Space science comes first!

[mithridates]

I think his position on this issue is that it would be better to spend most of the money we have now on trying to find something that can capture the imagination of the average person, such as another Earth, a functional (robotic) colony somewhere, that sort of thing, and then once that happens we should have all the money for manned exploration that we need. I mostly agree with that because I think we're on the cusp of something big right now, and think that projects such as Terrestrial Planet Finder should be given priority over everything else. Manned exploration is often good in small countries as they're still excited by the prospect with one of their citizens going to space but other countries seem to be a bit jaded by it it.<br />But of course, as one other poster mentioned, the only reason we're having this discussion is because space is underfunded. It kind of reminds me of IAL (International Auxiliary Language) discussions where people debate the merits of languages such as Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, Lingua Franca Nova etc. and which one we should support but in the end even if all of us were to support one the movement would still be a rather small one. What's needed is the capturing of the imaginations of people not originally interested.<br /><br />Actually, that's probably a good reason why we should also be posting on non-space related boards as well. I sometimes forget that the average person doesn't know much about space at all, even basic things like whether Mars is hotter than Venus or the other way around. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[azorean5000]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> What use is space science if we are not going to go into space? What is the point of looking for terrestrial planets if no one is ever going to go to them? All the knowledge of other worlds will help us not if we cannot get off of this one. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />by that way many science fields are "useless" like the origins of human life, life evolution, origins of the world, etc. there is no "useless" knowledge. Humans always strive for knowledge. Who wants to live in ignorance?????<br /><br />we (human beings) are not going to live or work in space (at least not in large numbers) because there is really no need for it. robotics (at least in the future) will take care of it. Its much more cost-effective. And thats a permanent fact. By going the robotic way, we transform space industry a reality. Our lunar/asteroid mines and factories will be much more viable being robotic.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> Once we have established our lunar mines, and orbital factories, there will be more than enough money to investigate anything anyone wants. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />oh, i see and in the meantime there would be no space science/observation ????<br /><br />Besides, world pop is ageing. Less pop, less resources spent. That, combined with automation, reciclying, efficient and less poluting factories and CLEAN energies, like geothermal, solar, wind and fusion will be the solution for the future of humankind.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />However...<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />were we to detect intelligence lifeforms in a planet, a civilization (i know it sounds crazy but ITS possible), the entire world would tremble and set space as a priority, and then yes, we would be a truly spacefaring species. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Interest derives from novelty and uniqueness. Astronauts going round and round in LEO is not going to excite anyone. Wait until astronauts go back to the Moon (yes, it's been done, but not in these kids' experience)!</font>/i><br /><br />I think this is a key point. There was a lot of attention paid to the <i>first</i> citizen astronauts flying on privately built spacecrafts even if it was just a suborbital flight. I think the <i>first</i> humans to break out of LEO and circumnavigate the Moon in 45 years will be exciting again. The <i>first</i> landing on the Moon in 45 years will be exciting again. And the <i>first</i> time any of these are accomplished by a private citizen using non-government hardware will also be exciting... probably even more so because more people can think, "Maybe I could do that."<br /><br />Then, hopefully 5-10 years after the <i>first</i> return missions to the Moon we will be launching the <i>first</i> manned missions to Mars, and that will be really exciting because that will truly be a <i>first</i> for mankind.<br /><br />But it all comes down to: every few years we need to push the boundary a little further out in a way that the common person can understand.</i>

 

[j05h]

<i>>> To colonize Mars could begin today if we decide so.<br /> /> Really? As of now, self-enclosed ecosystems are as much sci-fi as self-repairing robots.</i><br /><br />Self-enclosed ecosystem is not necessary, when the point is mining and gardening. You want your ecosystem to spread while providing resources and adapting the atmosphere. Even in the near-term, use of in-situ resources greatly changes life-support assumptions.<br /><br />Vish is right, we could start now. We could have started to colonize Mars in the 60s, too, but chose not to. The issues are political/economic and ethical. Is it right to live there, or even visit? The first human missions to Mars will change that planet forever. The two worlds have been swapping asteroidal material since creation, so our current probes are "in the noise" on cross-contamination, but what does a human and associated bacteria do to Mars? Is it OK to spread Earth's life to other worlds? Do we have a moral obligation to spread life? If so, Mars is definitely the first candidate, then Ceres. If spreading life in an organic (adapted) manner is forbidden, then we are confined to space stations forever - Mars, Ceres, the Jovian moons would be off-limits to people. <br /><br />How does science fit into this view? It enables informed decisions and development of new technologies that can heal the Earth and make Mars bloom. <br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[mithridates]

Or perhaps Ceres first, then Mars. More frequent launch windows, lower gravity, smaller surface and tons of water below the surface might make things a lot easier.<br />That depends on what Ceres will look like when Dawn gets there, of course. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

NASA’s space science budget has been steadily increasing over recent years, and has now reached a very respectable level with manned operations (some $5 billion dollars).<br /><br />Is that what you mean by “there would be no space science/observation????â€<br /><br />I really grow tired of people on these boards that try to make a point by blind and ignorant exaggeration!!!<br /><br />Most of the people here such as me that support the manned programs of NASA, ALSO support the space science/observation programs!!! They should not be in competition with each other, as they should be complimenting each other!!<br /><br />That really isn’t so very difficult to understand, now is it?<br />