Reenergizing the human space effort. (1 Viewer)

[Grant B]

Lockheed did the tiles but I totally agree with Ron.

I use to ride in a vanpool that also stopped at NASA. For a long time I wondered why I never saw NASA people on Mondays or Fridays (& and a few days in between)

I finally asked if they drove thmselves or ???

He said he worked comptime - basically if you worked 1 day and was 'productive', you could say you worked the equivelent of 2 or 3 days normal work and take them off

I have never heard such !@#$%^&*(

Try telling your boss you worked hard so you won't be in the rest of the week.

They will have a good laugh after they drag your ass out the door

 

[Danny R]

Ok, being mad about NASA's wasteful policies is TOTALLY different than not wanting to push forward with a space program. I think we can all agree that NASA can be run more efficiently. However that is no excuse for not wanting to push forward.

Of course part of the reason NASA is so wasteful today is because it hasn't had a coherent mission since the Apollo days, and thus has molded itself into a typical government agency who's only goal is to get as many dollars each year as possible.

 

[Julie K]

Grant,

I must say respectfully that you are wrong.

There is waste in any organization but you paint a very surreal picture of NASA - one that is completely beyond what I've seen.

I know people who work 60-80 hours a week which is quite different from what you relate.

As for "1000s" working on the science and engineering, well, I think that number is as wrong as the "3" in the good-old days. There are more today simply because mass margins are tighter and there are more complicated models of solar system dynamics (conics won't cut it today). This is much like complaining that the people who maintain a 747 are a waste because it takes fewer people to maintain a hang glider. In any case, that 3:1000 ratio is way overstated.

it hasn't had a coherent mission since the Apollo days

Viking 1 & 2

Galileo

Cassini

Pathfinder

TOPEX/Poseidon

Hubble Space Telescope

Mars Global Surveyor

Mars Odyssey

 

[Ron-P]

Julie, Grant is not as wrong as you think. Until we get NASA to change, I cannot agree to push forward.
On a personal level, there is much more we can do here, first, before we go out there. I am not closed minded to space travel, I just think our priority here should be first and foremost.
Peace Out~

 

[RogerB]

Jack,
We're not talking about HUD or any other government agency. Your title says "space".
And how in the world is my argument "unsupportable"? Are you saying you couldn't feed a few million people with $15 billion dollars? I know I could. But how are you going to spread your human presence? And someone else mentioned terraforming. Exactly how does that work?

Not only that, the Sun around which our planet revolves has but a finite lifetime. Far better to spread the human presence among the stars in order for the species to survive.

All I can say to that is:

 

[RogerB]

Julie,

Grant expressed a personal experience. He can't be wrong. Period.

 

[Ron-P]

I am also simply amazed that we have a space station. It was so poorly constructed, it's unbelievable. Two of it's 3 occupants are there just to keep it operational.
From what I have seen and heard, there is no way we will send a man to Mars unless we have a major, major overhaul of the entire space program.
Peace Out~

 

[Julie K]

Roger,

So where does that leave my personal experience, then?

 

[RogerB]

Equal to his.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Roger:

The correct term for what you're doing here is "thread crapping." There's a better way to present a dissenting opinion (much as some others here are doing). Yes, I hit the "submit" button to make sure you got the point. Please be advised that thread crashing is prohibited here. I do not take your "laugh-in-my-face" smiley icon politely. Seriously.

Also, how NASA is run and its level of efficiency or otherwise is a topic for another thread.

So, let's try to keep this one alive. If we beg to differ from someone else, do so in a polite manner.

JB

 

[Julie K]

Leaving the efficiency questions:

Permian-Triassic impact

Cretaceous-Tertiary impact

Those ought to be two darn good reasons to get off the planet and/or develop an aggressive presence in space.

 

[Julie K]

BTW,
We also need an aggressive manned space program so we can get to Europa within my lifetime.
I want to go fishing there
Actually, I think it was Freeman Dyson who suggested lobbing projectiles at Europa in order to eject quantities of the inferred ocean under the surface into Jovian orbit. Then all our spacecraft would have to do is to look for frozen fish.
Or maybe I'm mis remembering...

 

[Grant B]

Julie
I am very happy your experiences are better than mine. Anytime you have an organization spread out over a country, you can find a wide range performance levels.
The point that I was trying to make, we have spinning our wheels for many years going through Billions.
If we want to do something to rival our success on the Apollo program we need change or the bureaucracy will kill it with overspending.
Right now are best bet getting back to the moon is if Ralph Cramden finally makes good on his threats and sends Alice there

 

[RogerB]

Post deleted by the thread's originator. If you would like to take this issue up privately via PM, feel free to do so. Do not edit this post.

 

[Todd Hochard]

Sure, we can always do more than we are to solve our problems here with more money. If this is of such great importance, then why:
1. Do you live in a house that has more rooms than people in your family?
2. Drive an expensive vehicle- one that overconsumes its share of fuel, given what's transported?
3. Buy DVDs, or enjoy ANY sort of hobby or life, outside of mere sustenance?
...when people are starving, and could be saved by the additional, unnecessary income you generate?
Because you want to, because you choose to. In the face of the way we live as Americans, the "starving world" argument for killing space exploration is so specious, so contemptuous, that I'm nearly at a loss for words. Nearly.
Never mind the technological advances because of the space program. Look at the absolute wonder that it puts into people's minds. Look at the faces of those at the Apollo launches on the newsreels, or in Shuttle launches today. What of the positive effect on a country's (even a civilization's) morale?
Given these times, and the tit-for-tat politicking and petty, destructive territory conflicts, I think we need a serious manned space exploration program more than ever. To the cosmic observer, we must look like diseased rats fighting over a piece of stale cheese.
To that end, I offer up my services to go on a one-way, one-man, manned mission to Europa. I'd give my life (quite literally) to be able to jump start the program. I'm not kidding about that.
Todd
(Am I repeating the article? I didn't read it yet.)

 

[Walter Kittel]

Since this is the Home Theater Forum. The final passage of Things To Come offers this view of the choice facing mankind...
Raymond Passworthy: Oh, God, is there ever to be any age of happiness? Is there never to be any rest?
Oswald Cabal: Rest enough for the individual man -- too much, and too soon -- and we call it death. But for Man, no rest and no ending. He must go on, conquest beyond conquest. First this little planet with its winds and ways, and then all the laws of mind and matter that restrain him. Then the planets about him and at last out across immensity to the stars. And when he has conquered all the deeps of space and all the mysteries of time, still he will be beginning.
Raymond Passworthy: But... we're such little creatures. Poor humanity's so fragile, so weak. Little... little animals.
Oswald Cabal: Little animals. If we're no more than animals, we must snatch each little scrap of happiness and live and suffer and pass, mattering no more than all the other animals do or have done. Is it this? Or that? All the universe? Or nothingness? Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?
I'm sure that some will disagree with couching the argument in those terms, but I believe that it does have some validity. Either we look outward to the stars and continue to explore, or we turn inward and eventually die out as a race.
- Walter.

 

[Julie K]

The point that I was trying to make, we have spinning our wheels for many years going through Billions.

But we have had several successes in the unmanned program so I don't really think we've been completely spinning. Yes, there have been failures but space is risky and we still don't understand everything. We learn and correct our faults.
Todd,
Your post was most eloquent. I completely agree, especially with your cosmic view of us

 

[Todd Hochard]

Julie,
Thanks. Will you still feel the same way when I play "Launch Vehicle" with my daughter in her stroller at the supermarket?
At 32, I'm fearful that I won't see us (the human race, that is) set foot on another planet before I die. It deeply saddens me.
Todd

 

[Edwin-S]

The Chinese have stated that it is their goal to send astronauts to the Moon and to Mars within twenty years. I only see them doing that if they drift closer to a market-driven economy.

------------------------------------------------------------

Regardless of what I personally think of the Chinese political situation and how it is shaping up, I have to politely disagree. I do not think it takes a market driven economy to commit to exploration beyond Earth orbit. In fact, I believe a market driven economy can actually work against such an activity taking place. Your own "Apollo" space program is the proof of that. From a purely market driven approach the "Apollo" program to reach the moon would have died stillborn. Beancounters would have done endless cost/benefit analysis and finally concluded that the actual "profit" derived from the "expenditure" required was minimal; this would have resulted in the early death of any manned mission to the moon.

It took a national government (yours) with, as you stated....." a unique set of Geo-political circumstances".....to decide that regardless of the actual cost/benefit equation, a manned mission to the moon was going to be done. There was nothing "market driven" about it......it was a goal purely derived from a national requirement to reinforce the "superiority" of the Capitalist system over a "Socialist" one. The irony is that it took an almost "socialistic" level of government involvement to pull off a feat designed to show the "superiority" of Capitalism. If left to their own devices a purely Capitalist or "market driven" system would have never undertaken the whole endeavor because it would have been seen as a colossal waste of money without immediate benefit of short term profitmaking.

The benefits of the "Space Race" are certainly evident but our "market driven" economy only started to exploit the technologies derived after the fact. The U.S. government with its need to prove the dominance of the Capitalist system had to ignore one of the fundamental precepts of a market driven system.....the profit vs expense ratio. National Pride was worth any expense, even if it turned out that the whole exercise was profitless monetarily. As it turned out the "only" advantage of the "market driven" system is that it was flexible enough to turn a profit from the U.S. government's geo-politically required expenditure.

IMO, what is needed is a national "will" or "vision" to accomplish such deeds as returning to the moon or sending men to Mars.....not a "market driven" economy. The Chinese have stated that they want to accomplish such goals and therefore they could accomplish them without a "free market system". They just need the national will to expend the enormous amount of money it would take, regardless of the ultimate worth of the exercise.

A "market driven" space program is more in line with what is now taking place in the U.S space program. Right now the major emphasis in NASA's program is the exploitation of "near space", which suits our "market system" fine. After all there is money to be made launching satellites into low Earth orbit for a variety of moneymaking "services" but what profit is there in sending men to Mars? In a our present short-term profit motivated economy......absolutely none.

At a unique time in history the United States had a leader, JFK, with some sense of vision about the United States role in future history. What kind of visionaries are there in the "free wheeling" market system of today?.....the kind who ran Enron?

This is not meant to be political. I don't really care one way or the other about who has the "right" system. I just think that when it comes to something as big as deep space exploration....the "WILL" to embark upon the deed is more important than the "economic system" that supports it.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Interesting points, Edwin (and, Todd, I too loved your post).

Curiously, I think the next real strides we will make in manned space travel will come about as a result of the privatization of access to Earth orbit. Pay close attention to the so-called X-Prize Competition. It will be interesting to see what transpires from that.

Presently, from a political standpoint, the nation is caught in curious dilemma: Most people want a strong human presence in space--but are unwilling to pay for it.

Also worth following is the Space Launch Initiative (SLI) that NASA is contracting out to various aerospace companies. The winning design will be what succeeds the present Space Transportation System (aka, the Space Shuttle).

As Robert A. Heinlein noted, once you're in Earth orbit, you're halfway to wherever it is you want to go!