What is in the Future of Manned Space Flight?

[Darth_Yuthura]

Recently, I read about how the next Moon mission was going to be postponed even further than originally planned. A decade ago, I would have been angry... I loved the Apollo program and liked the idea of going to the Moon again... now I look at it with relief. Right now, the US has a major economic crisis and can't afford to throw so much money away for something that should wait.

 

Nasa is only a small part of the US economy, but that's at least another several billion dollars that are not going to go to waste. It's better than the Space station, but still not something we should be doing at this time. The Chinese intend to go, so we should not let politics interfere with our better judgment on this kind of project.

[Q]

Well, as long as it's left up to NASA there's only one guarantee:

 

More dead astronauts.

 

[Yar-El]

Well, as long as it's left up to NASA there's only one guarantee:

 

more dead astronauts.

I use to go skydiving on the weekends. Risking my own life for fun is a little crazy; nevertheless, the thrill of rushing wind and floating free is overwhelming. Current U.S. history shows a world where people are afraid of such risk taking. We see astronauts die on tv, and the media starts pointing fingers. Those men and women died to further our understanding of science. Not many people have the courage to even sit in a plane. Everything in life carries such gambles. Their deaths are important. NASA needs to take more precautions; however, the chances of something bad happening will always be there. Are you willing to risk it? I would in a flash.

[Rev7]

Yes, the astronauts know the risk, otherwise, why did they apply to become an astronaut and complete all of the training. If I had a chance to go into space, I would take it.

[Samuel Dravis]

I'm curious why everyone seems to think that the space program just spends money without any return. It's almost as if they're doing fundamental research!

 

However, merely because the immediate purpose of that research is not directly related to money-making activities (OH MY GAWD, WHAT A WASTE!) doesn't mean that innovations developed by the space program are completely useless in that regard.

 

Intellectual property created by NASA is spun off into commercial ventures by a program specifically made for that purpose. They have a publication of technologies that have been successfully commercialized here. It's a long list.

 

So before we just say that NASA is a drag on the economy because its main purpose is not moneymaking, let's think again. Frankly I think that America needs all the innovation it can get. It's not like we're the ones turning out the scientists and engineers by the thousands anymore, and I'm not sure what people expect the economy to be driven by if not innovation.

 

If I had my way I'd double their budget and tell them to do something that is extremely difficult for us now, just like traveling to the moon was back during the Apollo program.

[Darth_Yuthura]

All things considered, I don't think many of the astronauts or cosmonauts that died on missions that were in the name of science, exploration, or research. Challenger's mission was routine and the only human element they 'needed' was taking a teacher with them. That was more for publicity or promotion to Nasa. The Soviet Union was simply reckless and many of their cosmonauts died due to risky missions for political ends.

 

Missions such as repairing the Hubble space telescope, the Apollo moon missions, and any others that required a human presence simply could not be done automatically. Launching a satalite that did not require assembly in space does not require the Space Shuttle. All these resupply missions for the worthless ISS are just putting lives at risk, squandering huge sums of treasury, and returning almost nothing at all.

 

It's always best to avoid using humans for a mission if it they are not required. This future trip to Mars that is in the air... could be done more efficiently and cheaper by building a lander and using a rover to collect samples from a given radius and return them to the lander, which would launch. Without the need to carry humans, more samples can be taken over a longer period of time and returned to Earth for further study. A perfect sample-return mission in its sheer simplicity.

[Darth_Yuthura]

However, merely because the immediate purpose of that research is not directly related to money-making activities (OH MY GAWD, WHAT A WASTE!) doesn't mean that innovations developed by the space program are completely useless in that regard.

 

So before we just say that NASA is a drag on the economy because its main purpose is not moneymaking, let's think again. Frankly I think that America needs all the innovation it can get. It's not like we're the ones turning out the scientists and engineers by the thousands anymore, and I'm not sure what people expect the economy to be driven by if not innovation.

 

We don't have the means to do such things at the present. We should be setting our priorities to keeping the economy stable and we can't do that space programs. Innovation is best when it can enhance an economy. My suggestion is to take the capital put into the ISS and set up a network of maglev trains around the US. Maglev is the most efficient means of transportation today and would do much for improving the economy.

 

What does the ISS return? What info do they get and how can it make profit if their innovation can ONLY be used for NASA? That particle accelerator built recently in Europe was a colossal expenditure that yielded very little info that could be of practical use.

[Samuel Dravis]

We don't have the means to do such things at the present. We should be setting our priorities to keeping the economy stable and we can't do that space programs. Innovation is best when it can enhance an economy. My suggestion is to take the capital put into the ISS and set up a network of maglev trains around the US. Maglev is the most efficient means of transportation today and would do much for improving the economy.

Apparently 700 billion dollars can't keep the economy "stable." I'm not sure why you believe it matters at this point. 17 billion is a drop in the bucket. Me, I'd rather spend the money on something that hasn't failed its central purpose so epically that the government winds up footing the bill (well, the government does end up footing the bill for NASA, but that's just because it's a government agency ).

 

"We don't have the means to do such things at present." When will you ever find a time that you have 17 billion (NASA's budget) just laying around? When will there ever be a time where you cannot find something more "useful" - in this case, that's debatable - to spend it on, like bailing out failed car companies? I suggest that there will never be a time where other things could not be done with the money. There will always be pressing needs or desires. I think it's helpful here to remember that this same kind of short term thinking got us into the financial crisis in the first place. Shouldn't we take a lesson from current events and try to plan ahead?

 

What does the ISS return? What info do they get and how can it make profit if their innovation can ONLY be used for NASA? That particle accelerator built recently in Europe was a colossal expenditure that yielded very little info that could be of practical use.

Personally I couldn't care less about the ISS and I agree to some extent with your criticism of it. However, I was talking about NASA and the space program in general. I think it's entirely reasonable to be critical of programs which do not fulfill their objectives or grossly overrun their budgets. I don't think its reasonable to be critical of the space program on the grounds that it, as a whole, wastes the money put into it.

 

The particle accelerator isn't operational yet. That might have something to do with the "very little info" that has come from it. But hey, that's just my opinion.

[Q]

I use to go skydiving on the weekends. Risking my own life for fun is a little crazy; nevertheless, the thrill of rushing wind and floating free is overwhelming. Current U.S. history shows a world where people are afraid of such risk taking. We see astronauts die on tv, and the media starts pointing fingers. Those men and women died to further our understanding of science. Not many people have the courage to even sit in a plane. Everything in life carries such gambles. Their deaths are important. NASA needs to take more precautions; however, the chances of something bad happening will always be there. Are you willing to risk it? I would in a flash.

By far the biggest risk for NASA astronauts is the gross negligence, complacency and incompetence of NASA's leadership, which they have amply demonstrated twice.

[Yar-El]

By far the biggest risk for NASA astronauts is the gross negligence, complacency and incompetence of NASA's leadership, which they have amply demonstrated twice.

There were more than two accidents; however, NASA has been around for 40 years. They have a better track record than most airlines, and we get returns from our investments.

[Darth_Yuthura]

When I spoke of the particle accelerator, I said very little practical use. By 'practical use,' I meant something that we could use to advance technology or improve upon the economy.

 

Knowledge is power, that I won't deny, but what good would it do us to know more about the origins of the Universe? It is great that we want to know, but it would be better for us to apply such funding to provide the resources we will need for the future. I would rather see billions go to researching fusion energy as a viable power source, or constructing solar thermal power plants to ensure a source of energy we can rely on indefinitely.

 

As great as it seems to want to go out and learn more about the universe, we need to create a solid foundation by which to ensure we'll have enough resources to sustain ourselves first. According to Maslowe's hierarchy of needs, you can't strive to greater ends without first providing for the more basic necessities first.

 

Once we have a source of energy that can sustain ourselves indefinitely, that in itself can literally satisfy everything else... food, water, metal, manufactured goods...