NASA too broke to build new rocket...

flyingcheesehead said:
Pieces, yes... Like I already said, NASA doesn't *build* anything. They do, however, have a major part in the *design* and they verify everything. That's vastly different from "Here's our astronauts, you take 'em."
Click to expand...

Including budgets in the continuous world of "under bid and over run" project funding. I've got a good video on the boat about the space program as told by the astronauts. One tidbit that was interesting, was one of the other other astronauts discussing with Gus Grissom the shoddy wiring in the Apollo one capsule and asking Gus who had oversight "Why don't you complain about this, it isn't right." to which Gus responded "If I complain they'll fire me."
 
gprellwitz said:
Well, if you hold the belief that there's nothing to be gained from exploration, I'm not sure what I can say to change your mind. Oftentimes, exploration is undertaken in the name of profit. Marco Polo, Columbus, etc. Sometimes it is undertaken in the name of progress. The moon, for example. As a people, I believe we have benefited immensely from all of these. We frequently achieve totally unexpected advances when we undertake exploration.
Click to expand...

We went to the moon as a publicity stunt. We were at war with the USSR. Just like ancient armies would send out their champions to fight, we sent our champions into space, they sent theirs. Ours won.

As much as I love spaceflight, something Yoda said really makes sense. Do, or do not, there is no try. A mission to Mars requires consistent funding and effort across multiple administrations, not the sort of piece-meal thing going on right now. And while such a voyage would be utterly ground-breaking, we really don't have the cash right now. We're pretty deep in hock.
 
steingar said:
We went to the moon as a publicity stunt. We were at war with the USSR. Just like ancient armies would send out their champions to fight, we sent our champions into space, they sent theirs. Ours won.

As much as I love spaceflight, something Yoda said really makes sense. Do, or do not, there is no try. A mission to Mars requires consistent funding and effort across multiple administrations, not the sort of piece-meal thing going on right now. And while such a voyage would be utterly ground-breaking, we really don't have the cash right now. We're pretty deep in hock.
Click to expand...


What would be the purpose of a manned mission to Mars anyway? Doesn't make sense really. It's not like it's habitable or we have the technology to terraform and there's no resource there that it would be feasible to go get....
 
Henning said:
What would be the purpose of a manned mission to Mars anyway? Doesn't make sense really. It's not like it's habitable or we have the technology to terraform and there's no resource there that it would be feasible to go get....
Click to expand...

Define "habitable"
 
This defense of government workers thread is rather entertaining.

Here' the scoop: Contractors are motivated by doing a good enough job to stay employed and get the next contract.

Government hires are basically permanent, so expansion of personal empire is only the "incentive." Stick around long enough and you'll realize merit incentives and the like are illusions.

Build an empire -- now you're "critical" and somewhat less likely to be downsized, outsourced, or cancelled.
 
Henning said:
What would be the purpose of a manned mission to Mars anyway? Doesn't make sense really. It's not like it's habitable or we have the technology to terraform and there's no resource there that it would be feasible to go get....
Click to expand...

I think of it as a technology generator, much like the Moon shots. There was and is little financial motivation to visit either, the but the funds dispersed for the Moon landings has more than been paid back in technological developments and the resultant industries.
 
Henning said:
Next question is "why do we spend so much effort trying to postpone death?"...if it is even possible to postpone it.
Click to expand...

Over a long enough time period, the survivability rate drops to zero. Looking at it from that point of view, there's no point in doing anything.

Henning said:
What would be the purpose of a manned mission to Mars anyway? Doesn't make sense really. It's not like it's habitable or we have the technology to terraform and there's no resource there that it would be feasible to go get....
Click to expand...

True. Then again, there wasn't much sensible purpose when the first monkey jumped down out of the tree and wandered around for a bit on the ground. Curiosity maybe? Picking up a dropped favorite stick? He probably wasn't thinking about computers, indoor plumbing, walking on the moon or the incredible photo's coming to us directly from little blocks of metal and silicone sailing around Saturn. That came later, much later. The distances between things are just much bigger now.

There is more to life than money and start/end dates on tombstones. A lot of people don't get that anymore though. Go outside and look up into the sky tonight. People actually WALKED ON THE MOON. That big thing in the sky actually has human footprints on it's surface way up in the sky. Think about it.

Back to your regularly scheduled beancounters doing everything possible to suppress creativity, spirit and imagination.
 
fgcason said:
Then again, there wasn't much sensible purpose when the first monkey jumped down out of the tree and wandered around for a bit on the ground. Curiosity maybe? Picking up a dropped favorite stick?
Click to expand...

I am so very, very glad I don't believe this or I would be very depressed.
 
fgcason said:
True. Then again, there wasn't much sensible purpose when the first monkey jumped down out of the tree and wandered around for a bit on the ground.
Click to expand...

Usually animals change locations and niche's to exploit local resources. Humans did likewise for centuries. Columbus wasn't out to discover the New World, he wanted a faster way to the East so he could make money.

We're the first to venture into a new niche for any other reason.
 
fgcason said:
True. Then again, there wasn't much sensible purpose when the first monkey jumped down out of the tree and wandered around for a bit on the ground. Curiosity maybe?
Click to expand...

Most likely because he needed to find another place to live because the food and water were running out and it was getting over crowded and everyone was fighting.
 
steingar said:
Usually animals change locations and niche's to exploit local resources. Humans did likewise for centuries. Columbus wasn't out to discover the New World, he wanted a faster way to the East so he could make money.

We're the first to venture into a new niche for any other reason.
Click to expand...

Not really, just an extension of the same old reason. We were competing against the Russians for the world's resources. They had beat us at every other step of "The Space Race" so we had to work extra hard to win this one lest we lose the free world and its resources to the Communists.
 
steingar said:
I think of it as a technology generator, much like the Moon shots. There was and is little financial motivation to visit either, the but the funds dispersed for the Moon landings has more than been paid back in technological developments and the resultant industries.
Click to expand...

Well that's just it, what technology will we be generating by a rocket shot to Mars? If we are going to set a national goal to get to man onto Mars it should be by teleportation. Now THAT would be technology development. We already do rockets and space habitats, that's not development, at best it'll be refinement.
 
dmccormack said:
This defense of government workers thread is rather entertaining.

Here' the scoop: Contractors are motivated by doing a good enough job to stay employed and get the next contract.

Government hires are basically permanent, so expansion of personal empire is only the "incentive." Stick around long enough and you'll realize merit incentives and the like are illusions.

Build an empire -- now you're "critical" and somewhat less likely to be downsized, outsourced, or cancelled.
Click to expand...

Dan - Your stereotypes are incorrect. From what I have personally seen within NASA, the people who work there really believe in what they're doing, and they do a good job because they are space geeks, not because they're "expanding a personal empire."
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Dan - Your stereotypes are incorrect. From what I have personally seen within NASA, the people who work there really believe in what they're doing, and they do a good job because they are space geeks, not because they're "expanding a personal empire."
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the minions or the people who control the budgets?
 
Henning said:
Most likely because he needed to find another place to live because the food and water were running out and it was getting over crowded and everyone was fighting.
Click to expand...

Huh. Sounds like it IS time to go to Mars. :frown2:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Huh. Sounds like it IS time to go to Mars. :frown2:
Click to expand...

Without the ability to terraform, why? What's there? Might as well just Nuke Earth, it still wouldn't be as uninhabitable as Mars, but at least you'd get rid of most the population.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Dan - Your stereotypes are incorrect. From what I have personally seen within NASA, the people who work there really believe in what they're doing, and they do a good job because they are space geeks, not because they're "expanding a personal empire."
Click to expand...


NASA is somewhat different (They work next door and the former head of Safety for the facility was a fellow CAP pilot).

There's still a (small) sense of "mission" there absent in the larger, more wealthy bureaucracies.

Now, if you are attacking "steroetypes," i'll refer you to your first post in this thread.

Even we lousy, slimey DoD contractors have more at heart than pushing out junk to make a buck.

(Most of us in DoD contracting served in the military or retired from a uniformed service. A large percentage of us have children or other family actively serving. There are checks against pure graft)
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Are you talking about the minions or the people who control the budgets?
Click to expand...

The engineers.

You know, the people that actually do the work - Be they government, or corporate. ;)

(Was just thinking yesterday, we need to get back to the days where the CEO's were engineers...)
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Dan - Your stereotypes are incorrect. From what I have personally seen within NASA, the people who work there really believe in what they're doing, and they do a good job because they are space geeks, not because they're "expanding a personal empire."
Click to expand...

Let's clarify. Geeks, even government geeks, behave as you say. Managers, ALL government managers (and most other support types) behave as Dan says.

I've been on both sides. Folks who are directly involved with the mission (designing spacecraft or missions at NASA, making cases at DEA, wreaking havoc at the USMC) are generally very dedicated and do it for the personal satisfaction of doing it. Management/Support types (or REMFs in MilSpeak) spend their time making themselves either invisible or invaluable, WHETHER IT CONTRIBUTES TO THE MISSION OR NOT.
 
Henning said:
Well that's just it, what technology will we be generating by a rocket shot to Mars? If we are going to set a national goal to get to man onto Mars it should be by teleportation. Now THAT would be technology development. We already do rockets and space habitats, that's not development, at best it'll be refinement.
Click to expand...

We would need an autonomously functioning artificial and livable environment, something not possible here on Earth right now (an environment with no input from the outside whatsoever). Such technology could help people live in places not currently or only marginally habitable, and would probably give us massive insight into our own environment. The rocket the goes to Mars and returns will have to be an order of magnitude more technologically advanced than what we have, or it will be too heavy to boost out of Earth's gravity. Advances in rocket motors can easily find their way into other spacecraft and even into aircraft. Even getting big payloads off Earth will have dramatic returns.

That comes right off the top of my bald head. I doubt anyone working on the Moon shots would have predicted the internet as a side benefit. Unfortunately, we're broke and in hock, and can't really afford any of this stuff anyway.
 
TMetzinger said:
Let's clarify. Geeks, even government geeks, behave as you say. Managers, ALL government managers (and most other support types) behave as Dan says.

I've been on both sides. Folks who are directly involved with the mission (designing spacecraft or missions at NASA, making cases at DEA, wreaking havoc at the USMC) are generally very dedicated and do it for the personal satisfaction of doing it. Management/Support types (or REMFs in MilSpeak) spend their time making themselves either invisible or invaluable, WHETHER IT CONTRIBUTES TO THE MISSION OR NOT.
Click to expand...

Tim -- that's sadly, generally true, but every so often one of us "management" types stand up for what's right.

But it's a lonely place.
 
dmccormack said:
Tim -- that's sadly, generally true, but every so often one of us "management" types stand up for what's right.

But it's a lonely place.
Click to expand...
Yes it is, and I'll say that it's less lonely in corporate management than government - having done both.

I've met some really good people in both sides, but good government managers tend to be the "supervisors" who are directly oriented with the Mission (like a supervisory special agent or ASAC) as opposed to the others.
 
Henning said:
Able to sustain human life from local resources.
Click to expand...

People in NY City aren't able to sustain life for local resources at this time...and certainly not in the millions.

Why are you not allowing people to bring resources along?
 
Bob Noel said:
People in NY City aren't able to sustain life for local resources at this time...and certainly not in the millions.

Why are you not allowing people to bring resources along?
Click to expand...

The resources to supply a small group of adult humans for the needed time span are not insignificant. I had thought that what was desired was a longer-term stay on Mars.
 
Bob Noel said:
People in NY City aren't able to sustain life for local resources at this time...and certainly not in the millions.

Why are you not allowing people to bring resources along?
Click to expand...

Dude, I run a boat with a crew of 7, we have to haul a major load of groceries every 2 weeks just for the crew. When in guest service it's three times as much. Local resources in this context is on the same freaking planet, Mars you'd have to haul them from Earth. Billion dollar grocery runs just don't cut it. You could potentially and at great expense build a "biosphere" type operation, but Biosphere II failed on the O2 side of things due to microbe consumption, so you need a good power supply and water so you can replenish O2. Where would this financing come from and why?
 
Henning said:
Dude, I run a boat with a crew of 7, we have to haul a major load of groceries every 2 weeks just for the crew. When in guest service it's three times as much. Local resources in this context is on the same freaking planet, Mars you'd have to haul them from Earth. Billion dollar grocery runs just don't cut it. You could potentially and at great expense build a "biosphere" type operation, but Biosphere II failed on the O2 side of things due to microbe consumption, so you need a good power supply and water so you can replenish O2. Where would this financing come from and why?
Click to expand...

I've been saying pretty much the same thing. The technical challenges to a Mars mission are enormous, and the potential for concrete gain miniscule. The up side I discussed is usually surmounting huge technical challenges usually leads to useful technological development. But like I said, we're broke and in hock, and can't afford it.
 
steingar said:
I've been saying pretty much the same thing. The technical challenges to a Mars mission are enormous, and the potential for concrete gain miniscule. The up side I discussed is usually surmounting huge technical challenges usually leads to useful technological development. But like I said, we're broke and in hock, and can't afford it.
Click to expand...


The thing is, even the technical gain from a rocket centric manned mission to Mars will be miniscule for the cost. If we're going to put that kind of effort and capital into it, it should be for a quantum leap in technology, not an increase in scale. Teleportation... that's the way....
 
Henning said:
The thing is, even the technical gain from a rocket centric manned mission to Mars will be miniscule for the cost. If we're going to put that kind of effort and capital into it, it should be for a quantum leap in technology, not an increase in scale. Teleportation... that's the way....
Click to expand...

I suspect a vehicle capable of maintaining a small crew for an extended period, flying to Mars and returning from there will indeed require a quantum leap in technology.
 
steingar said:
The up side I discussed is usually surmounting huge technical challenges usually leads to useful technological development. But like I said, we're broke and in hock, and can't afford it.
Click to expand...
I think we need to be willing to invest in useful technological development without attaching it to something sexy like space travel where we spend huge amounts for the sexiness in comparison with the technological benefit.
 
Everskyward said:
I think we need to be willing to invest in useful technological development without attaching it to something sexy like space travel where we spend huge amounts for the sexiness in comparison with the technological benefit.
Click to expand...
Like alternative energy maybe?

The thing that saddens me is that over the past 30 years we have fallen behind in so many technologies. Telecom, transport, energy, electronics, etc. We have a few niches left but those are dying pretty quick too.
 
ScottM said:
Yes actually. Being able to break away from oil could lead to incredible ROIs
Click to expand...


I keep telling them to perfect the Dilithium crystal technology, but they don't listen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top