NASA. Moon missions and more?

Question

Is it smart for us to go back to the moon?

Is the us govrnment spending to much money on the nasa program?

How long until we go to mars?

Should we build a space station on the moon?

talk about the new ARES rocket and wether u think it affective or anythink else on the topic

Answer 1

They'll have to work really hard to make the Aries rocket as expensive as the Shuttle.  It'll probably eventually be more reliable.  One curious idea is that they want to use a solid rocket for human space flight. Once you light the candle, you pretty much have to ride it out.  That maybe OK if the escape tower rocket can pull the capsule off during launch.  But the old idea was that you have no control and therefore few abort options.  That said, the Shuttle has no eject.  And the Challenger crew paid for it.

We've got a Space Station in low Earth Orbit.  The question is should we build a base on the Moon.  And the answer really has to go back to objectives.  I've not heard any.  We're not trying to build infrastructure for other missions.  We're not trying out new tech that we'll need for a Mars mission, like radiation shielding or artificial gravity (by spinning).  We're not trying to grow food to eat while there - and do total recycling.  I haven't even heard of any lunar science proposed.  You need requirements first.  Then create the mission that fits.  A Moon base sounds like a solution looking for a problem it solves.

We won't be on Mars with humans before 2040.  I might see it.

Spending money to expand the kinds of things we do in space is essentially always money well spent.  My main complaint of the ISS is that it does not push the envelope.  We already had tin cans in space.  This could have been spent better.  But the US space budget isn't very large, compared to the wealthy nation that the US is.

Answer 2

If they (those Americans) want to consider it as a "race to the moon", then it would be "smart" for you guys. Cuz those who are going back to the moon and be the 1st one to land on the moon will be considered as the "champ" of the (2nd) moon race! That's why they want to challenge the taikonauts (China's astronauts) to go to the moon.

doesn't matter if they spend alot of money or not, as long as they can generate enough money.

I think we must wait about 15-20 years before we can go to mars, cuz we must solve Earth's problems first (i.e. gas prices, Iran...etc).

You mean a station in orbit around the moon? That's no need, cuz our moon is not colonized, too small relative to Earth and a waste of money. A space station in orbit around the earth is already a great accomplishment.

well ARES is in fact a failure, those engineers, that are involved with that project, can't even come up with a realistic design. They must change the design continually. And why would they want to use a single SRB to launch a manned spacecraft?? It's like a bumpy ride with great amount of explosives in the trunk(in case of failure).

that's it for now! May we all go for cooperation and NOT for competition!

Answer 3

I think we should go back to the Moon to learn all that we can about it and the Earth and the other planets.

I think the Government should spend what it needs to spend to learn new things for use on the Earth and for the people on Earth-like maybe a cure for illnesses and how to live better. It is better than a war for oil.  

I think we should built a Space Station on the Moon before we try to send humans to Mars but if we can and return them home safely then we should explore other planets.  

Answer 4

GW Bush proposed the "Let's go back to SPACE, gee!" program in Jan  of 2004, you know... 2004.... the year he was up for re-election.

So far, the current administration (btw, he got re-elected, hope i didnt spoil it for anyone) hasn't been much help at increasing NASA's budget to pay for any of these Red Herrings, i mean, Space Initiatives...

It would be smart (i.e. against our nature) to NOT go back to the Moon or to Mars until we have a reason.  If we had a working fusion power plant and needed He3, that would be a reason to go back to the Moon.  NOT to hit more golf balls.

Answer 5

The first trip to the moon was one of the most profitable things ever done by mankind.

I would shoot for mars with unmanned landers, while establishing a permanent base on the moon.

Answer 6

Actually, it's *very* smart to go back to the moon.  Aside from research, the one thing the moon missions did for us in the 60's was to advance science - in materials, in processing, and in knowlege.  Recently, we've been in a down-trend as far as technology goes, allowing some countries to surpass us in certain areas. A full-blown space effort to creating a manned presence in space will reverse that trend, and create newer and better technologies - that may solve some of the problems on Earth that we have today.

NASA is underfunded, if anything...  For every dollar you invest in research, you get 100 back.

I'd say Mars is a good 20 years away, possibly more, if we don't start working on it.  And, yes - a permanent station on the Moon would be a good start.

Ares is just a booster;  It'll be more effective and cheaper than some, but there'll be better technologies and boosters developed as Man progresses, in my opinion.  

Answer 7

How many of you are qualified aerospace engineers and have an informed opinion about the design of launch vehicles?  I am and I have.

Whether the Aries launch vehicle is the best way to get to the Moon may be a matter of debate.  But engineering design is iterative by nature.  You start with a design, evaluate an analyze it, change the design based on what you learned, and keep going until you're ready to fly it.  That process can take a long time.  Saying the "engineers can't even come up with a design," when in fact the design is in progress, is naive.

The United States currently has only one human-rated launch vehicle design in its fleet:  the space shuttle.  Basing a new family of launch vehicles on a human-rated design that's been evaluated in operation for 20 years is extremely prudent.  There is a very large knowledge base of operational information for the basic components of the Aries 1 and V vehicles.  That wouldn't be the case if a new vehicle had to be designed.

Now whether returning to the Moon is a good thing is and ought to be a matter of good debate.  We should have clear goals before deciding to risk additional lives and money on it.  Whether exploring the Moon and Mars ought to be publicly funded (as opposed to privately) is yet another concern.

But the notion that space exploration is wasting money that could be better spent "on Earth" is hogwash.  The money for space IS spent on Earth.  The Apollo program gave us huge advances in medical science, materials science, and signal processing.  The latter is manifest in such ordinary technology as cell phones.

Answer 8

Manned voyages to the moon and mars are a waste of resources.  The moon is completely worthless.  Mars is worthless, very far away, and possesses a large gravity well.  There is nothing to be gained by building space stations anywhere.  They simply cost too much.  When we have a space tether the economics of space stations can be realistically readdressed.  But not until then.  Autonomic robots or high levels of nanotechnology could also change the equation.  But with our current technology there are cheaper ways of killing astronauts. Think of how much you can save If you just hit them over the head with a hammer.  The end result is the same and you save hundreds of billions of dollars.  And with a hammer they die much more quickly and in less pain.