Young engineers are excited by this "Apollo revisited" plan?

Status
Not open for further replies.
V

vt_hokie

Guest
http://space.com/adastra/050920_genx.html<br /><br />Not me. After the failures of ambitious programs like NASP and VentureStar, it's as if we're saying, forget it, those ambitious programs are just too hard. Let's go back to the 1960's and spend billions on a porkbarrel program using obsolete technology so that 4 people can walk around on the moon for a few days.<br /><br />Apollo may have inspired many people to pursue engineering, but this joke of a program is inspiring me to get out of engineering! I'd rather pursue an MBA and then hopefully get a job that pays better than engineering, which doesn't even pay enough for me to afford an average home these days! (Side note: I'd sure like to know who's buying all these new million dollar homes, and what their careers are! Hell, even a modest 3 bedroom box costs $300,000 or more in many areas today!) <br /><br />I am more excited by the real visionaries, like Burt Rutan, than I am by this unimaginative, unambitious drawn out excuse for a "vision". I'm more excited by the prospect of hundreds or thousands of people being able to see space on suborbital flights (including myself, perhaps, someday) than I am by the prospect of 4 NASA astronauts making a brief visit to the moon.
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
<font color="yellow">"I am more excited by the real visionaries, like Burt Rutan..."</font><br /><br />You have absolutly no perspective. Compared to the NASA Moon program, the private sector visionaries you refer to are still at the stage of working to bring glorified joy rides to the public. Watch the pretty rockets go up and down all day long if you like, I want to see geologists exploring the Moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
V

vt_hokie

Guest
It's not that I think we can't get any worthwhile return from sending a couple of geologists to the moon, but it's that I think we could get so much more for the money being spent on it. Keep in mind, this program will eat up almost the entire NASA budget for the next 20 or 30 years, preventing any other new technologies from being developed. It's the same mistake we made by putting almost everything into the space shuttle. I want to see more Hubble telescopes, more robotic explorers on Mars, more probes to the outer planets, and yes, more people going to and from LEO in safer, more affordable vehicles before we worry about sending humans to further destinations. <br /><br />As long as every available dollar goes toward funding this "Apollo II" using 1970's vintage shuttle technology, there won't be a single dollar to develop a lifting body scramjet, or a fully reusable rocket, or anything else that would truly open up spaceflight by making it safer and more routine. <br /><br />Basically, it means that I will only live to see what my parents saw with Apollo. I will likely not live to see any real breakthroughs given a tepid space agency like the one NASA has become.
 
G

grooble

Guest
They are not taking any money from the science side of things. The moon missions will be done with the same dollars that are currently spent on shuttle.
 
V

vt_hokie

Guest
<i>"They are not taking any money from the science side of things. The moon missions will be done with the same dollars that are currently spent on shuttle."</i><br /><br />That's what they claim, but based on what I've read on nasawatch lately, that claim doesn't reflect reality. And even assuming that is true, the shuttle eats up too much of the budget, and prevents progress on innovative new technologies such as the ones the now defunct "Strategic Launch Initiative" was to pioneer. This lunar program just perpetuates that situation, which is good news for contractors like ATK, Lockheed, and Boeing but bad news for progress!
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
<font color="yellow">"...more people going to and from LEO in safer, more affordable vehicles before we worry about sending humans to further destinations."</font><br /><br />Why are all those people going into LEO? Is it mostly tourism or joy rides? That's fine if it is, especially if someone is making money on it and people enjoy it. We've been waiting for the age of The Jetsons to arrive since the 60's. But my main interest in space is exploration and science. <br /><br />Griffin said that the portion of the NASA budget devoted to unmanned exploration will remain unchanged. With two orbiters (and one on the way) and two rovers at Mars, the massive Cassini orbiting Saturn, another orbiter headed to Mercury, a craft shortly to leave for pluto and beyond, and other missions of exploration being planned, I have no complaint with the unmanned missions as they stand. With scientists heading back to the Moon, the science portion of the manned program can only get much better.<br /><br />I say leave the joy rides and glitz to the private sector. God bless them. I hope they soon start taking space industrial and heavy transport business away from NASA. And guess what? So does Griffin. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
V

vt_hokie

Guest
<i>"I hope they soon start taking space industrial and heavy transport business away from NASA. And guess what? So does Griffin."</i><br /><br />So, does Griffin want to see a company like SpaceX develop a launch vehicle that's so cheap to operate, it makes NASA's expensive shuttle derived launchers impossible to justify? Because that's what's going to happen. NASA is spending billions adapting obsolete shuttle technology when others are doing the right thing by working to make those shuttle derived relics obsolete!
 
R

remekr

Guest
Sure, I think he'd cheer them on. Only thing is, before the gov't buys any human rides on a private space vehicle, they'll probably demand it be demonstrated to be at least as safe and robust as the NASA-designed vehicles.
 
H

henryhallam

Guest
Young engineer checking in.. (about to enter the first year of a 4-year Aerospace Engineering course)<br /><br />Very much excited and I hope to work on the new programme.
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
<font color="yellow">"So, does Griffin want to see a company like SpaceX develop a launch vehicle that's so cheap to operate, it makes NASA's expensive shuttle derived launchers impossible to justify?"</font><br /><br />Yes! Yes! yes! How great it would be if NASA could concentrate 100% on planning and building the scientific devices of exploration and discovery instead of spending so much time and other resources on the transport of those devises. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">You have absolutly no perspective. Compared to the NASA Moon program, the private sector visionaries you refer to are still at the stage of working to bring glorified joy rides to the public.</font>/i><br /><br />The primary difference is that Rutan, SpaceX, etc. are aimed at taking anyone into space, not just a tiny select few. I may very well fly on a Rutan rocket, but I will definitely not fly on a NASA rocket.<br /><br />Its like watching sex versus having it. I prefer the second. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /></i>
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
That's great, but I'm interested in science, and that's what NASA should be interested in. The fun, and even business, flights SHOULD be left to the private sector. Why would anyone want NASA to compete in that area? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>So, does Griffin want to see a company like SpaceX develop a launch vehicle that's so cheap to operate, it makes NASA's expensive shuttle derived launchers impossible to justify? Because that's what's going to happen. NASA is spending billions adapting obsolete shuttle technology when others are doing the right thing by working to make those shuttle derived relics obsolete!<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />It's worth pointing out at this point that SpaceX has no plans whatsoever to do what you are suggesting will happen -- build a super-heavy-lift vehicle that is manrated and significantly cheaper than the Shuttle-derived plan in just 12 years. They don't have anything on the table that even hints at an SHLV plan. And that's because it would be moronic. They need to start making a return on their investments, and that means they need to build the kind of rocket that will sell well today. That's a medium-lift rocket. Once they've got the infrastructure and spare cash, they can think about ramping up to more ambitious projects, but they're not ready for that yet.<br /><br />I'm very happy to see Lockheed and Boeing getting domestic competition from more than just Orbital Sciences. It's about time another serious competitor entered that field. That's neccesary if we ever want manned spaceflight to have real significance in the marketplace. But let's not expect miracles from it, nor expect them to shove aside their current plans just because we'd rather see them go to the Moon than NASA. They'll get there, but they'll do it in their own time.<br /><br />In the meantime, NASA should be doing stuff and not just sitting on its butt. Private industry isn't going to do much pure science, so I'd like to see NASA doing that. Geologists on the Moon is a glorious thought! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
<font color="yellow">"I'd rather pursue an MBA and then hopefully get a job that pays better than engineering..."</font><br /><br />Fine. Just don't blame NASA. In deciding that an engineering career will not be exciting or profitable enough for you you are expressing a lack of confidence in the private sector as much as in NASA. It is not the government's business to invent "exciting careers" paid for with tax dollars. Many people working for the government and private business do find their career exciting, but that comes from within. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
V

vt_hokie

Guest
After taking it up the rear from Bernie Schwartz and losing everything I invested in his Loral scam, yeah, I guess I lack confidence in the private sector too! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> It's an outrage that this guy is still CEO of Loral, and it just proves that the BOD is a good 'ol boy network and there's no accountability to shareholders or anybody else.<br /><br />It should be the government's job, and NASA's job, to push the envelope and explore new technologies such as scramjet propulsion. It should not be NASA's job to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on obsolete hardware to protect politically important contractor jobs while trying to re-live the glory days of the past.<br /><br />
 
S

steve82

Guest
I feel for you, vt_. I lost a bundle on Globalstar myself.<br />
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
Money is tight. NASA can explore new technologies and go nowhere, not even LEO for the forseeable future, or it can use proven technologies to go reliably and often to LEO and to the Moon. Those are the choises, no way around it. I want to go to the Moon and do science there now. You are in love with technology, I am in love with science. Lucky for me NASA is in love with science too. Not to mention the fact that NASA has been given its marching orders by the Whitehouse and the only way to follow those orders -- both in terms of cost and timing -- is to use proven technology. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

kdavis007

Guest
To me NASA is about exploration not science.. I'm don't enjoy spending my money so a bunch of Saganites can have their jollies with my money...
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
<font color="yellow">"To me NASA is about exploration not science..."</font><br /><br />"Exploration" without science is sightseeing. Save that for the privately managed tours. NASA is there do do science. You are the one out for jollies. Science is hard work. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
>Young engineer checking in.. (about to enter the first year of a 4-year Aerospace Engineering course) <<br /><br />Regular updates when you can!<br /><br />I want to do a small course in this (just so I understand better what I'm writing about).<br /><br />All the best with it!
 
M

mikejz

Guest
The problem is that space science right now is very conservative in it's approch. Look at Cassini, very expensive and VERY conservative in it's design. Right now the way space science is funded drives reseachers towards goals that are in direct conflict with the goals of greater exploration due to the high risks involved.
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
<font color="yellow">"Right now the way space science is funded..."</font><br /><br />You mean since money is tight things have to work? No big chances can be taken on unproven concepts? Well, that's the way it is. <br /><br />I think its fantastic that we can find a way to get back to doing human driven science on the Moon. I still see the wonder in that, no matter how conservative you think it is. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

kdavis007

Guest
To me NASA is about sending humans back to the Moon, Mars, and beyond.. Not send robots.. If you want to science projects funded ask for a private grant...
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
Why do you equate doing lunar science with only robotic and not manned missions. Manned missions will do the best science. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts