Manned moon outpost could be NASA's next big mission

reply to post by sylent6


I would much rather spend our money on this then on a pointless war. Fighting over resources and land that belongs to everyone. If we stopped spending so much money on fighting and instead worked together this would would have probably been done already.

At least this is a starting point and something useful and productive.

reply to post by justwokeup


So a corporation gives money to NASA and the Execs get the credit for contributing. The corporation gets to deduct the money it gave from it's profits and the government loses the tax on it. Ok, meanwhile the profits of the corporation are less and the stockholders, not the execs, lose dividends that they would have gained from the difference between the tax and the donation total.

Seems to me that my dividends are paying for these contributions and not the corporation itself. I am contributing even though I don't get any credit for it. I can't go to NASA as a benefactor and play golf with a scientist either. Here is an explanation on it, they changed the contribution to a business expense so stockholders wouldn't get upset. www.thefreelibrary.com...

reply to post by projectvxn


I agree, the fact is that for every dime we spend that is not necessary, we are borrowing it. NASA has a lot of necessary and more important things they can be doing than going to other planets. They have very good scientists that could be focusing on the predicament that our magnetosphere is in. If they are as intelligent as I think they could focus on helping us through these times of global warming and maybe help save a lot of people and the earth. If people are constantly rebuilding things from storms, the trees will be extinct.

Originally posted by rickymouse
I thought we were still in a Recession. Why make plans to spend a lot more money on something not necessary?

The thing is scientific exploration helps everyone. For example Dr. Michael DeBakey develop an artificial heart pump based a space shuttle's fuel pumps. This is used when waiting for transplants.

Here are a few of the many other medical advances that came at least in part from NASA: Digital imaging breast biopsy system, developed from Hubble Space Telescope technology Tiny transmitters to monitor the fetus inside the womb Laser angioplasty, using fiber-optic catheters Forceps with fiber optics that let doctors measure the pressure applied to a baby's head during delivery Cool suit to lower body temperature in treatment of various conditions Voice-controlled wheelchairs Light-emitting diodes (LED) for help in brain cancer surgery Foam used to insulate space shuttle external tanks for less expensive, better molds for artificial arms and legs Programmable pacemakers Tools for cataract surgery

Link

NASA research is a benefit to everyone.

The 2008 bank bailout of $750 billion was greater than all the money NASA had received in its half-century history; two years’ U.S. military spending exceeds it as well. Right now, NASA’s annual budget is half a penny on your tax dollar. For twice that–a penny on a dollar–we can transform the country from a sullen, dispirited nation, weary of economic struggle, to one where it has reclaimed its 20th century birthright to dream of tomorrow.

-Neil deGrasse Tyson

Background for this article. The article in the OP quotes heavily from noted space policy expert John Logsdon, a professor emeritus at George Washington University. This guy has some pretty good credentials.

John Logsdon is former Director of the Space Policy Institute at The George Washington University.[1]

Logsdon was a member of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board.

He is author of The Decision to Go to the Moon: Project Apollo and the National Interest, and the general editor of the eight-volume series Exploring the Unknown: Selected Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program. Dr. Logsdon is the author most recently of John F. Kennedy and the Race to the Moon, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2010). Source en.wikipedia.org...

A lot of times an article will state "experts" but there is really only one expert in quoted in this article. That is Logsdon. Just FYI.

I am all for it.

Are we paying the Russians to get us there.

We don't have a ship. Which is a bummer.

First a spacecraft then L2. Wtf.

NASA needs to first d its balls again.

Stagnated and stale is no way to run a manned mission of any sort.

It will get cut by the next president anyways.

Sorry to be downer Dave but I am just calling it as I see it.

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by justwokeup

 

So a corporation gives money to NASA and the Execs get the credit for contributing. The corporation gets to deduct the money it gave from it's profits and the government loses the tax on it. Ok, meanwhile the profits of the corporation are less and the stockholders, not the execs, lose dividends that they would have gained from the difference between the tax and the donation total.

Seems to me that my dividends are paying for these contributions and not the corporation itself. I am contributing even though I don't get any credit for it. I can't go to NASA as a benefactor and play golf with a scientist either. Here is an explanation on it, they changed the contribution to a business expense so stockholders wouldn't get upset. www.thefreelibrary.com...

I think you entirely missed my point. At no point was i talking about corporations contributing to NASA.

I was saying that the money the government gives to NASA (which it spends with american corporations), recycles through the economy and a percentage of it comes back as tax revenue.

Originally posted by liejunkie01
I am all for it.

Are we paying the Russians to get us there.

We don't have a ship. Which is a bummer.

First a spacecraft then L2. Wtf.

NASA needs to first d its balls again.

Stagnated and stale is no way to run a manned mission of any sort.

It will get cut by the next president anyways.

Sorry to be downer Dave but I am just calling it as I see it.

The spacecraft is already under development. Even in its initial variant it will be more capable than the shuttle. In later blocks it will be considerably more capable than any lift vehicle ever built by man (even the Saturn V).

www.nasa.gov...

Finally a plan that sees us being more capable than our grandparents generation.

The crewed module that sits on it is a continuation of the Orion module that was being developed under the Bush administration.

www.nasa.gov...


Meanwhile, the bus service to the ISS has been handed off the commercial operators (as it should be) leaving NASA to explore.

The downer on this that people hold is mostly due to politically inspired spreading of FUD.

And once we get a foothold into space our economy will boom. Interplanetary mining. Terra forming mars for more farming opportunities, Siphoning the gas giants for precious fuel..... So i don't think the costs are the least of concerns if you're into the long sight.

reply to post by roadgravel


Why would they wait too see if Romney was elected? It seems to me he would be supportive of such a plan. It's Obama who has killed Americas manned space program.

Hello Roadgravel,

Wonder where NASA will get the funds.

Sadly, the project will never happen, ever.
It's common knowledge that NASA's primary mission is now Muslim Outreach as decided upon by our "glorious" dictator Comrade barry hussein soetoro (alias obama). In reality, NASA is being transformed into a money laundering operation to funnel billions of tax dollars straight to the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist organization.

It's also common knowledge that NASA has been given the mission to prove that US Citizens are to blame for causing man-made global warming, as reinforced by the mainstream media. Now that we are a Communist majority, all contentions otherwise will fade away and the word of Al Gore will become another law that we are all beholden to obey. NASA will be (or already has been) tasked to "prove" that man-made global warming is real and that Americans are to blame.

NASA employees are heros for their past accomplishments. Sadly, the re-missioning of NASA will cast doubt on their continued employment.

The far left is invited to reprimand me for posting this. My IP is already known, as is my disrespect to the Dear Leader, Comrade soetoro. There is no doubt that I will be punished for posting this, and for my disrespectful attitude.

Originally posted by PvtHudson
reply to post by roadgravel

 

Why would they wait too see if Romney was elected? It seems to me he would be supportive of such a plan. It's Obama who has killed Americas manned space program.

This is the plan conceived under Obama. He hasn't killed anything.

He has reduced the overall budget of Nasa by about about 0.3%

If Romney was elected he would dismantle the plan because it was Obamas plan. In the same way that Obama dismantled the Bush plan. In the USA partisanship overrides all logic and common sense.

NASA, as a high profile (but relatively low voting impact) gets screwed around constantly by the bottom feeders we elect. If they were just given clear direction and left alone we'd be on Mars by now.

Sadly, politics is part of every decision. It seems to be about what individual Congress persons wants regardless of the best direction for our country. (Direction is not just about this issue).

reply to post by justwokeup


I cannot link to NASA from here. I am on the gf's phone.

When is the plan supposed to be completed?

I bet not in the next 4 years. The next president will cut the program.

After all, isn't that why they waited until after the elections?

I have lost faith in NASA. They used to be my favorite, but now due to the presidential political arena, there is nothing to hope for.

They spend too much time and way too much money on trying to build the perfect risk free craft.

It takes too long and the next Guy cuts off the funding.

NASA needs its balls back. There is a such thing as trying to be too careful.

They need to build the thing and test it and then fly it.

Not design it, test the design, test the test of the design, spend two tears making sure the test of the test was adequate, then say OK build it, so we can run more tests, then run some tests on those tests, after the engineers took 8 months to see if a bolt would hold up because the test ofthe test of the bolt didn't jive with some tester who was not even present for the test.

After that we need to test all of the tests combined that we tested because there might be some risk.

Hello it is pushing the envelope, NASA has lost sight of the prize and is afraid to push that envelope.

Build the thing and strap some awesomely ballsy pilot and crew into the seats and lets see this thing happen.

In conclusion, NASA is afraid to take a chance for discovery. It is space, built the craft as safe as one can but keep the prize in sight, because the future is only in increments of four years these says.

It takes longer than four years for them to test the damn parachutes for the craft.

reply to post by justwokeup


So wait, Romney wanted us to stay on this Earth and not try to get us off it?

Originally posted by IntoxicatingMadness
reply to post by justwokeup

 

So wait, Romney wanted us to stay on this Earth and not try to get us off it?

Nope. I'm sure he would have had a NASA plan too (Might even be a good one). Just not this one.

Unfortunately, the turmoil induced by making it up and then re-directing the organisation to it would mean little would get done in the first 4 years. By the time the organisation was heading off and making progress it would be time for another election and another 'new plan'.

Thats how its worked for decades.

Thats why China will overtake us if we are not careful. They are working to a stable long term plan. It doesn't matter how long a head start a competitor has if he has to run in circles every once in a while, the other guy running a steady pace will overtake in the long run.

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by justwokeup

 

I cannot link to NASA from here. I am on the gf's phone.

When is the plan supposed to be completed?

I bet not in the next 4 years. The next president will cut the program.

After all, isn't that why they waited until after the elections?

I have lost faith in NASA. They used to be my favorite, but now due to the presidential political arena, there is nothing to hope for.

They spend too much time and way too much money on trying to build the perfect risk free craft.

It takes too long and the next Guy cuts off the funding.

NASA needs its balls back. There is a such thing as trying to be too careful.

They need to build the thing and test it and then fly it.

Not design it, test the design, test the test of the design, spend two tears making sure the test of the test was adequate, then say OK build it, so we can run more tests, then run some tests on those tests, after the engineers took 8 months to see if a bolt would hold up because the test ofthe test of the bolt didn't jive with some tester who was not even present for the test.

After that we need to test all of the tests combined that we tested because there might be some risk.

Hello it is pushing the envelope, NASA has lost sight of the prize and is afraid to push that envelope.

Build the thing and strap some awesomely ballsy pilot and crew into the seats and lets see this thing happen.

In conclusion, NASA is afraid to take a chance for discovery. It is space, built the craft as safe as one can but keep the prize in sight, because the future is only in increments of four years these says.

It takes longer than four years for them to test the damn parachutes for the craft.

edit on 10-11-2012 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)

First flight of the new launcher 2014
Unmanned deployment of the launcher and the Crew Module 2017
First exploration mission 2021

Its always possibly prey to political interference. Thats hardly nasa's fault.

The other point about being too careful has some merit. However, if you are gong to do it the fast and dirty way you have to be willing for some of your people to die horribly in the name of progress.

Think back to the aftermath of Challenger and Columbia. Are the american public sanguine about americans dying horribly for space exploration? The evidence suggests not. NASA is fully aware that killing people may kill the effort entirely as politicians wail and gnash their teeth, making political capital from the bodies of the dead.

reply to post by IntoxicatingMadness

And once we get a foothold into space our economy will boom. Interplanetary mining. Terra forming mars for more farming opportunities, Siphoning the gas giants for precious fuel..... So i don't think the costs are the least of concerns if you're into the long sight.

There is nothing up there that we can't produce cheaper down here.

Using NASA as a jobs project is a bad idea.
Look at the breakdown of unemployement.
Engineers have jobs. The people without degrees are the ones that need jobs.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by IntoxicatingMadness

 

And once we get a foothold into space our economy will boom. Interplanetary mining. Terra forming mars for more farming opportunities, Siphoning the gas giants for precious fuel..... So i don't think the costs are the least of concerns if you're into the long sight.

There is nothing up there that we can't produce cheaper down here.

Using NASA as a jobs project is a bad idea.
Look at the breakdown of unemployement.
Engineers have jobs. The people without degrees are the ones that need jobs.

edit on 11-11-2012 by samkent because: (no reason given)

I think you miss the point about what we can do with the finite resources of our planet vs the massive amounts available practically next door in our solar system. There's also the lack of environmental concerns since strip-mining a barren asteroid is a way better idea than destroying an entire ecosystem on Earth for less return.

I really hate this mentality so many in our country have of "why are we wasting so much money on 'X'.." when it comes to NASA, completely disregarding that how much we spend there is absolutely nothing compared to practically everything else our government spends on. It's hard to even itemize all the benefits its given our society when compared to the extremely miniscule cost. Imagine a world without Velcro for just one minor thing...

To the OP - I believe this project for the L2 station was announced awhile ago, though I'd have to look to find the article I read on UniverseToday for it. It would serve a multitude of purposes for scientific research and as a stepping point for manned missions outside of Earth-orbit.

reply to post by Dashdragon

I think you miss the point about what we can do with the finite resources of our planet vs the massive amounts available practically next door in our solar system. There's also the lack of environmental concerns since strip-mining a barren asteroid is a way better idea than destroying an entire ecosystem on Earth for less return.

Just because 'It's" up there doesn't mean it will ever be cost effective to bring it down here. We have run short on many materials in our history but have always managed to find alternatives.

To the OP - I believe this project for the L2 station was announced awhile ago, though I'd have to look to find the article I read on UniverseToday for it. It would serve a multitude of purposes for scientific research and as a stepping point for manned missions outside of Earth-orbit.

L2 is the far side of the Moon. We don't have radation shielding for humans which would be required. Unless you want a few feet of lead or many feet of water.
Exactly why would we need to send humans there? If you want to look at the far side of the Moon send a copy of a spy sat. If you want human experiments use the ISS. There is just no reason to put humans there.