Nasa

The shuttle seems to have very little to do with exploration though. The clue's in the name - it's a shuttle. A space bus, up and down again, to drop off satellites and generally monkey around in our cosmic backyard.

The fact we went from moon shots to this troubles me. We should have a permanent presence on the moon by now, or at least a workable space station/platform from which to plan deep space missions.

That sort of thing really shouldn't sound like science fiction anymore.

Considering the ratio of successful launches to unfortunate tragedies, I think NASA has done a fine job.

Sure, we need a new shuttle, but lets work on what we've got right now. We have a space station to take care of.

I agree that we should have explored more of the moon upclose by now.

Bringeth the conspiracies!

Giant catapaults and lots of bubble wrap.

That's because (Harry Carray voice) the moon's actually made of barbeque spare ribs. Cubs win!

It was also an occupational hazard for the first jet fighter pilots and astronauts. Apollo 1 belw up on the launchpad on 27 January 1967.

The point is that the Challenger and Columbia accidents were preventable, in that they were due to problems with the shuttle itself. However, there's a 1 in 300 chance that a shuttle will get hit by a micrometeorite on its way down. I don't know what the chances are that that causes an accident. But that's not preventable, it's acceptable risk.

The bottom line as far as I understand is that NASA doesn't want accidents happening due to preventable risks. Naturally it wants to avoid 7 people being killed. But it also wants to avoid another huge PR disaster.

we just need another space race, if the Chinese for example said they will be building a base on the moon, then by god you can put money on it that the United States will then start to devlope and build for the same thing, and getting it up there faster. With out anyone to compete with us, we just gotten kind of lazy.

Amen brother. Think of what we accomplished in the few years of the moon race.

Think of what we could accomplish if the US and China worked side-by-side on expansion into space...

We'd have to catch them up.

We're already working with Japan, France, and Canada. No more monkeys jumping on the bed, please.

But Martin Landau is far too old.

We're not on the moon because nobody can think of a good excuse for spending that much money on it.

We went to space and found out it was... well, really empty. The benefits of being up there are certain advantages for communications systems and military power, and for helping scientists get more confused about the universe. We're already maximizing all those (except the military presence, which the U.S. apparently plans to take advantage of in the near future).

Until someone comes up with something else worthwhile to do up there the space program will continue to be a government marketing tool and corporate welfare for those handful of industries. Frankly I don't think the human race is ever leaving this planet for anything more than really expensive sight-seeing and photo shoots.

Wasn't the International Spacestation supposed to be a humungus multi-purpose facility by now? It doesn't seem to be doing anything lately.

As a side note, when are they going to start experimenting with sex in zero gravity?

Yes, but with the Columbia diaster, things were put back for a time. We have a number of modules designed and built by other countries that we need to get up there with the shuttle.

Nearly everything the space program has accomplished thus far has hopefully been leading towards what should be our penultimate goal (other than exploring, conquering, and gaining mastery of the universe); that being the terraforming of Mars. It is almost impossible to spend more money on terraforming Mars than the land itself would be worth.

As far as I can tell, this has become more and more plausible due to the results brought back from the Mars Landers.

We should be dropping oxygen/carbon dioxide/nitrogren producing microbes on Mars every chance we get!

Of course, we'll all likely be dead in the thousands of years such a process would likely take, but hey, I plan on being frozen anyway.

Don't forget mining the asteroid belt, which probably contains enough wealth to make everyone on Earth a trillionaire.

You know, I used to despair at people who said that NASA was a waste of government money and that "we need to solve our problems down here first", which is among the most stupid and short-sighted statements ever.

However, there's less and less question in my mind that NASA is bloated and bureaucratic, and increaingly less competent; it's the $1000 hammer situation all over again. I'm honestly starting to put my faith in Richard Branson and his ilk to get the space program going again. I read an article last week with one of these corporate space guys, and they've got an insanely ambitious schedule--they're planning regular commercial spaceflights for the sake of tourism within two years. That's for really rich people, but still. The prices will drop as it becomes more common.

The government will probably have to step in again for moonbases and getting to Mars, but at least the wheels will be in motion.

And yeah, there's definitely a space race with China coming in the next few decades.

Mining the asteroid belt has fantastic potential, but adding an additional 30-40% of land-mass capable of sustaining human populations is the real holy grail of the solar system.

NASA wasted billions of dollars on the shuttle, a poorly conceived vehicle from the outset. It is too expensive, complicated, and does nothing well except fill NASA's political need for a showy, manned vehicle. Why in heck wouldn't you put the manned portion of a space vehicle on top of the fuel tank where it would be safest? Launching satellites and conducting experiments would be much easier with unmanned conventional rockets (not to mention far cheaper).

Privatizing space will result in a boon of unexpected benefits. They need to scrap the shuttle and come up with better ideas. It should be clear by now that the Moon is essentially a dead-end..we'd be better off focusing on Mars. It should also be clear that the space station has accomplished little of note, and probably should have been scrapped once we realized the severely deteriorating effects of prolonged zero-G lifestyles.

Nasa knows this, but with the government forcing them to choose between cheaper bids from companies their hands are tied.

Without the moon there is no Mars. It will be much more cost effective to launch equipment to the moon and then launch a ship from there to Mars.

The space station is providing a wealth of research and will continue to do so once we get a number of new modules up there.

What do you think the Russians have been doing up there all this time. I'll give you a hint, it hasn't been eating borscht.

Guzzling Vodka?

Very true.

They're barely experienced. I'd much rather continue to work the Russians, seeing as they have plenty of time up there.

With fusion reactors comes the importance of the moon.

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/Research/he3.html

Thanks for backing me up.

If NASA really wanted to go back to the moon, couldn't they just go back to that sound stage where they filmed all those other moon landings?

I could post a bunch of articles, but instead I'll query this: I was under the impression that the lack of water/oxygen on the moon rendered it essentially meaningless in terms of a base for human activities, and that space elevators and momentum transfer devices would obviate the need for an extra-terrestial launching point for space explorations. Is this incorrect?

Just as a sidenote, how ironic is it that Neil Armstrong screwed up the one sentence he had to get right? His quote "One small step for man; one giant leap for mankind" should have been "One small step for a man; one giant leap for mankind" without the "a", right before "man", he basically says "One small step for mankind; one giant leap for mankind.". Makes no sense.

What a clown.

The space program, like the war in Iraq or international aid, is a fucking waste of resources and money that could otherwise be used to improve the quality of life in the States. FUCK NASA, we spend hundered's of million's of dollars to send a bunch of asswipes into space, for what? How does space exploration in any way shape or form improve life here on Earth. Give me one good fucking reason that it's worth it?

Legion, are you aware of that little devices that can tell you how is your heart beat, among other data? Could you guess who were the first ones who were extremly needed of such monitoring? About the international aid...

NASA should really invent Legion there a grammar primer, or something. Maybe they could work on a spellchecker, too.

I quite sure that someone would have came up with the Heart monitor at some point or another eventually. Besides, that was a long time ago and after the moon landing was faked there was no reason to send people into space again since we made those commie bastards think we beat them!

The moon landing wasn't faked. You're a knob. Go to your room.

The problem is the total lack of vision on the part of the politicians.The only future they care about are the next elections.Investing the huge amount of money needed for a full blown space program is very risky and they would rather play it safe for the next few years than start something that would take decades to bring results.
After all I don't think a space program would "benefit" anyone more than subsidising energy and defence corporations.

One of the purposes of the Space Station is supposed to be its usefulness as a jumping-off point for a Mars expedition. A manned spacecraft that'd be capable of reaching (and returning from!) Mars would be too big to economically shoot off of Earth in one go. The idea is to launch bits & pieces up to the Space Station, where it'd be assembled. That way, we don't have to design for the fuel load required just to get the thing out of Earth's atmosphere.

I remember sitting in a briefing at USNA in 1990. The then-administrator of NASA was telling us all this stuff and saying, "And your class will be the ones who pilot that mission!" Looks like they got a little behind schedule.

He said it correctly. It just cuts out due to the transmission.

No it does not cut out because of the transmission. Thats total bullshit.
Armstrong himself said he blew the line.

L7, that claim is completely ludicrous,

Apparently nobody can take a joke around here anymore.

China plans unmanned moon mission by 2007

I think they mean "2007 mission" instead of "2017 mission"

when I was a wee lad, sitting in my briefing at Space Camp, I thought they told us it supposed to be 'for all of mankind'.

All shuttle missions cancelled until March. Given the ever-increasing safety costs, I doubt the shuttle will be flying in three years.

I have seen the future of manned space flight. Its names are Dick and Burt Rutan.

Teflon.

...and where would we be without 'Tang'?

Burt Rutan does make Nasa look very bad. I wonder what he could do with 760 million $.

I did a simple search on stuff that was invented or a spinoff as a result of the Space Program and here's the first link I stumbled upon:

http://spaceplace.jpl.nasa.gov/en/kids/spinoffs2.shtml

The original 7 were terrorists!

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/image...ature_832.html

I mean... just look at them!

If I ever release a record this is so gonna be the cover.