New Apollo for 21st Century

I have to agree- I live 2 hours away from Launch Pads 39 A/B and have never gotten over the awe and inspiration of manned spaceflight- shuttle or satellite heavy lift rocket...

Gene Cernan was asked at a Special Breakfast out at The Cape around this time last year how he felt about manned exploration of the moon and he said something interesting...  Understanding that it was only how he felt and what his expectations of the space program at its time:

He mentioned that "The Gen Xers" [those of us in our 35 to 45 range] were shown a peach and sold a prune.  We languish in Low Earth Orbit when we should already be sending people to a Lunar Disney or such...

I tend to agree with him on that notion- the privatization of space may help some of that, but to what degree [if at all] worries me.

As to what the equipment and tools will look like, my guess is that we'll see a more refined Apollo-esque lunar/launch vehicle with the possibility of heavier lift capabilities depending on whether we actually use the ISS as a platform or not...

I for one am very excited about the possibilities- but it's some-what want with dread at how it could get loused up...

One thing most of the nay-sayers are forgetting is the develloped and cutting edge technologies Mercury, Gemini and Apollo spawned to get to where they were going.

Computer technology, medical advancements, plastics, to name a few. While NASA might be planning on using "proven" technology, new advancements will still be made and possibily at a faster rate then without NASA's involvement. Improved solar cells, even better computers, possibily new alternate fuels (a byproduct of some yet discovered lube or such) and other advancements.

There's no arguement that the program will cost tax dollars, but IMHO the possible returns, based on Nasa's own history, out weigh any negitive views.

Think it's a good idea, people don't realize what comes out of the space program(like the PC), hard to believe my little calulator has more power the the computer in the Apollo had

I didnt see were black cat said anything about "exploded" , guess i got here to late.
CFR

Exploded!? Damn blackcat! Anyway, I think that it is a waste of money to try to go to the moon- what is there that we can use and harvest in a profitable matter? The thrill of being there is gone, and no one is in a position to spend on it. I think we should wait another decade or two and let things straighten out before we attempt it again.

Yeah,the problem is that those "60's movment" people that back then said all they needed was" love" and the "air that they breath" are now the one's telling everyone that "we" dont have the money for this.NOW money is more important when THEY'RE the one's at the top of the tax bracket.Funny is'nt it?

QUOTE: Originally posted by TailspinTom Personaly, I feel that NASA is trying to keep up by using old/proven designs with modern improvements to save money. NASA is freaked out with designing a shuttle replacement that would not be overly technical that would end up being cost preventitive to implement and maintain. Also technology has yet to develope a type of material to use one shuttle type designs that doesn't have to be applied as tiles. The scientists and designers are rationalizing themselves into believing that NASA doesn't have to spend billions to develop new spacecraft to accomplish the proposed moon missions. It doesn't help with China making proposals for planning to go to the moon, and it does not appear that the world governments are ready for joint programs to accomplish further manned missions beyond earth orbit. The news networks said it best , on top og the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Katrina mess, where is the government going to get the money to support the new NASA proposals?

I think it worth noting that the US Government was in the heyday of the early space program going into orbit and to the moon while financing the Vietnam War.

And heck, we also had to deal with Woodstock and the entire 60s movement!

I think 108 bill over 15 years may not sound as bad as it seems. In 1960's dollars the program will cost 55% of the original Apollo costs. Since its proven technology, the need for development cost would be greatly redused. Compared with all the money thats wasted on needless pork,I think the investment is worth it, it's getting congress to cut out the pork spending, thats the real trick.

kindof does 'cause my dad told me when NASA had thier firet epace shuttle lift off every one was in front of the t.v.

blackcat

Personaly, I feel that NASA is trying to keep up by using old/proven designs with modern improvements to save money. NASA is freaked out with designing a shuttle replacement that would not be overly technical that would end up being cost preventitive to implement and maintain. Also technology has yet to develope a type of material to use one shuttle type designs that doesn't have to be applied as tiles. The scientists and designers are rationalizing themselves into believing that NASA doesn't have to spend billions to develop new spacecraft to accomplish the proposed moon missions.
It doesn't help with China making proposals for planning to go to the moon, and it does not appear that the world governments are ready for joint programs to accomplish further manned missions beyond earth orbit.
The news networks said it best , on top og the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Katrina mess, where is the government going to get the money to support the new NASA proposals?