Warning: This is a rant!

So here we are 30 years after sending men to the moon having to develop another project to send men to the moon because we don't have the technology/capability to send men to the moon again because we lost it in the intervening 30 years because we were spending billions on the international space station (which is largely a boondoggle) and pouring billions into the shuttle program (which was to support the space station)instead of developing alternative vehicles to carry mankind into space!

So now we have to get in the "way back machine" and start all over again from 1970's!

Furthermore, science missions (like JIMO which is why I'm pissed) using alternative propulsion designs such as ion drives that have been under development since the 1960's and have seen two recent successful missions, DS1 and SMART have been cancelled because they are viewed as "to risky"! I'm sorry but NASA has no leadership and no balls! They are mere shadows of their predecessors!

On top of that, the project that has brought space exploration into the minds of BILLIONS of people and heralded as the ambassador of space exploration "par excellence" has been cancelled. The Hubble Space Telescope. If it's useful life is at an end, fine, bring it down but why is no one talking about a replacement even if it is 15 years in the future? I know there is Spitzer and others and if that is the replacement for Hubble, then position them as such.

Not to say they haven't had some stunning successes, Cassini/Huygens, Mars Rovers etc. but these are small items in a $16 Billion dollar budget.

I think that NASA has been floundering for the past 30 years and I don't see any signs of change for the future. Nasa Sucks!

Ranting ended.

I'm sure NASA's funding, along with other federal programs, have gone to pay for the war.

No they've been able to maintain their budget and in fact, it has increased year over year.

It was $16.25B in 2005 and the projected for 2006 is $16.45B which is essentially keeping it the same.

> No they've been able to maintain their budget and in fact, it has increased
> year over year.
>
> It was $16.25B in 2005 and the projected for 2006 is $16.45B which is
> essentially keeping it the same.
>

Cochise- your "rant" is very well thought out, and there is nothing in it I would disagree with. I think a big part of the problem is that there is no one to "race". Without that NASA has become complacent, which has resulted in the standstill.

Exploration is dangerous, and risks should be reasonably reduced. But failure, as tragic as it is, is no excuse to stop. Our current vehicle is worse than worthless, it is inefficient, dangerous and worst of all we have it now. It's the old car that still runs just well enough not to replace it. It costs $23K per pound to obtain orbit. It's $3.2M to launch a 150 pound person into orbit. It will cost to replace it, but there are systems that have $/lb ratios around between $100 and $6K. These should offer quick ROI, and also allow for heavier (but more durable) heat shielding. Until the shuttle is retired, there will be no hope for human exploration.

---

Still looking for something profound or inspirational to place here.

It is good to see Europe getting more involved in space. Currently their budget is on the order of $300 million / year. But that will probably increase over time.

And China has recently started sending Humans into space. India claims they are not far behind.

---

www.onlinetasklist.com

Reminds me of a song... (With all apologies to Tom, but it's sooooo dated...)

First we got to space and that was good,
'Cause we love peace and motherhood.
Then Russia got to space, but that's O.K.,
'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way!
Who's next?

France'll go to space, but don't you grieve,
'Cause they're on our side (I believe).
China got to space, but have no fears;
They can't reach the moon for at least five years!
Who's next?

Then Indonesia claimed that they
Were gonna get there any day.
South Africa'll send two -- that's right:
One who'll be black and one who'll be white!
Who's next?

[Snipped at this point because nothing nothing funny rhymes with "tense", "psalm", and "Monaco"]

---

> And China has recently started sending Humans into space. India claims they
> are not far behind.
>

Another "cold war", between 2 countries where life is cheap. Nice, this could really make hay. Maybe this will jumpstart some real human exploration of space.

Maybe NASA will get serious again, or even better, maybe this will open up space to companies. I want to go mine an asteroid, I'll probably be too old by the time that is a reality though.

---

Still looking for something profound or inspirational to place here.

"Hello? Virgin Galactic? Yes, I'd like to book a flight to Luna... for the 15th... yes, first class... a visa from the UN - Yes I have that... uh-huh... $10M? Do you accept the Discovery card? Yes? OK, my number is 0123-4567-8901-2345..."

---

> "Hello? Virgin Galactic? Yes, I'd like to book a flight to Luna... for the
> 15th... yes, first class... a visa from the UN - Yes I have that... uh-huh...
> $10M? Do you accept the Discovery card? Yes? OK, my number is
> 0123-4567-8901-2345..."
>

At least you could fake it better 6011-2345-6789-0123 ;)

---

Still looking for something profound or inspirational to place here.

I couldn't remember how to derive a credit card's sentinel/checksum - If I knew that then I'd have used a more [in]appropriate number.

---

> I couldn't remember how to derive a credit card's sentinel/checksum - If I
> knew that then I'd have used a more [in]appropriate number.
>

I just used the prefix:
Visa: 13 or 16 numbers starting with 4
MC: 16 numbers starting with 5
Discover: 16 numbers starting with 6011
AMEX: 15 numbers starting with 34 or 37

[in]appropriate is my specialty.

---

Still looking for something profound or inspirational to place here.

That much I know - I see it all the time on alt.hacker.faq.stupid.wanna-be.snot-nosed-punk.script-kiddies... It's the sentinel/checksum that I forgot.

At this point, I don't even care anymore.

So... uhh... How's about them Voyagers?

---

> So... uhh... How's about them Voyagers?
>
Voyager was another cancelled (or completed) Star Trek series. :p

And it was just as lousy an ending as ST:DS9's...

---

Saying we "forgot" how to travel to the moon is over simplifying the problem.

Do YOU volunteer to be strapped on top of a 40+ year old bottle rocket with FAAAAAAAR less computing power than the PC you are using right now?

If you succeed, then you will not fly back to Earth in a shuttle type vehicle, you'll fall from the sky like a meteor with a parachute and hopefully crash in the middle of the ocean,then hope your "ride" doesn't spring a leak before your rescuers arrive.......or do we spend money and build on that technology?

....and while Ion drives are ok for unmaned vehicles, again, if it was my life on the line, I'd want something a little more substantial for propulsion than atoms flying out of my exhaust.....Not to mention Ion drives are useless within a gravitational field. So if we are trying to go back to the moon, we cut funding to projects that don't "benefit the cause" in favor of those that do......or we raise taxes to fund both and I suspect you'd have a rant about that too :)

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>

Well I appreciate the counter-point BrainSmashR! but because we ignored heavy lift technology for human space flight beyond orbital insertion we have in a sense forgotten because we have to start completely over from scratch. If we had heavy lift for human space flight beyond orbital insertion in continuous development since the Saturn 5, we would have something to work with NOW and not have to start all over which as you pointed out, we have to do.

The space station/shuttle program has crippled human space flight and propulsion development. Only very very recently has there been a re-dedication to developing other technologies for propulsion or RE-Developing engines to go back to the moon.

Chemical propulsion will always be the technology for orbital insertion or achieving escape velocity but beyond that it is end of line. Although ion engines produce little thrust, their specific impulse blows chemical propulsion away and thus they are the technology of choice for going beyond the moon. The ion engines so far have not been multi-mega watt systems either, so they are not at all representative of what the technology can do. They have only been proofs of concept. Furthermore, in maneuvering around in space, ion drives can be used to change course, shut-down and restarted again with a much higher degree of safety and certainty than chemical engines. Chemical engines tend to be an all or nothing proposition, not so with electric engines.

I would prefer that NASA cut earth science projects which totalled about $1.5B in 2005 than cut space flight development projects like Prometheus which only gets $430 Million.

Or better yet, cut some of the $200 billion defense budget. Cut just 10%.

---

<img src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/banner.php?cpid=b3c0c2639ea110901bd0970a1c22efcd">

I used to like NASA because of space and that, but im for UK and im ESA all the way now! just hope they land a man on mars.... god i dream!

---

I completely agree on NASA. Going to the moon, mars, one stage to orbit , etc. are always projects that are supposed to be funded after the administration leaves. Both democrats and republicans have been playing this game for over 30 years. Golden, the former NASA administrator under both republican and democratic presidents, always cheered as NASA and the military were alone of the federal agencies to be cut. When I was in tenth grade we landed on the moon. I am now 52 years old and we have not left low earth orbit. The space station now holds two people - one less than skylab in 1973. At most it will be expanded to three people which will bring our capability up to 1973 technology.

---

I completely agree on NASA. Going to the moon, mars, one stage to orbit, etc. are always projects that are supposed to be funded after the current administration leaves. Both democrats and republicans have been playing this game for over 30 years. Golden, the former NASA administrator under both republican and democratic presidents, always cheered as NASA and the military were alone of the federal agencies to be cut.
When I was in tenth grade we landed on the moon. I am now 52 years old and we have not left low earth orbit. The space station now holds two people - one less than skylab in 1973. At most it will be expanded to three people which will bring our capability up to 1973 technology. Before it can get any further the shuttle and space station will be retired. The shuttle is not only expensive, it is dangerous and unreliable. Two out of five have come apart in flight. This is an improvement?
Two more points. First, the military was cut by about 40% over the 12 years of senior Bush and Clinton. The 600 ship Navy has 287 ships now. Until recently nobody complained about the death benefit for servicemen being 12,500 dollars and nobody raised any kind of stink when servicemen were blown up by terrorists. The only response I got from people is, "That's their job." For many years NASA and the military were the only agencies that were being downsized. I just get weary about hearing that we will solve all our education and other problems by cutting the military. We did cut the military and the money was wasted.
Second, while it is true that Congress makes the decisions, lack of leadership at NASA meant that nobody asked for more funding or had any vision other than doing their time until retirement. Why is nobody screaming about the loss of JIMO?

---

> Well I appreciate the counter-point BrainSmashR! but because we ignored heavy
> lift technology for human space flight beyond orbital insertion we have in a
> sense forgotten because we have to start completely over from scratch. If we
> had heavy lift for human space flight beyond orbital insertion in continuous
> development since the Saturn 5, we would have something to work with NOW and
> not have to start all over which as you pointed out, we have to do.

We went to the moon, at the time, there was no profit potential for multiple reasons. So, funding was cut instead of eliminating the program or raising taxes. Basic supply and demand.

> The space station/shuttle program has crippled human space flight and
> propulsion development. Only very very recently has there been a re-dedication
> to developing other technologies for propulsion or RE-Developing engines to go
> back to the moon.

I agree to the extent that supporting things which cannot support themselves is a waste. At one time the Shuttle was beneficial, but like people, it's old and worn out and now cost more money than the benefits it produces. But also like people, this does not mean the Shuttle needs to be thrown out, merely updated.

Have you not heard of the X-prize? New technologies are being created and tested as we speak by regular people in their own back-yards.

> Chemical propulsion will always be the technology for orbital insertion or
> achieving escape velocity but beyond that it is end of line. Although ion
> engines produce little thrust, their specific impulse blows chemical
> propulsion away and thus they are the technology of choice for going beyond
> the moon.

You left out "at this point in time". Once upon a time, chemical propulsion was the "wave of the future". Not to mention, that without a space station (that you think we are wasting money on), the Ion drive STILL requires chemical propulsion.

Look at it this way. On earth you can take 20 grand and buy a 2005 Ford Mustang with one motor or a 2005 Toyota Prius with 2 motor. it's not rocket science, it's about getting themost bang for your buck.


> The ion engines so far have not been multi-mega watt systems either,
> so they are not at all representative of what the technology can do.

You are only speculating and there are no full-scale expirments to base your assumption on, whereas weknow for a fact what chemical propulsion is capable of.

> Furthermore, in maneuvering around in
> space, ion drives can be used to change course, shut-down and restarted again
> with a much higher degree of safety and certainty than chemical engines.
> Chemical engines tend to be an all or nothing proposition, not so with
> electric engines.

Not against Ion drives, I'm against cutting funding to programs currently in existence which are capable of doing the job.



> I would prefer that NASA cut earth science projects which totalled about $1.5B
> in 2005 than cut space flight development projects like Prometheus which only
> gets $430 Million.
>
> Or better yet, cut some of the $200 billion defense budget. Cut just 10%.

How about we cut social aid ($305 billion spent on welfare in 1992...only stat I could find right now). Let the lazy starve and die, then there will be more money and resources for those of us that contribute to society and like the idea that no other nation has the military might to invade our country.

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>