Return to the Moon

Is it possible that the letter from Armstrong (and other well-known astronauts) had some influence over final details of the plan that was presented yesterday?

 

Not likely, but I doubt if we will ever find out for sure. The problem probably had more to do with Obama staffers doing a poor job of deciding what portions of the plan to release in advance of the speech.

 

This is a catastrophic decision by this administration. Almost everything that thousands of people have worked on for years is just washed away. It deeply saddens me that this president will not think twice about weakening any of America's strong points. In fact, it might just be a goal of his.

Companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin will have to let go of thousands of employees. KSC itself will let go of around 7000. The dreams that I had when I was younger will not be had by my children. The motivation I had to become an aerospace engineer will not be had by future American children.
Instead, we will sit back and watch a Chinese astronaut walk on the moon.

Mars is a great goal to reach but we are not there yet in terms of technology. The propulsion seems to be there but the method of keeping humans alive and healthy for 2 or so years needs work. That is why the moon needs to be utilized as a "base" for future trips to Mars.

 

Then why is Buzz Aldrin in favor of Obama's plan? I think you are over-reacting.

 

I'm all for research, but the U.S. economy isn't strong enough to support such grandiose programs on its own. Many countries benefit from space exploration, so why shouldn't those same countries contribute to paying for the effort? Sharing the cost of expensive research is what happened in Europe with the CERN Supercollider. While I think the U.S. should contribute to space exploration, we've got more important domestic issues to address. The days of the U.S. being able to shoulder the cost of these programs is gone.

According to a recent study (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/04/taxday2010_interactive.html ), ~60% of tax money goes to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, government retirement programs, and other "entitlement programs" which are fixed costs. Another ~20% goes to defense programs, which while categorized as "discretionary" spending remains a staple in the U.S. budget. Another 5% goes to interest (not principal) payments on the U.S. debt. In other words, 85% of the tax dollars are already spoken for. The remaining 15% goes for things such as housing assistance, training, health, benefits, and research, which are also classified as "discretionary." Personally, if my wife and I balanced our checkbook this way we would have been bankrupt a long time ago. If you went to a bank to get a loan and showed 60-80% of your TAKE HOME income was already spoken for, they'd laugh and kick you out on the street. The country's in deep doo-doo financially, and it's time to make some hard decisions to reallocate where and how money is spent.

 

Re-read the news story, guys. Obama is still throwing money at NASA.

At the moment, I'm more fascinated by the X-37B. The Air Force has done a good job of keeping this program secret for a long time. The miniature shuttle returned from space yesterday and executed a flawless unmanned glider landing in California. We still don't know what its purpose is. We never knew what kind of military missions the Space Shuttle flew for the Air Force. I have no idea.

 

We should return to the moon if for no other reason than to prove the skeptics wrong
that we did in fact land there back in 1969


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uA4Heg32zCs&feature=related"]YouTube- Destination Moon Trailer (1950)



Hotwater

 

And as has been said numerous times, NASA has one of the smallest budgets of any federal agency. $18.4 billion a year out of a near $3 trillion budget. To put this into perspective the operating budget of the MTA of N.Y.C. is about $10 billion every year to get people around NYC, while for double that that for the entire nation we're aiming to have a man in orbit around Mars by 2035. NASA's budget really isn't up for debate.

 

Who has said this many times???

First, if you read my previous statement, I'm all for continuing space exploration, but believe the cost should be shared across multiple countries. While $18-billion dollars is small relative to a $3-trillion budget, the U.S. has a National Debt approaching $13-trillion (http://www.usdebtclock.org/ ). In other words, if we spent every penny of our budget solely on debt principal for the next 4 years, we'd be close to paying it off. That's to the total exclusion of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Health Plans, Defense, and "discretionary spending." In other words, we're bankrupt. We are no longer the world's greatest country, rather we're the world's greatest debtor. Why do countries continue to loan us money? It's not because they expect to be repaid with profitable interest, rather it's so they can call in those debts in the form of strategic alliances in time of war, etc.

Putting the NASA budget in perspective, the 2009 population of the U.S. was estimated at 307-million (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html ). Dividing that into $18-billion, that works out to ~$59/year for every individual in the country. Of that 307-million, that same report estimates ~37% are below age 18 or over age 65, so if we focus on the "working age" population, the contribution increases to $18-billion/(0.63 X 307-million) or ~$93. For a couple such as my wife and I, assuming we make an "average" income, that corresponds to $186/year. In reality, our income is well above average, so our contribution to NASA is likely well in excess of $500/year, and probably closer to $1,000/year. That's a lot of money my wife and I are paying for a single program.

As far as your comments about the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) of New York City (NYC), their annual budget is actually about $11.8-billion (http://www.mta.info/mta/budget/feb2010/0210_1.pdf ). However, rather than being a burden on the whole of the U.S. economy, 50% of their revenue comes directly from farebox and toll revenue (see p. II-1 of the referenced budget document). The balance of their budget comes largely from dedicated taxes in the geography they service. In other words, the people who have access to the MTA services pay essentially all the cost. With ~10% unemployment, an out-of-control national debt, and ~13% of the population living below the poverty live, there are probably better ways to spend our national tax dollars than trying to solely fund NASA. A cooperative effort would provide similar benefit, but reduce the cost burden to the individual U.S. citizen.

So why do you think NASA's budget isn't up for debate???

 

What makes you think they would believe it next time? With digital editing, it is much easier to produce convincing fake video now than it was in 1969.

That comparison really does put it into a different perspective. Yes, that is a small amount of money, by Federal standards.

 

They never landed on the Moon the first time.

 

Booooo! GTFO!

 

Haha charming

 

I’m sure there’ll be some way this time for the astronauts to provide definitive proof of their jaunt to the moon


Hotwater

 

Well, to sum up quickly. Space exploration should be shared by all countries, and it is to a point. The ISS is is a joint venture by numerous countries, the ESA has launched numerous scientific satellites, and after the shuttle retires we're going to be hitching a ride with Russia for quite a few years into space. The problem is even the best friends of countries often have different goals and such for what they want to do with their space program.

As for taxes, one remember only about 40% of federal tax revenue is personal taxes, most federal taxes are corporate and payroll taxes. NASA isn't just a ferry for launching junk into space with no purpose, NASA's goal is science and it has been behind some of the greatest breakthroughs of the 20th century, giving money to NASA is no different then funding a national lab. We can't just cut out all funding for science until every single problem on Earth is fixed otherwise we'll stall in development and never fix them to begin with. The amount of money that goes into science research with NASA included is still minuscule compared to what goes into social programs even just with federal dollars, which is even less considering states pick up the tab on a lot of social spending costs.

 

I'm always fascinated by what you state as obvious "facts" with absolutely no justification or documentation to support your claims. According to the web site http://historical.whatitcosts.com/facts-space-station-pg2.htm , which is the only one I could find that broke down costs on a country-by-country basis, the costs of the ISS including the shuttle is as follows.

Total estimated costs:

U.S.: $100 billion
Europe: $14 billion
Japan: $10 billion
Russia: Unknown
Canada: $2 billion

Note that Europe pooled its resources. In other words, the U.S. is once again shouldering the financial responsibility of the program beyond what our economy can support. As far as justifying NASA, I'm all for research, but we've got a LOT bigger problems in this country that need to be addressed (e.g., a $13-trillion debt, which you failed to comment about) than investigating galaxies 5-billion light years away.