NASA is a terrible idea. Shut it down.
NASA’s Lunar Space Station Is a Great/Terrible Idea
21–30 of 168 posts
Re: NASA’s Lunar Space Station Is a Great/Terrible Idea
#22Would building a lunar space station get us closer to being able to deflect mass extinction sized asteroids?
Re: NASA’s Lunar Space Station Is a Great/Terrible Idea
#23It’s kind of ridiculous how often NASA has to reallocate their focus. Personally, I’d like to see a longer term 5 - 10 year plan that is voted on by congress and basically the funds are deposited in an escrow. It’s insane the waste that occurs from random political moves like this. I understand the need to be able to direct NASA, but that should be in addition to the described 5 - 10 year plans. This would give the f…
As a governmental entity, NASA will never be removed from politics. A million different things could completely derail any sort of 5-10 year plan, not to mention that as soon as NASA got a "guaranteed" fund-for-5-years-and-leave-us-alone budget, every other federal agency will clamor for that too.
Long-term planning requires alignment of incentives. In government, the incentives of top officials are short-term in the extreme: get re-elected at all costs; grow next year's budget at all costs (e.g. waste all the ammo at the end of the year). Of course, more authoritarian states often tout their 5 Year Plans, but you're making quite a few tradeoffs of civil and economic liberties to get there.
Until there is market-driven demand for humans to be on or around the Moon, politics will dominate the story.
Re: NASA’s Lunar Space Station Is a Great/Terrible Idea
#24The thing about the original moon landing programme was that it had a great clarity of outcome and timeline. What: Land a man on the moon and return him safely When: Before the decade is out That meant NASA could really focus and throw out everything that wasn't directly on that path. Reusability - take too long, we'll build each craft from scratch. Permanent mission - Too complicated, keep the missions very short. M…
On one hand, this got everyone to focus and things happened fast.
On the other hand, the result was only what was asked for. We went half a dozen times and then that was it. You want bigger missions? A base? Mars? Nope, not what we’re going for.
Without JFK’s challenge, I’m sure we would have taken longer, but maybe it would have been more sustainable.
Re: NASA’s Lunar Space Station Is a Great/Terrible Idea
#25All this "get back to the moon" stuff makes me wonder what the purpose of going to the moon actually is. It's definitely different for different people. If the whole point of the endeavor is just another space race exercise to demonstrate American prowess like the we did in the 1960's-- perhaps that's a waste of effort? Do we really need that symbolic achievement at such an enormous cost? Not to mention the opportuni…
JFK didn't have any particular love for the scientific discovery of a moon mission. It was the same kind of thing that you're describing today: demonstrate American "greatness" in a world that seemed increasingly hostile - just substitute Islamicists/Terrorism for USSR/Cold War. I think that tells us two things: 1) We can still accomplish great things even from lowly motivations, and 2) We shouldn't necessarily take…
I agree that people who get involved with space programs will be glad to "take what we can get" in terms of funding whether that means deep-space robotic missions or another manned moon landing.
Good things will happen with both. But why not choose the best way forward when it comes to space exploration?
Why not free ourselves from the strictures of yet another "space race" with low-brow nationalistic goals where we again end up citing uninspiring spin-offs as the reward for "winning" the race?
Re: NASA’s Lunar Space Station Is a Great/Terrible Idea
#26Going back to the moon is just busy work to distract from the fact they don't have the funding or the ambition to get to Mars.
Going back the moon is the logical next step in going to Mars. You don't send off materials and bodies in the hope that years later it will work out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_the_Moon
It took many attempts to get a successful moon mission where we landed. How many more before we could dig into the rock for a habitat? Now multiply the time by the round trip to Mars. The fantasy of being on Mars in X years is fraught with dangers that include our own imperfection in execution. Don't expect a man on Mars in your lifetime, at least not one who comes back.
Re: NASA’s Lunar Space Station Is a Great/Terrible Idea
#27The thing about the original moon landing programme was that it had a great clarity of outcome and timeline. What: Land a man on the moon and return him safely When: Before the decade is out That meant NASA could really focus and throw out everything that wasn't directly on that path. Reusability - take too long, we'll build each craft from scratch. Permanent mission - Too complicated, keep the missions very short. M…
On one hand, this got everyone to focus and things happened fast. On the other hand, the result was only what was asked for. We went half a dozen times and then that was it. You want bigger missions? A base? Mars? Nope, not what we’re going for. Without JFK’s challenge, I’m sure we would have taken longer, but maybe it would have been more sustainable.
> You want bigger missions? A base? Mars? Nope, not what we’re going for.
Could be specified as well:
"Internationally organized base station (ISS style) on the Moon by 2030, permanently staffed after 2032, an experimental ecosystem to work towards self-sustaining O2 and food generation set up by 2037, usable as launchpad for Mars missions by 2045"
That would at least provide clarity on priorities but it's risky: the success would make you famous forever (see JFK) but so would failure.
On the other hand, it requires the next 7 administrations to support a programme that will make _you_ famous, not them.
Re: NASA’s Lunar Space Station Is a Great/Terrible Idea
#28It’s kind of ridiculous how often NASA has to reallocate their focus. Personally, I’d like to see a longer term 5 - 10 year plan that is voted on by congress and basically the funds are deposited in an escrow. It’s insane the waste that occurs from random political moves like this. I understand the need to be able to direct NASA, but that should be in addition to the described 5 - 10 year plans. This would give the f…
As a governmental entity, NASA will never be removed from politics. A million different things could completely derail any sort of 5-10 year plan, not to mention that as soon as NASA got a "guaranteed" fund-for-5-years-and-leave-us-alone budget, every other federal agency will clamor for that too. Long-term planning requires alignment of incentives. In government, the incentives of top officials are short-term in the…
> Until there is market-driven demand for humans to be on or around the Moon, politics will dominate the story
I don't know if I've ever thought this before, but wow. That's a great argument
Re: NASA’s Lunar Space Station Is a Great/Terrible Idea
#29Would building a lunar space station get us closer to being able to deflect mass extinction sized asteroids?
Of course it would.
But the important question is "how much closer". That would be much harder to answer.
Re: NASA’s Lunar Space Station Is a Great/Terrible Idea
#30The thing about the original moon landing programme was that it had a great clarity of outcome and timeline. What: Land a man on the moon and return him safely When: Before the decade is out That meant NASA could really focus and throw out everything that wasn't directly on that path. Reusability - take too long, we'll build each craft from scratch. Permanent mission - Too complicated, keep the missions very short. M…
On one hand, this got everyone to focus and things happened fast. On the other hand, the result was only what was asked for. We went half a dozen times and then that was it. You want bigger missions? A base? Mars? Nope, not what we’re going for. Without JFK’s challenge, I’m sure we would have taken longer, but maybe it would have been more sustainable.
Also, without Kennedy's martyrdom I'm not sure Congress would have been willing to keep appropriating the funds to see it al the way through.