Turn on thread page Beta

Obama cancels NASA's Constellation moon programme watch

Announcements
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    He's cancelled it cus they told him they never went in the first place and never will.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Shame. Living on a moonbase might have been interesting.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sephiroth)
    Things aren't that simple. We don't have the rocket technology we did 40 years ago. The Saturn V is still to this day the best/most powerful rocket NASA or anyone in the world has ever produced. You may wonder why not re-use the design in a return moon trip, but the reality is most of the people who worked on the Apollo project have retired and building new Saturn Vs is easier said than done when the expertise is no longer there. Instead of spending the time on that, the goal was to build a rocket that could do it more efficiently, a progression.

    Computing power is irrelevant, you just stack processors together. Your computer might have been the size of a room in the 60s that can now fit in a mobile phone but it was equally capable of the task at hand. They wouldn't try to go back to the moon using the power of a mobile phone these days however, the extra computing power available would be used for extra safety, monitoring, tracking and processing systems. You make the most of what you've got available at the time.

    So, even though we have more computing power, you are saying that NASA in the 70s was more technologically advanced then NASA in 2010 ? Or that is less capable because the Germans who worked at the time are no longer there?
    Even if in all these years it got billions of additional funding?

    I'm sorry but I don't believe it.
    Also consider that loads of ultra-rich nutters have declared to be willing to pay astronomical sums of money for their own personal trip to the moon. I mean NASA would have a huge economic incentive in investing in moon travelling, rather than trying to take a pic of the tits of Martian chicks.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frieza)
    So, even though we have more computing power, you are saying that NASA in the 70s was more technologically advanced then NASA in 2010 ? Or that is less capable because the Germans who worked at the time are no longer there?
    Even if in all these years it got billions of additional funding?

    I'm sorry but I don't believe it.
    Also consider that loads of ultra-rich nutters have declared to be willing to pay astronomical sums of money for their own personal trip to the moon. I mean NASA would have a huge economic incentive in investing in moon travelling, rather than trying to take a pic of the tits of Martian chicks.
    I am saying the Saturn V rocket was more technological capable than anything we've built since then. Since the Apollo program was scrapped, NASA hasn't had a reason to build a better rocket. Instead they built the shuttle, which while technologically better than the Saturn V at getting people into space, it can't get you to the moon. There was no need to give it that capability. The recent moon program that was scrapped yesterday required new vehicles to get there, plus the shuttle is due for retirement soon.

    Computing power has no relevance to rocket technology. They're different fields. More computing power just make life easier.

    You do bring up a point however, there is some commercial potential for moon trips. I suspect Branson with his Virgin Galactic will aim for moon orbital flights and then moon landings in the not too distant future. Maybe the next moon landings will be commercial, maybe NASA will purchase flights on these craft, who knows? We're talking decades before the commercial sector can develop that kind of technology however. If I were an "ultra rich nutter" I'd certainly be willing to pay for such a flight.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    who cares, we've been to the moon....supposedly.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chidona)
    I hate the fact that all the news agencies picked up on this and that it got more attention than the budget proposal from which it came.
    The international agencies did, but only because that particular aspect is more relevant to us than the actual budget itself - let's face it, very few people outside the US care about the fine details of the US budget whereas more people are/were interested in NASA going back to the moon.
    The US outlets (such as CNN, both website and TV channel) barely mentioned the scrapping of Constellation - almost all the talk was about the budget as a whole.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Student2806)
    The international agencies did, but only because that particular aspect is more relevant to us than the actual budget itself - let's face it, very few people outside the US care about the fine details of the US budget whereas more people are/were interested in NASA going back to the moon.
    The US outlets (such as CNN, both website and TV channel) barely mentioned the scrapping of Constellation - almost all the talk was about the budget as a whole.
    I'm interested in the fine details of the budget as a whole
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Good. Sorry if you're an enthusiast, but it's not very necessary at the moment and the government can't afford it.

    Maybe another time when we're not in the middle of a recession.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChrisBan)
    Its a shame the Republicans will do their best to block Obama getting this through
    Your right, the Republicans will be (as usual) obstinate. Because they can.

    I just wish the Democrats would grow a pair, and get that they still hold a majority in Congress. That's not going to happen though. :rolleyes:
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    To some extent I think its a good thing, but on the other hand its a bad thing.

    As long as that funding stays with NASA, Which programme they use it on doesn't bother me that much.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    We have been to the moon already. This is a good move from the Obama administration: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/commu.../83275972.html

    Now we can use NASA's funding to develop space technology faster which is much better for space exploration in the long run.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I'm in two minds. On one hand it's a massive blackhole of money that doesn't show any sign of paying off any time soon. On the other hand, it will never pay off if we don't keep it going, and these things are very difficult/expensive to pick up again once dropped. If it is dropped it won't be picked up again for a very very very long time.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChrisBan)
    I just read this literally as you were posting. It is sad, but if it truly is as over budget as they say it is then it is without a doubt the right move! I wouldn't say the future of the Kennedy Space Center itself is at much risk
    I was going to post exactly this. Obama is making the right decision but it will be very unpopular with Americans and they won't see it as the right move.

    None of the space centres will be affected, they will still be there for exhibits and tours.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    But still it's such a shame that they had to cancel it No Mars-trip anytime soon eh?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mithra)
    No, because going to space is critical for the people of Earth.
    Why?

    By the way, after the conclusion of the ISS program humans will never again return to space.

    There, I came out and said it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kamc)
    I was going to post exactly this. Obama is making the right decision but it will be very unpopular with Americans and they won't see it as the right move.

    None of the space centres will be affected, they will still be there for exhibits and tours.
    I couldn't work out if you were joking on the part in bold :p:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChrisBan)
    I couldn't work out if you were joking on the part in bold :p:
    Neither could I lol. There's an estimated 12000 people who could lose their jobs as a result of the cancellation.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChrisBan)
    I couldn't work out if you were joking on the part in bold :p:
    lol, sorry I was thinking about people interested in space, rather than people who work at NASA. I realise I worded that stupidly, I meant the space centres will still be open for the tourist attractions. Thinking about personal interest :o:

    Its obviously not good for the people who'll lose their jobs...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kamc)
    lol, sorry I was thinking about people interested in space, rather than people who work at NASA. I realise I worded that stupidly, I meant the space centres will still be open for the tourist attractions. Thinking about personal interest :o:

    Its obviously not good for the people who'll lose their jobs...
    Have you been to the Kennedy space center?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChrisBan)
    Have you been to the Kennedy space center?
    no, just the Johnson space centre.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like exams?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.