Maybe They'll Find the Moon is Made of Money....

Returning to the Moon...How?

Published on September 19, 2005 By jrutherchevy In Current Events

Nasa just unveiled their plan to return mankind to the surface of the moon by 2018. However, this date will most likely be pushed back because of the federal government's pledge of aid to the Gulf Coast, the damage done to NASA installments in Louisiana and Mississippi totaling $1.1 billion, and the money pit that is the war in Iraq.

How is NASA going to do it?

Part of the plan is to completely finish the International Space Station, and in order to do that, the shuttle program has to be fixed.

With money, equipment, and logistical problems, the dream of another manned mission to the Moon seems bleak and unfruitful. Why put forward this grand plan now?

Can we say 'distraction', boys and girls?

(note: I would love nothing more than to see the space program flourish, but the way things are going......)

Comments

bakerstreet

on Sep 19, 2005

They are too tied to their "current" hardware, which was cutting edge almost 30 years ago. NASA, having its benefit handed to it whether it accomplishes anything or not, no longer feels the need to innovate or evolve.

I think if I were to give them a report card, it would be an 'f' all around. How would you rate, say, a trucking company that was still today using 1980 model trucks, and replacing the engine after every single trip? It's boneheaded, but it doesn't seem that way to NASA because they don't have to earn their keep.

The future of space, as with any industry, is the private sector. As long as NASA had the Soviet Union to race with, I guess they felt motivated. Maybe now with the Chinese they'll get off their asses, but I doubt it.

ParaTed2k

on Sep 19, 2005

I am all for returning to the moon, and exploring beyond that with manned space travel. I also agree with Bakerstreet about how it should be accomplished. NASA is one of the few government programs that has actually created technologies and has turned our tax dollar investment into some of the greatest gains in technology we have. However (as Bakerstreet pointed out) it has been a long time since anything new came from NASA other than making the term "insulating foam" a household word. The technology used by NASA is now an entire generation outdated, yet they still continue to use it. I guess bubblegum and bailing wire is all the physicists, chemists and engineers at NASA can buy on their multi-billion dollar budget.

Yes, we should return to the moon, and beyond, and it should be left to the private sector to accomplish. If NASA can't progress with the times, apparently their time has passed.

jrutherchevy

on Sep 19, 2005

I can't agree with either of you more. I think the X-Prize was the deciding factor for me, at least, in regards to the future of space exploration. The private sector has made leaps and bounds with the technology available to them, and will most likely be able to get done what needs to get done.

I'm looking forward to the progress on the space elevator as well, now that there's land set aside for them.

terpfan1980

on Sep 19, 2005

In fairness to NASA, they have to have the money to get anything done.

The amount of money spent on NASA (as a percentage of GDP) compared to the glory days of the original space race is so small as to be virtually off the scale.

The numbers announced today (approx. $104 billion for a lunar landing with 4 people) seem high currently, but compared to a many trillion dollar budget, it's a pittance.

Can private industry do it? Maybe, but they have to see a profit motive and reason to spend the money. Right now they are not seeing even a hint of profit, and the amount of money that would be involved isn't pocket change.

I think we have to do it, and we have to spend what it takes. We need to boost NASA's budget, and then, if desired, have NASA contract with Boeing, GE, Northrop, etc., to develop the new technology. The original space program built the aerospace industry, and then, unfortunately the government started cutting back NASA's funding, and over time the companies that were involved saw their share of the federal $$ shrivel up and go away. Over the years we've lost a lot of the companies that were originally involved, either from consolidation in the industries, or from having those companies move into other business areas and abandon their old markets to others.

bakerstreet

on Sep 20, 2005

I think NASA gets the budget it "asks" for. Not necessarily whatever number they jot down, but funding for projects that impress legislators, and that show true benefit to humanity. Sending toy cars to mars might be cool to some of us, but in terms of old back-slappers in Washington, they aren't going to be impressed.

Now, tell them you are coming up with a new shuttle system that DOESN'T waste hundreds of millions of dollars, and that can be launched more safely, and more often, and things might be different. People were WOWED by what we were doing during the space race. NASA makes an announcement now and people yawn.

It's like they have lost their confidence. I don't blame them, but if they won't do it, someone else needs to.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!