Timetable

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sponge

Guest
Are there any members here , that actually work, or have worked forNASA, or e.g., consultant groups, which do feasibility studies for companies such as NASA, and if so, does anyone know what the expected timetable is, for a manned mission back to the Moon and/or Mars. Is there any definite plan already in progress? Or is it all feasibility studies at the moment, and/or cash flow problems? If we had the cash, how long would it take us, to plan and execute a journey to Mars? Id like to hear from members who have some inside knowledge, not links related to the subject at hand, but I'am up for anyone who knows what the process actually involves, from start - finish. And please explain the current setbacks we are faced with, and what hurdles we need to get over. What are the real problems, remembering we already have the cash? <br /><br />Please comment.<br /><br />Thank you. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><u>SPONGE</u></em></p> </div>
 
W

why06

Guest
I don't know if there are any stright-up NASA jocks here, but you may want to try posting in mission and launches. If that doesn't work you could always write a letter? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>
 
S

sponge

Guest
<img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> thanks mate. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><u>SPONGE</u></em></p> </div>
 
D

dragon04

Guest
Shuttle_Guy has worked at NASA since the Apollo program, IIRC. Although I believe he works for United Space Alliance, technically. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>
 
S

sponge

Guest
Thanks for the info Dragon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><u>SPONGE</u></em></p> </div>
 
N

nexium

Guest
If you have the cash, finding the right leaders is the next problem. That could take decades. Then you need to define the tentative objectives, then the tentative details. You need to decide which emerging technologies are likely to get the job done with reasonable safety. We did it before in 8 years, so in theory we can go to the moon, and do better science than we did in the 1960s by 2014. <br />We will probably take longer because we are less enthusiastic, USA is less educated in the sciences and technology than in the 1960s. We don't know who we can trust and we are less truthful than before the horrible example President Bill Clinton set. I'll guess 2020 for the next manned mission to the moon, assuming we avoid world war 3, and the USA economy is reasonably robust the next 13 years.<br />40 years ago, I repaired electronic test equipment on the 4th floor of the VAB = Vertical Assembly Building.
 
S

sponge

Guest
Hi Nexium<br /><br />I think of I said this before, to couple of other member here, back in your day working in the VAB, you surely would of thought in 1960, that by now in 2007 trips to the moon would of been a common shedule, and that private enterprise in the the space industry would be common place, its a shame the cash flow problem is even a concern, considering the defence budgets of certain countries. It s pity that politics get involved in space exploration. I suppose all we can hope for now is people like Branson, who arent afraid to throw money at space exploration. In my view, I think youre right about the leaders. I think we need to get someone who is smart, and has a bit of a sack. It all just seems to be feasibility study after another, dont think you would have seen the great early explorers of the earth worrying to much about it, they just took the risk into the unknown, and I think we need to back into that mindset and remember it is about exploration and adventure, not the morbid bean counters, or the bull....ting pollies.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><u>SPONGE</u></em></p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.