If NASA had more funding...

[Sax Man Aeronautics]

As said by the title. You reply to this thread with an awesome thing or two NASA can do. I will start off.

Send another Mercedes-sized rover to mars

Fit the ISS with centrifuge modules that are similar to the ones in 2001: A Space Odyssey

[LtHeckard]

Why not land a penetrator probe on Mercury?

[PTNLemay]

I'd say take a break from trying to send robots everywhere, build bigger telescopes. They can get plenty of science done without costing too much or having to travel too far.

If they really had a big budget and had an itching to send stuff beyond low-earth-orbit, why not build the far-side lunar observatory. The far side of the moon (what's sometimes called the "dark side") would be shielded from Earth's radio-noise. We could build a large radio telescope there that would have unprecedented clarity, both from the lack of noise and from the lack of an atmosphere.

[Prime flux]

"If NASA had more funding..."

Well they would waste more funds in ineffective ways.

It is a well known fact that governmental run organisations or program is ineffective and alot of the funds get wasted on other things then the intended purpose. There is always someone how making money of any governmental programs and it is really hard to make sure the tax-payers gets their worth of the funds.

It gets even more ineffective when there is is other parties with their own agendas (like politics with a home-state business to support) gets involved.

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

"If NASA had more funding..."

Well they would waste more funds in ineffective ways.

-snip-

Yea, I mean the Moon Landings weren't effective at all.

[meve12]

Yea, I mean the Moon Landings weren't effective at all.

The main problem with it was that it was expense and wasn't reusable.

Every Saturn V costed 185 million dollars to build and launch, and none of it could be recovered. The rest of the mission was small potatoes(unrecoverable ones at that.) So 185 million pissed down the drain for every Moonshot. Yes, it was a great achievement, and a great advance of our knowledge in the moon, but at 185 million a mission we got screwed.

[1of6Billion]

I'd say take a break from trying to send robots everywhere, build bigger telescopes. They can get plenty of science done without costing too much or having to travel too far.

If they really had a big budget and had an itching to send stuff beyond low-earth-orbit, why not build the far-side lunar observatory. The far side of the moon (what's sometimes called the "dark side") would be shielded from Earth's radio-noise. We could build a large radio telescope there that would have unprecedented clarity, both from the lack of noise and from the lack of an atmosphere.

I want to build that in KSP

[Nibb31]

The main problem with it was that it was expense and wasn't reusable.

Every Saturn V costed 185 million dollars to build and launch, and none of it could be recovered. The rest of the mission was small potatoes(unrecoverable ones at that.) So 185 million pissed down the drain for every Moonshot. Yes, it was a great achievement, and a great advance of our knowledge in the moon, but at 185 million a mission we got screwed.

If a moon shot would cost 185 dollars today, that would be a bargain! That's cheaper than an Ariane 5 or an Atlas V.

[NASAFanboy]

Build a moon-base, and go to an asteroid.

Solves the Congress issue, doesn't it?

[merlinux]

If a moon shot would cost 185 dollars today, that would be a bargain! That's cheaper than an Ariane 5 or an Atlas V.

Bu8t both atlas and arianne have paid customers who are using the rockets to send their satellites....

[Tommygun]

I like to see more funds to the SBIR and STTR programs.

NASA could help fund new start up companies and pay them based on set goals completed.

[iDan122]

Finally Built an interplanetary ship with landers for Earth to use for different planets.

[jwenting]

if NASA had more funding they'd waste even more on useless bureaucrats and lawyers.

[Skyrunner27]

As said by the title. You reply to this thread with an awesome thing or two NASA can do. I will start off.

Send another Mercedes-sized rover to mars

Fit the ISS with centrifuge modules that are similar to the ones in 2001: A Space Odyssey

But...But...NASA already planned to do both those things, and they are still doing one of them in 2020.

[Skyler4856]

Set up a semi-permanent Lunar colony, Develop a fusion/fission drive etc

[bradley101]

"If NASA had more funding..."

Well they would waste more funds in ineffective ways.

It is a well known fact that governmental run organisations or program is ineffective and alot of the funds get wasted on other things then the intended purpose. There is always someone how making money of any governmental programs and it is really hard to make sure the tax-payers gets their worth of the funds.

It gets even more ineffective when there is is other parties with their own agendas (like politics with a home-state business to support) gets involved.

So true sadly more funding does not fix the problem a clear directive with a tight time frame is whats needed.

[rpayne88]

Why not land a penetrator probe on Mercury?

One does not simply "land" a penetrator probe on any body.

(Or am I mistaken that penetrators intentionally crash into surfaces.)

[rpayne88]

The main problem with it was that it was expense and wasn't reusable.

Every Saturn V costed 185 million dollars to build and launch, and none of it could be recovered. The rest of the mission was small potatoes(unrecoverable ones at that.) So 185 million pissed down the drain for every Moonshot. Yes, it was a great achievement, and a great advance of our knowledge in the moon, but at 185 million a mission we got screwed.

According to http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/, an Apollo mission would cost $1,180,315,122 in 2013 dollars. (The Apollo XI mission at least. I set the year to 1969.)

Edit: And that is before tax.

[Crush]

Edit: And that is before tax.

You mean the tax the government would pay to... itself?

[Mr Shifty]

I'd say take a break from trying to send robots everywhere, build bigger telescopes. They can get plenty of science done without costing too much or having to travel too far.

If they really had a big budget and had an itching to send stuff beyond low-earth-orbit, why not build the far-side lunar observatory. The far side of the moon (what's sometimes called the "dark side") would be shielded from Earth's radio-noise. We could build a large radio telescope there that would have unprecedented clarity, both from the lack of noise and from the lack of an atmosphere.

We're currently spending billions on the James Webb Space Telescope, which will orbit ESL-2.

[NASAFanboy]

We're currently spending billions on the James Webb Space Telescope, which will orbit ESL-2.

Is it possible for NASA's EML-2 spacestation outpost to service/repair the James Webb Telescope?

Just wondering

[Mr Shifty]

Is it possible for NASA's EML-2 spacestation outpost to service/repair the James Webb Telescope?

Just wondering

Apparently so. Page 20 of the following presentation suggests < 20 m/s transfer between the two:

http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Griffin_3-27-13/Griffin_3-27-13.pdf

[philly_idle]

According to http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/, an Apollo mission would cost $1,180,315,122 in 2013 dollars. (The Apollo XI mission at least. I set the year to 1969.)

That's a bargain...at least compared to the cost of a space shuttle flight.

[dharak1]

It would be nice to see a VERY small probe sent to the Centauri system. Something that would get there in at least 2500 years. Send it on a huge rocket with lots of delta V and a few solar panels. It would go into low power mode for 2000 years, 250 on leaving and another 250 turned on when entering the area around the system. Then it could draw solar from the stars.

[Crush]

It would be nice to see a VERY small probe sent to the Centauri system. Something that would get there in at least 2500 years. Send it on a huge rocket with lots of delta V and a few solar panels. It would go into low power mode for 2000 years, 250 on leaving and another 250 turned on when entering the area around the system. Then it could draw solar from the stars.

And this is supposed to accomplish... what, exactly? Don't you think that after another 1000 years of technical research future generation won't have propulsion systems which allow to launch a probe at least twice as fast which will overtake the first one but with much more advanced instruments? Also, a "VERY small probe" would be useless. When this mission is supposed to have any scientific value for future generations it would have to send data back to earth. That means it needs an antenna with enough energy that the results can be distinguished from cosmic background radiation. And even then it is questionable if there will be someone there to listen. There is a lot that can happen in 2500 years. Nobody can say how our society will change over such a long timespan and if they will still remember that probe they sent back in the industrial age.