What is Digg?77 Comments
- NSResponder, on 10/12/2007, -6/+38Well, Mr. "technogenius", do you know how much thrust you get from a solar sail?
If you've got a couple of months to get there, it might do the trick, but life support for the astronauts for that period of time might be a tad more expensive than the rockets.
Seriously, there are people at NASA who can do the math that you apparently can't.
-jcr - threepio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22Innovation - the most vaunted dangerous term in 21st century.
Innovation is a marvellous thing - however you'll harken back to the old NASA adage (which I doubt they'll "innovate" away from):
You can have it fast, cheap and good - pick two out of the three.
Fast and Cheap - it won't be good.
Good and Fast - it won't be cheap.
Cheap and Good - it won't be fast.
NASA has something Cheap (relatively speaking) here. NASA also has something good (read: proven). Reason being? It's been around for decades.
Do we really need to throw the brakes on the space program and design a new mousetrap just because you don't think this thing is pretty or cool? Get real man. The space program is strapped for cash as it is. Put a tin can on top of some rockets and let's get back to the moon already! - trghpy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24@technogenius
I think the moon is just a tid bit further than SpaceShipOne's range.
Plus there is a return ship.
Plus there is enough enviromental equipment for a couple weeks.
Plus there is enough room for a cargo container of equipment.
The further you go from earth the more you have to carry meaning you need a big beefy rocket to get off the ground.
Yes it does look like the apollo project but look at the specs. The engines are a hell of a lot more effecient than they where 40 years ago. - Lord_oftheTrons, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22"NASA has a budget of $16.8 Billion just for 2007, with that kind of money they should be capable of thinking way outside of the box."
You are aware that NASA has hundreds of missions ongoing and in the future that are not related to human exploration? The rovers are still chugging along on Mars, Cassini is still learning a lot about Saturn, and the next Mars rover (Mars Science Laboratory) are being developed. 16.8 billion is not that large of a number, compared to some other departments of the government. - mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19You think it's not innovative just because it doesn't look innovative to you? That's a tad bit superficial.
SpaceShipOne, btw, has never been into space. It would have to go 7 times faster than it currently does to get into orbit, and that would take something like 50 times as much fuel. The thing weighs 1200 kg empty, and 3600 kg loaded. So ballpark a little over 100,000 kg of fuel to get it into orbit. What's it going to look like with 100,000 kg of fuel stuck onto its hiney?
And and it's got wings! There's no point in carrying wings outside of Earth's atmosphere. And it's pretty damned lame to try to use a solar sail to send people to the Moon. It would take so long to get there, they'd have to have an fully functioning, self-sustaining economy on board.
You could make the same criticism of computers. "Oh, it's still nothing but a screen with a keyboard and a box! Where's the innovation?" - technogenius, on 10/12/2007, -16/+28@NSResponder
I'm neither a physicist nor a aeronautical/space engineer, I am a mere computer scientist, you're correct they could run laps around my math. My whole point was the lack of innovation is shocking.
Why does it have to cost so much? Again--look at SpaceShipOne, it only cost $25 million and was created and built by a handful of people. - dudemanbro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@technogenius
If one scaled Spaceship one guess what you would have... a huge ass ridiculous rocket strapped to an airplane. The rockets NASA will be using to send men back to the moon are actually the most advanced solid propellant motors ever along with some of the most advanced liquid fuel. These are the technologies that are reliable and the least expensive. - mclumber1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Spaceship One was a suborbital craft. It would need around 20 times the amount of fuel to reach orbit. If you wanted it to reach the moon, you would need more fuel to depart earth orbit, break into lunar orbit, and finally more to land on the moon, it would require many, many more times more fuel and power.
- soulinthestars, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7To get this out of the way first, all opinions are my own and not those of my employer (NASA).
Technogenius, I too am a computer scientist at KSC. I'm not sure what you worked on there, but my day to day job is in direct support of the Constellation Program (Orion, CLV, Lunar Surface Ops, etc). You've asked what has changed between Apollo and Orion. I can sum it up for you in one word: attitude.
That change in attitude means NASA makes more headlines when something goes wrong than when it goes right. It means NASA is considered a waste or a burden instead of an investment. It means that instead of getting a blank check to do whatever we want with on the way toward a goal somebody else set for us we have to build a new program on what we've already got. Given that, we're not repeating Apollo at all. What we have to do is much more difficult.
Personally, I think combining the best of Apollo and Shuttle is an innovative solution given what we have to work with, but If you think we're stuck "thinking inside the box" why don't you take that up with Mike Griffin? I believe he had the final say.
Yes, the vehicles are similar. You should note it's also the same basic concept that has been used for space vehicles - both manned and unmanned - for nearly half a century. If you're launching vertically there are tremendous advantages to a top-mounted vehicle that range from basic physics to human safety. I've heard this countless times in my few years at KSC; surely somebody there would have mentioned this to you as well. I'm sure they also would have told you about various research projects for post-shuttle technology (vehicles, propulsion, etc) that were axed along the way.
And while it may not be obvious looking at the design, there is plenty of innovation being done for this new program. There is technology being applied in ways never done before and there are new challenges that arise because we're /not/ doing everything like they did for Apollo. We're not just writing "Buzz was here" in the lunar dust this time either. Copying Apollo there certainly isn't an option.
Lastly, I find it hard to believe that anybody who has been employed at KSC has to ask "why does it cost so much"? If you had the opportunity to step away from your desk and look around it should be obvious. The money isn't just for supplies to build a new vehicle and the people to do the work. You don't just say "I want a new vehicle" and boom! there it is ready to go. You need facilities, launch pads/platforms, support equipment (lifting slings, workstands), support vehicles (crawlers, cranes), computer systems, communication systems, trained processing employees, a trained launch team, trained astronauts, etc. It takes time and money to prepare this stuff, be it modifying what exists or developing something new from scratch.
Space exploration - not shooting to low earth orbit to momentarily experience weightlessness or float around in a hotel, but /real/ space exploration - takes far more than most give it credit for. This is a program that has to be sustained, not somebody's pet project. That's not to diminish VirginGalactic's accomplishment, but when's the last time SpaceShipOne flew? Oh, wait, they just had to satisfy the X-Prize requirements once, didn't they?
Is NASA perfect? No. But what is? The shuttle program - which is older than I am by about 2 months - is all I have ever known. I missed the moon landings, and when it comes right down to it I honestly don't care what vehicle we use this time around. The important thing to me has always been that we go back someday. I feel privileged that I now get to be a part of that. - inactive, on 05/12/2008, -0/+7"This certainly raises the question, Did we even go to the moon?"
No it doesn't. Humans landed on the moon.
"I'm all for space exploration but not when there is still poverty on Earth, and senseless wars being fought. That 16 billion can really be used more effectively."
That's ridiculous. Would you have preferred the Europeans to have solved all their problems before colonizing America? We'll never solve all our problems, and part of what makes being human fun is learning and discovering new things. When you have (or were having) the best moment of your life, somewhere out there a starving kid is/was about to die. An activist is someone who does something about it, a pessimist is someone who complains about it.
You're a pessimist. - bchertoff, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Orbital spaceflight, however, is an order of magnitude more complicated than sub-orbital.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I think some people here have been watching too much Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica. We're still spacefaring n00bs.
- Maxpower2912, on 12/03/2008, -2/+7And Technogenius is over his head.... right about now.
- RogerStrong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5When all is said and done, manned spaceflight has a better return on investment than unmanned flight. Even the folks operating the current mars rovers say this - they estimate that a field geologist on Mars can do in a minute what the rovers do in a whole day. What we know about the moon is essentially what the astronauts discovered.
- stan205, on 10/12/2007, -10/+15I'm not sure why technogenius is being dugg down. From what I've read, technogenius is not a troll just spewing ridiculous non-sense to get a rise out of people. This individual is clearly stating, in well written manner (which is rare on digg to begin with) an opinion of NASAs ability to innovate. From what I can tell , technogeius is right on the money with the assessment. When reading the article and seeing the mock ups of this "new" space vehicle it conjures images of a 60's ford GT with dubs on it.
- sipsyrup, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5heres innovation for you: giant slingshot
- Konrad9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Here I am, in my dream college, in my dream major (videogame programming), and when I read these stories I want nothing more in the entire world than to be on those missions.
- technogenius, on 10/12/2007, -30/+33I was just recently working at Kennedy Space Center and the thing that shocked me is the complete lack of innovation. If you look at the orion project vs the Apollo project, what has changed? Sure the lander might change, but they're still using ridiculous rockets to propel tiny packages into space. Why doesn't NASA take the spaceship one idea and expand on that? Why don't they develop solar sailing? IMHO NASA is stuck.
- revilo78, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The Russians have been using the Soyuz for 40+ years. It makes sense to me that we make something similar that we too could use for 40+ years. This way, we won’t have all the earth-science people complaining about money being taken away from their programs as often.
- mclumber1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I applaud NASA's moon mission, however we are still over a decade away from seeing the first human fly-bys, and probably 15 years from seeing a manned landing. In the meantime, look to the private sector for innovation in manned space flight, specifically SpaceX, Lockheed-Martin, and Bigelow Aerospace.
- RogerStrong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3> Did we even go to the moon?
Partly science.
Partly prestige. In the early 1960s, smaller countries were making the decision on which side in the cold war to align themselves with. It wasn't as easy a decision as you might htink - the Soviets were far more successful in science, medical and engineering than in later decades. The space race was a way to demonstrate American technical prowess. It worked.
Partly it was Lyndon Johnson's way of dragging the American south into the 20th century. Think of the stereotype of folks from Alabama. Now consider that Huntsville - where rockets are designed - has the highest concentration of engineers per capita. Thank the space program. Add rocket manufacturing in New Orleans, solid rocket booster manufacturing in Utah, mission control in Houston, launches in Florida, and other space labs, centers, and manufacturing facilities all ovet the south.
> If we did, then we haven't we gone back for SO long,
The taxpayers didn't support it. NASA even learned to kill decent projects that even smelled of supporting manned exploration beyond low earth orbit - because congress will kill it first.
> and secondly, why is it taking them an additional 20 years to do so?
A small budget. Hint: Every other agency's budget had gotten far larger in the last 30 or 40 years. (Even the draft board is far, far larger than when you actually had the draft.) NASA's has consistantly dropped or stayed level. Even the air force has a far larger *space* budget than NASA. And NASA has dozens of other missions on the go, as well as aviation-related projects.
> For the price of one manned moon mission, we could launch at least 10 Cassini's and learn much more.
We would not learn as much from robot missions to the moon, for the same price. And we can't even make a robot do a core sample, or half the things done on Apollo 15, day 2. - RogerStrong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3> I'm all for space exploration but not when there is still poverty on Earth, and senseless wars
> being fought. That 16 billion can really be used more effectively.
There have ALWAYS been wars and poverty on Earth. By your standards we will NEVER go to space.
And don't kid yourself - the money wouldn't be spent on stopping poverty or wars. It's tiny compared to what's spent on the Iraq war, or football, or even the air force's space budget.
The return on investment from the first space age - Sputnick to Apollo - was enormous. Out of it we got communications satellites, earth observation satellites (crop management, geo stuff) , GPS, weather satellites, micro-electronics, and more, PLUS the pure science stuff. A lot of what was designed filtered down into aviation and other industries. Friction-stir welding being one recent example. - RogerStrong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3> All true, but what's the real difference between this and the way it was done 40 years ago?
The new way looks like the old way for the same reasons that a car today looks much like a car from 1965. It was the best design for the job. Like the new car, there's lot's of changes under the hood - much of it due to new technology, and much of it due to new safety standards. And like the new car, it has far better performance.
Perhaps you want a winged, horizontal take-off ship? Many have tried to design one, but in the end they never make sense. You save a bit of fuel, but add far more complexity. Fuel is dirt cheap. Complexity is expensive and unreliable.
A reusable launcher makes more sense, but you need a high flight rate for it to pay for the huge development costs. (No, SpaceShip1 is not a valid comparision. Not even remotely.) The planned ISS and lunar missions require only a very low flight rate. - adinb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Here's a link to one of the "slingshot" tether studies: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4202
I got to see some of the research presented live at the annual NSS conference. ( http://nss.org )
There's a lot more innovative thinking going on at NASA (and other places)--the problems are in the constraints--money, time, and reliability. Most designs get two of 'em, the CEV has the best chance of getting people in and out of space in one piece. And if there's anything that's been learned from the space program, no governmental program can sustain loss of life. (Although we tend to hold private ventures to lower standards) - marinist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Personally, I'm flabbergasted that people don't believe we set foot on the moon.
Is it because we didn't have the technology--or somehow the moon is a mythical object that one cannot actually visit?
I really wonder, because scientists on earth can prove it anytime by bouncing a laser off equipment left on the lunar surface.
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html - technogenius, on 10/12/2007, -13/+15Looks like NASA has some fanboys here...
@lord_ofthetrons, i'm just speaking about their lunar/orbitor programs--not the rest
@mutatron, you think a car is innovative? same principals--no innovation:
in·no·va·tion Pronunciation (n-vshn)
n.
1. The act of introducing something new.
2. Something newly introduced.
also, FTA:
"NASA's attitude seems to be that Apollo worked, so let's just redo Apollo," says Charles Lurio, a Boston space consultant. Burt Rutan, the mastermind behind the rocket SpaceShipOne, likened the new CEV to an archeological dig. "To get to Mars and the moons of Saturn, we need breakthroughs. But the way NASA's doing it, we won't be learning anything new." - NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I remember reading an article a while back about something very similar, assuming you're thinking of a 20-mile long rubber band... There was talk of a magnetic slingshot, but only for launching equipment.
- DoscoJones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What's been holding them back? No will. No money. Politics. The public made it very clear that after we beat the Soviets to the moon that they didn't care anymore. That's a simple fact of history. My family was there, building the machines and launching them. No one was more baffled than we were when it all went away.
- adinb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2And now that I'm starting to recall the presentation, there's no reason that the CEV would preclude tether research--I bet tethers are still one of the primary methods that we're thinking of using to get "stuff" to the moon. Use an atlas or cheapie booster to get to LEO, use the sling to get stuff to lunar orbit (or if it can take impact) or directly to the lunar surface. It'd be a great *reliable* way to get raw materials to the moon, which we'll potentially need all kinds of raw materials to make a real habitable lunar presence. There may be water and lots of mine-able stuff there, but it'll take time and resources to get to it.
- RogerStrong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Robots are overrated. They don't give the same return on investment as humans, because there's many things they can't do that humans can. The Apollo lunar rover covered as much territory in one day as the mars rovers have covered in three *years*. And on the same day the astronauts took core samples, dug for samples, chipped samples off larger rocks for return to earth, and many other simple tasks that robots can't do yet.
The proper thing to do is a mix of human and robot exploration. Which is what is planned.
As for scientific purpose, why limit outselves to that? "Learning the skills needed for colonization" is good enough reason by itself. - RogerStrong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's wishfull thinking. There's no reactor planned.
A moon base would be far easier with a reactor - there's no way to store energy for the two weeks of each month that a moon base would be in the dark. But NASA recognizes the political cost - the anti-nuke religion has too much power - so it's planning a moon base without one. It's putting the base right on the south pole where it can get sunlight all month. - RogerStrong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's because no-one was willing to spend the money needed to go back. Anything that NASA plans, congress has the final say. And Congress ended Saturn V production - putting a book-end on Apollo - even before the first moon landing.
- theboozer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Why do I get so giddy about a the thought of us having a Moonbase? Everything about this is right.
- actor90, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2With people like you in the program, I have great confidence we will get back to the moon, and stay this time. I was alive for the last moon shot, much too young to remember it, as I was only a few months old. I am 34 years old now, it is long past time we return to the moon, and prepare for beyond the moon as well. This isn't just for America, this is for the whole world. Space exploration is the pinnacle of the better angels of our nature. It's humanity's greatest achievement and the key to it's future.
- RogerStrong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yup. But the conspiracy theorists have yet to come up with any "evidence" that isn't easily disproven.
As for those polls showing a large percentage buying into the conspiracy theories.... Make up any old piece of BS that would take more than a moment of reasoning to disprove. Like say, "Do you believe that terrorists were responsible for the smallpox outbreak in Canada last year?" Get a professional sounding polling company to run it. Despite there being no smallpox outbreak in Canada, you'll get 30% of the population saying that yes, the terrorists were responsible. - 0crabby0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-38
Manufacturer Scaled Composites
Status Cancelled 29 April 2002
NASA didn't even try... - technogenius, on 10/12/2007, -13/+14@trghpy
You're right, SpaceShipOne couldn't make it to the moon, right now. But if we had the best and brightest minds working on it--why couldn't it? or a ship strikingly similar? or hell--why not something completely different? The reason why is because NASA is stuck thinking inside the box. NASA has a budget of $16.8 Billion just for 2007, with that kind of money they should be capable of thinking way outside of the box. - mooninite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'd like them to get with AMD/Intel and space-harden some faster processors.
NASA's biggest problem is that it is attached to the government. Lots of stuff we "civilians" would love to see arn't going to happen. - adinb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1actually, that's a design that I've seen the plans for--in tether form.
The only problem is the interface with the atmosphere....and the acceleration of the cargo/crew when they hit the spinning tether.
It's actually doable, just riskier. - geodescent, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Having the best and the brightest in a room working on a project doesn't necessarily guarantee the "breakthrough" we'd need to get it done any cheaper or efficiently. Just a thought.
- 0crabby0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Where is the X-38?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdjLhsQoeGA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRh7NWqAkZk - technogenius, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@all who think i was fired:
I was actually working as a subcontractor, after we were done installing we went back to Maryland :) - RogerStrong, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2> But being of the 70’s -80’s generation were I grew up being promised, flying cars, moon bases,
> laser guns and space travel by the year 2000, why should I be disappointed in the fact our
> government thinks it is ok to use 50 year old technology and put a faster engine in.
> I bet on private companies for innovation.
So why don't you just use all those flying cars, moon bases, laser guns and space travel that private companies developed during the same time period? - Cloudface, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Although I'm unsure of the politics behind it, an alternate direction is clearly spelled out at nuclearspace.com. Site has some cool ideas about spending NASA's money, if you don't mind the nuclear power aspect.
- thorgrim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think the innovation of the "new" package is not in the design because NASA knows it works. It is instead, in the materials used in construction and technologies implemented in a less obvious fashion. NASA has done plenty of innovation in the past, your examples of module to orbiter idea points this out perfectly. I'd say we need to criticize more mundane applications of the lack of innovation before we pick on the folks who aren’t concerned with how it operates as much as does it work as well as it can for what you want it to do.
Case in point? You brought up a great one, the car. I don’t expect a flying car by 2020 simply because people I’ve seen on the roads don’t drive well enough with the freedom of movement they have now, but give them a 360 degree range of motion?!? No thanks. I would like to see innovation in the operation of the car become more mainstream, but it seems that Ford, GM and some others think that in order to get out of the financial slump they’ve put themselves in, they’ve got to do either the same thing they’ve been doing or come up with a new vehicle that falls dramatically short of being what it could, while still doing it enough to use the buzz words of innovation. (I’m referring to the Chevrolet Volt, in case it wasn’t clear.)
So you want innovation, then innovate, that’s how it gets done. Kevin Rose didn’t piss and moan about the lack of social news sites ability to do ”this” or “that”, he developed an innovative solution to the issue. Sikorsky thought flight would be better if you didn’t always have to be going forward to stay up. The real question is, what innovative solutions or ideas do you have for future lunar and martian missions? - H2Combustion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As a designer with a few more years than you in the business let me enlighten you about what can be done. First of all your boss Mr Griffin is infatuated with the lifters for getting to orbit and has systematically bypassed industry inputs which would have delivered superior lift capability and gotten it to NASA in half the time at roughly 10% of the cost of the Ares 1 and 5 vehicles. Those machines are abominations and will end up being the end of the lunar exploration effort. They are too costly, poorly thought out and are the result of a dry-labbed "trade study" conducted by people who haven't designed a damn rocket in 30 years. Most of your leaders have NEVER been associated in any serious way with a large scale technology development effort. Just because someone is an ex astronaut does not mean they have the talents to do excellent design.
Because of this fixation on NASA doing it all themselves they are going to squander $20B of money that could be spent on doing more science on the moon and Mars to figure out just WHY we need to go there and what we intend to do there. They are on the verge of pulling the plug on the lunar precursor robotic missions which are intended to determine what the whole purpose of the manned missions are. They are simultaneously starving other science programs that are the primary function of NASA. This is either insanity or plain old stupidity.
What is funny is that the architecture they picked does not have the capability to do much more than a week stay on the moon for 4 guys. That is not exploration! That is flags and footprints and a total waste of resources. This makes the robots look even better.
What is worse, NASA is using strong-arm tactics to coerce the Boeings, Lockheeds and P&W's of the world to shut the hell up on alternatives and toe the party line on the ESAS architecture. Dozens of papers on alternatives were commanded to be pulled out of conferences by your open-minded and oh-so-thoughtful boss so that the ESAS would appear to be the obvious best solution. This sort of behavior is not what gets you to the moon. It gets you a Challenger failure. It will also get you canceled- though you may spend billions before they pull the plug.
So pretty please with sugar on top- put your brain back in gear and get informed about the realities of spaceflight. Trust me you will feel better after doing the math. Many of your coworkers also know the scoop- ask questions, be skeptical. Keep this in mind: NASA has a responsibility to deliver to the American people science and technology development at the best possible cost. They should not be competing with industry head to head. This does not aid space industry development. They did this in the 1980's when they said that Shuttle would kill all the expendable rockets and damn near killed off a nascent commercial space launch industry. When the USAF wants a fighter they don't set out to bypass the entire aerospace industry to do something internally they dreamed up- they compete the major contractors to see who does best to meet the mission. NASA will save billions and pump up the whole industry if they back off from their DIY mode and engage more positively with the people that have the most experience with actually making rockets. And we will get back to the moon so much more cheaply that we will be able to afford to stay there. - kurtu5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think alot of you are being somewhat unfair to @technogenius.
But he could also make a better argument.
Such as NASA is a bloated government bureaucracy.
When contractor proposals for the CEV were evaluated, NASA chose an in house design above the superior and cheaper contractor solutions. They wanted to justify to congress that they needed their huge staff to design and fly this new vehicle. I wish I had the link off hand that shows this.
Also, sometime innovation requires going backwards. The soyez vehicle configuration is a tried and true system. It's simplicity has kept it the most successful space exploration system for more than 40years now.
KISS, use a soyez configuration and pick the contractor solutions. NASA's CEV is to big to use existing lift vehicles and requires a new(costly) design. The contractor solutions used existing infrastructure. - spendzo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1beside these 16 billion... what about 600 billion being used for military purposes?
why don't they transfer 300 billion to NASA and 200 for social purposes, and leave the rest for military? - cacti, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I thought they went to the moon in 1969. Now they are finding it difficult to build a spaceship. So why don't they just follow similar modules and improve like the one they used when they said they landed on the moon? It worked then with improvements it should work better now.
Why is it they are waiting till 2020 before going to the moon?
1969 - 2020.
em as they claim they landed on the moon. well today's technology is way more advanced than it was in 1969 so what has being holding them back from going since 1969?
Ok no base on moon yet, well they can touch down and return immediate why should they have to wait for over 50 years to plan for a return?
I believe if u have done something once, you most likely will do it again (like they go to the international space station multiple times in a year based on previous success and probably others may copy likewise (Russians) not that you will have to wait for decades to go by. - Tebixan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Also, there is plenty of dissent among the American public for the space program. Many people think we should be spending the money on social services and whatnot. If NASA spent a billion dollars on something innovative and it didn't work, they run the risk of public outrage and budget cuts.
NASA's way of being innovative is to encourage private businesses to take risks. Thats why they are having contests similar to the X-Prize for the first person to land a private vehicle on the moon, or get a space elevator up and running.
Although NASA isn't nearly as efficient as private and foreign space programs, it is a lot more powerful, carries larger payloads, almost always works the first time around. As opposed to thousands of failed attempts by everyone else. -
Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is