Added: Nov 18, 2008
From: BrunoTheQuestionable
Duration: 10:1
The Vision for Space Exploration is the United States space policy announced on January 14, 2004 by U.S. President George W. Bush. It is seen as a response to the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, the state of human spaceflight at NASA, and a way to regain public enthusiasm for space exploration.The Vision calls for the space program to:Complete the International Space Station by 2010 Retire the Space Shuttle by 2010 Develop the Orion spacecraft (formerly known as the Crew Exploration Vehicle) by 2008, and conduct its first human spaceflight mission by 2014 Develop Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicles Explore the Moon with robotic spacecraft missions by 2008 and crewed missions by 2020 Explore Mars and other destinations with robotic and crewed missions When the Vision was announced in January 2004, the U.S. Congress and the scientific community gave it a mix of positive and negative reviews. For example, Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.) said, "I think this is the best thing that has happened to the space program in decades," while physicist and outspoken manned spaceflight opponent Robert L. Park said that robotic spacecraft "are doing so well it's going to be hard to justify sending a human."Others, such as the Mars Society have argued that it makes more sense to avoid going back to the Moon and instead focus on going to Mars first.In a position paper issued by the National Space Society (NSS), a return to the Moon should be considered a high space program priority, in order to begin development of the knowledge and identification of the industries unique to the Moon. The NSS believes that the Moon may be a repository of the history and possible future of our planet, and that the six Apollo landings only scratched the surface of that treasure.According to NSS, the Moon's far side, permanently shielded from the noisy Earth, is an ideal site for future radio astronomy. Unique products may be producible in the nearly limitless extreme vacuum of the lunar surface, and the Moon's remoteness is the ultimate isolation for biologically hazardous experiments.Lunar resources include most if not all raw materials available on Earth. The Moon can serve as a proving ground for a wide range of space operations and processes, including developments toward In-Situ Resource Utilization or "living off the land" (i.e., self-sufficiency) for permanent human outposts. This has various benefits.Initial return missions as recently proposed by the U.S. President and NASA can be done through space operations using the existing launch infrastructure and assets developed by the shuttle and International Space Station programs, plus existing expendable launch vehicles, with a minimum of new research and development programs. The lessons learned from international cooperation during ISS construction and operations can be improved upon and extended to human missions to the Moon, Mars and elsewhere.Initial missions could place scientific equipment on the Moon and return samples from areas never explored, such as the polar regions. Extent of water and other volatiles important to lunar industrialization could be determined. As future reusable launch systems begin operations, reducing cost and enabling higher flight rates, Earth-Moon traffic can become routine. With humans on the Moon again, NASA's space activities would take on new vigor and public interest.Throughout much of 2004, it was unclear whether the U.S. Congress would be willing to approve and fund the Vision for Space Exploration. However, in November 2004, Congress passed an omnibus spending bill which gave NASA the $16.2 billion that President Bush had sought to kick-start the Vision. According to then-NASA chief Sean O'Keefe, that spending bill "was as strong an endorsement [of the space exploration vision] as any of us could have imagined." In 2005, Congress passed S.1281, the NASA Authorization act of 2005, which explicitly endorses the Vision.The current NASA Administrator, Michael Griffin, who took office in April 2005, is a big supporter of the Vision, but has also modified it somewhat, saying that he wants to reduce the four year gap between the retirement of the Space Shuttle and the first manned mission of the Crew Exploration Vehicle.
Channel: Tech
Tags: base colonizing colony lunar moon
Rating: 4.74 (605 ratings) Views: 268132' favoriteCount='1072 Comments: 25
bratsgirl1997 Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - wow this is cool ~~ and i really want to go there i know i cant go there but stil i want to !! lol
pokedatwithastick070 Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - Wonder how they kept all those astronauts quite for all these years - especially armstrong aldrin and collins - and my god they are still alive - I thought they would have been killed off - and now we have to fake going to the moon all over again and keep those new guys quite for at least 40 years - plus before the new mission a second secret mission will have to be launched to place fake apollo hardware on the moon or alternatively faked here on earth or they could just fake the real mission
bobhub600 Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - i say that if we manage to get to the moon and make cities and stuff we should just use it for making energy because if we make too much fumes (carbon monoxide/dixoide?) the moon doesn't have enough gravity to keep an atnosphere so it would just go into space . and if it was just to come back to earth , well , it carbon monoxide/dixoide gets high enough in the atmosphere i think it helps green house gass' (if there are any ¬_¬)
godlikemicko Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - lol. i believe its the end of 2008
wheelingdude12 Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - so what's the deal?, r we gonna hit the moon for our new way of life, or r we just using the moon to check for live
TheRealSiguy Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - Wait, a hundred BILLION dollars? Burt Rutan and Scaled could put probably put a man on Mars for one billion.I don't see why we even have to go back to the moon. Far too costly with almost no scientific return. I say skip the moon and go straight to mars. That, or build a friggin' Lofstrom loop already!
TheRealSiguy Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - Heck, a hundred billion in pure research could probably discover a practicable method of faster-than-light interstellar travel.
MrCanuck Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - If they really went to the Moon, why not bring a 500m wide US flag to law there so that we could see it by the telescope as proof?We all know the U.S. government constantly lies to the world (WMD in Iraq, 9/11, etc). So what makes you think the Moon landing is not a lie?I'd like to believe we really landed on the Moon and made such progress. Sadly, I can't, there is too much evidence against it (unparalel shadows, lighting, moist sand).
procast Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - You should research the positive one, I nearly believe that it was a hoax but when i re-research it back, it's true. THE HUMANS HAVE LANDED ON THE MOON! CONGRATZ !
thorntonart Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - I cant go to sleep!!!!!!!!!!!!
NotMarkk Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - i just woke up
mbdelorenzo Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - We *all* know.. ha ha, only if you seclude yourself from any alternate evidence and refuse to have an open mind either way. Do you ever look at the rebuttals to the conspiracy theories or do you just sheepishly believe them in order to make yourself feel like you are special?I say question everything.. question the government, but also question those that promote off the wall conspiracy theories.As far as bringing a 500m wide US flag, why not just look in a stronger telescope?
Idler81643 Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - Watch Mythbusters Moon edition... Nonparallel shadows, lighting, moist sand (footprint) were all busted...
pjt Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - And Bart Sibrel has been Caught many times in his own documentries lieing and distroting facts. I have yet to see these"Misaligned shadows" and "moist sand" And yet people always offer them as proof. There's no evidence 9/11 was a conspiarcy either. People inherently distrust people in power. Especailly in times of uncertainty. I don't trust the goverment to get me my mail ontime. However to believe that het goverment lied about the moon is dumb and unfounded
jeanheinsenyahoo Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - It's very cool, in believing that one day day, we can go out the earth and go to the Moon, Mars, who know too, Jupiter...But, all we need to have, is hope, hope to one day, we reach this objective.Believe, believe and believe...Be hopeless, be hopeless, be hopeless...;-)
xgalba00 Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - Bravo Americans! Work on it, this is important. Just I'm not sure if you will have money for it.Who will build the first space elevator, will dominate the space. Will it be USA, EU, Russia or China?
McLarenMercedes Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - how about co-operation to save costs and benefit ALL mankind?most scientists are all for it
McLarenMercedes Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - Jupiter is a gas planet. It has a small solid core but almost the whole planet is gas clouds.You can however land on Europa, one of Jupiter's 4 larger moons.
McLarenMercedes Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - Since bringing unecessary weight to the lunare module meant they might not make it back, unfolding a 500meter large flag is both a waste of precious time for the astronauts, and would such a huge flag even FIT folded in the lunar module??Heck, there has never been such a big flag ever, even on earth.
MrCanuck Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - All I'm saying is, it's not too complicated to bring something, even paint to leave a huge mark on the Moon as proof. They left a U.S. flag, has anyone ever seen the U.S. flag through a telescope?
MrCanuck Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - And besides, going on the Moon itself would be considered "unecessery", no? Did we need to go for our survival? Was there more resources on the Moon than the cost of going there?
MrCanuck Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - I wonder what it's like to be on the surface of Jupiter. I mean sure it's like red clouds when you enter its atmosphere but then as you land, isn't the gas more massive and dense than Earth's crust? The gravitational pull is 318 times stronger than Earth.You can probably land on one's of its Moons. Heck, you can land on one of Saturn's Moons... imagine the view!
maclennanld Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - A space elevator is not practical for lunar missions, the pieces are too heavy and large for the concepts they have in mind, the space elevator is more for bringing communication satalights into orbit for low cost.
maclennanld Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - Well at least Bush will have one positive legacy
timboiscool Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - the animation are cool