.jpg)
They planned, among many other projects proposed, to develop a lunar orbit station in 1978 and a lunar surface base in 1980. This plan was part of the "Post-Apollo Space Program: Directions for the Future" report presented to President Nixon in September 1969. The recommendations also included a human expedition to Mars.
The 'Space Task Group' presented Nixon with recommendations including building an Earth-orbiting space station, a lunar-orbiting space station, a base on the lunar surface, and a proposed fully-manned mission to Mars, but these plans were deemed too expensive by President Nixon at the time. They were so expensive, Nixon directed NASA to build the Space Shuttle instead.
...
This is the exact solar charger that I have. I leave it
on the table out in the lanai. Always stays fully
charged and charges my phone super fast.
And it's also a flashlight.
...
NASA's budget during the Apolo missions was exceptionally high, and the amount of money poured in was unsustainable. I've worked in the American space industry (space shuttle and space station), . Like most government projects, as they grow, the amount of waste, incompetence, and bureaucracy grows to consume any good that is being attempted. During the 60s, NASA was full of very bright people willing to take calculated risks. By the time the 80s rolled around, the bureaucrats took over. Decisions were made by committee. Decisions made by everyone were decisions made by no-one. The organizations grew fat, lazy, and complacent (which contribute to the Challenger disaster.) So sure, the original group drew up dreams, but they were never realistic. They were never going to happen.
ReplyDeleteSen. William Proxmire had more to do with cancelling NASA's bigger plans to explore space and encouraged cheaper orbital endeavors. Jerk.
ReplyDeleteThe Jerk comment is directed at Proxmire, not our gracious host...
ReplyDeleteNASA should be canned, same goes for VA benefits, costing the country a fortune.
ReplyDeleteNope. NASA should be called to task over boondoggles like the Space Launch System (SLS, Shuttle's Leftover Shit.)
DeleteSeriously, NASA has been doing studies and actual work on using Shuttle parts and tech as the base for both heavy lift vehicles and long-range exploration vehicles, and with the ARES program had both a capsule launcher, ARES 1, and a family of vehicles up to a very heavy lift vehicle using cheaper SSMEs that were disposable or SSMEs that were recoverable, various versions and numbers of solid rocket boosters (more segments, fewer segments, more than 2 boosters, up to 6 for the heaviest lift vehicle (ARES 2, 3 and 4 and more) and using the main tank with said SSMEs mounted on the bottom and with a payload section on top, or lengthened main tank and...
Instead, we got the craptastic and overly expensive SLS. Using Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME, at $65 million a shot, totally disposable. NASA did look at reusing the F1 engine from Saturn days, and had done 3D scans of all pieces parts and came out with a version of the F1 that had 40 parts and would cost $500K and be reusable if needed/wanted, all done in 2000ish. But we're throwing $65 million per engine away. Good going, NASA.)
As to VA benefits, it's one of the main attractions to the military, which pays way under what private industry would pay for the same job, and there's much more danger in many military jobs than in private industry. Heck, the lawsuits and payouts for injuries sustained in the military if VA benefits don't exist would far outpace VA levels of spending.
VA benefits are earned even more than Social Security or Medicare. If you're willing to cut benefits someone earned, cut the other two programs first.
DeleteHaving not actually gone to the moon was probably another non-starter...
ReplyDelete