Space Exploration

Are NASA's future missions and budget justified?

  • It's worth the time and expenditures

    Votes: 213 66.1%

  • Complete waste of money

    Votes: 40 12.4%

  • We need to explore, but not at the current cost

    Votes: 69 21.4%
  • Total voters
    322
#26
#26
Space is a vacuum. Vacuums suck. Therefore, space sucks.

No taxpayer subsidized money for you, space.
 
#27
#27
Velo Vol said:
A significant policy decision ($$$) is the extent to which we pursue manned space exploration.

I think we should continue programs that allow humans to orbit the earth, and perhaps do another mission to the moon.

But unless we make notable strides in technology, a manned mission to Mars strikes me as a major boondoggle.
Click to expand...

That is the thing though, some of those breakthrough's will only occur as part of working to get over the hurdles of something like a mars flight. With out the specific problem to address there is no imperative to push on some of the issues. Plus some problems and breakthroughs are even discovered till after you solve others.

I don't think anyone is intending to do a mars mission with current tech. Obviously our tech would have to grow. The moon mission didn't arrive on 1960 tech it was made possible by tech leaps made as part of the program. The same would occur with mars.
 
#29
#29
Velo Vol said:
A significant policy decision ($$$) is the extent to which we pursue manned space exploration.

I think we should continue programs that allow humans to orbit the earth, and perhaps do another mission to the moon.

But unless we make notable strides in technology, a manned mission to Mars strikes me as a major boondoggle.
Click to expand...

I'd think we have the technology to do it right now. It's highly expensive, but we have the know how to perform that mission. The tech wouldn't be massively different than what we used for the lunar landing. More power of course, longer duration, but we've already showed we can keep humans in space indefinitely.

It could be done and I don't think a lot of reinventing the wheel would need to be accomplished.
 
#30
#30
Perhaps corporations like SpaceX can play a larger role in our goals and technologies. I think NASA is essential, but does not need to be the only player. SpaceX is doing some pretty cool stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#31
#31
Can't find it, but there is a really good ReasonTV news piece about how we should pursue building colonies on the ocean rather than in space. Much more plausible. Wish I could find it.
 
#32
#32
Grand Vol said:
I'd think we have the technology to do it right now. It's highly expensive, but we have the know how to perform that mission. The tech wouldn't be massively different than what we used for the lunar landing. More power of course, longer duration, but we've already showed we can keep humans in space indefinitely.

It could be done and I don't think a lot of reinventing the wheel would need to be accomplished.
Click to expand...

It should be at the bottom of the list.
 
#36
#36
gcbvol said:
Perhaps corporations like SpaceX can play a larger role in our goals and technologies. I think NASA is essential, but does not need to be the only player. SpaceX is doing some pretty cool stuff.
Click to expand...

I think the commercial side of space has grown by leaps and bounds over the past decade and will continue as governments (not just the US) continue to drag their feet and/or accept the lack of motivation to get out there. Space X, Virgin Galactic, Bigelow Aerospace, XCOR, et al are taking the steps in moving towards the new frontier and I wouldn't be surprised at all to see some of the grand plans come to fruition in the next decade or so like the lunar orbital flights or commercial space stations.

The private sector is filling in the gaps where only governments once stood. And while it wasn't the intent of the thread, it is a tangent worth talking about. Can the commercial sector do a better job than the government on manned exploration? Or even unmanned for that matter?
 
#38
#38
Grand Vol said:
I think the commercial side of space has grown by leaps and bounds over the past decade and will continue as governments (not just the US) continue to drag their feet and/or accept the lack of motivation to get out there. Space X, Virgin Galactic, Bigelow Aerospace, XCOR, et al are taking the steps in moving towards the new frontier and I wouldn't be surprised at all to see some of the grand plans come to fruition in the next decade or so like the lunar orbital flights or commercial space stations.

The private sector is filling in the gaps where only governments once stood. And while it wasn't the intent of the thread, it is a tangent worth talking about. Can the commercial sector do a better job than the government on manned exploration? Or even unmanned for that matter?
Click to expand...

Government has to make the demand and prioritize projects and goals to let the private sector bid.

At the top of the list should be the need to build comprehensive detection system.
 
#39
#39
Grand Vol said:
I think the commercial side of space has grown by leaps and bounds over the past decade and will continue as governments (not just the US) continue to drag their feet and/or accept the lack of motivation to get out there. Space X, Virgin Galactic, Bigelow Aerospace, XCOR, et al are taking the steps in moving towards the new frontier and I wouldn't be surprised at all to see some of the grand plans come to fruition in the next decade or so like the lunar orbital flights or commercial space stations.

The private sector is filling in the gaps where only governments once stood. And while it wasn't the intent of the thread, it is a tangent worth talking about. Can the commercial sector do a better job than the government on manned exploration? Or even unmanned for that matter?
Click to expand...

I certainly don't want to initiate thread creep, and understand governments would have to pay corporations if not funding NASA at the same level. I personally trust guys like Elon Musk to get things done over government entities, so I feel they likely would do a better job.
 
#40
#40
Grand Vol said:
What should be the priorities?

Not asking to argue, just wondering if you were dictator for the day where you would focus the attention.
Click to expand...

Post from earlier.

PKT_VOL said:
Space exploration/research is of utmost importance for mankind (not just US citizens). One can argue/disagree what should be prioritized and how money should be appropriated.

I would say asteroid/comet detection/research is under prioritized but should be top priority. The next big group would be research on the ISS and better observation (telescopes like Hubble and listening devices). Going to the moon or Mars is not near as important and more of a dick showing game.
Click to expand...

Once those goals are met, and both technology and the budget improve, go to Mars for reasons outlined by those talking about the return on investment for going to the moon. However, I would make the mission a one way mission (force technology and understanding to improve like we had to do for the moon).
 
#41
#41
This is one area we should actually spend more money in. Any savings we realize from cutting NASA will be spent on something far less important. Even as a conservative I wish we'd pump a lot more into NASA and less into defense
 
#42
#42
gcbvol said:
I certainly don't want to initiate thread creep, and understand governments would have to pay corporations if not funding NASA at the same level. I personally trust guys like Elon Musk to get things done over government entities, so I feel they likely would do a better job.
Click to expand...

It's not thread creep, it's a legitimate point which does fit into the original post.

Is the $17-18 billion a year we spend on NASA justified in light of commercial companies are starting to fill the role they once had?
 
#43
#43
PKT_VOL said:
Once those goals are met, and both technology and the budget improve, go to Mars for reasons outlined by those talking about the return on investment for going to the moon. However, I would make the mission a one way mission (force technology and understanding to improve like we had to do for the moon).
Click to expand...

Ah, I missed that.

I think the Spaceguard Program is certainly something that should be taken seriously. The problem is you will always have the people screaming about it being a big waste of money since something of a 9 magnitude or better on the Torino Scale only happens every hundred millennia or longer. And the way the public is (not just the US) it's hard to get them to focus on something they may not see in their lifetime, Hollywood notwithstanding.
 
#44
#44
If Star Wars is ever going to be a reality, we have to keep funding it.

More money needs to be spent on the lightsaber R&D though.
 
#45
#45
I agree, some of it can and should be left to private businesses. Stuff like sat tech, space stations, and space tourrissim is good for them. I think colonization & defence should be left to government. Things that can be a commercial venture and sustain profits should be businesses. Things that may wind up being mandatory/ or nessissary irregardless of cost should be on the government. That and I don't like the idea of private colonization, I picture problems arising like the British East India company like in the 17/1800's. With a busines having basicly a government level power over a distant colony.
 
#46
#46
Grand Vol said:
It's not thread creep, it's a legitimate point which does fit into the original post.

Is the $17-18 billion a year we spend on NASA justified in light of commercial companies are starting to fill the role they once had?
Click to expand...

I think this is a great question. I'd think the total budget for exploration/technologies should not be cut, however the distribution changes. Say NASA receives $10b/year and another $8b is allocated for services/equipment provided by provate sector. Like PKT mentioned, the space technology corporations can bid for the government work. Would probably lead to better quality and value.
 
#47
#47
gcbvol said:
I think this is a great question. I'd think the total budget for exploration/technologies should not be cut, however the distribution changes. Say NASA receives $10b/year and another $8b is allocated for services/equipment provided by provate sector. Like PKT mentioned, the space technology corporations can bid for the government work. Would probably lead to better quality and value.
Click to expand...

The money is still coming out of the federal budget though, whether it gets earmarked for NASA to spend on commercial enterprise (no Trek reference there) or on their own systems.

I agree though that the commercial sector is doing a bang up job reaching to the horizons.
 
#48
#48
Grand Vol said:
Ah, I missed that.

I think the Spaceguard Program is certainly something that should be taken seriously. The problem is you will always have the people screaming about it being a big waste of money since something of a 9 magnitude or better on the Torino Scale only happens every hundred millennia or longer. And the way the public is (not just the US) it's hard to get them to focus on something they may not see in their lifetime, Hollywood notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

That is like saying we shouldn't study/build warning systems for tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, etc. because each are relatively rare and only affect certain areas. If people are too stupid to look at all the craters around the world and infer what such a phenomenon happening again (when we have the technology to stop it), then they don't deserve an adequate detection system.

The Spaceguard Program is wholly inadequate. We can survive all of the above (with maybe the exception of Yellowstone). An asteroid/comet would be devastating to all of mankind (and those precious animals and plants). Sadly, we might have to sell the program as the ladder lol
 
#49
#49
VolsSportsFan said:
If Star Wars is ever going to be a reality, we have to keep funding it.

More money needs to be spent on the lightsaber R&D though.
Click to expand...

It has long been rumored we have the technology. It would take a war with a superpower to find out.
 
#50
#50
chatsworth_vol said:
I agree, some of it can and should be left to private businesses. Stuff like sat tech, space stations, and space tourrissim is good for them. I think colonization & defence should be left to government. Things that can be a commercial venture and sustain profits should be businesses. Things that may wind up being mandatory/ or nessissary irregardless of cost should be on the government. That and I don't like the idea of private colonization, I picture problems arising like the British East India company like in the 17/1800's. With a busines having basicly a government level power over a distant colony.
Click to expand...

It would happen either way. Even the East India Company operated under the sanction of the British Government as long as the taxes and treasure kept flowing in.

The problem comes back to what Velo and I were discussing earlier in the thread. Administrations change as do priorities. Bush 43 for example had the goals of returning to the moon and establishing a semi-permanent presence there as a leaping pad into deeper space. Obama cancelled it and went another direction.

Private enterprise (again, no Star Trek pun intended) will eventually get tired of government flip-flops and say "screw you, we're going at it alone." And honestly, people like Bigelow, Branson, Musk and Rutan have already started moving in that direction. If NASA, the ESA, CNSA and Roscosmos continue diddling around, they will get passed by the commercial sector. And you may see private corporations establishing colonies in space and potentially (seriously down the road) other planets.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top