Hmm... I thought he was killed in the explosion?

Yea, Turb...I do know better, but I've been sworn to secrecy regarding those impossibly maneuverable Shuttles. And Affleck and Willis...oh those guys are going down for putting that stuff out!

I actually watched that movie one day...I'd have laughed my rear off if I didn't have such a case of indigestion from it!

Don't you know? Before you watch one of those Hollywood space movies, you need to go get some of this.

...yea. Shoulda though of that!

i thought the next gen of American space flight was supposed to be the Aurora ?



http://users.cihost.com/ata/aircraft.htm

Well, no, not really.

That's an aircraft...hypersonic and high altitude, but an aircraft. Something like that could be developed into an orbital spacecraft, and probably will as a replacement for the Shuttle, but planetary or lunar exploration doesn't involve the development of aerodynamic vehicles of that nature...

To hell with NASA.

NASA has been treading water for decades now, getting nowhere because it is generally ignored by Washington. A noble effort but ultimately futile...

I thought for some time that NASA should be privatized.
Lets just hand over space exploration to the corporate sector. We have to face the sad reality that they just get things done far more efficiently.

I can already hear the criticism.Yes individuals will profit from this scientific endeaver, but is that really such a terrible thing?
I like to imagine a future with a planet wide international and yes corporate space industry. The benefits are manifold.

Well, that certainly changed the direction of the discussion, didn't it?

There's certainly some merit to your idea. It is possible that private industry could grab the reigns of the space exploration effort and run with it, perhaps sucessfully. The only problem is that there is no manned space exploration effort that has been in place to grab for decades.

Now, of course, there is one, evidently, but I think it folly to place that in the hands of private industry. Believe it or not, NASA has the people to do this thing. Not as many as before, but the best of the best are still there. They have just been inhibited in the past decades, not only by lack of interest from Washington, but by lack of interest from the American people, and of course by a completely new and contrary paradigm of management culture at the agency, the results of which have been obvious (to wit, Challenger and Columbia).

Returning to the Moon is not within the capabilities of private industry to accomplish without some central authority managing it. Commercializing Earth orbital flight is certainly a possibility, and if anyone can do it Burt Rutan can, but that is a long way off, and has nothing do do with space exploration.

Of course NASA hasn't either since about 1973. It appears that they are going to be allowed to again, though...and as such, there really isn't any other organization that could do it....

...yet.

isnt that sort of what the X-prize is about ?

private space travel

or commercial space travel

Yep.

Yes that is what the X-Prize is about, but the amount of private involvement it encourages strikes me as negligible. What I meant was that NASA should be turned into a private, profit seeking enterprise. We'd get waaaay more done if they felt some compulsion to turn a profit.

Perhaps...in this day and age. Nothing's wrong with turning a profit of course...

But turning a profit had nothing whatsoever to do with the sucesses of Apollo. The accomplishment of something extraordinary was the driving force. This thing was done by average guys who made average money and made ends meet like anyone else and they didn't care...

They'd have done it for nothing, so long as they could eat every once in a while and stay alive to go to work another day. It was a completely different mind set back then.

No, I think something to DO would inspire success, rather than the potential for profit.

Yes and No.
Yes they were just average guys who I agree with you, probably would have done it for nothing. The early success of NASA was I think enormously inspirational, Yes it was a different mind-set. But today, well, it simply doesnt work that way. We could have a whole thread on the difference of spirit in the 60s and 70s and today. People dont get "inspired" any more, at least not by scientific discovery.

Money makes the world go round now, chalk it up to Zeitgeist.

what is actually stopping private companies from going to the moon ?

is it cost prohibitive ?

is there nothing to be gained for a company by going ?

^
A simple telecom satellite costs about $100,000,000.
Mars probes, in the billions.
Manned flight to the Moon? I can only guess. And if they went, it wouldn't be cost effective unless they could build a base for future trips.

We are probably talking dozens or even hundreds of billions of dollars.

Not many companies have resources like that.

"If Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows has crashed...Oh wait, he does!"

I agree with you.

And, a discussion of the differences in culture and mindset would indeed be an entire thread!

Wow! It sure looked like that, didn't it? But no - Bruce Willis, like all major movie stars, has stunt doubles to perform anything considered too dangerous. Obviously, blowing up a Shuttle on a speeding meteor would qualify for that. So while the people we see on film looked like they died in the explosion, sadly it was actually several of the stuntmen that perished.

NASA, it was reported, posthumously awarded these brave folks with the highest non-NASA-employee award - The "Distinguished Public Service Medal", for their courage and sacrifice in saving not only Earth, but the overpaid butts of Mr. Willis and Mr. Affleck!!

To this day, I feel anger over these so-called "movie stars" getting all the credit for saving our planet. I have to end this post now before my emotions get the better of me....

...I get all teary just thinking about the injustice of it all, Turb...

getting back to the moon has so many benficts. I mean look all of the stuff we have gooting out of space travel. A LOT of technology that we have has come out of nasa.

In the spirit of staying serious about this, you have made a point that escapes many people for some reason.

We cannot actually predict the specifics of the many benefits that may occur from a return to the Moon, save the potential for futher direct discoveries about the Moon itself. In like fashion, no one in the early 1960s could've possibly envisioned the off-shoots that would be spawned from the technological advancements that Apollo required to attain its goal.

Microwave ovens, cell phones, and perhaps most predominantly, the microcircuitry that allowed the invention of these computers that we all sit in front of and write things like this...were all spwaned from the technological research of the manned space program of the 1960s and 1970s. And these things of course are certainly only the merest surface skimmings of the advancements that resulted, and which benefited many areas in the scientific field, and others that people normally wouldn't associate with space flight (like buisiness, medical technology, and a bunch more).

It amazes me that--upon researching Apollo, and learning what it actually did, and what sort of explosion and benefit that effort provided--we as a nation wouldn't want to resume space exploration with whole-hearted support

YEs and Yes. FOr one, the private ssector has yet to send a craft into outerspace let alone somebody to the moon; two, there is nothing on the moon of any significance, it is a barren rock.

The idea that NASA and the US government would be worried about CHina staking claim on a moonbase is unfounded, if anything, the US should encourage the Chinese. IT will drain the Chinese economy to the point where they will spend hundreds of billions of dollars per year on a project that has no application towards science and deals relatively little in return.

Well, yes, it would be cost prohibitive, but the whole impetus for private sector space flight will not be for science. Taking regular folks into orbit, or even to the moon is a long, long way off, but even when and if it ever happens, it will be a tourist thing. It will be about revenue, not science.

However, to say there is nothing on the moon of any significance, or to imply that a lunar exploratory program has no applications toward science and deals relatively little in return is a sure sign of a lack of research into the modern state of mankind's technological advancement--and the effect that the manned space program of the 1960s and 1970s had on that.

The effect that the space program has had on modern life is far-reaching and profound. This is not difficult to find out for yourself.

You are sitting at a computer that is a direct result of Apollo and the technologies developed so that it could happen as it did. And that is just one small after-effect of Apollo development.

Incidentally, no one is worried about China, or anyone else staking a claim on the Moon.

Firstly, China is a party to the various use-of-space treaties that date back to the latter 1960s. No one can claim territory anywhere in space.

Secondly, they first have to get to the Moon, and if they do, and decide to stake a claim on some piece of the lunar surface...so what? What does that really mean anyway?

I hope China get to the moon before USA.
in fact, I hope Nigeria gets there before USE too.
And Iran.

Why?

(p.s., Nigeria and Iran (??) haven't got a chance).

My computer is more the direct result of years of private companies spending money on research. The microprocessor was developed first by TI, not the government. I still could care less, there is nothing to suggest that any of the technologies that came out of Apollo were eye-stunningly new or not in existence elsewhere. Foremost, everything Apollo accomplished was a result of earth based tech innovation. Nothing was discoverd on the moon of much significance. Even if we went back tody, it would be the same technology used as it was in the 60's and 70's.
The after effects of Hitler's war in Europe were far reaching, so why do you not suggest there be another war in Europe which enslaves the Jews, causes massive civilian loss of life, cost trillions of dollars?


So to wrap it up, there is nothing on the moon of much significance.

im so glad youre not incharge of NASA

You most obviously weren't around for Apollo, know very little about what went on then, and what came of it in the decades to follow, and ignorant of the technological advances in computer technology, image processing, meteorology, communications, medicine, and other fields of scientific endeavor that were all spurred by the manned space program and the massive involvement of private industry in it.

Of course everything Apollo accomplished was the result of "earth-based tech innovation". Where else would such innovation have come from?

The idea that the technology today is the same as that of the 1960s and 1970s, especially as pertains to spacecraft systems engineering and fabrication is a clear indication that you don't know what you're talking about...as is the idea that nothing of any significance was discovered during our initial explorations of the moon...a ludicrous notion.

Yet, I can't blame you. You weren't there, and as a member of a generation that has grown up without anything quite so compelling as Apollo happening to inspire them, it is little wonder that you may think it all rather boring...and not understand what actually happened a couple decades before your birth.

And that interjection about Hitler's war being far-reaching, and the suggestion that I might suggest having another of those murderous rampages, as if that's somehow associated with a far reaching lunar exploration program...well, that's just beyond the pale of logic.

That indicates where your brain is. It's not a place I'd want mine to be.