Maybe eventually the private sector will be capable of surpassing NASA, but seeing as how we just achieved what was done in the 50s, I'd be surprised if we even got into orbit within the next 10 years. For the moment, NASA is still our best bet, unfortunately.

Agreed. They thought that traveling to space was going to become a commercial thing. Not just people visiting space, but individual companies launching their own satellites into space, etc (This was around 2000 I believe)

However, the costs are huge as well. Yes, the costs for NASA are extremely high, but the private sector encounters the same cost potential problems that NASA does. While there's been some craft's that don't cost as much to launch, compare them in size, scope, and weight to what NASA is launching in space.

That article posted shows the flaw in humanity though.

"Apart from other issues, the purpose of human spaceflight is to open the solar system to all of us, not just to civil servants. The appeal of the program depends on the perception that it is opening a new frontier where people can escape the increasing regulation of life on Earth. "

Would Apollo have achieved with this mindset? Hell no. Thousands of people working countless hours to put 2 people on the moon at a time. With no real prospect of it changing American's lives in any way other then succeeding because the 'goal was hard' - paraphrasing JFK

In the 60's the public was amazed by what a large group of people could do together. They achieved what was science fiction. Now, it does not fascinate people the way it used too. Even when Bush Jr. polled the public really on the US starting a program to send people to the moon and Mars, it got very "Eh" results.
In a way, people have lost the dream or desire to have 'others' explore a foreign place.

With a culture society becoming increasingly self-absorbed, meaning they only care about things that affect them, it is easy to see why the program is in a such a different state then the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo years.

I totally agree with you Demon_Nightmare. It is very sad that we have lost the desire to travel into space. When I was a little kid I dreamed of the day I could fly a Millenium Falcon type ship into enemy space territory and battle my way to Earth, exploring new worlds while I was at it..

Now people are more focusing on the stock market, than the space market. There HAS to be better ship designs out there! I truly believe if we did another 60's powerwork, we could be flying Millenium Falcons to Mars in the next ten years. Don't you agree?


-KnightRider2000

I'd prefer something with a symmetrical design.

?

It's got a dent...

How about this one?

Too formal.

This is a ship.

Ok then, my original idea.

NASA has stated that it is technically feasible and possible for them to return to the moon by 2015. Bush wants it by 2020. So that's actually a pretty good turn around.

When you figure the time it's going to take not just to design, but to build new machines, train new staff, and then test the machinery. When you look at the Apollo program and how with the knowledge of Mercury and Gemini, it still took them several missions *big one's being 8 and 9* to test key hardware before risking the final trip to the moon. Back then it took them roughly 6 months between launches to prepare new Saturn V's.

Now while the design will for sure be different than it was in the Apollo age, new systems still means new testing. Just like the tested the orbiter before beginning the STS missions.

But to be flying to 10 years to Mars, I just highly doubt it. NASA wants to use the moon as a semi-mid stage in development between now and Mars. Use it as a testing ground in a ways.

Plus there is the main question of the long transportation to Mars and how the human body can handle it. Plus they also want the ISS finished to use that as a sort of launch platform for a craft to dock before taking off for Mars. *At least now - currently*

So while it really COULD be possible, maybe... The risks and pressure in keeping with schedules could be fatal for the crews. The Columbia Accident Investigation board published that "pressure to meet schedules" one of many underlying factors for NASA's decrease in safety measures with the shuttle in regards to Columbia's disaster. With that still so recent in mind, I don't see NASA being SO eager to try and meet such a far deadline.

The moon in 10 years - that's NASA's plan. Mars - no.

It's not that people have lost the desire to travel to space, it's just that we aren't getting anywhere, it isn't safe, and we're just pissing alot of money away that could be used to help people. Landing on the moon isn't going to help alot of people. Building a space station isn't going to help alot of people.

You may argue that it is helping people, but the way I see it, untill something significant happens we're just pissing the money away. We need to focus money into developing technology that can take us places, and stop with this piddly little crap.

[QUOTE=Glyde Bane]

?[/QUOTE]
all we'd need is a giant golf club to launch it

It's too dangerous to go to the moon now, once the astronauts got there they would realize how stupid so many people on Earth have become and then claim the moon for themselves.

Okay sir short-sighted, don't you realize that to get to a point where space travel CAN help (I.E. Colonization, etc) we have to work to get to mars, and eventually past our own solar system? To do this, we have to continue the space program.

Agreed. Would Apollo have acheived its mission without the small steps taken by Mercury and Gemini? Highly unlikely. It takes small steps to finally acheive a big goal.

And it's not safe? There will always be risks in exploring and getting to space. Car's are not completely safe, airplanes are not completely safe. However, there are people willing to risk their lives to go into space. If we use that excuse for not doing something, then we might as well just sit around all day only doing what's 'safe'.

And there has been over 30,000 secondary applications spun off of NASA products. The smoke detector? That's hasn't saved peoples lives? Was used by NASA before entering homes.

Human tissue simulator? Device that helps patients with chronic pain. Yeah, that's not helping people

Pacemaker?

Laser Angioplasty?

The list goes on and on.

Read some of these to learn about the benefits besides TANG or velcro.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/pathfinders/spinoff.htm

So maybe we haven't gotten one huge revelation from exploring space, like curing AIDS's - different types of cancer - etc. But to say we're "pissing the money away"...

It reminds me of how before Apollo was launching there was this huge movement against the program for the exact same reasons. However, the head of NASA's administration *can't remember his name at this time* told the guy leading the movement (was for poverty in the US), that even if NASA was abolished and fund's were gone - the people would still not get that money. And then NASA was getting a lot more money than they are today