A Bad Blow to NASA

[FettKyle]

From what I have heard it seems that congress is going to or already has Cut the ENTIRE manned space program. This means the Shuttles are grounded indefenatly. The ISS is no longer going to be built even if they have the parts. A mission to Mars will be bump another 10 years, 4years if we're lucky 50 a worst. Hubble and any major satalite will be stuck with no repairs or tune ups. And if Bush plans to set up ICBMs in space they will not be maintained unless they contract NASA for pure military.
Has anyone heard this?
Any Thoughts?

[JodoForce]

A few months ago I heard Bush was upping the NASA budget and approving the nuclear drive program

[FettKyle]

I got this from my EarthScience teacher and she said she got this from some New York newspaper I'll check with NASA tommorow and ask My teacher if she still has the article by monday. But if this is true America can no longer go to space by it's own means. So we have to Rely on the Russian *shiver*
THIS REALLY PISSES ME OFF
The reason congress did or is doing this is because it would cost to much in this Recesion

[JodoForce]

I trust your source about as far as I can throw her

[FettKyle]

Oh well I'll check If I can't get an article I'll get a name and Date and that is all I need however I wouldn't be surprised if congress actualy did some thing like this. A lot people are begining to say it's a waste of money and it's to dangerous. A side note if NASA didn't have all of it's budget cuts it would of been able to properly mantain the Shuttles.

[JodoForce]

Well, that's what you'd call a vicious cycle

[phongn]

From what I have heard it seems that congress is going to or already has Cut the ENTIRE manned space program. This means the Shuttles are grounded indefenatly.

The Space Shuttle is an obsolescent and overpriced programme. It should have been replaced years ago.

The ISS is no longer going to be built even if they have the parts.

ISS is a huge waste of money. Its scientific value is also rather limited.

A mission to Mars will be bump another 10 years, 4years if we're lucky 50 a worst.

Mission to Mars is projected in the 2030s if at all, so this is sheer conjecture.

Hubble and any major satalite will be stuck with no repairs or tune ups.

There are very few satellites that can be serviced in such a fashion - Hubble is one of them. The original satellite 'repair, upgrade and retrieval' service that NASA originally planned is long dead.

And if Bush plans to set up ICBMs in space they will not be maintained unless they contract NASA for pure military.

He does not.

[Sea Skimmer]

I got this from my EarthScience teacher and she said she got this from some New York newspaper I'll check with NASA tommorow and ask My teacher if she still has the article by monday. But if this is true America can no longer go to space by it's own means. So we have to Rely on the Russian *shiver*
THIS REALLY PISSES ME OFF
The reason congress did or is doing this is because it would cost to much in this Recesion

Your source smells like rotting crap

[Vympel]

Your source smells like rotting crap

Actually relying on Russian vehicles has been the case ever since the Columbia was lost.

As for cutting the entire space program, I don't think that's the case.

[RedImperator]

Columbia forced the government to take a long, hard look at the manned program. The fact of the matter is, it's a prestiege project with little practical application and less scientific. I would venture that fixing Hubble contributed more to science than all the onboard experiments conducted on the shuttle combined. And every dollar spent on the space shuttle is money that could have been spent on far more cost-effective programs--you can run the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute for a year on what it costs to launch the space shuttle once, for instance, and Federal money spent on the manned program could fund the creation of dozens of first-rate science departments at public universities. I'm all for the romance of manned space flight, but I'm not convinced at all that spending billions of dollars to put humans into low orbit is the right way to do it. If we're going to go into space, let's actually GO somewhere--back to the moon, or to Mars, and figure out how to actually live and work and, maybe more importantly, mine resources up there.

[Joe]

Good. Manned space missions are a complete waste of time and more importantly money. Machines can do the job much better, at a cheaper price, without endangering human life.

[SirNitram]

Good. Manned space missions are a complete waste of time and more importantly money. Machines can do the job much better, at a cheaper price, without endangering human life.

True for scientific missions and eventual industry, but there will be a need, at some point down the road, to know how to keep people alive up there.

[Joe]

I would put that point at somewhere very far down the road. It doesn't look like we will be colonizing space anytime soon.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

True for scientific missions and eventual industry, but there will be a need, at some point down the road, to know how to keep people alive up there.

I don't think our planet is in that bad of shape just yet. Although I'll always be fascinated by space travel, it's a big 'ol waste of money sometimes, and until this worlds environment does crumble (which won't be for a long, long time) we don't need to worry about it.

[Arrow]

I'm of the opinion that NASA should be turned into a "space FAA" and let the private sector have at it. The private sector can do things faster, smarter and cheaper than a government agency can.

[FettKyle]

I agree. Still Nasa had some thing on the board to make a cheaper shuttle system but never really got the money or the guts to do it.

[RedImperator]

I'm of the opinion that NASA should be turned into a "space FAA" and let the private sector have at it. The private sector can do things faster, smarter and cheaper than a government agency can.

The caveat is that the private sector won't do anything if there isn't a profit to be made in the near-term. Private companies might be better at launching satellites, because that's established technology, but they're at least going to need government support to develop new industries, because space is so damned expensive that one mistake can bankrupt you. Hell, space is so damned expensive you can do everything right and still go bankrupt.

[Sea Skimmer]

I agree. Still Nasa had some thing on the board to make a cheaper shuttle system but never really got the money or the guts to do it.

Anything even resembling the shuttle concept is a waste of money.

[FettKyle]

[Lonestar]

Anything even resembling the shuttle concept is a waste of money.

Yep, the Shuttle follow-up went from the Delta Clipper (which fricking worked until the prototype was destroyed in a fire and Clinton wouldn't fork over the $$ because it was devolped by SDI types), the Venturestar (which was revolutionary and quite possibly would have worked great, if the pro-space CEO of Lockheed hadn't been repolaced by just another buisnessman), to nothing.

Damn shame.

[phongn]

It's cheaper to use an expendable rocket to throw a payload into orbit than to have to use so much fuel to throw the reusable vehicle and the payload into orbit, isn't it?

[Sea Skimmer]

Venture star's fuel tanks proved impossible to build at the required weigh as I recall, and the project was scrapped because the payload would have been even more awful then it already was relative to total craft weight.

[Arrow]

I'm of the opinion that NASA should be turned into a "space FAA" and let the private sector have at it. The private sector can do things faster, smarter and cheaper than a government agency can.

The caveat is that the private sector won't do anything if there isn't a profit to be made in the near-term. Private companies might be better at launching satellites, because that's established technology, but they're at least going to need government support to develop new industries, because space is so damned expensive that one mistake can bankrupt you. Hell, space is so damned expensive you can do everything right and still go bankrupt.

While that is true, there are other companies and groups that would be willing to invest in a manned flight space program or even a Mars mission. First off, even if nothing is produced, it could be used as a tax write-off. Secondly, if some new technologies are developed AND they can be used for other purposes then the company stands to make some money off of it. And third, if the company's effort is successful, and if they can create a market, they'll be swimming in cash. Yes its a longshot, but there are enough rich and powerful people that believe in manned spaceflight and Lunar/Mars missions for it to have a fair shot at succeeding.

To be clear, I think only a few companies/groups would try such a thing. You're right in that most companies would only be into satellite launching.

[RedImperator]

Arrow, NOBODY in the private sector has the kind of capital to fund a private space mission, especially not when the only payoff will be new technology that MAY be useful in industry on Earth. Obviously, there's a ton of money to be made--the first guy to tow an asteroid home and sell the metal is going to put every mining company on Earth out of business, but billions of dollars will be lost by others before he gets to that point. Try to imagine someone privately building an interstate highway or every skyscraper on Manhattan Island and you'll start to see just how huge such a project would be, and those examples would only require proven technology and have at least some chance of recouping their investments.

[Stormbringer]

I would put that point at somewhere very far down the road. It doesn't look like we will be colonizing space anytime soon.

Which is why we haven't and won't soon. The best way to get things done is to challenge people, not to adopt a "one day" attitude. What we need to do is push for practical, worthwhile manned space projects.