Do we still need a space program?

[IronParrot]

Coney wrote:

"The technology and resources simply dont exist to make real advances in space discovery possible.....so what is the point of continuing space missions that don't discover anything?"

You are correct in saying that the current missions don't really discover anything, certainly not enough to justify the cost. However, the technology and resources do exist, to some extent. The infotech and nanotech revolutions of the past decade or so have yet to be applied to manned spaceflight. As far as resources go, the monetary resources are there - it's just that NASA is putting it all into maintaining the shuttle.

We need more projects like the Mars Rover, because they actually take advantage of what we have at our disposal.

"It really depends on how immediate you wish to get into deep space. Funding current missions that gain absolutely no ground towards deep space exploration is simply throwing money away IMO. Spending the saved money from cancelled space missions for funding towards improving technology seems a much better idea."

I'm in total agreement with that.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Coney
If Henry Ford had all the plans for steel belted radial tyres and CD players........how would the his first car have been?

How would the what? It would have been useless because there would have been no paved roads to take advantage of the radial tire's gripping technology. And no CD's to stick into the CD player you had in your model T. And more to the point they would have been seen as science fiction props because we didnt have the developmental infrastructure in place to MAKE this kind of stuff and to actually implement and take advantage of it. It would require ten thousand other developments that hadnt taken place yet. But we could STILL INVISION them. I mean Star Trek has shown us that it should be possible to beam our molecules from one place to another and some day we should be able to do this but even though weve thought of it we still arent doing it yet. Perhaps we should wait until we can. Think how much that will save on space travel.

We already have all the facts and figures we need for deep space travel.......

then why dont we just do it if we know all we need to know? we are still just crawling out of the ocean in my opinion when it comes to space exploration. I dont think we have all the answers yet. And some may not come till we have bumbled out there to found out.

[Coney]

How would the what? It would have been useless because there would have been no paved roads to take advantage of the radial tire's gripping technology. And no CD's to stick into the CD player you had in your model T. And more to the point they would have been seen as science fiction props because we didnt have the developmental infrastructure in place to MAKE this kind of stuff and to actually implement and take advantage of it. It would require ten thousand other developments that hadnt taken place yet. But we could STILL INVISION them. I mean Star Trek has shown us that it should be possible to beam our molecules from one place to another and some day we should be able to do this but even though weve thought of it we still arent doing it yet. Perhaps we should wait until we can. Think how much that will save on space travel.

But we are never going to make si-fi props sc-fi facts until the whole theory of the space program changes.

then why dont we just do it if we know all we need to know? we are still just crawling out of the ocean in my opinion when it comes to space exploration. I dont think we have all the answers yet. And some may not come till we have bumbled out there to found out.

The space program has just crawled out of the ocean, but for the last 15-20 yrs it has set up camp in a puddle. There are no more significant gains to be made with the space shuttle. As IP pointed out, NASA (and most other international space projects) are wasting both time and money playing out the same old space missions when they should be shelving those missions and trying something new.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by IronParrot

Insidious Rex, if I get you correctly, you're trying to argue that continuing shuttle missions is far cheaper than far-reaching dream technologies that haven't been developed yet, but that's under the assumption that the shuttle programme is doing anything today.

Ok first off Im the last one to sit here and say continue with the status quo. Im the guy in the back shouting give them more money! do bigger stuff! My only point about the space shuttle was that its supported by NASA (and therefor by the american government) becuase our government can swallow the idea of giving a limited amount of money and having private companies and other countries give us some money back to do their little space experiements and then we can also twittle with the hubble and replace the spark plugs in the space station once in a while too. they can deal with that. that seems acceptable to them. they are fools. but Im not in congress they are. you march up there with your plan to spend 100 times as much to initiate something bigger that down the road could be cheaper and better in the long run and they will laugh you out of Washington. but if you can convince them ILL throw YOU a party.

Im a member of an organization called The Planetary Society and they send me things in the mail constantly asking members to harrass the congress into doing more for space exploration. Its a constant fight. Most senaters would rather spend some money on building a dam for their constituints rather then pour it into something you need an advanced physics degree to understand and that wont really pay off for another 10, 20, 30 years. PLEASE dont label me as The Shuttle Supporter here. Im just a realist about this stuff thats all.

[The Lady of Ithilien]

What do you mean by "space program"?

Astronomy and space science was a hobby of mine while in college at around the time of the transition between the era most notable for the Apollo missions (going OUT THERE) and the shuttle program (staying in the neighborhood) and so I could follow a bit the rather heated debate in the space establishment about which would be more beneficial. It was not without some controversy that all bets were finally placed on the shuttle program.

If by "space program," one means staying in the neighborhood of Earth's outer atmosphere or a bit beyond -- wherever the satellites, stations and shuttles are active nowadays -- it's not even a question any more, what with communications needs, let alone the presence of ICBMs all over the place. It will do until we find something better (as we must, as the debris will just grow and grow out there and finally force us to look elsewhere on Earth for solutions).

However, going OUT THERE is a pipedream. We don't need it. More especially, we don't need the temptations to play god that it offers: everything in human history on Earth predicts exactly what is going to happen when one group of people gains control, however innocently, over another group of people's air, food and water, and it's not pretty.

Too, we look at planets like Mars and the Moon (ours) and invent terms like "terraforming" as if we actually knew what the heck we were talking about, which we don't. Nor do we have anything like the technology that would be needed to make even a small part of those solar system bodies economically habitable for any human population (also, see the first point).

And I've developed a rather jaundiced eye on the whole "benefit mankind" approach anyway, having lived through the "we defeated smallpox!" celebration to the current era, in which the question boils down to when to get vaccinated against smallpox, before or after the terrorists use it in an attack. Would it be possible for humanity to isolate the technology it would need to develop to go OUT THERE well enough for it not to be accessed and abused right here on earth? Terraforming technology -- what a weapon.

No, too many temptations. We should instead try something really revolutionary: learn to be happy with what we've got. To paraphrase G. K. Chesterton in The Hammer of God, humility is the mother of giants -- one sees great things from the earth; only small things from the space ship. Why keep trying to get out there and shrink our overall perspective?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by The Lady of Ithilien
However, going OUT THERE is a pipedream. We don't need it. More especially, we don't need the temptations to play god that it offers

going into space is playing god? That doesnt make any sense to me at all. We are players in this game. Not the rule writers. We are simply following our path. its completely natural. we have already "played god" by colonizing our own planet. i mean where do you draw the line? should we still be undeveloped hominids in east africa? Its all part of one big canvas thats really not within our power to change. and studying soil on mars is not going to be some quantum leap from the path weve been taking for millions of years.

No, too many temptations. We should instead try something really revolutionary: learn to be happy with what we've got. To paraphrase G. K. Chesterton in The Hammer of God, humility is the mother of giants -- one sees great things from the earth; only small things from the space ship. Why keep trying to get out there and shrink our overall perspective?

you are suggesting then to never see anything more then the trees despite the forest. we live on a speck. we have evolved a sense of curiosity that will not let us stay on this speck only. there is no resisting it. no getting around it. it would be the equivilent of saying the baby bird has it pretty good in the egg. its safe and warm and taken care of. why come out? well because it has to. because everything else is out there. because thats where its destiny and its ultimate fate lies. for better or worse.

you are suggesting we arrest our development. that we simply keep our heads in the sand and never look at the real world. we just cant do that. its impossible. and before we get into any Arthur C. Clarke discusions about terriforming other planets lets first LOOK at mars. see whats there. see how it relates to us. by exploring farther and farther beyond our home man learns more about himself then he ever could without exploring. why do we need to fear that?

[Khamûl]

Humans have always wanted to explore unknown frontiers and push boundaries. Space is just our next step. When asked why he wanted to climb Mount Everest, George Leigh Mallory replied simply, "Because it's there." Why do we want to explore space? Because it's there. In the meantime, we continue to develop new technologies to make life better here on Earth while we explore space. Is it worth it? Yes.

[The Lady of Ithilien]

Originally posted by Khamûl
Is it worth it? Yes.

Khamûl, glad I could help you hone the central idea of your paper. Good luck with it!

Now, Insidious Rex:

i mean where do you draw the line?

At the point of control of life-sustaining essentials: air, water, some modicum of food, temperature. Here on Earth, in general (and pretty much in particular, too), no one controls them: I mean control in the sense of turning them all, but especially air, on and off at will. Hence we lived in enforced humility because of the impediment in our grasp for total control, and to some extent we live in guaranteed freedom from exactly that total control.

On and off. Life and death. That is what I mean by playing God. And yet space exploration requires exactly that control all the time as a bare minimum.

you are suggesting we arrest our development. that we simply keep our heads in the sand and never look at the real world.

Actually I'm suggesting that, from Earth, we can see the broad expanse of the Universe, around us and above us and within us; once we are in space, our field of view is limited to whatever's in the window at the time, just bits and pieces, and there's nothing to look up to anymore. Also, Earth gets smaller and smaller, the further away from it we get, until finally we forget the people on it as well as our relationship to them, and we instead imagine ourselves alone and mighty in the great heavens.

That, too, is what I mean by playing God.

lets first LOOK at mars. see whats there. see how it relates to us.

I have looked at Mars, in an amateurish kind of way while a geology student, as we have all been able to do since at least the 1960s (the Mariner missions). It has winds, but you would suffocate in a gale there, the atmosphere is so sparse. The red soil, as I recall, is so oxidizing (or is it reducing? never was good at chemistry, which is why I'm not a geologist today) it would burn you if you held it in your unprotected hand. As for how it relates to us, Mars has earth-like features -- canyons, volcanoes, river beds, deserts, polar ice caps and the like -- but all on a scale that dwarfs anything on earth. And nobody really knows how it all came about, and more importantly, what the morrow would bring. Overall, it would just simply be so terribly, terribly foreign -- no Ray Bradbury in that reality: it would overwhelm us psychologically (not to mention all the physical risks).

by exploring farther and farther beyond our home man learns more about himself then he ever could without exploring. why do we need to fear that?

I think that outward push has most often actually been us running away from ourselves to someplace where there's something else to think about and, ideally, a profit to be made. But to run away from Mother Earth, taking all our internal demons with us in our little self-contained metal shells....

No thanks -- I'll just sit back and admire the view.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by The Lady of Ithilien
At the point of control of life-sustaining essentials: air, water, some modicum of food, temperature. Here on Earth, in general (and pretty much in particular, too), no one controls them: I mean control in the sense of turning them all, but especially air, on and off at will.

hmmm now are you talking about like weather control? or complete control of our atmospheric resources? because we can certainly effect that already here what with global warming and ozone issues and what not. just not on and off finger tip control. but i dont see how it would be any different on mars (or wherever). what we could do on mars we could do here. we can sit in a submarine under the ocean in a t shirt and shorts and ten inches from us is an environment so inhospitable that a second would result in instant death. we have been making micro environments for ourselves for a while now.

On and off. Life and death. That is what I mean by playing God. And yet space exploration requires exactly that control all the time as a bare minimum.

Well sure but see above about doing this already for some time now. The god you are talking about is the petty god not the big picture god. the big picture god has it planned for us to be doing this all along. not for there to be a gate on the universe some 8 or 10 miles above our heads. how horribly confining.

Actually I'm suggesting that, from Earth, we can see the broad expanse of the Universe, around us and above us and within us; once we are in space, our field of view is limited to whatever's in the window at the time, just bits and pieces, and there's nothing to look up to anymore.

Well ok one could make the very real point that what we see in space best is done from outside our atmosphere. trying to see all this stuff from earth is like trying to study ants in the next town while looking through a glass jar filled with dirty water. our atmosphere and other things horribly distort our ability to percieve the universe. thats why the hubble (which we had to go INTO space to deploy) was so important and made such a huge step forward for astonomers.

Secondly its not about looking through the window of your space pod. Its about being able to touch the seas of Europa and feel the heat of the volcanos on Io. THATS where we need to be. We cant do that from earth no matter how far we stretch. and beyond even that its about the natural flow of our species beyond the egg shell of our little birth place.

Also, Earth gets smaller and smaller, the further away from it we get, until finally we forget the people on it as well as our relationship to them, and we instead imagine ourselves alone and mighty in the great heavens.

oh but we wouldnt be evacuating the earth. we would just be spreading. i think we are talking about two fundamentally different things here. human life would still exist on earth even if we have seeds spread all over the galaxy. life is defined by its constant need to move from point A to point B. remaining static ensures only extinction ultimately because only spreading and varying our environments assures adaptation and survival. once we have reached the point where adaptation to all aspects of earth has been done to our benefit then the only natural step from there is up...

As for how it relates to us, Mars has earth-like features -- canyons, volcanoes, river beds, deserts, polar ice caps and the like -- but all on a scale that dwarfs anything on earth. And nobody really knows how it all came about, and more importantly, what the morrow would bring.

Yes! Exactly! I love your descriptions there. Makes me excited to think about going out there to find out this stuff! How can anyone not want to know? Dont you want to climb Olympus Mons? I do.

Overall, it would just simply be so terribly, terribly foreign -- no Ray Bradbury in that reality: it would overwhelm us psychologically (not to mention all the physical risks).

Well sure but thats ok. Risk is a part of living. And psychologically we would adapt. As we have in all other environments.

I think that outward push has most often actually been us running away from ourselves to someplace where there's something else to think about and, ideally, a profit to be made. But to run away from Mother Earth, taking all our internal demons with us in our little self-contained metal shells....

Agree with you about the profit thing. Its often the biggest motivation and how things get done with humans but what can you do. Disagree with you about it just being about running away from ourselves. Its about expanding. Not running away. Its something we have always done as a species. It defines us. To stop arbitrarily would be unnatural. We are like a gas. And the vacume beacons.

[cassiopeia]

Remember, we have only 5 billion years before the sun goes nova and engulfs the Earth.

[Coney]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
Remember, we have only 5 billion years before the sun goes nova and engulfs the Earth.

*starts packing*

[The Lady of Ithilien]

originally posted by Insidious Rex
Its not about looking through the window of your space pod. Its about being able to touch the seas of Europa and feel the heat of the volcanos on Io. THATS where we need to be. We cant do that from earth no matter how far we stretch. and beyond even that its about the natural flow of our species beyond the egg shell of our little birth place.

"We've looked and looked, but after all where are we?
Do we know any better where we are,
And how it stands between the night tonight
And a man with a smoky lantern chimney?
How different from the way it ever stood?"

(From Robert Frost's The Star-Splitter)

Or ever will stand. That's a question best handled in the comforts of home, not while freezing in Europa's putative "seas" or roasting in the hellfires of Io's sulfur vents (both of which just serve to distract us from this central question).

[Draken]

Originally posted by The Lady of Ithilien
"We've looked and looked, but after all where are we?
Do we know any better where we are,
And how it stands between the night tonight
And a man with a smoky lantern chimney?
How different from the way it ever stood?"

(From Robert Frost's The Star-Splitter)

Or ever will stand. That's a question best handled in the comforts of home, not while freezing in Europa's putative "seas" or roasting in the hellfires of Io's sulfur vents (both of which just serve to distract us from this central question).

Why the either/or option? Scientific explorational and technological progress is at the expense self-awareness? No: it's all too easy to offer fallacious "choices". Our society is developing in many ways, all tangled inextricably together. You cannot simply cherry-pick the bits you like and then claim the others are hindering your wish-list. The interlinking is just too complex for anyone to know what the effects of cutting one strand would be on the others.

For instance, Apollo was the ultimate in short-term, goal-driven space programmes, with no logical follow-on attempted. However, but for the NASA-funded investment in developing Apollo's on board computers, we would probably still be waiting for the internet to come along so we could have this conversation!

[Firekitten2006]

I knew about those lil side benefits of the Space Program. What I was trying to say is that we probably know more about the moon than we know about our own Rain Forests and Oceans. If we dont learn how to take care of the Rain Forests we wont be here to learn more about the moon.

[BeardofPants]

Sure we will. We'll be terraforming mars.

[Legolaslvr!]

Sure!

[markedel]

I think we can all agree that space exploration is inevitable, and most of us agree it is desired, and probably in the long term, a necessary endeavor. The question is really what can we do to facilitate this-governmental super-agencies won't be able to do it. In the long-run there are two ways to space-money and war. Either it gets militirized or one can make a profit of it. But until that happens I doubt there'd be real progress.

[The Lady of Ithilien]

Most of us?

Originally posted by markedel
In the long-run there are two ways to space-money and war. Either it gets militirized or one can make a profit of it.

Nah, I think the Planetary Society et al. will be disappointed and (in America, anyway) the smart money will continue to bet on (and invest in) dams and other terrestrial public works and, frankly, non-NASA pork, which will eventually nickel-and-dime the space-related pork to death.

Originally posted by Draken
Why the either/or option? Scientific explorational and technological progress is at the expense self-awareness? No...

The short answer to the first question is, because either it's funded or it's not. Policy decision, Congress controls the purse-strings, and all that.

But in a more general sense, in The Star-splitter the dichotomy/splitting is actually done by the technology, the 'space program,' if you will: that telescope bought by the man who burned down his family home to buy it (yes, telescopes were once very rare and very expensive, and hardly ever seen in private hands in the days when the space program was in the hands of academia), a telescope that "didn't do a thing but split a star in two...." I just love the New England dryness in the comment: "It's a star-splitter if there ever was one, And ought to do some good if splitting stars 'sa thing to be compared with splitting wood."

More of us than you might imagine feel that it isn't.

Apollo was the ultimate in short-term, goal-driven space programmes, with no logical follow-on attempted.

Oh, it was attempted, all right. As mentioned above, a lot of people wanted that follow-on -- it was just about 50/50, I'd guess, or maybe 49/51%, between the "Out There" types and the shuttle supporters, respectively, and there was a lot riding on that first crucial flight. I suppose the debate's started up again now that Columbia's gone. Symbols, like swords, can be two-edged.

...but for the NASA-funded investment in developing Apollo's on board computers, we would probably still be waiting for the internet to come along so we could have this conversation!

Such conversations are peculiarly one-sided once one looks away from the glowing screen. And I wonder whether it is the same species of sociability Frost was getting at in The Star-splitter, where physical closeness allows a man to take his readers along with him for a walk along a railroad track on an icy, clear winter night to ponder both on the universe and the blindness of people who can afford to buy a telescope but can't trim the wick in their lanterns so it doesn't smoke.

In that sublime and puzzling, earthy world, "to be social is to be forgiving." But in computer-assisted conversation among strangers, which I fully concur can be traced back to NASA support, we're not living alongside most of the people we converse with, and so there's no need to be forgiving, is there? Hence, the harshness, the narrowness, the flames that always seem to pop up, even on "family-oriented" sites. (Note: that's a general observation and not intended as a comment on this wonderful thread, or this wonderful board. Am just pointing out the limitations and risks involved in any such communications.)

It would only grow worse with distance.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by The Lady of Ithilien
Nah, I think the Planetary Society et al. will be disappointed and (in America, anyway) the smart money will continue to bet on (and invest in) dams and other terrestrial public works and, frankly, non-NASA pork, which will eventually nickel-and-dime the space-related pork to death.

Oh Ill take that bet in a heart beat. In fact Ill give you 1000 to 1 odds. winner take all. Its like betting on the fact that water wont flow down hill. One way or another inevitably humanity will find itself beyond earth. It doesnt matter if this generation or the next or the next 50 act petty and pussy foot around about the funding. Its simply a matter of time. We have millions of years ahead of us barring any massive catastrophies. And space is only a 2 hour drive straight up. Well make it. No sweat.

Please people keep in mind that there are ONLY two possibilities for the future of our species: Expansion or Extinction. There is no third option about being content and all six billion of us actively deciding to sit around and read poetry. Navel gazing is the equivilent of extinction in the long run.

it was just about 50/50, I'd guess, or maybe 49/51%, between the "Out There" types and the shuttle supporters, respectively

Oh that reminds me just last week the American congress started its debate about space program funding again. Total projected budget is $15.5 billion. This is a 3% boost in NASA's overall budget. So no diminishment yet. And in fact you non-manned ONLY supporters will be delighted to know that the non-manned portion of the budget actually increases some 17 percent! The largest single increase in NASA's budget over all. In the past (as many have complained) space funding was sharply skewed toward human spaceflight. It used to be 2/3rds of the entire budget. But starting in the early 90s its been shifting and now its at 50-50. Current NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe believes in the "faster, better, cheaper" approach of many BUT he also says space exploration is not an either/or but "a combination that has to be focused for using robotic capabilities and the technology we have in order to facilitate the opportunity for human participation."

[Legolaslvr!]

Yeah we need a space program at least me and one of my bff's do!