It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Abandon Ship

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   

WetWarez
There is a huge difference between 'concept' and reality. NASA hasn't even come out with a budget for expected costs as most of the money for launches have been eaten up by the crippled shuttle program.

All in time, There organizing a big plan...it will take a little longer to get everything in place. China also has no moon plans that are set in stone...or written in sand for that mater. Same goes for Russia's Kliper spacecraft.



Do you honestly believe that with the current political environment and the situation that we've gotten ourselves in in the Middle East that the Congress would actually consider the funding requirements?

Yes, I do. The Iraqi rebuilding is expensive...but by no means will it halt our space program.



Right now, anything that the current administration can do to deflect public attention from Iraq is what their main goal is. I mean the reality is that the current successful missions that have occured (i.e. Mars, Saturn, Jupiter) were funded and approved well before this administration.

deflect??? Is everything really about Iraq with you? Nasa has launched dozens and dozens of probes during the Nush administration. You are obviously anti-bush, you should stick to the politics forum if this is all you keep coming back to.



Don't get me wrong, I am not 'Politicizing' this thread but find that the financial backing for such a project weak at best.

yes, thats exactly what your doing. and I think the backing is strong, I believe all Nasa needs is an increase in there annual budget of a couple billion.



And as far as sub-orbital space craft are concerned, look at Virgin Galactic. They are on the cutting edge and privatly owned.

yeah...thats my point, america is pushing towards a public space flight future...and not just for nasa of the really wealthy. I like Virgin Galactic...but I wouldn't call them cutting edge by any means.



We will colonize and explore beyond earth, but I don't think NASA is the one to lead us there....

maybe not, but there a big help.




posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by wetwarez
Come on, do you honestly believe that you can keep thousands of backyard astronomers quiet all over the world? After all, they are the ones that usually find the NEO objects.


"Backyard astronomer" calls observatry who are threaten to keep quite, asks about a find, they say it's nothing.

Problem solved.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Well lets see what we have here. As far as I know DOD gets their aeronautic tech from Lockheed Martin and other private sector groups who have been giving us the most dominant aircraft in the world forlonger than I have been alive. I'm sure that they have something up their sleeve as far as space exploration tech that we have not seen yet.

Also, the inner reaches of our gov. have scores of think tanks that contemplate everything from world famine to the financial effects of a penny being spent in timbucktoo. Do yuo actually think that the worlds scientists have been ignored when they brief the gov. on subjects such as nuclear annihalation, Texas-sized meteors, or the effects of global warming? No, but they pretend to do nothing while the think tanks analize and present the best and worst case scenario. For which a strategy is formulated to best preserve the present system.

Space exploration for purposes of preserving the last bit of humanity, although possibly a last resort, would seem to me a very important and viable option. I mean think about it.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Ok guys, sorry I've been away from the thread for so long but, Wilma really kicked my butt.... Enough of that though....




Originally posted by Murcielago
Yes, I do. The Iraqi rebuilding is expensive...but by no means will it halt our space program.

Murcielago, I never said it would halt the program but, just how many new projects have been funded this administration? Current shortfalls are causing serious debates about "any" new funding for the forseeable future.

deflect??? Is everything really about Iraq with you? Nasa has launched dozens and dozens of probes during the Nush administration. You are obviously anti-bush, you should stick to the politics forum if this is all you keep coming back to.

Yes but all of those projects were slated for funding under the previous administrations (notice administrations with an "s" I'm not "Nush" bashing).



... I believe all Nasa needs is an increase in there annual budget of a couple billion.
a couple of billion.... what do you want? 2 more shuttle launches?


yeah...thats my point, america is pushing towards a public space flight future...and not just for nasa of the really wealthy. I like Virgin Galactic...but I wouldn't call them cutting edge by any means.


Let's put it another way? The Apollo program was cutting edge, not just because they were using the latest and greatest but, because they were flying at the very edge of our capability. Back then, we took more risks and they paid off. If we were to try a moon launch today, the way Apollo did it, there is no way we'd have ever gotten off the ground. Why? Because there weren't enough safety concerns.... The environment today would never stand for it.

Well, just one thing people, space exploration is dangerous. If you don't want to spend the time / money / or lives doing it, crawl back into your cave and wonder why there are pinholes in the curtain of night....


[edit on 10-31-2005 by wetwarez]



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   
I meant a couple billion more per years...which is around the 3 launches area...but thats on top of what they allready have.

As for the Nasa projects under the Bush admin...how about the grand daddy of em all, the CEV, made for the ISS, and the moon.


However I do agree with your last remark, we dont take the risks today, that we took back then. Mainly because of the media...Thousands of people die everyday that people are oblivious to, But with the crazy "left" media that we have these days they feel the need to do the daily count on there websites and tv channels just so the average joe knows that people are dieing virtually everyday over there.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
As for the Nasa projects under the Bush admin...how about the grand daddy of em all, the CEV, made for the ISS, and the moon.


Again, this is just a concept, not even with a budget approval yet. As far as the ISS goes... USELESS... Great idea at the time but, we're footing the bill but buying launches from the Russians because we can't get foam to stop falling. Tell me, what use is the ISS?



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   
wetwarez - ugh...that question sounds like what "resistance" kept asking...he gave me a head ache...I'll dig up that thread later and link it.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
that question sounds like what "resistance" kept asking...he gave me a head ache...I'll dig up that thread later and link it.


Murcielago, I am far from being a conspiracy theorist... I believe we did land on the moon, unlike others... What I'm talking about here is that we no longer have a follow thru with our space strategy. The example given was the ISS. Yes it is "suppose to be" an international project, yet we foot most of the bill and the Russians use it like another Mir.

I'm not saying that we don't have good ideas anymore... we have great and innovative ideas for the space program. I'd just like to see us follow thru on some of them. Most get cancelled, delayed or written off completely due to lack of funds/technology/motivation.

All I would like for the US to do, is to regain some sense of... credibility with it's launch programs.

Don't get me wrong, NASA has done some truly astounding things in it's day but, we need to put it to bed. It's a cold war era organization with a cold war era mentality for the space program. NASA either needs to be revamped or disbanded all together and another more econimically viable entity put in place.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 01:50 PM
link   
lol, fat chance. While yes of course Nasa has there fair share of problems, that happens with all huge companies.

People view the Space Shuttle as a rusting space plane, and want something newer and better...So what does Nasa do? They plan on using the shuttles solid rocket boosters for there new CEV...So I dont know if it will really WOW anyone. Dont get me wrong, I think its a pretty good idea...But I had high hopes when they had X-43A hit a top speed of mach 9.8, and had plans of doing a larger "B" version, and then even bigger "C" version...So we would have a scramjet space plane...but for reasons unknown to me they cancelled all those future plans, That really dissappointed me, and now they are managing to squeez a measily 15 million a year into hypersonic work...I personally think the AF and mainly the US Gov told Nasa to not pursue there larger space capabile scramjet because the AF have or are working on there own...so they dont want the rest of the world to learn a lot about them through Nasa's scramjet.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Scramjets... nice.... Too bad that we don't have them yet... Sub-orbitals would be a breeze.

Let's hope something is on the horizon....



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join