Nasa delays Moons mission

[agentgonzo]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/apr/23/nasa-moon-launch-budget-delay

This doesn't surprise me in the least. Hardly any large-scale projects in any industry run to the original schedule anymore, and delays and missing deadlines is commonplace throughout the world (from house-building to moon-missions). The project that I'm working on is over 18 months late, and my friend works on a 6 month project that's over 2 years late.

If Nasa sets a goal to get to the moon by 2020, I'd expect them to get there between 2025 and 2035, if at all.

 

[the.punk]

I think nasa want to go to mars in 2036.:lol:

 

[Moonwalker]

I think nasa want to go to mars in 2036.:lol:

I thint this won't happen until the 2050's anyway.

 

[T.Neo]

I thint this won't happen until the 2050's anyway.

2150s, maybe.

 

[Arrowstar]

By then they might as well just use the latest Orbiter version!

 

[C3PO]

By then they might as well just use the latest Orbiter version!

Martin may have some contacts in the medical profession, but 2150's??? :lol:

 

[Ark]

Imagine what they could do if we gave THEM $700 billion instead of a bunch of Wall Street jackasses. We'd be on the moon by next week.

 

[T.Neo]

Imagine what they could do if we gave THEM $700 billion instead of a bunch of Wall Street jackasses. We'd be on the moon by next week.

No. They would have wasted 700 billion by delaying the Moon missions by a week. :lol:

 

[Hielor]

No. They would have wasted 700 billion by delaying the Moon missions by a week. :lol:

No. As NASA proved in the 60s, if you give them enough money they can do anything.

NASA's budget during the sixties was as high as 5% of the federal budget. Imagine what they'd be able to do now if they were receiving 5% of the federal budget instead of .5%.

Moreover, that $700bn bailout was more than the entire sum of NASA's budgets throughout its 50-year history.

 

[eveningsky339]

I wish I was payed to delay everything that moves.

Is SpaceX working on a moon mission or have they already landed?

 

[willy88]

This makes me want to build a nuclear-powered rocket in my backyard.

Hmm, that isn't such a bad idea! :hmm:



Off topic: does anyone know where I can get large quantities of thorium?

 

[T.Neo]

No. As NASA proved in the 60s, if you give them enough money they can do anything.

Don't forget politics.

Moreover, that $700bn bailout was more than the entire sum of NASA's budgets throughout its 50-year history.

Yeah.

 

[Ark]

I wish I was payed to delay everything that moves.

Is SpaceX working on a moon mission or have they already landed?

Hahaha, they've been putting NASA to shame lately, developing new stuff faster and at a fraction of the cost.

 

[movieman]

No. As NASA proved in the 60s, if you give them enough money they can do anything.

Today's NASA is very different to 1960s NASA.

1960s NASA was a new bureaucracy with a blank cheque and a _VERY_ clear mandate: 'men on the moon before the end of the decade'. Today's NASA has ossified and lost any real sense of goal or schedule.

 

[Andy44]

Imagine what they could do if we gave THEM $700 billion instead of a bunch of Wall Street jackasses. We'd be on the moon by next week.

I think NASA should get the jackasses instead.

 

[eveningsky339]

I think NASA should get the jackasses instead.

I think NASA officials should be in the next Jackass movie.

 

[Moonwalker]

I don't think that NASA officials are the problem. I think the key would be a president like Kennedy, who sets a clear assignemnt and goal in no uncertain terms. With such, and with the appropriate money, NASA could accomplish almost anything - the next manned moon landing even before 2020, given that STS becomes retired as soon as ever possible, which is required badly to not get stuck in LEO for another decades.

But let's face it. The entire society and the political landscape today is completely different to that in the 1960's (which had a huge impact on manned space flight and vice versa). Let's keep the glory days of the 1960's innovations and spirit and strong governmental powers (Apollo and Concorde as an outcome of those factors) in nice memories. The societies are tired of such things, and we don't have real statesmen anymore. Not even Obama. Those are just what I call chicken breasts. Softies. No more, no less.

 

[garyw]

NASA has a clear vision as set by Bush.

Congress has a clear vision for NASA. Unfortunatley the two don't mesh.

NASA is supposed to be working on getting back to the moon then onto Mars.

Congress won't give NASA the necessary funding unless certain senators (Bill Nelson for one) keep a good amount of money in the various companies that make the space shuttle components, hence the need for a "shuttle derived" architecture.

NASA could go to the moon for a fraction of the cost.
NASA could also remove a lot of the funding from the places they spend it for shuttle components.
That would mean a lot of redundancies
That would mean certain senators do not get elected back to congress.
That would mean a pissed off senator.

Not gonna happen.

NASA is not about technology (which they can do) or speed (which they can do). It's about enlightend self intrest of the senators who control the purse strings. It's politics pure and simple.

 

[Moonwalker]

NASA has a clear vision as set by Bush.

NASA sadly has a clear problem and has to care not to lose its face. Ares is the most controversial and disliked program ever (although I like the "stick" design). There is an upcoming gap and the planned retirement of the Shuttle also gets more and more controversial. It is an open secret that a manned Moon landing is anything but probable until 2020 (since AresV is and will remain a blueprint for years, if not forever), while Constellation does not even offer a long-term concept of going to the Moon in a useful way, less than ever is there any concept of going to Mars (beside the slogan). Although I like to see NASA back on the Moon, Constellation is nothing more than Apollo revised, Vol. 2, just something like Night Rider 2000 or CHIPs 99.

STS has caused NASA to lose its focus, if we talk about a real goal and going into deep space. STS prevents almost anything else of manned space flight. It almost eats up NASA for decades. What a waste of money, resources and time to prepare a second Shuttle launch because of a potential "rescue" mission. The retirement already should have taken place in the 1990's while being really focused of something new. I'd say that NASA today is in its most worst condition ever...

 

[Sky Captain]

Sometimes I`m wondering what would US do if for example China started to build a cheap heavy lift rocket with hundreds of tons of lift capacity to LEO (something like Sea Dragon) to start large scale space program. Would that be a wake up call for US?