17 replies to this topic

[leurz]

The media has been making a pretty big deal over the end of NASA's shuttle program and, well, it's over now.
Was it a big mistake? What should we be doing now? Should there be another space program to replace the shuttle program? If so, what should it be like?
Should the funds go somewhere else? Within NASA or elsewhere? How should privatized space flight fit into this?

Here's NASA's budget page in case you would like to construct an opinion based on facts/realistic possibilities. Other links to pages with facts are nice too.

[Kats]

I don't think there should be that big of a fuss over it, there will still be unmanned probes exploring and studying space. As far as 'futuristic' shit goes, there wasn't much hope for space travel/exploration by man in the first place (unless we can figure out how to travell faster than the speed of light! ) I see a lot of stupid people on Facebook (I deleted some of them..) like "OMG, no more space shuttles, no future like Star Wars!!11" My, my.

The biggest problem I had with this was letting go of some of the workers/scientists, and the only other jobs for them really are for military research.. which is just sad.


I have an idea to save government money.. get out of the Middle East. /shot

Edited by Katrinas, 14 July 2011 - 09:13 AM.

[Jake]

Katrinas, on 14 July 2011 - 09:12 AM, said:

The biggest problem I had with this was letting go of some of the workers/scientists, and the only other jobs for them really are for military research.. which is just sad.

Haha. They are filthy rich, part time at McDonalds will suffice for them until they're retired.

[chess211]

Katrinas, on 14 July 2011 - 09:12 AM, said:

I don't think there should be that big of a fuss over it, there will still be unmanned probes exploring and studying space. As far as 'futuristic' shit goes, there wasn't much hope for space travel/exploration by man in the first place (unless we can figure out how to travell faster than the speed of light! ) I see a lot of stupid people on Facebook (I deleted some of them..) like "OMG, no more space shuttles, no future like Star Wars!!11" My, my.

I agree with this. Humans are rather poor explorers in space at the moment, to really do anything useful we need all of the equipment that a robot would need, plus life support, and a method to return back to the planet.

Unless someone discovers some fundamental way of bypassing the speed of light, or effectively bypassing it through warping space, human exploration of space is useless. The only real purpose now for humans needed to travel in space is to waste money, or seed life on other planets. The first is easy to do, the second is much harder and really quests if it is even worth it since without an effective faster than light travel there will be no interstellar government of communications, so what really is the point of trying?

Now, some good things have come from the space program, such as being able to upgrade and repair Hubble, but now many of those things can be done remotely or with robots, so I do not really see any shame in ending the era of human exploration of space, as there does not seem to be any benefit for its continuation.

[redlion]

chess211, on 14 July 2011 - 12:16 PM, said:

I agree with this. Humans are rather poor explorers in space at the moment, to really do anything useful we need all of the equipment that a robot would need, plus life support, and a method to return back to the planet.

Unless someone discovers some fundamental way of bypassing the speed of light, or effectively bypassing it through warping space, human exploration of space is useless. The only real purpose now for humans needed to travel in space is to waste money, or seed life on other planets. The first is easy to do, the second is much harder and really quests if it is even worth it since without an effective faster than light travel there will be no interstellar government of communications, so what really is the point of trying?

Now, some good things have come from the space program, such as being able to upgrade and repair Hubble, but now many of those things can be done remotely or with robots, so I do not really see any shame in ending the era of human exploration of space, as there does not seem to be any benefit for its continuation.

I disagree with most of your assertions, but I want to say at the outset that you phrased your opinion well and I don't think you're necessarily wrong. It's all conjecture, ya dig?

Anyway, I agree with your cons about human explorers - we are pretty high maintenance But we also have something a computerized probe doesn't have: intelligence. When something goes wrong on a probe, there's little that can be done. At least a human explorer can attempt to fix the problem. Also in the research area, humans can infer whereas computers can only compute highest probability. For gathering interstellar data, sure the robots will win out. But for actually doing research? That's more of a human only thing. We don't have machines that can think yet.

While I agree that human 'exploration' of space will be largely fruitless until more advance propulsion comes into common usage, I don't think our only accomplishments in space are wasting money and seeding colonies. For instance, the ISS hosts experiments in a variety of fields that can be done nowhere on earth because of the prerequisite microgravity environment in space. As far as faster than light, we don't yet need it. There is plenty of exploration to be done right here in the solar system. Io and Europa hold years of research and discovery.

There were a lot of good things to come out of the Shuttle program, the least of which is putting artificial satellites in space. Possibly it's biggest contribution is the fact that it can bring something the size of a satellite back from space, which no other reentry vehicle can yet accomplish. When the DIA sends a 10$ billion dollar spy satellite into space and it breaks, they don't want to have to build a new one.

[leurz]

chess211, on 14 July 2011 - 12:16 PM, said:

Now, some good things have come from the space program, such as being able to upgrade and repair Hubble, but now many of those things can be done remotely or with robots, so I do not really see any shame in ending the era of human exploration of space, as there does not seem to be any benefit for its continuation.

But...but...but...mars!?!? *waves arms*
I mean, there are some murmurings of one way trips to mars. Think about it! Space pioneers admitting they will never return to earth! Terraforming!
Later, a possible short(ish) term solution to overpopulation!!
It's so romantic.

[chess211]

redlion, on 14 July 2011 - 02:40 PM, said:

<br>I disagree with most of your assertions, but I want to say at the outset that you phrased your opinion well and I don't think you're necessarily wrong. It's all conjecture, ya dig?<br><br>Anyway, I agree with your cons about human explorers - we are pretty high maintenance <img src="http://www.neocodex.us/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif" class="bbc_emoticon" alt=""> But we also have something a computerized probe doesn't have: intelligence. When something goes wrong on a probe, there's little that can be done. At least a human explorer can attempt to fix the problem. Also in the research area, humans can infer whereas computers can only compute highest probability. For gathering interstellar data, sure the robots will win out. But for actually doing research? That's more of a human only thing. We don't have machines that can think yet. <br><br>While I agree that human 'exploration' of space will be largely fruitless until more advance propulsion comes into common usage, I don't think our only accomplishments in space are wasting money and seeding colonies. For instance, the ISS hosts experiments in a variety of fields that can be done nowhere on earth because of the prerequisite microgravity environment in space. As far as faster than light, we don't yet need it. There is plenty of exploration to be done right here in the solar system. Io and Europa hold years of research and discovery. <br><br>There were a lot of good things to come out of the Shuttle program, the least of which is putting artificial satellites in space. Possibly it's biggest contribution is the fact that it can bring something the size of a satellite <i>back</i> from space, which no other reentry vehicle can yet accomplish. When the DIA sends a 10$ billion dollar spy satellite into space and it breaks, they don't want to have to build a new one.<br>

<br><br>Well, of course for research humans are better than computers, and likely will for a long time.&nbsp;&nbsp;Personally, I disagree with the singulatarians who believe it is simple to program intelligence into a computer.<br><br><br>My point was that there was no reason for humans to be in space, research does not require presence at the data collection point, unless that point is well beyond light minutes to light hours away, and we do not have much out that far yet.<br><br>I do agree that the human ability to adapt and fix things on the spot is important, and I would enjoy to see much more spent on such research once one issue is solved, the energy issue.&nbsp;&nbsp;A good space program is something that is planned for decades, as Europa and Titan would be the two I would hold of more value, takes years to get there, especially if we want a stationary observation instead of a flyby as most current missions are set.&nbsp;&nbsp;As these projects need decades of realization to produce returns, society needs to be stable for that long, and regardless of anyones opinions, we will need a new source of energy in a similar time frame compared to the duration of a good space program, so I would prefer to have that matter fixed before investing a lot of time in a space program.<br><br><br>Part of the issue with getting people to agree to anything like this is the cost, and the often overrun in costs.&nbsp;&nbsp;For instance the James Web Telescope was originally planned to be launched this year, but it is pushed back to probably 2018, and around $5 billion over budget.&nbsp;&nbsp;When things like this are not uncommon, for costs to increase far beyond initial estimates, it is not hard for politicians to see it as something to cut as the economic return is generally small.<br><br>My actual greatest issue with the space program and how it was run, is that it started in 1981 and ended this year, and after 30 years there was no fully developed plan of building a successor.&nbsp;&nbsp;As a comparison the Russian capsule is essentially unchanged is 1966.&nbsp;&nbsp;That to me is the greatest failure of the space program, it never managed to put together a full plan for its successor.

<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Edit: &nbsp;Mars is by many in the astrophysical profession considered rather uninteresting to study. &nbsp;Terraforming would be difficult, as it needs a long of changes to get the atmosphere up to standards for human life, and there is the issue of lacking a magnetic field which prevents dangerous cosmic radiation...which would also be a problem of getting to mars in the first place.</div>

Edited by chess211, 14 July 2011 - 03:16 PM.

[Raui]

I think that for now it's a very good thing for quite a few reasons. To sum it up though the world has bigger problems than sending people up into space. What about send a fraction of the money they spend on a shuttle program, or war for that matter although that's quite off-topic, to a 3rd world country and lead by example that humans, or should I rephrase that to governments, don't have to be greedy, self-centered and all the other qualities that many say is just "human nature"

Peace.

[officialjudicialartificial]

I suspect it isn't going to be the end to space exploration at all. I really think the private sector is going to drive space flight, and possibly even accelerate it. There's already a few companies preparing for manned space flight. When they get that down and settled and start profiting off it, they're going go look at where they can go from there - settlement on the moon, mars, outside solar system, etc.

[necospes]

Fartificial, on 14 July 2011 - 06:00 PM, said:

I suspect it isn't going to be the end to space exploration at all. I really think the private sector is going to drive space flight, and possibly even accelerate it. There's already a few companies preparing for manned space flight. When they get that down and settled and start profiting off it, they're going go look at where they can go from there - settlement on the moon, mars, outside solar system, etc.

You are right. NASA's last space shuttle marks the end of public supported space exploration, but private space flight is still here. My only question is will the private sector be enough? I assume that companies will only conduct missions that are profitable, so what is profitable about space? What about the important missions that companies will not touch because they do not make any money off of it?

I think we still need NASA. Its budget wasn't even that large. To put it in perspective, Neil deGrasse Tyson notes that "The entire half-century budget of NASA equals the current two year budget of the US military." We couldn't spend just a little bit less on our behemoth of a military in support of NASA?

[redlion]

Fartificial, on 14 July 2011 - 06:00 PM, said:

I suspect it isn't going to be the end to space exploration at all. I really think the private sector is going to drive space flight, and possibly even accelerate it. There's already a few companies preparing for manned space flight. When they get that down and settled and start profiting off it, they're going go look at where they can go from there - settlement on the moon, mars, outside solar system, etc.

When the private sector can raise billions to create a comparable craft, let me know. Tier One spent over 100,000,000 USD to win a 10,000,000 USD purse from the Ansari X Prize, and their craft has nowhere near the capabilities of the shuttle - despite the fact it was designed over twenty years later! Admittedly, this is partially because of the limited functionality demanded by the X Prize, but still, wouldn't you TRY for a better spacecraft anyway? I mean, If I were spending 100,000,000 bucks, I'd at least want the option to win some contracts from various governments. No, there is no commercial application for space travel, with the possible exception of tourism. And when the russians will shoot you into space for a couple million a pop, training included, there isn't much room for the private sector to undercut.

You're implying that these advancements are sure to come, when in reality they are anything but assured. What happens when they can't make money off of manned space flight? Then all your conjecture is for shit.

No, I'm betting the first commercial applications in space will not be from the actual transportation bit, but from the resources out there. Helium-3 isotopes from the moon's regolith are a particularly hot topic because of their potential facilitation of nuclear fusion reactors. But I've strayed from the topic quite a ways...

necospes, on 14 July 2011 - 08:39 PM, said:

You are right. NASA's last space shuttle marks the end of public supported space exploration

Yeah... talking out your ass there. The russians have been in space longer than the Americans, and they have reentry vehicles. Google the Soyuz spacecraft. Also, the Chinese recently built their own variant of the Soyuz craft, named the Shenzhou.

And those are just the ones currently in use. Around a half dozen countries are currently planning on producing manned reentry vehicles, including Japan, the ESA, India and Iran. The ESA technically represents a consortium of European countries, but could Denmark really afford to get into space without some help? Anyway, in this post I've only discussed countries currently pursuing manned space flight. This is nothing compared to the amount of countries involved in space exploration, as you put it.

[officialjudicialartificial]

redlion, on 14 July 2011 - 11:23 PM, said:

When the private sector can raise billions to create a comparable craft, let me know. Tier One spent over 100,000,000 USD to win a 10,000,000 USD purse from the Ansari X Prize, and their craft has nowhere near the capabilities of the shuttle - despite the fact it was designed over twenty years later! Admittedly, this is partially because of the limited functionality demanded by the X Prize, but still, wouldn't you TRY for a better spacecraft anyway? I mean, If I were spending 100,000,000 bucks, I'd at least want the option to win some contracts from various governments. No, there is no commercial application for space travel, with the possible exception of tourism. And when the russians will shoot you into space for a couple million a pop, training included, there isn't much room for the private sector to undercut.

You're implying that these advancements are sure to come, when in reality they are anything but assured. What happens when they can't make money off of manned space flight? Then all your conjecture is for shit.

No, I'm betting the first commercial applications in space will not be from the actual transportation bit, but from the resources out there. Helium-3 isotopes from the moon's regolith are a particularly hot topic because of their potential facilitation of nuclear fusion reactors. But I've strayed from the topic quite a ways...

There's no doubt that private companies are going to continue to invest in space. We only have to look at Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic, and the hope he has invested in it. For $200,000, and not a "couple million a pop", you can book a ticket to jet off in to space. As the technology continues to improve and become more streamlined, expect that figure to fall. You can also consider the technology that may arise from this - jetting in to space to travel around the world in an hour rather than 24 hours. And imagine, down the road, if they could establish colonies on other planets - it would be a huge tourist draw and there would be a lot of money in it.

However, I wasn't arguing that the private sector would nullify the importance of organisations such as NASA. What it could do though, is free up a lot of time and resources for these organisations to focus on goals of arguably more importance (i.e. deep space exploration).

[redlion]

Fartificial, on 15 July 2011 - 12:19 AM, said:

There's no doubt that private companies are going to continue to invest in space. We only have to look at Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic, and the hope he has invested in it. For $200,000, and not a "couple million a pop", you can book a ticket to jet off in to space. As the technology continues to improve and become more streamlined, expect that figure to fall. You can also consider the technology that may arise from this - jetting in to space to travel around the world in an hour rather than 24 hours. And imagine, down the road, if they could establish colonies on other planets - it would be a huge tourist draw and there would be a lot of money in it.

However, I wasn't arguing that the private sector would nullify the importance of organisations such as NASA. What it could do though, is free up a lot of time and resources for these organisations to focus on goals of arguably more importance (i.e. deep space exploration).

Well, strictly speaking, you can't get into space with Virgin Galactic - yet. They don't have a working spacecraft. So any price projections are purely speculative. And a lot can go wrong between now and then.

Quote

Will Whitehorn, until recently president of Virgin Galactic, stated that the company would "not put a definite timeline on when the commercial flights would begin" but that "all was on track with its development plans" and that "If all goes to plan", the inaugural sub-orbital flight should happen "within two years [of June 2009]".

So their projections are already off.


But the russians will get you into space now given that you can pay. And not some shoddy, suborbital flight with six minutes of weightlessness, but a full on cosmonaut experience in deep orbit.

Edit: It appears that the russians suspended tourism flights (which cost 25-30 million) to the ISS in 2010 because the space station's crew size recently increased. Tourism opportunities are supposed to resume in 2013.

[officialjudicialartificial]

redlion, on 15 July 2011 - 12:39 AM, said:

Well, strictly speaking, you can't get into space with Virgin Galactic - yet. They don't have a working spacecraft. So any price projections are purely speculative. And a lot can go wrong between now and then. So their projections are already off.

http://www.virgingalactic.com/booking/

People have already bought tickets. Virgin are legally obligated to fulfil those agreements, therefore prices aren't speculative.

[redlion]

Fartificial, on 15 July 2011 - 12:46 AM, said:

http://www.virgingalactic.com/booking/

People have already bought tickets. Virgin are legally obligated to fulfil those agreements, therefore prices aren't speculative.

Fine, prices may not be speculative. But the success of the only private company to attempt this sort of thing? Speculative. Besides, the fact that they've sold 430 tickets does not mean that their business model will be commercially viable. That's only 86 million dollars in gross revenue anyway, assuming everyone paid in full, up front (which is not likely with only a 10% deposit required). They've probably burned through that just getting the permits from Nevada, the US Federal government, and the FAA to put commercial flights in space.

[leurz]

It does look like fun.

What about the mining industries? Asteroids have molybdenum and plenty of other minerals that we use for gadgets.
I think it's plausible that the private sector could go into mining. It could become cost effective soon, especially since mining is so destructive to
nature/indigenous communities/any community and regulations on new mining is getting progressively stricter.

[necospes]

redlion, on 14 July 2011 - 11:23 PM, said:

Yeah... talking out your ass there. The russians have been in space longer than the Americans, and they have reentry vehicles. Google the Soyuz spacecraft. Also, the Chinese recently built their own variant of the Soyuz craft, named the Shenzhou.

And those are just the ones currently in use. Around a half dozen countries are currently planning on producing manned reentry vehicles, including Japan, the ESA, India and Iran. The ESA technically represents a consortium of European countries, but could Denmark really afford to get into space without some help? Anyway, in this post I've only discussed countries currently pursuing manned space flight. This is nothing compared to the amount of countries involved in space exploration, as you put it.

My bad. I forgot to add USA. lol =/

[Broham]

USA is becoming a slave to 'good enough' and not striving towards 'the best'.

No more space shuttles proves this point.