The HabForum

Another reason besides money that I am not going to be an astronaut is that I am a Canadian. There have been less than 10 Canadian astronauts since the first went up in 1984. The Canadian Space Agency looks for astronauts only every five or six years and they only pick one or two. You must also be fluent in French which is something refuse to do (politics-long story). I would have to move cross-country to Montreal and I would never want to live there. After selection it could take seven or more years to actually be able to fly on the Space Shuttle.

(I live in Alberta which is best province to live in. We have oil and agriculture and are a very wealthy province. We help support the poor provinces. Montreal is in Quebec - land of the French. The two provinces are so different it isn't even funny. Ontario (province by Quebec) and Quebec have the majority of the population. Our government is representation by population so Ontario does everything to please Quebec so that they won't leave Canada - no joke they have tried twice already. So Alberta gets left out and ignored. There has never been a Prime Minister from the West. It is all the east. A hatred of the east has grown because of the this. I would never move to the east because they do not treat the west fairly. It is almost like the east wants to anger the west . One of our Prime Ministers actually fingered Albertan's in the 80's off the back of a train. It's a political mess. Life here in Alberta is good and I don't want to leave it.)

To become an American astronaut would not be much easier. I would first have to become a citizen and get all of my schooling. I would be in debt for years. It would be awesome to become an astronaut but I don't want to be put into a life of debt for it.

In September I enter the University of Alberta and i am taking Conservation Biology. It may won't take me into outerspace but it will take me around the world. I may not have reached my dream of becoming an astronaut but I aplaud all those that do. They are living my dream for me. When public flights into space are offered I will be first in line.

Hey Matt may i make a suggestion. If you try applying to a Martan marietta you wont be getting whaty you're thinkin g of anymore. Martin Marietta merged with Lockheed to form the Lockheed Martin company several years ago. Although Space Camp still has signs for both companies as sponsors but they are just out of date.

Hey monkeynautt dont give up just cause your Canadian. This is kind of a bad example but we just had our very first Israli astronaut. You can do it!!!! but what ever you want lol.

[post deleted]

I agree Monkeynautt dont give up on your dream. A slim chance is better than having none which is what i have.

[post deleted]

Although i dont have the direct link, NASA's web page also has job listings their.

[post deleted]

Hey, now that's what I'll do. Look for jobs at NASA! Then I can tell those people exactly what NASA should be doing - back to the moon, to mars - NOW! =) What, money? Bah... who needs money.. =)

LOL just a little opinionated are we?

LB206 wrote:LOL just a little opinionated are we?

Yes, just a tad. As much as I like the shuttle and its program... NASA moves to slow for my taste. It's like NASA forgot how to take risks. We should be living on the moon by now. Or at least have gone back to study it longer. Geez. Build more Saturn V's...

Yes. Very opinionated.

You're talking about giving up a piece of fairly reliable 22 year old technology for a 35 year old piece of technology. I agree we need to do more but i also think that they need to develop newer technology and not take a step back to a 35 piece of technology.

We can still operate the shuttle and station while we go to the moon. It would be a waste to scrap the ISS so far into it. I agree that NASA moves too slow. So does Chris Kraft.

Kraft in [i]Flight: My Life in Mission Control[/i] wrote: On page 72:
I look back now and shake my head. Today the government may spend a year thinking about, then preparing, a Request for Proposal. There's a cover-your-ass mentality that has to dot every i, cross every t, and get some lawyer's initial on every page. It may be six months before contractors have to respond. Then the evaluations strech toward infinity. By the time a major contract is awarded, the original idea may be several years old, technology has passed it by, politics has intruded and changed the mission or the rules, and the inevitable redesigns consume more years. The International Space Station is a perfect example of a bad plan followed by more than a decade of muddled modifications in both design and mission. If we'd had a 2001 bureacrat running the Space Task Group in the late fifties, the Russians would have clobbered us in space, and the last forty years of the twentieth century may have played out far differently than they did.

On page 108:
Even with the delays we encountered, Mercury was moving quickly. When Congress wonders why programs today take so much longer, they need only to look at where the final decisions are made. When the authority is taken by Washington bureaucrats, instead of being granted to the people doing the work, it adds years to the schedule and millions to the budget.

On page 354:
Perhaps they will see things differently in 2020, when the International Space Station is near the end of its projected life. But even the ISS is an example of politics intruding on technical reality. It went through so many redesigns to to accomadate national and international politics that it is virtually a white elephant in space. Even before it was occupied, the ISS was encountering problems that needed extra Space Shuttle missions to fix. How it plays out will be interesting to watch.

I'm betting that most of you agree with Kraft. I encourage you to read his book, if you haven't already (I'm betting that most of you have). Learning about the history of the manned space program from his point of view is very interesting. If he had his way--which most everone in NASA probably wants--things would be much different. Bureaucracy sucks.[/i]

I do agree with kraft 100 percent and i also highly recomend his book it was excellant but a little one sided. I was also lucky enough to meet him and get my copy autographed.

LB206 wrote:You're talking about giving up a piece of fairly reliable 22 year old technology for a 35 year old piece of technology. I agree we need to do more but i also think that they need to develop newer technology and not take a step back to a 35 piece of technology.

I'm not talking about scrapping anything. I'm saying USE the technology you have regardless of how OLD it is. Just because it is old doesn't mean you just discard it. It worked then and it'll work now... all you have to do is USE it.

I'd rather them develop newer machines for the task but that takes time and money when you have proven technology sitting on the shelf, so to speak. The shuttle with its technology and design is a hell of a lot older than 22 years... but we still rely on it today. Why couldn't we rely on something even older?

Well i'm also looking at it from a practicality standpoint. All of the Saturn launch and processinbg facilities have been converted to shuttle operations. That would leave a couple of options convert part of the VAB back to saturn servicing equipment, if thats even possible and still beable to keep the shuttle processing equipment. If its not possible then we would need a new VAB built. Second it would mean either converting one of the shuttle launch pads back to a saturn launch pad which is easier said than done. Then you would have to start the manufacturing of Saturn components again. Their are only 2 Saturn V's 3 Saturn 1B's and 2 Saturn 1's left all of which are far from flight ready from sitting in the elements over the years that means not only converting facilities to manufacvture them but having to manufacture all new vehicles. To me the logistics of even attempting that would be so monumental noone would ever want to fund something like that.

[post deleted]

sts205cdr wrote:
I was glad to see the Saturn V at KSC nicely restored and INDOORS. In contrast, the one at JSC is crumbling, really a sad sight. How's the one at USSRC?

--John

They have plans to fix it. At the Space Camp website they talk about it. Look under Save the Saturn V.

Well i've heard they plan to restore the Saturn V at JSC like they did to the one at KSC and are currently doing to the one at the space and rocket center. I think i also read somewhere their are plans to create a building around the one at the space and rocket center similar to what they did at KSc but maybe not on the same scale. I could be wrong about that last part though. I would still like to see them open up the old block 1 CM thats on top of the saturn V at the space and rocket center and see if their is anything inside.

[quote="sts205cdr"]Well put, Jason. And let's face it, the venerable Saturn V could only get us to the Moon and back with just a few days stay there. We will need to build a completey different spacecraft to go to Mars and beyond.

Agreed. I rarely think about what it would take to actually maintain the Saturn V program. All those conversions and/or new facilities. But at least the technology would be already tried

Still, I'd love to see them do it. So I can ride in one!