Skip to comments.Wanted! Your Views On America's Space Program Goals
Posted on 01/13/2009 8:25:11 AM PST by presidio9
It's time to put your 21st century thinking cap because you've been invited to take part in a new study into why the U.S. has a space program.
The new study "Rationale and Goals of the U.S. Civil Space Program" is looking for the public's view on the following questions:
What's the future of human, robotic, commercial, and personal spaceflight? Is your life impacted in a meaningful way by the space program? What kind of emphasis should the space program represent in going forward? How can the country's civil, or non-military, space program address key national issues?
Views - positive or negative - of the general public are welcomed.
This study is sponsored exclusively by The National Academies, and it is not receiving any funds from government agencies or any other external sources. The assessment is a joint effort of the Space Studies Board and Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board.
"Specifically, we are anxious to hear a broad range of views from the public, including people from outside and inside traditional space interest sectors," said Joe Alexander, study director for the appraisal. The effort is geared to explore the long-range rationale and goals of the civil space program, he told SPACE.com.
Best objective judgment
The ad hoc committee will prepare a report to advise the nation on key goals and critical issues in 21st century U.S. space policy. Furthermore, the committee's to-do list includes:
Identifying overarching goals that are important for our national interest. Identifying issues that are critically important to achieving these goals and ensuring the future progress of the U.S. space activities. Discussing options to address unresolved issues. Using its best objective judgment and recognizing other national priorities, the committee will explore
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I think its enough of a goal to maintain NASA so that Mr Hanson will have a suitable podium from which to spew his “global warming - climate change” ... barn trough effluent.
Can we finally get the manned mars mission they have been promising us since my Parents were children?
Can we build a spacecraft big enough to put Pelosi, Reid, Biden, Hildbeast and 0bama on board and launch them to the moon (one way)?
I think we need to pack more Space in a given volume, sort of like Snoopy’s dog-house. Any chance NASA is working on that?
Goals for 2009:
1. Launch space shuttle with Hansen on board.
2. Shut down all communications with Space shuttle.
3. Go to lunch..................
Not until the Moon Base is built first!...............
February 29, 2008 :: News
A video has surfaced of Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama talking on his plans for strategic issues such as nuclear weapons and missile defense.
The full text from the video, as released, reads as follows:
Thanks so much for the Caucus4Priorities, for the great work you've been doing. As president, I will end misguided defense policies and stand with Caucus4Priorities in fighting special interests in Washington.
First, I'll stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq. I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it.[i.e. not win it]
Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.
I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.
I will not weaponize space.
I will slow our development of future combat systems.
And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.
Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.
You know where I stand. I've fought for open, ethical and accountable government my entire public life. I don't switch positions or make promises that can't be kept. I don't posture on defense policy and I don't take money from federal lobbyists for powerful defense contractors. As president, my sole priority for defense spending will be protecting the American people. Thanks so much.
Article: Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs:
"MissileThreat.com is a project of The Claremont Institute devoted to understanding and promoting the requirements for the strategic defense of the United States."
New Pentagon Report: China's Growing Military Space Power
By Leonard David
Special Correspondent, SPACE.com
March 6, 2008
GOLDEN, Colorado A just-released Pentagon report spotlights a growing U.S. military concern that China is developing a multi- dimensional program to limit or prevent the use of space-based assets by its potential adversaries during times of crisis or conflict.
Furthermore, last year's successful test by China of a direct-ascent, anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon to destroy its own defunct weather satellite, the report adds, underscores that country's expansion from the land, air, and sea dimensions of the traditional battlefield into the space and cyber-space domains.
Although China's commercial space program has utility for non- military research, that capability demonstrates space launch and control know-how that have direct military application. Even the Chang'e 1 the Chinese lunar probe now circling the Moon is flagged in the report as showcasing China's ability "to conduct complicated space maneuvers a capability which has broad implications for military counterspace operations."
To read the entire publication [29.67MB/pdf], go to (U.S. Dept of Defense) :
The best policy for the space program is competition. When we had it from the Soviets, we put a man on the moon. Since we started cooperating with them, the space program became just another bureaucracy that guzzles tax dollars with results that aren’t justified by the expenditure.
And of course, you get hacks like Hansen, who instead of trying to get something worthwhile out of space exploration, is dead-set on embracing the global warming hoax that will destroy the economic foundation that makes his program possible.
I want to be an astronaut when I grow up!
In the short term we need to be prepared to meet military challenges posed by the Chinese and others.
In the longer term we need to get enough people off this planet so we can survive the next large asteroid collision.
Tiny Britain had mastery of the seas and built an empire on which the sun never set; the world reaps the benefits still today. The nation that has mastery in space, will have mastery over the world's nations.
I repeat: THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE GOAL: military superiority in space.
- Both are known system.
- Both can meet the missions for lifting cargo now.
- Both were developed to meet DoD AND NASA's needs for cargo.
- New development would be limited to safety margin and abort warning systems. A trivial amount to the Ares I.
Also, the only thing Ares one has in common from Shuttle is the casings from the SRB's, the nozzle actuators, and the actuator power train. The hydraulic actuators are scheduled for replacement with eclectic actuators anyway.
The rest is new... So much for reuse; which Congress mandated by the way.
There is a good argument for Ares V, but I'd look at Direct 2(Jupiter-232) as an alternative since it makes use of at least 50% current shuttle components.
What did the moon ever do to you?
Our goal should be to keep Dr. Smith from calling the robot a “Nervous Ninny”.
The surface goal of the space program is to put someone in space, the moon, Mars, etc.
The real goal has nothing to do with this.
Private industry does not have the resources to create new science and inventions.
Without a space program we would not have computers, the internet, velcro, high efficiency thermal insulating fabrics, silicone caulk, microwave safe ceramics, nylon electrical ties, and hundreds if noth thousands of other articles used in our daily life.
It was even the Army who invented antibiotics.
Eliminate the space shuttle program. They were a poor compromise of a good idea that is well over 30 years old. Make cargo rockets unmanned. Make manned rockets smaller and more survivable. Perhaps much smaller versions of the space shuttle.
In direct contrast to the current Ares Launch System (ALS), the Jupiter Launch System (JLS) reuses most of the existing manufacturing, integration and launch facilities of STS, as illustrated in figure 2. Because all the new technology requirements are moved to the lunar exploration phase of the VSE, NASA can focus initially on fielding a significantly safer launch system than the Space Shuttle, yet one which is far more capable than the Ares-I. With more than double the lift capability of Ares-I, the first Jupiter Launch System (JLS) variant enables the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) development team to deliver a fully lunar-capable vehicle to NASA, unconstrained by the current limitations of the Ares-I. In addition, this first variant of the JLS, the Jupiter-120, has enough excess capacity to complete the ISS, thus obviating the painful decision of leaving finished ISS elements on the ground or retiring the Space Shuttle on schedule.
Amazing what engineers can do when you leave the bureaucrats out of the equation.
I like the idea of using existing components in a new configuration to "git'r done", and not leave us out of the game for so long.
Remember when this country used to have the "can do" spirit?
Manned mission to Mars
permanent space station on Moon
hiring old fat guys to fly those contraptions who aren’t military pilots
hiring old fat guys to mine the Moon and Mars
We can put them in a conex box and helo lift it to the Bermuda Shelf, is that enough?
You're kidding, Mister Central Government, right?
Private industry has always led the way with meaningful inventions, because it has the greatest financial motives to do so. Government does so only inefficiently and erratically, and at far, far, greater costs.
Private industry would have a lot more resources if our bloated government were downsized and taxes followed suit. It's a malicious joke to tax people and then say "haha, you can't do ____ as well as our rich, well-funded government. Guess you need government after all!"
The notion that the space program gave us computers is so historically ignorant I won't comment.
Likewise, while there are many spin-off inventions from the space program, think how many more inventions we would be enjoying if the engineering and technical resources spent by government on its space programs were in private hands, meeting real wants and needs expressed by the free markets and the citizenry? We would inherently be better off with the more direct application of scientific resources to our own wants and needs, rather than getting the crumbs from the table of Big Government.
The space program should have one primary goal: GET HUMANS OFF OF THE PLANET.
More specifically, set up sustainable human colonies on other worlds. The Moon is a good start and Mars should be next. Space habitats should also be explored.
Absolutely! The longer we sit here on this dirtball without a self-sustaining offworld human colony, the closer we come to that comet or asteroid collision that wipes out humanity.
Given those objectives, DIRECT on its face does seem to be the far better option - it can do what Ares claims it can do 2-3 years sooner, and for close to half the cost, and more safely. Apparently even NASA's own internal review suggested as much. Unfortunately, while Griffin was right to want to terminate the Shuttle, he seems too wedded to Ares. And Ares has reached the point where it uses virtually no Shuttle systems any longer - which means more cost, longer testing, more uncertainty, and higher risk of cancellation (especially of the big Ares V booster).
Could you design a better system "clean sheet?" Sure. But we have to work within what Congress wants and will go for.
And having said that, ideally Direct would be focused on beyond LEO exploration, while LEO becomes the preserve of commercial space enterprises as soon as possible through award contracts, deregulation, and tax breaks.
The DIRECT guys claim they can get us back into (manned) space by 2013 with the Jupiter 120 launcher, as opposed to 2015 for Ares I (which may be sliding now to 2016 due to various difficulties) - assuming the word "go" is given in April after a 60 day review. On the moon by 2017 instead of 2020.
It seems unconscionable to wait six years without a manned capability. Of course with luck SpaceX will be available with their Dragon capsule by 2011-2012 (I hope that happens either way, so that NASA can get out of the Low Earth Orbit game and leave that to private contractors and private enterprise), but there's no guarantee. This still leaves a three year gap, but that's more manageable, and easier to fill with SpaceX or, with considerably higher risk, extending the shuttles with a few more missions if Congress is really willing to cough up the extra cash they're talking about.
So I do hope Obama's people really listened to the DIRECT presentation seriously, and have it independently assessed. It's not too late to ditch Ares and go DIRECT.
And if their charts and data are to believed (and I have no reason to doubt it), payload capabilities blow any configuration of Aries away.
More bang for the taxpayers buck while saving as much of the investments in infrastructure for the current system. What a concept. Therefore Congress won't even look at it.
Or we could just ask them to go home on the one that brought them here.
Most of the time.
My goal... get RID OF NASA. It is a giant black hole of money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.