NASA: New spacecraft by 2011

[jerry611]

NASA administrator Michael Griffin says that NASA plans to have a new space vehicle to replace the aging shuttle fleet by 2011.

President Bush's budget calls for a 3.2% increase ($1.1 billion) next year to help fund research for the next space vehicle. Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) is pushing for an increase in NASA's budget to accerate the development of the technology.

NASA says they plan to return to the moon by 2018, and then they plan to land a man on Mars by 2030.

"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
-President John F Kennedy

[northzax]

1. why are we going back to the moon, again?

there's really no good reason to do something we did 35 years ago, just on principle. Mars maybe, but the Moon? There is more science from the $400 million Mars rovers than we have ever gotten from the Space Station, at a cost of 100X the rovers. Fine, we've proven we can send humans into space, for short periods of time, at an obscene cost. Why bother anymore? probes, send more probes. for the cost of one shuttle mission, we put two rovers on the moon. For the price of this new vehicle, we can send probes to every moon of Saturn. All of them.

[Ready4Change]

2. Big projects.

If we're going to do anything REALLY big in space, it's going to be tremendously expensive to do it by thrusting everything up out of Earths gravity well. At a certain point, it makes more sense to get materials from the moon (which has a far smaller gravity well) and fling them into Earth orbit, then use them to build, oh, a great big spacecraft.

While I'd LOVE to see this happen, I've got to ask: Is that really needed for a Mars mission? I dunno.

I've also got to ask: Can that be done on NASA's current budget? The answer is clearly no. Is Bush likely to fund it? Doesn't appear likely. He's given NASA a mandate, but hasn't lifted finger one to fund it.

Martians shouldn't expect any human visitors anytime soon.

(My apologies for my Rumsfeldian self-question/answer session.)

[jerry611]

3. Because we use the Moon as a stepping stone

The idea that scientists have is that we go to the moon and build a moon base. That base will then serve as the launching point for a mission to Mars.

Why do we explore space? Lets face it, this planet is NOT going to last forever. That's reality. The leading scientists on global warming now say the damage is irreversable. Meaning it is like dominos, once they begin to fall, it is impossible to stop. We can end EVERYTHING that is causing global warming and the earth will still continue to warm because we cannot remove what we have put into the atmosphere.
That's not the only danger. We have to worry about disease as the popuation continues to increase. Poverty and hunger will continue to increase. We also have to think about asteroids that could destroy every life on this planet.

With the current trends, the human race will not survive another millenia.

[ladjf]

6. I believe that it has nothing to do with going to Mars and everything

to do with beating China to the space based weapons platforms. Who ever achieves that first could conceivable "own" the world. Twenty or more geo static space platforms, armed with multiple nuclear tipped missiles would be the ultimate doomsday deployment. Naturally, no one in their right might would dream of sending hundreds of nukes simultaneously to any one Country. The problem is that being in "their right minds" doesn't seem to be the case in leadership. Listening to the Presidents of the U.S., Iran, North Korea and some others, it's difficult to decide who is the craziest.

[soothsayer]

7. Arsenal of Hypocrisy! Excellent film

[jerry611]

9. What was the difference with the Soviets then?

If the space race is what created a technological boom and got a man on the moon, the greatest accomplishment in human history, why would you hate to see that again?

JFK talked about this back in the early 60s. He said that the possibility that space can be used to wage war is no excuse to not explore it.

[ladjf]

10. I didn't say that I was opposed to exploring space. I predicted

that the "chicken hawks" in Washington and the leaders in China may well have the intention of using space for military purposes. Bush is profoundly anti-science. He would only support space exploration if (1) he thought it would get votes or (2) the military uses.

I'm all for space science as long as it is for peaceful purposes.

[northzax]

13. for $1.1 billion/year?

sorry, but bullshit. the International Space Station, in near Earth orbit, can't be completed for anything less that $50 billion. A moon base will cost us at least, at least, $200 billion. maybe, if we're lucky. remember, it costs a billion dollars to send the Space Shuttle, already paid off, into near Earth orbit for a week.

NASA should be a scientific organization, first and foremost, not simply an exploration one. There is nothing really to be learned from sending people to the moon, and since fuel is the major limitation on space travel (besides time, which we can't change right now) and there is no fuel to be found on the Moon, it's not helpful for a trip to Mars. It's not even all that much closer.

There is no science that can be done with humans at this time that can't be done cheaper, safer and more reliably with machines. Let's take care of this planet before we start looking for a place to emmigrate, shall we?

[flashdebadge]

4. Complete waste of tax payer dollars. Pay down the debt with this money!

[jerry611]

8. I completely disagree

Pay down the debt in other ways.

[flaminbats]

12. before we can pay down the debt..we need to have a surplus!

this type of debate might of been logical when Clinton was President...but now?

We all want a well-funded space program, but who is willing to pay higher taxes to have that?

[ladjf]

5. It won't happen by 2011. The last true innovation in flight was the

Concorde supersonic airliner. Since then, the aeronautical industry has been taken over by "suits and bean counters", just like everything else. NOTHING of any energy and imagination can come from the minds of "suits and bean counters", NOTHING. If it doesn't turn an immediate financial profit for the stock holders, why would we do it?

I read in the paper today that a bank with a reported net income last year of a billion dollars, is going to offshore 450 jobs to save several million dollars. With a billion dollars in profits, they could have afforded to leave those 450 jobs in America. The Waltons are worth 20 billion each. They could sacrifice a few million each per year and Wal-Mart could be the Nation's leader in wages and medical care. Why wouldn't they do that? What does one family member do with 20 billion dollars, especially when everyone else in your family also has 20 billion? How many houses, steaks, cars, airplanes, islands or whatever else could they possible need with those extra million or two?

[steely]

11. 2011 seems really ambitious unless they re-cycle designs.

They have already cut/cancelled many science projects, so priming the funding pump has begun.