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.

 

NASA's moon plan too ambitious, Obama panel says

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   

NASA's moon plan too ambitious, Obama panel says


www.miamiherald.com

WASHINGTON -- NASA doesn't have nearly enough money to meet its goal of putting astronauts back on the moon by 2020 -- and it might be the wrong place to go, anyway. That's one of the harsh messages emerging from a sweeping review of NASA's human space flight program.

The Human Space Flight Plans Committee, appointed by President Barack Obama and headed by retired aerospace executive Norman Augustine, has been trying to stitch together some kind of plausible strategy for America's manned space program. The panel has struggled to find options that stay under the current budget and includ
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 14-8-2009 by superdeluxe]




posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   
I was hoping that we would be able to have some sort of manned expedition to Mars by 2040. Looks like that is way out of the window now.

It just seems that there is not enough energy for this to happen now. Maybe one day when we are at a better place people would really push for this. So what other options are there? Will Nano-technology be good enough in 15-20 years where we can send nano-bots to the Moon and Mars to do our exploring?

www.miamiherald.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   
While Russia, China, and even Pakistan and India push forward with their plans to reach the moon in the next decade, America seems to be putting obstacles in the way of their efforts. Since they are the only ones who have ever set foot there they should be miles ahead in producing next generation technology to get there again.
Maybe those who still believe we haven't been to the moon have a point?



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Forget programs for rockets to the moon, or to mars. Use the available funding to develop anti-gravity and hyperspace drives. Then the universe is within reach - not just the two closest rocks.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   
What kind of time frame is realistic for a anti-gravity device? I always thought that something like a solar sail or what not would be the best idea for propulsion?



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   

NASA's moon plan too ambitious


Oh, come on. Remember what kennedy said.


We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.


Kennedy speech

Maybe they should listen to his speech again.


[edit on August 14th, 2009 by peacejet]



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by superdeluxe
What kind of time frame is realistic for a anti-gravity device? I always thought that something like a solar sail or what not would be the best idea for propulsion?


The time frame for development of an anti-gravity device is infinite... if no attempt to do it is ever made.

And a solar sail is about the slowest mode of space travel conceived.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by peacejet
 


I prefer my version of Kennedy's speech:

"We choose to build flying saucers. We choose to build them in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard..."


[edit on 8/14/2009 by Larryman]



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Larryman
reply to post by peacejet
 


I prefer my version of Kennedy's speech:

"We choose to build flying saucers. We choose to build them in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard..."



Come on. We should not copy the aliens and create flying saucers. They are far more technologically advanced and these require theoretical concepts and understanding which are far more greater than what we humans can understand. Let the research go at its own pace.

And also, let it be different from the "flying saucer" type. We can use our brains and develop our own shapes and sizes. That way we can make a clear distinction between us and the aliens.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   
This is so unfortunate. I know it's obvious, but if only the US would use the resource wasted on combating "terror" (incited by the very "victims" of it), it could be far from "too ambitious". I wonder how those with power can justify continuing to waste time with Earthly matters, when the creation of space-faring technology could solve many of these current problems. For example, most wars are fought over land and resource, so at least to me, it would be an obvious part of advancement to find new sources and new ways to tackle these quandaries. So why not start in space? Where there is a relatively limitless amount of resource, and land, which has neither been claimed or touched by human-beings. Baaah, it is just so disheartening to see articles like this. TPTB seem to view the universe through a keyhole. We will never get off this rock



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   
it is to less abmitious.. in my view space exploration is something more important then religions bcause space explartion wil anwser the questions which religions are not willing or cant give the anwser on.

I want that NASA gets a rise of money which is lacking ..
the DOD space programs and USAF militair space industry has to becombined with NASA technical and financialy.

there has to be a steady money flow.. of 25 to 50 bilion dollars anually fixed with rise of inflation as the minimum base .. and be bound by law in a way that congress cannot change that number to a lesser fund for the comming 20 years. so that the change of presidents and congress have no influence on the space program and that program has to be as ambitious as it gets..

full investigation and fundin in near and FTL propultion systems.
investment in nuclear power source fo space ships and stations and bases.
moon bases and with the help of commercial entrepeneurs the building of city's .
same as for mars ..
religions are all different and will never join people together as a whole all over the planet that can only happen due to a war with a sole religion as suvivor so there is one religion left.

space exploration and investement there in like cooperation of nations is the only way of joining people to gether what ever they are believing in what ever color or race.

people who want to get discrimination out of this world and want the recession to end have to support nasa and commercial entrepeneus in the vision of space exploration..
Ares 1 4 and 5 have to be cancelled and replaced by the proposed
direct 2.0 sts derived launch system and the building of several big in space nuclear powered VASiMR engine taxi systems reusable and refueled in space where orion and altair can be joined on after launch.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
I agree on space exploration, but going back to the moon seems a waste in my opinion.

The only reason why we went in the first place was just to say, "We got there first!" We had the social and political power of the space race after we went to the moon.

Though, what does the moon offer?

The only thing I could think of doing something useful with it is setting up a base on the moon for contacting extra-terrestrials, and even then, that would be EXPENSIVE.

I'd say if we're going to focus on space exploration, let's focus on trying to get out of our solar system.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Mak Manto
 


I see the moon as an investment .. and let me say why..
the moon is close and can be seen for a lot of the time if our planet is not blocking the sun.. and mars cannot be seen as big and bright as our moon.
What is a better inspiration for our youth and for poeple who want to see actual something there in space if there money is spend on space exploration.. The ISS is something people don't want to see lost as the same for the pictures of hubble.. so things that can be seen are an inspiration.. I want to see from our planet with a binocular or preferably with the naked eye.. moon bases and even better city as like las vegas on the moon visible by night .. with commercial ferries so people can first launch to a in orbit space station like the one proposed by bigalow aerospace and from there take bigger reusable space transportation like an in space maglev rail system to the moon so the station is like an ISS central station and from where we can step into a train when there are let me say 50 people there and then go to moon station central station for holidays or for scientific laboratories in that city.

so kids and other people on earth see that city or cities and will be inspired to go in to science and other space based oriented commercial projects.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
I think I called this one about six months ago, at least. Ninety-nine percent of all talk about ambitious Moon and Mars programs is just a lot patriotic flag-waving bullcrap that can be inserted into the budget for a short while to pacify the nerds, then removed from the budget to allow the Administration (any Administration) to look like they're taking a really hard look at the budget and making tough choices and sacrifices for the good of everybody.

It's the old three card Monte game. Guess which card your Mars mission is under? Oh, nope. Sorry. Too bad. Want to try again?



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
I think NASA should create some sort of "Young Astronaut" program. By which I mean create a program that intakes young scholars, puts them through school and trains them to become NASA scientists without pay.

If there is anyone else out there like me, which I assume there is, there are PLENTY of young men & women who would love to work for NASA just to contribute to the cause for very minimal pay.

I guess it'd sort of be like the military, but instead of soldier, it'd be an army of scientists.

Man, that'd be cool.. too bad everyone just thinks "money" when they think about space, because like I said there are probably tons of us out there who would love to work for basically nothing to help our nation get into space.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by superdeluxe
 


What a joke. We have the money. They are just to concerned with Earthly affairs.

The amount of money you could get for a joint Euro-US mission to mine the moon would cover the mission itself, debt for all member nations, and still have enough to buy a cool car for everyone on the mission.


What a bold face lie in the face of progress from a man who heralds himself a progressive.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
NASA to consider Free Ranging Space Ships


A presidential space panel on Thursday challenged NASA's vision of establishing a base on the moon and instead weighed other ambitious options that include free-ranging spaceships that could visit destinations throughout the inner solar system.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Put NASA's 'manned' space exploration on hold for 6 years. By then we will have the data from the Kepler satellite (searching for Earth-like planets in other star systems), and 2 years for Hubble to image those found planets. At that time, who would care about a Moon base or Mars base, when we know of another Earth-like (water & breathable atmosphere) available to colonize? And yes, in another star system - that can not be reached by any Ares rocket. With 7-billion and climbing Earth population... the public demand to colonize that new found Earth will be overwhelming. New technology will be required to do it. And it won't be by way of 'rocket science'.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mak Manto
I agree on space exploration, but going back to the moon seems a waste in my opinion.

The only reason why we went in the first place was just to say, "We got there first!" We had the social and political power of the space race after we went to the moon.

Though, what does the moon offer?

The only thing I could think of doing something useful with it is setting up a base on the moon for contacting extra-terrestrials, and even then, that would be EXPENSIVE.

I'd say if we're going to focus on space exploration, let's focus on trying to get out of our solar system.


I thought the reason we wanted to go to the moon was to simulate landings/buildings on Mars?

Also I thought we wanted to go to the Moon and that is where we would build our space stations to where we would launch missions to mars since, most of the energy used is because of leaving Earth's atmosphere?



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Also.

To piggy back what someone earlier said, we need to get the young people interested in space. We need to create that spark. How?

Send a popular celebrity up into space. That would bring the entire debate in all media, and not just on the space section of CNN.




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join