ANGRY AT NASA!

[spiknter]

Wow!!!!

Some heavy technical dialouge, so people how does NASA go about getting the financial cut of the budget
to do some extreme science in space, remember I'm just a mere outsider here "remaining calm....so I can kick some ass"...let her rip!!!!

 

[Guish]

Here's how to get the funding NASA needs: Give them exactly half of what people think they already get. You can even ask them if that is a good amount: "How much of the budget does NASA get?" "I dunno, 40%?" "Do they do enough with that money?" "Heck no!" "How about we cut that in half and only give them 20%?" "Sounds about right..."

Kidding aside, there's a whole lot of ego going on here. America/NASA didn't lose it's way, and NASA is only where it is because a politician lied to us and we bought it.

Musk, Rutan, Bigelow et al., they have some innovative ideas, but they're so wrapped up in the superiority of their own ideas, they'll soon be stuck like everyone else gets. There is no amount of money that will make spaceflight cheap or safe until we are no longer dependent on chemical rockets. I get the feeling sometimes we're like a fungus on the surface of this planet, scrabbling frantically to escape. (Too metaphysical?)

Regarding the ego part, seriously who cares if we can put people into space this year or the next if it doesn't get us anywhere, doesn't advance technology, and doesn't inspire? We used to innovate to get into space. Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, all pumped out enormous advances. It makes me sick that 40 years later, I find myself defending space using decades old technology. "What have you done for me lately?" Today we use off the shelf technology so we can afford to do the same thing we did 40 years ago. And for what, more flagpoles and footprints?

NASA needs to be dismantled. I listened to the new Administrator the other day explain how he would expand cooperation with other agencies. Most of it should just be broken apart and absorbed by those agencies: NOAA, FAA, NIH, etc. Space doesn't belong to one agency. Frankly, until a real breakthrough in propulsion is made or a "smoking gun" asteroid is headed our way, there will be no new mission, just a series of underfunded mandates and failed efforts.

Have a nice day!

PS Please don't confuse my pessimism with doubting the talented men and women who continue to work their hearts out to make our current programs look easy. Their hands are tied.

 

[spiknter]

Didn't I see a idea about a solar project on the moon where at the 2 poles there would be solar field harvesting the sun's rays then sending the energy by micowave to the earth? Now, hypothetically, I'm the
president, I think that idea needs further research. Now wouldn't the project gain support if there was some sort of response from the U.S. citizens and possibly the rest of the world. How would a revenue stream develop?

 

[drstein]

I just wanna keep pushing nasa and others towards the moon, one step in the time! Like stones in the water, if you take to big of a leap you might slip and fall over, and get weat and disapointed! For nasa this would mean DOOM!!
I think the next stepingstone is the moon! And if Nasa dont do it, someone else will, im european, and I belive US is doing wrong, Nasa or who ever it is!

If Us wont go there, China will, japan russia, maybe a copration of us all, europe russia and japan. For me it dont really matter, who does it first as long as it gets done, maybe USA dont wanna do it anymore, as there are no OIL on the moon!

 

[Mars_Unit]

No. The solution to making sure the Shuttle never explodes again was to retire Gene Kranz and others early.

They became too old and became erratic and therefore unreliable.

Kranz recently said on The History Channel that "I swear to God, I never thought the Shuttle would blow up, if we launched it at that temperature.".

His stubborn behavior made him inflexible to the rules. He did not really consider that Rockwell designed the Space Transportation System to be only launched in warm weather only. It was not designed for icy cold weather.

It should have been designed like Russian spaceships. They can launch in sub zero weather.

The shuttle was slung on it's side to allow the main engines or SSME's to be reused. It also allowed landing on runways.

The first shuttle Columbia almost exploded on it's first launch. The sound vibration from the SRB's almost caused the ET to rupture. All flights thereafter needed a flowing curtain of water made from billions of gallons of water to act as an audio barrier. This added to the cost.

The joint where the bipod attaches to the shuttle had a strut bent out of shape by 20 degrees from the force of launch.

The two astronauts almost had to abort the Columbia over the Pacific Ocean because of melted hydraulics.

The Shuttle is not very reusable, so there is little money saved. The boosters are only used 20 times or less, the tank is thrown away. The SSME's can only be reused 10 times and the rocket engine turbines that pump fuel can be used only three times.

The tires are new for every shuttle flight. They take no chances.

In all, the shuttle saves no money. It does return for reuse and relaunch. The Apollo 11 mission only returned with the Columbia which is a small 3 man capsule.

The Shuttle Columbia returned for another mission after another until the tragedy.

I believe that we will see more shuttles, but not from NASA but from private companies like Lockheed which is developing one. ESA is also building one and so is Russia. China and India will not be far behind.

 

[controltestguy]

One issue I see is the fact that we live in a country that is based on the premise of 'What can you do for me today?'. We're so shortsighted that it's hampering our ability to build a future for the Space Program. I think a lot of it has to do with our lifespan. If we lived 200 years, then we could be building for the long term. Trouble is, we live to be 80 and most of that is spent trying to provide a living just paying the bills.

I work for one of these companies. We can't leave work at night until we make a certain amount of money. Half of the people I work with (total 320) don't even know the Shuttle program is coming to an end. All they know is the news when one blows up or comes apart. It's not their fault. The US government won't promote the 'Program' like it should. If we were really building for the future then we would have a program in place like we had in WWII: Instead of 'Uncle Sam Wants You', it would be 'NASA Wants You'.

The movement of humans into deep space doesn't have to happen today. But it has to happen. What we need is dedicated funding for the next 100 years. We need to say: Okay, we're going to go. We don't have to go today, but we're going to go. All our reps think about is this years budget.

As far as propulsion goes, chemical rockets suck and they're out of style. I can envision a chemical rocket, manned, going to Mars and 3/4's of the way there, being passed by something more exotic like ION or nuclear or (dilithium crystals?).

Seriously, our government says there's apathy among a lot of our citizens toward the Space Program. The fact is, our government has done nothing in space to excite the American public in 40 years. The 'Right Stuff' is gone and in this 'politically correct' world, will never return.

It's up to private enterprise now to lead the way. They're the only ones left with a sense of adventure.

Regards,

CTG

 

[DatSpaceMan]

Nasa was good but now it's just a political fight. Screw the politicians, they know nothing about space most likely. I want you to stand up to these idiots and scream, "I AM MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANY MORE!"

Sorry for the language, but I feel your grief. Everything is just politics now...If it wasn't for we the people they'd never get anywhere! So they better listen to us and not a bunch of politicians and our horrible president! :twisted:

 

[DatSpaceMan]

And, no I'm not angry to NASA. They know what to do but they can't I'm mad at all these dumb politicians and our president. Obummer just keeps destroying everything.

 

[geofbrewer]

Angry at NASA? Yes! Angry at Congress? Yes! Angry at my fellow human beings? Yes! We are a bunch of quibbling adolescents! We do fairly well with the impediments we place in front of each other. So, what's the plan?

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Angry at NASA? No. Angry, fed-up, and frustrated with the indifference of Congress and the American People? Yes. I agree with a large number of posters here(many their first or so post) that NASA does what it can with its meager budget. Meager, ie, relative to the overall federal budget and the US GDP.

Of course, any agency and its bureaucracy can always have room for improvement.

And I'm sick and tired of politicians with their meaningless sound-bites and uninspired speeches. While a JFK-style rousing speech might seem quaint to today's electorate, it couldn't hurt if our leaders had at least some enthusiasm and virility in what they do say about the US space program.

And I don't care if you live in Mississippi, Minnesota, or freakin' Fairbanks Alaska, the space program benefits ALL Americans and the Nation!! But it wouldn't hurt to build some more space-related facilities spread randomly around the country in order that others besides Floridians and Texans and Californians could see the direct benefits more clearly.

We don't have any NASA-related facilities in Georgia-my home state- that I'm aware of and that doesn't bother me one bit. I'm adamantly pro-manned and unmanned space exploration and utilization because I'm aware that ultimately it is for the common good of the country, as well as the entire world.

 

[spiknter]

CTG

I was going to mention ion technology earlier but I'm really not qualified to give any explanation, can you help me out?

 

[Dredd]

I am not mad at NASA because it follows as many or more of the precepts or tenets of Ecocosmology (http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/06/ecocosmology.html) as any other space agency.

 

[stormhelm]

all of you have yourselves to blame. all of you are responsible for the consequences of whom you vote for and all of you know different face, same selfish agendass and frankly who cares anymore i don`t ever since they killed sp many promising programs of single stage to orbit etc and shuttle being thrown away so 5 stupidly long years that will be more or less fatal to nasa in some ways. who cares about a dead planet like mars when more important things here on earth needs fixing and not pander to the fervent few who will kill to go to mars. screw nasa and screw all of you who put space waste first instead of fixing our domestic problems.
so, get angry!! who cares. :lol: :twisted:

 

[Mars_Unit]

Americans should be furious at NASA. They have been over promising their technology. They promised the Shuttle would launch for 10 Million per flight and then 57 million a launch. It cost $500 million per launch. That does not include the payload.

Russian Cosmonauts say they wish they had their own shuttle. Russia could not afford it.

The Shuttle Buran helped break the economy of the USSR.

In 1986 Reagan signed off on the NASP X-30 Scramjet. It was canceled by 1989 when they realized it would be decades before the engine was ready. They kept the engine program alive.

In 1989 the USAF began work on the DC-X and they gave up on it. It was not working out.

n 1996 Clinton had Goldin order the Venturestar which was once again, overbudget and we did not have the technology yet.

Even worse was it takes billions to develop the technology.

I heard that Reagan wanted to restart the Saturn V program to launch the Freedom Space Station.

NASA came back and told him it would take ten years to build the assembly line and build an EMD model.

We lost the technology to launch Saturn V's and Saturn 1B's to make way for a superior system.

It turned out the Saturn system was better for Space Exploration. The Shuttle turned out to be good for supplying the ISS. It is good for Hubble repair. It does not pay for other smaller satellites.

My vision is to go back to the Moon first to survey it, then colonize it, if possible. It will have to make money.

We should also go to Mars as well. This mission is dangerous.

I want to see a polycarbonate plastic dome on the Moon. I want it to have an atmosphere inside and life support systems. I want to plant trees in Lunar soil and see if they grow taller on the Moon!

I want Astronauts to visit the huge wall cliff in the upper left quadrant of the near side. There is a cliff in Mare Imbrium I think that has a cliff 1500 miles long! There are many exciting vistas I wish to see on the Moon!

I want to go back to Hadley Rille and throw a rock into it to see what it will do. They forgot to do that.

I want to see just how far a golf ball on the Moon can go! Can it really go for miles?

I want to see interesting gravity experiment on the Moon. That experiment with the feather and hammer was cool at High School!

 

[TulsaDude]

I was 14 when Armstrong walked on the moon and I was at a Boy Scout National Jamboree and got to watch it the landing live on giant screen TV's. Those were exciting times for a 14 year old boy from Sacramento, CA.

Today I look with sadness at the end of the Shuttle program. Not because the Shuttle is being retired but because the replacement wont be available for years to come.

Congress has seen fit to spend Trillions on useless projects and corporate bailouts this year and they could have spent just a little extra on Ares and upped the timetable. It sad to see we will have to rely on another country for access to the ISS.

I am not ANGRY! Sad? Yes. Not angry.

 

[Galacticexplorer]

Angry at NASA ? No .Angry at this Democrat administration . Socialism is sucking ALL the treasury dry . This country was built by the free market . They could fix the economy they choose to make Americans Government dependents . :evil: :evil: :evil:

 

[Floridian]

Oh and I'm going to assume it "wasn't NASA's fault" when NASA threw Project Orion under the bus and shafted our space-program and progress since 1960. Was it "not NASA's fault" when they decided to not to use any real energy sources (fission pulse or fission reactors) to make REAL spacecraft (not expensive and crappy probes and shuttles that accomplish nothing).

Obviously NASA has to work with congress, just because congress says no to something doesn't mean NASA should give up. I have never heard of NASA showing efficiency proposals for nuclear power. They, and the politicians are just too afraid of negative public sentiment.

Heres some dollars and cents. A Nuclear-powered spacecraft is multitudes more efficient than a chemical rocket. That is enough to show some pretty impressive cost-analysis reports. If NASA wasn't so busy focusing their attention on useless probes and 50 year old shuttles, perhaps they could take the time to analyze the benefits of a space-economy. Assets like the asteroid belt and Mars could be reached and offer substantial benefit. These could easily be reached with nuclear powered spacecraft.

NASA will NEVER accomplish anything worthwhile with chemical rockets. They won't go far beyond the asteroid belt either. NASA has held back our space program long enough. Its time for the private investor to leave them in the dust.

Until NASA decides to do something noteworthy in space, I will join the rest of the public in the utter lack of interest in the government run space program. Keep sending those billion dollar probes to gather inconclusive evidence and take a few snapshots. I'm 21 now, by the time I die, at its current rate, NASA will still be using chemical rockets (not much more advanced than the proposed ARES rocket I'm guessing) and will have sent probes probably all the way to Pluto.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

So... Voyager 1 and 2; the Mars Viking Landers 1 and 2-all four very successful probes- the Cassini and Huygens missions to Saturn and Titan; the probe on its way to Pluto as we speak; the various Pioneer and Mariner missions; and the Moon landings were failures and a waste of time because of chemical rockets?

Well, you do better guy!

And as far as fission powered nuclear propulsion, there are many complex reasons why we haven't implemented that idea. Look it up or ask MeteorWayne because I don't feel like typing anymore, it's late.

 

[Mars_Unit]

The USAF built a flying Nuclear Reactor in a big bomber! It was so scary they stopped the program! They said if it had crashed, it would have been the end of the world.

It would have caused a Chernobyl type of accident.

I saw 2001 in 1968. Many of the things did happen. We do have a Shuttle though it is not nuclear.

We have a International Space Station half built by American and Russian rockets.

America did send probes to Jupiter and Saturn.

Sci Fi seldom exactly matches real life events.

No one can say in what exact year in the future, we will have real AntiGravity.

 

[JasonFontaine]

While others have lobbyed for their cause, and rightfully so, NASA has bumbled along the road.
Receiving less than 1% of the Federal Budget, never advertising the spin-offs and tremendous engineering advances they make - NASA relys on the current "at-large" administration for funding.
From President to President they sit with baited breath.

Any investment banker will tell you to put away 5-8% of your salary for the future. As a country, we put away less than 1%. That's the problem.

Without lobbying efforts and proper PR - NASA is viewed politically, not so much by society, as an expenditure. If the right persuasion is in place, NASA will be seen as an investment. This should be their goal before they decide what direction to take. Otherwise, they are no better than a truck stuck in the mud. And, we all have seen this and thought, "ignorant bastar#$!"

A minimum of 3% investment with a Not to Exceed threshold of 8% should be mandated. This way - NASA can focus on the research and technology rather than the "direction". They definitely know what direction to take - where they want to go - but are grounded by the simple things in this life such as politicians reminding us that even space vehicles can get "stuck in the mud".

 

[Seether]

What direction???

NASA is great, but they need to figure out how to get off this rock cheaper. We can't keep going at the current rate. 1) No money on robots. Humans only. I will be first in line. (To quote Capt. Kirk - "Risk is our business!") 2) Shift money to propulsion R&D until you get something cheap & safe to operate. Hint: It will be nuclear. 3) Go to Mars now! Don't believe the Chinese. They are not going to the moon. They are going to Mars. They are trying to one up us! DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN!!! It will be over. You can't one up anybody after that. There's no going to Venus or one of Jupiter's moons. Mars is the only thing left in the solar system that is doable for the foreseeable future. 4) Victory chant! - USA, USA, USA, USA, USA, USA, USA, USA, USA, USA, USA - Have some /*Profanity filter evasion removed*/ pride people!

 

[TracerDX]

But really the government at this point can't afford to blow $35 Billion + on a spacecraft when people can't live.

But they can blow billions to make sure the rich CEOs who helped drive our economy into the crapper don't have to go on without their Rolls-Royces and expensive life styles.

I'm more angry at the people in power and the common idiot masses who elected them (the same who could care less about NASA either way) as they divert public money away from progress and into their pockets.

 

[spiknter]

Anybody see last night's show "Saturm Lord of the Rings".........Even though Nasa didn't act alone (ESA) that project was a pretty good piece of science. Can't wait for the Kepler mission's pictures and the launch of the James Webb satellite

 

[spiknter]

Seether is right and Obama will fall for it.

 

[ldyaidan]

I'm going to express an unpopular sentiment. I Love NASA! Am I upset about the lack of direction, lack of funding and lack of support? Hell, yes! But I don't totally blame NASA. They got lost. They made mistakes. It happens. Believe me, I work for a government contractor, and after seeing some of those records, I'm amazed NASA has done as well as they have. Yes, they need to get back on track, which I think Mike Griffin was doing a great job. Like anything this big, it's going to take time and money to fix. NASA inspired us to reach for the stars. An entire nation was excited and involved. Then we reached that goal, because Kennedy issued a challenge, and the nation supported it. All we've gotten since then has been a lot of talk and empty promises. NASA needs to be given the next challenge, in earnest, with the support needed to make it happen. I agree that it would be great if all the private industries were to partner with NASA full force. Instead of each country having it's own space program, it needs to be a global space program. It's the only way that makes sense. Allow for individuals and companies to contribute to those goals that they support. Most of the people I know think space is "cool" but they're waiting for NASA to make it happen.


Rae