Print 46 comment(s) - last by callmeroy.. on Nov 9 at 11:21 AM



The future of NASA is murky as different opinions are voiced












Comments     Threshold


RE: Why start from scratch?
By TSS on 11/5/2009 7:40:42 AM , Rating: 2
Why mars is probably the same question they asked back in the 60's, only then it was "Why the moon?"

Because you can damnit. It inspires people.

Cutting edge is not doing something you've already done, or what's "possible".

RE: Why start from scratch?
By freeagle on 11/5/2009 9:35:35 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is that you spend a lot of money for a extremely difficult project, such as the trip to mars. This project will probably create very small ( if any ) infrastructure for future missions. This means, another such trip will cost a lot as well and the public wont be as eager to finance it. But if you put the money you have now to create viable facilities to make future missions easier ( and cheaper ), you could end up with several mars like missions, but with some delay.

RE: Why start from scratch?
By delphinus100 on 11/8/2009 11:37:28 PM , Rating: 2
Understand, I'm all in favor of a rationally done return to the Moon, and missions to Mars...

But 'inspiration' is at the bottom of my list.

I'm old enough to remember Apollo well (and was a space buff well before that), and it showed me that 'inspiration' lasts up until the second, maybe third mission (except for space enthusiasts who already care). And the public attention span is, if anything, shorter now than in the late 60's.

This is another argument for doing it in the most cost-effective way we can (which is not the direction we seem to be going now, with Constellation as it's currently configured), so that it doesn't require massive, ongoing public support (which tends to translate into Congressional support), and if anything stay below the public radar.

I don't know if anyone's 'inspired' by research in Antarctica, but neither does anyone complain about what it costs. That's largely because it's done with mature, economical transportation technologies that are also used in many other applications.

That's the point we need to get to in human spaceflight. What was said about emphasizing overall space transportation/propulsion technologies (that would let us reach the Moon and NEOs and Mars and beyond on a regular basis) was absolutely correct. (as well as more work on other important, but destination-agnostic technologies, like long-term life support, and combatting long-term microgravity effects and galactic cosmic ray/solar flare protection).

Those who excessively focus on the Moon or Mars, and argue with each other over their respective importance, except their common notion that they're 'tired of boring round-and-round in LEO' (as if we've done everything that could be done there) and 'dump the Shuttle' (without a better reusable launcher to replace it), are like mountaineers who want to go straight for the peak from their downtown hotel, when they don't even have a good way to reach the mountain and establish a fracking base camp...

