NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

Calmguy · 2004-05-01 22:59:26

I am getting so damned frustrated with NASA's crap! Just look at this article from Florida Today: http://www.floridatoday.com/news/space/ … ]Moon-Mars cost estimate is too high

Quote:

"Mistaken as gospel and spread around the country by countless news outlets outside of Brevard County, an oft-quoted but flawed trillion-dollar cost estimate is coloring public opinion on President Bush's plan to send astronauts back to the moon by 2020, and it's swaying election-year political debates. A more realistic estimate: $229 billion over the next 16 years."

$229 Billion dollars???

Okay, so let me get this straight...

NASA plans to spend over $229,000,000,000 ($229 thousand million, or nearly a quarter of a Trillion dollars) developing the capability to send astronauts to the moon in tiny little capsules on merry reminiscing sight-seeing voyages to the moon and back.

And, err, why are we doing this again? Have we not already sent men to the moon? Did it not take only 8 years to get there the first time? And with 1960's technology? Starting from scratch? And I'm sure as hell it didn't cost us near $229 billion, even in todays dollars.

This is unimaginably ludicrous! I am gob-smacked! Why the hell should I have the smallest glimmer of hope NASA may send humans to Mars before I am dead, or this once-great country is dead, or both?

What is there to be gained on the moon? And don't give me this 'It will help us prepare for Mars' crap! Apollo helped us prepare for Mars! Don't kid yourselves: there are no resources on the moon, nothing to help us on our journey to Mars. We won't be returning to the moon for science; Apollo was cancelled because, after the initial triumph of Apollo 11, the science return was damned near useless. Sure, it was fun watching those astronauts skipping around in slow-motion, the Earth as there backdrop, but by apollo 14, there wasn't really all that much left to do. Even hard-core NASA scientists of the era would admit to that.

The truth is, there isn't any real reason why we can't be bagging blueberries into our pockets by 2014 instead. Contrary to popular belief, there are no great technological or social (or even political, IMHO) hurdles to overcome. Everything has been solved; It's been that way for 14 years, in-fact. And maybe that's why we like to think about why it's so hard to get there and back (to Mars, that is): All we've been hearing in that time are excuses from NASA, and a generally confused scientific community wondering why nothing has been set in motion. It must be too difficult to even consider the prospect, they conclude. Screw NASA! Fire the incompetent characterless, uninspired, hopefull O'keefe! I cannot stand his superficial optimism any longer! NASA needs a leader who is not afraid of the truth; or someone atleast acquainted with common-sense.

$229 Billion is ridiculous. And yes, that figure includes other programs, like returning shuttle to flight (Kill it!), completing the ISS by 2010 (Burn it!) and developing nuclear rockets (Don't need em, actually we really don't need any of these things). My only hope left in NASA is for a shuttle derived heavy-lift. If NASA ignores the need for an SDV, I am left with no choice but to abandon every last hope I have in the administration and denounce them forever.

In its current state, I will not give Bush's plan a cent!

Dook · 2004-05-02 00:08:52

Yep, that pretty much says it all.

Hazer · 2004-05-02 02:06:21

And thus NASA stays in LEO forever. All the difficulties aside, I think the opposition to the current plan has more to do with Bush then it does with NASA.

Two hundred and twenty nine billion dollars, spread over 16 years. Then adjust for inflation as time marches on and convert to current dollars. Then stretch that number over the years we ran the Apollo program.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-05-02 06:24:22

I remember them saying, in 1969, that sending Neil and Buzz to the Moon had cost $24 billion.
At the time, $24 billion seemed like an incomprehensibly large amount - something only the U.S. could contemplate, with its seemingly endless wealth!

According to data available on the internet, $24 billion spent in 1969 is equivalent to $122 billion spent in 2004.

President Kennedy announced the daring plan to "land a man on the Moon and return him safely to the Earth" in May 1961. Just a tad over 8 years later, it happened.
So, in today's dollars, and starting from scratch in terms of space exploration experience (no American had orbited Earth at that time), they spent something like $15 billion a year over 8 years to put humans on Luna.

We're now proposing, with infinitely more expertise in space travel, to spend 16 years and $23 billion a year, to achieve the same thing.
That translates to twice as long and three times as much money to do what we did before!
And that's the conservative estimate?!!

Dr. Zubrin maintains we can skip the Moon and get to Mars in ten years for $50 billion.
I know which plan I like better!

deagleninja · 2004-05-02 07:08:00

Calmguy, I feel your pain believe me I do. I believe NASA has outlived it's usefulness. I propose we take that 15 billion a year and create incentive programs like the X-prize. Imagine what the public sector can accomplish with 15 billion a year??

I would probably keep JPL, they are the only reason NASA gets any good publicity.

There was a time, not long ago, when I was a huge supporter of NASA. When Columbia blew up, my opinion began changing. Everyone of those crew members familys came forward and begged NASA not to stop, to keep going. NASA said they would get to the bottom of this quickly and there wouldn't be a Challenger type delay. But there is.

Scrap the shuttle, give the ISS to the other countrys and let them build it. Or use the remaining 3 shuttles to finish the station as much as possible and trade seats aboard Soyuz for our share of the station. Trading wouldn't technically violate the Iran-Non-Proliferation Treaty, so it should be legal.

The sad truth is our support of NASA has been like keeping a dying patient alive with no chance of recovery. If NASA were to lose all its support from the public, it would probably be scrapped and a newer, more efficent agency would take its place.

I'm sick of the excuses too. Going to Mars today is easier and safer than sending men to the moon in 69. If we ever leave Earth again, we need to be paving the way for cheaper missions in the future. THAT should be the Space Exploration Initiative, not repeating mistakes from the past.

GCNRevenger · 2004-05-02 10:31:50

Oh come now, you people aren't making any sense... $229Bn is what Nasa's budget is summed over 16 years, which includes all the aeronautical, robotic, basic science etc for which manned flight is only about 2/3rds of, which would put the cost of a Lunar return comperable to Apollo for a system which is safer and better suited to exploration than racing Communists.

And the X-Prize nonsense... please... none of them are even going orbital! None of them even mention sending >100 kilo payloads to LEO, much less TMI. Guess how much private industry knows about building large rockets? If you guessed "not a d**n thing," you win the prize. And Elon Musk has yet to prove that his dinky rocket can fly even once.

And manned (repeating for emphasis) MANNED spaceflight is a heck of alot harder than satelite launch! If for no other reason, "failure is not an option." Making sure none of the glues in the cabin have toxic fumes, making sure the vehicle's parts work together, multiple redundancy all around... these things are not trivial, and they are why it is so expensive and why Johnson Space Flight eats so much cash.

I would wager to say that a return to the Moon today would be more expensive than it was for Apollo if for no other reason that we won't tollerate a loss of astronauts like we would in the Apollo days.

"I'm sick of the excuses too. Going to Mars today is easier and safer than sending men to the moon in 69. If we ever leave Earth again, we need to be paving the way for cheaper missions in the future." Ridiculous, going to Mars is INFINITLY harder... you have to keep men alive with reliability for two years, not two weeks, and the vehicles are far bigger and more complex... Giant landers able to put six times the LEM mass on a body with double the gravity with precision and reliability... nuclear reactor(s) to power a fuel factor that must operate without human intervention... and of course, a huge and possibly nuclear fueled rocket to make it all fly.

clark · 2004-05-02 11:05:46

haha. "calm" guy. :laugh:

deagleninja · 2004-05-02 15:53:05

The only one not making sense is you. How is it infinitly harder to do today what we did in the 60's and early 70's? have our astronauts needs changed? No, only the mission. The still need air, water and food like they always have. Now they just need more of it. And as Dr Zubrin has stated, we need not take it all with us. Mars can provide the air and water all we need to bring is food. So the spacecraft will be a bit bigger, so what? To hear you talk, its an impossible task to go to Mars.

The X-prize is not nonsense. It is doing exactly what it set out to do, which is to open minds like yours. The X-prize is showing that reuseable spacecraft can and will be built. It is also going to create a broader market for space tourism. It is getting the private sector involved so we won't have to depend on failures like NASA.

And if the price we have to pay for safety means that we never leave LEO, then safety simply isn't worth the price. Haven't you been listening to anyone? There are a lot of people like myself and Dook and calmguy that would gladly take the risks involved and save billions. Risk is a part of space development, people are going to die, but it's a price that has to be paid. The alternative is to circle the Earth and go nowhere.

And again, you miss the bigger issue. Russia launches their cosmonauts with fewer casulties than we do. They take fewer safety precautions than we do. How is this possible? Because their Soyuz is a dependable, affordable workhorse. Why is it affordable? because it's not made by Boeing or Lockheed and doesn't come with all those fancy safty precautions that you seem to think are so important we can't leave Earth without them.

Screw NASA. The private sector doesn't have to spend all those extra millions on US made rockets. I'm sure they will soon be scrapping up enough cash to use Russia's fine resources and bypass this rotten pile of dung we call our space program.

BTW, how can you mock the X-prize? Its promise of 10 million has accomplished so much already. Tell me what 15 billion in reward money could accomplish.

Euler · 2004-05-02 16:26:04

The X-prize is showing that reuseable spacecraft can and will be built.

You know, NASA and the Air Force had fully reusable manned suborbital craft in the early 60's. Getting a fully reusable manned orbital spacecraft is much more difficult.

Russia launches their cosmonauts with fewer casulties than we do.

A lot of that is simply because the don’t launch nearly as many cosmonauts.

I do agree that NASA is screwed up though. In 1970, NASA administrators were hoping to be on Mars within 10-15 years. Now, it looks like it will be at least 25 years even if everything goes according to plan.

Rxke · 2004-05-03 01:15:52

A lot of that is simply because the don’t launch nearly as many cosmonauts.

Don't agree....

Soyuz is capable of launching 3 persons, Shuttle 7 (or more?)

So the Russians actually did *more* manned launches, relatively speaking, than the Americans, and only had casualties in the first few missions, ages ago...

And GCNRevenger: you gotta start small, learn the ropes as you ascend... What's wrong with that? Yes, current virtually nonexistent market demand for "light" stuff, I know... endless discussion... But if, say, Scaled brings an unmanned, LEO capable upper stage for White Knight to the market, I'm sure there would be *some* demand, from private and educational orgs. Liberal, "no government but private" schools of thought people etc... Preferring private business start-ups that roll out the red carpet for you... above Government-backed molochs... That launch your tiny payloads as an afterthought.

Euler · 2004-05-03 02:04:31

If I counted correctly, there have been 89 Soyuz launches total. Two of them killed the entire crew, and one failed to reach orbit but the crew survived.

The shuttle is on mission 114. Two of them were disasters that killed the crew. Those are very similar safety records, with the shuttle actually having a slight advantage.

Rxke · 2004-05-03 02:26:01

*scratches head*

Ummm... my fuzzy logic strikes again...

Guess you're right, if looking at the numbers. I got confused somehow.

But losing a Shuttle is more devastating to a program than a Soyuz, (bad as it may be too)

Hmmm getting wildly off-topic, or not...

bolbuyk · 2004-05-03 07:02:32

What I don´t understaand about the Shuttle is that problems appear that have been there during all the launches, eg revverse-monted brakes. The problems with the tiles were there from the first launches of Columbia. It´s IMO merely an organizational rpoblem than something teechnical.

OK, a resuable shuttle asks more technics than a put-away Soyuz. But then I come to the question if reusability is the right filosofy. Itt makes sense, nobody can deny, but calculating things through, the costs of extra mass, costs of recovery and technical support, far much more cost of engineering, I really ask myself if this is better.

I think a 6-person-soyuz Russia is talking about is a better idea than a type of Shuttle.

Once sombody told most of launching costss are not the rocket, but merely person-cost (launch-centr, technicians eg) and the cost of the launch-complex.

deagleninja · 2004-05-03 09:40:10

Euler- Isn't the major difference that as of late, the Soyuz hasn't had tragedies and the shuttle has? Their space program didn't come to a grinding hault because of their accidents either. They dusted themselves off and said, 'what went wrong' and went about fixing it. So they are currently enjoying a manned space flight program and we are not. And this totally ignores how much more expensive the shuttle is vs Soyuz. Which is better? I think the answer is pretty clear.

Euler · 2004-05-03 10:36:06

Before Columbia, the shuttle had completed 88 successful missions in a row. I may be wrong, but I don’t think that any other space vehicle has ever had that many successful missions in a row. Just because of one accident is not sufficient to say that the shuttle is less safe recently.

Rxke · 2004-05-03 11:07:45

88? You're positive about that? That *is* remarkable, esp. given the sheer complexity of the system...

But it takes a lot of time (and thus money) to get to such a level of 'stability'

And of course, you can't cut corners... STS should've stayed an experimental, yet marginally operational craft, only one built, flown maximum twice a year, upgraded every 2-5 years, and learn the lessons to be learned (like: 'tiles are a pain in the neck, corrosion is still a problem in Florida...)

Learn ten years and then build a shuttle Mark II, with a lot less operational headaches...

Calmguy · 2004-05-04 23:39:38

I would appreciate if you could stay on topic please. Anywho... I'd like to add my concerns about the number of space enthusiasts who are settling for NASA's current plan, when they themselves can see huge glaring faults in it. Yes, NASA has been in a slump since Apollo, but we cannot afford to simply settle for any old goal so long as its beyond LEO.
Because NASA has not presented any alternative goals (which is really freaking stupid on their behalf, IMO), many space supporters have been forced to either support Bush's plan or remain in LEO forever. Infact, they really have no choice at all. This is f***ing crap! I for one am a huge supporter for space exploration, and would gladly cut off my right arm for the cause. I'm afraid NASA may get away with their plan, having presented no alternatives, and quietly spend our $229 billion on whatever useless-crap-they-have-in-mind covertly, much as they have done with the shuttle. Bush's plan is s**t, and I will not stand for it! Give us alternatives, NASA, or you will continue to struggle for support from the scientific community. :angry:

deagleninja · 2004-05-05 08:57:34

Calmguy, we are staying on the subject. Unfortunately, NASA's biggest problem, launch costs, can't be fixed at the moment. As many have stated, NASA buys its rockets from Boeing and Lockheed at inflated prices and they can't buy the much cheaper Soyuz because of legal matters and contracts with Boeing/Lock.

What does look promising is that the private sector is about to offer cheaper altenatives to small payload launches. NASA can take advantage of this and hopefully something similar to the Titan can be developed in 10 years at a fraction of the cost. As many have stated though, demand drives down costs and since NASA is still ordering Titans as they need them, the cost hasn't dropped significantly.

A better goal than Plan Bush, would have been creating a base on the Moon with the purpose of developing it's resources to build rockets on site. This would have given NASA a clear goal to strive for while developing needed infastructure in a launch friendly environment.

It took a Saturn V to get people to the Moon, but only the dinky lander to return them.

RobS · 2004-05-05 12:37:20

Why do you say a moon base with industrial capability is a better goal? You're talking about lifting hundreds or thousands of tonnes of equipment, spending tens of billions to develop the equipment to work with a minumum mass, minumum power, in a vacuum, with maximum automation, and tens of billions to develop a transportation system to get all that stuff and the necessary personnel to the moon. That's far more expensive than sending people to the moon for a while to test a Mars transportation system, then send them to Mars. That risks the "moon cul de sac" that Sagan and others warned against. It is not clear that after investing a trillion dollars, the moon could produce metals or silicon for construction in low earth orbit, products for export to the Earth's surface, or even power (solar power from the moon will be much more expensive than covering everyone's roofs with solar panels). Eventually, in a mature space economy, the moon will probably have exports, but we don't know yet what they will be or how to get to the point where they are economic.

We know the moon can export liquid oxygen, and probably water from the poles (though that still is uncertain). But that's a far cry from manufacturing space vehicles on the lunar surface.

-- RobS

GCNRevenger · 2004-05-05 16:10:06

I'd like to add my concerns about the number of space enthusiasts who are settling for NASA's current plan, when they themselves can see huge glaring faults in it. Yes, NASA has been in a slump since Apollo, but we cannot afford to simply settle for any old goal so long as its beyond LEO. ...Give us alternatives, NASA, or you will continue to struggle for support from the scientific community.

Oh really? Alternatives ey? Like what? ...If the goal is sustained human spaceflight to and beyond the Moon, then what would YOU propose? MarsDirect is inexpensive and relativly quick... but it is still a Martian Apollo, with the whole "mate Hab modules together = Mars colony!!!" excuse and long transits/long wait between launch combined with the small crews and low payload masses doom that idea.

What would you have Nasa do? We're getting rid of Shuttle, we're getting out of the ISS debacle, we're going back to space capsules on top of boosters, and a mandate to leave LEO and re-learn how to go to other bodies in the solar system. Thats doing pretty good by me.

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-05-05 17:29:51

What would you have Nasa do?

Why, build the DH-1 of course. ^.^
OR
Use $50B to develop something like the Boeing TSTO HLLV and the rest of the money for a dozen SSPSs.
OR
Build a small space colony.
OR
Start building nuclear pulse CEVs in earth orbit.
OR
Give every last NASA employee, Boeing vampire and congress heal-dragger a one way 'trip of a life-time' to earth orbit. Three times over.

ANTIcarrot.
PS: The third one isn't a serious suggestion.

GCNRevenger · 2004-05-05 17:57:24

The DH-1 is a failure before it even leaves the drawing board... Nasa needs bigger rockets, not smaller ones with under a tenth of the payload of current ones. Skylab vs ISS. Saturn-V vs Delta-IV HLV.

In order to make a reuseable medium/heavy launch vehicle, like Shuttle-LSA or somthing, you need one thing first: some place to fly it to. Nasa doesn't have this at the moment, so there is no justification for such a vehicle.

A small space colony. Where? Why? The Moon isn't much good even with water. Orbit isn't much good, there isn't anything to do up there either (see ISS). Mars colonies are down the road a little ways, and Nasa simply can't afford to make a substantial one on $10Bn a year without better tech.

The Orion drive would be extremely expensive, needing thousands of carefully build and highly reliable atomic bombs, to say nothing of the political issues. VASIMR is still a ways off with its finicky plasma dynamics and lack of power source, and the GCNR engine is slightly beyond current materials technology to achieve a reasonable engine mass.

bolbuyk · 2004-05-06 06:31:06

Before Columbia, the shuttle had completed 88 successful missions in a row. I may be wrong, but I don’t think that any other space vehicle has ever had that many successful missions in a row. Just because of one accident is not sufficient to say that the shuttle is less safe recently.

I dare not state that the Shuttle is less safe than the Soyuz, statistically they do not differ. You can't say the shuttle is less safe, neither as you can say Shenzhou is the safest space-vehicle of all.

Also the frequent and rather comfortable flights of the shuttle are good points. The only point that remains are the costs and the fragility of the system as a whole.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2004-07-18 17:11:50

it's difficult to say what will happen, money is becoming important and of course any manned mission is looked at hard, I hope NASA can correct what has been happening

Darkstar · 2005-04-29 04:46:20

Is it possible to build a giant spacecraft assembled on Earth with everything needed for a 10 year mission to Mars? I know that sounds unbelievable but someone has to know on this forum that we can build it. What type of technology do we currently possess that could accomplish this task? We need something similar to the external fuel pods on the outside of the space shuttle that are discarded once were in orbit. We just enough power to get the craft up into space then its real power system would kick in once it got a safe distance from earth. I propose something to do with nuclear power could a giant fusion reactor be sufficient to get the giant spacecraft to Mars? When it got to Mars it needs to be able to land fully intact is that also possible and how would that mission succeed. I am calling on all the best minds on this forum to think real hard because I am serious about colonizing Mars I too am tired of NASA wasting valuable time. Please if possible don't use the same system NASA uses to estimate the cost. We won't be using expensive contractors to build this spacecraft but the cheapest and safest that we can find.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-05-01 22:59:26

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#2 2004-05-02 00:08:52

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#3 2004-05-02 02:06:21

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#4 2004-05-02 06:24:22

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#5 2004-05-02 07:08:00

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#6 2004-05-02 10:31:50

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#7 2004-05-02 11:05:46

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#8 2004-05-02 15:53:05

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#9 2004-05-02 16:26:04

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#10 2004-05-03 01:15:52

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#11 2004-05-03 02:04:31

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#12 2004-05-03 02:26:01

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#13 2004-05-03 07:02:32

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#14 2004-05-03 09:40:10

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#15 2004-05-03 10:36:06

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#16 2004-05-03 11:07:45

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#17 2004-05-04 23:39:38

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#18 2004-05-05 08:57:34

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#19 2004-05-05 12:37:20

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#20 2004-05-05 16:10:06

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#21 2004-05-05 17:29:51

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#22 2004-05-05 17:57:24

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#23 2004-05-06 06:31:06

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#24 2004-07-18 17:11:50

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

#25 2005-04-29 04:46:20

Re: NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-(

Board footer