main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

NASA Vision of Space Exploration

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by BRYAN_SEECRETS, Jul 28, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ShaneP

    ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 26, 2001
    I remember how frustrated I was with Bush Sr. when he delayed the planned missions to Mars and returns to the Moon to establish a base that Reagan's Panel had come up with.

    Here we are, around the time of Bush Srs. revised date for a return to the Moon and establishment of a lunar base and.......[face_plain]

    I understand other things took over and demanded our attention but too much of NASA policy is tied to politics.

    That's why we should privatise more of it or at least remove it's budgeting out of the normal appropriations process. We need 10-20 year programmes.
     
  2. Jediflyer

    Jediflyer Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 5, 2001
    I would say anything that requires billions of dollars in funding should be politicized.

     
  3. ShaneP

    ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 26, 2001
    Not if it's privatised. And did you see what the political process did to the ISS? Cost overruns, delays, budget cuts then restarts. It was ridiculous.

    And your statement assumes that politicization saves billions or keeps costs in check. Hardly.
     
  4. VadersLaMent

    VadersLaMent Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Apr 3, 2002
    I believe that hole viasco was called The 90 Day Report. This "planned mission to Mars" was sitting on the shelf since Apollo so with Bush Sr it was nothing new. He just announced it in a speech throwing everyone off and NASA got to work for 3 months to plan and give the price on a Mars shot. It would have cost $500 billion. It was quietly put away. Soon after Zubrin came up with his Mars plan but it never came to fruition. The sad part is that Zubrin's plan would have cost less than $100 billion including cost overruns. Instead of the ISS, we could have gone to Mars and kept going.

    As for my supporting trillions remark I have summarized the means elsewhere and don't feel like repeating it.
     
  5. ShaneP

    ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 26, 2001
    Zubrin's plan would have worked. And it would be plausible among the private sector contractors for NASA.
     
  6. Jediflyer

    Jediflyer Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 5, 2001
    There is nothing stopping private companies from having their own space programs.

    Is that a fault of it being politized or a fault of the ISS concept itself? It seems to me, that those who wanted to continue it were just as much at fault for costs and delays.

    Your idea that space programs should be permanently funded without regard to usefulness or national priorities is the very definition of waste.

     
  7. SithLordDarthRichie

    SithLordDarthRichie CR Emeritus: London star 9

    Registered:
    Oct 3, 2003
    I think NASA should invest in finding new ways of efficiently powering spacecraft before embarking on projects to visit other worlds.

    The amount of fuel needed to reach the escape velocity of Earth, added to the fact that more will be needed to free a craft from Martian gravity seems higly inefficient.
    If some new form of propulsion could be found that was not too heavy or expensive then it would reduce space travel costs significantly.
     
  8. ShaneP

    ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 26, 2001
    Really? Ever heard of Gemini? Apollo? Kennedy made it a decade-long target to put a man on the Moon and the appropriations were made to accomplish that. A program funded with a long term goal and the step by step measures to get us there is exactly what we need.
    And what of national priorities? So, we spend a billion one year and then the next we cut back or scrap it because one party would rather spend it on pork barrel for a bike path or a bridge to nowhere? Is that saving money? That's wasting money and tying it up into the political process run by people more concerned about who contributes the most to their reelection than national priorities. Please.

    And about the ISS: the concept WAS politicised. It wasn't just the budgeting, but what it was going to be about and do. That's why they scaled up the concept, spent billions, and then scaled back, and spent billions more.
     
  9. Espaldapalabras

    Espaldapalabras Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 25, 2005
    Really? Ever heard of Gemini? Apollo? Kennedy made it a decade-long target to put a man on the Moon and the appropriations were made to accomplish that.

    Why?

    It remained a national priority for the decade.

    A program funded with a long term goal and the step by step measures to get us there is exactly what we need.

    Why?

    Because you say so? Because we need to beat the Chinese? Because we need to live in space? What is the point? So you can fulfill some childish fanatsy of living amongst the stars?

    And what of national priorities? So, we spend a billion one year and then the next we cut back or scrap it because one party would rather spend it on pork barrel for a bike path or a bridge to nowhere? Is that saving money? That's wasting money and tying it up into the political process run by people more concerned about who contributes the most to their reelection than national priorities. Please.

    Bike paths and bridges to nowhere on earth are things people can actually use. Even the orginal bridge to nowhere served a couple hundred people. Space exploration is not a national priority. Or you just think it coincidence that so many NASA projects just happen to be spread all around the country, because it makes sense not to build too much of it in any one state? NASA itself is the epitome of wasting money and keeping itself alive by tying itself to the political process in order to recieve government largess for no discernable "national priority." Beating the Russians to the Moon was a national priority because we needed to prove technological superiority and strength to the world. It was pure PR.

    And I would hope people who spend my hard earned taxpayer money are more concerned about keeping their jobs than putting into place expensive, costly, and pointless programs just because you watched Star Wars too many times. Because as far as I can tell, that is as good an explantion as any as to why any of these manned missions make any sense.
     
  10. ShaneP

    ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 26, 2001
    That is ignorant of the advances manned exploration and experiments in low gravity on the ISS have made regarding medicine, construction of new materials, and treatments for physical ailments.
     
  11. Espaldapalabras

    Espaldapalabras Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 25, 2005
    So a few discoveries have been made. For 100 billion dollars I would surely hope for they could do SOMETHING. But in comparision to robots, you really expect me to believe it was a good bang for the buck science wise?

    It's important to remember opportunity cost. If you do one thing, that means you can't do another.
     
  12. Darth_Yuthura

    Darth_Yuthura Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 7, 2007
    This is at the heart of the matter when it comes to most economic choices. Obviously you could do almost anything with a few billion dollars, so the question is what yield the most benefits?

    I've seen a few posts (by other people) in regards to bridges to nowhere just being pathetic wastes of money. That's not entirely so. Anyone know of the cross channel tunnel? That cost some 14 billion dollars to erect, but it linked the UK to mainland Europe via rail. The project ended up being a terrible investment for Eurostar, but it could have been a significant benefit to the the UK if it were built as a federal investment. Although rail is more expensive than ship for hauling freight, the 26 miles of water don't justify the savings in regards to transferring people and freight to and from a ship.

    There are propositions to bridging the Bearing Strait, but this is an example where it makes no sense to connect Asia and North America via rail. IF the cost for high speed rail were less than hauling by ship, you might have a good business opportunity.

    If instead of investing on something like the ISS, you could have invested the money in solar thermal power plants. Then you could get a steady stream of revenue from the investment to fund future products. What do you get from the ISS? Well I don't know if the upkeep justify the results in medical research.

    ----

    I actually support the exploration of the moon because the extra costs to use people justify the benefits of the samples recovered. I absolutely am against any manned mission to Mars, as robots are a better bargain for roughly the same results.
     
  13. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2001
    Space exploration can help in finding new fuel sources, lessening the population burden on Earth, and we can finally have a space military. There you go. A benefit for the raging chickenhawks in this country. We can find new ways to blow **** up. On a serious note I think the US needs to fund its space program to its fullest, because if we lose our one asset (the ability to explore) then we're done for as a serious world power. We won't reap the benefits of any future exploration unless we're up there ourselves. So, I take it very seriously when people call space a waste. It's not. A lot of progress has been made due to our space program and gutting it would be beyond irresponsible to humanity and to our country. It's allowed us to develop rain purification tools for developing countries and let's not forget that our cell phones, television, and GPS units are run from space as opposed to down here.

    Sure, there's nothing preventing anyone from creating their own private space agencies, but right now it's not all that feasible except to the ultra-wealthy. And if you think our corporatist system down here sucks, just think of what a wealthy-only space agency would look like. This funding benefits all of mankind and not just ourselves. It's our legacy in a sense. Governments will rise and fall and people die, but the advancements made by our science and space programs will live on long after us. Unless we don't fund it. At least that's just my view. So it is benefitting people whether you realize it or not.


    Improving images of space


    Oh yeah, and space exploration can keep your home from turning to rubble. Unless you like living in a wasteland. Different strokes and all.
     
  14. Espaldapalabras

    Espaldapalabras Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 25, 2005
    Well we need to differentiate between manned spaceflight and unmanned. There is still a lot of science to do in understanding the planets around us and the universe, and many of those things can only be done by sending things into space to do them. The Hubble and the Mars rovers being good examples.

    Probes sent to discover important things and sending back awesome pictures get far more media attention than a multibillion dollar bus ride.

    If you want to democratize space, why not make it available to anyone with an internet connection? We don't need to step on the ourselves to see what it is like, we will be able to send robots in our place and experience it for ourselves right in our living rooms. I know none of you have really made this point, but the sense of excitement in exploration is often listed as benefit of manned spaceflight, but if we can recreate the experience effectively here on earth, that benefit is seriously reduced.

    Space exploration can help in finding new fuel sources

    Not something we require humans for.

    lessening the population burden on Earth,

    We've gone over this. But I will put it in simple numbers: It costs 10,000 Dollars/lb to send things to space. A small human body of 80 pounds costs $800,000 to be put in orbit. A 100 year old living on $5/day costs a total amount of $182500. You don't even approach the cost of just placing a small child in orbit until that person costs $21/day or more. I haven't even gone into what it costs to cloth, feed, and house the person in space, the sheer costs of just getting there is far more environmentally damaging than the average person living a hundred years on Earth. What good is decreasing the absolute number of people if you are exponentionally raising the environmental burden for each one? If this is a real goal of yours, murder and forced sterilization are far more effective and much cheaper.


    Huh? Seriously? Let's start first with our one asset? Our space program is what makes us great? Screw this healthcare and stimulus crap, with all that money we could be on the surface of Jupiter by now! Who needs a military when everyone knows our ability to go places outside of Earth is what makes people take us seriously. This is a bit much even from you, I just hope you're pulling an olde FIDo on me.

    And if you think our corporatist system down here sucks, just think of what a wealthy-only space agency would look like

    I know right? I wouldn't be able to hop on over to the ISS anytime I wanted on the government dime.

    This funding benefits all of mankind and not just ourselves. It's our legacy in a sense. Governments will rise and fall and people die, but the advancements made by our science and space programs will live on long after us.

    When we insist on sending human beings out into space for no reason with only marginal benefits, the manned space program itself is the one destroying our ability to advance scientific discovery and that legacy. If you want the programs to live on long after you, the last thing you should want is to waste all the billions on boondoggles that are scientific dead ends (ISS) or on projects that have no realistic chance of completion (Mars).

    Darth_Yuthura, I'll grant that there are some jobs now that can't be done by robots, but that won't always be the case. And unless we discover something very important for our survival, the Moon missions can wait. If we had more resources to throw around then maybe it could be a luxury we could afford, but at the moment we can't. And if you want to see lasting space exploration, NASA needs to learn to live within its means and stick to research into how to lower the cost to get into orbit and out of the business of using existing technologies that waste billions of dollars getting people into space for only the most marginal of benefits. NASA can do a lot of things, bu
     
  15. Darth_Yuthura

    Darth_Yuthura Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 7, 2007
    You made a good point about where the line has to be drawn between manned and unmanned missions. In sending people into space, you aren't simply sending them up, but all they need to stay alive and you must recover that spacecraft when it's done. For every Kg a human weighs, you invest roughly twenty times that for the vehicle and provisions. Humans simply demand so much more than any robot that you can only use them when you must.

    When 'must' you use humans? I would continue to support manned space flights to the moon over robots for sample recovery purposes. For anything else where the vehicle doesn't have to return to Earth, then there really is no purpose in sending humans along for the ride.

    I really like the prospects of the Ares booster being an improvement over more complex and expensive rockets. This is really a great first step in making space flight more affordable.
     
  16. ShaneP

    ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 26, 2001
    =D=
     
  17. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2001
    Huh? Seriously? Let's start first with our one asset? Our space program is what makes us great? Screw this healthcare and stimulus crap, with all that money we could be on the surface of Jupiter by now! Who needs a military when everyone knows our ability to go places outside of Earth is what makes people take us seriously. This is a bit much even from you, I just hope you're pulling an olde FIDo on me.

    Newp Espbaldy. Our manufacturing base sucks and we're producing debt, we can't make decent cars anymore, and our healthcare system is crap. Yet no one wants to fix this. So, our country spends 680 billion on the military, but can't spare a dime for any sort of infrastructure improvements or healthcare; we spend more money to cause more death and find new ways to kill each other. What do you think that says about our society? We're willing to spend money to kill people but we can't do jack about improving ourselves and maybe being more scientifically innovative. So yeah, I think our space program can benefit ourselves and humanity. Oooohh...can't say that I guess? No, I should instead be spoon-fed pro-military, 'eh? And since we're no longer worth a **** in anything other than our space program I say we should rally around it and fund it.
     
  18. Espaldapalabras

    Espaldapalabras Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 25, 2005
    When 'must' you use humans? I would continue to support manned space flights to the moon over robots for sample recovery purposes. For anything else where the vehicle doesn't have to return to Earth, then there really is no purpose in sending humans along for the ride.

    What happened to all the samples we have? Why do we need new ones? What is so important about them that makes us want to spend a billion dollars for a rock?

    If it is just a small sample, a robot works fine. And in 100 years the humans won't be doing anything that a robot couldn't do expect go along for the ride.

    So military spending has never produced anything scientifically innovative? What's the difference between the B-2 and the shuttle besides the fact that one intends to kill people, the other just does it accidentally? Bringing the military into it is nothing but a red herring. I am not advocating saving money on space programs to spend on the military.

    We're producing debt, but you want a shiny new toy? That no one wants to fix this includes you, because you would rather have spaceships you can daydream about leaving Earth on than working to fix actual problems.

    And since we're no longer worth a **** in anything other than our space program I say we should rally around it and fund it.

    And if you are broke and in debt, why not build a giant mound in your front lawn?

    You know what would make us scientifically innovative? I have this crazy idea that if you could somehow pass on scientific knowledge to others in some sort of structured manner and pay people to teach our young everything we know so they can make new things, that would be far more helpful than using all our engineering manpower building the most fuel inefficient vehicles ever invented. You think a car is bad for the environment? Try putting emissions controls on a rocket.

    I don't know why I even try, you guys look at this through the eyes of a 10 year old.

    Edit: And in case you haven't noticed, Congress is already unwilling to spend the money for your fantasies, so instead of wasting what little money NASA has on manned space, they should refocus on actual SCIENCE and unmanned missions and develop the private sector. And as I'm pretty sure you aren't a commie and most likely work for a private company, I don't know why having private interests pay for space is such a bad idea.
     
  19. ShaneP

    ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 26, 2001
    As I stated above, I'm all for increased private influence in the space program;however, there should also be a bold, visionary national program to get us back to the moon and onto Mars.

    And unmanned missions are done all the time. They do planetary flybys, crash into the Moon(This just happened recently), and observe the Jovian moons.
    So yes, unmanned exploration goes on as it should. You make it sound like it stopped. It's a whole different division inside NASA.

    BTW, those "rocks" on the Moon have revealed potential water vapor. That opens the way for a possible self-sustaining colony at some point in the future.
     
  20. Espaldapalabras

    Espaldapalabras Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 25, 2005
    there should also be a bold, visionary national program to get us back to the moon and onto Mars.

    I'm going to ask this again: Why?

    You know what else has water vapor? The ocean.

    If all we needed to live was water and some rock, why haven't we colonized the antarctic? It's warmer than space, more water, and if we are looking for room to grow there is plenty of it, and all we have to worry about is not melting too much ice.
     
  21. SithLordDarthRichie

    SithLordDarthRichie CR Emeritus: London star 9

    Registered:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Bit too late for that I'm afraid, the ice is receding every year.

    IF a planet contains resources we need and we can't easily get on Earth then I think we could go there and collect some of it (with or without people if that is easier). Water Vapour is easy to get here, I can male it boiling a kettle.

    The discovery is important in that it increases the possibility for sustaining life at some point, but we don't need it right now.
     
  22. ShaneP

    ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 26, 2001
    Espy, I'm talking about a self-sustaining colony on the Moon. That way we don't have the costly need to transport resources. Water opens the potential for sustainability.

    As to the Why:

    Because we need to keep the paths to discovery open. We also need to expand beyond our pale blue dot. Yes, there are important things to take care of here on Earth. But why don't we focus on getting rid of the inefficiencies in those programs instead of just pouring more money into them? I mean, our public education system is failing our kids. Our public transportation system and infrastructure is crumbling depsite Highway bills larger than any in history.

    Graft and corruption is a joke.

    But you're going to pick on the ten billion dollars a year we spend on NASA.
     
  23. Espaldapalabras

    Espaldapalabras Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 25, 2005
    Because we need to keep the paths to discovery open. We also need to expand beyond our pale blue dot. Yes, there are important things to take care of here on Earth. But why don't we focus on getting rid of the inefficiencies in those programs instead of just pouring more money into them? I mean, our public education system is failing our kids. Our public transportation system and infrastructure is crumbling depsite Highway bills larger than any in history.

    So it seems you have two reasons:

    1. Keep paths to discovery open.

    2. Expand beyond Earth.

    To your first point, by spending NASA money to build rockets on manned missions to the Moon and Mars, you are in fact closing paths to discovery because instead of finding new ways to reach space, we are doing nothing but building a bigger and better rocket. No matter how you slice it, these rockets are never going to be cost effective in pursuit of your second objective. Instead of spending money on strings and wires that could be strong enough for a space elevator, you are going to stick with a technology that while proven to work, is also proven to cost a lot of money and use a lot of natural resources. Proving you can move a locomotive from California to New York does absolutely nothing to promote paths to discovery of the electric car that can travel the same distance. I have not even talked about de-funding NASA. But you need to deal with the fact that they aren't getting any more money, and they can't go to the Moon and Mars on their current budget.

    To your second: This isn't an answer to the question. We need to travel to the Moon and Mars because we need to expand beyond Earth? Why do we need to expand beyond Earth? As far as I know there is no large rock that will wipe us out, and there hasn't been one for the past 65 million years, but we better do it now because in 200 years it will be too late? Any other mass destruction of human life on Earth will be our own fault, and I see no reason why humans in space will not be involved if that is the case. Well except perhaps zombies, but then underground cities and/or flying ones would work just as well.

    If you actually want to expand beyond Earth, you need to realize that it will never happen with the current technology. And building a bigger and better train isn't going to help us get those cars any sooner. And the hardest thing about this is how to power them, we can worry about the living accomodations later.
     
  24. VadersLaMent

    VadersLaMent Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Apr 3, 2002
    As far as I know there is no large rock that will wipe us out, and there hasn't been one for the past 65 million years, but we better do it now because in 200 years it will be too late? Any other mass destruction of human life on Earth will be our own fault, and I see no reason why humans in space will not be involved if that is the case.

    I have no idea what this means. Because we have not been hit by an extinction level rock recently there will not be one ever? If we destroy Earth it will be from the colonies we put out there?
     
  25. SithLordDarthRichie

    SithLordDarthRichie CR Emeritus: London star 9

    Registered:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Actually, there is a possibility (not very high) that an asteroid could hit us in 2036, but we won't know for sure until 2029.

    My big problem with Underground cities is that they would still need resources delivered to them as well as having round the clock power to keep them illuminated without natural light. This will not be a good idea until Green Energy is the main form of energy produced around the world.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.