Ok, Let's be honest. The US government isn't going to lifta up one fat finger in the direction of going back to the moon, but there ARE alternatives...
Third; The 3,700 mile Circumlunar Moon Buggy Races. The Baja 1,000 is famous world wide and gets millions in sponsorships, where the Lunar 6700 would gain BILLIONS in add revene and sponsership.
Generally, everything which hopeless idiotic must be tried before it can obviously be seen to not be workable.
If it isn't mentioned elsewhere; just noticed that FoxNews had this week a five part Moon oped series calling for US returning to the Moon.http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/03/17/its-time-to-return-to-moon-former-nasa-chief-says/http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/03/18/chinas-moon-rover-wake-up-call/http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/03/19/how-to-return-to-moon-in-just-four-years/http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/03/20/shoot-for-moon-how-america-can-lead-world-back/http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/03/21/making-moon-base-why-now-is-time/
To keep my attention you have to start smaller.When someone is actually landing robotic payloads and they start talking about humans to the same destination, well that is still a big leap.. but I will seriously consider whether they are serious. Any other scheme I will pretty much dismiss as a kickstarter scam, delusional, or someone speaking ironically This applies to NASA too.
The US government isn't going to lifta up one fat finger in the direction of going back to the moon, but there ARE alternatives...
Quote from: RanulfC on 03/25/2014 08:29 pm...Just to be clear and "honest" I've been telling everyone for decades now that the US Government HAS been "lifting a finger" in the direction of going back to the Moon!. The "discussion" has been about WHICH finger it has been RandyRandy, to be "honest", you are being childish. Please keep the finger "discussion" in your political hack sandbox. The SLS and Orion are perfectly capable of doing international Lunar missions and you know it.Grow up.
...Just to be clear and "honest" I've been telling everyone for decades now that the US Government HAS been "lifting a finger" in the direction of going back to the Moon!. The "discussion" has been about WHICH finger it has been Randy
Quote from: HappyMartian on 03/27/2014 01:39 pmQuote from: RanulfC on 03/25/2014 08:29 pm...Just to be clear and "honest" I've been telling everyone for decades now that the US Government HAS been "lifting a finger" in the direction of going back to the Moon!. The "discussion" has been about WHICH finger it has been RandyRandy, to be "honest", you are being childish. Please keep the finger "discussion" in your political hack sandbox. The SLS and Orion are perfectly capable of doing international Lunar missions and you know it.Grow up.Honestly I'm making a "joke" and it is no more a "political-hack" than blaming Obama for everything The "capability" of the SLS and Orion was not a point I addressed but if you have been following the appropriate threads on those two systems you will have noted there is a definate "lack" of capability on Orions part and probably with the SLS as well. Those are NOT "engineering" issues but political ones. My point being the same as before: Since there has been NO change in "attitude" of the people who control NASAs budget and direction it is quite clear that the US government has no intention of going BLEO either to the Moon or any other destination with manned missions.Considering the written, oral, and in fact as you often point out, "law" that those self-same people have passed pretty much DEMAND a different attitude AND clear support for the "supposed" goals. And the fact this is coupled with the clear LACK of respect for those they are speaking too, as well as a clear intention to IGNORE those same written and oral statements and NOT make any serious efforts to allow NASA to acomplish the goals THEY have set implies a direct and caclulated insult towards both NASA and the "goals" those people put into "law" in the first place."Capability" does no good without intent. The intent is clearly not there and Congress has no interest in giving NASA the capability to actually carry out their "orders" despite rhetoric to the contrary. It may be crude, but the plain and simple truth is that Congress has continually given the "Finger" to US HSF since before Apollo-11 landed on the Moon and nothing has changed to date except they no longer feel any need to try and "hide" the fact they are doing so.Randy
Spaceflight funding is getting the equivalent of Chewbacca defense, the Mars One defense.
Maybe NASA needs to tap into the crowdfunding and sponsorhip money. This would allow people from outside US to contribute to NASA run mission, I'd donate $10 to NASA mission.
Congress has not hidden anything. It is part of both recent history and our current space law that Congress has told NASA to place astronauts on the Moon. The individual who has ignored and failed to implement our current Lunar centric space law is the person NASA Administrator General Charles Bolden legally reports to, the President.
The Democratic Party, my party, may have some election troubles because it has supported a President who is not fully implementing our bipartisan Lunar centric space law. And most folks who are paying attention to NASA's space planning know the President is deliberately not following our space law
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 03/29/2014 08:42 amMaybe NASA needs to tap into the crowdfunding and sponsorhip money. This would allow people from outside US to contribute to NASA run mission, I'd donate $10 to NASA mission. Crowd-funding over ~$50,000 tends to hit problems. However that is sufficient to pay for an experiment that fits in a U2 or U3 cubesat sized box. If it is attached to the spacecraft the equipment will not need independent propulsion and power.
Actually "crowd-funding" would be illegal for NASA, or any US government agency. We can "crowd-source" all day long but the "budget" is strictly controlled and not subject to "public" donations.
Quote from: RanulfC on 04/01/2014 02:37 pmActually "crowd-funding" would be illegal for NASA, or any US government agency. We can "crowd-source" all day long but the "budget" is strictly controlled and not subject to "public" donations. Uhh.. no. You can send a check to NASA if you want. There's apparently some difficulty in figuring who to make it out to, but it's possible and legal. There's been some calls to make it easier:http://sheekgeek.org/2012/adamsheekgeek/making-it-easier-to-donate-money-directly-to-nasaAs described in the article, other agencies already receive public donations. There's nothing illegal about it.
Quote from: JasonAW3 on 03/21/2014 08:14 pmThe US government isn't going to lifta up one fat finger in the direction of going back to the moon, but there ARE alternatives...Just to be clear and "honest" I've been telling everyone for decades now that the US Government HAS been "lifting a finger" in the direction of going back to the Moon!. The "discussion" has been about WHICH finger it has been Randy
Quote from: RanulfC on 03/25/2014 08:29 pmQuote from: JasonAW3 on 03/21/2014 08:14 pmThe US government isn't going to lifta up one fat finger in the direction of going back to the moon, but there ARE alternatives...Just to be clear and "honest" I've been telling everyone for decades now that the US Government HAS been "lifting a finger" in the direction of going back to the Moon!. The "discussion" has been about WHICH finger it has been RandyDon't grow up. It's bad for ya. You are probably correct in your finger analysis.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 04/02/2014 01:05 pmQuote from: RanulfC on 03/25/2014 08:29 pmQuote from: JasonAW3 on 03/21/2014 08:14 pmThe US government isn't going to lifta up one fat finger in the direction of going back to the moon, but there ARE alternatives...Just to be clear and "honest" I've been telling everyone for decades now that the US Government HAS been "lifting a finger" in the direction of going back to the Moon!. The "discussion" has been about WHICH finger it has been RandyDon't grow up. It's bad for ya. You are probably correct in your finger analysis.Add to that, said finger has been jammed up a nose while they've been consumed with priorities of personal, political interest.
I think might more interesting if one could make donations which are conditional and which could be part of a multi-year fund. So that such donations could be directed towards something in particular, so say Manned Mars, depots, prizes, telescopes, or whatever.This could be described as politicizing NASA in sense that such donation could be conveying a political will- support for Manned Mars or whatever. And I think that would be a good thing. Because it would something in particular to rally political support regarding, and it indicates to Congress what NASA does is important.
Crowd-funding over ~$50,000 tends to hit problems.
Yes. One of the key ingredients in their success was that their pledge rewards were attractive to backers. The space selfies drew in a lot of people. Sending T-shirts or failed PCB's as some cubesat kickstarters have done isn't going to have nearly the same impact.
On the other hand, Planetary Resources has some extremely wealthy backers.
Don't more than one of those count as "extremely wealthy?"
Quote from: sdsds on 08/28/2014 06:40 amDon't more than one of those count as "extremely wealthy?"Fair enough, but I think the implication is that they're "backing" the company with gigabucks and they're just not.