Bush must really dislike the guy to give him that mess to clean up. :)

Bush has no use for NASA, but someone has to do the job.

Ping.

Whoa! You posted before I pinged. Your fast!

Oboy. A bean counter.

Batten the hatches.

--Boris

I would have picked Dan Quayle.

Bush must really dislike the guy to give him that mess to clean up. :)

No kidding!

I do not miss NASA. I enjoyed the interplanetary work, however, even it has pretty much gone the way the rest of NASA did.

I already posted this once today, however, thought I would again. These are some of the projects IMHO that would have put us ahead so much further scientifically:

1. The Nerva rocket engine.
2. The Superconducting Super Collider (SSC).
3. The X-15 program with follow on.
4. Apollo's 18 and 19.
5. Fusion research (not cold).
6. Lunar Base.

SIGH!

Isn't NASA just about proof positive that any worthwhile project when taken over by the federal government will bloat and die?  NASA is what I think of anytime the federal government is proposed as the solution to a problem.  That applies to the homeland defense office, airport security and many other proposals.

I already posted this once today, however, thought I would again. These are some of the projects IMHO that would have put us ahead so much further scientifically:

1. The Nerva rocket engine.

Maybe, but it's not useful without cheap earth-to-orbit access. Unless you're proposing a nuclear propulsion system for launch, which I think is both unnecessary and risky.

2. The Superconducting Super Collider (SSC).

We don't really know what we would have learned from this, but I don't think that it would have had any near-term impact on our spacefaring ability.

3. The X-15 program with follow on.

This would have been a very valuable pathway, and we'd be much further ahead if we'd followed it. But given that we didn't, I'm content to let XCOR and others lead the way.

4. Apollo's 18 and 19.

Given what we got from the first six Apollo missions, what would these last two have contributed that would have changed the world? I think that it was a false economy to cancel them, but realistically, I can't imagine how we would be much better off now had they flown.

5. Fusion research (not cold).

This has gotten plenty of funding, perhaps too much, given its paltry results. Its proponents seem to always promise results in about forty years. I call this the "fusion constant."

"Fusion is the power source of the future, and it always will be."

6. Lunar Base.

Whether this would have advanced us depends mostly on how we did it. If it was a follow-on to Apollo, with the same philosophy, it would have been a dead end, and likely ended up as bloated a white elephant as the space station.

Simberg got it right in his piece on the XCOR flight. Capitalism works. Socialism, even (or especially) when applied to space, sucks.

you're proposing a nuclear propulsion system for launch, which I think is both unnecessary and risky.

For true exploration of this solar system, we need nuclear. It won’t happen in my lifetime now.

We don't really know what we would have learned from this, but I don't think that it would have had any near-term impact on our spacefaring ability.

What we may have learned from the SSC is an unknown. Most pure research is. However, it should have leaded us to a better understanding of this universe as a whole.

This would have been a very valuable pathway, and we'd be much further ahead if we'd followed it.

Agreed.

Given what we got from the first six Apollo missions, what would these last two have contributed that would have changed the world? I think that it was a false economy to cancel them, but realistically, I can't imagine how we would be much better off now had they flown.

More information about the moon and possibly its origin.

This has gotten plenty of funding, perhaps too much, given its paltry results. Its proponents seem to always promise results in about forty years. I call this the "fusion constant."

The SSC may have helped. Again IMHO, fusion is the real “holy grail” of power generation.

Whether this would have advanced us depends mostly on how we did it. If it was a follow-on to Apollo, with the same philosophy, it would have been a dead end, and likely ended up as bloated a white elephant as the space station.

The infrastructure required to build a lunar base would have assured us a manned space program and the required technology to go with it for years to come. I also do not believe I will see a man step back on the moon in my lifetime. (If ever).

I'm still holding out hope that NASA will get some kind of gas core nuclear propulsion flying. Maybe by the 22nd century if they start work now......

I hear you. We won't see it though. Sigh!

"some of the projects IMHO "
No radio-telescope on the moon?

Can you spare a few words to say why it didn't make your list?

Have to start indexing these space-related threads.

No radio-telescope on the moon?

A radio telescope on the backside of the moon would be ideal. No RF interference from the earth and no atmosphere to contend with. However, a lunar base would be required to house the support and maintenance personnel. One step at a time.

On another note, a single (or even multiple dish) radio telescope on the far side may not be as good as a series of radio receivers/dish antennas located along earth's orbit. Using VLBI, we could have an effective dish size of 180 million miles in diameter. Think what that could resolve. If we were able to tie it in with the data from a project called MAXIM, we could really learn more about the galactic neighborhood we live in.

We NEED another "We're going to The Moon (Mars Manned Mission) speech" from a current 'Pres!

We NEED a "level of Vision" from our national "Leader" to re-energize our inevitable expansion to the Planets!

The Current, "Grubby," War against "Terrorism" is a "Cultural Dead End!" Our "Civilization" NEEDS a "Goal Beyond Ourselves!"

Bush & Putin should announce a "Joint Mission to Mars!"

THAT would get our "Warring Children" to "Pause" & consider Their REAL "Relative Worth" as we--as a Species--attempt to get "off-Planet!"

Just a "Thought" by an "Ignorant Dreamer!"

Doc

No radio-telescope on the moon?

Listened to a radio interview about a week ago with the director of Hubble. He was talking about the next generation follow-on to Hubble and how it would be placed at the earth-sun L2 point, which is on the earth-sun line beyond earth. A radio telescope of unlimited size, or an array of them giving a really huge baseline could be placed in space in its own solar orbit. L4 and L5 are likely candidates, far from earth and its interference, and a baseline of 1 AU.

"a lunar base would be required to house the support and maintenance personnel"
Ah! I thought it could easily be automated, needing just a relay satellite!

Would the very, very! large baseline orbital array give an increase in resolution great enough to check, say, distance of variable cephids ( the things used in distance estimates- I might have the wrong name), or some other astounding discovery?

An optical telescope with a baseline of 1AU? Geeze Louise! That could produce voyager quality images of planets on the far side of our galaxy. Love to see that. Even an optical interferometer on the moon with a baseline of 3500 Km could give excellent closeups on planets out to a 100 light years.