Print 42 comment(s) - last by Regs.. on Aug 17 at 9:19 AM

NASA unsure how to handle money issues that may stop manned launches to the moon

NASA will be unable to send an astronaut back to the moon by 2020 due to budget constraints, with space experts still unsure if the moon is a viable target again, according to the Human Space Flight Plans Committee.

Created by President Barack Obama, the committee is led by retired aerospace expert Norman Augustine, who is tasked with figuring out how to help NASA overcome financial and technological issues.  

The financial disaster is so horrible for NASA, in fact, sending astronauts anywhere further than the International Space Station is impossible at the moment.  Former astronaut Dr. Sally Ride said NASA "just can't get there," when discussing the current space administration.  Furthermore, Dr. Ride noted she is looking for space missions that could be successful with the current NASA budget.

The commission helped create several mission plans NASA could embrace, but it's unknown how viable each plan is at the moment.  For example, commission said existing military rockets could be modified to enter space, space shuttle derivatives can transport astronauts and cargo into space, or space fuel depots that can be used on longer-distance missions in deep space.

Aside from necessary spending for manned missions, the U.S. space agency also is under pressure to keep funding the ISS past 2015.  Regular Americans and space experts alike both think it'd be a tragic waste of time and money to simply stop supporting the ISS in such a short time span, especially since it is expected to be finished later this year or in early 2010.

After possibly landing on the moon and constructing a lunar base, NASA is expected to launch a manned mission towards Mars.  China, Russia, Japan, India, and the ESA currently have lunar ambitions that include sending manned missions and lunar probes to the moon over the next 15 years.  China is expected to be the next country to send astronauts back to the moon, as the country has a large amount of resources it is willing to use for space exploration.

President Obama is expected to help find NASA necessary funding to help develop the next-generation Orion technology, while also helping the U.S. space agency outline a viable plan over the next 20 years.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Lost Opportunities
By HomeTech on 8/13/2009 7:22:33 PM , Rating: 4
Actually...the reality to all of this is not hearsay about showing the masses supposed overspending; remember, NASA IS a part of the government and must tote the line according to mandates from Uncle Sam. The real tragedy, which began shortly after the last Apollo mission, was that the whole event of going to the moon only turned out to be a political stunt…a cold war snubbing to show the “other” super powers that we were best. Unfortunately the 60’s were pretty good to the US of A; while many technologies resulted from the endeavor, Congress at the time thought there was no need to make themselves uncomfortable with spending more on the space program in any “significant” amount. They were perfectly complacent to line their pockets during a “golden” period and sit where they were.

Now we’re doing it again.

The math is simple…earth has a finite amount of resources; period. It can support X number of people at our current level of technology. The strongest and most powerful source of solar energy is from space; period. If we are going to continue our population expansion unabated, then we must move outward. We’ve thrown nearly 40 years down the drain where we could have, by now, established a large and permanent presence on the moon. We could be at the beginning phases of moving our most dangerous manufacturing into orbit.

Why a moon base? Aside from the simple scientific value of it (astronomy, medicine, agriculture, etc), it would be the ideal place to build space vessels for inter-solar system work and interplanetary travel. Additionally, Mars and its moon would make great staging areas in which to explore and mine the asteroid belt, in which we have an entire planets worth of raw material just waiting to be exploited.

We know how to get water, oxygen and hydrogen out of simple moon rocks, so being eventually self sufficient on the moon is really not an issue. Sure, it could take from 10-20 years; which is where I lament at the fact that we could have already been there and done that.

The bottom line is as we continue to grow as a race, if we do, we’ll find historically that most successful races save their planets by leaving them; leaving them to their natural beauty, reclaiming old forests, letting grasslands grow naturally once again, getting the damaging manufacturing processes off the surface, taking the load of excessive humanity (I don’t mean that negatively) with them. And getting off earth provides not hundreds, or even hundreds of thousands of jobs. It will provide millions…and open up new worlds for our children’s children (as in Mars and beyond).

And here is another thought; China IS going to the moon…soon. They are the next super power. China is currently sinking four (4) trillion dollars into their economy alone while we languish about one (1). We spent more on the Manhattan Project than we currently do on our space program.

The ancient military adage is…”He who holds the high ground” controls the campaign. The first country to have a permanent, large scale moon base will be sitting at the top of the gravity well…with earth at the bottom. Just a couple of well aimed moon rocks as kinetic strikes could forever change the geopolitical structure of good old mother earth. While I DO NOT think China would ever be genocidal in its position and power, just remember that their society is one of “long term” goals, and they are very good at playing poker.

Do I think us Americans, or the human race in general, is going to get their act together anytime soon? No, I don’t anymore. Unfortunately I believe it will be only after great hardships arise due to our negligence and pacification in how we have treated this planet and each other before a “do or die” situation presents itself and motivates us into action. At that time, depending on whatever resources we have left, it might be too late to invest in that future for our children…and we will pass into history…with atrocities and a lot of pain.

So while I don’t disagree, as in ALL government bureaucracies, that there has probably been graft and misappropriation of funds, ultimately that’s a finite and inconsequential issue to what is looming large and much sooner than we think. I truly hope the non-government facilities like Space X and other new comers to the High Frontier take the bull by the horns and really get serious, even if only for profitable enterprise.

Because where the people go, the government follows.

A government can only survive by taxation of a large group of people, or by support of a large corporation. Frankly, I’d like to see new nations formed on the moon and Mars; self sufficient and self governed…offering positions for the smartest and brightest we have from all nations.

A clean start, higher dreams…a new frontier…if we manage to survive the next two hundred years (which will be the make or break years), image where we will be in the next two thousand.

Truly, my fingers are crossed!

RE: Lost Opportunities
By Belard on 8/13/2009 8:22:11 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah... there isn't much excuse why we are not more advance than we are. But the space race was actually an arms-race against the USSR.

If Russia continued with their lunar missions in the 70s, the USA would have continued as well. After Apollo 11 - Russia said "screw it"... and ended all development on manned missions to the moon... or much on anything else.

If we can make spending people to the moon for work and resources - then that creates JOBS...

Going to Mars... blah. Yeah, someday - but not until our space tech is far much advance than what we have today, we have no business going to Mars. Chances of failure is way to high with NO rescue abilities. It was ALWAYS a stupid childish thing to say "we're going to Mars by 2020" from the former president. Er... yeah, direct NASA to go to the moon without any changes in budget. DUH!

Its been said that we should by-pass the moon and go directly to Mars... which is bad as we need the experience to deal with the Moon which is far safer than going to Mars.

There will be no terraforming of Mars like in the movies. It'll never support human life... without being underground in a pressurized base.

Unless some advancement happens with space-tech or some profitable reason to get there, I doubt we'll step on the moon again before 2030.

Remember, after a few trips to the moon... nobody cared.

RE: Lost Opportunities
By TSS on 8/14/2009 3:30:16 AM , Rating: 2
Well i'll give the Chinese a good chance of actually making it and finding someway of exporting from the moon :p

Its kind of ironic that the space race is only now beginning, and america is choosing to abstain from it (by not providing enough funding).

Heiium-3 found on the moon that can be used for fusion would already make it profitable. A tonne of the substance is worth more then a trip back and forth to a moon costs. And god knows what more they'll find up there, since their still making discoveries from just a few rocks they brought back 40 years ago.

And there's another interesting target, for which a base on mars would be very suited:

It's only going to be a matter of time before they find just 1 asteroid so packed with a rare material that makes it worth setting up shop there, and using mars as a base to funnel that stuff to earth, and grab whatever's near. Then we can start thinking about some serious exploration. It might take a century but it's not anywhere near impossible.

Don't forget that when kennedy said that you where going to the moon within a decade, you guys didn't know *jack* about spaceflight. You didn't even properly make orbit. And all it took was 8 years and a vision.

Just give NASA the goal and the money to meet that goal, they'll find a way. I'll bet the result will be worth more then free healthcare.

RE: Lost Opportunities
By MrPoletski on 8/14/2009 6:08:56 AM , Rating: 2
Germany said recently it reckons it's going to get a manned mission to mars by 2025 or something, if that doesn't kick the USA and NASA up the butt to get moving then nothing will.

RE: Lost Opportunities
By meknow0 on 8/14/2009 8:17:09 AM , Rating: 4
I wish people would stop promoting the He3 myth. See
and many other websites, by scientists who know what they're talking about. There is no point trying to use He3 for fusion power. It a myth used a lot by the pro-moon people.
I'm not against going to the moon, mars or beyond, but only for the right reasons. I believe such exploration and development it’s what makes us human and life would be a lot more dull and pointless otherwise (and ultimately fatal). However, it is the elected politician’s job to decide what cost in money and human life is acceptable.
I agree with the comment that the longer we wait the better capable our technology will be to succeed, but sometimes it's by trying that we learn and develop the technology faster.

RE: Lost Opportunities
By Fnoob on 8/13/2009 9:38:32 PM , Rating: 2
Can't argue with a single word of this. Very well spoken, and its all too true. I sincerely hope that a few in positions of power at NASA and our government read and digest this.

RE: Lost Opportunities
By grath on 8/13/2009 9:42:49 PM , Rating: 2
Excellent, you just made the point, very thoroughly and elegantly, that I was trying to make, very crudely and sarcastically, in my reply further up the page. Bravo.

Its really a lack of proper motivation on our part. China has 1.3+ billion humans to support, and theres an empty planet only a quarter million miles away begging to be exploited. What motivation do we have that could possibly compare with that? Even if we did have such, our leaders would either not recognize it, or not think long term enough to act on it. As much as some people may be uncomfortable with their society and form of government, it has a capability for both patience, and getting things done quickly when they want to, that we lack or have lost.

RE: Lost Opportunities
By sviola on 8/14/2009 9:32:08 AM , Rating: 2
The bottom line is as we continue to grow as a race, if we do, we’ll find historically that most successful races save their planets by leaving them;

You were doing very well until I read this...please, provide me links to this historical data, as I was unaware we had knowledge of other planets races...

RE: Lost Opportunities
By warrenwr on 8/14/2009 4:28:35 PM , Rating: 1
Very elegantly and eloquently put! I would like to add my two cents' worth by appending the following -- perhaps some combination of your astute points and the idea I propose below would make the idea more attractive:

TO: His Excellency, President Barack Obama
His Excellency, Vice President Joseph Biden
SUBJECT: The threat to all life on Earth from natural objects which will (not "may", "WILL"), in possibly the near future, impact the Earth, and a potential solution to this threat.

My dear sirs,

As recent impact scars on the planet Jupiter have clearly displayed, the Solar System stll contains many rogue and undetected celestial objects which, should they impact the Earth, would have catastrophic consequences to all living things on our planet, potentially planetwide extinction of humanity itself. Whether such objects come from within our solar system or from without, the existence of such objects is irrefutable, and the results of such an impact would be horrible beyond imagination.

The impact or atmospheric disintegration of such an object over the Tunguska region of Siberia in 1908, had it merely occurred a scant two or three hours later than it did, would have obliterated major population centers in Russia, or Western Europe, possibly even the United Kingdom. A few hours after that, it might have been New York, or Toronto, or Seattle or Tokyo. The fact that it collided with Earth in a remote and sparsely-populated wilderness should be of little or no comfort -- there is literally noplace left on Earth today that such an impact would not cause terrible loss of life, and perhaps trigger an accidental nuclear response to a misinterpreted natural phenomenon.

Should the impact of such an object occur today, I can foresee a huge loss of life, either through misguided military response or, in the event of an impact by a large solid object such as an asteroid or large meteoroidal body in the oceans of the world, devastating tsunami waves which would obliterate coastal and low-lying continental regions of the entire planet. This is to say nothing of the initial impact damage, which could range from mere kilotons to many gigatons of explosive force -- explosions that would dwarf not just the primitive Hiroshima and Nagasaki atom bombs, but even natural events such as Mt. St. Helens, Krakatoa, and even what we now call Yellowstone.

He have the technology, for the first time in the history of any species on the planet, to comprehend the magnitude of such an event. Further, for the first time in Earth's history, we have the technological capability to do something to prevent it. Certainly, with the popular culture raising awareness of such concepts as "nuclear winter" and asteroidal impact damage to the environment we depend upon for our very survival, it would not be difficult to find support from the population of the United States and the world as a whole to attempt to avoid such an event.

I understand that funds for such a project may be difficult to procure, but I believe that you may find more support for such a program of detection and prevention of such threats from space than you suspect exists. I would invite your attention to a simple solution to raise such funds as may be necessary to achieve these goals.

On every taxpayer's Income Tax Return form, there is a box one can check that says "I wish to donate a dollar of my taxes to the Presidential Campaign Fund." It's a voluntary decision.

I propose an addition to that same form that says "I wish a dollar from my taxes (or, in the event of a refund, a dollar or two or more) to be used to create and sustain a program to defend the Earth from impacts by life-threatening celestial objects, such as meteorites, asteroids and comets."

As awareness of this threat becomes greater, the support for such a program would similarly increase. These would be voluntary contributions, and I have no doubt that many average citizens would choose not to volunteer to support it. I am equally certain, however, that many would. I further posit that, over time, the groundswell of support for such a program would increase. I further believe that many other nations would follow America's lead in taking steps to avert the disaster which will be inevitable, should we choose to do nothing until it is too late to respond.

This may lead to increased cooperation in space activities among spacefaring nations and reduction of international tensions. It may also lead, eventually and inevitably, to the aversion of a disaster which could lead to unthinkable loss of life, potentially the extinction of all life on Earth.

I believe that this nation should commit itself to taking the lead in this effort and establishing a precedent, to setting an example for other countries with the vision to follow our leadership and foresight, to protect our planet from a threat greater and more devastating than any we could inflict upon ourselves. I would like to have the opportunity to voluntarily donate funds to protect the lives of my children, and their children, and those of everyone on Earth, from the threat to our very survival that the universe has shown us in my lifetime alone is very real, and while at the moment is beyond our ability to respond to, is not beyond our ability to prepare for and eventually cope with.

I also believe that I am not alone in this conviction. Mr. Biden, as the head of the Space Program, I appeal to you. Mr. Obama, I implore you: Please consider this proposal. I make it earnestly, and since it would be voluntarily offered in the intention of protecting all of Mankind, it is not a political issue. It is a survival issue. It is not strictly for America, it is for everything America used to stand for, and I hope still does.

I offer an idea which may eventually save uncountable lives, and in the process improve our understanding of the universe around us. America is known as a defender of the innocent, the poor, the helpless -- when it is at its finest. I propose that this heroic (and entirely voluntary) program would help restore our prestige in a world that has become jaded to our intentions and presence. This is an honorable and vital goal, and I sincerely hope you will consider its manifold benefits for all mankind.

Very truly yours,
William R. Warren, Jr.

Go Huge...
By MozeeToby on 8/13/2009 6:12:24 PM , Rating: 2
You know, usually I'm a big defender of NASA and all the things that they have accomplished over the years. But I can't help but think it's time NASA did something that makes it exciting again.

I don't really care what it is but off the top of my head a refueling station at the Earth Moon L1 point would be pretty handy if we're going ever going to set up a permanent base there. Landing on a NEO and setting up a fuel refinery en situ would also be pretty sweet. If nothing else, revive the old closed cycle nuclear rocket designs (the ones that don't vent radioactive material into space) and put them into service.

There was a time when the long term strategists at NASA were talking about a single stage spacecraft massing 4000 tons landed 1200 tons of equipment on the moon in a single trip. They even had theoretical work done for an 8 million ton vehicle the size of a small city to explore the outer solar system. Granted, those plans involved detonating thousands of nuclear bombs, but at least they were trying to be radical.

I know space exploration is hard, and I don't deny there have been major advances and countless spin off technologies in the past 40 years. I'm just saying do something to make people excited about it again.

RE: Go Huge...
By Captain Orgazmo on 8/13/2009 6:44:19 PM , Rating: 2
It's up to the politicians and people who elect them to direct NASA's future. Today's politicians are the opposite of inspiring, and I wonder if the people even have the capacity to become excited about something the way they did in 1969, considering the widespread cynicism and apathy apparent in modern Western society.

Seeing the first successful commercial satellite launch by a private company just occurred a couple weeks back, the interest in building a commercial spaceport in Nevada or wherever, and Branson's Virgin Galactic idea, I have far more faith in private enterprise making space exploration exiting again, however far in the future it may be.

RE: Go Huge...
By HomeTech on 8/13/2009 7:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
And don't forget about Gerard K. O'Neil and his High Frontier...that was all 1960's feasability studies.

RE: Go Huge...
By Belard on 8/13/2009 8:12:17 PM , Rating: 1
To make NASA exciting??

They need to add racing stripes to their space craft.

Work with NASCAR even... that would help.

Launch two ships at the same time, always... racing for space.

Need to fine half-naked space alien women that are HOT... not like those skanks in District 9.

RE: Go Huge...
By MrPoletski on 8/14/2009 5:57:38 AM , Rating: 2
...and I'm sure there is room, somewhere, for a bare-chested William Shatner...

RE: Go Huge...
By Hulk on 8/14/2009 9:20:00 AM , Rating: 2

RE: Go Huge...
By guacamojo on 8/14/2009 4:10:05 PM , Rating: 3
Hey, that gives me an idea!

Who says NASA doesn't have the money to get to the moon? I think they just need to do what NASCAR does... corporate sponsors!

"We now bring you the Frito-Lay Moon landing, courtesy of NBC,, and the fine folks at Walmart, Always Low Prices! You can see Jackson stepping out of the Pepsi Lander, and going down the ladder, (brought to you by GEICO, where you can save 15% or more on car insurance).

You just know the lunar lander would look better with some Budweiser, Checker, Staples, and Home Depot badges on it. Spacesuits? Let's get some patches on 'em.

And let's not forget product placement! (Insert video footage of astronaut using Dewalt-branded tools on lunar surface, setting up Canon video camera, drinking Red Bull in lunar module...)

Oh yeah, we can afford to go back to the moon, alright.

RE: Go Huge...
By 91TTZ on 8/14/2009 2:02:54 PM , Rating: 2
ranted, those plans involved detonating thousands of nuclear bombs, but at least they were trying to be radical.

You say that like it's necessarily a good thing. Radical ideas are not necessarily good. They could be good or they could be bad. I know radical ideas generate a lot of hype, but hype by itself doesn't get anything done. You need solid, realistic ideas to get stuff done. And the ideas you mentioned were not realistic ideas.

By Bateluer on 8/13/2009 6:02:19 PM , Rating: 4
Instead of increasing NASA's budget, they create a committee to brainstorm possibilities with NASA's current budget? How many hundreds of millions did the committee cost?

RE: Interesting
By rcc on 8/13/09, Rating: -1
RE: Interesting
By rcc on 8/14/2009 2:07:20 PM , Rating: 1
oh, ouch. Either everyone's sarcasm detectors are off... Or the Bam-Bam-ites are out in force.

Either way, I have to get a -1 occasionally just to prove I can.

RE: Interesting
By segerstein on 8/13/09, Rating: -1
RE: Interesting
By stromgald30 on 8/13/2009 8:15:07 PM , Rating: 3
While it is true that the carbon emission of a SV launch is very large (~12 million Priuses according to the article linked below), it burns for only ~150 seconds, which results in a rather small footprint.

Then again, we can't expect reason and common sense to play out in Washington DC, can we?

RE: Interesting
By CheesePoofs on 8/13/2009 7:17:30 PM , Rating: 4
That's not right.

This article really doesn't give the correct impression. The White House formed a committee to make recommendations on what space policy should be going forward. In otherwords, they'll say if Constellation will work at current budget levels, what other approaches NASA could take with current budget levels, and what can be done with a higher budget.

This article is really about the fact that Constellation is impossible if current finding levels for NASA are continued. They committee did NOT say NASA can't send people to space by 2020, all of their recommendations are about how NASA can accomplish just that (even within the current budget) and continue to explore.

It comes down to the fact that NASA was given a mandate to go to the moon by Bush but wasn't allowed to change the composition of its workforce, forcing it to use an inefficient system that will continue to employee the small army that currently services the shuttle.

RE: Interesting
By Matt1701 on 8/14/2009 1:54:30 PM , Rating: 2
Nasa's budget is approximately one half of one percent of the national budget. Only part of that number goes to manned space flight.

Great, now the Chinese got us beat...
By Pneumothorax on 8/13/2009 7:14:44 PM , Rating: 2
I love how we financed China's future moon missions on Walmart goods & iPhones....

By HomeTech on 8/13/2009 7:28:01 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, wasn't that really, really sweet of us and our western civilization gluttany!? ;)

By stromgald30 on 8/13/2009 8:18:44 PM , Rating: 2
A Chinese flag on the moon might just be what Congress needs to kick a few more measly million dollars out of the trillion dollar budget over to NASA.

By grath on 8/13/2009 9:25:35 PM , Rating: 2
It might end up being a reasonable investment in the long run, as by the time our military-industrial-congressional complex extracts their collective heads from their asses and gets us out of low Earth orbit, the Chinese will probably have in-situ resource utilization up and running on the lunar surface, and we can buy our fuel and raw materials from them, rather than bother to develop the capability for ourselves, because of course the Chinese can do it for an order of magnitude cheaper than we can, just like back home.

On the other hand, they could leverage such a position to make it difficult for anybody to do business on the Moon without their involvement. There is no practical way to enforce any law over land rights on the lunar surface, if China sets up a base at the lunar south pole, whats to stop them from claiming the entire Aitken Basin as an Exclusive Economic Zone at the least, or sovereign territory at worst?

USA: "We intend to establish a base on the nearside rim of Shackleton crater no sooner than 2022"
China: "Yeah we know, we had a taikonaut drive over and plant a flag there last week, now pay up or get out"
USA: "..."

Like we have anybody to blame but ourselves though. (COUGHnixonadministrationCOUGH) Thats what happens when people decide to ignore 10 years of some of the most rapid technological progress in the history of civilization and build a shiny new toy to theoretically capture Soviet spy satellites and look pretty on TV. Now we wonder how we lost our leadership in spaceflight?

Lets just hope they only claim the south pole and leave the north for us, that would delay for maybe a century the Moon War, until we start fighting over economic rights in the equatorial regions.

Fund The Carmack
By lycium on 8/13/2009 6:45:16 PM , Rating: 3
they should give The Carmack some of their mega funding and allow him to oversee a project under NASA. he's lean and mean, and has the drive to actually get stuff done with the resources available to him!

RE: Fund The Carmack
By Regs on 8/17/2009 9:19:20 AM , Rating: 2
I'd say we should create a UAC. Unbound and free to not be hindered by any political, spirtual, or moral obligation.

AAAHHHH! Moon landing deniers drive me nuts!???
By deputc26 on 8/14/2009 12:33:49 AM , Rating: 2
I seriously can't believe moon landing deniers. Do you really think we'd have fooled the Russians? Same bucket as holocaust deniers, disgusting historical revisionism.

I bet if you gave SpaceX 80 billion they'd go to the moon and back as well as Mars and back considering they got into orbit for less than a billion.

By Matt1701 on 8/14/2009 2:16:28 PM , Rating: 2
You must remember that they are relying on technology that has already happened and been paid for. Most of which came from the U.S Taxpayers through NASA. Most all of NASA's technical know how is made public and is free for the taking. All of the private rocketeers have drawn from this wealth of knowledge which means they can keep their costs lower. Remember NASA has already been there and done that and we the taxpayers have borne those costs.
We need to keep funding NASA to do those things that haven't been done and that the private sector won't do because of monetary risk.

Nasa and the rest of the world
By Senju on 8/14/2009 12:27:12 AM , Rating: 2
I would not worry about Nasa too much anymore. It think they will go into a nich market of robotic explore missions. However, the rest of the world, like China, Japan, and India will move forward (with a little side support form Nasa) on man missions. Even Dubai is considering a spaceport for space tourists.

No big surprise
By WinstonSmith on 8/14/2009 2:27:23 PM , Rating: 2
"NASA will be unable to send an astronaut back to the moon by 2020 due to budget constraints, with space experts still unsure if the moon is a viable target again"

It is not a "viable target" and this is exactly what I read predicted in a column years ago about how billions would be wasted on spam-in-a-can systems to eventually _not_ send man back to the moon. Add to that the waste of space ISS that saps the NASA budget.

Use ONLY robotic missions until some evidence of life is found somewhere. Spend the money now being wasted on the ISS and the eventually to be scrapped moon missions on robotics and AI to develop ever more sophisticated unmanned probes and send them to all sorts of interesting places simultaneously.

By chick0n on 8/15/2009 12:20:03 PM , Rating: 2
a spaceship with doors smaller than the suit, yeah walk on the moon, rrrrrrrrright.

China will send theirs to Moon in 2-3 years, way to go !!

USA ! USA !! USA !!!

The REAL question
By Jalek on 8/15/2009 4:35:43 PM , Rating: 2
What company has the means and desire to harvest or develop in space, and how much will they "donate" to Congressmen willing to support NASA's development of craft beneficial to their needs?

You know the shuttle program made a few people rich, it's the way Congress works. Whether it's best for the nation/task, most efficient, safest, or even works at all is irrelevant, it's always about the money.

Nasa never landed on the Moon
By SerafinaEva on 8/13/09, Rating: -1
RE: Nasa never landed on the Moon
By grath on 8/13/2009 9:49:08 PM , Rating: 5
I hope you get punched in the face by Buzz Aldrin

RE: Nasa never landed on the Moon
By TSS on 8/14/2009 2:59:43 AM , Rating: 2
you are an idiot for believing a lie.


The rest of your comment was utter crap, though.

RE: Nasa never landed on the Moon
By DarkElfa on 8/14/2009 7:56:16 AM , Rating: 3
You said it SerafinaEva, YOU are an idiot for believing a lie.

RE: Nasa never landed on the Moon
By kattanna on 8/14/2009 10:55:44 AM , Rating: 2
LOL! thats a good one

RE: Nasa never landed on the Moon
By Matt1701 on 8/14/2009 2:02:12 PM , Rating: 1
What makes you believe Nasa didn't land astronauts on the moon ?

"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki