Reading about how the mirror for the Hubble was created was an adventure, so I'm sure that any astronomers in our midst would bark in laughter at how we're all using the word "simple" when talking about building these things (especially building them on the Moon without the kinds of resources and facilities that we have here on Earth). All this stuff is possible...in about 20 years or more.
I think it might be safe to venture the question: How many of you were inspired at an early age by Gerard O'Neill's book The High Frontier? The book really grabbed me back in the early 80's, such fantastic ideas and all of them were basically sound!
Moon bases!
Rail-gun launchers for propelling lunar materiel to "catcher" nets in space!
Moon bases! Rail-gun launchers for propelling lunar materiel to "catcher" nets in space! Mammoth space stations at the Lagrange points!
Such great ideas, so very expensive!
Heh. Very true. Any space endeavor must lie on the shoulders of an increasingly rich nation. The USA would have to swallow Canada, Western Europe, Japan, N Korea and Taiwan to afford it
Then again, we just blew $180G in the last year alone on a dubious venture with dubious benifits, and barely any of the money coming to American citizens. It's amazing the Bush Admin pulled it off. (Actually I do know how it was pulled off, just don't want to entertain the thought).
A space endeavor would at least go into the pockets of our own citizens and perhaps offer a next stage in riches to attain.
The Ben Bova Moon books were interesting, and before Bova I'd read all of Larry Niven's moon stories. Perhaps my favorite sci-fi Moon-based story was the Brit show called "Star Cops". If you can ever find it on the air look for it, it's a pretty doggone realistic portrayal of a technically achievable space community.
Please excuse my ignorance regarding the technicalities of the things proposed for space exploration in the 21st century....But I feel like I'm watching a conjurer knowing that the extravagant movement of the hands is mere misdirection.
Perhaps I'm becoming old and cynical...I'd like to know where the payoff is for the billions earmarked to be spent getting a human to stand on Mars? I know it is said that technology resulted from our previous lunar expeditions and that we have 'benefitted' from its development. If the same is said to follow from the new objectives why not research those directly - as objectives in themselves rather than as a hoped for aside?
I see two problems:
The 'dream' of interplanetary exploration allows, or perhaps seduces us, into thinking that we have alternatives if we screw things up here....and that seems delusional.
Even if real benefits flow to people (not just corporations or politicians) as a result of these efforts, how would they compare on a Bang 4 Buck basis with the alternative uses such funding, energy and the brains of our best scientists were put to more pressing (Earthly) uses?
I would not advocate that no research into space is conducted(telescopes and probes seem a great way to go), knowledge is good in and of itself but what actual gain/purpose is there for all this Mars Mission stuff?
I think it might be safe to venture the question: How many of you were inspired at an early age by Gerard O'Neill's book The High Frontier? The book really grabbed me back in the early 80's, such fantastic ideas and all of them were basically sound!
Moon bases!
Rail-gun launchers for propelling lunar materiel to "catcher" nets in space!
Mammoth space stations at the Lagrange points!
That reminds me of a book I read quite a while ago, though I can't remember the name exactly. It had (I think) 'Andromeda' or 'Prometheus' or some Greek god/dess name in the title, and something about 'colonizing the galaxy in 'x' easy steps' (I think it was 9). Any jogging of my memory would be appreciated, as I wouldn't mind reading it again.
The 'dream' of interplanetary exploration allows, or perhaps seduces us, into thinking that we have alternatives if we screw things up here....and that seems delusional.
Even if real benefits flow to people (not just corporations or politicians) as a result of these efforts, how would they compare on a Bang 4 Buck basis with the alternative uses such funding, energy and the brains of our best scientists were put to more pressing (Earthly) uses?
I would not advocate that no research into space is conducted(telescopes and probes seem a great way to go), knowledge is good in and of itself but what actual gain/purpose is there for all this Mars Mission stuff?
No, because, one, the engineers and scientists behind the research and technology understand that relocating humans to other planets and or moves is beyond our present and near future technology. Even locally, like the moon and Mars, there is an incredible amount of work that would need to be done to make bases fit for the average human to live full time and then, even, it would be on low gravity; not good for long term living. And the costs are astronomical for the amount of people we could relocate. Only the very rich, like Bill Gates and movie stars could live and/or visit such bases/resorts. I think the best short term plan would be mining/fuel collecting. There are gases on the giant planets and resources on asteroids that could be taken advantage of. I'd rather see extensive mining on asteroids than Earthly mining that is so bad for the environment. Eventually, we would harvest hydrogen from Jupiter for our fuel needs, it's only a matter of time. Basically, terraforming and moon bases are way off. If anything we could expect an orbital centrifugal station either in Earth orbit or intra-Earth-Mars or intra Earth Venus orbit. IMO though.
The Mars missions prepare us for future missions and lets us work out all the bugs for manned Mars missions. Mars is the only planet in our solar system that could possibly be terra formed for humans to someday live on.
Conservative estimates are for every dollar the U.S. government spends on the space proram, it receives $7 back in the form of corporate and personal income taxes from increased jobs and economic growth.
-Steven Stiefel, Sand Mountain Reporter
Quote:
"Some say we ought to stop space exploration until we solve our problems at home. The real question is how many of these problems can we solve with less than 1 percent of the federal budget? To say that we should wait to explore space until we solve all our problems is to say we're not going to do it at all."
I think it's no secret that the ultimate argument of manned exploration proponents is moving the gene pool off the planet and on to worlds beyond. Early planning for when Sol cooks the Earth to a crisp. No, the technology isn't even in its infancy, it's nascent; metaphorically, the spermatozoa is only just reaching the egg at this point in any timeline that would show humankind moving into space.
The argument that we shouldn't do it until we have the technology to do it makes a seriously defective argument that spacefaring technology will be derived from other scientific research. That would certainly be one massive case of serendipity for earth-directed sciences being solely responsible for some new form of propulsion technologies.
So, it's a goal for something that seems far out of our present reach.
For the life of me, I really can't figure this out. Why is NASA's budget debated over and over again, with people decrying it as a waste of Federal money when it is a mere 0.7%, that's zero point seven percent, of the 2+ trillion Federal budget each year? DOD, HHS, SS, Interest on the debt, etc., loose track of more money than the NASA budget in accounting uncertainties! Just feeling cranky...
Bush is going to pay for the Lunar mission by increasing the NASA budget $1G over the next 5 years. That's $200 million per year over the next 5 years. The vast majority of the lunar program budget will actually paid for by retiring the Space Shuttle, completing station, and subsuming OSP, approximately $7.5G per year. So the budget outlay for NASA is essentially inflation, and the cost to taxpayers compared to now, and back 30 years, is essentially zero.
Now, whether it can be done without increasing the NASA budget is debateable, but NASA's budget taking away from some other useful thing is a strawman argument.
If there is wasteful thing in the Federal budget, complain about the $300 billion per year, and increasing, that went into paying the interest of the National Debt. And that number is only going up, and the only way to get it down is to cut into the big ticket items: DOD, SSA, and HHS.
Reading about how the mirror for the Hubble was created was an adventure, so I'm sure that any astronomers in our midst would bark in laughter at how we're all using the word "simple" when talking about building these things (especially building them on the Moon without the kinds of resources and facilities that we have here on Earth). All this stuff is possible...in about 20 years or more.
I think it might be safe to venture the question: How many of you were inspired at an early age by Gerard O'Neill's book The High Frontier? The book really grabbed me back in the early 80's, such fantastic ideas and all of them were basically sound!
Moon bases!
Rail-gun launchers for propelling lunar materiel to "catcher" nets in space!
Mammoth space stations at the Lagrange points!
Such great ideas, so very expensive!
I was inspired in my 20's with this. The thing about the private sector is that I came to the conclusion long ago that the thing that will fire up space exploration for real unfortunately is greed. It's an old story. Once people come to the conclusion that there's money to be made out there ( mineral rights on the moon and the asteroids, things you can only manufacture in a vacuum in zero G etc. ) they won't be able to build ships fast enough. Once it becomes more common place it will also be cheaper. It's funny how things become so much more plausible to people when you waive a dollar bill under their nose.
Of course I want us to go just to find out what's out there.
The good thing is we're quickly running out of resources here on earth and space could help in this regard.
A lot of people have started redundant threads or posted spurious discussions to the ongoing Mars Exploration thread. I'm bumping this to accommodate further discussion of NASA's future.
Comments
I think it might be safe to venture the question: How many of you were inspired at an early age by Gerard O'Neill's book The High Frontier? The book really grabbed me back in the early 80's, such fantastic ideas and all of them were basically sound!
Moon bases!
Rail-gun launchers for propelling lunar materiel to "catcher" nets in space!
Mammoth space stations at the Lagrange points!
Such great ideas, so very expensive!
Originally posted by drewprops
Moon bases! Rail-gun launchers for propelling lunar materiel to "catcher" nets in space! Mammoth space stations at the Lagrange points!
Such great ideas, so very expensive!
Heh. Very true. Any space endeavor must lie on the shoulders of an increasingly rich nation. The USA would have to swallow Canada, Western Europe, Japan, N Korea and Taiwan to afford it
Then again, we just blew $180G in the last year alone on a dubious venture with dubious benifits, and barely any of the money coming to American citizens. It's amazing the Bush Admin pulled it off. (Actually I do know how it was pulled off, just don't want to entertain the thought).
A space endeavor would at least go into the pockets of our own citizens and perhaps offer a next stage in riches to attain.
Hubble's replacement, the James Webb Space Telescope, scheduled for launch in 2011,
JWST will be a large, infrared-optimized space telescope. _It will have an 18-segment, 6.5-meter primary mirror.
JWST will be parked at the L2 point, beyond reach of servicing missions.
Perhaps I'm becoming old and cynical...I'd like to know where the payoff is for the billions earmarked to be spent getting a human to stand on Mars? I know it is said that technology resulted from our previous lunar expeditions and that we have 'benefitted' from its development. If the same is said to follow from the new objectives why not research those directly - as objectives in themselves rather than as a hoped for aside?
I see two problems:
The 'dream' of interplanetary exploration allows, or perhaps seduces us, into thinking that we have alternatives if we screw things up here....and that seems delusional.
Even if real benefits flow to people (not just corporations or politicians) as a result of these efforts, how would they compare on a Bang 4 Buck basis with the alternative uses such funding, energy and the brains of our best scientists were put to more pressing (Earthly) uses?
I would not advocate that no research into space is conducted(telescopes and probes seem a great way to go), knowledge is good in and of itself but what actual gain/purpose is there for all this Mars Mission stuff?
Originally posted by drewprops
I think it might be safe to venture the question: How many of you were inspired at an early age by Gerard O'Neill's book The High Frontier? The book really grabbed me back in the early 80's, such fantastic ideas and all of them were basically sound!
Moon bases!
Rail-gun launchers for propelling lunar materiel to "catcher" nets in space!
Mammoth space stations at the Lagrange points!
That reminds me of a book I read quite a while ago, though I can't remember the name exactly. It had (I think) 'Andromeda' or 'Prometheus' or some Greek god/dess name in the title, and something about 'colonizing the galaxy in 'x' easy steps' (I think it was 9). Any jogging of my memory would be appreciated, as I wouldn't mind reading it again.
Originally posted by Zarathustra
P
The 'dream' of interplanetary exploration allows, or perhaps seduces us, into thinking that we have alternatives if we screw things up here....and that seems delusional.
Even if real benefits flow to people (not just corporations or politicians) as a result of these efforts, how would they compare on a Bang 4 Buck basis with the alternative uses such funding, energy and the brains of our best scientists were put to more pressing (Earthly) uses?
I would not advocate that no research into space is conducted(telescopes and probes seem a great way to go), knowledge is good in and of itself but what actual gain/purpose is there for all this Mars Mission stuff?
No, because, one, the engineers and scientists behind the research and technology understand that relocating humans to other planets and or moves is beyond our present and near future technology. Even locally, like the moon and Mars, there is an incredible amount of work that would need to be done to make bases fit for the average human to live full time and then, even, it would be on low gravity; not good for long term living. And the costs are astronomical for the amount of people we could relocate. Only the very rich, like Bill Gates and movie stars could live and/or visit such bases/resorts. I think the best short term plan would be mining/fuel collecting. There are gases on the giant planets and resources on asteroids that could be taken advantage of. I'd rather see extensive mining on asteroids than Earthly mining that is so bad for the environment. Eventually, we would harvest hydrogen from Jupiter for our fuel needs, it's only a matter of time. Basically, terraforming and moon bases are way off. If anything we could expect an orbital centrifugal station either in Earth orbit or intra-Earth-Mars or intra Earth Venus orbit. IMO though.
The Mars missions prepare us for future missions and lets us work out all the bugs for manned Mars missions. Mars is the only planet in our solar system that could possibly be terra formed for humans to someday live on.
Originally posted by Zarathustra
Perhaps I'm becoming old and cynical..
Conservative estimates are for every dollar the U.S. government spends on the space proram, it receives $7 back in the form of corporate and personal income taxes from increased jobs and economic growth.
-Steven Stiefel, Sand Mountain Reporter
"Some say we ought to stop space exploration until we solve our problems at home. The real question is how many of these problems can we solve with less than 1 percent of the federal budget? To say that we should wait to explore space until we solve all our problems is to say we're not going to do it at all."
-Author Timothy Ferris, The Palm Beach Daily News
The argument that we shouldn't do it until we have the technology to do it makes a seriously defective argument that spacefaring technology will be derived from other scientific research. That would certainly be one massive case of serendipity for earth-directed sciences being solely responsible for some new form of propulsion technologies.
So, it's a goal for something that seems far out of our present reach.
Bush is going to pay for the Lunar mission by increasing the NASA budget $1G over the next 5 years. That's $200 million per year over the next 5 years. The vast majority of the lunar program budget will actually paid for by retiring the Space Shuttle, completing station, and subsuming OSP, approximately $7.5G per year. So the budget outlay for NASA is essentially inflation, and the cost to taxpayers compared to now, and back 30 years, is essentially zero.
Now, whether it can be done without increasing the NASA budget is debateable, but NASA's budget taking away from some other useful thing is a strawman argument.
If there is wasteful thing in the Federal budget, complain about the $300 billion per year, and increasing, that went into paying the interest of the National Debt. And that number is only going up, and the only way to get it down is to cut into the big ticket items: DOD, SSA, and HHS.
Originally posted by drewprops
Reading about how the mirror for the Hubble was created was an adventure, so I'm sure that any astronomers in our midst would bark in laughter at how we're all using the word "simple" when talking about building these things (especially building them on the Moon without the kinds of resources and facilities that we have here on Earth). All this stuff is possible...in about 20 years or more.
I think it might be safe to venture the question: How many of you were inspired at an early age by Gerard O'Neill's book The High Frontier? The book really grabbed me back in the early 80's, such fantastic ideas and all of them were basically sound!
Moon bases!
Rail-gun launchers for propelling lunar materiel to "catcher" nets in space!
Mammoth space stations at the Lagrange points!
Such great ideas, so very expensive!
I was inspired in my 20's with this. The thing about the private sector is that I came to the conclusion long ago that the thing that will fire up space exploration for real unfortunately is greed. It's an old story. Once people come to the conclusion that there's money to be made out there ( mineral rights on the moon and the asteroids, things you can only manufacture in a vacuum in zero G etc. ) they won't be able to build ships fast enough. Once it becomes more common place it will also be cheaper. It's funny how things become so much more plausible to people when you waive a dollar bill under their nose.
Of course I want us to go just to find out what's out there.
The good thing is we're quickly running out of resources here on earth and space could help in this regard.