NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7506715.stm

China 'could reach Moon by 2020'
By Paul Rincon
Science reporter, BBC News

China is capable of sending a manned mission to the Moon within the next decade, if it so wishes, Nasa administrator Michael Griffin has said.

The US space agency plans to return people to the lunar surface by 2020 using its new Orion spacecraft.

But it is just possible the first people on the Moon since the Apollo 17 mission in 1972 could be planting a flag with five stars, not 50.

In 2003, China became only the third country to launch a person into orbit.

Speaking to the BBC News website during a visit to London, Dr Griffin said: "Certainly it is possible that if China wants to put people on the Moon, and if it wishes to do so before the United States, it certainly can. As a matter of technical capability, it absolutely can."

Chinese officials say there is no plan and no timetable for a Moon landing, and have expressed doubt that one could be made by 2020.

Ambitious programmes

But Sun Laiyan, chief of the China National Space Administration (CNSA), told journalists last year that an eventual lunar excursion was inevitable.

On whether it mattered who reached the Moon next, Dr Griffin replied: "I'm not a psychologist, so I can't say if it matters or not. That would just be an opinion and I don't want to air an opinion in an area that I'm not qualified to discuss."

We do have some early co-operative initiatives that we are trying to put in place with China, mostly centred around scientific enterprises
Dr Michael Griffin
Nasa Administrator

But there is a perception among some in the space industry that America's long-held dominance in space exploration is slipping as other nations enter the fray.

A recent report by the US consultancy firm, Futron, found other countries were expanding their space capabilities at an astonishing rate, "threatening US space leadership".

China has sent two manned missions into space over the last five years. The first, in 2003, carried "yuhangyuan" (astronaut) Yang Liwei into orbit for 21 hours aboard the Shenzhou 5 spacecraft.

On the second, two spacemen flew aboard the Shenzhou 6 craft, spending nearly five days in orbit. Another manned mission is set to go ahead in October, just after the Beijing Olympic Games.

Dr Griffin said the US and China were now making the first tentative steps towards collaborating with each other on space exploration.

"We do have some early co-operative initiatives that we are trying to put in place with China, mostly centred around scientific enterprises. I think that's a great place to start," he said.

Five-year gap

"I think we're always better off if we can find areas where we can collaborate rather than quarrel. I would remind your [audience] that the first US-Soviet human co-operation took place in 1975, virtually at the height of the Cold War."

"And it led, 18 years later, to discussions about an International Space Station (ISS) programme in which we're now involved."

India's space programme is smaller than China's, but is making great strides. The South Asian country will launch its Chandrayaan unmanned Moon probe later this year. It has also announced ambitious plans for a manned programme.

Since joining Nasa as its administrator in 2005, Dr Griffin has overseen the implementation of President George W Bush's Vision for Space Exploration, which aims to return Americans to the Moon by 2020, and send them on, at some undetermined date, to Mars.

He has presided over Nasa's efforts to complete construction of the ISS in time for a retirement of the space shuttle in 2010. However, its replacements, the Orion spacecraft and Ares rockets, will not be ready until March 2015.

This leaves a five-year gap during which the US will have no spacecraft capable of reaching the space station.

Last year, Dr Griffin told the US Congress that this gap could be shortened to 2013 with the injection of $2bn extra in funds. The request was ultimately turned down.

He now says: "Even if a new president and a new Congress decided they wanted to shorten the gap between shuttle retirement and Ares and Orion deployment, at this point with water over the dam, even if they were substantially increasing our funding, we would be talking about 2014 as the earliest."

Nasa has given seed money to commercial ventures in order to spur development of a manned craft capable of re-supplying the ISS. But also has the option of buying some of the European Space Agency's ATV (Automated Transfer Vehicle) resupply craft.

I'm getting a lot of Apollo vibes from all of this. There are a number of interesting coincidences--not just here with the space program potentially setting up a new race to the moon, but in American politics. Take a look at our current election. Notice any similarities between Obama vs. McCain and Kennedy vs. Nixon? It's an ironic twist.

But after giving this a night's worth of thought, I've come to the conclusion that I don't want to see a new race to the moon. As much as I'd love the idea from a fun competitive standpoint--I eat up all the media on the Apollo missions when I can--I think it would make more sense for the first three people on the moon since Apollo 17 to not be all Americans, but a combined American, Russian, Chinese crew. We ought to work together this time. I don't know how likely that is, but it's what I wnat to see.

Well, esa and Roskosmos are indeed working toghether...

Kliper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kliper)

Call me when the Chinese have more then two orbital spaceflights. The Russians have a much better chance to get to the moon before us then the Chinese. They came damn close in the 1960's. Only high level cautiousness prevented them from launching a circumlunar flight before Apollo 8. The Chinese have a grand total of two manned spaceflights, and a series of deadly rocket failures. I just can't see them pulling a Kennedy and getting from the ground to the moon in 10 years.

TBH, I doubt that Ares and Orion will survive the Obama presidency. He doesn't much like NASA, and he proposes stripping funding from Constellation for at least a year. I hypothesize that NASA will all but be shut down after the shuttle retires. Sad, really.

Personally, I am against going to the moon right now. It would cost a LOT of money which we could use for something more worthwhile right now. Especially with our economy like this.
On the other hand, if we do go back to the moon, I think it should be all Americans. At the least, it should not involve Russians or Chinese. The British are ok. :)
Anyway, the point is, this country needs a serious shot of patriotism, especially with the current political/economic/Iraq situation. And nothing makes Americans (or people for any country, so don't bother denying it) feel better than beating out a rival at something noticable.

Apollo paid for itself last time. No reason to suggest that this next one won't be the same.

Besides, it's not really alot of money. NASA's budget is roughly 20 billion. We're going to the moon with no additional money (aside from inflationary increases).

I thought this was gonna be a funny post by some crazy guy who still believes in the Greek gods. :(

The difference is, in the Apollo days, Tang was a powdered breakfast drink.

Now, Tang is an astronaut.

We should go the moon, then mars.

Its not alot of money.

why do we always have to go to the cold outside of the solar system when we can beat those commie bastards to the punch and fire our space vehicles into the sun!

why do we always have to go to the cold outside of the solar system when we can beat those commie bastards to the punch and fire our space vehicles into the sun!
OR we could beat those commie bastards INTO the sun! :p

OR we could beat those commie bastards INTO the sun! :p

don't be silly, everyone knows the Sun is made of cheese :)

TBH, I doubt that Ares and Orion will survive the Obama presidency. He doesn't much like NASA, and he proposes stripping funding from Constellation for at least a year.

Really? What a disappointment. When will people realize that stealing money from NASA will only make things worse?

Really? What a disappointment. When will people realize that stealing money from NASA will only make things worse?

Aye, I agree. Of all the things to cut funding to, he decides he wants to cut perhaps the one agency that isn't incompetent and is doing it's job.

don't be silly, everyone knows the Sun is made of cheese :)

I thought that was the moon, or are you telling me cheese dominates the universe?

Don't waste your time. Here in Canada we're busy building a new CanadArm. It's gonna be long enough to pick people up in Winnipeg and deposit them in the Sea of Tranquility.

don't be silly, everyone knows the Sun is made of cheese :)

My ally is the Cheese. And a powerful ally it is. Dairy creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Emmental beings are we... not this crude matter. You must feel the Cheese around you. Here, between you... me... the tree... the rock... everywhere!"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7506715.stm



I'm getting a lot of Apollo vibes from all of this. There are a number of interesting coincidences--not just here with the space program potentially setting up a new race to the moon, but in American politics. Take a look at our current election. Notice any similarities between Obama vs. McCain and Kennedy vs. Nixon? It's an ironic twist.

But after giving this a night's worth of thought, I've come to the conclusion that I don't want to see a new race to the moon. As much as I'd love the idea from a fun competitive standpoint--I eat up all the media on the Apollo missions when I can--I think it would make more sense for the first three people on the moon since Apollo 17 to not be all Americans, but a combined American, Russian, Chinese crew. We ought to work together this time. I don't know how likely that is, but it's what I wnat to see.

Bah! Work the of the Reds? NO!

We'll fucking beat 'em. Or, better yet. Why waste the money going back to the moon (its not made out of cheese, you know, why go back), when we can just shoot down any other space ships going to the moon. That we we retain the glory of being the only country going to the moon.

That's what I'd rather see happen...
Cooperation can take a boot up the ass.

I want to see America get back to the moon in my lifetime, and perhaps even Mars. While it would be nice to have a Russo-Sino-American team do that, I don't think it'll happen for the moon.

Mars though is another story. I think a Mars expedition will be multinational for two reasons:

1. It's expensive as hell to send stuff to Mars, never mind human beings.

2. The project itself is so ambitious and groundbreaking that other nations are going to want to get in on it.

What I foresee happening is that every country with a passing interest in space will fund the project (a la ISS) and America, Russia and possibly China will head a multinational space flight to Mars.

Notice any similarities between Obama vs. McCain and Kennedy vs. Nixon? It's an ironic twist.
So whatever happens at this election, McCain will win in four years time?


The Chinese have a grand total of two manned spaceflights, and a series of deadly rocket failures.

Yeah, but they won't care so much about the loses; they don't exactly have the best record when it comes to human life. You can get things done a lot quicker if you don't bother with safety, if you accept a rate of 'attrition' on your people.

It would be great if human space exploration starts up properly again. It's quite interesting that after this long they have abandoned the shuttle concept and gone back to something approaching the original design; does that mean they're trying to do this on the cheap with old technology, or that they didn't think the idea of a totally reusable vehicle had worked?

We'll fucking beat 'em. Or, better yet. Why waste the money going back to the moon (its not made out of cheese, you know, why go back), when we can just shoot down any other space ships going to the moon. That we we retain the glory of being the only country going to the moon.

That's what I'd rather see happen...
Cooperation can take a boot up the ass.

And this folks, is why certain people should never, ever, be allowed to have anything resembling authority.

TBH, I doubt that Ares and Orion will survive the Obama presidency. He doesn't much like NASA, and he proposes stripping funding from Constellation for at least a year. I hypothesize that NASA will all but be shut down after the shuttle retires. Sad, really.

If true, that is to me the single most sever critisism of Obama. Destroying the Space Program would risk limiting Humanity to one world, and would severly limit our prospects for long term survival as a species.

It won't make me vote for 4 years of Bush plus senility, but I do worry about what Obama will do to NASA.:confused::(

It's quite interesting that after this long they have abandoned the shuttle concept and gone back to something approaching the original design; does that mean they're trying to do this on the cheap with old technology, or that they didn't think the idea of a totally reusable vehicle had worked?

The problem with the Shuttle is that the launch configuration is quite bad and that it is too big. Looks like now we want to send up a max 4-5 people per mission and the Soyuz configuration is better for this kind of job.

I grew up in the sixties and, even from as far away as Australia, the excitement over the Apollo missions was extraordinary. There has been nothing like it since.

I was in grade six in 1969, the oldest grade at a small school taught by nuns who lived in a convent on the school property. Armstrong's moon landing took place about 11 am, iirc, and the nuns invited the grade six students to watch the event on the television in their common room.

As I said, there's been nothing like it since.

Bah! Work the of the Reds? NO!

We'll fucking beat 'em. Or, better yet. Why waste the money going back to the moon (its not made out of cheese, you know, why go back), when we can just shoot down any other space ships going to the moon. That we we retain the glory of being the only country going to the moon.

That's what I'd rather see happen...
Cooperation can take a boot up the ass.
You are being sarcastic, right? Please tell me you're being sarcastic!
So whatever happens at this election, McCain will win in four years time?
Geez, I sure hope not!


Yeah, but they won't care so much about the loses; they don't exactly have the best record when it comes to human life. You can get things done a lot quicker if you don't bother with safety, if you accept a rate of 'attrition' on your people.


True. And the Chinese have a number of advantages over the original Apollo program, in that they have much better technology, and computers that don't have a maximum of six kilobytes or that could be fooled by a broken abort switch.

It would be great if human space exploration starts up properly again. It's quite interesting that after this long they have abandoned the shuttle concept and gone back to something approaching the original design; does that mean they're trying to do this on the cheap with old technology, or that they didn't think the idea of a totally reusable vehicle had worked?
They tried. Unfortunately a lot of problems went into the design of the space shuttle, including a number of people who weren't engineers overseeing the project along with military insistence on design changes and a few other things.

The space shuttle was supposed to be a super cheap reusable vehicle that would launch every week. Unfortunately that didn't exactly happen. Personally, I blame it on the fact that we're still trying to rely on purely Earth-based launching. Fool. Ish. We need someplace without an atmosphere to launch stuff from already. The moon would be a nice base, but we might be better off towing in an asteroid from which we can make fuel and build the ships from without having to cart resources over to it. (Though there's no reason not to build a moon base in the meantime. It is, after all, already in orbit, and it would be good practice.)

Yeah, but they won't care so much about the loses; they don't exactly have the best record when it comes to human life. You can get things done a lot quicker if you don't bother with safety, if you accept a rate of 'attrition' on your people.

It would be great if human space exploration starts up properly again. It's quite interesting that after this long they have abandoned the shuttle concept and gone back to something approaching the original design; does that mean they're trying to do this on the cheap with old technology, or that they didn't think the idea of a totally reusable vehicle had worked?

The main problem with the shuttle was that it was before it's time. Engineering, especially materials science, simply wasn't advanced enough at the time to make the space shuttle worthwhile. Were we to make another one now, we could make it out of strong, heat resistant advanced composite materials instead of having to rely on brittle carbon-carbon panels and easily damaged silica tiles. IMHO, the concept of a reusible space vehicle is a valid one, but for now, everyone seems to be turned off to the idea because of the failure of the Space Shuttle to provide cheap access to space.

On the other hand, Orion is far from simple. It has the best of NASA engineering in it, while using the tried and true launching method.

True. And the Chinese have a number of advantages over the original Apollo program, in that they have much better technology, and computers that don't have a maximum of six kilobytes or that could be fooled by a broken abort switch.

But the chinese don't have a driving political will like the Americans did. Technically, India could go to the moon in 5 years. It's all about political will. And I don't think the chinese have it in such a capacity to go from simple orbital flight to moon landing in a decade.

They tried. Unfortunately a lot of problems went into the design of the space shuttle, including a number of people who weren't engineers overseeing the project along with military insistence on design changes and a few other things.

Considering that congress scrubbed MOL, Blue Gemini, MISS, and the Air Force shuttle concept, I think they had at least a claim to be involved in design. Alot of the early missions were DoD missions, still classified. This wasn't a purely civilian thing. I actually think that having the Air Force manage a shuttle program would have gone smoother then a NASA one.

The space shuttle was supposed to be a super cheap reusable vehicle that would launch every week. Unfortunately that didn't exactly happen. Personally, I blame it on the fact that we're still trying to rely on purely Earth-based launching. Fool. Ish. We need someplace without an atmosphere to launch stuff from already. The moon would be a nice base, but we might be better off towing in an asteroid from which we can make fuel and build the ships from without having to cart resources over to it. (Though there's no reason not to build a moon base in the meantime. It is, after all, already in orbit, and it would be good practice.)

Ya still got to get into earth orbit first. A space elevator would be cool, but it's science fiction. For the time being, we have to rely on ever cheaper and reliable expendible launch vehicles.

Oh, so the Olduvai theory is skipping 30 years? Prolly not, since we still have oil prices in the 100-120's.

I'd like to live during a space race, unfortunately, this isn't a good time to be pouring billions into NASA

Its never a good time. If we wait until all the Earth's problems are solved, we'll be waiting forever. Besides, what NASA gets is an absurdly small portion of US government funding.

america still has the means, and no one to blame but the anti-science fanatacism of its current hunta, to blame for lacking the intrest in doing so.

today's tecnologies, those most central to our lives, evolved out of space exploration and development.

"our generals once thought
von braun a waste of cash
and gottard needed treatment really bad,
then up when sputnik
gave the world a butt kick
and beep beep,
we blasted off the pad"

"beep beep beep beep,
hellow there,
sputnik sails giggling through the night,
hai, hai, hai,
red flags, red faces, jump in the race as
the space age begins with a surprise,
surprise"

=^^=
.../\...

(WHY is it "not a good time to be pouring billions into nasa"? because some retard would rather pour billions into mass murdering women and children and shopkeepers, half way around the world for refusing to kiss the ass of his little green pieces of paper?)

=^^=
.../\...

I'd like to live during a space race, unfortunately, this isn't a good time to be pouring billions into NASA
It's always a good time to fund research.

Not when the economy's down

Not when the economy's down
Why?





(damned stupid 5 character message limit...

/mourns the death of "why?" as a legitimate post :mad:)

First off we're spending billions in a war right now
The value of the dollar is dropping
Banks are suffering
We're in a recession
We're already pouring in money to NASA for Mars Missions

First off we're spending billions in a war right now
The value of the dollar is dropping
Banks are suffering
We're in a recession
*shrug* None of those do anything to counter my assertion that it's always a good time to fund research.

NASA's budgets, as already mentioned by people further up the thread, are almost inconsequential when viewed as part of the overall expenditure of the U.S. government. Besides, research tends to beget innovation, and innovation is not a bad thing in times of economic hardship.

*shrug* None of those do anything to counter my assertion that it's always a good time to fund research.

NASA's budgets, as already mentioned by people further up the thread, are almost inconsequential when viewed as part of the overall expenditure of the U.S. government. Besides, research tends to beget innovation, and innovation is not a bad thing in times of economic hardship.

Because the United States has 9,000,000 Millions of dollars of debt?

I'm all for NASA, but I question the usefulness of a moon mission, or even a Mars mission. What would it prove? What can astronauts do that robots can't do more cheaply and with less risk? Remember that when Bush announced his desire to go back to the moon, and eventually to Mars, officials at NASA were ambivalent at best. These missions will take funding from projects that are actually useful, like that giant space telescope designed to detect earth-like planets around distant stars. I believe that project was scrapped entirely due to the new emphasis on manned exploration.

But since it seems to be inevitable anyway, here's an interesting article about one way it might be done:http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=960

I'm all for NASA, but I question the usefulness of a moon mission, or even a Mars mission. What would it prove? What can astronauts do that robots can't do more cheaply and with less risk? Remember that when Bush announced his desire to go back to the moon, and eventually to Mars, officials at NASA were ambivalent at best. These missions will take funding from projects that are actually useful, like that giant space telescope designed to detect earth-like planets around distant stars. I believe that project was scrapped entirely due to the new emphasis on manned exploration.

But since it seems to be inevitable anyway, here's an interesting article about one way it might be done:http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=960

If anything, the Apollo missions proved that astronauts can do exploration much better then robots. The later apollo missions not only brought back many pounds of moonrocks, it brought back a piece of the moons primordial crust because one of the astronauts thought it looked interesting. You can't beat a trained eye in the field with any robot, no matter how advanced.

I'm all for NASA, but I question the usefulness of a moon mission, or even a Mars mission. What would it prove? What can astronauts do that robots can't do more cheaply and with less risk? Remember that when Bush announced his desire to go back to the moon, and eventually to Mars, officials at NASA were ambivalent at best. These missions will take funding from projects that are actually useful, like that giant space telescope designed to detect earth-like planets around distant stars. I believe that project was scrapped entirely due to the new emphasis on manned exploration.

But since it seems to be inevitable anyway, here's an interesting article about one way it might be done:http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=960

Manned missions soak up all the college grads which this country seems so intent on producing. (Well not the liberal arts ones).

If anything, the Apollo missions proved that astronauts can do exploration much better then robots. The later apollo missions not only brought back many pounds of moonrocks, it brought back a piece of the moons primordial crust because one of the astronauts thought it looked interesting. You can't beat a trained eye in the field with any robot, no matter how advanced.

Oh, primordial crust. Lovely. Was it worth $125 billion? Because that was the total budget for the Apollo program, adjusted for inflation. As a point of national pride, Apollo might have been justifiable, but scientifically the project accomplished little. And I'll grant that a single astronaut is more useful than a single robot, but since you can probably send at least a dozen robots for the cost of one manned space flight this is a false comparison.

Oh, primordial crust. Lovely. Was it worth $125 billion? Because that was the total budget for the Apollo program, adjusted for inflation. As a point of national pride, Apollo might have been justifiable, but scientifically the project accomplished little. And I'll grant that a single astronaut is more useful than a single robot, but since you can probably send at least a dozen robots for the cost of one manned space flight this is a false comparison.

Damn skippy it was. Apollo brought back so much information we're still processing it. It completely changed the way we thought about the moon. No to mention the technological advances it brought. That computer you're typing on is a direct descendant of the Apollo guidance computer.

I'm all for NASA, but I question the usefulness of a moon mission, or even a Mars mission. What would it prove? What can astronauts do that robots can't do more cheaply and with less risk?



first of all:humans can explore much better than robots and we should colonise new planets and move from this planet cause let's face it:this will be destroyed someday

first of all:humans can explore much better than robots and we should colonise new planets and move from this planet cause let's face it:this will be destroyed someday

I already addressed the human/robot issue. As to the rest, I agree completely, but what planet can we realistically colonize? We'll have to look outside the solar system, and our ability to do so is being hampered by missions to the moon and mars. A far better use of our money would be an all-out, Apollo-style project to invent a new propulsion system, as the current one is antiquated and increasingly inadequate. NASA had been working on such a project, and it was scuttled twice, the second time specifically because of the new expense of the Bush-mandated manned missions.

Damn skippy it was. Apollo brought back so much information we're still processing it. It completely changed the way we thought about the moon. No to mention the technological advances it brought. That computer you're typing on is a direct descendant of the Apollo guidance computer.

But how much of this information was the result of the fact that it was a manned mission? I'm not arguing that we should simply end all space exploration, quite the opposite; I am, however, saying that a manned mission should serve a specific purpose. If we're going there just for the sake of going there, we're wasting a lot of time and money. I'm willing to exempt Apollo from this general rule on the grounds that it was a real black eye for the Soviets, however.

But how much of this information was the result of the fact that it was a manned mission? I'm not arguing that we should simply end all space exploration, quite the opposite; I am, however, saying that a manned mission should serve a specific purpose. If we're going there just for the sake of going there, we're wasting a lot of time and money. I'm willing to exempt Apollo from this general rule on the grounds that it was a real black eye for the Soviets, however.

The vast, vast majority of it came from manned missions. The early unmanned missions pretty much told us the moon wasn't made of cheese. Only the first apollo missions were purely for specticle. The latter ones were very scientific. Hell, Apollo 17 had a scientist as part of the crew. Apollo was just as much a scientific endevour then political.

The vast, vast majority of it came from manned missions. The early unmanned missions pretty much told us the moon wasn't made of cheese. Only the first apollo missions were purely for specticle. The latter ones were very scientific. Hell, Apollo 17 had a scientist as part of the crew. Apollo was just as much a scientific endevour then political.

The vast majority came from manned missions because the missions were manned. My point is, was that even necessary? I would say very little was accomplished that couldn't have been accomplished without astronauts.

The vast majority came from manned missions because the missions were manned. My point is, was that even necessary? I would say very little was accomplished that couldn't have been accomplished without astronauts.

Most moon missions were unmanned probes and landers. The Soviets had a series of very sucessfull unmanned landers that brought back lots of info.

Robots can't do feild Geology. Astronauts can. There is absolutely no substitute for the human brain on another planet. It's no competition at all. Humans do exploration many, many times better then the best robots.

Most moon missions were unmanned probes and landers. The Soviets had a series of very sucessfull unmanned landers that brought back lots of info.

Robots can't do feild Geology. Astronauts can. There is absolutely no substitute for the human brain on another planet. It's no competition at all. Humans do exploration many, many times better then the best robots.

Humans do exploration better than any robots, but many times better? How does one measure that exactly? Money, however, is something concrete, and manned missions certainly cost many, many times as much as unmanned missions. Aside from that, manned missions are still exceedingly risky. It isn't that I'm so bothered by the deaths of astronauts; such incidents are tragic, but they accept the risk when they take the job, and who am I to tell them not to? Unfortunately, many people would tell them not to- what was it, four years after the Challenger disaster before we had another Shuttle mission?- and whenever such a tragedy occurs it erodes public support for the space program in general, and not simply for manned flights. If spaceflight could be made reasonably safe, and quite a bit faster than it currently is- that's very important too if we ever intend to go anyplace worth going to- I think it would be just great, and certainly the best way to do things. The current push to have a manned mission right now, however, whatever the cost, is hurting our efforts in these areas, and thus ironically hurting the future of manned space travel.

TBH, I doubt that Ares and Orion will survive the Obama presidency. He doesn't much like NASA, and he proposes stripping funding from Constellation for at least a year. I hypothesize that NASA will all but be shut down after the shuttle retires. Sad, really.

Pointless blame. Bush is the one that started all this and then refused to fund NASA for all the shit he wanted done. And with all the bureaucracy now, there is no way Orion and Ares will get half-done anywhere near budget.

Humans do exploration better than any robots, but many times better? How does one measure that exactly? Money, however, is something concrete, and manned missions certainly cost many, many times as much as unmanned missions. Aside from that, manned missions are still exceedingly risky. It isn't that I'm so bothered by the deaths of astronauts; such incidents are tragic, but they accept the risk when they take the job, and who am I to tell them not to? Unfortunately, many people would tell them not to- what was it, four years after the Challenger disaster before we had another Shuttle mission?- and whenever such a tragedy occurs it erodes public support for the space program in general, and not simply for manned flights. If spaceflight could be made reasonably safe, and quite a bit faster than it currently is- that's very important too if we ever intend to go anyplace worth going to- I think it would be just great, and certainly the best way to do things. The current push to have a manned mission right now, however, whatever the cost, is hurting our efforts in these areas, and thus ironically hurting the future of manned space travel.

There is no major push right now. The first Orion mission isn't scheduled till at least 2015, and the moon not till 2020 at the absolute earliest. Space travel will never be safe simply due to the environment. When you're traveling a million miles with no repair station, you'd best be sure that your shit is good. And the US still has never lost astronauts in space due to a technical malfunction.

Costs, on the other hand, are variable. Part of the reason Apollo was so costly was that NASA had to develop technology which did not exist. Manned missions don't inherently cost more then unmanned. And with planetary science, the benefits of having the most advanced analytical computer system ever devised far outweigh the costs.

There is no push to go "right now" we have had the technology, we have had the knowledge, but we have not had the desire. Orion does not have deadlines and limits that initial variations of Apollo did. This is a concrete, coordinated effort to manufacture the next generation space vehicle. Just like the shuttle in the 70s.

Pointless blame. Bush is the one that started all this and then refused to fund NASA for all the shit he wanted done. And with all the bureaucracy now, there is no way Orion and Ares will get half-done anywhere near budget.

Source?

There is no major push right now. The first Orion mission isn't scheduled till at least 2015, and the moon not till 2020 at the absolute earliest. Space travel will never be safe simply due to the environment. When you're traveling a million miles with no repair station, you'd best be sure that your shit is good. And the US still has never lost astronauts in space due to a technical malfunction.

Costs, on the other hand, are variable. Part of the reason Apollo was so costly was that NASA had to develop technology which did not exist. Manned missions don't inherently cost more then unmanned. And with planetary science, the benefits of having the most advanced analytical computer system ever devised far outweigh the costs.

There is no push to go "right now" we have had the technology, we have had the knowledge, but we have not had the desire. Orion does not have deadlines and limits that initial variations of Apollo did. This is a concrete, coordinated effort to manufacture the next generation space vehicle. Just like the shuttle in the 70s.

I realize space travel can't be made absolutely safe, hence the qualifier "reasonably". Manned missions are inherently far more expensive than unmanned missions, for several reasons, such as the need for life support systems, the need for adequate living space and the need to carry all the necessary oxygen, all of which result in a much heavier payload. And there is a push to go "right now"; they are working on it "right now", are they not? This might be all right, if it were given its own funding, but it is not; therefore the push to go to the moon and Mars is doing great harm to projects of far greater actual usefulness. Before you say "Well, we should give NASA more funding then", I must ask you to stay realistic; you know as well as I that that won't happen.

You mention that part of the reason for Apollo's great expense is the fact that they had to invent a lot of new technology, which is certainly true. However, you say this to highlight the fact that no new technologies will be needed for the new mission, which in my opinion is the single worst thing about the project. We can get to the moon, but so what? The same goes for Mars. The only real usefulness of such missions is what they will teach us about future missions to more distant, perhaps more interesting places, and to get to such places we will need new inventions. If we settle for going to the moon and Mars now, with current technology, we gain nothing of use and proceed down a dead-end street. For all its other problems, lack of funding, shortsightedness and all, I could still support this project if the scientists and politicians in charge would insist on doing things a different way instead of just getting back to the moon as quickly as funding will allow.