Are Space.com boards really pro-space anymore?

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">With NASA phasing out the shuttle and phasing in the CEV and VSE, NOBODY wants it to go wrong.</font>/i><br /><br />I agree. I think we are at an inflection point, and that is bringing out much more passion on a wider variety of views than there were pre-Columbia.<br /><br />I remember sometime before Columbia O'keefe talking about the using the Shuttles until 2020 -- the argument being that in terms of expected number of flights the Shuttle fleet was still very young. There was no serious alternative view. Everything for the next ~15 years was already laid out, and it was the Shuttle and ISS.<br /><br />Since Columbia we have had (1) realization that the Shuttle isn't the golden child promoted by NASA, (2) a serious NASA alternative put forward (i.e., ESAS), (3) the first privately-sponsored space flights (Scaled Composites), (4) serious attention and funding for space tourism (e.g., Virgin Galactic), (5) serious money for privately developed orbital space activities (e.g., SpaceX and Bigelow), (6) China has launched humans into space with a very interesting approach of leaving an orbital module in orbit.<br /><br />In short, in the last 3 years there has been a dramatic shift the way manned space is perceived. I think this has created a lot of passion.</i>

 

[rocketman5000]

I too was at one point anti robot like yourself. Today I see 2 main purposes for them. One being the "calvary" like the Mars Rovers going there before hand to better prepare the human explorers. The second being doing stuff that humans can't do such as looking at faraway galaxies (think hubble) <br /><br />Where I am still anti robot was the proposed mission to Hubble to repair it so as to not risk humans. To develop a robot for a task that can be handled by humans, who have greater adaptability and therefore better chance of success. The first Hubble mission where the door didn't want to close after the reinstallation of the new hardware would be a good example

 

[dragon04]

I'll have to agree with other posters here. I am by no means anti-space. Conversely, and as previously stated, I am <b>so</b> pro-space that I tend to get overly adamant (to say the least) when I see the direction NASA takes on things not because I hate them, the Shuttle and Space, but rather because public support for our space program in general is tenuous at best.<br /><br />Too many people are ambivalent about it as is. My worst fear is that the ambivalence will turn into outright contempt because our space program in general lacks vision and the proper direction.<br /><br />NASA will do as it sees fit. They will spend billions to build a new and improved Apollo 18 and put it on the moon. But to what end? Is putting people back on Luna so much more scientifically important than a Europa lander or JIMO?<br /><br />I saw a comment in one of the replies about people who are Saganites. That space is something purely for scientific purpose only. This comment obviously came from one of those folks that you would consider "pro-space".<br /><br />I don't know about you, but doesn't anyone who really cares about our space program see the penury in that opinion? <b> THAT</b> is the most definable symptom of what's wrong. Sure, it's great to flex your technological prowess, and plant a new flag on the moon. Cool stuff, without doubt.<br /><br />But we've already <b>been</b> to Disney World. Not a thing wrong with going there, but I'd rather wait a while, save my money and resources, and see the sunset at Giza. Or sunrise at Olympus Mons.<br /><br />Space IS about science. Perhaps first and foremost. There's a lot to learn out there other than cool tricks in microgravity.<br /><br />Personally, I want to see a manned space program. Just not the one we continue to execute. And not the one the President wants.<br /><br />There is no ticking clock. What's the rush? We continue to think inside the box rather than outside it. Some of us who are in reality pro-manned spaceflight just don't want <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

"2. The Saganites.. They think the space travel is just <br />for scientific purposes only."<br /><br />This statement makes no sense what so ever to me. How can someone who thinks that the primary purpose of space travel is scientific be consuidered in anyway anti-space? And the idea of labelling any faction that is truly anti-space as "Saganite", given Carl's passionate support for and active involement in space exploration, is risible.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I'm pro for anything that flys<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Hear, Hear.

 

[BReif]

<font color="yellow">"While I'm far less militant than some on here, there is true merit in robotic missions. It's stuff we can do. New stuff we can do. Manned spaceflight is the benefactor of robotic missions. They intrigue us. They educate us, but perhaps most importantly, they can give us a reason to send people out there to check things out someday. "</font><br /><br />This, actually, is my view of the role of robotic space exploration. This is something that I had posted in another thread about the NASA budget. One of the things that I said in that thread was, however, that the robotic exploration that we take on needs to be more wedded to the near-term goals of the VSE, ie. Lunar and Mars exploration.<br /><br />I really wish that TPF and JIMO were still going to fly, and that the money for those missions was there, however, with limited resources, and as an accountant, I can understand the setting of bugetary priorities with respect to the VSE, and the best way to carry that out as it is currently stated. <br /><br />Given the choice betwee VSE and ESAS for a manned program, and nothing at all, I choose to support VSE and ESAS, because I beleive a failure to continue a manned program and a manned spaceflight capability is a huge mistake, and one that ultimately would hold humanity back, both in terms of science and exploration, as well as technologically.<br /><br />As for the VSE, I support it. Is it perfect, No. I also support the ISS as a Micr-gravity lab for human life studies, and studies of zero-G on the human body as we prepare for long-duration spaceflight. Is it perfect, No. I support the CEV and ESAS as the basic architecture of a human spaceflight capability to enable us (ie. humanity) to get out of LEO for the first time since 1972 (knowing full well that after CEV and ESAS have existed quite some time and fulfilled their mission, there will need to be a better vehicle developed for getting humans to Mars and beyond). Is it perfect, No.

 

[frodo1008]

There IS a very pro space effort being put forth by the Planetary Society. And normally I don't like to "advertize" a particular thread (especially ones started by myself), but please go to the thread "Planetary Society protest letter, please sign". Here, I believe that I am at least attempting something of a more positive nature than just arguing these topics!!<br />

 

[qso1]

I'm pro robotic and human spaceflight when its done responsibly as it has largely been done. I never bought into the idea it was a waste of money. Especially when compared to what we really waste money on.<br /><br />Deficits of $400 billion the last two years for starters after having budget surplusses in the late 1990s. Even with surplusses, no real increase in NASA funding that might have gotten us a shuttle replacement in testing by now. <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>

 

[JonClarke]

"To JonClarke, <br />The Saganites are for exploration, exploration, exploration! The problem is that eventually, if you never stop and use the good stuff you've found and learned during your explorations, exploration for it's own sake becomes a waste of time and money. Its time to stop and do some practical work before continuing the explorations."<br /><br />This post typifies the basic problem with the space lobby, such as it is. Rather than recognising the just about everyone who is pro space exploration is a potential ally, factions perceive that people who are interested in different aspects of space are enemies.<br /><br />Just because some one's prime interest in space is exploration does not mean that they are hostile to other aspects, such as space tourism, booster development, whatever. Nor does a prime exploration focus preclude other people from using that knowledge in more applied ways.<br /><br />You have proposed a classic straw man argument. I stilk find it utterly risible that anyone should suggest that one of the greatest pro space people of all time can be in any way be considered anti-space.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[gsuschrist]

I'm pro science and as long as 'space' is about science then I'm pro-space. I'm not a fan of footprints on the Moon, or the ISS, etc. but have no beef against those who get off on the greeting card moments AS LONG as it doesn't detract from science.<br /><br />Let's put it this way: tomorrow would I rather have another Hubble launched or some fellow stepping on Mars...I'd pick another Hubble even though I know I'm in the minority. I'm more curious about distant galaxy formation than the performance of a water distiller on Mars.<br /><br />Fortunately man can chew gum and walk at the same time so there will be plenty of exciting happenings for both manned space fans and space science fans in the future decades. And, of course, the two fields merge now and then.

 

[mlorrey]

While I'm not of the opinion that space is "about science", I am also not a footprints type either: making footprints and planting flags are not what I or many critics of NASA are about: we want to be building homes and businesses OUT THERE, making new flags for a Lunar Republic etc. and see the "footprints" crowd as only pro-space as a means of serving their nationalistic earthling agendas. So there are really three pro-space communities: the Saganites, the Earth-nationalists, and the Space Colonists.