NASA at 50

It's the 19th Anniversary for T1B - Fuckin' A

Moderator: Jesus H Christ

Post Reply
User avatar
Bobby42
Natural Man
Posts: 2071
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 4:20 am
Location: Buckeye Nation

NASA at 50

Post by Bobby42 »

A year or so ago there was a popular thread about NASA and its ability (or properly put "inability") to meet the goals of manned spaceflight. I put down some negative stuff in that thread. Imagine that. While I'm a supporter of the manned space missions, there's much more we have to do in order to reach the expectations of the future.

This morning I opened my Internet newspaper (Columbus Dispatch) and read the following editorial:
What next for NASA?
Glittering past, dull present, murky future mark agency's golden birthday

Saturday, March 8, 2008 2:55 AM

This year, on its 50th anniversary, NASA has many successes to celebrate, but it also faces a big challenge: offering a compelling vision for the future.

In recent years, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration seems to have run out of steam. Setbacks since the mid-1970s sometimes have overshadowed the agency's thrilling early days.

NASA has been the government agency that has given the taxpayers the most dazzle for the buck, firing up huge rockets that propelled Americans into Earth orbit and then on to the moon.

Ohio has long and strong links with NASA. John Glenn became the first American to orbit Earth and Neil Armstrong became the first person to set foot on the moon.

But the glory of those early years has eluded NASA since. The moon missions, now nearly 40 years past, appear to have been an ending rather than a steppingstone to the universe.

Vice President Spiro Agnew convened a space task force in 1969 that recommended a manned mission to Mars, a lunar base and a reusable shuttle to go back and forth. But the nation had other priorities, and the only thing that Congress approved was the shuttle, which has been universally decried by aerospace engineers as a terrible replacement for the Saturn V moon rocket. The shuttles are overly complicated, hugely expensive to maintain and grow more dangerous with age. When shuttle missions attract widespread attention, it's often because something has gone wrong.

The lack of momentum has been devastating to morale among NASA engineers and it has been deadly to Americans' interest in manned space exploration.

In 1964, the total federal budget was $132.6 billion; NASA got $5.1 billion of that, or about 4 cents of every tax dollar. Adjusted for inflation, that would be about $34 billion today. But for 2009, NASA will get $17.6 billion, or 0.56 percent of the proposed federal budget. One month of waging war in Iraq costs $10 billion.

Many Americans might not realize this, but the U.S. no longer has the tools to return to the moon. The shuttle was not designed to go there, and the Saturn V rocket's production sites were mothballed in the early 1970s. The generation of engineers that designed and launched the Saturns likewise faded from the scene.

Further, once NASA retires the shuttle in 2010 and while it awaits the development of a new spacecraft in 2015, astronauts will have no way to reach orbit. They will have to hitch rides on private commercial spacecraft or rely on the kindness of the Russian space program to get them to the International Space Station.

Once the new craft, the Crew Exploration Vehicle, is ready, the next frontier is the Constellation missions, which are intended to put people back on the moon by 2020. Astronauts are to build a lunar base by 2025, eventually using it as their springboard to Mars, by 2037.

But this is President Bush's program, so it might not outlast his departure from office next year. Even when he unveiled the proposal, it provoked little interest in a nation more worried about health care, terrorism and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While the shuttle missions have been marked by tragedy, one of NASA's greatest recent successes has been unmanned exploration, namely, the wholly unexpected and remarkable careers of the two Mars rovers, which have have remained functional for 16 times longer than their three-month life expectancy. This success fuels a long discussion about whether space exploration is best conducted with manned missions or by machines such as the rovers.

In its early days, NASA's stimulus was the competition with the Soviet Union, and its focus was crystal clear. Since then, the agency has been less adept in defining and articulating its mission in a way that energizes public support. Is its purpose space exploration? Science? Aeronautics research? NASA should use its 50th anniversary to explain itself and remind Americans why space exploration is still important.
User avatar
Wolfman
Dumpater Artist
Posts: 7196
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:16 pm
Location: SW FL

Re: NASA at 50

Post by Wolfman »

I'm glad I was around to see the glory years of Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo. Odds are I will not be here to see the next generation of space flight. When the US sets its sights high, great things can happen. I hope the future bodes well.
User avatar
Charles De Mar
Elwood
Posts: 354
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 10:02 pm
Location: Eating the Chinese Buffet @Stcuknut.c0m

Re: NASA at 50

Post by Charles De Mar »

Public Relations?

Even DCsmackmaster can't put a NIIIIIICCCCCEEEEE spin on setting 7 human beings on fire 100 miles up in space on re-entry, or smoking them on a launch pad.

It's an archaic agency that should focus on sending people to the moon so we can mine it for cheese.
yumyumsaladbar wrote:Hey Pickle. I think we're going to be friends
Do you know when you have a wank in the tub and the spunk gets all rubbery and floats to the surface? - thats pretty much like your posts on this forum. You seem to me like like some sort of rubberized jism ....floating on a sea of soapy piss water
Post Reply