Nasa delays Moons mission

[razgriz31m]

Why would they spend lots of money in going to the moon? I can see that they wanna know about the past or etc, but hey, shouldn't they use the money to help lessen the effects of global warming?

 

[Moonwalker]

Why would they spend lots of money in going to the moon? I can see that they wanna know about the past or etc, but hey, shouldn't they use the money to help lessen the effects of global warming?

That's not the job of NASA. But the congress maybe could decide to spend a certain amount of the budget on climate change.

But the climate does not care about money, politics and if we like climate change or not. It'll continue to change anyway, as it always did and does. No matter if it would be slightly less or not.

 

[MJR]

When we set up colonies therer we need to know where the impact basins with the most and habitable ice is. We then can use that for water. In my opinion, global warming is all of our faults. We led this to happen. Itwas almost inevitable. Think, the reason it did not get so bad in the past was because you would not see nuclear plants everywhere and so much machines that give off fumes. We also have so much products that have cluoroflorocarbons (CFCs) which is also dangerous to the ozone. I have heard of this guy though who proposed that we can make trillions of nano carbon tubes that sheild earth and the outcome should be a "cooler" Earth.

 

[T.Neo]

I have heard of this guy though who proposed that we can make trillions of nano carbon tubes that sheild earth and the outcome should be a "cooler" Earth.

There are also people who want to launch millions of mirrors to the Earth-Sun lagrange point with magnetic rails.

That is more feasible then nanotubes. And that shows how unfeasible that nanotube idea is.

 

[Moonwalker]

When we set up colonies therer we need to know where the impact basins with the most and habitable ice is. We then can use that for water. In my opinion, global warming is all of our faults. We led this to happen. Itwas almost inevitable. Think, the reason it did not get so bad in the past was because you would not see nuclear plants everywhere and so much machines that give off fumes. We also have so much products that have cluoroflorocarbons (CFCs) which is also dangerous to the ozone. I have heard of this guy though who proposed that we can make trillions of nano carbon tubes that sheild earth and the outcome should be a "cooler" Earth.

Although this is the wrong thread, I have heard of this guy in the 1970's though who proposed that we can pump "CO2" into the air and cover the polar regions with black soot to prevent the "global cooling" and upcoming ice age...

 

[MJR]

There are also people who want to launch millions of mirrors to the Earth-Sun lagrange point with magnetic rails.

That is more feasible then nanotubes. And that shows how unfeasible that nanotube idea is.

I agree that it might be a more approachable course of acttion, but what happens when micrometeoroids strike the mirrors on several occasions? Eventually the mirrors are going to be useless.

 

[T.Neo]

I agree that it might be a more approachable course of acttion, but what happens when micrometeoroids strike the mirrors on several occasions? Eventually the mirrors are going to be useless.

That and other reasons make such a plan rather illogical and unlikely.

 

[tl8]

And what does Global Warming have to do with returning to the Moon


Orbiter-Forum -> Able to segue from a moon landing to saving the planet

 

[Moonwalker]

That and other reasons make such a plan rather illogical and unlikely.

Also because the Earth is no air condition with a selector-knob we could rotate between cold and warm. The whole idea of intentional climate change to "correct" it back to "normal" is one of the biggest nonsense of the 20th and 21th century.

 

[MJR]

That and other reasons make such a plan rather illogical and unlikely.

Correct.

And what does Global Warming have to do with returning to the Moon


Orbiter-Forum -> Able to segue from a moon landing to saving the planet

Yeah, lets get back on topic.

 

[Ark]

NASA must be afraid of developing successful SSTO or something. Maybe the powers that be just don't want space to be cheap and accessible.

Anyone else think that NASA should bring their policies more in line with the Russians? Big Dumb Boosters, cheap and proven materials, and a certain acceptance of risk. Heck, they've lost fewer cosmonauts than us at this point, they must be doing something right. IMO NASA needs to change the way they operate or step aside and let private enterprise take over, otherwise this is on a course to consume a few billion over budget before finally being shut down after a test flight or two.

 

[T.Neo]

NASA must be afraid of developing successful SSTO or something. Maybe the powers that be just don't want space to be cheap and accessible.

NASA does not want to take risks. That is why they went with basically an apollo spacecraft and mission plan for Constellation.

 

[Andy44]

NASA must be afraid of developing successful SSTO or something. Maybe the powers that be just don't want space to be cheap and accessible.

Finally, a nice conspiracy theory for the thread to really bite its teeth into!

Along with not wanting to develop a successful SSTO, I bet the shady "powers that be" also didn't want the Space Shuttle to be cost effective or safe, and they also want the Ares I to have lots of technical problems and cost overruns.

Darn those powers!

 

[Eagle]

Bugger!!!

There's something to be said about planning to miss deadlines!

 

[Ark]

Finally, a nice conspiracy theory for the thread to really bite its teeth into!

Along with not wanting to develop a successful SSTO, I bet the shady "powers that be" also didn't want the Space Shuttle to be cost effective or safe, and they also want the Ares I to have lots of technical problems and cost overruns.

Darn those powers!

I know, right? :lol:

Still, you gotta figure if space access was cheap and available, any 3rd world dictatorship would be able to stick whatever they want into orbit. There's a lot of people who would be perfectly fine with space travel staying so expensive and difficult that only select 1st world countries could indulge in it.

I don't personally believe there's an effort to suppress cheap space travel, but it's something to think about.

 

[Moonwalker]

NASA must be afraid of developing successful SSTO or something. Maybe the powers that be just don't want space to be cheap and accessible.

It's neither to be afraid, nor is it powers that don't want something. It is because cheap and easy access to space is nothing more than fiction.

No matter how advanced our technologies are today and will become in future, it won't ever be easy and cheap to go into space. Space flight will never be comparable to general aviation or even to cars and trains, as people often tend to make such plain comparisons. Other than our lower earth atmosphere, our oceans, our streets and railroads, space is and always will be a terribly unforgiving environment humans are not made for and not adaptable to. No single human has ever been in space. But just in the safe artificial environment of a spacecraft/space suit which has to be handled with great care and lots of manpower from the ground up into orbit.

If one prefers the easy and certain way, spaceflight is not the right thing. Less than ever is space flight comparable to almost anything else we do on earth.

any 3rd world dictatorship would be able to stick whatever they want into orbit.

Wrong. To stick humans into orbit is something that won't ever done by any 3rd world dictatorship. And heavy payloads as well.

 

[garyw]

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...

A shame you didn't read the rest of my reply.

 

[T.Neo]

It's neither to be afraid, nor is it powers that don't want something. It is because cheap and easy access to space is nothing more than fiction.

No matter how advanced our technologies are today and will become in future, it won't ever be easy and cheap to go into space. Space flight will never be comparable to general aviation or even to cars and trains, as people often tend to make such plain comparisons. Other than our lower earth atmosphere, our oceans, our streets and railroads, space is and always will be a terribly unforgiving environment humans are not made for and not adaptable to. No single human has ever been in space. But just in the safe artificial environment of a spacecraft/space suit which has to be handled with great care and lots of manpower from the ground up into orbit.

If one prefers the easy and certain way, spaceflight is not the right thing. Less than ever is space flight comparable to almost anything else we do on earth.

People once claimed that heavier then air flight was not possible. Today, thousands of people travel in aircraft.

Just because we do not have the technology or knowledge now, does not mean that something is impossible.

space is and always will be a terribly unforgiving environment humans are not made for and not adaptable to.

Utter nonsense. Humans can and will adapt to any environment they come across.

 

[Ark]

Wrong. To stick humans into orbit is something that won't ever done by any 3rd world dictatorship. And heavy payloads as well.

If North Korea gets their miss--er, rocket working they could send a very small Korean man into space. Getting him back down might be problematic, though.

 

[Andy44]

No, getting him back is easy. Getting him back alive, on the other hand...