The US Space Program

[mistermack]

I wouldn't agree that the knowledge of the moonshots is lost. It's all there in writing, and we now have far MORE knowledge about materials, computing, navigation, controls, quality and even more knowledge about humans and space radiation. So most things we can now do easier and better and safer.
What's against us is that costs have risen ASTRONOMICALLY in real terms.

Fuel, materials, and manpower all cost loads more.
So there's no doubt that a moon shot could be done today, better, safer than before, but costing more, I suspect. The only way you could compare is to price it in units of the average wage, and see whether it had gone up in the last forty years.

The problem of going back would be motivation. You could't just spend all that money, and then stop, like they did before. You would have to have a REAL long term purpose, of going into space, and staying there. So this time, you would have to have a real USE for the moon.

I would say that that should be extraction of materials and fuel to construct a space station big enough to live on permanently, and to manufacture things in space.
It has to be done that way, because anything of any size is just too expensive to deliver from Earth.

So that should be the goal. Living and manufacturing and recycling in space, with the eventual goal of being totally independent of Earth.
And I can't see how Mars would come into the equation at all. Not for at least a hundred years.

[Coito ergo sum]

I wouldn't agree that the knowledge of the moonshots is lost. It's all there in writing,

Experience is invaluable and non-quantifiable, and isn't subject to being completely written down. There is no substitute for a human who has actually done it. And, having folks who were there, in the control rooms and on the spacecraft, and having designers there who remember practical and pragmatic issues that were addressed and solved is not something that is amenable to simply being written down.

Moreover, it's not "all" there in writing. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes and http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apoll ... tapes.html With each passing decade, data is harder to find, sort, organize and understand, and screw-ups abound.

and we now have far MORE knowledge about materials, computing, navigation, controls, quality and even more knowledge about humans and space radiation. So most things we can now do easier and better and safer.

Yes, I agree with that too.

What's against us is that costs have risen ASTRONOMICALLY in real terms.

We were half way through Constellation and it cost $10 billion. We spent $800 billion from February 2009 to the present in the "Stimulus" plan. Wouldn't some bang for the buck have been achieved by using $10 or $20 billion of the Stimulus money to fund a monumental engineering and scientific endeavor like Constellation? We'd employ scientists, engineers, astronauts, materials specialists, fuel specialists, computer professionals, support personel, etc., and use natural resources and high technology. It certainly would be money at least as well spent as turtle crossings and guard rails on roads next to dry lakes.

Fuel, materials, and manpower all cost loads more.
So there's no doubt that a moon shot could be done today, better, safer than before, but costing more, I suspect. The only way you could compare is to price it in units of the average wage, and see whether it had gone up in the last forty years.

For some reason, we agonize over the cost of men, materials and time associated with a space mission, but rarely does anyone seem to give a flying fuck that a turtle crossing cost $70 million, or that we spent $600 million on coupons to send to people to convert there fucking televisions to HDTV. $50 billion a year is wasted by Medicare every year, according to the US government itself, and the entire annual NASA budget is $18 billion. Honestly, I don't give a fuck how much it costs to go back to the Moon, because if it costs less than $500 billion it's less of a waste of money than much of the other stuff that our government does.

The problem of going back would be motivation. You could't just spend all that money,

The money actually spent is a pittance compared to nonsense programs that nobody seems to question.

and then stop, like they did before. You would have to have a REAL long term purpose, of going into space, and staying there. So this time, you would have to have a real USE for the moon.

Base at Clavius crater to explore, learn more about the moon, possibly learn how to harvest resources, and learn how to live and work in space in the long term, not in low earth orbit, but much farther away. That will teach us how to take the next step. My point has been that without the nearer-earth activities you and I have been talking about, the greater leap to Mars and beyond is foolhardy and stupid.

I would say that that should be extraction of materials and fuel to construct a space station big enough to live on permanently, and to manufacture things in space.
It has to be done that way, because anything of any size is just too expensive to deliver from Earth.

Agreed.

So that should be the goal. Living and manufacturing and recycling in space, with the eventual goal of being totally independent of Earth.
And I can't see how Mars would come into the equation at all. Not for at least a hundred years.

Agreed.

I can see a first landing on Mars as soon as we muster up the will to pay for it. It's certainly possible. However, I would do the Moon again first, so that we can use that experience and time to also work on a Mars craft and other components and to further plan the mission. It's going to take 20 years to pull off a Mars mission. Why not start that program now, and run it along side the Moon program, as if the Moon program is Chapter 1 of the greater Mars program, which, of course, is a stepping stone to Europa....

[Coito ergo sum]

Sorry I'm not up on my lunar geography, is there anything on it that we know of that can be made into fuel?

http://www.space.com/816-resources-moon.html

http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Moon_p ... s_999.html

[Clinton Huxley]

CES, three questions:-
1) what the hell have you got against turtles? Turtles are nice!
2) Why does military expenditure not appear on your list of wasted money?
3) Seriously, what is it with the turtle-hate?

[Coito ergo sum]

CES, three questions:-
1) what the hell have you got against turtles? Turtles are nice!

I like turtles. Some of my best friends are turtles.

2) Why does military expenditure not appear on your list of wasted money?

I listed only examples. I would also cite, now that you mention it, billions of wasted military dollars as an example of wasted money.

3) Seriously, what is it with the turtle-hate?

Why must you always play the species card?

[Clinton Huxley]

CES, three questions:-
1) what the hell have you got against turtles? Turtles are nice!

I like turtles. Some of my best friends are turtles.

2) Why does military expenditure not appear on your list of wasted money?

I listed only examples. I would also cite, now that you mention it, billions of wasted military dollars as an example of wasted money.

3) Seriously, what is it with the turtle-hate?

Why must you always play the species card?

I think $70million is not enough to spend on turtles.

However, over $600 Billion a YEAR on defence, pretty much as much as everyone else COMBINED spends - you might think there was plenty of fat to trim there. Scrap a few tanks and save the turtles, I say.

[Coito ergo sum]

CES, three questions:-
1) what the hell have you got against turtles? Turtles are nice!

I like turtles. Some of my best friends are turtles.

2) Why does military expenditure not appear on your list of wasted money?

I listed only examples. I would also cite, now that you mention it, billions of wasted military dollars as an example of wasted money.

3) Seriously, what is it with the turtle-hate?

Why must you always play the species card?

I think $70million is not enough to spend on turtles.

However, over $600 Billion a YEAR on defence, pretty much as much as everyone else COMBINED spends - you might think there was plenty of fat to trim there. Scrap a few tanks and save the turtles, I say.

No argument from me. My point was that all the hand-wringing about spending a few billion dollars on such a monumentally awesome thing as manned space flight, and yet hardly a peep about saving money anywhere else.

Buried in the Department of the Treasury's 2003 Financial Report of the United States Government is a short section titled "Unreconciled Transactions Affecting the Change in Net Position," which explains that these unreconciled transactions totaled $24.5 billion in 2003 (ONE FUCKING YEAR!!!!!!). A recent audit revealed that between 1997 and 2003, the Defense Department purchased and then left unused approximately 270,000 commercial airline tickets at a total cost of $100 million. A recent audit revealed that employees of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) diverted millions of dollars to personal purchases through their government-issued credit cards. Sampling 300 employees' purchases over six months, investigators estimated that 15 percent abused their government credit cards at a cost of $5.8 million. Taxpayer-funded purchases included Ozzy Osbourne concert tickets, tattoos, lingerie, bartender school tuition, car payments, and cash advances. Over one recent 18-month period, Air Force and Navy personnel used government-funded credit cards to charge at least $102,400 for admission to entertainment events, $48,250 for gambling, $69,300 for cruises, and $73,950 for exotic dance clubs and prostitutes. Medicare reform could save taxpayers and program beneficiaries $20 billion to $30 billion annually without reducing benefits.

In 2002, the Department of Education received an application to certify the student loan participation of the Y'Hica Institute in London, England. After approving the certification, the department received and approved student loan applications from three Y'Hica students and disbursed $55,000.
The education Department administrators overlooked one problem: Neither the Y'Hica Institute nor the three students who received the $55,000 existed. The fictitious college and students were created (on paper) by congressional investigators to test the Department of Education's verification procedures. All of the documents were faked, right down to naming one of the fictional loan student applicants "Susan M. Collins," after the Senator requesting the investigation.

Consolidating duplicative programs will save money and improve government service. In addition to those programs that should be eliminated completely, Congress should consolidate the following sets of programs:
342 economic development programs;
130 programs serving the disabled;
130 programs serving at-risk youth;
90 early childhood development programs;
75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities;
72 federal programs dedicated to assuring safe water;
50 homeless assistance programs;
45 federal agencies conducting federal criminal investigations;
40 separate employment and training programs;
28 rural development programs;
27 teen pregnancy programs;
26 small, extraneous K-12 school grant programs;
23 agencies providing aid to the former Soviet republics;
19 programs fighting substance abuse;
17 rural water and waste-water programs in eight agencies;
17 trade agencies monitoring 400 international trade agreements;
12 food safety agencies;
11 principal statistics agencies; and
Four overlapping land management agencies

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... ment-waste

I think this is an understatement: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/2 ... 70584.html

But, for some reason, the first protest against NASA is that it's a "waste of money." Yet, it actually gets results and does great things. Folks always talk about how much math and science need to be encouraged - but, then NASA, which employs large numbers of math and science folks, engineers, computer folks, etc.is considered a "waste" and people want to spend billions on fixing roadways. NASA can send men to the moon for $50 billion, but it costs $50 billion in federal money to pave a few roads. Yet, NASA is the waste of money?

[mistermack]

I think turtles should have been looked after at the planning stage.
It should be up to developers to pay for any turtle-saving work that has to be done, not the taxpayers.
And if it was pushed through without it, then the state should be able to go back to the developers and take the money. If not available, impose a tax on those who now own the development.

If that was the law, people would examine the details of developments and insist on proper procedures before they paid their money. The buyers' lawyers would be responsible for checking all that.

As far as moon materials go, water is the big one. Nothing else comes close to it for importance, because water means propulsion fuel.
Electrical power is abundant via solar cells, but it won't propel a rocket.
I would say that solar cells would be one of the first things that you would aim to manufacture in space.
Shielding panels and thermal insulation would be others.

[Geoff]

Send the turtles to the moon! Win-win.

[PsychoSerenity]

Send the turtles to the moon! Win-win.

Ok, as long as we can save the whales as well!

[Clinton Huxley]

Send the turtles to the moon! Win-win.

That's a terrapin idea...

[Coito ergo sum]

I think we're at loggerheads on this issue...

[Coito ergo sum]

When asked for advice Tuesday, former Discovery astronaut Dr. Anna Fisher told a boy watching the shuttle, “Study Russian.”

http://freebeacon.com/obama-ruins-kids-day/

But the U.S. space program is short of machinery, muddled about goals, and low in morale. The space shuttle has been retired. Thousands of NASA employees and contractors lost their jobs. We have no way to get a man into space except by asking Vladimir Putin, “Mother Russia, May I?”

[Atheist-Lite]

CES...come to europe, you can't repair a pancake but there is Arianne 5 'over here' and things ain't gonna be getting any prettier over your way.

http://online.barrons.com/article/SB500 ... rticle%3D1

Once the dollar crashes and oil is traded in euros etc there is gonna be a major economic boom in europe(for which it is unprepared) and so they'll spend the money on space in part as a way of shifting the economic load and reduce the risk of over-heating/inflation. Consider the US as the ground stage booster for a space civilization launch. Europe and the far east are the upper stages. Where do you want to be?

[Coito ergo sum]

CES...come to europe, you can't repair a pancake but there is Arianne 5 'over here' and things ain't gonna be getting any prettier over your way.

http://online.barrons.com/article/SB500 ... rticle%3D1

Once the dollar crashes and oil is traded in euros etc there is gonna be a major economic boom in europe(for which it is unprepared) and so they'll spend the money on space in part as a way of shifting the economic load and reduce the risk of over-heating/inflation. Consider the US as the ground stage booster for a space civilization launch. Europe and the far east are the upper stages. Where do you want to be?

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Another acute crisis in Europe is the main risk to the global economy, the International Monetary Fund said Tuesday.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/anothe ... 2012-04-17

Our Merkin economic crises are just cheap imitations of proper Yerapeein economic crises....