New NASA budget - increase $$ for failed programs

[qso1]

askold:<br />I'm not against a manned program. I think we should send explorers into the solar system - when the technology is ready. I'm perfectly happy to wait 50 years for the technology to mature. I don't think we need to rush into space with the cobbled together death traps we now have. <br /><br />My response:<br />Necessity is the mother of invention. We will only get advanced technology in 50 years if some new necessity pushes us in that direction.<br /><br />Necessity, or even percieved necessity is the push required to move us beyond current programs. By percieved necessity, the reason Apollo came about was the need, real or imagined that was present. That need being the competition to beat the Soviet Union to the moon.<br /><br />You cannot get to the advanced technology without first taking the primitive steps.<br /><br />askold:<br />second home for mankind in case Iran gets the bomb<br /><br />My response:<br />This I agree with you on because its one of the ages old argument for sending people into space. One I call the Exodus argument and I ran the numbers on it a year or so ago and found it to be too far ahead of its time at the very least. If we detected an asteroid the size of Texas headed our way, scheduled impact in twenty years. We could not build a means to get people off planet in huge numbers. What few could go would end up being the chosen few. Then the question next is, where do you go. Can we build the kind of human life supporting infrastructure on the moon...wouldn't really have time to do Mars.<br /><br />I'm of the persuesion that humans will eventually get to space, at least LEO as the result of private industry. But private industry could not pull it off without the primitive steps only NASA could do because it was Government funded.<br /><br />As for NASA, one reason to send humans into space, particularly Mars, is the examination of any life forms should any unmanned probes detect them.<br /><br />Why must humans go?<br />Science will most likely not <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>

 

[BReif]

"We're going to spend tens of billions to put a man on the Moon and then, after the first step, the country will let out a collective YAWN. We just don't learn. Nobody is going to care and don't expect taxpayer to fund anything once that YAWN is heard by Congressmen. Manned exploration by the US government is a dead duck beyond an initial footprint."<br /><br />Possibly true, hopefully not. But if it is true, and manned space exploration dies after the first footprint, then I think our entire civilization will die with it, because unless we continue to push out the frontier, find other resources to supplement, and eventually take the place of earthbound resources, humanity stuck on earth will eventually collapse. See Frodo's posts on this...<br /><br />I see a value in manned spaceflight that goes beyond what the general public sees on television, and I am a member of the general public.<br /><br />

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow"> then I think our entire civilization will die with it, because unless we continue to push out the frontier, find other resources to supplement, and eventually take the place of earthbound resources, humanity stuck on earth will eventually collapse. </font><br /><br />Which would be my argument for not spending billions of dollars to revisit the Apollo program and rather spend that money in R&D for more advanced technologies and manned spaceflight systems.<br /><br />Luna redux isn't very meaningful to me. Hear me out. Yes, it would be great to be able to launch manned interplanetary missions from the Moon.<br /><br />But think of the cost to achieve that. Moonbase. Life support. Extraction of materials to make propellant. Let alone the fact that a huge infrastructure and support system would have to be built.<br /><br />And after all that, we couldn't even build a ship on the moon to launch. The raw materials would still have to come from elsewhere, or manufactured components would have to be shipped to the Moon to build a ship.<br /><br />Just seems like a philosophy that is an inverted pyramid both logistically and financially. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[askold]

Of all the reasons for the manned space program - colonizing other worlds has to be the silliest. We have several billion people on this planet - I'd like to see a calculation of what resources it would take to move even 100 people to Mars.<br /><br />A close second is "mining resources" on another planet. Again, how many oil tankers worth of fuel would it take to mine 100 pounds of something on a asteroid?<br /><br />Pure fiction.<br /><br />We've got a pretty nice planet here. If we start being nicer to each other, maybe we won't have to flee to Mars to get away from a crazy neighbor. If we use our resources wisely, maybe we won't have to lasso a passing asteroid in order to drive our SUVs a few more miles.

 

[spayss]

Askold you are correct.<br /><br />Space is man's salvation? that's ridiculous. If someone really believes that the Earth is in such a bad state then it would be irresponsible to spend 2 cents on any science other than cleaning up our own environment and improving society.<br /><br /> If the world is doomed, don't you care about your family or children? You'd rather spend a hundred billion to put 10 people on the Moon in 25 years rather than have that 100 billion spent making the air cleaner for your own children in 25 yyears?

 

[askold]

Exactly - I can't think of a single problem that we (Earthlings) can't solve more efficiently here on this planet rather than in space.<br /><br />Resources - we got 'em here. It's not as if we're going to find dilithium crystals on the moon. The moon is made of the same stuff as Earth. Except that the moon's stuff is 250,000 miles away and not 200 feet under our feet. <br /><br />If you really want to make a difference - reduce the Earth's population. I saw a study once that showed the Earth could be self sustaining at a population of 500 million or so. That means the planet could absorb that many people's waste products, that many people could live off of renewable energy (basically different forms of solar), etc. Now that's a goal worth pursuing. At a steady state we could happily live until the sun burns out.

 

[BReif]

That is scary to me. 500 million people, a reduction of several billion people. And, how will this population reduction take place, and who will decide upon the criterion for who is worthy to live and who must be dispensed with. Who will be allowed to reproduce, and who will be sterilized. How would this be accomplished without destroying the dignity of the human person, and eroding human freedom?<br /><br />When I look at history, and expansion of frontiers throughout history to address social problems, and to create ecomonic growth, I see history repeating itself in space. 10 people to the Moon or Mars? In the next century, yes of course (though probably a few more than 10). Just like there were only a few people sent to the colonies in the Americas in the 1500's. Sending more than just a small number of expeditions to the Americas was cost prohibitive in the 1500's. Over time, that number grew as technology improved, and infrastructures grew and people sought a better life. More than 10 people on the Moon or Mars in the next 5 centuries, of course (who knows how many). Just like there now are millions of people in the Americas 5 centuries after its "discovery". <br /><br />When I look at history, specifically the history of exploration and discovery, and the history of expansion on the frontiers of our world and the history of migration of peoples (eg. the Irish coming to America during the Potato Famine), vrs. your view that we shoud reduce the population to 500 million people, and stay put on the earth, living happily until the sun burns out, I wonder which view is sillier...the lesson of history, or the utopian fantasy of a perfect world.

 

[gsuschrist]

Let's see. 6,000,000,000 people. Put 25 on the Moon using 'x' billions of dollars and all types of resources<br /><br />Let me get my pencil out.<br /><br />That leaves 5,999,999,975.<br /><br />Anyone who looks to space as a cure for the world's ills is living in fantasy land. Fortunately not even the nabobs at NASA are inept enough to sell their budget to Congress on such a ridiculous premise. <br /><br />About 180,000 births a day on Earth. That'll plateau out in 2050 and the population will start reducing (at least according to UN numbers). 25 or 25 million on the Moon doesn't make an iota of a dent.

 

[kdavis007]

Of course it won't solve all of our problems right away, it takes time.. <br /><br />I rather send humans to the moon and beyond to get the resources rather than have a big government program telling people how to live or how many kids we should have.<br /><br />I wouldn't take anything from the UN with a grain of salt.. Personally we should stop funding the UN and let it die.<br /><br />

 

[mattblack]

Even 100 years from now I doubt there will be much more than 100 people living on the Moon and Mars in Antarctica-like bases. But so what: space utilisation is about inventing new technologies and getting new resources and power from beyond the Earth for those majority still ON the Earth. Move the polluting industries out of the cities and suburbs of Earth and get them into space. Better yet, devise ways to make them far less polluting in the first place, so we might not have to pollute either the Earth or space!!<br /><br />There's enough water and metals in our solar system to support a gigantic human population, but I might be the first to tell you that maybe we should make it a goal to limit human population to 3 billion by the turn of the next century. Still, it's very hard, maybe too hard to get people to agree on this contentious issue.<br /><br />But I'd rather live in an overcrowded, imperfect world where dozens of Astronauts explore and prospect our solar system than live in an overcrowded, imperfect world where we DON'T travel in space.<br /><br />Frankly, that would suck. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[BReif]

<font color="yellow">"But I'd rather live in an overcrowded, imperfect world where dozens of Astronauts explore and prospect our solar system than live in an overcrowded, imperfect world where we DON'T travel in space. <br /><br />Frankly, that would suck. "</font><br /><br />Very well said Mattblack. <br />

 

[BReif]

<font color="yellow">"But I'd rather live in an overcrowded, imperfect world where dozens of Astronauts explore and prospect our solar system than live in an overcrowded, imperfect world where we DON'T travel in space. <br /><br />Frankly, that would suck. "</font><br /><br />Very well said Mattblack. <br />

 

[askold]

breif: "like there were only a few people sent to the colonies in the Americas in the 1500's. "<br /><br />You have a major flaw in your analogy - people didn't go to the Americas in order to significantly decrease the population of Europe. A core of settlers created an entirely new population. If you send 1,000 people to Mars to start a colony and have babies and grow to a million, you've only reduced the population of Earth by 1,000 - not 1,000,000.<br /><br />As to how to reduce the Earth's population? I never said how we should do it, or even that it could be done. I'm merely claiming that 1) the Earth polulation is unsustainable in the long run 2) sending people off the planet in small numbers won't solve that problem.

 

[qso1]

mattblack<br />Even 100 years from now I doubt there will be much more than 100 people living on the Moon and Mars in Antarctica-like bases. But so what: space utilisation is about inventing new technologies and getting new resources and power from beyond the Earth for those majority still ON the Earth. Move the polluting industries out of the cities and suburbs of Earth and get them into space. Better yet, devise ways to make them far less polluting in the first place, so we might not have to pollute either the Earth or space!! <br /><br />There's enough water and metals in our solar system to support a gigantic human population, but I might be the first to tell you that maybe we should make it a goal to limit human population to 3 billion by the turn of the next century. Still, it's very hard, maybe too hard to get people to agree on this contentious issue.<br /><br />My response:<br />Could not have stated it better myself as far as industrializing space. That would be something that should be eventually within reach of private industry once less expensive access to space is accomplished.<br /><br />Limiting the population in my view just is not going to happen unless a worldwide emergency warrants the mass slaying of those who would be deleted. Keep in mind the 500 million number was derived from a study and studies get revised and are sometimes flawed. <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]

askold<br />As to how to reduce the Earth's population? I never<br />said how we should do it, or even that it could be done. I'm merely claiming that 1) the Earth polulation is unsustainable in the long run 2) sending people off the planet in small numbers won't solve that problem.<br /><br />My response:<br />If private industry does open the door to LEO in a big way, the problem stated above should begin to be solved by people who will work, in some cases even live in stations, bases, orbiting Earth. This would come about as a result of space industrialization IMHO. <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>

 

[frodo1008]

Yes, and askold is going to be a volunteer as just one of the 5.5 billion or so that are going to have to be eliminated!! I have heard this argument since the time of the mercury program, and all that has happened since is the population keeps increasing!<br /><br />Of course, we are endowed with a mushroom shaped cloud that could quite possible solve ALL our problems. Then God, or evolution, or whatever you believe in could start over with intelligent cockroaches! Hooray for our side!!<br /><br />Askold, sometimes you sound like a reasonable and intelligent fellow, and at other times you sound like someone who is seriously among the mentally challenged! <br /><br />We people who support the manned programs of NASA and others DON"T wish to end or even curtail the scientific robotic programs of the same agencies! Why are you so dead set in the other direction??<br /><br />The human population of the Earth is going to continue to increase! Now whether you or I think that is a bad thing or NOT counts for zilch! Also, you then hypocritically state that you would like to see the people of Earth be nice to each other, and avoid wars. This WOULD indeed be wonderful! However, it would result in an even a far larger human population than before!<br /><br />An area I am perfectly willing to allow your robotic explorers to be the only explorers for quite a long time is Mars and further out into the solar system. That is going further out into the solar system beyond cis-lunar space! The resources to build the space infrastructure to truly enable mankind to make the vast step to move further out ARE on the moon, and quite possibly on nearby NEO's also, but the moon is the all important body here!!<br /><br />This is for several reasons that I have pointed out to both yourself and others before! But for the sake of newer people I will attempt this once again:<br /><br />The advantages of the moon are relatively simple, if you have any knowledge of astronomy at all. Of course, the

 

[frodo1008]

Yes, an excellent post mattblack! I really don't really understand why someone who seems as intelligent as askold doesn't realize that we who support maned space ARE NOT talking about space colonization reducing the Earth's population, and certianly not within this century!<br /><br />However, the very same science that askold purports to believe so much in, has made todays world literally unrecognizable to someone from only one hundred years ago. And that pace of science and technology is advancing at an exponential rate!!<br /><br />To me at least, it is quite possible that once we actually start to utilize the resources of the moon, and private industry realizes that there IS a profit to be made (from space tourism if nothing else) there may very well be tens of thousands or even million of human beings living and working in space by the year 2100!!<br /><br />Actually, the comparison that some have used here with antartica is not valid either. At least as of now there does not seem to be vast useable resources in antartica, unlike the moon. But even that could change almost over night, if large deposites of oil were to be discovered in antartica, how fast do you think the population would then increase??<br /><br />And speaking of vast, I have already posted the longest post that even I have posted on these boards, and so I will cut this off and go to bed!!<br /><br />Do Have A Nice Day tomorrow!!<br /><br />

 

[askold]

frodo:<br /><br />We're talking about 2 seperate (but related) topics here:<br /><br />1) The current overpopulation of the Earth as the source of most of our problems. The incredible expansion of wealth and productivity of the human race in the last century - based on oil. Labor saving machines, transportation, plastics , chemicals - and even space travel - all based on abundant oil. Oil that took millions of years to create, we're using up in centuries. It's unsustainable. The equation doesn't balance. If we don't balance the equation, the equation will balance us - it's as simple as that.<br /><br />2) Manned space travel. In order to justify the manned program, we have to give it a purpose beyond initial exporation (easily done by robots), science (again, robots) or silly tourist stunts. So, you have to dream up space colonies of people happily living on the moon or Titan. I just don't believe it. Call me a luddite if you want - I'm not. Not only do I work in the technology field, I've worked at TRW in the space field. After a few trips to the moon people will get bored with the idea of living in a bubble. I know I would - it's going to be 80 degrees in LA today and I'm going to the beach!

 

[craig42]

You say that in order to justify the manned program, we have to give it a purpose beyond initial exploration (easily done by robots), science (again, robots) or silly tourist stunts. You also state that that the current overpopulation of the Earth as the source of most of our problems. <br /><br />A mass exodus of the Earth is common solution to this problem, instead of one unsustainable population; we will have hundreds of small sustainable ones.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Labor saving machines, transportation, plastics , chemicals - and even space travel - all based on abundant oil. Oil that took millions of years to create, we're using up in centuries. It's unsustainable. The equation doesn't balance. If we don't balance the equation, the equation will balance us - it's as simple as that. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <br /><br />Your right of course, but don't forget that oil drives the harvester in the field, it powers the trucks that deliver the food to you. We NEED to replace it. The only technology that is feasible right now IMHO, is space solar power. <br /><br />ter a few trips to the moon people will get bored with the idea of living in a bubble. I know I would - it's going to be 80 degrees in LA today and I'm going to the beach! <br /><br />The moon isn't the only destination. Once the initial phase is over there would be no reason to live in tin cans (other than personal preference).<br /><br />Not only do we have Mars, her Moons and countless asteroids in the inner system, but with Space Settlements (as opposed to planetary ones, surely necessary to support a vast exodus) we can re-create the environment of Hawaii or LA or any other geography we know. Or we can undertake exercises in Practical World Building, imagine a habitat based on a Wet Mars, Red Beaches, Salmon Pink Skies, vast Mountains populated with exotic flora and fauna from all over the world where you can breathe easily, cheaper and quicker than terra-forming the real

 

[thalion]

<<2) Manned space travel. In order to justify the manned program, we have to give it a purpose beyond initial exporation (easily done by robots), science (again, robots) or silly tourist stunts. So, you have to dream up space colonies of people happily living on the moon or Titan. I just don't believe it. Call me a luddite if you want - I'm not. Not only do I work in the technology field, I've worked at TRW in the space field. After a few trips to the moon people will get bored with the idea of living in a bubble. I know I would - it's going to be 80 degrees in LA today and I'm going to the beach!>><br /><br />I have to admit, this is an issue I've thought about many times myself. When this discussion came up on another board, someone mentioned that humans have survived isolated conditions many times, such as in caves, islands, or on submarines or in biospheres. However, I responded, in those cases the people weren't really isolated from their environment; they could always rely on native water and air. That won't be an option in space.<br /><br />Though I think there will always be some who can hack it, I think most people born on Earth would find a permanent existence in either an airtight room or space suit insufferable; it's easy to take our relatively unbounded world for granted. This is totally aside from the issues raised by say, raising children in low-g (we have no idea how a lifetime in 1/6 or 1/3 g would affect humans), or by radiation, or the difficulties of building spinning stations for simulated gravity to escape those problems, and whatnot. <br /><br />Someone brought up the issue of mining in space. For my part, I'm unsure that that could be feasible or attractive:<br /><br />1.) On Earth, we have the advantage of abundant coal and oil, and an oxygen-rich atmosphere to melt and refine metals. We won't have those options in space, at least not as cheaply as on Earth, even for <i>in situ</i> work.<br /><br />2.) Surveying the Moon, NEOs, an

 

[nyarlathotep]

>>"Anyone who looks to space as a cure for the world's ills is living in fantasy land."<br /><br />I don't know, I think we could do with a whole heap more platinum. Mining wouldnt really require humans or NASA proprietry $30,000/lb heavy boosters though. We'd be more likely to use robotics, and cheap, mass produced seadragon style dumb boosters to get the infrastructure into orbit.

 

[craig42]

How many robots can change batteries? Or free stuck drills? Or help others out of particulary sticky situations?

 

[spayss]

Mining? colonization? After almost 50 years the USA still doesn't have a reliable technology to send up a small crew to resupply an unfinished ISS in LEO.<br /><br />16 billion a year isn't going to much of anything even if it gets us to the Moon for another set of (Yawn) footprints in luna dust.<br /><br />I respect the will of the taxpayer to elect leaders who spend the money the way they want it spent. Governmnet budgets are about choices and not unlimited buckets of money. We should be concerned that every month that goes by and the Shuttle becomes even a bigger waste of money and broken expecations that NASA loses more and more credibility. 16 more flights? Really? What idiot really believes that? <br /><br />After the insanity of NASA's record since the Columbia disaster I have no hope of convincing my congressman that NASA deserves more funding and the longer the farce of the Shuttle goes on the less credibility NASA has to promote a meaningful Moon mission.

 

[josh_simonson]

It's not the earth's population that's un-sustainable, it's the first world standard of living that cannot be expanded to cover everyone. The choice is between population reduction, or degradation of the standard of living in developed countries as the global economy equalizes over time. <br /><br />The main pinches we'll feel over time is in the form of energy and certain useful materials: platinum, copper, uranium... - certainly not food though. <br /><br />The energy problem is fairly easy to solve because there's literally millions of ways to produce energy, and more become viable all the time as the cost of energy increases. Nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, hydro, cellulosic ethanol, biogas, biodiesel, tar sands, fusion, the list goes on. <br /><br />Materials however are limited, once platinum deposits are depleted, there isn't much that can be done to get more platinum. Fundamentally we've got so much to work with and that's it, the sun doesn't dump it on the earth continuously like it does energy. <br /><br />Sometime in the future, as humanity gets pinched by scarcity of materials like platinum, and space access becomes cheaper, it will become economical to import it from space. Unless we convert to a (platinum intensive) hydrogen economy overnight, we've got time for this to be a smooth transition. The markets deal with scarcity all the time, it's certainly nothing to inspire a doomsday scenario - and certainly not sufficient to warrant such a racist suggestion as to eliminate 90% of humanity.

 

[spayss]

There are lots of platinum, copper and uranium. We haven't used a millonth of any of these. What there isn't always is economical sources of these resources. Almost no large mines close because of a lack of ore but because it is no longer economical to mine the ore. Mining is a business.<br /><br /> Metals are commodities. As they increase in value there is more incentive to invest in exploration and production. If copper, for example, ever rose to a ridiculous price where it would justify a 50 billion dollar asteroid extraction, it would certainly be worthwhile for an earth-based exploration company to invest a thousandth of that, 50 milion, and re-open one of the numerous closed copper mines in the world. In the decades it takes for an asteroid to return an ounce of copper to the Earth, the market would be glutted and the copper worth only a fraction of the initial cost of asteroid extraction.