CNN: NASA's next giant leap

[adarling]

CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida(AP) -- As NASA celebrates the 25th anniversary of its first shuttle flight this week, the agency also steels itself for the biggest upheaval since the moon shot days of Apollo in the early 1970s.

In just four years the three aging, behemoth space shuttles will be shelved -- likely headed to museums. And by 2014, a brand new spacecraft will be flying -- one designed to get astronauts to the moon by 2018 and eventually Mars.

This wrenching transition will be only the fourth such makeover for the manned space program in the agency's nearly 50-year history. Critics already are grumbling about the lack of money to accomplish the shift to the new crew exploration vehicle (CEV). More than a fifth of NASA's proposed $16.8 billion budget for next year will be spent on developing the new vehicle system.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/04/10/nasa.in.transition.ap/index.html


Anyone else feel like they are taking a huge step back with this rocket thing. Why can't they design a new shuttle, shit they spend money like its going out of style, focus on building something that will help us more in the future. Feels like the bush admin has destroyed this program as well.

[depakid]

1. Trashing NASA

a Republican specialty. Reagan did it- and Bush did it.

And no, we're not going to the moon....

[benburch]

2. We have ceded The High Ground to "Communist Red China".

How does that sit with you neocon lurkers?

http://www.terrapinn.com.nyud.net:8090/2006/reiw_cn/Img/china_flag_lg.jpg

http://davesspacepage.250free.com.nyud.net:8090/Davids_Space_Page/Spacecraft_Shenzhouv_5_1st_Manned_Chinese_spacecraft_15-10-03.jpg

[phantom power]

3. Classic rockets are simpler, safer and cheaper.

The shuttle was a good idea in theory, but it just didn't work out very well in practice. The added complexities ended up outweighing the benefits of partial reuse.

[wuushew]

4. Going to the moon makes absolutely no sense

not only is two step mission design complicated and unnecessary, but a spacecraft designed with lunar capabilities detracts from the design of a pure Mars vehicle.

I would have enjoyed a manned Mars mission under a Democratic administration to advance scientific knowledge, but Bush has destroyed NASA just like he has the rest of the country.

[benburch]

5. The moon makes far more sense than Mars.

Because the Helium-3 that is the key to fusion power is likely to be found there.

That is why the Chinese are going.

[wuushew]

6. Get back to me when fusion is a viable power source

Mars has an environment suitable for human colonization, is well situated for exploring and mining the asteroid belt and may have once fostered life long ago.

Doesn't it make more sense to go to Mars especially with a manned mission than that of the moon?

[benburch]

7. Still no.

The lunar poles have hydrates.

Which means fuel.

Mining that fuel on the Moon and boosting it to a spacecraft in lunar orbit is MUCH cheaper than moving an equivalent amount of fuel up from the Earth.

I would invite you to calculate the comparison.

Also, the hydrates make the Moon habitable.

At least as habitable as Mars, where the thin atmosphere only provides meteoroid shielding and not much else of benefit.

On the Moon, you just live underground for meteoroid shielding.

All-in-all, though, I would put Mars off for a few generations, and concentrate on exploiting the Moon.