Next giant leap reconsidered

Brian, Lowell, MA — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 02:02:40 GMT

I think the most beneficial thing we could do is figure out a way to mine the near-earth asteroids for usable materials. This would, of course, require the creation of significant infrastructure (either on the moon, or at one of the Lagrange points) but the benefit of this outlay is a reduction in the amount of material being sent into orbit.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Tim Hetrick, Alliance, Ohio — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 02:10:16 GMT

I'd be happy to hear that the administration has picked any of these alternatives. The lack of a commitment to space exploration has been a major disappointment to me for many years.
I speak as one who remembers the national shock when the Russians beat us to space in the fifties, and as one who watched in awe (from a dayroom in Japan) as we first touched down on the moon 40 years ago.
We as a species need to get off this rock if we want to insure our survival. We need a new progam to make sure that we don't have all our eggs in one basket (Earth).
Now is a perfect time to get off our duffs and push all the governments of the world to get together and push for a space program for all human beings.

Next giant leap reconsidered

phillip, Los Angeles — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 03:45:06 GMT

The thing that the article failed to point out is the cost of the NASA program and that it requires not one but two new rockets. Ares I was meant to be 'Safe, Simple, Soon". It is over-budget and soon is more likly to be 2017 at the earlist. The Direct team proposes building one rocket that may be available by 2014. One of the things that killed Apollo was cost. How much cost will it take to operate 2 new vircheals? How often will they fly? How much of NASA's budget might they take up? This story fails to address this. As the former NASA administrator stated ..."Indeed, the most obvious split involves launching two identical vehicles with approximately equal payloads, mating them in orbit, and proceeding to the Moon." This is Direct.

I can only hope one day that this reporter will be a background story on the slanted assumptions that the ESAS report made that formed the backbone for NASA's Constellation program.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Paul J.S. Beaubien Victoria B.C. Canada — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 08:52:57 GMT

The best option was one I did not see in your written wondering ,,the 'Jetsons' as in antigravity technology...

Next giant leap reconsidered

Louis, Eureka CA — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 09:27:19 GMT

I hear there's some good fuel material on the moon, so this is great! The moon can become a gas station for space ships!

Next giant leap reconsidered

Heather Czerniak, Milwaukee, WI — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 09:33:56 GMT

Just send an unmanned probe. It's cheaper and safer. Let's just worry about the planet we're on for awhile.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Bob Wysocki, Barrie Ontario Canada — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 11:20:31 GMT

Why is there no mentioned of December 21, 2012 anywhere - why are people afraid toi speak about it. Here we are makin g plans for 2015 - not many of us will be left on this planet after December 22, 2012. How do we prepare for this cosmic event - or can we ??

Next giant leap reconsidered

gaetano marano — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 11:31:34 GMT

--
"Direct" is a seriously flawed concept: http://ow.ly/hd8s
--

Next giant leap reconsidered

Jonnie Long Beach, NY — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:11:36 GMT

We Astronauts and Space Explorers are still under the Power Curve. We need power sources that can get us to the Moon and beyond in one vehicle.
Maybe we should redouble our research and development on Anti-Gravity, Anti-Matter and Fusion power.
Low Earth Orbit is our current power limit now, and will be going forward. Change is needed.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Thomas Lee Elifritz — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:44:06 GMT

Longsdon is a reetaard of the highest order.

That anyone would quote him let alone consider his opinions is a reflection of the educational problems which has brought US to this unenviable position.

This guy was an Ares I supporter like all the rest.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Eric, Salinas, CA — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:57:23 GMT

Excellent article Alan on the future of space flight! I am solidly for going back to the moon and on to Mars, but not by doing it alone as the arrogant ignorant bushwhacker wanted. His plan to go back to the moon and on to Mars was a stupid reaction to the Chinese announcing they're going to the moon. All he wanted to do is have the USA thumb it's nose at the rest of the world with his go alone approach. We should be using the International Space Station experience of sharing the load with other countries as the model for future space exploration to the moon, Mars and beyond. We could make some big bucks licensing our new Ares space technology, I mean isn't that the capitalist way?

So sad that Walter Cronkite won't be around to enjoy the 40th anniversary of Neil and Buzz landing on the moon. I so enjoyed Walter's reporting on the Mercury-Gemini-Apollo space programs and especially his reporting of the first moon landing. His fascination with the space program was infectious and I will miss him sorely.

Remember Walter!

Next giant leap reconsidered

JS in SD — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:03:07 GMT

One of the major flaws in the current program is that neither of the proposed space vehicles can carry a significant amount of cargo. This would make construction and resupply of any permanent or semi-permanent space habitat; whether it be on the moon, Mars/Mars moon, at a Lagrangean point, or on an asteriod; extremely problematic. The space shuttle has been a major workhorse for the construction and supply of the ISS as well as for launching and repairing satellites. Retiring the shuttle without a suitable replacement does not make sense. It seems that, regardless of our long term plans, we need to extend the operational life of the current shuttles. We also need to seriously reconsider the current program's space vehicles with an eye towards increasing cargo carrying capability. Long range space exploration will be much more practical if we have the ability to stage supplies such as fuel in orbit for use by long range vehicles. We could also assemble larger exploration vehicles in orbit that would be impracticle to launch from earth in a single piece.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Michael M, Kent oh — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:30:41 GMT

Our president is a Star Trek fan,oddly enough,I find this an encouraging sign he might do the right thing here. As for the idea of an international mars mission,that's just not going to happen. We promised the rest of the world that we would take a leadership role in the ISS and now we are looking for every way we can to minimize our role. No one will trust us to take anything but a minimal role in such a project again. We have lost all our credibility on such things.
There is irony here. While the Russians are constantly broke,and cane sometimes cant pay the salaries of their engineers,they have shown a commitment to space. Even when the money is short,they have always found ways to keep the Soyuz capsules rolling out of the factory. Imagine what would have happened if we were in the same situation. (and as bad as it is here,its nothing like that)

On the subject of the Ares,these things take time,and they are expensive. If you remember back in WWII,Von Braun (who should not be remember as a hero,but a war criminal who used slave labor to build his rockets for an evil regime) gave falsified reports to his superiors because politicians don't understand research. Similar things always happen because research is not a certain endeavor. If you think about it,it makes a lot of sense. If you knew for certain what would work,you would just draw up a design,build it and go. Engineers,because of 70 years of research know a lot of what will work,but its all very complex and various issues show up that you don't expect. This is after all rocket science. You design,simulate and build,and then see what went wrong and fix it,then repeat until you have something that works. Thats the process. At the end,you get a functional device.

Next giant leap reconsidered

rich , salisbury ma — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:27:56 GMT

Columbus searched in vain for many years to get money for his voyage , maybe the problem is we have government agencies involved in all aspects of missions. Too much red tape

Next giant leap reconsidered

Andy Womack. Fraser, Colorado — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:51:26 GMT

Some day, hopefully soon, a rational decision will be made ending these programs. At this time sending humans into space makes no sense. Problem one: energy needed to achieve earth orbit. Problem two: the severe health consequences of extended stays in micro-gravity. Problem three: limitations imposed by chemical rocket propulson systems. Problem four: lack of knowledge about the basic facts of possisible mission objectives.

Solutions to problems one and two are easily imagined.
Problem three requires more than my limited knowledge.
Problem four is being worked on, although in a much more limited rate than it could be.

Forty years since Apollo 11, 40 years mostly wasted.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Joe Nobody, Seattle, WA — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:43:50 GMT

I don’t care what we do, Constellation, Direct, the modified shuttle, or something different... I cannot understand the flaccid response from the government on this. We retire the shuttles, and the quickest we are going to get back into space under our own power is by using the Russians. Correct me if I am wrong but the Russians haven’t always been our friend and even now, fight us on many different fronts, and on top of that the latest space tourist spent 30million to fly up there, we pay 80million (or so) for each NASA astronaut we send on a Russian ship.

On top of the Russians if you haven’t noticed China is also moving their space program faster then we did/are. In 4 missions (I believe) they have launched a man into space and spacewalked. I guarantee they are going to beat us back to the moon, and probably onto Mars. Unfortunately I see NASA as not having the political will to get out of near Earth orbit, maybe they will be able to set up a moon base but I doubt it. We rely on the Russians now, we will rely on China in the future, and probably before that we will collapse.

The country that stops exploring is sure to fall. We are already heading that way, if we want to have hope we need to get another space race going, and spend the money, yes that’s right spend the money and get back in front. Use China as the reason, if NASA cannot pull it together alone lets get the private sector involved, there are already at least 3 private companies that are stepping up and doing so on a true shoe string budget. Instead of pumping the millions (and billions) into Russia pump it into our private sector and lets work together and get this nation back into space, exploring like we NEED to be and have a permanent settlement on the moon by 2025 and by 2035 have a permanent settlement on Mars.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Kenneth J — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:57:35 GMT

The next giant step should be solving domestic energy needs with green technology and energy independence. Only then should we look to the stars once again

Next giant leap reconsidered

Rakesh Sharma, San Mateo, California — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 17:22:21 GMT

We are trying to force a single near-term vision in a domain where there is plenty to do. Space exploration is vast and we need to dedicate a lil bit money on all fronts.

Other than finding a replacement for the current shuttles, I am not sure if there is a current crisis. Unmanned space exploration by way of probes and low earth orbit initiatives should continue as is. Going to Mars may happen in 100 years (if not next 40), with or without the moon, when the technology, knowledge of Mars and political will is ripe. There is water there. For those who propose a moon base, if we can't colonize it, what's the point in going back?

Next giant leap reconsidered

David Collins, New Albany, Mississippi — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 17:52:55 GMT

I'm 57 years old, and I've been a fan of the space program all my life. But I've now come to the conclusion that the era of manned space flight should come to an end. The only justification for spending large sums of taxpayer money on space exploration is the advancement of scientific knowledge. Robotic space missions can get that knowledge for a tenth the cost of what manned missions could get it. Future manned missions to the moon, to an asteroid, to Mars or one of its moons would necessitate a gigantic increase in NASA's funding. Undoubtably, it would also gut funds for robotic missions. I hear people say that we should continue the manned program because it served us well in the past, spinning off "new technology". Well, I think that day of over. The space program no longer drives new technology. Dale Bumpers was was right to try to kill the Space Station. Its cost/benefit ratio is dismal. So I say CANCEL Aries. Cancel EVERYTHING--everything EXCEPT robotic missions.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Richard, Topeka, KS — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 18:10:26 GMT

Until the perfection of an ion drive or a similar technology the moon is the only viable target for exploration and possible exploitation (assuming water supplies are available at the moon's poles). Mars is too far for current technology and not very useful either. Mars has too deep a gravity well to make it a base for further space exploration. If water and He3 are available on the moon then that would make use of the moon as a staging point for further exploration financially viable, perhaps even profitable.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 18:40:58 GMT

"The best option was one I did not see in your written wondering ,,the 'Jetsons' as in antigravity technology..."

'Option' implies an available choice. As in something you know how to do or at least know to be physically *possible* to do.

At this time, antigravity is neither. If you have real PROOF to the contrary, I (and Hanna-Barbera) am all ears...

"Now is a perfect time to get off our duffs and push all the governments of the world to get together and push for a space program for all human beings."

Nonsense. The kind of cat-herding bureaucracy that that will require will only make it take *twice* as long...

If anything, space flight needs to go the other way, down to the level of private, non-state players that can focus on efficiency and goals and not on the politics of playing nice with this partner country or that Senator/Representative.

"Problem one: energy needed to achieve earth orbit.

Problem three: limitations imposed by chemical rocket propulson systems."

It takes about as much 'energy' to reach LEO as it does to fly from New York City to Los Angeles. Chemical rockets are adequate. Better engineering and higher launch rates (for better economies of scale) are what's needed...

"Problem four: lack of knowledge about the basic facts of possisible mission objectives."

I'm not sure what that means. Deciding what you *want* to do (if I'm reading you right) is a problem, but not a technical one, though it'll have technical implications...

Next giant leap reconsidered

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 18:43:19 GMT

"Our president is a Star Trek fan,oddly enough..."

Where'd you hear this? It's utter news to me.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 18:53:23 GMT

"Why is there no mentioned of December 21, 2012 anywhere - why are people afraid toi speak about it.'

Afraid? Google it. You'll get enough hits to keep you reading right up until hten..

"Here we are makin g plans for 2015 - not many of us will be left on this planet after December 22, 2012."

And you are certain of this, because...?

"How do we prepare for this cosmic event - or can we ??"

If you mean Apophis, I'll be watching, as will many others. But we *know* that'll be a fairly near-miss. It's how it'll come back later that will then ned attention.

If you mean the Mayans, I have no more reason to accept that, than any other belief's notions about The End Of The World(tm)

If I'm right, I won't look silly or embarrassed on the day after the alleged end.

If I'm wrong...I won't be here to look either silly or embarrassed, will I? (and with no means to leave the planet or stop 'it,' just what could I have done, anyway?)

Next giant leap reconsidered

Ram Shah, NJ, Edison — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:43:06 GMT

I think using robots is a comprehensive and economical approach that will give us the most bang for the buck. This is particularly true in the short to mid term - say about 20 years or so. I agree with Mr Andy Womacks' comments makes sense. In the mean time , on the side line , new propellsion technology /innovation must be persued. In any case, whatever decision we come to, we should go for long term with commited resourses. Stability and long term comitments are crusial eliments. Think in term of a marathon race as opposed to a sprint!

Next giant leap reconsidered

Sprague — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 00:21:20 GMT

Considering the imminent massive, but oddly unpublicized, cheese shortage, I think it very timely that we return to the moon.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Mike Dorlac, Chatsworth, California — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 01:16:06 GMT

Some of those things in the images sent from the Mars rovers looked like fossils. Is there something NASA is not saying? Buzz Aldrin has it right. Forget about the moon. Go directly to Mars.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 03:08:15 GMT

Words mean a lot. Too many words and words misunderstood by the hearer cause confusion. The Mayan calendar (which completes its cycle in December, 2012, and then begins to repeat itself) is an example of the latter confusion. But why are we naming the future rocket (which is supposed to redeem our space program)after the God of War himself, Ares? Because he is supposed to get us to Mars (another name for the same god of War)?

The Russian Progress and Soyuz (meaning Union) seem to reflect more of the sense of purpose which is engraved on the LEM we left on the Moon 40 years ago, something about "coming in peace" as I recall.

And Endeavour, Enterprise, Spirit, Opportunity, Kibo (Japanese "Hope") and the others (even the Canadarm, an invented word but one which signals usefulness rather than violence) speak to a future for Mankind to which all of us can aspire.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Mike Geile, Harrodsburg, KY — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 03:35:04 GMT

Dude Chill on 2012. If your so conviced it is going to happen then go have some fun! i.e. take out loans without the intent of paying it back.

This artical stated that intelagent people have given oppinions. One such person states that we need to hurry up and establish a coloney on mars before we destroy ourselves on earth. Ah, hum, mars is petty uninhabitable and a martian coloney without earths help would be short lived. Not well thought out.

We need to go to the moon or to mars! Those jobs won't get outsourced to another country. We need another stimulus bill. This one would would employ all those highly educated people, and give our next generation of college grads the hope of a well paying job.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Russell Peterson, Locust Grove, VA — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 07:59:24 GMT

IMHO, we have to go to both Mars and the Moon. We need to go to Mars to protect our prominence in space and our national pride. We need to go back to the Moon to protect our interests. If we don't go back to the Moon we will surrender our future to our competitors. If we don't go to Mars we will miss out on the opportunity to create history. The current budget to explore space is a joke compared to the financial bailout money being spent. As a society, we have to remember the past, do what's best for the present, and invest for the future. No matter what we do, we will run out of resources or some disaster will occur that we cannot overcome on this small world. Our only hope is to expand out into the solar system and create our own destiny.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Raoul Lannoy, Antwerp, Belgium — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 08:32:18 GMT

There is a deadline to end shuttle exploitation.
There should also be a deadline for all later missions.
Deadlines motivate. They put pressure and make things happen.
We should return to the Moon. It's the first world outside of Earth, in space. It's close enough to be safe. Above all, it's a reachable goal in our lifetime. I don't believe in any goal that needs 30 years to be realized and that was already promized 30 years ago. (Cure of the common cold, fusion energy, humans on Mars, etc...)
From the Moon, the Earth looks beautiful and fragile. That's what counts.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Ernie, Baton Rouge, La. — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 10:32:31 GMT

I long for the day that our country returns to space exploration of other worlds. It is a shame that we have not returned to the moon or done anything except circle the earth for 40 years. This is not to diminish the accomplishments and discoveries resulting from these efforts since the moon landing. I just think that we should have set foot on another solid celestial body since thin. I remember hearing of the possibility of landing a man on Mars by 1985. Of course, that time has come and gone with no such thing happening. I think the space program should be intesified and vigorously persued if nothing else for the sake of descendants. Some day, albeit far, far into the future, our sun will someday eventually die out. Our planet will be left a cold, lifeless mass of land. Our ancestors will have to be able to leave this planet to continue life on other worlds. We have to have a starting point in our space program to allow the eventual evacuation of this planet in order for the human race to survive. I know this sounds dramatic and is certainly not an immediate concern, but nevertheless some day thousands of years from now this planet will become cold and lifeless. We owe it to our descendants to initiate the knowledge that will enable them to survive when the time comes to leave this planet for a new start in life.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Pat Milby, Cairo NE USA — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:17:11 GMT

Very interesting article & comments. 1-We need more Research into better, lighter types of fuel for the space project which would also help us domestically.
2-We definately need to refurbish our shuttles to last longer. 3-Send a robot to the moon to collect more info, samples, pics, etc. so we know if it would be wize to set up a way-station or colony there. 4-'Pick' the scientific brains we have available in the USA & the world if possible for the best outcome to all of this. 5-Don't forget the best CO2 converter is still a TREE!! Save a tree...plant & utilize Hemp again as our forefathers did.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Matthew, Massachusetts — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:32:51 GMT

I agree with those who say "End the manned space program beyond low-earth orbit." The major reason we sent men to the moon was for a cold war moral boost." We can now send complex robots that did not exist 40 years ago. The NASA folks are wrong. There is no non-emotional, compelling reason to send humans back to the moon or to Mars when 90% of the science could be performed by robots of today and tomorrow for 10% of the price.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Neil Seattle Wa — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:41:12 GMT

I don't see why a shuttle fuel tank full of course can't be put in low earth orbit , maybe by two saturn 5s and then rendevous the space shuttle with the full tank to continue on to the moon. We need to stop throwing away usable designs every time we want to do something new.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Frank Klepeiss Bethlehem Pa. — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:22:30 GMT

It seems to me that many of the messages I am reading on this site are absolute foolishness. This is shamefull on the part of these authors because the subject concerns the destiny of our space program. It touches on a subject of critical importance to the future of our childen whether we will continue with space exploration. We as a people need determine whether or not the continued funding of the space program is in our best interest and its impotent to determine whether or not we have ever really been to the moon 40years ago or did Nixon contrive a hoax to undermine the Soviet Union during the cold war?

Next giant leap reconsidered

Mitchell Webb — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:25:06 GMT

Wow. Some of the responses to this article range from amusing to absurd.
Doomsday in a few years? How quaint. It's true, if you keep pushing back the end of the world deadline every few years when it doesn't happen, you'll eventually be right!
Antigravity? A little thing called physics would like to talk to you. I'll give you the short version. Not bloody likely. Fortunately the guys in charge of the space program know this. Even when they gave funding to see if any of the many crackpot propulsion theories could hold water, antigravity one again proved laughable and highly improbable. If you disagree I have an antigravity driven perpetual motion device I'd like to sell you.
Who am I? Why sir, I am one of the sarcastic, snobbish, well educated individuals who are still inexplicably internet posters. Good day.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Richard Watson, Salem, NJ — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 14:58:58 GMT

First, we need a vision that’s far into the future. We need to decide if we’re reaching for the stars, or just looking for a platform to look back on ourselves.
Second, we need a plan for realization. Let’s have a strategy. Von Braun had a clear idea of how to get to Mars 50 years ago. It is certainly arguable today, as it was then, but we would have gone a lot further, a lot more efficiently, by following a plan. It can be evergreen—as long as it keeps us going in the right direction.
Third, all steps in the plan should build toward the final goal. We threw away the Apollo technology; we’re about to throw away the Shuttle.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Buzz Lightyear — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:55:53 GMT

If Aries is too difficult to develop, why not go back to the Saturn V? Surely that 40+ year old technology could be easily updated to be even more reliable than it was back then!

Next giant leap reconsidered

steve smyth — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:18:57 GMT

Fall into Space...
Just a reminder that Gaia Two revolutionizes everything you think you know about access to and return from Outer Space.
The perpetual problem of the first fifty miles and the last fifty being the most dangerous no longer exists.
The Rocketeers have seen their day.

Do you think the vehicle would get blown out of the sky if I launched without all the proper documentation?
So much for free enterprise solving anything.

The Rocketeers have a lot to lose once their approach is shown to be archaic, wasteful, and simply put...flat out self-defeatingly stupid to continue on with in today's Global Environment.
http://gaiatwo.blogspot.com
http://telecomsat.blogspot.com
This is ready to go, Alan...anytime anyone wishes to discuss the particulars, and get down to biznis!
Imagine the economic boost.
Every top scientist, engineer, and technician currently working on Rocketeering can retrain to solve some of today's real problems...so there will be no existing infrastructure upheaval issue to further delay this project...sounds good, eh?
Thanks again for the forum...
Remember Peenemunde...rotten SOBs!!!

Next giant leap reconsidered

Jack Sullivan — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:45:54 GMT

give some thought to hitchhiking a ride on a comet/rocket off later and have the robots investigate other possibilities.In the meantime concentrate on a new fuel source an have the whole world involved.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Don Kelly, Huntsville UT — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 23:33:23 GMT

Wow, reading the comments it's apparent some people are having difficulty telling the difference between Science Fiction and Science Fact. Anti-gravity? Maybe someday we'll know how to do that but not right now.

I do agree that the biggest problem facing the space program is a lack of committment and direction. There is no single solution for everything we want to do in space. Lets focus on what we need/want to do and the capabilities of current technology and get something done!

Next giant leap reconsidered

D, Aurora, CO — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 03:02:34 GMT

The problem with the lack of direction for NASA is the lack of direction of everyone. That the Apollo program was kept on track was partially because of the country's love of Kennedy and a desire not to fail him after he had been killed. I personally think we need to split NASA up and create a pure "Space Exploration Administration", with that being it's sole purpose. Not monitoring the Earth, leave that up to NOAA and the EPA, not doing aeronautical research for the military, not doing any of the 20 dozen other tasks that NASA currently has to balance out with it's limited budget. This focused Agency will be given specific tasks that it has to accomplish, or else folks in it get fired...period. Next you have to elect both a president and a congress that has the guts to stand up and say, "This is our National Space Policy, and this is what we're going to do...period." Finally, you have to organize and get the public to rally around that policy in a manner to what the focus was during WWII, in other words, follow the policy at any cost until it's achieved.

Once we've gotten our Space Ducks in a row, then we're in a much better position to turn to the other space faring countries, and suggest cooperative missions, because right now...it's like having someone with Multiple Personality Disorder suggesting you go for a tandem bike ride.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 03:08:08 GMT

"I don't see why a shuttle fuel tank full of course can't be put in low earth orbit , maybe by two saturn 5s..."

Launched from what? The two Saturn pads were converted for the Shuttle soon after Apollo.

And launched *with* what? Where will these Saturns come from? The machining and tooling is long gone. Some of the contractors and sub-contractors no longer exist. The two that were never flown have been lawn ornaments for decades at KSC and JSC (I walked around that one myself) and no longer fit to fly.

"...and then rendevous the space shuttle with the full tank to continue on to the moon."

Space Shuttle Main Engines need ground support equipment to get therm started. NASA tried to develop a version that could start in flight as the Ares-1 second stage...and couldn't do it. (that's why the reduction in the original size and weight of Orion, as the J-2X they'll use doesn't have the same performance).

An orbiter's ability to radiate the heat all its systems generate into space work on the assumption that the ship will also receive heat from the Sun only about half the time (being in Earth's shadow the other half). Sun exposure is full-time, while moving between Earth and Moon.

Once you get past all that, Lunar orbit is the best you could hope for. Don't even *think* about trying to land an orbiter on the Moon...

After a Lunar departure burn, an orbiter would also have to have enough propellant to decelerate at least to Earth orbital speeds. It could not handle the kind of high-speed re-entries from the Moon that Apollo and the Russian Zond did and Orion would.

"We need to stop throwing away usable designs every time we want to do something new."

But we can't expect to use the Shuttle (or anything else) very far *outside* of its design limits.

As I've said elsewhere, the Shuttle was designed to be a re-useable *launch* vehicle, not a re-useable *interplanetary* vehicle. Period. You wouldn't expect one airplane design to be all things to all users, spacecraft are no different. *Doing* something new' usually requires *designing* something new.

"give some thought to hitchhiking a ride on a comet/rocket off later..."

How would this help you? You cant just *grab* a comet as it passes, you have the propulsion to match its speed and direction (rendezvous)...and then it doesn't matter if it was there anyway, does it?

And what are the chances that a comet happens to be going in a direction that's useful to you?

This matters only if you want to study the comet itself. It's not like catching a train...

"Mars has too deep a gravity well to make it a base for further space exploration."

That's not the point. You build a Moon Base to study and utilize the Moon. You build a Mars Base to study and utilize Mars.

Repeat for any other body in the solar system worthy of a continuous human presence.

But don't pretend or assume that they're 'jumping off' points for exploring deeper into space.

Spaceships will be built here where all the manufacturing infrastructure already exists and fuel resources are plentiful and cheap (Though if there's a useful fuel/reaction mass resource at your *destination,* [NOT down on some intermediate body like the Moon], by all means, go for it).

In a sensible exploration scenario, virtually everything starts from Low Earth Orbit. This is why Heinlein and others have described it as 'Halfway to anywhere in the Solar System.'

Next giant leap reconsidered

CM, Modesto — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 04:10:15 GMT

Manned spaceflight is extravagantly expensive, travel to the moon and mars even more so, with little economic return other than the entertainment of seeing zero G play and spacesuits bouncing on the moon. Yes, I do know about "spinoffs", but the spinoffs didn't come from the actual manned spaceflights, they came from basic research. We could have the same spinoff benefits at a fraction of the cost if we funded basic research and cancelled manned flights. There are direct economic benefits to sattelites and robotic space probes that make their high launch costs worthwhile, but that is a different issue.

Perhaps the extravagant expense of manned spaceflight would be an acceptable luxury if the economy were booming and the national debt was low and tax revenues plentiful, but that isn't the case. We won't be going to the moon in 2020 because we can't afford it, and the sooner we cancel this extravagance, the better it will be for all of us.

Perhaps sometime in the future there will be a technical breakthrough that will dramatically lower the cost of going into space and make manned spaceflight economically viable, but until that happens, we should use our funds elsewhere. (sorry, Steve Smyth, but your "gaia2" idea won't work as described, you can't "fall up" nor can you fall up by falling down)

Next giant leap reconsidered

Mike Licht, Washington DC — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 05:00:13 GMT

After 40 years, one thing is clear: the future is not what it used to be.

See:

http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/
07/20/the-future-is-not-what-it-used-to-be/

Next giant leap reconsidered

John Cheek, Salisbury, nc — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 05:12:52 GMT

All this talk about moon and even mars exploration may sound exciting, but I have my doubts about it happening any time soon. As a few of the scientists involved point out, to make any rapid progress on getting there will take a lot of money. Unfortunately, the political hacks in D.C. led by the troika of Nancy, Harry, and Barak, are planning to spend lots and lots and lots of money on socialistic gimme gimmee programs. These pocket stuffers have been piling on the treasury trough in a way that reminds me of a bunch of drunken shriners hopping on a Kansas City whore. I doubt if there will be much left in the treasury after this massive vote-buying scheme has gotten underway. Besides, the main drive behind the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo program funding wasn't so much pure scientific curiosity as it was cold war fears that the commies would get nukes into space before we did.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Bill Hale — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 05:22:11 GMT

http://www.stars4space.org/Benefits.html The preceeding link is for those of you that believe we need to abandon space exploration. http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/ This link is for those of you who may want to search the NASA technology database for ways to make the Earth better (and make a few bucks too). An example is after the Apollo launchpad fire, NASA funded development of a smoke detector. Some of you are alive because of this!

Next giant leap reconsidered

JD, Seattle, WA — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 06:37:39 GMT

Examining the various perspectives on exploring space is an excellent way to gain a sense of the future, because one can make inferences based on the different ways people perceive the importance and value of looking beyond the tips of their noses . . .

From the long range political perspective, it is useful to ponder the reason that people tend to know the names of the king and queen of Spain in the late 15th century and the fact that if there continues to be human life on this planet hundreds of years from now, people will know the name of the president who made the decision to send astronauts to the moon, which for the most part will be all they remember, because it is the most important thing that John F. Kennedy did in the grand scheme of everything . . .

In great contrast, there are folks who view life and the universe very differently, with one particularly troublesome group being what I like to call the "Coconut Tree Acolytes", those folks whose vision of everything is centered around the general idea that if they sit underneath a coconut tree and have happy thoughts, then the coconut tree will reward them by dropping a coconut so that they can feed themselves, but otherwise when they have unhappy thoughts the coconut tree will punish them by denying them its essence--noting that this group of people are the ones who remain convinced that the lunar expeditions of the late-1960s and early-1970s were elaborate hoaxes created by Hollywood . . .

And then there are the "I Can Be an Oscar Mayer Weiner, But the Official Rules Strictly Prohibit Me from Having Wings, Hence I Cannot Be an Angel!" unmanned space exploration fanatics, who generally continue to be be confused by the adage, "if we were supposed to fly, then we would have wings" and, for the most part, tend to align most strongly with the Coconut Tree Acolytes, at least when they encounter a bit of resistance in recruiting more "We Are Not Angels!" believers . . .

And there are more groups, since everyone likes to have an opinion at the dawn of the early 21st century, but there is yet another excellent way to determine whether someone has an elevator that goes to the top floor, which to be specific is how well they understand the fact that when they have a medical emergency and an amazingly high-technology emergency response vehicle arrives, this is not the result of whatever the Coconut Tree Acolytes and the We Are Not Angels! people have accomplished over the decades, centuries, and millennia . . .

Instead, it is the direct consequence of manned space exploration, since the reality in outer space is that if something happens, then there you are, entirely on your own, which maps to needing to take everything you need with you and requires diligent thinking with respect to the way everything works, which is fabulous . . .

Fabulous!

And then there are the "Beans Must Be Counted!" people, the accountants who realized many centuries and millennia ago that while they actually have no useful talents and skills, they can achieve full employment for themselves by sharing their obsessive compulsion to count everything with as many other people as possible, although sharing it typically requires at least a minimal concept of "the future", hence is not so easy to do with the Coconut Tree Acolytes, but often is too easy to do with the We Are Not Angels! folks, especially when the Beans Must Be Counted! folks devise ways to cook the books in favor of unmanned space flight, which is one of the ways the general reality of everyone having basic health care has been stalled for so long . . .

And a few more facts are useful in making sense of the most important considerations for doing manned Lunar and Mars missions, but perhaps the most important consideration is that establishing manned Lunar and Mars bases requires the biggest advance in the understanding of human anatomy and physiology in the history of this planet, and it might actually lead to discovering why so many people are afflicted with the disease which colloquially is called "aging" . . .

Another useful fact is that the fine folks at the FED, Congress, Department of the Treasury, along with the two presidents and a virtual cornucopia of bureaucrats and regulators, over the past 12 months have transferred more than sufficient monies out of the country to pay for everything anyone at NASA currently can imagine, many times over . . .

Stated another way, "bailing out" AIG et al. accomplishes little more than creating temporary employment opportunities for sneaky weasels and highly paid speaking and traveling engagements, while at the same time doing absolutely nothing for common folks, especially with respect to improving our lives and so forth and so on . . .

When you ponder everything for a while, it is not so difficult to understand that sending people in a space ship on a journey that is approximately one year in each direction pretty much maps to having to devise a way to provide a complete hospital in a tiny area, about the size of a walk-in closet, which curiously is about the same size as the interior space of a state-of-the-art emergency response vehicle, such that instead of being able to send all the information wirelessly to the hospital, it becomes possible to bring the emergency room to the patient, which already is being done to some extent with helicopters at the dawn of the early 21st century and certainly would not be happening without the remarkable vision of President John F. Kennedy . . .

And while there was a little presidential vision in the late-1970s continuing through last year, there were no bold visions that focused on improving the lives of the common folk . . .

So, it will be very revealing to see how our new president defines his vision for the future, if only because one of the reasons manned space exploration on a grand scale works so marvelously economically is that it creates new opportunities that simply do not exist otherwise, which ultimately makes it a fantastic strategy that very quickly produces a virtual festival of inventors, geeks, and scientists, along with plenty of infrastructure to keep them productively entertained and happy . . .

If people only put coconuts in the pie hole, then we already know what the future portends, because it is there for us to ponder and to study when we have nothing better to do than to travel by boat to Easter Island . . .

Going to the moon and Mars is a bit wacky in some respects, but it is no more wacky that getting in a big boat and trying to determine whether the Earth is flat or round, which certainly was made possible in the 15th century by Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand of Spain, which is the only practical reason anyone remembers them 500 years later . . .

So, from this perspective, it is a matter of focusing on legacy over the long run, and while some presidents are happy with the prospect of being remembered as the only person on the planet to fall from a Segway, I think that the brighter presidents want to have a longer lasting and more attractive legacy, which is fabulous . . .

Fabulous!

Next giant leap reconsidered

DARK STAR — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:30:03 GMT

When Is NASA going to admit to the secret space program operating since the 60's that has been to all
the planets ? Gary McKinnon the UK hacker has blown
the lid off their lies.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Miguel, Campinas, Brazil — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:34:45 GMT

I think NASA should come back to the Moon!!! Because that trip 40 years ago is difficult to pay cradibility. Why deviating the foccus from a planet they say they already knows? Is there any fear of trying to go and fail now? The world could not check steps by steps that time. But now it is possible, so, I think NASA should try to come back again (if it is true that they once had been there) and remove once for all this possible biggest hoax.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Kevin, Allentown, PA — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:49:08 GMT

Complete waste of money, especially now. Face reality people, we have serious problems right here.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Frank Riker — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:53:55 GMT

when it cost about $38,000 to take one gallon of water to the space station; I think it's time we stop all this cold for now. This country is in dept to the gills, people going hungry, millions without health care. Lets get this country back on it's feet first. Space will still be there. Use those billions on health care and the national debt. We have an obligation to US first.

Next giant leap reconsidered

joe the miscalculation — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:15:04 GMT

Why do people still insist the moon landings in the 60s were real considering all the problems NASA faces with today's tech?

Next giant leap reconsidered

Paul Jacob, Riyad, KSA — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:24:07 GMT

I remember watching the landings on TV as a 7 year old schoolboy. We didnt have a colour TV at home in those days. Mankind needs a challenge to make those vital moves forward. In WWII we saw the advent of the Jet Engine, Atomic Bomb among other things, the space race resulting from the cold war gave us satellites, a man on the moon and teflon coated ..!!

Surely the moon should be the stage 1 test of a vehicle to land and return from Mars. Mankind needs a challenge to take a giant leap forward. And if were bright we will make it an international mission, teh ISS has shown teh way

Next giant leap reconsidered

nilgar 1 — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:30:58 GMT

Maybe they can clean up some of the old satellite debris orbiting around the earth.

Next giant leap reconsidered

NotDoomedin2012 — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:32:16 GMT

2012? Why would I even consider belief in a prophecy from a civilization that went extinct? They weren't aware of their own impending doom, how can they foretell ours? Just a thought...

Next giant leap reconsidered

Eamonn, Albany, New York — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:32:16 GMT

At this juncture, we probably should keep the space shuttles going beyond 2010 as they are already there and have not reached their expected life span as yet. NASA should keep the space station going for as long as possible. Think of all the time and effort needed to build it. Why not get some use out of it? That's the reason the shuttles should keep going. In the meantime, NASA would be better focusing on pioneer exploration. Let commercial space ventures retread the same ground and establish permanent bases, perhaps partnering with NASA? Of course, all this costs money. If money is an obstacle(of course) I would maintain the current level of space presence with the shuttles and the station at least.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Russell Peterson, Locust Grove, VA — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:34:17 GMT

The NASA budget costs each citizen in the US approximately $50 per year. The military budget costs $2000. I am convinced that the human race will not survive if we do not expand our civilization beyond our small fragile planet. IMHO, we have no other choice than to continue to fund an active space program.

Next giant leap reconsidered

swoten, Quad Cities Iowa — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:36:26 GMT

From the sounds of it, nano tubes have came a long way, and the space elevator may be a possibility. This would allow for inexpensive transportation to LEO.

Second, if the objective is to get to the moon or Mars, why do we invest in sending a heavy lift transport to heft the entire thing into orbit. Why wouldn't you send up smaller missions and assemble the vehicle in space. Then you could leave the vehicle in orbit to use on other missions. You could resupply and refuel in orbit. Also you could test out new types of propultion and prep for the upcoming missions. It could serve as a space station during off mission times. No need to design for re-entry because existing technologies would provide transportation to and from the vehicle and resupply.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Tom Klaber — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:44:27 GMT

We need to start with the moon, because it is the easiest place in the solar system for us to learn how to live off-world. No one talks about this, but our first priority should be to learn how to inhabit places like the moon. If we can do this, then the rest of the solar system will be available to us, because places like the moon are everywhere we look.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Ordinary American with Extraordinary Idea, Dearborn, MI — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:45:05 GMT

Stop. Wait. Can we afford this at this time. We are facing tremendous problems here on earth which should have priority over going to Mars, etc. I'm for progress but I'm also an individual who has to live within a budget. Dreams are fine, but we have to be realistic and live within our means. Novel concept, isn't it.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Wallace Martin Dallas Tx — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:46:50 GMT

No man has ever set foot on the moon! I seriously hope noone believes that tripe.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Mark, Dallas,TX — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:52:40 GMT

40 years later and we have some dirt and a couple of moon rocks that were brought back to earth. People are losing their homes and cannot get the healthcare they need because of lay offs and we want to keep spending billions in space travel. No wonder this country is f***ed

Next giant leap reconsidered

John Wagner — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:56:11 GMT

Wow! Such great idea's! Why aren't some of you involved in our current space program? Could it be because you're so ignorant of the actual fact's, don't understand physic's, and can barely find your way home from work? Thank God we have intelligent psople working on this and not listening to you. And some of you want to discontinue the space program altogether until our fossil fuel problem is solved, or our planet is totally 'green', or we solve the global warming problem? Come on! So you want our brightest astrophysicists of today to sit around twiddling their thumbs for the next 25 to 40 years? With no progress? So why would anyone want to ever go into astrophysics or aeronautics? Sure, then in 40 years, we could start off again where we were in 1965 and watch China or Russia while they are populating Mars and beyond. Use some common sense, people! If you have any!

Next giant leap reconsidered

Arthur Uzo, London, Uk — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:09:37 GMT

Enough of the moon. Let us take care of all the human race on earth. We have not succeeded in feeding all the hungry population on earth and we want to spend billion going to other plant. It is like a greedy millionnair who will rather use is money for him/her self than to help his brother children at least to have a decent meal.
What of if their is life out there on those plant we are planning to explore. Are we going to elimate them all, use them as slaves, bring them to earth as tourists, intoxicated them with alchole, all acquire an unknown and uncurrable disease from them.
Why are people not asking nasa, how was it possible to go to the moon with old outdated technology but now it is not possible with how so advance technology. Prove me wrong.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Eric A. Krueger — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:13:44 GMT

The three Astronauts were JUST ASKED on Fox News if we should go back to the Moon. Know what their answer was??? NO GO TO MARS. I don't think ANYONE HAS EVER BEEN TO THE MOON. You are telling me back then we shot um up there in a tin can and they did it, BUT JAPAN CAN'T DO IT EVEN TODAY WITH ALL OUR MONEY THEY HAVE. They are going to fake a mission to Mars just like they faked the Moon landing. WAKE UP PEOPLE !!!!!

Next giant leap reconsidered

Paul Birrell, Scotch Plains, NJ — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:15:39 GMT

Exploring through manned missions should be sidelined while we continue to build our knowledge and technology. We can explore with probes and observation stations, develop reliable, efficient, faster extra-planetary transportation technologies and move to the future we all know is inevitable. There should come a time when we can be very good at this space stuff.

In the meantime, we have to come to accept and acknowledge that manned space flight right now is exceptionally expensive, patently risky and more of an ego boost than it is practical.

Let's learn, let's research. Tomorrow's discoveries and technological developments will make for a better manned space program.

Next giant leap reconsidered

juanda ferguson — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:22:02 GMT

NASA proably needs an alternative fuel chlorphine for shuttles

Next giant leap reconsidered

John Tolmosoff Madera, Calif. — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:22:37 GMT

Every planet has volcanic activity by nature. To have a habitat modual sent to a planet would be costly and dangerous.
My idea is to install instruments that can detect viable volcanic tubes that can be sealed from outside environment.
Solar power can be piped underground to operate oxygen generation and lighting for farming foodstuff.
I would call these habitat volcanic tubes ( Volcanic Cities ). Almost any planet can be collonised for permanent stay.

Next giant leap reconsidered

steve smyth — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:32:57 GMT

National Geographic Channel RE behind the scenes view of the Early Space Race days...running right now with the capture of von Braun.
In one scene he smartly answers his US captors with, "Does that mean the war is my fault? Every day orders to kill thousands of people are transmitted over the phone. Do you blame Alexander Graham Bell?"
Does anyone know if he actually said that?
Looks like a great show, by the way...

Next giant leap reconsidered

Al, Erie, PA — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:33:55 GMT

What a waste of money! Can't we finish screwing this planet up before we start to destroy another one? With all the billions wasted on this, we could have paid down the national debt and maybe we would not be in the mess we are in now. The international space station is a HUGE waste of money!!!!

Next giant leap reconsidered

Chris, Maryland — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:37:24 GMT

What better time then now to beef up NASA. Why not push some of the stimulus dollars to Space exploration. We could create 1000's of good paying jobs , designing and building the next generation. The auto industry has a lot of infrastructure that with enough funding could be converted to build a new shuttle, rockets, a space station etc. Why not commit an extra 10 or 15 billion to NASA over the next three years and see results maybe by 2012.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Chuck of Philadelphia PA — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:37:50 GMT

WHY do we NEED to go up there anyway? Lost lives to do what?
Every launch spews thousands of tons of pollution and is just wasteing millions of dollars.

Next giant leap reconsidered

suresh — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:38:36 GMT

These space exploration right now is luxury. Let’s face the real day today life. Thousands of people losing job so let's not waste our money in doing research in moon , mars or sun or whatever. The government should cut the budget for NASA. NO EXPERIMENT and NO LAUNCH until our economy improves. NO WASTE MONEY. ALL USELESS right now.
we have to surely RECONSIDER spending money for NASA experiments.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Rocket City Man, Huntsville Alabama (a space research center) — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:39:21 GMT

America is the greatest country in the history of civilizations. We have done more since our independence from kings than any other country in history. I do not understand why we are not making a better, faster, more efficient, more powerful shuttle. Its not broken, why fix it, just make it better than the other guys. If we stop NASA we will be making a huge mistake. I wish that people would use common sense now days especialy those public servants with all the money. America needs to get agressive about space and leave the others in the dust again. Come on President Obama. We still have the power, USE IT!

Next giant leap reconsidered

Ron — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:57:52 GMT

During this time of economic crisis, these accomplishments are not a physical thing. They are only great memories. The physical damage that can be avoided by diverting some of the space program budget into domestic programs is more improtant than great memories. Jobs Schmobs, these are smart people, they can find work elsewhere.

Regardless of the advancements we have as a result of space travel. All this coverage is BS. in the current economic climaite we are in, this is a PR blitz for NASA to guard their budget in a time when we should take a break from the space program and cut mopst of NASAs programs back alltogether until we get this country back on an even financial keel.

Yes, some of the advancements and technologies we have today (and are being worked on for tomorrow) are fantastic and groundbreaking; but now is not the time. We have more imprtant issues in this country and NASA programs should be near THE BOTTOM of the list. There is nothing you could write about any groundbreaking widget that has come out of NASA or the space program that can make me think otherwise.

Next giant leap reconsidered

WarbirdMGM — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:12:12 GMT

Seems like the politicians are willing to dump a trillion or 2 in dubious "stimulus / bailout" programs, that are failing to produce jobs or stimulate the economy, while at the same time debating whether we can afford to fund NASA. I believce at it's peak, NASA employed over 400 thousand people.
Why not stear a chunck of the unspent stimulus to NASA and really go big on the moon / asteroid / Mars missions? How many jobs would that create? And we would actually get a return on the investment in spin off technology, science and research, and who knows, maybe even resources from an asteroid.

Next giant leap reconsidered

BamaBoy — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:16:22 GMT

Two words: Space Elevator. We gotta make getting into low orbit and back down easy, cheap and fast. Once you get that going you then can build ships, etc. in space as well as mine bodies in space and bring the materials down to Earth. Getting to and from low Earth orbit is key. Lets get it built!

Next giant leap reconsidered

Greg, Silver City, NM — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:20:36 GMT

The only thing that NASA should be doing is figuring out how to protect us from collisions with asteriods and comets. It's a little stupid to look for water on Mars when we could be wiped out on earth.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Jared Kuuykendall, Missoula, Montana — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:24:01 GMT

Why are we spending our tax dollars here instead of where they are needed in programs like Medicaid, Medicare, Food Stamps, Low Income Housing, etc.? Those are good, decent, worthwhile programs. Space should be a private venture instead of receiving governmental aid status. Space should be privately owned. If the phone company needs to send a satellite up, they pay the private company as if you were to buy a bus ticket to some town five states away. The private company would then send the satellite up. I fail to see what sending people up into space actually does to benefit us.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Doug, Fairfax, Va. — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:27:59 GMT

40 years ago we landed on the moon. Since then NASA has gone nowhere! They pulled the plug on the working saturn, spent more money developing the space shuttle (it was going to save us money, remember?) than the entire appolo program. End result? 14 astronauts lost, no saturn, and no shuttle, and have to hitch rides on russian rockets. We were better off in 1960!

Starting in 1960, with little more than improved v-2s, the US managed to develop the technology and hardware necessary to go to the moon in less than 10 years. Today, with all of our advanced technology, we couldn't do it in 20 - if at all.

NASA needs to get off its ass! Stop wasting time on pipe dreams and go back to what worked! Instead of spending development money for things we already have, (the Saturn Rocket and the Appolo spacecraft and lander), spend development money where it will do the most good - LESA and the X-20 minishuttle!

Next giant leap reconsidered

GOVT.WASTE - NC — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:30:27 GMT

Looks like a bunch of academics on this board - SCRAP NASA AND GO PRIVATE - what has space done for us - name a genuine product, cancer agent, discovery (A REAL ONE, NOT SOME BS ABOUT BLAH BLAH BLAH). THIS IS THE SAME GROUP THAT COSTS 1000 TIMES MORE THAN A PRIVATE GROUP CAN GET INTO SPACE, AND THEY STILL HAVE FLIPPIN "INSULATION" THAT FALLS OFF EVERY LIFT-OFF. PROVES AGAIN, EVEN WITH THE SMARTEST MINDS AND UNLIMITED FUNDS - OUR GOVT STILL CANNOT DO ANYTHING RIGHT - I TOO WOULD LOVE TO GET PAID TO LOOK AT THE STARS ALL NIGHT AND EXPLORE - IF THIS WAS A PRIVATE GROUP, THIS WOULD BE SHUT DOWN BY NOW DUE TO NO BENEFIT FOR THE COST ASSOCIATED. PUBLISH ACTUAL "REAL" DISCOVERIES AND THE TOTAL COST TO DATE FOR EVERYONE TO SEE. WHAT A JOKE.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Bill Blass — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:45:47 GMT

The Obama Administration will waffle about on the issues until they can figure out what the public desire is - then they will support whatever is the popular opinion and say they were the ones that had that very agenda since day one. What about mars?

Next giant leap reconsidered

Mark Brown, Saint Louis, MO — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:47:01 GMT

The simple fact is that if we humans wish to survive and progress, we must get off this planet. Too many resources are on the verge of depletion. Maybe not tomorrow, but by a time that is closer than I think most of us believe. It will take decades if not centuries to make it "routine" enough to work to save ourselves. If we plan to keep throwing it off for some future generation to tackle, it will quickly become too late. It makes sense to start sooner and take it slower than to have to start a crash program later.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Brian Northere, Sacramento, CA — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:48:45 GMT

How about settling for several of the above options? We could have robots build a base and solar farms on the moon, build a new space station WITH ARTIFICIAL GRAVITY at L2, land on an asteroid AND THEN go to Mars. It seems all of these things are necessary for progress in human space exploration. Why aim low when the rewards are so great if we aim higher?

Next giant leap reconsidered

scottbergstrom — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:48:58 GMT

In these tough times we need missions to the Moon, missions to Mars, and beyond because things like this are real moral boosters and I think this country is in bad need of a boost in moral.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Jeremy, Dallas, TX — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:51:20 GMT

Hmm. They need to figure out the issue of damage to the shuttle on EVERY launch before they do anything new. Otherwise having a 99% mission failure rate before the shuttle reaches space is not going to help any causes.

Next giant leap reconsidered

taslim abdani — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:01:26 GMT

Instead of getting into wars, America should throw all its spare resources into space exploration. Robots should be used to do this since it may be too risky to send humans into space for lengthy periods. I would like to know if there is life elsewhere in the universe.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Derek , Saint David Il — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:02:28 GMT

Honestly people what is the value in NASA. Return on investment is what? Satellite placement and maintenence is surely needed and perhaps there are other excellent reasons I am overlooking but the tax dollars spent is huge. Can anyone provide numbers on dollars spent and what value is transferred back to the taxpayer. Is NASA funded any other way?

Next giant leap reconsidered

Ron, Heinz privite island off the coast of california — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:02:40 GMT

The major problem is that anything good that works becomes classified. AKA buried, no#1 anti-gravity does in fact function, the actuall technology is classified. the non-classifeid anti-gravity is a $20.00 dollar toy. and also is the fact an electric engine takes 250,000 horse power to reach earth orbit.you use piggy back engines as one uses power the other creates you need a 2 to 1 ratio as you lose .5 due to friction. also the fastest propultion drives which are scram jet technology and also ion drives. the fasteset is anti-matter drives while in space. another faster much faster drive is better feul wise is in fact an atomic drive which focuses an atomic explosion out the back of a contianer that can't be destoryed by the blast which is your exotic metals. even magnetic containment that pushes the energy only in one direction. only our own excuces stop us from doing any of these even fusion drives using the technology avialible now does function but our excuses which are many. I know scientist that have had things function. Uncluding an anti-gravity drive that would make trips to the nearest star possible today it would take many pages to explain, every star has a pull from those around it in between stars theres a place where that pull is stronger. the drive can create a bottle-neck which would propel it forward. going the speed of light a as simple as taking an object and riding the lights friquency. you need to create an anti-gravity field so you don't die trying this the anti-gravity field cancels out the g-forces. I know how to build such a drive. everything that really works becomes classified aka buried. watch what would happen if i where to build a drive for less then 1,000 dollars at home and attempted to fly it. the reason why all this is fring science is if you actually do these things people will come by and kill you or threaten you or some other way to silence you. people will laugh all they want but the day they try it they won't be laughing at all. this might not even make it to be read.

Next giant leap reconsidered

John Cushard Cincinnati, Ohio — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:05:26 GMT

Since it has become oblivious America can no longer build automobiles, why not build a new spacecraft. Now dose that strike anyone else as being a strange observation?

Next giant leap reconsidered

Edge of Idaho - Somewhere in Idaho — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:07:13 GMT

I'm just a guy from Idaho with only a high school education, so don't ask me about the science of it. But, from my point of view, space exploration isn't so much about advancing technology, as it is about advancing the human experience. A large part of what makes us what we are is the ability to dream and then find a way to turn our dreams into reality. Otherwise, men like Christopher Columbus, Magellan, Byrd, and Armstrong would never have been remembered. They would have been farmers or cobblers or something "more practical". Along with the explorers, there have always been people with money behind them, to finance them. Human beings will find a way to get back to the moon, on to Mars and beyond because it is our nature. We will find the money, and there will always be willing explorers ready for the risk, challenge and glory. Some will say that there are only "emotional arguments" for man visiting space and that robots can do the job just fine. Those people are correct. So, thank God for emotions. Without the human experience of actually going and exploring...without the emotion, what is the point? The emotion, the excitement, and the human experience has been the primary reason, and should continue to be the primary reason for exploration. Exploration brings out the very best qualities in mankind. It rekindles the excitement of being human, and shows us the way for each of us to be explorers in our own way in and day to day lives. Space exploration is necessary, and it will continue, because human beings will always reach for the horizon. Space is our horizon at this point in human history. Embrace it! If our ancestors hadn't had the drive, curiosity and courage to take a chance on "falling off the edge of the world", we would still be living in caves.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Patrick, New Brunswick, NJ — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:10:16 GMT

The only way robots will discover life on Mars is if humans are physically there to guide them. I agree that unmanning the space program has a lot of cost and technical advantages, but for the biggest questions we need humans out there and on the ground.

Those people who think most/all NASA programs should be terminated due to the current economic conditions aren't thinking long-term. If we don't keep an "Open Space" mentality then every man, woman and child is your enemy as an ever-increasing population tries to carve out their slice of a quickly diminishing resource pool.

I hope NASA can be transformed into a steward of (not the only solution to) public and private space enterprise. The new NASA should do away with cost-plus contracting, earmark more funding for more X-prizes and generally concede more liberty, freedom and power to the private spacecraft developer.

Next giant leap reconsidered

KD, Denver, CO — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:25:20 GMT

We NEED to explore space, it's part of the human condition to NEED to explore, to grow and to expand.

In addition to the technological breakthroughs the space program has developed for the benifit of all to use, (i.e. the computer, GPS, new building materials such as carbon fiber, etc.), the space program inspires new generations to push technological limits to create sceintific breakthroughs.

Only a dimly lit aging congressperson like Barney Frank would not see the benifit of manned space exploration to human kind. A scowling Barney Frank recently said that we should stop manned space exploration. Mr. Frank is quite a visionary.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Shane Schrupp, Cedar Rapids, IA — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:41:10 GMT

As much as I like the idea of sending people to Mars I would think it would be more prudent to start with sending machines to pave the way.

We need to develop machines that can build the habitats and infrastructures that will be required by humans. Let machines do the heavy, dangerous work, and THEN send humans.

I mean it would be great if we could simply send a few humans to build an outpost, set up resource extraction, etc. but it sounds like a waste of time and money to have a small group of people struggle to do something that could be automated for much cheaper.

In the end, yes I believe we need to push beyond the safety of our troubled planet. But we better start the process out correctly and thoroughly to avoid any more 40 year slumps.

Next giant leap reconsidered

SDAI-Tech1, Phoenix, Arizona — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:35:44 GMT

Anyone familiar with space and biology realizes the huge reasons why manned spaceflight has been kept to LEO. We have not developed technologically enough to shield human occupants from the radiation that fills space and bombards the moon or Mars. Sending humans out past LEO for any significant period of time is literally sentencing them to death.

Once this concept is presented to the masses, the reactions generally fall into denial or a sense of hopelessness. This is unfortunate. Most space advocates, despite their knowledge, are in denial. They talk about their plans and the magnitude of the radiation problem is never quite accepted. The rest simply see the problem as a reason to shelve manned space exploration and either advocate robotic exploration or focusing on the Earth.

As a proponent of manned exploration, I advocate a total dedication to R&D and the funding necessary to start developing technologies that mitigate and actually constructively use this massive radiation that exists in space. Human shielding is an absolute must. Colonies on Mars or the moon simply cannot yet be until we improve our technological prowess in blocking/intercepting gamma and cosmic level radiation. It may seem daunting, but so was the entire Apollo program.

This is what needs to be worked on. If no funding and R&D fires are lit in this advanced physics venue, there will be no workable plans, no successful colonies and man will be chained to the Earth for as long as this key R&D is put off.

It's all fine to wish more folks had "the right stuff" in regards to exploring space, but the space advocates better get their voices and priorities in order and the very first thing on the agenda is an "Apollo" type program for developing, understanding and mitigating high level radiation.

Best regards and keep up the good work!

Next giant leap reconsidered

Halpern11, DC — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:47:48 GMT

Our sun will swell up, consume the Earth and then shrink to nothing in 5 billion years. We're likely to be wiped out by a large meteor/NEO far sooner than that. I say the short term goal should be to defend this lifeboat from meteors first, with the long-term goal of a Noah's Ark platform that is sustainable for thousands of years in space on its own. If we can't manufacture our own food and gravity while combating solar radiation, we'll never make it anywhere but the moon. We won't even have the time to master these skills if Apophis wipes us all out in 2029 or 2036 (http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk). Barring a gamma-ray burst from the center of the Milky Way, I think we'll survive the 2012 History Channel Doomsday. Fascinating program, but not on my Top 10 Galactic Boogeyman List. Not that we could stop it now or flee from it anyways...

There's so much more Physics to be learned before we should even CARE about setting foot on that CO2-choked iron bag we call Mars. Useless. Defend Earth from what wiped out the dinosaurs only 65 million years ago or nothing else will even matter to any of us. B612.org!!!

And thank you, Mr. Aldrin, for punching out that wacko that thought the moon landing was a hoax. Good stuff.

Next giant leap reconsidered

JP Meyer, Melbourne, FL — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:59:51 GMT

As we give up Space so too do we give up our collective imagination as a nation. America is growing fat and indulgent in it's desires and they're all very solidly focused on short term pleasures and not the greater development as a country or species.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Lou Hogstrom — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:28:14 GMT

get a "working toilet", not one that "craps-out" in a few months or put the astronauts in diapers for the whole trip.
chemical fuel propulsion isn't the planetary exploration answer either.
go back and read some of the "science fiction" books and develop those technologies. what we're doing now is like having a 'earthen fire pit' to cook our food on

Next giant leap reconsidered

Steve Austin, Tappahannock VA — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:37:07 GMT

Buzz Lightyear, I believe that we had to destroy the blueprints to the Saturn V for one of the treaties that we made with the Soviet Union. Doesn't seem very wise at the moment to me...

Next giant leap reconsidered

JT Albuquerque NM — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:22:32 GMT

If America really wanted to venture deep into space they would stop being the police of the planet. Bring our people home, put them to work on focusing on our space programs. We have the knowledge and the technology. Why should we idley stand by and watch Russia and China kick our butts all the way to the moon? Our forefathers came here in search for a new life and explored until they reached the other side. We as the greatest nation on the planet needs to continue exploring and venturing as far as our imaginations will carry us.

Next giant leap reconsidered

TERRY GARDNERVILLE NV — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 23:01:04 GMT

Don't you people have spell-checkers?

Do you actually believe that anything will be alive in our solar system when our sun fails nine billion years from now?

Do you actually believe that human DNA could survive an extended trip over a great length of time in outer space?

You are all sen jing bing!

As far as what NASA should do - the only answer is to prepare a robotic mission to go to Apophis as soon as possible.

Do you guys really want to fool around with the Moon or Mars when we are endanger of loosing this beautiful blue planet due to lack of proper decision making?

If Apophis hits the Earth it will be traveling at 130,000 mph at a diameter of .3 km. The energy expended will be equivalent to 1,000,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs or greater. Trust me you do not want to be alive if this happens.

99942 Apophis
Discovered 2004 June 19 by R. A. Tucker, D. J. Tholen and F. Bernardi at Kitt Peak.
Also known as Apep, the Destroyer, Apophis is the Egyptian god of evil and destruction who dwelled in eternal darkness. As a result of its passage within 40~000 km of the earth on 2029 Apr. 13, this minor planet will move from the Aten to the Apollo class.

diameter 0.270 km 0.06 Delbo, Cellino and Tedesco (Icarus 2007)

Predicting Apophis' Earth Encounters in 2029 and 2036
October 2007

Researchers at NASA/JPL, Caltech, and Arecibo Observatory have released the results of radar observations of the potentially hazardous asteroid 99942 Apophis, along with an in-depth analysis of its motion. The research will affect how and when scientists measure, predict, or consider modifying the asteroid's motion. The paper has been accepted for publication in the science journal "Icarus" and was presented at the AAS/DPS conference in Orlando, Florida in October of 2007.

Mitigation was not specifically studied, but the team found small variations in the energy absorption and reflection properties of Apophis' surface are sufficient to cause enough trajectory change to obscure the difference between an impact and a miss in 2036. Changing the amount of energy Apophis absorbs by half a percent as late as 2018 - for example by covering a 40 x 40 meter (130 x 130 foot) patch with lightweight reflective materials (an 8 kg payload) - can change its position in 2036 by a minimum of one Earth radius.

The future for Apophis on Friday, April 13 of 2029 includes an approach to Earth no closer than 29,470 km (18,300 miles, or 5.6 Earth radii from the center, or 4.6 Earth-radii from the surface) over the mid-Atlantic, appearing to the naked eye as a moderately bright point of light moving rapidly across the sky. Depending on its mechanical nature, it could experience shape or spin-state alteration due to tidal forces caused by Earth's gravity field.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Tinks' Mom — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 23:29:37 GMT

A couple of thoughts:
HE3, if we could find it on the Moon then in theory we can develop fusion. I think Mars is a dream unless there is a quantum leap in rocket propulsion.

When I was a kid the US had a goal of Mars by the 1980's. Now I doubt that I will see it.

Somehow we lost our way and our bravery. To think that we accomplish human exploration of space without great loss of life is naive. Robots ARE NOT the same as being there, but they may have to do.

Next giant leap reconsidered

James, Boston, MA — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 23:58:17 GMT

If the US would stop spending billions on senseless "wars" then we would have more than enough money to go back to the moon or wherever else we put our minds to not to mention there would also be plenty of money to get out of the economic trouble we're in now.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 01:38:38 GMT

Human migration in the past happened because our ancestors ran out of food where they were and had to explore new territories looking for new sources of sustenance. Civilizations were founded, developed, grew, and were eventually destroyed, all dependent upon the availability and production of food crops.

Our world is running out of suitable acreage (including the oceanic sources) very quickly. We won't be finding new fields, those orchards or vineyards anywhere else in the solar system.

But spaceflight is the only safety valve that can relieve the pressure we are putting upon ourselves.
There is so little time left. If we fight among ourselves rather than co-operate to open new pathways for our outward migration, we will surely perish from this world, and leave it to some other species to re-populate.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Paul J.S. Beaubien Victoria B.C. Canada — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 06:39:59 GMT

While reading back through all the responses,,to Frank Glover's dismissal of anitgravity...well we already have hotair ballons,correct? why should I just give you the mathematics of the complete understanding of vacuum?If you have enough money ask me about the Q.T.R.F.of E.and A.R.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:46:08 GMT

"All this talk about moon and even mars exploration may sound exciting, but I have my doubts about it happening any time soon. As a few of the scientists involved point out, to make any rapid progress on getting there will take a lot of money."

First, you should be asking this of assorted (yes, multiple opinions) engineers, not scientists...

There's a difference. In both knowledge and agenda.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:55:28 GMT

"From the sounds of it, nano tubes have came a long way, and the space elevator may be a possibility. This would allow for inexpensive transportation to LEO."

Climb a space elevator to, say, 200 miles and step off..and you *will* begin to fall back to Earth. You would *still* need rockets to get some horizontal velocity...quickly.

The only point you can step off a space elevator and be 'in orbit' is its midpoint, 22,000 miles above the equator.

Remember, it's a long, thin object that's *in* geostationary orbit...that just happens to be long enough to touch the ground (and extend an equal distance *out* from geostationary. Its center of mass is in orbit there)

That makes it of limited use to reach lower orbits.

Indeed,it's a potential collision hazard to stuff in lower (or higher, but there's not much there) orbits.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:01:20 GMT

"40 years later and we have some dirt and a couple of moon rocks that were brought back to earth. People are losing their homes and cannot get the healthcare they need because of lay offs and we want to keep spending billions in space travel. No wonder this country is f***ed"

Then again, we bailed out AIG to the tune of $160 billion USD. That's TEN times the NASA budget for this year. (And that budget is only six-tenths of one percent of the total Federal Budget.)

So go ahead, shut down NASA. I'm sure the relative pocket change you free up, will fix ALL the world's ills as so many people seem to think it will...

Next giant leap reconsidered

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:12:51 GMT

"NASA needs to get off its ass! Stop wasting time on pipe dreams and go back to what worked! Instead of spending development money for things we already have, (the Saturn Rocket and the Appolo spacecraft and lander)..."

You want to try to (re)build something based on mid 1960's technology? The tooling to manufacture that stuff is long gone. So are some of the contractors. Event the discrete component electronics (nothing in the way of integrated circuitry at that time) would be hard to duplicate. You can't *help* but do it very differently...and Orion was, after all, sold as 'Apollo on steroids.'

But the architecture we've been presented has some of Apollo's failings as well...it doesn't lend itself to low-cost, long term operations. Apollo was optomied to get to the Moon before 1970 and before the Soviets. Cost was almost no object. We don't want to do things that way now.

"...spend development money where it will do the most good - LESA and the X-20 minishuttle!"

You can't go back to what never was. The X-20 never flew. (I wish it *had* been done, but it would still be an performance unknown, and *also* required a launcher [Titan III] that's no longer in production...

I don't know what 'LESA' is.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:18:34 GMT

"I am overlooking but the tax dollars spent is huge. Can anyone provide numbers on dollars spent and what value is transferred back to the taxpayer."

Easy:

NASA's fraction of the federal budget: Not nearly as large as many people think...!
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/898/1
http://blogs.spectrum.ieee.org/tech_talk/2007/11/public_thinks_nasas_budget_is.html
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/11/average-america.html
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/21/nasas-budget-as-far-as-americans-think/
http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1040 (linking to this 46.1mb podcast)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~benke/present/mars/economics2004.ppt (Powerpoint file)

"Is NASA funded any other way?"

No. It's a government agency. Pure and simple.

And one that receives .6% (that's six-tenths of one percent of the Federal Budget.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:20:25 GMT

"Buzz Lightyear, I believe that we had to destroy the blueprints to the Saturn V for one of the treaties that we made with the Soviet Union. Doesn't seem very wise at the moment to me..."

Where on Earth did you hear that nonsense??

Incorrect. Pure and simple.

Next giant leap reconsidered

M Coate, Omaha,NE — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:27:18 GMT

Last fall, I taught a class in Astronomy. I was appaled that one fourth of the class not only knew, but believed the "moon landing was a hoax" theory. Read some other links here, interviews with the REAL astronauts, and learn some history, and science to realize it DID really happen. There was pitiful-little coverage of this historic event on prime time Monday. Much more attention was given last week to the Michael Jackson era. No wonder our youngsters know nothing about it. Mine were surprised to learn there actually was more than the ONE moonwalk and rocks were brought back from the moon by these very brave young men.
Let's go to Mars(gravity and water present)-and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn... A whole new REAL economy "stimulus", among other findings would be gained. It is tragic to think that after all these years of building the International Space Station(mostly by America), we are not going to be even able to get there because of our aging shuttles, without the help from Russia. We are currently building a large lab up there-for Japan. Could the media just focus a little attention on space-and look up? We humans are explorers. Machines, probes, can do the preliminary work, but it takes human spirits to observe, wonder, and decide. Who knows what benefits could be found?

Next giant leap reconsidered

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:29:30 GMT

"While reading back through all the responses,,to Frank Glover's dismissal of anitgravity...well we already have hotair ballons,correct? why should I just give you the mathematics of the complete understanding of vacuum?If you have enough money ask me about the Q.T.R.F.of E.and A.R."

Right. You say you have an understanding of physics that no one else has, but you want money *first.* And you seem to be selling just the *physics,* not even a functioning device based on it.

Look up the phrase 'due diligence.' Show me *why* someone should do this. The burden of proof is on you, sir. (And remember, my 'dismissal' also used the qualifier 'at this time.' I know our understanding of physics is always subject to change. I'm open minded. But not so much, as James Oberg once put it, that my brains fall out.)

This does nothing to improve your credibility with anyone...

Next giant leap reconsidered

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:37:50 GMT

Frank,
He probably meant LISA, a space version of LIGO. A laser interferometer system designed to detect relativistic ripples.

Next giant leap reconsidered

Terry T columbus ,ohio — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 00:08:59 GMT

The earth is a great planet we need to keep on exploring searching for other options if there becomes a problem with this one which could happen anytime nobody can say for sure when that time will come do it before it happens the moon gets farther every year but if we can use it to get farther out in space would be good because we dont know how long it will be here it could just go out in space someday we need to think a head and stop spending money on dumm things and use it for the future for our kids and for all life to go on this is the only one we have we need to take care of it as long as we can so i hope that more people will start taking care of it better in the future.