Do we still need a space program?

[Wayfarer]

Yay for space travel. The sooner I can get off this rock the better.

[Ruinel]

I know I'll get a lot of criticism for this, but I don't think that budget is enough for what NASA is being asked to do. For all the past successful missions to the moon, there were many failures. Each failure meant money gone, even though NASA learned from their mistakes.

Now NASA is being asked to do something no one has done before, to build a manned station on the moon. I know the budget he proposed seems high, but think about how much just one shuttle costs to build, $1.7 billion. Maintenance is far more. NASA had done a fairly good job with the funds it has, even with the Columbia accident.

When NASA postpones a flight because of bad weather or such, it costs $750,000 in overtime pay and fuel.

The Bush agenda has as its guiding principle "that government should be market-based." I find this unrealistic, at best. There's not always profit to be made in scientific discoveries. And if there isn't, does that mean it is valueless?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ruinel
I know I'll get a lot of criticism for this, but I don't think that budget is enough for what NASA is being asked to do. For all the past successful missions to the moon, there were many failures. Each failure meant money gone, even though NASA learned from their mistakes.

Now NASA is being asked to do something no one has done before, to build a manned station on the moon. I know the budget he proposed seems high, but think about how much just one shuttle costs to build, $1.7 billion. Maintenance is far more. NASA had done a fairly good job with the funds it has, even with the Columbia accident.

We can't just not do it or not work toward it because it's expensive - man would never get anywhere.

NASA was also asked during the manned moon missions to do something that was never attempted before - and that was land on the moon. It's about time we attempted to colonize the moon - or figure out how to do it and start preparing for it.

When NASA postpones a flight because of bad weather or such, it costs $750,000 in overtime pay and fuel.

That is true - but as the technology because better - the costs go down. With out the attempts - the costs will always be sky high.

At some point space flight will be as common as going to the other side of the world. But we won't get there without the efforts and current expenses to make it happen.

The Bush agenda has as its guiding principle "that government should be market-based." I find this unrealistic, at best. There's not always profit to be made in scientific discoveries. And if there isn't, does that mean it is valueless?

No - just like the rover isn't valueless right now. What return are we going to get for that? I it bringing back gold, oil or anything? No - it's bringing back knowledge - which in itself is worth something. But that does not mean that manned missions, such as those proposed, are a waste of time either.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
We can't just not do it or not work toward it because it's expensive - man would never get anywhere.

NASA was also asked during the manned moon missions to do something that was never attempted before - and that was land on the moon. It's about time we attempted to colonize the moon - or figure out how to do it and start preparing for it.

You misunderstand me. I don't think that this mission should not go through. I'm saying that it is unrealistic to expect it to be something that will produce a profit, or even be able to be built with the new budget proposed.

That is true - but as the technology because better - the costs go down. With out the attempts - the costs will always be sky high.

That was assumed when the shuttle projects were first proposed. However, that has not been the case. Traveling to space is expensive, that's just a fact. You can't hire baboons with no education to design the components of a manned station on the moon. You have to hire the best, that costs money. And you can't just get spare parts from a warehouse someplace at a discount price. These parts have to be designed and manufactured. And the station has to be maintained by trained personnel. You can't pay people minimun wage to take care of sensitive equipment that cares for the lives of people.

At some point space flight will be as common as going to the other side of the world. But we won't get there without the efforts and current expenses to make it happen.

That's also what people thought when the shuttle project started, that space flight would become common. That hasn't happened, and I do not see it happening anytime soon. Fuel costs alone keep the price of a ticket out of the reach of 99% of the world's population. The other 1% have far more important things to spend their money on.

No - just like the rover isn't valueless right now. What return are we going to get for that? I it bringing back gold, oil or anything? No - it's bringing back knowledge - which in itself is worth something. But that does not mean that manned missions, such as those proposed, are a waste of time either.

I'm glad you think that. I think so too. I'm so tired of people saying that this or that research is worthless and shouldn't get funding because it will not yield a profit somewhere. You go online and people post how the space program costs the taxpayers too much money and should be abandoned. It just makes me sad.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Ruinel
That was assumed when the shuttle projects were first proposed. However, that has not been the case. Traveling to space is expensive, that's just a fact.

That's also what people thought when the shuttle project started, that space flight would become common. That hasn't happened, and I do not see it happening anytime soon. Fuel costs alone keep the price of a ticket out of the reach of 99% of the world's population.

and these are two very good reasons TO establish a moon base. Once we do the hard work of actually setting one up we no longer will have to deal with struggling to break earths gravity EVERY time we want to do something in space. The moon has no gavity so it wont take a hydrogen bombs worth of fuel to get things of the surface like you need on earth. 95% of the material and force and energy needed to get into space is because of earths gravity. once we have a base somewhere where we dont need to kill ourselves to get off of then we can pour resources eslewhere. Thats why its so important to have a working space station AND a working moon station by the time we are ready to go to mars and other places in the solar system in my opinion.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
and these are two very good reasons TO establish a moon base. Once we do the hard work of actually setting one up we no longer will have to deal with struggling to break earths gravity EVERY time we want to do something in space. The moon has no gavity so it wont take a hydrogen bombs worth of fuel to get things of the surface like you need on earth. 95% of the material and force and energy needed to get into space is because of earths gravity. once we have a base somewhere where we dont need to kill ourselves to get off of then we can pour resources eslewhere. Thats why its so important to have a working space station AND a working moon station by the time we are ready to go to mars and other places in the solar system in my opinion.

Knowing what you know about 'lowest bidder', would you go work on the moon?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Knowing what you know about 'lowest bidder', would you go work on the moon?

The government usually works with lowest bidder. For one thing - generally the public demands it. They only see dollar figures - and public doesn't know who has the experience or not.

There is more to it than just lowest bidder though - you do have to prove you can handle the job before you can be considered as one of the lowest bidders. So - yes - I would work on the moon. It's no different than working on the Space Station - and in some respects even better because there we have the Russian's technology to worry about, which caused a lot of problems.

[Nurvingiel]

The search for knowledge is important. I think the biggest reason we need a space program is we are going to need a new planet in the future considering the rate we use resources.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
and these are two very good reasons TO establish a moon base. Once we do the hard work of actually setting one up we no longer will have to deal with struggling to break earths gravity EVERY time we want to do something in space. The moon has no gavity so it wont take a hydrogen bombs worth of fuel to get things of the surface like you need on earth. 95% of the material and force and energy needed to get into space is because of earths gravity. once we have a base somewhere where we dont need to kill ourselves to get off of then we can pour resources eslewhere. Thats why its so important to have a working space station AND a working moon station by the time we are ready to go to mars and other places in the solar system in my opinion.

Umm...the moon has no gravity!?!?!?

As this space pointed out last month, minimum weight at departure from low-Earth orbit for a stripped-down, austere Moon base might be 600 tons, and at current NASA launch prices, it costs $15 billion to place 600 tons into low-Earth orbit. Fifteen billion is NASA's entire budget--and that's just the cost to launch the Moon thing, not to build it, staff it, and support it.

An Apollo spacecraft at departure from low-Earth orbit for the Moon weighed about 45 tons, and the manned part was tiny--astronauts could not stand up or move inside--as most of the weight was fuel. Considering that Moon-base weight would also be mostly fuel, numerous launches firing 600 tons toward the Moon for the purpose of making a base would actually result in little more than a couple of metal huts, some supplies and some antennas. Program cost for the International Space Station, currently losing air pressure, is about $100 billion, and it does not leave orbit. A rough guess would be that to build something about the size of the International Space Station (ISS) on the Moon would cost at least twice as much, $200 billion. And the ISS itself is mainly cramped modules, supplies, and antennas.

What would astronauts at a Moon base do? I haven't the foggiest notion. Note that NASA has not so much as sent a robot probe to the Moon in 30 years, because as far as space-exploration advocates can tell, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, of value to do on the Moon. Geologists are interested in the Moon's formation. If there is ever a fusion reactor to meet the world's energy needs, the "helium three" on the Moon might prove useful, but fusion reactors are decades away from practicality, assuming they ever work. Spending $200 billion on a Moon base that does nothing would be pure, undiluted government waste.

And a Moon base would not only not be useful to support a Mars mission--it would be an obstacle to a Mars mission. Any weight bound for Mars can far more efficiently depart directly from low-Earth orbit than a first stop at the Moon; a stop at the Moon would require huge expenditures of fuel to land and take off again. The landing, in turn, would accomplish absolutely nothing--any mission components on the Moon would have been sent there from Earth, which means they could have departed directly for Mars from low-Earth orbit at a far lower cost.

In the days to come, any administration official who says that a Moon base could support a Mars mission is revealing himself or herself to be a total science illiterate. When you hear, "A Moon base could support a Mars mission," substitute the words, "I have absolutely no idea what I am talking about." Hint to reporters: If any administration official says "a Moon base could support a Mars mission," quickly ask, "What was the fuel fraction of the Lunar Excursion Module?" The answer is two-thirds. The LEM was what landed on the Moon during Apollo, and rocket propulsion has not changed much since, meaning that any future Mars spacecraft that stops at the Moon will expend two-thirds of its weight merely to land there and take off again. This renders the idea of stopping at the Moon on the way to Mars patent drivel. (Actually only about 15 percent of the descent weight of the LEM returned to lunar orbit, so the fuel-fraction calculation for a Moon stopover is even worse.)

Ther's more....

http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=1166

I'm a big supporter of manned space travel (is it pc to say "manned"? ) but the amount of money required is going to be massive- this is basically a 'vision thing' election-year ploy.

[Valandil]

Mixed feelings about Bush's plan:

I DO think we'll eventually send a 'manned' mission to Mars. I think the main reason will be just the doing. Otherwise I don't expect it to be a very fruitful undertaking. We may continue to venture further out into the solar system in centuries to come... again at great cost, and with probably little return beyond finding our for sure, first hand, just what things are like in various places. There may be ancillary benefits of course, as the space program has already produced... but I don't know if we'll have quite the explosive growth in these areas. I won't be surprised if the rate of creation of these benefits slows down considerably.

I DON'T think a Moon Base or Colony is the optimum platform for assembling missions to Mars and beyond. I would think we could do anything in Earth orbit that we could do on the moon's surface - and that's a lot closer at hand. (translation: cheaper, faster and easier)

I disagree with those who think that the future of mankind is in space. Our future is right here, baby - so we better take care of what we've been given. Even if a suitable habitat for humans was found (or made) off-earth, the apparent costs of transportation for each person, PLUS what is needed to keep them alive - would be just exhorbitant. MUCH more expensive than taking care of a wonderful planet that we're so blessed to have!

I LOVE Star Trek (original recipe) - but keep in mind that warp drive and teleportation are still science fiction. Those kinds of 'technologies' may never be attained - and may in fact, be totally unattainable. In a Star Trek world, space travel is quite doable - even over the vast distances that exist between stars - but let's make sure we can separate what can really be done from what cannot - or at least, what might not. (not to dispense with dreaming - or forbid anyone from trying to make it happen - I'll just remain sceptical until we're a good deal closer)

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Umm...the moon has no gravity!?!?!?

The moon does have a gravitational pull, since it has a mass.

EDIT: In case anyone was curious, the moon's acceleration due to gravity (or gravity on the moon as it's been called) is 1/6th that of the Earth... which is 9.81 m/s/s).

Anything that has mass would exert a gravitational pull on another object, actually.

Ther's more....

http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=1166

I'm a big supporter of manned space travel (is it pc to say "manned"? ) but the amount of money required is going to be massive- this is basically a 'vision thing' election-year ploy.

I have to agree. Politicians tend to espouse great and wonderful plans and ideas for many purposes. Some of it is to divert attention from some scandal or bad decision, some of it is to win back approval ratings. Later, that shiny, juicy, red apple that was offered to you turns out to be rotten with a worm in it.

Oh, and furthermore, I never trust anything that comes out of a politicians mouth during an election year. I don't care what party they come from.

[Grey_Wolf]

We have the entire Solar System and the technology to explore it so why not get going.

The Moon first (on which we establish a base) from which orbit we construct huge ships with which we explore and colonize the rest of the System.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Grey_Wolf
We have the entire Solar System and the technology to explore it so why not get going.

The Moon first (on which we establish a base) from which orbit we construct huge ships with which we explore and colonize the rest of the System.

Seems very exciting to think about it or see it in a movie, but I think to live it would be SOOOO boring... once the initial excitement wore off.

Plus, we gotta get each person enough air, water, food, warmth - opportunities for community and solitude, etc. And once they go, it's hard to change their minds. And if anything goes really, really wrong, it's VERY hard to get back.

And imagine if you got 'there' and realized you forgot something very important?? ("I thought FOR SURE I packed all my Tolkien books!!!" )

[Anglorfin]

I skipped a few pages in the middle so please stop me if this aspect has been covered, but the space program has had a profound impact on our daily life just for the fact that it's research is so rigorouosly carried out and very innovative.

I mean where would we be if the space program hadn't gotten us the Swedish tempurpedic mattress?

I know, stupid example but the point is that the space program will always be part of the leading edge in research and developement which is why I think it is so vital.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Valandil
Seems very exciting to think about it or see it in a movie, but I think to live it would be SOOOO boring... once the initial excitement wore off.

True, it's not like you can pop down to the store and pick up the latest dvd to watch. Living space would be very limited, as would the entertainment resources available.

Plus, we gotta get each person enough air, water, food, warmth - opportunities for community and solitude, etc. And once they go, it's hard to change their minds. And if anything goes really, really wrong, it's VERY hard to get back.

Apollo 13 is a good example of the limits one has when something goes wrong.

And imagine if you got 'there' and realized you forgot something very important?? ("I thought FOR SURE I packed all my Tolkien books!!!" )

GASP!!! *shudder*

I think you would not be allowed to bring your Tolkien books for lack of space and the heaviness of the books. If you could somehow get them on CD, then I think it would be fine. I'm sure that personal items would have a volume and mass limit. After all, all those more important resources you listed above (like water, food, shelter, etc) are more important than one's free time occupations.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Umm...the moon has no gravity!?!?!?

my apologies I meant the moon has no ATMOSPHERE and much less gravity. A 120 pound person would only weigh 19 pounds on the moon. You could throw a softball into escape orbit from what I understand so Im a little confused why you say its really hard to get off the moon. Try doing that from earth. Sure launching stuff from outside earths orbit would be great too but I already said that.

I never suggested the moon should be used as some sort of rest stop on the way to other planets. thats silly. Once you are launched and in space theres no point in landing till you are where you need to be. It takes little fuel to go through the vacuum of space obviously. we should put equipment on the moon because the moon ITSELF is a valuable piece of our solar systems history to study. Due to the lack of any significant atmosphere, the moons surface has undergone very little change. Therefore, the information found underneath the regolith is extremely valuable for the studies of the meteoroid and particle fluxes in the interplanetary medium over billions of years. Going to the moon is BY FAR the cheapest and easiest way to do that. And further studies of the physics of the Moon will benefit in fields far beyond the lunar and planetary sciences themselves. Space exploration is not just about flashy shiny “non-boring” stuff. Space exploration is mostly about dirty anonymous work. We need to get away from the concept of well if we cant ooh and aah about it then we shouldn’t spend any money on it. Wed never get anywhere if everyone believed that.

the amount of money required is going to be massive- this is basically a 'vision thing' election-year ploy.

you know Im kind of disappointed that this has become simply an opportunity to play partisan games and to trivialize this issue which I feel is so much bigger then petty human politics. JUST because Bush suggested it doesn’t mean you HAVE to hate it if you don’t like Bush. Im not a big fan of Bush either but I sure as hell am glad somebody suggested that we should continue exploring space because we should. Irrelevant of WHO suggests it or WHY.

And Im seeing some of the same old arguments I saw at the beginning of this thread (and that I hear all the time from the general public) that whats the point, its boring, its dumb, we have better things to do, we weren’t designed for space, we should be happy and content right here, we should resist our instinctual urge to explore beyond our boundries blah blah blah. Fortunately it’s a guarantee that we (as a species) WILL go beyond our birth home and cut the ambilical chord and ooze out into the cosmos. Its simply our nature. Its simply going to happen people. So what we need to do is THINK about HOW we want to do this. NOT fuss about politics and how ALL of NASAs budget should go to soup kitchens or tax breaks or something. If you manage to stop this current generation from exploring space then it will simply fall to the next one. Or the next after that. Its unstoppable. And if you really think that by then ALL our financial and social problems will be solved then I have a bridge to sell you. If anything else they will be worse. Perhaps much worse. This aint star trek. Space exploration can lead to the very things that DO give us unthought of solutions to old problems. I hate that we are unwilling to break out of our little birth shell simply because of money. And I don’t really want it to come down to competition or commercialism because both those things can corrupt the science involved and breed a corner cutting mentality which leads to disasters. We should be willing to pay some money to do this. Unfortunately I can predict that the democrats in congress will be just as partisan about this whole idea as others have been so far and they will attack it for political benefit. And frankly that’s a shame. Course if a democrat had suggested this then it would have been the republicans cutting it up for the very same reasons.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Knowing what you know about 'lowest bidder', would you go work on the moon?

Hey if Halliburton is running things there I could probably charge the government 5000% higher for resources and get filthy rich.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Hey if Halliburton is running things there I could probably charge the government 5000% higher for resources and get filthy rich.

But what could you buy up there???

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Valandil
But what could you buy up there???

cheese of course. and real estate.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
you know Im kind of disappointed that this has become simply an opportunity to play partisan games and to trivialize this issue which I feel is so much bigger then petty human politics. JUST because Bush suggested it doesn’t mean you HAVE to hate it if you don’t like Bush. Im not a big fan of Bush either but I sure as hell am glad somebody suggested that we should continue exploring space because we should. Irrelevant of WHO suggests it or WHY.

I agree. I can't stand it when people have a problem with something just because of who it was suggested by. I didn't particularly Clinton - but there were things I supported. James McGreevey - New Jersey's governor has a 30% approval rating, I for one can't stand him, but there are things that he has implemented or suggested that I do support.