Do you have faith that NASA can return people to the Moon followed by a mission(s) to Mars within the next few decades?

I said money hole...even at this early stage of the game...the writing is on the wall...it'll be the shuttle/ISS debacle all over again only on a bigger much more expensive scale...

I think that NASA can do it, though I would rather it be a multi-nation effort.

__________________
www.csphysmath.com
BAUT Team Stats

I thought NASA has the ability to do it, they have done great missions like Voyager, Apollo, Galilleo they may have done some of the best missions of all time
but then lately I started have doubts. They are now having trouble just with LEO orbit and now NASA scrubs Red Planet MTO craft to save green, the Mars Telecommunications Orbiter has been cancelled and other projects are getting cut.

I voted no. I actually think NASA could do it (technically). But I don't think they will, because the US will not give the project enough financial support. It will become a political hockey puck in the next election and then will get gutted in the budget process. I don't think there is all that much interest in the project. A multi-nation effort could do it too, but I don't see that happening with the US post-ISS and ESA doesn't seem interested on their own. If I had to guess, the next humans to walk on the moon will be from China, but it won't happen for about 15 to 20 years (outside shot at 10).

It makes me sad to think, after watching men walk on the moon as a kid, that I might not live to see it repeated.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

This raises an intersting question: what will the future of NASA be? Will NASA cease to exist? Will the United States lose it's ability and or will to be a space faring nation? I think that private enterprise will keep the USA in space...but not in the traditional way...

I voted "no" but have the same sentiments as Swift. I feel we could do it if properly motivated.I don't think the U.S. will get to the point of losing it's ability to be a space-faring nation but there doesn't seem to be enough overall interest in space exploration among the general public right now. It's possible that there will be a reemergence of interest in lunar/Martian manned-missions if the Chinese or other countries reach out to the moon/Mars for reasons of national pride but that is the wrong reason to support manned space exploration and IMO the primary reason we haven't left the Earth's atmosphere (not counting probes and such) since the Apollo missions. It's like "OK, we beat the Soviets, we're done." I don't see NASA "ceasing to exist" (at least I hope not) but know it could use a "shot in the arm" right about now.

I agree with the others that NASA could do it if the proper motivation/budget were to happen.

As for the viability of NASA... if/when space travel reaches the commericalization stage, I can see it becoming something similar to the FAA. Maybe still launching scientific missions, but maybe a purely regulatory organization too. The problem there being space isn't quite like airspace. Maybe they'd regulate US/US territorial launches or join up with multinational organizations to form a world-wide space travel regulatory commision.

I'm now off in rambol land so I'll quit.

I go along with Swift. I think NASA could do it, but behind NASA there needs to be the political will to maintain the funding and support for long enough to make it happen. That seems unlikely. I think Project Apollo might well have been cancelled had it not been seen as the legacy of a popular assassinated president.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

I'll go even further (though I have to be careful not to get political). I see the US becoming a second or third rate player in science generally in the world, over the next 10 or 20 years.

I site such things as the whole evolution/ID education thing, and the support (or lack of support) for science and science education and research (outside of medicine and military applications), the vast movement of research (particularly corporate) off-shore (particularly to Asia) and the almost complete lack of public interest in science (beyond wiz-bang items and movie science fiction).

My guess is that 20 years from now the US is a world leader or at least a competitor in maybe a couple of scientific areas (medicine, military, maybe some computer software), but not much else. Space, beyond military applications, won't be one of them.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

I guess what NASA could do 30 years ago, they can do today, or anytime. What is fundamentally lacking now is a valid reason to go to the Moon, Mars and Beyond. Beating the Chinese might become such a reason and with some steady progress in launch technology maybe space tourism will take us that far (in 50 or 100 years or so).

However, I do hope NASA keeps flying people into space because that seems to be the reason they still enjoy some proper funding, half of which can (more or less in a sneaky fashion) be spend on real science. (Like Earth monitoring and solar system exploration). When NASA stops flying manned missions I'm afraid the budget will dry up completely....and we end up with nothing.

__________________
Our Moonshot: join the One Campaign.
please visit: www.one.org

I voted "money hole", for largely the same reasons as Swift (in both posts).

__________________
. o O ( "Quote that 'Blazing Saddles' scene at Mike, and the BAUTer gets it! " )

I voted for the international effort. If the reasons for going to Moon and Mars lie largely in the moral area (achievement, testing limits, doing brave things, breaking frontiers, that sort of thing) it would be better if it were an intrnational effort anyway - not only because of financial reasons.

As for NASA, I think at the moment it is too much of a dinosaur to pull it off. Establishing ourselves on the Moon and go to Mars is a bold thing. Hanging on to the Shuttle isn't (although that doesn't go for the astronauts who dare board the old geezer).

__________________
Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem.

Enginnering mastery is what we need--to call this a money hole when we spend more on personal watercraft every year than on NASA's budget is just wrong headed. Just having an HLLV shuttle replacement for space-based solar power-- better SBIRS systems, etc. is worth it--even if it is never used for exploration.

Sure they can do it,... if they get the funding.

Although I think it would be better to make it an Multi national thing.

__________________
GCS/S d(+) s+:+ a--- C++(+++)>$ W+++>$ L>+ M+>++ w++ P+>++ tv@ PS b+ DI+ G e-> h! r-- !z+

~Jorge Schrauwen

I voted "No" but with reservations. I don't believe NASA as it currently operates can do it. But if private space development goes the way I suspect it will and we start getting a real manned space infrastructure, NASA could certainly build on that.

I agree that it is probably technically possible to do it by 2018 but NASA will not be the one to do it. Perhaps a Neo-NASA might, but I voted for international space development. I don't think that international would work right now either, but I think that will change.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

Here is what I'd like to see on our crawler:

http://www.k26.com/buran/pad1.jpg
http://www.k26.com/buran/energia_moon.jpg

I voted multi-nation effort, but I suspect it will be private funding. I'm on the flip-side of life expectancy and had always hoped to see further Moon/Mars exploration. I'm thinking now that it would be great to see some positive results from the NASA's Life Finder Program in 20-25 years.

__________________
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." -- Salvor Hardin (Isaac Asimov)

We don't need the Russians. Are you trying to say that the US can't make your beloved heavy lift? Get real. Your constant whining is wearing thin with me. Maybe it's supposed to be funny but it's very old.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

'I guess what NASA could do 30 years ago, they can do today, or anytime."

I politely disagree. What NASA did in the 60's 'man' could do again...not NASA. Apollo was a product of 'dirty hand engineers' who came out of WW2 with a 'must get the job done' attitude. American e