I’m not sure the problem is with NASA, which has come up with numerous proposals during the past 30 years, as with Congress, which has been unwilling to fund new projects. Part of the opposition has been on the left, which wanted money spend on social services. But part of the opposition was on the right, which wanted private enterprise to provide the programs.Frankly, I think NASA got complacent with the space program with the shuttle and has dropped the ball. They’ve been the only game in town for too long.
Used to go out there, myself, picnicing in the shadow of the launch sites. That was 25 years ago now. Were you out there more recently? I’m not aware of any toursat that time. Vandenberg AFB was our host base (we were at a remote radar site on Black Mountain above Atascadero in those days). How lucky you were to get a tour! Envy, envy. We were able to visit the Kennedy Space Center a few years earlier.Vandenberg AFB had been the planned site for military shuttle operations, from its SLC-6 complex on south Vandenberg. (Space Launch Complex-6). It’s my understanding that the complex was pretty much complete, and looks like the Cape Canaveral shuttle complex. I even got a tour of it a few decades ago.
But after the Challenger disaster, the VAFB shuttle program was cancelled. So there is, as far as I know, no follow-on civilian OR military mission to the shuttle. If another nation gains manned superiority in space, it will be difficult for the U.S. to catch up.
No, haven’t been there more recently. I was there in connection with a reunion of people from what used to be the 394th Strategic Missile Squadron, (now the 394th TMS–no longer strategic, just a test & maintenance squadron.) The gal who put it all together managed to get the VAFB people to bus us around to some sites. They wanted to show us SLC-6, and did, but we were really more interested in revisiting the Minuteman sites at north Vandenberg. Activity of course was way down. Our group had been accustomed to at least one test launch per week down the western test range, but at that time of the reunion, they were very few and far between.Used to go out there, myself, picnicing in the shadow of the launch sites. That was 25 years ago now. Were you out there more recently? I’m not aware of any toursat that time. Vandenberg AFB was our host base (we were at a remote radar site on Black Mountain above Atascadero in those days). How lucky you were to get a tour! Envy, envy. We were able to visit the Kennedy Space Center a few years earlier.
I agree. When I saw the kludge that was Constellation, I thought, “It’s Apollo all over again. Except far uglier.” Where the Command/Service Modules and Lunar Module were strikingly beautiful vehicles, the Constellation concepts looked like a CSM with a hormone deficiency and a lunar lander made out of bathtubs welded together.I think the previous administration dropped the ball in perusing Project Constellation. Why do we need to return to the moon again when we have been there before and can send satellites there as needed? For a lunar base to study lunar geology? For a pathfinder to Mars twenty years from now? I don’t see the point. Probes are cheaper and less risky. Maybe a manned mission to Mars may make sense one day, but I don’t think the technology is up to it yet.
Right now, space flight is in desperate need of innovation. Chemical rockets used for launch vehicle technology don’t cut it cost-wise. It costs between $10k-25k per kilogram to launch something into orbit. I think its worthwhile to amp up technology programs that seek other ways to improve on or revolutionize launch technology. Things like space elevators may be impractical right now, but we need to break the paradigm of chemical LV technology eventually. Giving incentives to private industry and funding military programs is a good start.
In the meantime, we have a commitment to a manned space flight presence on the ISS. Developing Ares I and canceling the remaining launch vehicles might make sense. So could using Soyuz, although that has political implications.
My group used to do some of the missle and satellite tracking just before my time (late 1970s), so some of our guys wore the missleman badge.No, haven’t been there more recently. I was there in connection with a reunion of people from what used to be the 394th Strategic Missile Squadron, (now the 394th TMS–no longer strategic, just a test & maintenance squadron.) The gal who put it all together managed to get the VAFB people to bus us around to some sites. They wanted to show us SLC-6, and did, but we were really more interested in revisiting the Minuteman sites at north Vandenberg. Activity of course was way down. Our group had been accustomed to at least one test launch per week down the western test range, but at that time of the reunion, they were very few and far between.
Technology will never improve by back-pedalling. NASA is a victim of a president addicted to mediocraty and intent on removing any hint of greatness in America.For a lunar base to study lunar geology? For a pathfinder to Mars twenty years from now? I don’t see the point. Probes are cheaper and less risky. Maybe a manned mission to Mars may make sense one day, but I don’t think the technology is up to it yet.
.
What if folks took that attitude after Columbus’ return from the New World? We’d all still be sitting somewhere else, except the Native American, whose ancestors had the good sense to pursue the adventure to the New World.I think the previous administration dropped the ball in perusing Project Constellation. Why do we need to return to the moon again when we have been there before and can send satellites there as needed? For a lunar base to study lunar geology? For a pathfinder to Mars twenty years from now? I don’t see the point. Probes are cheaper and less risky. Maybe a manned mission to Mars may make sense one day, but I don’t think the technology is up to it yet.
Right now, space flight is in desperate need of innovation. Chemical rockets used for launch vehicle technology don’t cut it cost-wise. It costs between $10k-25k per kilogram to launch something into orbit. I think its worthwhile to amp up technology programs that seek other ways to improve on or revolutionize launch technology. Things like space elevators may be impractical right now, but we need to break the paradigm of chemical LV technology eventually. Giving incentives to private industry and funding military programs is a good start.
In the meantime, we have a commitment to a manned space flight presence on the ISS. Developing Ares I and canceling the remaining launch vehicles might make sense. So could using Soyuz, although that has political implications.
The military doesn’t care who’s wearing the President badge. And that was a purely partisan comment. They must have a launch capability built around their needs. No one is leading the United States in launch technology. After the fall of the Soviet Union, we got one of their best engine designs. Who helped the Chinese rocket program get the bugs out? Hint: Their initials were U S A.Technology will never improve by back-pedalling. NASA is a victim of a president addicted to mediocraty and intent on removing any hint of greatness in America.
I never did understand why some people think they have the authority to tell others what to do. I *do *resent the devil out of the fact that our President has cut NASA. I do think it is a terrible step for America and a sign of his opinion of America. That is not “carping”. That is my opinion of this person who is now President as it relates to this topic. If you think it is out of line, then use the “Report Post” function.Please cut the political carping.
I never said we shouldn’t go to Mars or elsewhere in the solar system. I can see how it can be justified on the basis of innovation and the spirit of adventure. But the moon? Really? Haven’t we been there? I think a lunar base/manned exploration there would be a funding drag and would just unnecessarily delay a trip to Mars.What if folks took that attitude after Columbus’ return from the New World? We’d all still be sitting somewhere else, except the Native American, whose ancestors had the good sense to pursue the adventure to the New World.
Can you imagine the view? I don’t think one can quite get the feel of 1/4 gravity, or no gravity, just looking at a photo–I know I can’t!