A departure from our current Vision for Space Exploration

[skyone]

There has been a lot of negativity lately, and the most awful disillusionment. Both on this board and among the general public. Soooo, here's my two cents.<br /><br />Restore TPF, Hubble, JWST, Terrestrial Planet Imager. Then....<br /><br />Promote, massproduce and launch a massive flotilla of deep space telescopes that taken together, form a most bada$$ optical interferometer. Hunt for other earthlike planets. With some luck, and an awful lot of technology, capture a few pixel worth of leafy green continents, blue oceans, icecaps, clouds. I can't think of anything short of contact with other intelligent life that will fire the public's imagination as much. No spaceplane, capsule or rover can compare.<br /><br />

 

[ve7rkt]

I think the way to get the public interested in space again is to keep the human element in it. You're probably right, no rover mission could compare with finding a living world out there. But barring something really cool happening, we're stuck in our own solar system for the next couple of centuries, so the few pixels worth of leafy green continents will remain just that -- pixels. And pixels can't compare with knowing that there's another human being walking on Mars, or Ceres, or Ganymede, or whatever. People barely care about people, but they care about people more than pixels.

 

[josh_simonson]

And then what? That's a technological dead-end. Plus if you don't find a planet that looks like it has life there will be a massive collective yawn.<br /><br />All those planets will still be there in the future, and we'll probably still be completely incapable of visiting them. There's no rush to do this, and it's certainly not worth the opportunity cost.

 

[egom]

Get a private company to launch a rocket in space! That would be the best thing possible. If the industry does not depend of the entertainment of the people then we can start to really progress. <br /><br />After the first rocket is launched without the involvement of the goverment then we can say that we will be a space faring civilization. I am talking about a private company that launches for an example a sattelite that belongs to some other private company.<br /><br />The innovation rate in the private industry is a lot higher than in the goverment institutions so the development speed will increase. To be honest the industry DID evolve in the last 10 years (as an example the ionic engines that are the standard now and that they improve each day) and after EU will launch the ATV then the things will get interested because EU has the money and brain power to launch things in space and certainly can put someone to the moon.<br /><br />EgoM

 

[qso1]

I doubt you would actually need that many telescopes to image an Earthlike world. As I understood it, theoretically anyway, if you could put just a couple of telescopes hundreds of thousands of miles across. You'd have a baseline that size which would provide the imaging capabilities of a telescope of that actual size.<br /><br />We would have to image worlds and start a search first. Based on current understanding of earthlike worlds, the most logical place to start looking is sunlike stars. Off the top of my head, three come to mind. Alpha Centauri of course at 4.35 Ly its closest. Tau Ceti at 11 Lys or so and Delta Pavonis at 19 Ly. Still, there is no guarantee we will find one close enough for any telescope to image in great detail. An earthlike world in which the spectral results are similar to earth being the ideal candidate.<br /><br />Having said that, once we find an earthlike world, assuming one earthlike enough can be found. I agree that this will capture public imagination. Maybe even enough to start a technology development program that leads to the building of vessels capable of reaching this world. There a few other ways or reasons I can think of for this to happen.<br /><br />It would still take decades to centuries to develop to the point we send a craft to such a world. NASA will probably be long since an agency of history by that time. Private enterprise is our best hope but we still have to wait for PE to see a profit making reason to invest in getting out of earths gravity well which should logically lead to other advancements. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

The idea of sending flotillas of scopes is a tech dead end but that does not have to be done. Using projected telescope tech, we will not only be able to search for earthlike worlds, the scopes can be utilized for other areas of research making them cost and scientifically effective.<br /><br />The expense of which is still much less than doing ISS. Factor ground telescopes coming on line soon and we may still see this discovery occur with one of them. Of all the science that can be done with telescopes, I can think of none more worthy of investment than a search for an earthlike world. That does not mean we will automatically try to mount a crash program to go there, but since its often said were a space fairing species, maybe we will finally have a goal worthy of that term. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[revolutionary]

The American people are not interested in manned missions to the International Space Station. We've seen years of science done on MIR, Skylab, and Spacelab on the Shuttle. What the American people want are bold missions to the Moon or Mars and there is simply no getting around that fact. The best way to save the space program, is to ditch the Space Station.

 

[qso1]

Unfortunately, the best way to damage international relations with our allies is to ditch ISS. We cannot, cancel the ISS. We would be pulling out which in turn damages our credibility on international agreements and basically hands control of the station to Russia.<br /><br />Human space flight cannot and should not be done to satisfy a public that wants bold images but does not understand scientific reasons for going. If man walked on Mars tomorrow, the honeymoon with the public would be over the next day and the Mars program over the day after.<br /><br />Whats needed IMO to get humans out there is a good sound reason starting with a lunar base...not flags, footprints, or racing the Chinese in a goal we attained winning the race with the Russians three decades ago. A sound reason...two exist that I can think of and that have been brought up in scientific and NASA circles before. One, a rehearsal for Mars, two, a place to set up industrial capability.<br /><br />For Mars, the search for life and if found, subsequent on site long term study of such life. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[revolutionary]

qso, our allies do not put that much stock in the ISS and the American people are more than aware of the science. It is exactly the fact that bolder missions reap greater scientific return that drives the ambitions of the American public. As many others have said, the Space Station is in no way helpful in getting to the moon, mars, or in the development of modern station design or L5 colonies.<br /><br />Also, the Congress answers to the American public, not to foreign interests or alliances.

 

[qso1]

What specifically leads you to believe our allies does not put much stock in ISS?<br /><br />IMO, the public is only vaguely aware of science at all. Look at the lesser emphasis placed on actual science in our education system. More people could tell you who the latest entertainer is than could name the ISS crew and thats not even a scientific question. I agree that bolder missions are needed but we need sound reasons beyond capturing the fleeting imagination of the public if we want our visions to translate into a permanent presence in space. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[revolutionary]

qso, the public is well aware that there is no worthwhile science being done on the ISS. NASA is wasting our time and our money on this international elephant program. There is much more valuable science that could be accomplished. <br /><br />For instance, TPF, one of dozens of projects that have been butchered by the ISS. If you want to advocate Science, you can't do it while advocating the ISS. A Gossamer Spacecraft or a Bigelow module with a robonaut onboard should be more than enough to satisfy the space station crowd. While NASA searches the heavens with TPF, builds rotating space stations with artificial gravity, and sets up bases on the Moon, and Mars.<br /><br />I have not seen any benefits from the internationalization of America's space program and lets not forget that the station was originally proposed to serve the Battlestar Galactica paradigm which has all but gone the way of the Dodo.

 

[qso1]

revolutionary:<br />For instance, TPF, one of dozens of projects that have been butchered by the ISS.<br /><br />Me:<br />As I recall, it was not the ISS budget that they axed TPF for, it was the bold Bush lunar/mars effort. If NASA built a rotating station, it would spend much more on that than it has on ISS. It appears they may be rethinking TPF anyway. I don't think its totally over for TPF yet. Another thing to consider. Ground based instruments may be able to image planets in the next five to ten years.<br /><br />revolutionary:<br />I have not seen any benefits from the internationalization of America's space program and lets not forget that the station was originally proposed to serve the Battlestar Galactica paradigm which has all but gone the way of the Dodo.<br /><br />Me:<br />I agree that we have not done nearly as well economically in regards to international spaceflight. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[vulture2]

Because essentially all the time of the small crew is required for space station maintenance, the total science done in five years on ISS is less than one Spacelab mission. To do science we first need a crew of six, which could be done today simply by adding two Soyuz and two Progress flights per year.<br /><br />The ISS will not cure cancer, but there are hundreds of well-designed proposed experiments for the ISS that cannot be flown because of lack of crew time, launch capacity, and funds. <br /><br />Most of us will never fly in space, but the ISS has already served as a destination for the first space tourists, who pay their own way and earn a profit for the company that ferries them.<br /><br />If we abandon the ISS now because WE (not the "public') have suddenly decided we are bored with it, after spending $40 billion, the public will think we are insane. If we cannot even maintain a foothold in LEO, we will not be able to sustain permanent habitation on the moon.