Are we a space faring nation or not!?

[RANT]

When I saw the headline of this article in USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science...m?csp=obinsite

.... my first reaction was "What the BLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEPPPPP!?"
Remember, Constellation was on an "unsustainable" path, running behind
schedule on all fronts because of inadequate government funding.
President Obama's proposal would remedy that. And yet now we find
that the NEW program is less feasible than the old one!? What the
BLEEEEEP!?

Then I skimmed the article and it looks like its designed to give the
average joe a comparison between reality and the movies. Ok. Then
other issues emerged that have ticked me off.

Forty years ago, we wnt from zero to Moon landing in less than 8
years. KSC did not exist when President Kennedy issued his challenge!
And yet by the end of 1969 we'd landed twice.

So why is it that in the forty years since it's almost impossible to
maintane even a debate about a program to send people somewhere beyond
LEO? Sorry, but shouldn't that be the easiest thing in the world,
given that we initially did it with technology less advanced than we
have now? Think about it: By 1967, 6 years after Kennedy's
challenge, we'd completed Mercury, conceived and flown Gemini, and
Apollo and Saturn, which had been designed years before, were ready to
go. In the same amount of time since President Bush issued his
"Vision of Space Exploration," we had STARTED to design a new vehicle,
Orion, and new rockets, in time for President Obama to axe them. Seems
like the pace had slowed. And what if Obama loses in 2012? Will
Dragon, Dream Chaser, and CST-100 still fly to LEO? Or will a
Republican president stir the pot again, and for how many more years
of high-tech naval staring (with kibitzing from the Internet for good
measuer)? And if he's reelected, will the government sides of his plan
fall prey to the same inadequate funding that killed Constellation?
Indeed, there may already be cuts in the work. Didin't Augustine
recomend INCREASING NASA's budget? Funny how that's the one part of
it Obama forgot!

Now, John Logsdon addressed these issues here ....


http://www.spacenews.com/commentarie...a-finally.html


..... but did he really cover all the bases? Or is there something
more fundamental at work?

What is wrong with us as a culture, that 40 years after going from
zero to AWESOME in 8 years we need as much time arguing, debating, and
designing to maybe get near the starting gate? What happened to our
drive to explore? DID WE EVER HAVE IT? Maybe the Brits, with their
traditions of colony building and martime surpemacy, are more suited
to it than a people who romanticize the frontier but can't seem to be
bothered with it anymore? We wrote the book on manned planetary
exploration! What is holding us back from adding more pages? I'll
agree sticker shock is part of it, but is that it?

I was 4 years olf when Apollo 11 landed on the Moon. Will Americans
set foot there again before I turn 104? And even then, will they be
in their own ship or a token presence on someone else's?

Are we a space faring nation or not? We seem to be trying to have it
both ways, do enough to have something on TV but not for too much
cost. Sooner or later we have to decide once and for all if we're
going to do this or not. No more pussyfooting around -- either get
serious or ground ourselves forever!

[/RANT]

"I am not A big, fat panda. I am THE big, fat panda" -- Po, Kung Fu Panda

On Jul 3, 10:42*am, Michael Gallagher wrote:
What happened to our
drive to explore? *DID WE EVER HAVE IT?

No. Immense amounts of money were spent on the Apollo program because
the United States desperately needed to demonstrate to countries like
India, Indonesia, Brazil, and so on, in a way comprehensible to their
masses, not just their elites, that America was ahead technologically,
not Russia.

No such reason exists today. An American on Mars will not dampen the
ability of al-Qaeda to recruit one bit.

Of course, if technology continues to improve, and budget schemes like
that of Zubrin are sound, it might be necessary for the United States
to send a man to Mars before China does. Or North Korea.

Americans do have a drive to explore... but not _quite_ enough drive
to make them interested in paying for something like Apollo through
their taxes. I can't blame them, although I don't see private
enterprise filling the gap.

John Savard

On Jul 3, 9:18*pm, Quadibloc wrote:
On Jul 3, 10:42*am, Michael Gallagher wrote:

What happened to our
drive to explore? *DID WE EVER HAVE IT?

No. Immense amounts of money were spent on the Apollo program because
the United States desperately needed to demonstrate to countries like
India, Indonesia, Brazil, and so on, in a way comprehensible to their
masses, not just their elites, that America was ahead technologically,
not Russia.

No such reason exists today. An American on Mars will not dampen the
ability of al-Qaeda to recruit one bit.

Of course, if technology continues to improve, and budget schemes like
that of Zubrin are sound, it might be necessary for the United States
to send a man to Mars before China does. Or North Korea.

Americans do have a drive to explore... but not _quite_ enough drive
to make them interested in paying for something like Apollo through
their taxes. I can't blame them, although I don't see private
enterprise filling the gap.

John Savard

We are no longer a space fairing nation, we can no longer afford to
be.

Heck our infrastructure is crumbling with over half of all bridges
either functionall obsolete or crumbling.

congress is so bust feathering itsown bed its lost its way.........

our country will have a revolution if things continue the way they are

In article , Michael
Gallagher wrote:

Forty years ago, we wnt from zero to Moon landing in less than 8
years. KSC did not exist when President Kennedy issued his challenge!
And yet by the end of 1969 we'd landed twice.

The difference now is that KSC does exist.

--
David M. Palmer (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)

On 7/3/2010 8:06 PM, David M. Palmer wrote:
In , Michael
wrote:

Forty years ago, we wnt from zero to Moon landing in less than 8
years. KSC did not exist when President Kennedy issued his challenge!
And yet by the end of 1969 we'd landed twice.

The difference now is that KSC does exist.


I still like the idea of Kennedy naming the space center after himself.
LBJ on the other hand would have done something just like that given
half the chance.

Pat

wrote:
On Jul 3, 9:18 pm, wrote:
On Jul 3, 10:42 am, Michael wrote:

What happened to our
drive to explore? DID WE EVER HAVE IT?

No. Immense amounts of money were spent on the Apollo program because
the United States desperately needed to demonstrate to countries like
India, Indonesia, Brazil, and so on, in a way comprehensible to their
masses, not just their elites, that America was ahead technologically,
not Russia.

No such reason exists today. An American on Mars will not dampen the
ability of al-Qaeda to recruit one bit.

Of course, if technology continues to improve, and budget schemes like
that of Zubrin are sound, it might be necessary for the United States
to send a man to Mars before China does. Or North Korea.

Americans do have a drive to explore... but not _quite_ enough drive
to make them interested in paying for something like Apollo through
their taxes. I can't blame them, although I don't see private
enterprise filling the gap.

John Savard

We are no longer a space fairing nation, we can no longer afford to
be.

Heck our infrastructure is crumbling with over half of all bridges
either functionall obsolete or crumbling.

congress is so bust feathering itsown bed its lost its way.........

our country will have a revolution if things continue the way they are


We'd rather blow **** up, kill people and **** with other nations than
go into space. We don't mind spending money on ****. We just don't want
to spend it on practical things like space exploration. It's disgusting.
We could well afford a space program if we stop warmongering.

--
LSMFT

I haven't spoken to my wife in 18 months.
I don't like to interrupt her.

On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 18:18:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

...Americans do have a drive to explore... but not _quite_ enough drive
to make them interested in paying for something like Apollo through
their taxes .....

I suppose. Still frustrates me.


..... I can't blame them, although I don't see private
enterprise filling the gap.


Well, it depends.

To be fair to President Obama, all he's proposing for the private
sector to take over is getting crews and cargo to the station and
back. I think this is well within the realm of possiblity because
there's nothing about launching to LEO, rendezvousing and docking,
undocking, de-orbiting, and landing, that private companies have to
invent from scratch. Even the option to land on a runway has been
covered. They just have to make sure their systems work, but the
groundwork was done long ago. Boeing's entry intruiges me; it
reminds me of IBM getting involved in the personal computer business.
Obama, for the near term, seems to be interested in beefing up the
station and getting more particpants involved. I wonder if he's a fan
of Babylon 5?

Cislunar space, including landing on the Moon, is another story, but
not too different. So far, no one has talked about ceeding that to
the private sector. However, a capsule like Boeing's CST-100 is
exactly the design you need for reentering at planetary escape
velocity. And there are growth versions of the Atlas V with the
listing capcity of the Saturn V or better. (
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/p...oduct_card.pdf )

Again, NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT TURNING MOON FLIGHTS TO THE PRIVATE
SECTOR AS FAR AS I KNOW. Obama is just truning to them for space
taxies.

My point is just to be accurate about what's been proposed, and point
out that they can do that.


"I am not A big, fat panda. I am THE big, fat panda" -- Po, Kung Fu Panda

On Jul 5, 9:48*am, Michael Gallagher wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 18:18:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

...Americans do have a drive to explore... but not _quite_ enough drive
to make them interested in paying for something like Apollo through
their taxes .....

I suppose. *Still frustrates me.

..... I can't blame them, although I don't see private
enterprise filling the gap.

Well, it depends.

To be fair to President Obama, all he's proposing for the private
sector to take over is getting crews and cargo to the station and
back. *I think this is well within the realm of possiblity because
there's nothing about launching to LEO, rendezvousing and docking,
undocking, de-orbiting, and landing, that private companies have to
invent from scratch. Even the option to land on a runway has been
covered. *They just have to make sure their systems work, but the
groundwork was done long ago. * Boeing's entry intruiges me; it
reminds me of IBM getting involved in the personal computer business.
Obama, for the near term, seems to be interested in beefing up the
station and getting more particpants involved. *I wonder if he's a fan
of Babylon 5? *

Cislunar space, including landing on the Moon, is another story, but
not too different. *So far, no one has talked about ceeding that to
the private sector. *However, a capsule like Boeing's CST-100 is
exactly the design you need for reentering at planetary escape
velocity. *And there are growth versions of the Atlas V with the
listing capcity of the Saturn V or better. (http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/p...oduct_card.pdf)

Again, NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT TURNING MOON FLIGHTS TO THE PRIVATE
SECTOR AS FAR AS I KNOW. *Obama is just truning to them for space
taxies. *

My point is just to be accurate about what's been proposed, and point
out that they can do that.

"I am not A big, fat panda. *I am THE big, fat panda" -- Po, Kung Fu Panda

The public has bought and paid for 100% of the R&D pertaining to space
travels, robotics and whatever off-world landings, yet we have less
than 0.1% access to that public funded R&D, or much less the insider
infrastructure of expertise and technology resources that remain as
highly secretive and very cult/cabal like (as though everyone has
something very naughty to hide).

There's simply too much need-to-know and simply not enough open minded
capability. It's as though Hitler was still in charge.

~ BG

On Jul 5, 10:48*am, Michael Gallagher wrote:
And there are growth versions of the Atlas V with the
listing capcity of the Saturn V or better.

I vaguely recalled how versions of the Titan had grown since the days
of the Gemini program; that the Atlas has also grown, and even to a
greater extent, since Mercury, comes as a bit of a surprise.

John Savard

On Jul 5, 2:40*pm, Quadibloc wrote:
On Jul 5, 10:48*am, Michael Gallagher wrote:

And there are growth versions of the Atlas V with the
listing capcity of the Saturn V or better.

I vaguely recalled how versions of the Titan had grown since the days
of the Gemini program; that the Atlas has also grown, and even to a
greater extent, since Mercury, comes as a bit of a surprise.

Considering that it uses the RD-180 engine, made guess where, using
_that_ to send astronauts to the ISS would not *quite* dispel the
image of America being dependent on Russia for this task...

Outsourcing!

John Savard