Back to the drawing board ?

[tomnackid]

This still all a STUDY people. The point of a study is to...well study things! The only thing spiraling out of control is the emotions of people around here! Remember Apollo One? After the fire the entire program of manned test flights of block one capsules in earth orbit had to be scrapped. That was only 2 years before the moon landing. Project Constellation hasn't even begun bending metal yet. There is plenty of time to rip the proposals to shreds and put them back togethter again--that's how it works. I heard a good quote on the radio this morning in a news story about rebuildng the levees in New Orleans, "A good engineer has to be a worrier."

 

[askold]

I wouldn't lump the science programs with the manned programs.<br /><br />The science programs are delivering great results at very reasonable prices. They are delivering crowd-pleasing photos and scientist-pleasing data. And nobody's fretting about the human risk.<br /><br />Meanwhile, in the manned program - we need to go to the moon because, uh, the Chinese are doing it. Or because it's there. Or something.

 

[brandbll]

Three words: Rovers! Rovers! Rovers! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>

 

[BReif]

If manned flight goes away, the unmanned missions will disappear as well. Maybe not right away, but without the hope, dream, or expectation that it is trailblazing for eventual human missions (no matter what its destination is), public and political support will dry up. <br /><br />Besides, what possible use to daily life do these unmanned missions to Mars, Venus, Pluto, or anywhere else, have. Just to keep some over-paid scientists employed, at least that is the view of many I know. There is no tangible benefit to the average person on the street. Waste, that's what it is, in the minds of many. Manned and Unmanned. <br /><br />Many beleive that a space program that goes beyond launching communication and GPS satellites is a waste of their tax dollars.<br />

 

[brandbll]

Rovers! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>

 

[askold]

"If manned flight goes away, the unmanned missions will disappear as well. Maybe not right away, but without the hope, dream, or expectation that it is trailblazing for eventual human missions (no matter what its destination is), public and political support will dry up."<br /><br />I don't think so. A lot of the science programs have nothing to do with subsequent manned exploration. Take Hubble - it's making fundamental discoveries about the nature of the universe. The general public likes that kind of stuff even if there's no trip to Vega in it for them. People have been looking through telescopes for a long time.<br /><br />I have no interest in going any further from my home than Maui. Certainly not to some place where the temperature is -289F.

 

[BReif]

Askold, I think Hubble would be a bad example for your point. It took a manned shuttle flight to repair the flawed optics to get it working in the first place. Without manned space, Hubble would have lauched on a unmannded booster, opened its lens cap, and wowed the world with blurred images that could never have been fixed. Hubble owes its succesful mission to manned space, and the maintenence and repair flights of the shuttle.<br /><br />But, I see what you're saying. But observatories like Hubble, GRO, and Spitzer are not the same as MRO, Venus Express, and MER, or this new new Moon mission and impactor or similar "trailbalzing missions". <br /><br />And, Maui would be the best of destinations.

 

[qso1]

brief:<br />If manned flight goes away, the unmanned missions will disappear as well. Maybe not right away, but without the hope, dream, or expectation that it is trailblazing for eventual human missions (no matter what its destination is), public and political support will dry up. <br /><br />Besides, what possible use to daily life do these unmanned missions to Mars, Venus, Pluto, or anywhere else, have. Just to keep some over-paid scientists employed, at least that is the view of many I know. There is no tangible benefit to the average person on the street. Waste, that's what it is, in the minds of many. Manned and Unmanned. <br /><br />Many beleive that a space program that goes beyond launching communication and GPS satellites is a waste of their tax dollars.<br /><br />Me:<br />Ask yourself why the public turned its back on spaceflight. They did so in part because our media machine is highly effective in shaping public opinion and back in the early 1970s, a couple of questions were posed through media reports during and post Apollo.<br /><br />1.....If man can go to the moon, why can't he cure cancer? Or whatever you want to put in place of cancer.<br /><br />2.....Money saved by cutting human spaceflight could be better spent right here on Earth.<br /><br />If the media would have used those comments to illustrate todays $400 billion deficit waste, or the $100 billion plus rebuild in Iraq...the public could at least put Human Space Flight (HSF) spending in its true perspective.<br /><br />The media and public at large have also lost the ability to realize that if you cut NASA clear out tomorrow, the government will not plow the savings our way. They will find some other way to spend it.<br /><br />I came to realize this over two decades ago when I waited to see what post Apollo savings would be spent on. Would it benefit cancer patients? The homeless? Other social ills? Then I asked myself...whatta ya...insane? The government isn't going to insure the money saved is spent wise <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]

askhold:<br />Meanwhile, in the manned program - we need to go to the moon because, uh, the Chinese are doing it. Or because it's there. Or something.<br /><br />Me:<br />Another equally important question:<br />How can we make our deficit even larger? What other country can we go into today that really doesn't want us there? Surely we can spend any saved money from human spaceflight on anything except what the original critics wanted it spent on...waste it in the deficit if we have to.<br /><br />Factoid:<br />This years deficit is at a minimum...1.5 times as large as the entire amount of money spent on all NASA spending since its inception in 1958.<br /><br />Now I realize you are anti human spaceflight and its not my intent to change your opinion. I would also not suggest doing it because of a fictitious lead by some other country. I would ask that you at least realize that the idea of criticizing human spaceflight on grounds of cost is an ineffective solution given the far larger ways government wastes tax payer dollars that far less complaining is heard.<br /><br />I would have to search far and wide to find someone who says..."If we can spend $100 billion dollars annually on rebuilding a country, why can't we spend it on inner city kids, appalachian kids, other kids right here in the U.S. Elderly people who eat cat food because they can't afford human food?<br /><br />If we can't afford human spaceflight, there are a lot of things we can't afford but I don't buy that. <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>

 

[egom]

"I don't think so. A lot of the science programs have nothing to do with subsequent manned exploration. Take Hubble - it's making fundamental discoveries about the nature of the universe. The general public likes that kind of stuff even if there's no trip to Vega in it for them. People have been looking through telescopes for a long time."<br /><br />Why study space if you are never going there? There is no point to study something that you will never use... So from the taxpayers perspective best would be to invest the money in sex, at least the pleasure effect is instantaneous. <br /><br />I am sorry to say but the 'US empire' starts to crumble. Why? Because instead of putting 400 billions in R&D you put 400 billions in wars. Because the taxpayers can not support the economy and the consume rate. However the political/economical situation of US is not the place to be discussed here however.<br /><br />Why does US space program does not progress? Well, because it does not have changes at the personel in time. US is/was the economical leader because the employement market was very dimanic. Is the same market for space industry as dinamic as the rest? I think that no - how many real companies did appear in the last 30 years in the space sector? Real meaning a company that actually launched a rocket in the space. I know none...<br /><br />Second is the politics factor that decided that the war is more important than the R&D effort. Which means that your technological advance diminishes each day that you keep your troops in Iraq. Soon you will be on the same technological level with China and EU and THEN you will have problems. Russia's economy is increasing with like 5-7% per year. The future is not as bright as it used to be 20 years ago...<br /><br />I believe that if the shuttle is retired early then NASA funding will be cut even more. Nobody will just let NASA pass away because they do not want to take responsibility for this, but they will just cut funding so much

 

[qso1]

EgoM:<br />Why study space if you are never going there? There is no point to study something that you will never use... So from the taxpayers perspective best would be to invest the money in sex, at least the pleasure effect is instantaneous.<br /><br />Me:<br />We don't know if we will go or not, things could be very different 200 years from now. As for sex, our society is too stuffed shirt for that LOL.<br /><br />As for crumbling empire, we spend because in actuality, we can still afford it somewhat. Its just that when government spends the money, they are spending our tax dollars. Part of the reason we go into Iraq...a big part is oil. We as an empire must maintain that which keeps us an empire, and thats oil. Until America and the rest of the western world can free itself of this oil by developing an alternate energy source, we will have a foreign policy that keeps us fiddling around in the middle east.<br /><br />The U.S. space program has progressed, just not as fast as we had hoped and this is for two reasons. One, maybe we just can't go as fast as sci fi writers of books like "2001: A Space Odyssey" thought or hoped we would.<br /><br />Two...the cost barrier which is one reason we have not progressed as fast. This causes the public to balk. That is, the vast majority of people do not want their tax dollars to go to what they percieve, and are conditioned by media to believe is a waste.<br /><br />There is at least one company who has not only launched a rocket...or rocket powered vehicle into space, but put the pilot up as well. That company is "Scaled Composites" headed up by its CEO, Burt Rutan...and that company is real BTW.<br /><br />Wars generally advance rather than diminish tech advances, just look at WWII. Iraq is not going to make that much difference in tech advance. A bigger detriment to tech advance was the fall of the Soviet Union.<br /><br />Your right about NASA not passing on even in wake of the human space flight program possibly ending when shuttle ret <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>

 

[askold]

"Because instead of putting 400 billions in R&D you put 400 billions in wars."<br /><br />The Apollo Program ('61- '72) ocurred during the Vietnam War ('65 - '73). The Apollo 11 moon landing (July '69) occured right after the Tet offensive (Jan '68 - June '69) - the heaviest fighting of the war.<br /><br />We do some of our best outer-space work while invading small countries ....

 

[qso1]

Excellent example. <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>

 

[egom]

Back then Russia was spending the same amount in there (Vietnam). Now they are spending the money on economical reconstruction and EU is building the ATV...<br /><br />EgoM

 

[mogster]

The real move out from leo to manned exploration of the solar system is only going to happen when private enterprise and freely available technology moves forward far enough. <br /><br />When the sort of person that currently yearns to climb Everest or walk unaided to the South pole can fund their own mission to Moon or Mars then manned exploration will happen. That sort of person is very willing to risk their life to be the first to explore lava tubes on the Moon or climb to the top of Olympus Mons on Mars. <br /><br />I'm convinced human exploration of the solar system will happen, just probably not in our lifetime sadly : (