How to save $100 Billion

[Red Harvest]

First, let me say I have long been a supporter of space exploration. I still support the shuttle, although I believe NASA management still needs a serious rework. I was thrilled with Cassini. I still support the Hubble, and am very upset that the Bush administration has seen fit to let it proceed toward an earlier death than necessary. I also support the Pluto Express that is still waiting for funding... I'm not too impressed by the International Space Station though.

I do not support the "Return to the Moon" program. NASA Return to the Moon Program (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/09/18/space.moon.reut/index.html) This planned $100 billion venture looks like a waste of money. NASA can't even get the shuttle kinks worked out. I don't think this current organization is up to the task. Besides, we've already been to the moon, what purpose would this serve? Let's spend the money on something with more promise, doing something new...we have plenty of pressing issues that could benefit from the investment. Reaching the moon again? It was nice and all, I remember standing there as a little boy watching it on the a Zenith console TV (with its vacuum tubes.) I guess I don't see anything visionary in repeating the trip. Now set a goal of a working fusion reactor by 2018, and you've got my interest, both at a personal and professional level.

[Papewaio]

A working fusion reactor that is small enough would allow people to land on Mars ~:cheers:

I do think we should use more off the shelf russian launced unmanned probes.

====

Get corporations involved. Allow one seat in each mission to go to the choice of a corporation... be it the Chairperson, CEO, elite athlete for advertising, joyrider... add a price tag that is dependent on how useful the person would be to the mission $1 billion for deadweight down to $50 million to someone who can pull their own weight.

Allow a national lottery for a person to go up. Spend $10 and you too may go to the moon for 7 days... I can see a lot of money comming in from that... 50 million applicants, half a billion dollars.

Allow international cooperation.

[GoreBag]

As much as I find the prospect of space exploration exciting, I don't think it can be manage at this point in history.

[Divinus Arma]

I thought this was going to be a "bash Iraq War thread". Red Harvest+save $100 billion. ~D

I agree Red, this is a waste of money and effort. I think the Space Program used to capture our imagination with possibilities, but until we get a major technological advance, like fusion reactors, or near light speed travel, then this is a waste of time.

Lets just give all that money away to the poor crack hos instead. ~D

Seriously though, their are better things we can do with that money. How about investing in alternative fuels for Christ's sake? Let's get off this oil nipple and start feeding ourselves!

[Soulforged]

You want to save tons of billions then legallice it!! :smoking: No seriously.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I do not support the "Return to the Moon" program.... This planned $100 billion venture looks like a waste of money. NASA can't even get the shuttle kinks worked out. I don't think this current organization is up to the task. Besides, we've already been to the moon, what purpose would this serve? Let's spend the money on something with more promise, doing something new...we have plenty of pressing issues that could benefit from the investment. Reaching the moon again? It was nice and all, I remember standing there as a little boy watching it on the a Zenith console TV (with its vacuum tubes.) I guess I don't see anything visionary in repeating the trip. Now set a goal of a working fusion reactor by 2018, and you've got my interest, both at a personal and professional level.

I was worried for a moment Red. I thought you were starting an "I used to support but now..." thread. I read on, and ended up agreeing with you. A return to the moon would be a bit limited, I agree.

I liked your fusion reactor program, and here's a few others.

1) Don't just go to the moon, colonize the sucker and mine it -- start making it produce. Set up assisted livings in low Grav. Set up power collectors miles across and then tight beam the energy back here for use. I agree with you -- 500 pounds of moon rocks and another "we were here flag" won't cut it.

2) Develop a constant boost ship capable of 1G+ manuevers for up to 30 days by 2020. Then we can tour the galaxy faster than Columbus toured the Carribean.

3) Build a transatmospheric beanstalk by 2050 to obviate the need for expensive transatmospheric travel.

These efforts are not insane, merely pushing the envelope about as far as you can dare. That's where the amazing stuff happens and that's when the spinoffs change history.

The computer that had to be developed to guide the Apollo command module to the moon and back weighed 70 pounds and had the computing power of a Commodore 64. 20 years later I bought my first computer -- a Turbo XT with 20 meg hard-drive, woo-hoo! -- and now computers have become a basic tool for the working class American.

Seamus

[bmolsson]

One option would be to wait until an alien race finds us and can take us out in the space on their already paid for ships. Some research in diplomacy and lingustical skills would of course be needed so we don't great them with a "War against Aliens" when they arrive........

[AntiochusIII]

One option would be to wait until an alien race finds us and can take us out in the space on their already paid for ships. Some research in diplomacy and lingustical skills would of course be needed so we don't great them with a "War against Aliens" when they arrive........That would be another issue that the conservatives and the liberals disagree on. ~;)

[Degtyarev14.5]

Leave it AntiochusIII, this is not the place.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

~:confused: I thought this was the place.

Am I in the right room? And where are the hors d'vours?

I guess no one wants to hear my "privitize space" program, huh. That would save lots of money that could be better spent, on like, tanks.

[Papewaio]

So what will the US of A do when China lands on the Moon and Nasa can't get there?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Blow it up?

Or just conquer it.

:yes:

[Red Harvest]

Leave it AntiochusIII, this is not the place.

I actually thought the "War against Aliens" was pretty funny. ~D I mean, we've got serious discussions about a giant wall down south... Think about the giant bubble!

[Red Harvest]

So what will the US of A do when China lands on the Moon and Nasa can't get there?
This is one of the pitfalls of the whole thing: risk a lot with no potential gain. China should be able to accomplish this, and they have an active program, so I expect they would get their first. We've got a NASA that has lost its "can do" spirit, that has been in caretaker mode rather than explorer mode for too long. Plus unlike the Kennedy days, what is the compelling need to do this?

If you really want to do something big you have to aim for Mars...and that is probably two orders of magnitude more difficult and prohibitively more expensive for a govt/citizenry that don't even feel the need to pull in enough tax revenue to cover current expenditures.

[Papewaio]

Mars is a 500 day voyage... I suggest having a 500 day stay in the International Space Station, followed with a 500 day stay on the Moon, followed by a trip around Venus. These are all good goals that are useful steps in getting to the level of ability to go to Mars.

Afterall it was Apollo 11 that got to go to the moon... a whole lot of steps happened before they got their.

[AntiochusIII]

Leave it AntiochusIII, this is not the place.What did I do? It was, is, and will be until the arrival of the Aliens(or us to them) just a joke. :dizzy2:

After that, well, see you guys in the debates. ~:)

[Red Harvest]

Afterall it was Apollo 11 that got to go to the moon... a whole lot of steps happened before they got their.
Yes, but it was a whole program arranged around that destination. One of the big things wrong with the current proposal is it isn't ambitious enough to inspire and prompt us to "do the other things" (to quote Kennedy.) It won't attract the sort of people and creativity needed to accomplish more. It lacks vision and instead relies on nostalgia.

[Papewaio]

I agree.

One of the fundamental issues is that NASA is so timid. Look at how many scientists have died in Artic and Antartic research or other exploration work then compare that with NASA wetting its pants everytime their is an accident. Look at car racing for starters...

More of the Astronauts are dropping from the program because of old age and lack of oppourtunity to fly. Take more risks and actually do something.

NASA certainly does not follow the motto who dare wins.

Theirs mission statement seems to be Cottonpack the elite to the point they can no longer function.

[bmolsson]

What did I do? It was, is, and will be until the arrival of the Aliens(or us to them) just a joke. :dizzy2:


Actually, my comment have pun intention, but it also have a very serious thought. Why go to space when we can expect to be visited ? To have a communication program preparing for a visit is not more a long shoot than going for colonisation of other planets in my honest opinion....... :bow:

[Papewaio]

Lets see in history who does better in exploring or waiting.

Hmmm Spain vs Incas?
Netherlands vs Indonesia?

It never pays to sit on your butt and wait for a saber tooth tiger to walk into the cave...

[discovery1]

~:confused: I thought this was the place.

Am I in the right room? And where are the hors d'vours?

I guess no one wants to hear my "privitize space" program, huh. That would save lots of money that could be better spent, on like, tanks.

I want to hear it!


X-PRIZE! Sure Rutan won, but still....

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

All right - after I get home from school!

[English assassin]

3) Build a transatmospheric beanstalk by 2050 to obviate the need for expensive transatmospheric travel.

This is easy, all you need is some magic beans. You do have to watch out for the giant at the top though.

Seriously, Red pretty much stared and ended the thread in one post. Sort fusion out, please, and then fly to the moon.

Either that, or fix my personal gripe, namely the complete lack of rocket bikes. (I mean, we ARE now living in the future, right? Why am I still riding on two wheels, on the ground, with an internal combustion engine? )

[Geoffrey S]

It all reeks of an attempt to generate good PR.

[yesdachi]

I am totally for any funding for NASA. They have been neglected for too long IMO as have many science areas. I think that the private sector greatly benefits from NASA’s research and lessons learned. Just fumbling around truing to get to the moon they might make a new something that could benefit the quality of life for all. My fingers are crossed. ~:)

[BDC]

Bah, got to be done sometime. And it's just far too big an investment for corporations to pull off just yet. Plus I'm not sure any governments really want several huge companies running the space above their heads.

[Papewaio]

Mr Griffin said that in comparable terms, the new moon program would cost only 55 per cent of the Apollo missions and would not need an increase in NASA's budget.

But the cost is expected to meet opposition in Congress, which is already facing major debates over the five billion dollars a month going to the Iraq war as well as the rebuilding the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina.

1969 to 2018 that is 49 years... and they reckon the relative cost has dropped by 55%... so every fifty years the cost will half (perhaps)... so in a hundred years the cost would be getting towards 10% of that what it cost the Apollo mission.

Of course the more money and competition and widening of scope the costs would diminish faster.

The whole program to the moon could be paid for by less then 2 years of budget that is being spent on Iraq...

[Adrian II]

Now set a goal of a working fusion reactor by 2018, and you've got my interest, both at a personal and professional level.So sorry. The goal's been set in Cadarache, France: the $13 billion International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor project or ITER. France was chosen because of its superior expertise in peaceful use of thermonuclear energy. Soon Europeans will be able to fly over it in the 840-seater Airbus A380 superjumbo, a Franco-German plane powered by Rolls-Royce engines and the largest passenger airliner ever built. Or they might sail the Queen Mary 2, the largest ocean liner ever launched (151,400 tons) and a product of Franco-British engineering commandeered by British Cunard Line with the use of American money and built on the Alstom Warves in Saint-Nazaire, France, because French labour productivity is about the highest in the Western world.

Instead of waging senseless wars, running up $100 billion bills for a 'been there, done that' project like the Moon or researching new 'nukes' all the time (weapons that can hardly be used anyway in today's interdependent world), why don't you try something productive?

If you guys are ready to rebuild New Orleans with coastal defenses with a 1:50 failure rate, you might consider taking a look at the Delta Works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Works) over here (1:10.000 rate).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/27/Oosterscheldedam.jpg
Oosterschelde surge barrier

And if you have finally sorted out the $6.2 billion San Francisco east span debacle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco-Oakland_Bay_Bridge#Eastern_span_replacement) you may want take a leaf from the Millau viaduct in France. British architect, French engineering, private finance. Oh, and completed before time.

http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/projects/millau_viaduct/images/Millau-1.jpg
Millau viaduct, finished January 2005

[el_slapper]

Millau's Viaduct is a real wonder. Of course, the area is not subject to earthquakes, it helps..... but even without that kind ot threats, it still is impressive.

That being said, I do not see going to the moon as lost money. That kind of big project does involve MUCH technological innovation - as a war, without the blood, and for a much lesser cost. Doing something that has never done before(setting up a permanent base on the moon in this case) does call for engineer's giving their best.

[Spino]

I am an avid supporter of space exploration but I really don't see the need for another manned moon landing program unless it is done to steal thunder away from China's 'planned' moon landing which they hope to have happen in 15-20(?) years time. In fact I'm fairly certain the reason why the Bush administration brought the subject up was to provide a reaction to China's statement which kind of slipped past the radar of the mainstream media a few years ago. Rather odd that Bush's statement received more coverage and flak than China's (after all the US has already 'been there, done that'), a nation that is taking it's first steps into manned exploration of the solar system.

I deliberately included the term 'manned' because the last two Mars rovers proved that it is simply unneccessary to send human beings out on exploration voyages. Autonomous or remote controlled probes don't need to breath, eat, defecate, sleep, exercise or stretch. These probes can also endure far more physical punishment than human beings (i.e. prolonged G forces due to acceleration, deceleration & maneuvering, exposure to solar radiation, etc.). Basically the space and mass (supplies, fuel, etc.) required to support human beings on long voyages can instead be diverted towards bigger, more advanced probes that can reach their final destination in less time. Because of the factors I mentioned the cost to send a remote probe to the moon or mars simply pales in comparison to what it would cost to send a team of human beings. And last but not least when a robotic/AI probe gets lost or trashed, there is a comparatively small loss of morale (on a national level) versus when a human crew perishes.

Sure, the AI and robotics fields are in their infancy but it's a hell of alot easier and cheaper to deal with those gray matter rooted obstacles than it is dealing with the innate physical requirements and weaknesses of human beings. Eventually we will devise extremely effective, reliable and compact power sources for these probes and when that happens their capabilities and overall effectiveness will skyrocket.

Manned exploration missions are a necessary stepping stone that will one day lead to human beings colonizing other planets. It is inevitable that we should colonize the stars and it would better guarantee the survival of our species in case anything happens to Earth. However, as of right now sending a human being anywhere is more of a glorious, egotistical achievement than a practical one.

[_Martyr_]

I agree with most of what has been said. But I think some people are missing the point that viable fussion strongly depends on Moon exploration. The Moon is the only plentiful source of H3 in our grasp. H3 is one of the most promising potential fuels for nuclear fussion. Strategically, going back to the Moon can possibly be explained by this. However, I honestly cant for the life of me understand the need for MANNED missions...? This seems absolutely wasteful! ~:confused:

[Viking]

I guess no one wants to hear my "privitize space" program, huh. That would save lots of money that could be better spent, on like, tanks.

Crap!


If you really want to do something big you have to aim for Mars...and that is probably two orders of magnitude more difficult and prohibitively more expensive for a govt/citizenry that don't even feel the need to pull in enough tax revenue to cover current expenditures.

That`s why we need to return to the Moon; it`s the first step toward human exploration of Mars, wich is actually interesting and important. This time "we" are going to stay and build permanent bases. Also We`re going to use the Moon as testing ground for new technology.

However, I am not too excited by the fact that NASA is not getting more funds for this vision, and that the unmanned exploration, wich I think is the more exciting, is going to pay heavily for this.



I deliberately included the term 'manned' because the last two Mars rovers proved that it is simply unneccessary to send human beings out on exploration voyages. Autonomous or remote controlled probes don't need to breath, eat, defecate, sleep, exercise or stretch. These probes can also endure far more physical punishment than human beings (i.e. prolonged G forces due to acceleration, deceleration & maneuvering, exposure to solar radiation, etc.). Basically the space and mass (supplies, fuel, etc.) required to support human beings on long voyages can instead be diverted towards bigger, more advanced probes that can reach their final destination in less time. Because of the factors I mentioned the cost to send a remote probe to the moon or mars simply pales in comparison to what it would cost to send a team of human beings. And last but not least when a robotic/AI probe gets lost or trashed, there is a comparatively small loss of morale (on a national level) versus when a human crew perishes.

Sure, the AI and robotics fields are in their infancy but it's a hell of alot easier and cheaper to deal with those gray matter rooted obstacles than it is dealing with the innate physical requirements and weaknesses of human beings. Eventually we will devise extremely effective, reliable and compact power sources for these probes and when that happens their capabilities and overall effectiveness will skyrocket.

Manned exploration missions are a necessary stepping stone that will one day lead to human beings colonizing other planets. It is inevitable that we should colonize the stars and it would better guarantee the survival of our species in case anything happens to Earth. However, as of right now sending a human being anywhere is more of a glorious, egotistical achievement than a practical one.

If we`re going to look for life on Mars, we`ll most likely need humans. And if there`s life on Mars it might be anywhere else.
The clolonazion part is very important, and return to the Moon is going to aid this. I hope and think not that NASA is going for glory this time, though they see Mars on the horizon.