It's Been 43 Years Since Man First Walked on the Moon: Does Sending People Into Space Still Make Sense?
deBrice
2012/07/20 19:00:00
SLIDESHOW: Does Sending People to Space Make Sense?
6 of 6
What's Next?
More than likely, no more humans will be sent into space, at least not in the near future. We are now in the era of AI and Drone.
-
The Apollo 11 Crew
Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong and Michael Collins
-
"We choose to go to the Moon"
On May 25, 1961, J.F. Kennedy announced his plan for an ambitious space program: The moon!
-
First Moon Landing
On July 20th 1969, two Americans, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, were the first human beings to walk the moon.
-
Mission Success
On July 24th, 1969, Houston mission control euphoria: The capsule returned to Earth, with three astronauts Michael Collins, Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong. The mission was a complete success!
-
Appolo 13: "Failure is not an option"
The Appolo 13 issue with the air filter forces engineers to find a way to filter CO2 in the capsule with only what's available to the astronaut. Ultimately, they found a solution that saved those astronauts.
-
What's Next?
More than likely, no more humans will be sent into space, at least not in the near future. We are now in the era of AI and Drone.
It's Been 43 Years Since Man First Walked on the Moon: Does Sending People Into Space Still Make Sense?
|
|
|||||
|
145 votes
|
|
23% | |||
|
479 votes
|
|
77% | |||
Forty-three years ago, two Americans, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, were the first human beings to ever walk on the moon. But in today's space program, sending people to space isn't really a priority anymore, when drones and rovers can go farther, for a longer period of time and for a cheaper amount (one-way ticket instead of a round trip.) Do you think sending people into space still makes sense?
Top Opinion
-
Franklin 2012/07/20 20:36:21Yes, there is no substitute to an astronaut.
Media silence on that. Surprised?
Shortchanging the space budget, lawmakers said, should not be an option. "This is a period of transformation," said Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Science subcommittee on space and aeronautics. "We are at the dawn of a new space age, and we have to do it right."
Industry and congressional sources said the administration has abandoned an early OMB proposal to slash the number of planned shuttle flights by more than half, but hemmed in by other budget priorities, especially the war in Iraq, it still appears unwilling to fund a full slate of 19 flights.
The sources said the administration may also let the planned deployment of the next generation spaceship slip to 2014. This was the original date proposed by Bush, but Griffin said last year he expects to fly the new "crew exploration vehicle" by 2012. That would cut to two years the "gap" that will open after the shuttle is retired in 2010, leaving the United States with no human spaceflight capacity.
The sources said the administration may also let the planned deployment of the next generation spaceship slip to 2014. This was the original date proposed by Bush, but Griffin said last year he expects to fly the new "crew exploration vehicle" by 2012. That would cut to two years the "gap" that will open after the shuttle is retired in 2010, leaving the United States with no human spaceflight capacity.
But, with all the moon energy found in the just the dust on the moon worth billions with
a big B, and companies and the wealthy from around the world already putting up the
Cash to plan, build and mind it, I think we'll see action on the moon in the next few years. I hope we don't drag our feet to the table like we tend to do. When Canada found all the sand oil by the time we decided to buy into it China had already had made contracts on more then 60% of it with other countries buying up almost all the rest, we can in last again and managed a whooping 10%.
Our nation has received so much from the NASA program, from soilless gardening, to microwaves, inventions that would have never been discovered without it.
Now it's up to us to fight against the closure of the oceanic program. I've actually met Sylvia Earle at a conference, she one of the most inspiring and brilliant people in my lifetime.
Here's a recent interview, discussing the $3 million dollar shortfall.
"There's great concern that because Aquarius, along with the rest of the National Underwater Research Program, has been zeroed out by Congress as of September this year, that we're going to lose this asset, this unique capability of being able to explore the ocean by being in the ocean, using the ocean as a laboratory. And, of course, having submarines that can go deeper than divers can go is another great asset that we shouldn't lose(ph) ."
http://www.npr.org/2012/07/20...
But the question now being asked on Capitol Hill is whether Bush will ask for enough money to keep the vision on track when the administration rolls out its 2007 budget Feb. 6, or whether he will shortchange the shuttle program or cripple the new exploration initiative or both. Bush has said he intends to freeze discretionary spending unrelated to national security for the next five years.
Shortchanging the space budget, lawmakers said, should not be an option. "This is a period of transformation," said Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Science subcommittee on space and aeronautics. "We are at the dawn of a new space age, and we have to do it right."
Industry and congressional sources said the administration has abandoned an early OMB proposal to slash the number of planned shuttle flights by more than half, but hemmed in by other budget priorities, especially the war in Iraq, it still appears unwilling to fund a full slate of 19 flights.
The sources said the administration may also let the planned deployment of the next generation spaceship slip to 2014. This was the original date proposed by Bush, but Griffin said last year he expects to fly the new "crew exploration vehicle" by 2012. That would cut to two years the "gap" that will open after the shuttle is retired in 2010, leaving the United States with no human spaceflight capacity.
But the question now being asked on Capitol Hill is whether Bush will ask for enough money to keep the vision on track when the administration rolls out its 2007 budget Feb. 6, or whether he will shortchange the shuttle program or cripple the new exploration initiative or both. Bush has said he intends to freeze discretionary spending unrelated to national security for the next five years.
Shortchanging the space budget, lawmakers said, should not be an option. "This is a period of transformation," said Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Science subcommittee on space and aeronautics. "We are at the dawn of a new space age, and we have to do it right."
Industry and congressional sources said the administration has abandoned an early OMB proposal to slash the number of planned shuttle flights by more than half, but hemmed in by other budget priorities, especially the war in Iraq, it still appears unwilling to fund a full slate of 19 flights.
The sources said the administration may also let the planned deployment of the next generation spaceship slip to 2014. This was the original date proposed by Bush, but Griffin said last year he expects to fly the new "crew exploration vehicle" by 2012. That would cut to two years the "gap" that will open after the shuttle is retired in 2010, leaving the United States with no human spaceflight capacity.
From what you've written It seems like Bush wanted to as you said, "freeze discretionary spending unrelated to national security for the next five years." What? Bush tried to cut spending?
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Now, how did the suggestion you attribute to GW Bush when you said "to slash the number of planned shuttle flights by more than half" turn into slashing the program completely???
"In 2008, the center employed some 15,000 people, generating about $1.1 billion in wages and supported an additional 25,000 jobs, including contract workers as well as workers in the catering, tourism and other service-related industries.
Already, NASA officials have announced the agency will dismiss more than 3,200 shuttle-related contract employees nationwide July 22. Thousands more jobs could be lost over the longer term.
The job losses come at a precarious time for the U.S. economy as it struggles to add jobs and reduce the unemployment rate. The U.S. government reported Friday that nonfarm payrolls rose by just 18,000 in June, well below the 125,000 gain expected by economists surveyed by MarketWatch"
http://articles.marketwatch.c...
"Under a proposal by President Barack Obama, NASA's campaign to send astronauts to the ...
From what you've written It seems like Bush wanted to as you said, "freeze discretionary spending unrelated to national security for the next five years." What? Bush tried to cut spending?
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Now, how did the suggestion you attribute to GW Bush when you said "to slash the number of planned shuttle flights by more than half" turn into slashing the program completely???
"In 2008, the center employed some 15,000 people, generating about $1.1 billion in wages and supported an additional 25,000 jobs, including contract workers as well as workers in the catering, tourism and other service-related industries.
Already, NASA officials have announced the agency will dismiss more than 3,200 shuttle-related contract employees nationwide July 22. Thousands more jobs could be lost over the longer term.
The job losses come at a precarious time for the U.S. economy as it struggles to add jobs and reduce the unemployment rate. The U.S. government reported Friday that nonfarm payrolls rose by just 18,000 in June, well below the 125,000 gain expected by economists surveyed by MarketWatch"
http://articles.marketwatch.c...
"Under a proposal by President Barack Obama, NASA's campaign to send astronauts to the moon would be canceled, and the spaceship NASA has been building to replace the aging space shuttle would be scrapped."
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/0...
Here this article points out the blame for both parties and it's direct association with the states rise to the top of the UE rolls and the TOP of the foreclosures listings too.
How refreshing, a bipartisan blame fest!
"Blame the Democrats. And the Republicans
This part of Florida has been through tough times before. The thousands of space workers -- and people in related fields -- lost their jobs in the 1970s after the end of the moon landings. It happened again in the 1990s when NASA's budget shrank during the Clinton administration.
Then came that awful morning in 2003 when the space shuttle Columbia was supposed to land at the Kennedy Space Center but never made it. Having apparently been damaged on liftoff two weeks earlier, it broke up as it re-entered the atmosphere."
http://abcnews.go.com/Technol...
I'm not saying we should not try to know more about the world and so on but what's the use when we can't even deal with more mundane problems?
This story explains some of the benefits to humanity from the developments made at NASA.
It takes about 3000 pounds of fuel to get one pound of payload into orbit. To condition the environment for humans launching safely and living in space requires too much wasted space and weight to be efficient.
Why, because it directly affects our nation security and our critical infrastructure, but I don't care. I'm telling you why. There was no jet fuel for purchase for 4-8 days for the mid atlantic and north east coast in May, 2012.
Just like you did not address the benefits I referenced above, there are no sources to back up the costs of fuel in the determination to shut down NASA during it's history.
Perhaps you can explain it further.