I liked Obama before this!! Obama to cancel Moon mission

Page 2 of 3 [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

voss749
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 120

02 Feb 2010, 10:59 am

Hes cancelling project constellation.
The Ares launchers were years behind schedule, massively overbudget and were technically inept.
Even if Ares had been funded they would not have gotten back to the moon until 2028.

What the critics of privately funded manned launchers have failed to understand

1) All your eggs are not in 1 politically motivated basket
2) Private companies actually have to meet schedules, NASA hasnt met a schedule in 10 years.
3) Ares I would not be ready to put a man into space until 2017, that was gonna potentially
leave us with no ISS after 2015.

About the alternative as an example-Spacex
1) Spacex is testing launching its man capable launcher THIS year. It has met every time table
it has set or missed it by no more than a matter of a couple months.
2) Its Falcon 9 launcher is based on the Falcon 1 which has already made 2 successful orbital flights.
3) Its there



Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

02 Feb 2010, 1:57 pm

It's the best thing he has done. NASA has done nothing but suck up all the science money for decades.

The Hubble view is more than we can digest, seeing ten times farther would not help, and near earth is our problem, earth crossers that can be found from the ground if any money was available to watch for them. Not that we could do anything about a ten kilometer rock heading for Washington, or should.

Space problem one is figuring out how to get several hundred thousand tons into a stationary orbit. We need a Space Shop to build anything that could not survive being launched from the ground.

Nothing ground launched could have the shields needed, or the room to wander about. Space built, it can be huge and slow, but still make the passage to Mars orbit, or the Moon, for a close look.

The human problem is we are not made for zero gravity, a year and there is no returning. So something large enough to have a spinning deck, be shielded, have the space to produce food, would be a kilometer across, should be modeled on the Death Star, and that is a big materials list to get into orbit.

Having people build it is not a good idea, no space suit would protect construction workers, so ground controlled robots are the best. We need better video games, advances in controls, for it will take hundreds, or thousands, of operators.

The main problem is the first 25,000 miles, and getting the cost down. The last I heard was $20,000 a pound. When some method will put ten ton loads up at reasonable cost, we can start building.

A design that will support a thousand people, last for a thousand years, is a start.



Friskeygirl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jun 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,865

02 Feb 2010, 3:43 pm

The cost per pound to supply a moon base just isn't practical at this time, as Inventor said $20000 per lbs is rather expensive.
Nasa has other means to explore a dry airless world such as using vehicles of the type used on mars, it would be a better way to gather data on resources, as the moon is even more hostile to life then mars. We will eventually have a base on the moon, but not until we have a cheaper way to get off the earth.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

02 Feb 2010, 5:26 pm

KingofKaboom wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Doesn't the moon also rotate? Not that it would eliminate the use it might make it better for the task as they can build just one and still see all the different directions minus through the earth obviously. But it would require some sort of protection as the moon is basically the earth shield from asteroids and debris from space, which is why the earth doesn't have quite so many dents in it as the moon does.


The Moon's rotation and revolution periods are almost equal, so essentially only one side faces earth and the other side faces away. Humans never saw the far side of the moon until a soviet moon orbiter took pictures of it and sent them back to earth.

ruveyn



Xenu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2008
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,438

03 Feb 2010, 12:48 am

he probably just found out that we had never been to the moon in the first place and decided to back out because he found out that it is still not possible



sefer
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 127

03 Feb 2010, 2:08 am

Wow. Please don't turn this into a conspiracy thread.



pbcoll
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,892
Location: the City of Palaces

04 Feb 2010, 11:26 pm

I'm not against NASA or space exploration, but is there any point at all in sending humans to the Moon again? Are they going to do anything robots can't do for a fraction of the cost, and faster and better? Colonisation is a red herring; the Sahara desert, Antarctica, etc are all much easier to colonise than any place outside Earth (we haven't built self-sustaining colonies even on Antarctica, there is no real-world evidence that we could do so on the Moon), even without taking bone density loss into account. Talk of the creativity of humans supposedly making manned exploration better is laughable, as robots can be controlled by humans on Earth. Surely unmanned exploration is 'faster, cheaper, better'?


_________________
I am the steppenwolf that never learned to dance. (Sedaka)

El hombre es una bestia famélica, envidiosa e insaciable. (Francisco Tario)

I'm male by the way (yes, I know my avatar is misleading).


MissConstrue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,052
Location: MO

04 Feb 2010, 11:52 pm

OMFG!

Well that sunuvabitch.

Why in the hell was he elected in the first place?
I don't how much I can take with this Obummer.
I heard he's also a socialist.
Commie bastard!! :evil:





Seriously aren't there worse things to worry about?
It's as if Obama is now the scapegoat for everything now...


_________________
I live as I choose or I will not live at all.
~Delores O’Riordan


KingofKaboom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,471

05 Feb 2010, 2:06 am

pbcoll wrote:
I'm not against NASA or space exploration, but is there any point at all in sending humans to the Moon again? Are they going to do anything robots can't do for a fraction of the cost, and faster and better? Colonisation is a red herring; the Sahara desert, Antarctica, etc are all much easier to colonise than any place outside Earth (we haven't built self-sustaining colonies even on Antarctica, there is no real-world evidence that we could do so on the Moon), even without taking bone density loss into account. Talk of the creativity of humans supposedly making manned exploration better is laughable, as robots can be controlled by humans on Earth. Surely unmanned exploration is 'faster, cheaper, better'?
I figure any real work will be done in the future and like I said b4 humans will keep growing in number. One day space will be the best place to go so that we can continue to grow and expand our species which is the main point of any species which we are not immune to. But I want them to go to Mars someday and try something like in one movie I saw. Plant some moss or lichen so that it produces O2 and can survive on Mars that way hopefully we could slowly terraform the planet over probably thousands of years, I just wish people would think big picture not just what happens next pay check.

Oh and for the record to all here I think private enterprise's would be the best to succeed as has been said before they meet deadlines and mostly b/c it wouldn't be the government controlling all travel. It would open outer space one day to everyone. It's all just a dream for my grandchildren to see or maybe theirs but one day...


_________________
Tacos (optional)


Tensu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,661
Location: Nixa, MO, USA

06 Feb 2010, 10:45 pm

MissConstrue wrote:
Seriously aren't there worse things to worry about?
It's as if Obama is now the scapegoat for everything now...


The president of the united states is a position that has evolved to serve the role of a scapegoat.

I'm more deep sea than deep space, myself.

King of Kaboom: I doubt space travel will be advanced enough in time to be a practical solution to overpopulaton. I wish people would just learn to have less sex, but that's doubtful. still, I feel it's more likely than space travel solving the problem.

heh. welcome to easter island earth.



KingofKaboom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,471

06 Feb 2010, 10:56 pm

Tensu wrote:
MissConstrue wrote:
Seriously aren't there worse things to worry about?
It's as if Obama is now the scapegoat for everything now...


The president of the united states is a position that has evolved to serve the role of a scapegoat.

I'm more deep sea than deep space, myself.

King of Kaboom: I doubt space travel will be advanced enough in time to be a practical solution to overpopulaton. I wish people would just learn to have less sex, but that's doubtful. still, I feel it's more likely than space travel solving the problem.

heh. welcome to easter island earth.
From what I can discern sex is like a drug, once you have it you just want more of it and no amount of reasoning or common sense can dissuade you from going after it. From the people I've talked to that have had sex it seems that just not having sex for awhile is completely out of the question, they'd rather risk unwanted pregnancies and diseases than go w/o sex.


_________________
Tacos (optional)


pakled
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,015

07 Feb 2010, 2:35 am

The Earth is the Cradle of Mankind
But Mankind cannot live in the cradle forever....

Well, as the Chinese have all our money, and they are going to the moon, I guess our money at least is going to the moon.

500 years ago the Portuguese were the leading seafaring nation, exploring the world. Then they stopped.
Now we are the Portuguese of space.


_________________
anahl nathrak, uth vas bethude, doth yel dyenvey...


Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

07 Feb 2010, 2:50 am

Space Sex does seem the unstated reason driving the space program, nothing else to do and no one around.

First there is getting there, then the check for lunch is $3,000. A small room, $10,000 a night.

Ten days, $250,000, makes the surface resorts sound cheap.

I think dumping excess population in the ocean is cost effective, and we have the means.



pat2rome
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,819
Location: Georgia

09 Feb 2010, 1:51 am

animeboy wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/space/02/01/nasa.budget.moon/

Yes, you read it correctly, Obama is planning to cancel the mission to the moon.

I am so angry about this, I have decided to withhold my support from him in the next election, I am going to vote for the Green Party, or if I am especially evil, the Republicans. But Obama has just lost my support.

We need to have a strong space exploration program, it is our only future.


I was actually annoyed about this until I heard his reasoning. He says, and rightly so, that our future in space is not going to come from the type of mission he just canceled, and that the cost of that mission would be much better suited for research.


_________________
I'm never gonna dance again, Aspie feet have got no rhythm.


Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,603
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

09 Feb 2010, 5:01 pm

pat2rome wrote:
animeboy wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/space/02/01/nasa.budget.moon/

Yes, you read it correctly, Obama is planning to cancel the mission to the moon.

I am so angry about this, I have decided to withhold my support from him in the next election, I am going to vote for the Green Party, or if I am especially evil, the Republicans. But Obama has just lost my support.

We need to have a strong space exploration program, it is our only future.


I was actually annoyed about this until I heard his reasoning. He says, and rightly so, that our future in space is not going to come from the type of mission he just canceled, and that the cost of that mission would be much better suited for research.


I was disappointed because I thought that this could indicate that there would be no human exploration of space for the foreseeable future. If you want to plan any kind of human space exploration in the future, you certainly don't want too many key people within NASA such as scientists and engineers to lose their jobs because due to Constellation's cancellation. That's partly why I tried to revive my thread in the science section. In order to discuss this issue. The new plan isn't even fleshed out yet. It seems as though they want to follow the "Flexible Path" option described in the Augustine Report.