered by your list we DID continue to have a manned space program - we DID land on the Moon six times - we DID have over 100 successful space shuttle missions - we DID launch the Hubble Space Telescope - we DID build the International Space Station - we DID launch hundreds of satellites - we DID service and repair many of them - we DID send unmanned spacecraft to all of the planets (except Pluto) and even many of their moons. What more do you want. What did Italy contribute to the exploration of space? It is said that Italy does not have the funds, but Italy is not a third-world country.

While we proceeded with a vigerous space program we DID NOT shore up the levees in New Orleans - we DID NOT obtain national health care for even our most needy citizens - we DID NOT secure the borders to prevent terrorists or illegal aliens from entering our country illegally - we DID NOT find a cure for any major illness - we did not find a way to clean the air to prevent global warming, etc.

We made our choices over the years and now they are having consequences that we did not anticipate. To continue down the road that we have chosen will be disasterous. Yes, there will always be wars and natural disasters and setbacks of many kinds. But this recent series of disasters have actually resulted in the death of hundreds of Americans and the displacement of tens of thousands and destructions of hundreds of homes. This is not a financial decision, it is a moral decision. We must deal with the problems on Earth before we return to the Moon.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 42986
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 09-21-2005 10:09 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
There seems to be a misconception amongst some here that the decision to the go the Moon was something that NASA made on Monday.

The decision to re-focus NASA on exploration outside Earth orbit was announced on January 14, 2004.

The budget for that program was announced on January 14, 2004.

The timeline for that program was announced... all together now... January 14, 2004.

What NASA announced on Monday was their choice of how they will go, not should or would they.

So with that in mind, asking questions such as "What programs within NASA will be canceled instead?" indicate only that someone hasn't been paying attention. Budgets have been shuffling since January 2004 to focus NASA on a single goal: robotic and manned exploration of the Moon, Mars and beyond. If you aren't already aware of this, I suggest visiting www.nasawatch.com and reading through the archives of the past year and a half.

NASA's annual budget is roughly $16B, of which half each year until 2018 will be used to build a replacement for the Space Shuttle, begin servicing the International Space Station and launch a series of manned missions to the Moon. Unless anyone here is suggesting that NASA shouldn't be allowed to spend its own budget as it sees fit - or worse, that NASA doesn't deserve its own budget - then I do not understand why there is debate.

[This message has been edited by Robert Pearlman (edited September 21, 2005).]

zee_aladdin
Member

Posts: 781
From: California
Registered: Oct 2004

posted 09-21-2005 11:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for zee_aladdin   Click Here to Email zee_aladdin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I think we should go back to the moon with other astronauts from other countries, and let them help in paying for the bill.

We need to have an INTERNATIONAL crew with INTERNATAIONAL money to go to the moon ... IT IS ABOUT TIME

Astro Bill
Member

Posts: 1329
From: New York, NY
Registered: Feb 2005

posted 09-22-2005 06:50 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Astro Bill   Click Here to Email Astro Bill     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by zee_aladdin:
I think we should go back to the moon with other astronauts from other countries, and let them help in paying for the bill.

We need to have an INTERNATIONAL crew with INTERNATAIONAL money to go to the moon ... IT IS ABOUT TIME


I absolutely agree. Now is not the time for "doing things alone." We already landed on the Moon six times. What is there to prove? Does anyone agree with this?

DavidH
Member

Posts: 1217
From: Huntsville, AL, USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted 09-22-2005 09:39 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for DavidH   Click Here to Email DavidH     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Astro Bill:

It is interesting to see how one's comments are twisted to conform to your point of view.

I did not suggest that NASA should make any cuts in its budget. It was stated several times in this thread above that the funds are already appropriated in NASA's budget and that THEY can be used (re-allocated) to the Return to the Moon Program.

I asked the question of what programs will be cut. You cannot now turn around and ask me the same question. My point was that the US Congress approved NASA's budget line-by-line and that to re-allocate them to a manned lunar landing would have to be approved by Congress and that they would have to make the cuts - not me.

I can see why you would make this mistake. You probebly think that the US has unlimited funds to use for every eventuality. We would, if we keep the presses rolling. This would lead to enormous deficits and we will get overextended and the faith in the dollar as a standard of value will plummet. We must be fiscally and morally responsible. The people of the Gulf Coast need the funds more than a manned lunar mission does.


[This message has been edited by Astro Bill (edited September 21, 2005).]



Sorry. When you said hurricane relief was a greater need than a lunar mission, I assumed you meant that the money for the lunar mission should instead go to hurricane relief.

But, OK. You've lost me.

You say, "The people of the Gulf Coast need the funds more than a manned lunar mission does."

You also say, "I did not suggest that NASA should make any cuts in its budget."

Which is it? I guess you're right, I must have misunderstood you.

On the one hand, you keep talking about how, in the wake of Katrina, it's irresponsible to spend this money on going to the moon, and have said outright that the hurricane victims need the money more.

On the other hand, though, you say you're not talking about taking any money away from NASA.

I thought maybe you were working under the misimpression that the lunar return effort would involve adding more money to NASA's budget, and that THAT money should go to hurricane relief, but you clearly make reference to the fact that freeing up the money for the lunar mission will require making cuts to NASA's budget.

So what exactly are you saying?

One minute is seems like you're saying that the money from NASA's budget that would go to the lunar program should instead go to hurricane victims.

The next minute you're saying you're not proposing taking any money away from NASA's budget.

Unless I'm missing something, you're just using the hurricane as a straw man argument. You say it's irresponsible to go to the moon because of Katrina, and you throw in a lot of rhetoric about limited funds, etc. etc., but you also say you don't support taking NASA's money to give to Katrina. So as best I can tell, you're just using the emotional impact of the hurricane to support your argument, without actually proposing anything that would make a difference.

If you're serious about not wanting to cut the budget, then all your saying is "Because of the hurricane, instead of going to the moon, we should spend the same amount of money on what we've been doing for the last 30 years." Um, how exactly does that help with hurricane relief?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just try and summarize what I'm reading that your saying. What am I missing?

------------------
http://allthese worlds.hatbag.net/space.php
"America's challenge of today has forged man's destiny of tomorrow." - Commander Eugene Cernan, Apollo 17 Mission, 11 December 1972

mjanovec
Member

Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005

posted 09-22-2005 09:39 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for mjanovec   Click Here to Email mjanovec     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Astro Bill:
While we proceeded with a vigerous space program we DID NOT shore up the levees in New Orleans - we DID NOT obtain national health care for even our most needy citizens - we DID NOT secure the borders to prevent terrorists or illegal aliens from entering our country illegally - we DID NOT find a cure for any major illness - we did not find a way to clean the air to prevent global warming, etc.

Anyone can create a lopsided list of things we didn't do, then use that as some sort of justification why we shouldn't spend money on other programs that we don't like.

You make it sounds as if flying in space prevented us from fixing the levees (or fixing any of the items you listed)...as if the two are closely connected and draw their funds from the same portion of the budget.

John K. Rochester
Member

Posts: 1292
From: Rochester, NY, USA
Registered: Mar 2002

posted 09-22-2005 10:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for John K. Rochester   Click Here to Email John K. Rochester     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by capoetc:
I must strongly recommend that we resist turning this into a political discussion. Perhaps the "cancel the war" comment was made tongue-in-cheek, but those of us who are routinely flying into the Middle East are decidedly unappreciative of such remarks.

Only bad things can come from letting the discussion go in that direction.


A) It's already a political discussion.. budgets are politics

B) While the American people appreciate all that members of the miltary are doing.. the majority of them also believe that this is turning into another war with no possibility of winning.. when one side has to abide by the "rules" of war, and the other does not..

Astro Bill
Member

Posts: 1329
From: New York, NY
Registered: Feb 2005

posted 09-22-2005 11:14 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Astro Bill   Click Here to Email Astro Bill     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by John K. Rochester:
A) It's already a political discussion.. budgets are politics

B) While the American people appreciate all that members of the miltary are doing.. the majority of them also believe that this is turning into another war with no possibility of winning.. when one side has to abide by the "rules" of war, and the other does not..



I agree John. But "appreciate" is such a general term. I wish that we had better words to state how we feel about the devotion of our troops in Iraq. It destroys me when I hear that more have been killed and when I see their names and ages on the news. They are all doing a great job and I pray for their return as soon as possible.

Yes, when we are discussing NASA it is a political discussion. I know that we will proceed with plans for a moon landing by 2019. I am not trying to stop that. But we must be realistic. Over $200-billion will be spend repairing the Gulf Coast and perhaps more after Rita hits. Isn't a "Trip to the Moon on Gossimer Wings" (song) a fairy tale when we look at the real world in LA, AL, MS and possibly TX?

[This message has been edited by Astro Bill (edited September 22, 2005).]

Matt T
Member

Posts: 1368
From: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Registered: May 2001

posted 09-22-2005 11:39 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Matt T   Click Here to Email Matt T     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I think Carmelo made an excellent point above that addresses the wider reasons to go back to the moon today, rather than waiting until US domestic and foreign policy/weather conditions permit.

But of course as he's not American Astro Bill will not be allowing it I suggest others do.

Cheers,
Matt

P.S. Bill, please disregard my comments too.

------------------
www.spaceracemuseum.com

Astro Bill
Member

Posts: 1329
From: New York, NY
Registered: Feb 2005

posted 09-22-2005 01:38 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Astro Bill   Click Here to Email Astro Bill     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Matt T:
I think Carmelo made an excellent point above that addresses the wider reasons to go back to the moon today, rather than waiting until US domestic and foreign policy/weather conditions permit.

But of course as he's not American Astro Bill will not be allowing it I suggest others do.

Cheers,
Matt

P.S. Bill, please disregard my comments too.


Very funny. My comment regarding being American was meant only in relation to those who express an opinion about our participation in the war in Iraq. Americans can criticize us as much as they wish. IMHO others should not criticize our efforts in the war unless they have troops there.

You like misquoting people, don't you?

How do you make those smiley faces on your comments???

mjanovec
Member

Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005

posted 09-22-2005 03:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for mjanovec   Click Here to Email mjanovec     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Astro Bill:
Isn't a "Trip to the Moon on Gossimer Wings" (song) a fairy tale when we look at the real world in LA, AL, MS and possibly TX?

No, it isn't. The current problems of the gulf coast will be distant memories to most when man once again imprints his (or her) feet on the lunar surface. Or should a temporary problem today really dictate the next 20-30 years of space exploration efforts?

Do you truly believe we should let a current situation permanently stunt manned exploration (or stunt it for at least two more decades)? If so, do you believe man has any business whatsoever to go into space AT ALL? At what point do you think it would be acceptible to plan a manned mission to the moon or Mars? Another 50 years? Another 100 years? 500 years? And when we reach that magic point in time when you'd feel we are ready, we would then need another 10-30 years minimum to build the hardware to mount the mission. What is the likelihood of another devastating natural disaster occuring in that timeframe?

Trust me...no matter when we decide to go, there will always be a problem in the world that some people will argue is a good justification not to spend money on the space program.

The truth is, the longer we wait to return to the moon and explore Mars, the more expensive it will cost. We had the Saturn rocket technology in the 60s/70s that we essentially threw away. All of the money spent developing the Saturn technology was wasted when we stopped building the rockets. Luckily, it appears we have existing technologies now (Shuttle boosters) that can be modified for the moon mission. If we make the mistake of not taking advantage of it now, we'll likely lose our capability to build those boosters as well (once the tooling is dismantled). Then it's back to the drawing board to redesign, retool, rebuild, and replan the missions. And that all adds up to more money.

Let's fly as soon as we can. Using proven technology will be the cheapest and safest way to accomplish our goals.

To me, the true fairy tale is the notion we can wait until a better time in history before continuing the progress of our species.

[This message has been edited by mjanovec (edited September 22, 2005).]

DavidH
Member

Posts: 1217
From: Huntsville, AL, USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted 09-22-2005 03:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for DavidH   Click Here to Email DavidH     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Bravo!

Matt T
Member

Posts: 1368
From: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Registered: May 2001

posted 09-22-2005 05:31 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Matt T   Click Here to Email Matt T     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
No Bill, you like moving the goalposts.

You're going to have to either a) make yourself clear about exactly what you're saying or b) stop accusing everybody of misquoting/misrepresenting/misunderstanding you. Given that many of your answers accuse others of distorting your views you maybe have to wonder why? You might know the context you mean things in, but the rest of us can't mind read.

And as for smileys - put a colon then a close bracket symbol in your next post. The cS message board software will take care of the rest for you. Semi-colon and close bracket for a smiling wink, colon and capital D for a laughing smile.

Voila!

Cheers,
Matt

------------------
www.spaceracemuseum.com

[This message has been edited by Matt T (edited September 22, 2005).]

John Charles
Member

Posts: 339
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Registered: Jun 2004

posted 09-22-2005 05:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for John Charles     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I have skimmed over many of the posts on this topic, and hope my comments below are not redundant.

Astro Bill didn't mention that NASA does not unilaterally reallocate the Congressionally-approved monies within its budget, except as Congress permits.

The roll-out of the new Moon program was delayed from July to September specifically to allow the Aministrator and his staff to brief their bosses in the White House and then the Congress, which was on its summer recess. So the "60-Day Study" was kept under wraps (except for leaks to NASAWatch, etc.) until it could get tentative approval from Congress. There will be much more discussion and many more approvals, each and every year, before the next American steps onto the Moon.

Something else, relating to spending the money "to solve our problems right here on Earth." Someone up-thread mentioned the irony in cancelling the last three missions to the benefit of our Earthly problems. It seems to me that the whole experiment has already been performed: President Bush (#41) proposed the Space Exploration Initiative in 1989, but it was never enacted because that money would be better applied to our Earthly problems. (Also, NASA may have inflated that budget request to include too many pet projects.)

For all I know, the Portuguese may have used the same justification to stop exploration in the 16th century, and the Chinese may have used it to justify withdrawing from exploring centuries before that. But somehow our Earthly problems seem to have survived.

As someone else mentioned, NASA's budget is a pittance compared to what is already spent on many other problem areas--it is only about 1% of the US federal budget--it just seems bigger because it is so visible.

Thanks to all for an interesting and timely thread.

------------------
John Charles
Houston, Texas

Blackarrow
Member

Posts: 3120
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 09-22-2005 06:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Blackarrow     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Sorry if this comment seems harsh, but some of the messages in this thread make me think that some Collectspace members are more interested in collecting the autographs of people who have previously flown in space than in the real business of future flights into space, to the Moon, to Mars, and beyond.

I hope there won't be an exchange of messages on a future version of this forum along the lines of: "Well, only three days until the approaching asteroid destroys the Earth. What a pity we didn't develop a proper spacefaring capability when we had a chance. Maybe we could have done something about it."

dss65
Member

Posts: 1156
From: Sandpoint, ID, USA
Registered: Mar 2003

posted 09-22-2005 09:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for dss65   Click Here to Email dss65     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Simply put, we who have the capability of advancing the sphere of exploration and knowledge of our species have a responsibility to all of humankind to do so. Granted, we do not have unlimited funds available for this purpose, but we must forge ahead with what we can afford. And we CAN afford this program. In one way or another, history will show that we CANNOT afford not to move ahead.

If I didn't believe that, I don't know why I'd have any interest in this hobby at all.

------------------
Don

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 42986
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 09-22-2005 09:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Astro Bill:
Isn't a "Trip to the Moon on Gossimer Wings" (song) a fairy tale when we look at the real world in LA, AL, MS and possibly TX?
Bill, should NASA have canceled Apollo 12?

From the current issue of TIME Magazine:

quote:
Before Katrina, Hurricane Camille became the most intense storm to ever hit America's mainland. It arrived on the Mississippi coast on August 17, [1969], killed 248 and wreaked $1.5 billion [in 1969 funds] in damage.

DavidH
Member

Posts: 1217
From: Huntsville, AL, USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted 09-23-2005 12:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for DavidH   Click Here to Email DavidH     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
I hope there won't be an exchange of messages on a future version of this forum along the lines of: "Well, only three days until the approaching asteroid destroys the Earth. What a pity we didn't develop a proper spacefaring capability when we had a chance. Maybe we could have done something about it."

Sadly, I'm pretty sure I would be one of the guys that, with three days left to live, would still be sitting around posting on collectSPACE.

------------------
http://allthese worlds.hatbag.net/space.php
"America's challenge of today has forged man's destiny of tomorrow." - Commander Eugene Cernan, Apollo 17 Mission, 11 December 1972

Rob Joyner
Member

Posts: 1308
From: GA, USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 09-23-2005 09:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rob Joyner   Click Here to Email Rob Joyner     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I can understand the ever-present 'spaceflight is a waste of taxpayers money' rant coming from those who aren't interested in this sort of thing, but I find it strange and funny that it is going on here!
Robert has already posted here that the NASA budget is 16 billion. Yeah, that's a heck of a lot of money, but one needs to look at the overall picture. Forget about the dollar amount and look at the percentage. I don't have exact figures and I wish I had video taped Sam Gemar when he spoke at KSC on the day STS-114 was scrubbed. He read off many U.S. budgets relating to the military, health care, etc. and my jaw dropped. Gemar put it like this. He asked if anyone's mother had ever baked a cake when they were young. Almost everyone raised their hand. He asked if they remembered that big bowl of icing. They did. Gemar continued, (paraphrasing) "Remember licking the bowl when your Mom was done icing the cake? Well, that's what NASA gets. THAT'S their budget!"
Anyone who has a problem with the small 'percentage' NASA is given needs to take off their blinders and ask their elected officials just where did all that icing actually go.

Philip
Member

Posts: 5952
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 09-24-2005 04:41 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Philip   Click Here to Email Philip     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Interesting point brought up : Sea exploration in the 16th Century ...
Well going to the Moon and Mars can be "compared" with those explorers ( would Columbus' ships have stayed in sight of the coastline ( Moon-mission ) they would never have discover the new continent ( Mars-mission ).
O.K. it's a too simple comparison but I really prefer a Mars-mission ( the Launchvehicles and other hardware e.g. CEV, spacesuits etc ... ) could be flight-tested on a lunar mission but there's no use for a permanent Moon-base ...
Scientists & Engineers have already spend years & years in the arctic and in the desert of Utah in order to test the prctical way of dealing with a Mars mission...
See: http://www.marsonearth.org/

http://www.marssociety.org/mdrs/index.asp

Best regards,
Philip
http://mars-literature.skynetblogs.be/

mjanovec
Member

Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005

posted 09-24-2005 09:44 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for mjanovec   Click Here to Email mjanovec     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
could be flight-tested on a lunar mission but there's no use for a permanent Moon-base ...

...unless, of course, we want to study lunar geology, establish a space telescope on the moon, do research into extracting energy from the moon, test long term affects of radiation, etc.

Bases in the arctic might help us learn to establish settlements in somewhat harsh conditions, but I have to think there are some advantages of testing it out first in a vacuum that experiences severe swings in temperature and is exposed to radiation. None of that can be tested in the arctic.

star61
Member

Posts: 294
From: Bristol UK
Registered: Jan 2005

posted 09-24-2005 04:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for star61   Click Here to Email star61     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Sometimes these threads are so....deja-vou?
Money is all we are talking about here. What is money?....
It`s a system for bartering goods and services, nothing more!
Hence, Apollo costs absolutely nothing....zilch...it was all for free.
Paid for by tax dollars which came from men and women designing building and flying spacecraft.
Technology invented for Apollo is still creating profits and tax dollars for the companies and government.
Science and engineering are two of the very few fields of human endeavour that actually produces real product and value for the human race.
This is probably the 3rd or 4th time i`ve made this comment in response to the words of astro bill. " We need to get people far enough away from Earth to see it as a pale blue dot. The more and the sooner the better". I believe my kids deserve a future with less conflict and more exploration. I spend my time on problems in Physics. One of those problems is energy supply. The $200billion dollars it will cost to rebuild the gulf coast could easily have given us practical nuclear fusion at $10bill per yr over the last 20 years. Radically reducing are dependance on oil , reducing global warming, hence , reducing the effects of weather and therefore , saving lives.
That technology could be developed for space flight, making it cheaper and more wide ranging. But of course those who hold the purse strings are so narrow minded, only thinking of their time in power. It makes me sick...
Once again John Young hit it on the head....with out spaceflight mankind may well not survive!!
The reasons may be even more subtle than John realises....though i doubt it...
If you still do`nt get it, Katrina and Rita are telling us very clearly..."Move out, get perspective, or die!"

Phil

rjb1elec
Member

Posts: 212
From: Merseyside, England
Registered: Oct 2004

posted 09-25-2005 11:47 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for rjb1elec   Click Here to Email rjb1elec     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hi
I was in florida on Vacation,and in kennedy space center when it was announced how we would be going back to the moon(what an amazing place).I know it took time for the advancement in technologies and spin offs from the apollo era which benefitted everyone,to filter through.
It would be good if the uk government could also invest in this long term plan.i wonder also at what advancements this new challenge will bring,I know my kids,who were not brought up with the apollo moon landings,feel good that things are finally moving forward. thanks.

regards richard


This topic is 3 pages long:   1  2  3 

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Copyright 2020 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a





advertisement