Space science comes first!

[azorean5000]

why does NASA continue to develop and maintain white elephants like the space shutlle, the ISS and the VSE, at the EXPENSE of Space science? <br /><br />Programs like TPF, who would have allowed to search for terrestrial planets are axed and others like SIM are delayed, while NASA gets a moon trail park going (many billions$) and/or worst a footprint in mars (many many billions$), programs not worthy of their cost.<br /><br />Manned spaceflight cannot get funded at the expense of space science. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

Why not? The US is already way ahead of everyone else on space science (and I'm not saying that to be chauvanistic or to try and insult any other nations). We ahve sent probes to the outer planets, to asteroids, to comets. We have some incredibly succesddful rovers on mars. A gigantic space telescope that--despite some early pboblems-- has surpassed all expectations. Not to mention more esoteric programs like x and gamma ray observatories. Ifrared observatories. And on and on. We as a nation haven't exactly been slouches in the space science arena. I don't see why this false dicotomy of space science vs. humans in space still crops up. There is plenty of room for both. Terrestrial planets aren't goin anywhere anythim soon anyway. Besides, putting people in space IS space science. Someday there will be hundreds of thousands of people working in space. In fact if the human race is to survive in the long run (hundreds of thousands of years) there will undoubdetly come a time when there are more people living off earth than on it.<br /><br />Don't make the mistake of confusing your particular intrests with what is important.

 

[azorean5000]

"Why not? The US is already way ahead of everyone else on space science" <br /><br />Space science is not a international race. Is a quest for knowledge (one of the most important scientific areas for the world)<br /><br />"There is plenty of room for both"<br /><br />No there is not. NASA has a very limited budget. In order to finance VSE, space science is being downgraded<br /><br />"Terrestrial planets aren't goin anywhere anythim soon anyway"<br /><br />we have to start searching for them, their are IMHO the most celestial bodies, for they can possibily have what we all crave to discover: life, especially intelligent life<br /><br />"Someday there will be hundreds of thousands of people working in space"<br /><br />Doing what? unless we are talking "hundreds of thousands of years" in the future<br /><br />"In fact if the human race is to survive in the long run (hundreds of thousands of years) there will undoubdetly come a time when there are more people living off earth than on it"<br /><br />First earth will be liveable for a few more billions of years...unless we exceed the resources of earth...unlikely since world population is ageing...reciclyng tech keeps advancing...besides all worlds that we know are hostile to life...people would better live in anctartida then mars...unless we discover new worlds, more life-friendly...and thats where Space science enters...<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[wubblie]

The search for terrstrial planets is not being abandoned at all. It is simply more cost effective to start building giant earth-bound telescopes (Giant Magellan Telescope, TMT, EELT, etc). It's kind of already like the science side is getting its cake and eating it too with regard to telescopes, because JWST will be launched in addition to these, and the Hubble will be repaired by STS astronauts (which shows that the science side does need the manned side). Further, there are plans to build a liquid telescope on the moon (perhaps the largest ever constructed) as part of the *manned* moon mission. There are a lot of space probes out there right now as well. So I don't think space science is being neglected.

 

[tomnackid]

Actually the "life zone" for our sun will pass earth's orbit in well under a billion years. We are barely in the life zone now teatering close to too warm.<br /><br />AS far as hundreds of thousands of people living and working in space harken back to when people calle the Lousianna Territory a "barren desert" and Alaska a "frozen wasteland". If you told them that those regions would someday (within less than a century) be home to millions they would have laughed in your face. Science doesn't need small minded people.

 

[3488]

Hi tomnackid.<br /><br />The Earth is expected to be inside the ecosphere 'lif zone' from about 700 million <br />years time, assuming Earth's orbit does not recede.<br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[kelvinzero]

One thing I dont understand is why the budgets for very different space projects are connected.<br /><br />Why for example dont the budgets for earth weather science, exploring the planets and developing a moon industry compete independently with all the other elements of the budget such as military, education and health?<br /><br />Is it because you want to keep nasa at pretty much one size, so that the various employees dont spend half the time unemployed?

 

[j05h]

<i>> unless we discover new worlds, more life-friendly...and thats where Space science enters... </i><br /><br />We already have a new world, Mars, that needs space "science" in a big way: terraforming. Never mind the Moon, there's a new world right next door. We can reasonably get to Mars (or even Europa, Titan, etc) but the idea that we will find another Earth around some star and actually travel there in a meaningful timeframe is somewhat preposterous. We have a lot of work inside the Solar System before we can seriously think about interstellar "missions". <br /><br />You want a project that can swallow budgets? Try building a Bussard Ramjet with current technology. Like the old Orion nuclear launcher, it is just barely possible, but requires unbelievable amounts of industrial output and money. And any interstellar mission using current physics is going to be unmanned. (go ahead, prove me wrong, I'd love to visit Procyon)<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[juliemac]

As pointed out. Both manned AND space science are being covered.<br />The Shuttle and ISS are not white elephants. We have learned a lot from building the systems and living up there. Want to run to Mars? Fine, but first of all we have to build and test the systems we need.<br />ISS is in our own back yard, with fast and easy return if needed. No body in their right mind would throw some material together on a sewing machine, call it thermal underwear and spend the first night on Mt.Everest.<br />Case in point? The computer glitch we encountered when the electrical connector was joined during the last mission. What if that happened 1/2 way to Mars?<br />I admire the technology and the skills of the people who are making it happen. We have only been in space for 50 years, but marvel at what we have accomplished so far!<br />We are on the verge of leaving the solar system with the voyagers, peering into the depth of space and time with Hubble. What will the next 50 years bring? *** only knows, but I am looking forward to it!

 

[nimbus]

More people in space means a larger human population, which means more science returns overall. The Earth is already getting too cramped for man's means. If anything, man needs more education to bring all its productivity potential to bear, rather than waste it on (pardon my french) junk culture and leisure, etc. <br /><br />Concentrating on space science at the expense of manned space exploration would eventualy be a bottleneck to space science itself.<br />And as was said, it's a false dichotomy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[3488]

Yes I too wou;ld love to see Procyon close up. Add to that Sirius, the Alpha Centauri system, <br />Epsilon Eridani, Vega, Altair, Arcturus, etc. <br />Could you imagine SOHO / STEREO type missions to<br />these stars???????<br /><br />However the technology isn't there right now, so that sucks.<br /><br />However there is much of fascination within our own solaer system, as the MERs, MRO, <br />Cassini, New Horizons, SOHO, STEREO etc are uncovering.<br /><br />Shortly MPL & DAWN will be on their way & MESSENGER is now approaching Mercury, so<br />there is much of fascination going on righr now.<br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[lampblack]

<font color="yellow">why does NASA continue to develop and maintain white elephants like the space shutlle, the ISS and the VSE, at the EXPENSE of Space science?</font><br /><br />This is a false dichotomy. Manned spaceflight and good-quality robotic missions are not mutually exclusive. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[holmec]

Dude, check out this new thread and see Planetary Society's efforts to get Congress to supply more money for Space Sciences:<br /><br />http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=missions&Number=738891&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart= <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[azorean5000]

"We already have a new world, Mars, that needs space "science" in a big way: terraforming. Never mind the Moon, there's a new world right next door. We can reasonably get to Mars (or even Europa, Titan, etc) but the idea that we will find another Earth around some star and actually travel there in a meaningful timeframe is somewhat preposterous. We have a lot of work inside the Solar System before we can seriously think about interstellar "missions". <br /><br />You want a project that can swallow budgets? Try building a Bussard Ramjet with current technology. Like the old Orion nuclear launcher, it is just barely possible, but requires unbelievable amounts of industrial output and money. And any interstellar mission using current physics is going to be unmanned. (go ahead, prove me wrong, I'd love to visit Procyon)"<br /><br /><br /><br />first: terraforming mars will take aproxm 10000 years to acomplish, if it can be done at all...you cant do that with current tech...<br /><br />second: i never intended to sugest colonize distant planets, only to demonstrate that people want to live in earth like conditions, not in a barren hostile world like mars...<br /><br />In adicion, all future space industrial activity (drilling, manufacturing, etc) can be done with robotic means, without human presence. <br /><br />space colonization is just a dream, since world pop is ageing, with no reversal in sight (so no need to expand to new territories) and automation, reciclyng and clean energy will be the solution for the future<br /><br />Yet space exploration can be done of course, as long as space science doesnt get screwed, like it is happening in NASA. Right now the agency has a very limited budget. It cant afford significaly VSE while maintaining good space science, including the all important earth monitoring programs (weather, global warmimg, etc). The best solution would be to finance both to the fullest. But since that wont happen, space science should come first. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> first: terraforming mars will take aproxm 10000 years to acomplish, if it can be done at all...you cant do that with current tech... </i><br /><br />Actually, terraforming is completely within our technology - we have plants, nukes and chemistry. 10,000 years to change Mars? Do you realize how fast we are un-terraforming Earth? Try decades to centuries for turning Mars into a reasonably pressured garden planet. Decades if we go the brute-force route of crashing comet fragments into the planet, a few centuries using chemistry and plantlife. I like that dude's prediction that some of the people alive today will walk on Mars without a pressure suit. <br /><br /><i>> second: i never intended to sugest colonize distant planets, only to demonstrate that people want to live in earth like conditions, not in a barren hostile world like mars... </i><br /><br />You work with what you have. I'm not against advanced cosmological study, I want new Hubbles and SIM and all that. But whatever we find around Eridani and other stars is interesting, a reflection of what we have in our own backyard. We have Mars, and Luna, and Jupiter and the rest. What to you is a barren, hostile world is to others a beautiful red gem waiting for Life. <br /><br /><i>> In adicion, all future space industrial activity (drilling, manufacturing, etc) can be done with robotic means, without human presence.</i><br /><br />Like all those 100% robotic mines on Earth? Robotics are an amazing leverage on human labor (fix machines that dig the hole instead of digging it yourself) but that does not mean that people won't be involved. Maintenance is a critical factor in proposed and actual space systems, and people in the loop. I just don't see the HRP-type robots to be up to the task before the economics demand material and energy from space.<br /><br /><i>> space colonization is just a dream, since world pop is ageing, with no reversal in sight (so no need to expand to new territories) and automation, recic</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">why does NASA continue to develop and maintain white elephants like the space shutlle, the ISS and the VSE, at the EXPENSE of Space science?</font>/i><br /><br />The first thing to remember is that NASA is funded by the government, so all priorities are deeply affected by political issues. Second, while NASA has some room to make recommendations and adjust internal funding, the President generally chooses large directions for NASA and four different committees in Congress authorize spending and appropriate funding for NASA.<br /><br />And who puts these people into office?<br /><br />So while we may complain about about why NASA does this and doesn't to do that, it is important to realize the decision process is deep and complex and to a great extent outside NASA's hands.</i>

 

[kelvinzero]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />space colonization is just a dream, since world pop is ageing, with no reversal in sight (so no need to expand to new territories) and automation, reciclyng and clean energy will be the solution for the future <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I dont think colonisation would happen to relieve a crowded earth. It would be more likely to result from a booming space industry such as space solar power using luna resources. Other industries would follow them into space because it would be more efficient to use the power directly without first beaming it to earth. This could result in large numbers of workers in space. Commuting will always be expensive so we would bend a lot of effort to making their habitats self sufficient.

 

[frodo1008]

From the practical side at this time, if you take the human element out of the space program you WILL no longer have a space program (except for pure commercial elements). The average tax payer could care less about science (well, perhaps except for some of the pretty pictures from robotic probes). However, the children of the average tax payer do know about (and many want to be) astronauts! And it is the parents of these kids that are the tax payers that pay for both sides of NASA!<br /><br />I am sorry if this disturbes you, but it IS the truth and the way the political ball bounces, and the current leadership of NASA is more aware of this than ever!<br /><br />So it is NOT the space science that pays for the manned section of NASA it IS the other way around! Besides this, NASA is currently spending some $5 billion on space science, and just because this does not give every science minded individual everything he/she wants does NOT mean that NASA isn't spending a meaningful amount in this area!<br /><br />So do try to get off the backs of those that are already doing the best job for our government and us!!!!!

 

[saurc]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>From the practical side at this time, if you take the human element out of the space program you WILL no longer have a space program (except for pure commercial elements).[/q]<br /><br />I agree with that. But I think he was talking about reducing missions / exploring alternative ways to put humans in space.<br /><br />I think the NASA manned programme has gone up a blind alley with the space shuttle. And its a shame that even 20 years later it hasn't been able to come up with anything else.</p></blockquote>

 

[j05h]

<i>> I agree with that. But I think he was talking about reducing missions / exploring alternative ways to put humans in space. </i><br /><br />The original poster comes off as a "robots only" enthusiast, not an alternative-access proponent. He seemed to imply that finding earth-like planets around other stars is vastly more important than helping set the stage for human development on the Moon or Mars. There's a nice cave on the African savannah, just waiting for him to live in, chasing antelope and all that. <br /><br /><i>> I think the NASA manned programme has gone up a blind alley with the space shuttle. And its a shame that even 20 years later it hasn't been able to come up with anything else.</i><br /><br />The Shuttle is a mixed bag, for sure. It is also the most capable spacecraft ever flown, by far. The problem, from my perspective, is an institutional dislike of commercial procurement (buying seats) and a desire to always be pursuing unacheivable goals (Venturestar/X-33) while dropping modest, attainable ones like OSP. <br /><br />As someone pointed out above, the real science comes with many boots on the ground. As people live and explore somewhere, that is when the real discoveries will happen. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[azorean5000]

"He seemed to imply that finding earth-like planets around other stars is vastly more important than helping set the stage for human development on the Moon or Mars"<br /><br /><br />First: finding life outside the solar system will be one of greatest scientific discoveries of history, specialy if it is an intelligent one. But not only that. Earth observation: climate change, weather, pollution, effects of the sun on earth, desertification, water reserves, resources. They are absolutly crucial.<br /><br />Second: you keep talking about human development of the moon and mars. That development will certainly bring benefits, but it wont be worthy hundreds of bilions of dolares. Almost all of it can be done without human presence, at a fraction of the cost, with automated systems...or dont you think that automated systems (science, drilling, constrution, manufacturing) will only get more ADVANCED with time?<br /><br />Of course i would like to manned spaceflight to get more economicly acessible. Who wouldnt like it??? Im all for it. But UNTIL we get new tech for it, instead of tradicional rockets, it will hardly be cost-effective.<br /><br />"There's a nice cave on the African savannah, just waiting for him to live in, chasing antelope and all that."<br /><br />third: I dont know about you, but im a quite civilized person and i love living in my country.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[johns805]

azorean5000's attitude and viewpoint is noticed. To the progressive survivalist segment of family values society, these are traits to monitor carefully so that they remain harmless and benign to our existence. He or she would look awful silly if the breaking news said a swarm of planet killing asteroids is due to cross Earth's path in a few decades. It would ruin the whole day if it happened...<br /> Robots only is a deadly proposition. Space science comes very far behind a vigorous project to save the lives of as many people as possible if a threat to wipe us out exists. Preparation is good. I hope we try to get beyond the present baby steps we're taking to establish ourselves on the moon, Mars, etc. azorean5000, adapt yourself! You will be assimilated! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />! Best Regards! JBK<br /><br />"Summer of Love", space travel & world<br />music now spinning on freeform<br />Surf City Sounds Plus:<br />http://www.Live365.com/stations/johns805?play<br />http://www.myspace.com/surfcitysoundsplus<br /><br /><br />

 

[no_way]

this thread is officially too silly.

 

[lunatic133]

I agree with Frodo.<br /><br />Actually, I did my final paper on this for one of my classes. I believe there is and always will be a place for robotic missions, but NOT at the exclusion of manned missions. Like Frodo said, if manned exploration is axed, then interest in robotic exploration will soon go down the tubes (and i don't mean the internets!). Our society as a whole is rather ADD and slightly self centered. Pretty pictures of distant worlds are interesting to the average Joe for about 5 minutes, but people quickly lose interest in things that have no immediate effect on Them. Manned exploration is suffering too due to this attitude, but at least there is the general belief that if NASA does its thing long enough, then pretty soon all of us will get to go to the moon for our vacation. But no matter how long we study chemical compositions of distant stars, it will never really effect anyone outside the scholars in their Ivory Towers *unless* we plan to one day go there ourselves (and one day can mean thousands of years from now; people just need to know that NASA's "Working on it.") And yes, I realize that most people on these forums don't feel this way, I'm just speaking from the view of the average tax payer.

 

[qso1]

Azorean5000:<br />why does NASA continue to develop and maintain white elephants like the space shutlle, the ISS and the VSE, at the EXPENSE of Space science?<br /><br />Me:<br />Space science has been doing much better in recent times, at least where unmanned planetary probes are concerned. Mars for example, a rush of probes during the 1960s that culminated in a 1976 landing...then a 21 year abandonment before we returned in 1997 and subsequently sent more missions. The Mars rovers are the most successful mars missions ever mounted IMO. They show no signs of suffering from human spaceflight spending. OTOH, a good case could be made for programs like TPF and it is unfortunate that TPF could not be fully funded. In fact, I think the goal of finding an earthlike world should be front and center in space science. However, I do not think human spaceflight should be abandoned. The fact is, NASA is doing the best it can to accomodate both to the best practical extent possible.<br /><br />Even if TPF were fully funded, what if it fails upon reaching its observational location?<br /><br />We need to have an array of options to the extent possible and one of those is ground observatories which may be able to spot earthlike worlds in two decades or so. <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>