I am fed up

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rockett

Guest
sftommy":4370l5a0 said:
"Also, shouldn't the tax-payer at least be able to recommend to NASA certain ambitions or directions, and then have a NASA appointed panel discuss the legitimacy of those proposed directions without political (W/H) interferance depending on which party wins every 4 years or what corporate lobbyists have in mind?"
This would be a tremendous waste of taxpayer money. Look at these forums and you get some idea of how many different (and sometimes conflicting) ideas they would be buried with. Look at how long Healthcare took (and how much time was spent) while nothing was done on the economy. Asking for this is would create a bureaucratic nightmare.
sftommy":4370l5a0 said:
In Florida it is an issue among voters, Texas it's only an issue if your jobs on the line.
I take exception to this! I happen to live in Texas, and the space industry has absolutely NOTHIG to do with MY JOB.
 
D

defiant101

Guest
well if one thing happened then we would not be upset as much as we are.......cheap access, if we had real cheap access to space then everything else will fall in place especially now with private spaceflight.......i just do not see how rockets can open up space to everyone.....just costs alot....maybe x-prize should hold competitions for a concept for cheap access or like little demonstrations....idk any progress is good obviously.........hoping for the best :)
 
M

mj1

Guest
planetling":2ibvrylh said:
In our lifetime:

There will be no manned mission to Mars.

Though it would be nice and I am in full favor, is HLV really necessary to accomplish what we dream to do?

There will be no probes sent to Europa, at least on a serious scale.

There will be no probes sent to Titan, at least on a serious scale.

The 2 Voyagers, as awe-inspiring and incredible as they are, will cease to function in a decade +/- (RTG depletion). There are no plans to send additional craft beyond the interstellar medium, at least utilizing auto thermal or light technology to power on data record units hundreds or thousands of years into the future (just in case we are extinct and by a quark of a chance some other civilization stumbles across it/them).

There will be no Moon base.

There will be no additional space stations, least of all BEO.



My hard-earned tax money keeps going down the crapper (even if only pennies). I would much rather NASA apply for GRANTS across the board, than to have Senate/Congress authorize/cancel projects before allocating out of the fed budget. At least then NASA would have a slightly better chance to spend money a little more wisely.
I felt like you or even worse a couple years ago. This is what we get for putting all our eggs in the NASA/Shuttle bucket. What a waste. Billions that could have been used to seed commercial space development much sooner, and perhaps make your visions actually happen in our lifetimes ended up going into the crapper, wasted on a high priced LEO delivery service, that lost the ability to even launch satellites. Yes, they saved Hubble and I appreciate that, but there were two horrific crashes and many astronauts were lost. Other than Hubble, we have gotten very little in return for the gigantic investment in that program. What gives me hope is all of the new players, like Space X, Orbital, Bigelow, and others. We MUST do all that we can to give these companies as much of a chance as possible to get off the ground. Perhaps with a commercial space infrastructure in place, NASA can at last stop wasting money on launch rockets and put their minds to work on actual deep space missions. My vision, and I have said this before, is for NASA to immediately get out of the rocket business and go to work on the development of a real spaceship that will be built in space and used for manned deep exploration and survey of the solar system, and perhaps beyond. The commercial companies can take care of launching men and material into LEO to support the project. Sure, it will take 20-30 years to accomplish this, the astronauts for the mission may not even be born yet, but it would be a tangible goal and a great stepping stone to leave behind for our children.

Yes, it is disappointing how things have turned out, but the thing that we can do is to fight as hard as we can to see that a decent space legacy is put in place for our children and generations beyond. We are at a turning point in history in regards to space exploration. Let's stay on top of the politicians and make sure that they make the right choices for the future.
 
S

sftommy

Guest
My apologies to TEXAS,
I usually strive hard not to generalize like that, and my statement obviously was not representative of the facts (my job is also unrelated to any space industry business).

The issue there being the personal relevance of NASA, I might suggest a national lottery.

PROPOSED:

Any American (I dare add a tax-paying American) gets a chance to take one of the extra seats on the Boeing craft, or other that should come available through NASA's commercial investment dollars, free of charge with appropriate trainings.

Criteria are of course, that that be American be physically and mentally fit, clear of drugs and alcohol, etc. demand the best of all who would enter the lottery. Every American can look up and wonder if it'll be them this year. That would make NASA personal if not personally inspiring. Taxpayers might feel better about supporting NASA?
 
Y

Yuri_Armstrong

Guest
NASA already doesn't like space tourists hogging up room on the ISS, so what makes you think they'll run some sort of national lottery to send an average person who may not have ANYTHING to do with the space program up? They'd rather put an astronaut or cosmonaut in that slot who will actually be doing some significant work up there.
 
R

rockett

Guest
Yuri_Armstrong":1wkky001 said:
NASA already doesn't like space tourists hogging up room on the ISS, so what makes you think they'll run some sort of national lottery to send an average person who may not have ANYTHING to do with the space program up? They'd rather put an astronaut or cosmonaut in that slot who will actually be doing some significant work up there.
They sent John Glenn, 'course HE was a SENATOR. I think that the lottery by NASA would work, provided Bigalow gets his hotel up there...
 
Y

Yuri_Armstrong

Guest
rockett":ov7ox5lt said:
They sent John Glenn, 'course HE was a SENATOR. I think that the lottery by NASA would work, provided Bigalow gets his hotel up there...
And he was a Mercury 7 astronaut and American hero. Bigelow is not launching a "space hotel", he's not very fond of that term. He will rent it out to companies and agencies who want to use the microgravity environment of space stations to conduct research, though he has mentioned that he would be willing to rent one out to a hotel company for their use.

There is no plan for a NASA lottery that I know of nor should there be one. What does the space program gain by spending lots of time and lots of money to send an average american into space? At least with space tourists they gain some revenue. Such programs for "average" people to go into space have been considered before, notably Christa McAuliffe and the Journalist in space programs. But they did not come into fruition for the reasons noted above.

I will admit though, that had Challenger not exploded on liftoff that the teach in space program may have continued. Sadly, it seems that people simply don't care about our space program enough even with the mentioned programs.
 
R

rockett

Guest
Yuri_Armstrong":2ailk7u6 said:
And he was a Mercury 7 astronaut and American hero. Bigelow is not launching a "space hotel", he's not very fond of that term. He will rent it out to companies and agencies who want to use the microgravity environment of space stations to conduct research, though he has mentioned that he would be willing to rent one out to a hotel company for their use.

There is no plan for a NASA lottery that I know of nor should there be one. What does the space program gain by spending lots of time and lots of money to send an average american into space? At least with space tourists they gain some revenue. Such programs for "average" people to go into space have been considered before, notably Christa McAuliffe and the Journalist in space programs. But they did not come into fruition for the reasons noted above.

I will admit though, that had Challenger not exploded on liftoff that the teach in space program may have continued. Sadly, it seems that people simply don't care about our space program enough even with the mentioned programs.
NASA does a great job of lobbying support from scientists, engineers, technophiles and that sort of person. As for the "man on the street" they haven't had much luck since the sixties. Personally, I think a lot of that has to do with lack of public involvment on a personal level. Back then, we all had the dream that one day, that could be us, or at least someone we know. The lottery might actually be a way to spark support (i.e. pressure on Congress) among your average man. Why not sell lottery tickets?
 
Y

Yuri_Armstrong

Guest
Sorry, I just don't think that it would get the people interested in the space program again. I may be wrong but NASA could be the loser on a deal like that by wasting an astronaut spot, not to mention the time and money it takes to put a person into space.
 
N

neutrino78x

Guest
Again, the problem is that you guys want the government to do all this. In reality, governments do not colonize. Individuals do.

If you want a sustained human presence in space, with colonization, you have to create/discover a profit motive, and then step out of the way and let private enterprise do what it does best. We don't have a "sustained national commitment" for people to live in Alaska. If people want to live there, they just go. The government does not need a "vision" for travel from New York to London. People want to go, and they find a way.

The role of government HSF in this, if there is one at all, is to do Lewis and Clark missions, where they just go to discover resources, possibly set up some initial infrastructure. But after that, it is all private.

Congress can accelerate Bigelow's efforts, but he's making his private space hotels whether he gets government funding to do anything or not. Munsk wants to retire on Mars, whether he gets government funding or not.

--Brian
 
P

planetling

Guest
I appreciate some of the responses in this thread, though there are some that I disagree with.

It is interesting to me how opinions can be so completely different depending on the issue being discussed.

Reading through the following thread appears to support everything that I have been trying to say, however in this current thread expressed opinions seem to be somewhat contradictive. For example, Vulture4, imo, made some pretty good observations, especially concerning Lori Garver. There are other good examples as well if you read through the entire thread.

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=26137&start=20

Interesting, indeed.
 
S

sftommy

Guest
"In reality, governments do not colonize. Individuals do. "
Historically untrue.

British colonial rule is full of instances where the British government made a choice to colonize, Australia is most obvious example; Israeli settlements on the West Bank have at times been a government choice to colonize, China's push of it's citizens into Tibet is government colonization, etc. etc....

Colonization is only one tool available to a governing entity to further it's interests. Space tech and commercial development are, and will become even more so, a vital part of America's national interests. Start-up infrastructures are still too expensive for Corporate scales, so until economies of scale can make it cheaper it is in the American government's interest and thus the interest of the people of America to support commercial space launch initiatives. Or surrender LEO to those who would militarize it to our disadvantage, we've got a 10 year window here to get it right and then China will be defining Space as a tactical high-ground.
 
B

bdewoody

Guest
I'm not fed up but I am highly disappointed. I was starting in college when the Apollo astronauts landed on the moon. I live in central Florida and got to watch the launches up close and personal. I also watched the movie 2001 and fully expected to see the space vessels depicted in the movie flying by now. Nothing in the movie was outrageous but the schedule was overly ambitious.

One thing that none of us have dealt with in our eagerness to push for moon bases, Mars landings and missions to asteroids is space medicine and the ultra hazzards of radiation which have not been adequately solved for manned flight outside of low earth orbit. One reason we have stayed in LEO is the protective nature of the earth's magnetic field. From what I have seen in documentaries we were very lucky with the Apollo missions that there were no CME's during the missions which probably would have killed the astronauts or at least shortened their lives greatly. It is probably a fact that we will not commit to manned missions above LEO until that problem is solved.

In the 40 or 50 thousand years since men came out of the caves we were earth or water bound until a little over 100 years ago. And our first little ventures into space were only 50 or so years ago. So when looking at our progress from that point of view I think we aren't doing so bad.

If we can only keep from over populating the planet and choking in our own pollution we may yet travel into deep space. But I'm afraid I won't live to see any more big advances in space flight.
 
S

sftommy

Guest
CQ Politics is reporting Senator Nelson has given up on NASA funding until after the election (not a big surprise)
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?p ... 0003736425

Nelson had been negotiating with TN's Gordon to reach a compromise between House and Senate version, now that probably won't come until the lame duck session at the earliest.

Rep Gordon, not running for reelection, has indicated little chance of change in his position so more likely we will wait for the 112th Congress and whatever that will mean.

NASA jobs and mission are going to take a big near-term hit as funding and direction gets scattered.

Thanks Bart!
I am fed-up with this member of the House and his obstructionist NASA ideas.
 
D

DarkenedOne

Guest
sftommy":xcyi9tta said:
"In reality, governments do not colonize. Individuals do. "
Historically untrue.

British colonial rule is full of instances where the British government made a choice to colonize, Australia is most obvious example; Israeli settlements on the West Bank have at times been a government choice to colonize, China's push of it's citizens into Tibet is government colonization, etc. etc....
Unless the government is going to force people onto rockets at gun point then the will to colonize has to come from the colonists themselves.

People have to be willing to leave their lives here on Earth to pursue one in space. In order to do so they have to have an economic reason to go. There have to be jobs in space.

All of this cannot happen all on government funds.
 
S

sftommy

Guest
Space colonization is in it's earliest stages already:

Currently we're developing the abilities to get into and out of gravity wells efficiently. We're learning to travel and live in biologically inhospitable environments. We have telescopes scanning the heavens for "Class M" planets and once we find one, humanity will wrestle with the problem and costs of visiting there and establishing some sort of colony to help perpetuate the species. There are now, and will be, populations eager to colonize this off world. The destruction of this planets bio-environment may hasten humanities willingness to bear the cost of colonization sooner than we otherwise might.

I think there's also is an inherent wonder-lust to humanity that drives exploration/colonization. It is not entirely independent of economic issues but it often overshadows the limits the economists would have you and I believe in.

JOBS IN SPACE!
I'd rather be saving PIGS IN SPACE!
but I"m not running for Congress!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY