Frank.

Your mouth to God's ears!

Yes - we should go, and STAY! (I *know* you've read Heinlein....)

To coin a phrase, "To infinity, and beyond!" Let's keep going, let's keep expanding, let's keep EXPLORING all we can do!

Thanks for this, friend!

-- R'cat
CatHouse Chat

> then we should stay.

Preferably alive?

'Cause, y'know, with NASA in charge, that may be a bit tougher to manage.

Here, let me relate my own NASA story.

I was at the World SF convention in Orlando in 1992. NASA usually shows up at these things, because part of their base is certainly to be found there. It was also in Orlando, which meant there were probably more people from NASA there than normally.

During one panel discussion, some reps from NASA were asked questions which elicited statements from them to the effect that, if we chose to do so, we could NOT return to the moon within 10 years. Repeat not return. Repeat within 10 years.

Incredulity set in, minds boggled, we presumed we'd misunderstood... We asked for clarity -- "You mean, you don't think there's the money for it?"
Response, "No, we just couldn't do it even if the money were placed in the budget."

Right. In 1992, people from NASA were actually saying that they could not replicate, using 1990s technology, a feat which was done in the 1960s with 1960s technology.

NOW do any of the problems that have plagued NASA for the last 20 years make sense?

It's time to take away half of NASA's budget and put it into X-prizes... one of which is to put 3 men on the moon and keep them there for 90 days and bring them back alive.

:-/

Truly sounds like science fiction, or more really like a B-series sci-fi.

Sad, but true.

This might not be a contest they care to win. We should be embarrassed, as I'm sure they are, at our progressive ineptness. Even the President couldn't hide his embarrassment when he announced the Mars mission. Can you believe 2018! At this point, why bother going back if we can't put some new spin on it. By now we should have been using rail guns to launch supplies or made some progress on a space elevator. Gerard K. O'Neill suggested that we use discarded fuel tanks from the shuttle to build structures in orbit, but the sensible folks at NASA decided that it was a little too innovative and would cost a tiny bit more. (I don't share your admiration for accountants.) They didn't even have the nerve to name a spacecraft "Enterprise". NASA is today the stunted remnant of dreams that giants left behind.

I get "tontine", by the way, which is a marvelous reference.

Here are some thoughts of mine.

The reason that NASA is going to use ex-shuttle and older teck to try to go to the moon is two fold. The boosters and motors have been reliable and the tooling for them is already established.

The reason[s]for the the two robotic missions is unclear to me (other than what NASA states). I assume that they are going to test out new gear and procedures so as to assure they don't kill the first crew.

The main reason I can determine for even doing this is that the Chinese are going to the moon and planning on staying.

Them and Russia. Russia is going to supply the lifters and teck assistance for what (other than money) I am not sure about.

I can say this. By the time NASA gets men back to the moon, it will have cost at least four times as much as they say it will now. I can also say that private corporations could do it for much less with better chance of sucess by 2012 or thereabouts. If the government would stay out of their business except for giving them the money.

I hope to still be around to see what happens. I just hope I don't have to watch more Americans die because of NASA.

Remember they had two years to fix the problem from the last disaster...

and didn't.

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

I spotted the title for this post in the archives for another, and assumed it would be about New Orleans insurance shenanigans, but I agree with JJ that being one to live to see this would indeed be a great win.