NASA's Goals

jrh1524 · May 1, 2008

I remember reading an article recently that stated that NASA has shifted to make manned space flight a priority.  I think NASA's priorities and goals need to be revisited.  Instead of focusing on just manned space flight or robotic exploration, there should be a little of both going on with discoveries from each advancement helping out the other exploration strategy.Here's a rough outline off the top of my head of what some of the priorities and goals should be for NASA.Manned Space Flight:<ul><li>Moon Landings</li><li>Mars Landing</li><li>Moon Base</li><li>Spacecraft Contruction Advancement</li><li>Space Elevator</li></ul>Robotic Space Flight:<ul><li>Propulsion Technology Advancement</li><li>Planet Surface Probe Technology Advancement</li><li>Artificial Intelligence</li><li>Robotic Probes for Outer Planets</li><li>Interstellar Probes?</li></ul>After thinking about the list for a few moments, you might start to see a pattern emerge.  Human spaceflight and exploration should be used for exploring the inner planets while robotic spaceflight could be used to explore the outer planets.  Having NASA's focus on two different priorities would be beneficial in that advancements in one area are sure to assist in another area.  Things like space elevators would help in putting robotic probes into orbit.  Researching different probe propulsion methods might help in developing new spacecraft for manned exploration.  Money needs to be funneled into both area.

qso1 · May 1, 2008

The whole problem of achieving any of the goals you outlined is money. Your list is not all that different from NASA statements made in past NASA reports which always focused on humans on the moon and mars. Even the current Constellation program aims at returning people to the moon with an eventual plan to send the first humans to mars.NASA human spaceflight is just not a high priority to the public and politicians who control the purse strings.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

erioladastra · May 1, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>NASA has shifted to make manned space flight a priorityPosted by jrh1524</DIV> NASA has shifted to make Bush's goals a priority.

vulture4 · May 6, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I remember reading an article recently that stated that NASA has shifted to make manned space flight a priority.  I think NASA's priorities and goals need to be revisited.  </DIV>NASA's goals have shifted, but the biggest shift was the decision to go to the moon in 1961, essentially as way of competing with the Soviets without a nuclear war. Prior to this the prime mission of NASA/NACA had been to produce new science and technology of practical value. Time was critical and money was not, and a large share of the cost was born by income taxes of up to 90% on wealthy taxpayers. This is a different time; Americans are unwilling to spend tax dollars even when lives are at stake, and much of the money that runs government programs, including NASA, is borrowed. NASA may be able to maintain its current budget through political force alone, but this won't be sufficient to go to the moon unless the ISS, which has some support, and most NASA research, technology, aeronautics, and environmental monitoring programs are cut. The Apollo program did not provide the promised benefits to people on earth. When people ask why their taxes should go to sending a small group of people to the moon at a cost of many billions per year instead of a similar amount in roads, or schools, or medical care, or further tax cuts, what will we tell them?

doublehelix · May 6, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The Apollo program did not provide the promised benefits to people on earth. Posted by vulture4</DIV>Perhaps a dumb question, but can someone remind me what the promised benefits were going to be to the people on earth?  -dh  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> doublehelix, Community Manager Imaginova </div>

MeteorWayne · May 6, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Perhaps a dumb question, but can someone remind me what the promised benefits were going to be to the people on earth?  -dh  Posted by doublehelix</DIV> I don't know if it was promised, but it turned my generation into space nerds, which gives SDC a reason to exist...

<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

doublehelix · May 6, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't know if it was promised, but it turned my generation into space nerds, which gives SDC a reason to exist...

Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV>And me a job!  Niiiiiice.  <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" />But seriously, I wonder if it was mainly to extend the human race's knowledge of the universe (and our origins?).  Someone here once said that the people in charge (those who decide on the budgets) have little sense of wonder.  We are in a precarious place right now - although science and math are emphasized, they are emphasized within little boxes of testing and crossing off tasks.  To me, that is not fodder for inspiration or thinking outside that box.  I know we had requirements growing up in the 70s and 80s but don't remember things being so restrictive.  That elasticity in my teacher's teaching methods allowed me to expand my thinking and come at problems from a perhaps unconventional perspective.This country seems to be so focused on surviving, too.  We have a crap economy, GAZILLIONS of dollars going into the war effort. Borrowing against ourselves.  Will there be anything substantial left for exploration of both space and the earth itself?  Anyway, just some errant thoughts on a Tuesday afternoon.  Please forgive the rambling.I wish we put more $$ towards the space program.  We could learn so much more about our universe and ourselves in the process.  I find that prospect exciting.-dh  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> doublehelix, Community Manager Imaginova </div>

MeteorWayne · May 6, 2008

And whether it was an explicit goal or not, we learned a hell of a lot about the solar system, and the earth-moon system.In fact the theory (now well substantiated) that the moon formed from a huge impact on our planet was derived from the data gained by the return of the moon rocks. It totally changed our understanding of our place in the solar system. Nothing has been the same since, and the repercussions of what we learned are still reverberating throughout science today. Can't wait to see what we learn from the first Mars sample mission..... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

3488 · May 6, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And whether it was an explicit goal or not, we learned a hell of a lot about the solar system, and the earth-moon system.In fact the theory (now well substantiated) that the moon formed from a huge impact on our planet was derived from the data gained by the return of the moon rocks. It totally changed our understanding of our place in the solar system. Nothing has been the same since, and the repercussions of what we learned are still reverberating throughout science today. Can't wait to see what we learn from the first Mars sample mission..... Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV>Bravo, Bravo, too damn true Wayne. The scientific & technological knowledge gained is worth far more than the $$ spent on it. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/0/10/f0f1002a-6768-4f68-8a13-7d7c242d60ef.Medium.gif" alt="" />  <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/12/9/4c1ac74f-54ef-4c23-996a-08a6236fa32a.Medium.gif" alt="" />  <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/2/0/022d4ddc-f4fb-498e-a054-bdbea59499bb.Medium.gif" alt="" />There is still much to be learnt from the samples & photographs.Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

doublehelix · May 6, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Bravo, Bravo, too damn true Wayne. The scientific & technological knowledge gained is worth far more than the $$ spent on it. Posted by 3488</DIV>These days it seems that people want to primarily measure something's worth by how much it is worth in $ or pounds or euros.  Knowledge is hard to weigh in that respect.  It's more abstract.  It's mindblowing (for me at least) to think that the moon was part of the earth at one point.  Are the moonrocks available for the public to view somewhere?-dh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> doublehelix, Community Manager Imaginova </div>

3488 · May 6, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>These days it seems that people want to primarily measure something's worth by how much it is worth in $ or pounds or euros.  Knowledge is hard to weigh in that respect.  It's more abstract.  It's mindblowing (for me at least) to think that the moon was part of the earth at one point.  Are the moonrocks available for the public to view somewhere?-dh Posted by doublehelix</DIV>Hi doublehelix,I'm not sure about moon rocks as a general collection on display. Quiet a while back (a good few years ago now) at the Natural History Museum in London, they had a temporary display of a large number. Very interesting too, unlike anything I had seen before.Also I got to see the Genesis Rock (which was under very heavy security), when the Late Jim Irwin & Al Worden visited Canterbury, Kent, UK (about 15 miles from where I live) & I got to meet both Apollo 15 crew members. That was a real thrill, to see with my own eyes this particular moon rock. It is pretty small, but still got a good look. Unfortunately Dave Scott could not be there.Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

Boris_Badenov · May 6, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Time was critical and money was not, and a large share of the cost was born by income taxes of up to 90% on wealthy taxpayers Posted by vulture4</DIV> Uh, yeah , right. Can you provide some back-up for this assertion? Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>  The Apollo program did not provide the promised benefits to people on earth. Posted by vulture4</DIV>What benefits were promised? The ones that were provided we use everyday of our lives. http://spaceplace.jpl.nasa.gov/en/kids/spinoffs2.shtmlReplying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When people ask why their taxes should go to sending a small group of people to the moon at a cost of many billions per year instead of a similar amount in roads, or schools, or medical care, or further tax cuts, what will we tell them?   Posted by vulture4</DIV>http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at_home.htmlThere are so many benefits they are impossible to list here. It would take too much time. Short sighted people say "it costs too much" or "it's too far to go". Far sighted people cross oceans to accomplish their goals.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div> </div>

lampblack · May 7, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Short sighted people say "it costs too much" or "it's too far to go". Far sighted people cross oceans to accomplish their goals.  Posted by boris1961</DIV> People... and governments.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Just tell the truth and let the chips fall... </div>

qso1 · May 7, 2008

NASA's goals have shifted, but the biggest shift was the decision to go to the moon in 1961, essentially as way of competing with the Soviets without a nuclear war.This was one of the reasons, and a major one for NASA going to the moon in the 1960s. From 1958-61 NASA was still trying to decide what type of program made more sense. A space station, then the moon? Or direct to the moon? JFK made that decision for NASA in 1961. Prior to this the prime mission of NASA/NACA had been to produce new science and technology of practical value.NASA replaced NACA. NACA was geared for aeronautical research and when space research became a major focus, NASA was created and replaced or maybe more accurately, absorbed the function of NACA. Time was critical and money was not, and a large share of the cost was born by income taxes of up to 90% on wealthy taxpayers.NASAs budget has always been allocated from taxes across the board. The rich may have payed more taxes in the 1960s but this has more to do with political decisions having nothing to do with NASA. This is a different time; Americans are unwilling to spend tax dollars even when lives are at stake, and much of the money that runs government programs, including NASA, is borrowed. NASA may be able to maintain its current budget through political force alone, but this won't be sufficient to go to the moon unless the ISS, which has some support, and most NASA research, technology, aeronautics, and environmental monitoring programs are cut.If you look at budget projections for the Constellation program, you will see the ISS/shuttle budgets ramping down as Constellation ramps up. Of course, this does not mean much right now because if Democrats win the White House, they may cancel Constellation altogether and I'd be willing to bet if they do...there will be no real improvements in the programs you mentioned. The Apollo program did not provide the promised benefits to people on earth.The Apollo program never promised practical benefits for the street man. This was one of the chief complaints that shaped post Apollo programs. Skylab was one of the first to be advertised as promising benefits to the man on the street and the shuttle promised economical access to space. The shuttle program was the only program proposed by NASA in 1969 to survive the Nixon Administration budget ax and it failed to economize low orbit. When people ask why their taxes should go to sending a small group of people to the moon at a cost of many billions per year instead of a similar amount in roads, or schools, or medical care, or further tax cuts, what will we tell them? Posted by vulture4Tell them that if we cut NASAs budget to finance medical care, schools etc...the government won't allocate the money accordingly anyway. After all, these same complaints were heard post Apollo, and what did we get? The S&L scandal during the Reagan economic boom years. The same complaints were heard during the Clinton budget surplus years and what did we get? 911 and the enormous amount of government spending that followed including a huge new government organization, including money spent on Iraq which dwarfs NASA by far...thats what you tell them, and back it up with facts. Facts like the years 1999-2000 saw NASA budget cuts despite huge federal budget surplusses. NASAs budget went from 2-4% GDP in the 1960s to .6% currently...or the Iraq mess costs just over 5 times NASAs annual budget...or the 2003 $374 billion dollar budget deficit alone, is at least twice the amount of money spent on NASA in its entire existence. Yep, I'd say thats what you tell them.I'm a taxpayer and like you, I wanna see education, disease, poverty or other social problems be taken care of but cutting NASAs budget did nothing to help with these noble goals because the government always has other places to spend our tax dollars that have little or nothing to do with helping the man on the street financially.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

vulture4 · May 11, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Tell them that if we cut NASAs budget to finance medical care, schools etc...the government won't allocate the money accordingly anyway.</DIV>I don't doubt what you say about money cut from NASA's budget; but in this case it's a quesiton of what NASA could be doing with money in its budget. There is a researcher at a NASA center who has discovered the cause of Alzheiumer's Disease. Should NASA spend a tiny fraction of it's budget, the cost of keeping one astronaut in LEO for one day, to confirm the theory, and perhaps find an effective treatment for millions of Americans? Or should NASA say "It's not on the critical path to Mars"?

Search

NASA's Goals

jrh1524

Guest

qso1

Guest

erioladastra

Guest

vulture4

Guest

doublehelix

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

doublehelix

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

3488

Guest

doublehelix

Guest

3488

Guest

Boris_Badenov

Guest

lampblack

Guest

qso1

Guest

vulture4

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page