Hadn't seen a topic on this yet. Anyone else watching this series? I just watched the first, two-hour episode. I gotta say I'm hooked, and just in awe, of what NASA was able to accomplish in those first 4 years. They put a man in space, a man in orbit, two men in space, had a couple guys stay there for 2 weeks, did rendezvous and docking missions (getting two capsules to fly within 6 inches of each other going 17k miles per hour and then linking the two together), and did multiple EVA’s (getting outside the spaceship).

 

Why is it that nothing has happened in the last 25 years down there at NASA? I mean, I guess they keep building more and more onto the international spacestation, and they keep sending orbiters and probes and what not to distant planets, but still. It’s been 40 years since we were last on the moon. 40! Wouldn’t the next step have been to build some sort of base on the moon? Use that as a jumping off point to reach Mars?

 

Also, apparently NASA, and the early astronauts, were crazy popular. 110 million people watched John Glenn orbit the earth three times and then fall back to the earth. 110 million! In 1963 that’s gotta be like 90% of people with televisions.

 

NASA's budget has been gutted. They have been reduced to buying parts for the shuttles off of ebay. There really isn't much more to say.

And didn't Bush say a few years back that he wanted men on Mars by 2025 or something?

Why is it that nothing has happened in the last 25 years down there at NASA? I mean, I guess they keep building more and more onto the international spacestation, and they keep sending orbiters and probes and what not to distant planets, but still. It’s been 40 years since we were last on the moon. 40! Wouldn’t the next step have been to build some sort of base on the moon? Use that as a jumping off point to reach Mars?

Mathematically...the moon as a base is an abjectly awful "Jumping off point" to get to Mars. The problem with that concept is...any time you move against a gravity field it requires energy and therefore fuel. If you leave the earth's gravity, it takes energy and therefore fuel. Once you're out of the Earth's gravity, the hardest part is over, you just have to have the right course and enough supplies. But if you drop down to the moon, then you have to have the fuel to get out of the moon's gravity available on the moon. Unless you can find a rocket fuel source on the moon, which basically means we need a fusion reactor that works, then you've made it vastly harder. You now have to shoot the fuel you need to get out of the moon's gravity out of the earth's gravity, dramatically increasing the mass you need to do the job. It's just a bad way to do things. This of course is why this is such a key part of President Bush's "Mars" program.

Mathematically...the moon as a base is an abjectly awful "Jumping off point" to get to Mars. The problem with that concept is...any time you move against a gravity field it requires energy and therefore fuel. If you leave the earth's gravity, it takes energy and therefore fuel. Once you're out of the Earth's gravity, the hardest part is over, you just have to have the right course and enough supplies. But if you drop down to the moon, then you have to have the fuel to get out of the moon's gravity available on the moon. Unless you can find a rocket fuel source on the moon, which basically means we need a fusion reactor that works, then you've made it vastly harder. You now have to shoot the fuel you need to get out of the moon's gravity out of the earth's gravity, dramatically increasing the mass you need to do the job. It's just a bad way to do things. This of course is why this is such a key part of President Bush's "Mars" program.

 

Wouldn't the rate of speed be different though, blasting from orbit around Eart versus blasting off from the moon?

 

Either way, my point wasn't to bash NASA, as obviously the priority in space exploration is a bit different when you don't have super earth power #2 competing for top space honors, but still. The drive and ingenuity it took in one decade to literally strap a guy onto a military missile and get him to the moon is amazing. Even if NASA had a blank check I don't think they could ever accomplish so much in such a short period of time.

Yeah I was going to say something like that, the escape velocity of the moon is significantly less than Earth's. It's still a bad idea though.

I recall reading a few years ago that a trip to Mars would cost NASA half of a trillion dollars.

Edited June 18, 200817 yr by santo=dorf

Jenks' point, and Southsider's, is a good one – that budget restraints and the lack of a global space race have greatly diminished the manned space flight results from NASA (On the other hand, they deserve props for their much more cost-effective and productive unmanned explorations).

 

That said, it's probably silly to continue attacking the idea of the moon as a jumping off base for Mars, but I'll pile on anyway.

 

by jumping off base, if you mean a place to assemble and launch a Mars mission, yeah, that's nuts. Regardless of the low escape velocity for a finished vehicle, what about the cumulative cost of all the escape velocities required to get materialssupplies, life support, etc. to the Moon for a base and assembly facility? All for a 240,000 head start on a 50 million-mile journey.

 

I may have been wrong to do so, but I gave GWB a little more credit when he speaks in terms of using the Moon as a "jumping off point" in getting to Mars, and thought he meant it more along the lines of us dusting off the manned space travel cobwebs and tackling a modern-day Moon mission or two before we tried for Mars. That was how I interpreted the strategy of the Moon by 2014 and then Mars by 2030. Was I wrong?

I recall reading a few years ago that a trip to Mars would cost NASA half of a trillion dollars.

 

 

pocket change

pocket change

How much are they spending in Iraq a month again?

I think Armageddon taught us everything we would need to know about this...

I think Armageddon taught us everything we would need to know about this...

 

I dont understand what Ben Affleck's lack of acting ability has anything to do with the subject

to spend half a trillion dollars to maybe get men to Mars is beyond retarded.

to spend half a trillion dollars to maybe get men to Mars is beyond retarded.

 

Ya know I was thinking this too, but if you actually look at all the science and technology that comes out of all that money, which is then put into our everyday lives, it's not a bad investment. Discovery has a cool interactive part of their website that shows how the initial NASA missions to the moon created/discovered techonology that we use everyday in our homes and cities.

 

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/nasa/home-and-...e-and-city.html

 

Also, half a trillion really is pocket change in the grand scheme of things. It's not like a one time cost, it'd be over a series of decades. I'd be for it. It's certainly better than spending 10 times that on a war without end or on social services programs for people that don't deserve it/abuse it, or any other umpteen ways this country throws money away like it's grown on trees.

Ya know I was thinking this too, but if you actually look at all the science and technology that comes out of all that money, which is then put into our everyday lives, it's not a bad investment.

 

Don't forget about TANG!

 

 

to spend half a trillion dollars to maybe get men to Mars is beyond retarded.

They can just do what they do every time they need a lot of money for something, print more of it...