Posted on 02/06/2010 12:42:42 AM PST by Names Ash Housewares
I’m going to have to dig up the approximate ROI from the aggregate investment we’ve made in space exploration. Of all the programs we spend tax money on, space exploration is the one that has paid us the highest and most consistent commerical and military dividends.
To abandon the occupation of space by human beings seems to me to be the opposite of economically sensible.
Our military dominance in the world is a direct result of our almost near domination of space militarily.
I;m very much for space exploration, hence my FR ID Saganite. Just not in the way you envision it. Science is accomplished with robotic probes, not manned missions. If Bigelow and others can find useful employment in LEO and even beyond I applaud them. By the way, the reason Bigelow has only launched two “balloons” as you so derisevily call them (they are far superior to ISS) is lack of lift, not because the technology is deficient. I believe I stated Bigelow’s “balloons” was inititially a NASA program (you would have had to actually read my post to ascertain that).
As for China, I’ll believe it when I see it happen. You’re aware aren’t you that the last China manned mission revealed the live conversations between the chinanauts and ground control before the actual launch?
Homer Hickam.....
Defending the moon - 2010-02-02 12:06:03 Here is a list of six reasons why the United States should make it a national goal to establish a laboratory on the moon, similar to our Antarctic South Pole Station:
1. National prestige. Many decisions are made in other countries based on how they perceive us . Are we young and dynamic and growing or are we old, lethargic, and dying? If we are considered the latter, we will be attacked in both overt and subtle ways.
2. Growing our economy based on technological and scientific leadership. If we accomplish great engineering and scientific tasks, such as going to the moon and staying there, we will attract the best and brightest minds in the world to not only help us on the moon but to keep us advancing in all technologies. This equals a dynamic, nimble, robust, long-term economy.
3. Teaching our young people how to succeed. Anytime a great technological project is taken on by the United States with clear purpose, resolve, and defined goals, the result is success which inspires all Americans, especially our youth.
4. Energy. Space is awash in energy resources. The moon is a place to take advantage of that.
5. Fighting terrorism. To stop the ideology of terror from taking hold in young minds, we must provide those minds with a grand new perception of the universe. Imagine a young person stepping outside a mud hut and looking up at the moon and knowing there are people there accomplishing great tasks. His heart will soar and he will want to join us, not them.
6. The X Factor. What we don’t know, we don’t know. The moon holds secrets, perhaps to our very survival.
Hope this helps everyone interested in defending our moon program.
Look up lunar Helium 3 and nuclear fusion.
Would you like China to lead in that industry someday?
Again...
The nations that lead on the frontier, dictate the course of human history.
That is worth a tiny percentage of the federal budget!!
The proof below shows exactly how tiny NASA spending is...
http://www.federalbudget.com/chart.gif
“Science is accomplished with robotic probes, not manned missions”
Science is accomplished by both the man on the scene and by remote instrumentation and sensing.
“By the way, the reason Bigelow has only launched two “balloons” as you so derisevily call them (they are far superior to ISS) is lack of lift, not because the technology is deficient.”
They aren’t functional stations, so they aren’t, by definition, superior to an actual deployed station. Of course, you really don’t have a clue about any of this stuff.
“I believe I stated Bigelow’s “balloons” was inititially a NASA program (you would have had to actually read my post to ascertain that).”
If you had read MINE, you’d have noted that Transhab, the NASA program, was a “manned mission” that you claim was canceled to support “manned missions”.
“As for China, I’ll believe it when I see it happen.”
We dismissed Russia at one point, too.
Science hasn’t been accomplished by manned missions since they picked the last lunar rock about 40 years ago. Since then it’s been LEO. Nothing has been accomplished other than building ISS and servicing Hubble. Not much of a record for 40 years.
You can disparage Bigelow all you want but structurally the test articles up there now are far superior to ISS in absorbing damage and habitability. It’s just a matter of time until they will make ISS and any other like structure totally obsolete. Saying they aren’t superior to ISS because they aren’t currently manned is an absolute absurdity. It’s like comparing the test article for the first jet powered aircraft to a P-51.
By the way, Russia doesn’t have much of a manned program of late do they? They don’t have a private sector eager to take over though. Guess we dismissed them too soon. /s/
That list is terrible. There was not one single good reason in it. Conservatives are generally of a mind that the tech gains from space travel were grossly oversold. Who in the country cares about foreign opinion of us? I have a friend who worked on the space station boondoggle. It was a 25 billion dollar waste, then we gave it to the russians and paid them to maintain it for one reason. “to give their scientists something to do other than be contracted to design nukes for Iran”.
“Science hasn’t been accomplished by manned missions since they picked the last lunar rock about 40 years ago. Since then it’s been LEO. Nothing has been accomplished other than building ISS and servicing Hubble. Not much of a record for 40 years.”
That’s a bit of a stretch. Of course, a “Saganite” would also believe - as he did - that missile defense is impossible. Sagan also believed that, in the end, manned space flight was essential to the survival of the human race. He was a mixed bag.
“You can disparage Bigelow all you want but structurally the test articles up there now are far superior to ISS in absorbing damage and habitability. It’s just a matter of time until they will make ISS and any other like structure totally obsolete.”
Also a stretch.
“Saying they aren’t superior to ISS because they aren’t currently manned is an absolute absurdity. It’s like comparing the test article for the first jet powered aircraft to a P-51.”
They are not deployed space stations. The concept is only an absurdity to someone who’s only experience with anything technical is reading Popular Mechanics.
“By the way, Russia doesn’t have much of a manned program of late do they? They don’t have a private sector eager to take over though. Guess we dismissed them too soon. /s/”
They will have the only really active manned launch capability until China increases their launch rate.
“Conservatives are generally of a mind that the tech gains from space travel were grossly oversold”
No, “conservatives” are not generally of that mind. You are, but you do NOT speak for the rest of us.
The military domination of space currently doesn’t depend on manned missions. Space exploration has undoubtedly contributed to advancements across the board. Just, not recently, manned exploration.
I agree that spending money on space exploration (manned or unmanned) is superior to most any other govt program but lately the returns have been as a result of robotic exploration, not manned. The money available would be much better spent continuing robotic exploration of space for the foreseeable future. Finally, nowhere in the article or any of my posts is the abandonment of space by manned missions proposed. It is however proposed that what is currently being done by manned NASA missions can be better done by private industry.
I really don’t know why it’s so difficult for posters here on a conservative forum (not suggesting you are among them) to have more faith in the private sector than the govt sector. I suspect it has a lot to do with Obama proposing it but good ideas come from strange vectors sometimes and we have to recognize them when they do.
Well I see you will never be convinced then.
I have to fight Obama on this to my utmost as I have on almost everything else and I am in good company for sure...
http://web.me.com/michaelokuda/CONSTELLATION/OTHER_VOICES.html
APOLLO 17 COMMANDER GENE CERNAN, the last man to walk on the moon, says it’s critical to go back to the Moon for America’s future. Cernan said that returning to the Moon and reaching beyond will help make a better world for his grandkids. MyFox Houston link includes Cernan video!
ASTRONAUT HARRISON SCHMITT, the only geologist to walk on the moon, calls the proposed cancellation of Constellation “a colossal mistake,” one with serious consequences for the United States.
THE END OF AN ERA? Brian Williams, anchor and managing editor of NBC Nightly News, wonders if this is the end of an era and the end of something that helped make us great.
THE ROCKET BOY SPEAKS! Writer and former NASA engineer Homer Hickam - of Rocket Boys fame - is not necessarily opposed to changing parts of Constellation, but is deeply opposed to canceling the goal of returning to the Moon. Homer also listed his six reasons why he feels we need to establish a laboratory on the Moon.
ASTRONAUT TOM JONES suggests in his blog that the proposed NASA budget shows that the lessons of Columbia have already been forgotten. “Without a goal worthy of the serious risks of human spaceflight, we will be putting our astronauts in danger to do nothing more than crew a research outpost.” He believes the budget “seems merely an attempt to disguise the demise of U.S. leadership in space.”
CHRISTOPHER CALDWELL of the London Financial Times fears that cancelling Constellation would be “one step back for mankind,” suggesting that a “decision to abandon moon exploration has ‘decline’ written all over it.
PAUL SPUDIS, a senior space scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, blogs that the proposed “flexible path” is an “activity without direction.” He says that Constellation, and NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration provide clear goals that identify the specific activities necessary to achieve those goals. He points out that “steps taken in random directions yield uncertain progress.”
SCOTT “DOC” HOROWITZ, former NASA Associate Administrator for Exploration and four-time shuttle astronaut, describes the Ares I launch vehicle, the workhorse of Project Constellation. He points out that Ares I is a safe, sound design, and that it is not behind schedule OR over budget, but is simply working within budgetary realities.
REP. PETE OLSON (TX), decries the proposed cancellation of Constellation. “This is a crippling blow to America’s human space flight program.” Olson adds, “I strongly urge the President to reconsider any attempt to reduce the role of human spaceflight at NASA. Congress also has an important role in the decision-making process, and I will be working steadfastly with my colleagues to ensure that this shortsighted proposal is not the final answer on the future of NASA.”
Don't be too sure.
Only a “bit” of a stretch? Pretty much an acknowledgement of my point. Thank you.
I don’t believe the era of manned exploration is over. Else Bigelow would be a fool and Space-X’s Elon Musk would be wasting their time and fortunes. However, NASA is much better at doing what it is supposed to do (exploring) without the manned program. If they cut it loose they will accomplish so much more with what they have (which was an idea championed by Sagan and my reason for attaching my FR name to his) than by building another manned mission to nowhere.
If you knew anything about the Bigelow test articles (and I suspect you do) you would know they are far more robust than ISS because they are far better able to absorb the everyday abuse orbital platforms are subjected to. Saying they’re irrelevant (the thrust of your point) because they aren’t manned is shortsighted.
In fact, it’s a point I would expect an engineer to make. No imagination, no ability to see the future, just turn out a better lock nut. That pretty much sums up your outlook. Good luck with that and I’ll end it here. Have a good day.
I agree with your assessment that robotized exploration is currently leading the state of the art. The immediate problem you have with privatization of manned spaceflight is lack of a viable business plan worthy of sustaining the capital risk.
Space tourism is a possibility, but not yet, and not enough to provide the R&D influx required to provide the margins necessary for growth AND scientific breakthrough, in my opinion.
A manned laboratory in space has some merit, but only if you can apply it to technologies not requiring scale manufacturing, which is what would be required to likely monitize what you’d get from a floating lab.
I think satellite and planetary colonization, while expensive, would pay for itself in dozens of spin-off technologies, just as Friendship, Gemini, and Apollo did.
Your major point, I believe, and a point well taken, is that NASA is no longer entrepreneurial, and the politics behind it no longer matter enough to put a wolf at their doorstep - an absolute requirement if you expect a government program to break new ground.
Kennedy gave them a decade, and the US was literally scared to death of the Soviets. I can’t tell you how much I miss the cold war in many cases.
Kennedy was right when he said, “We choose to go to the Moon, not because it is easy, but because it is hard.” Everyone believed that had they let up for one month, the Soviets would have beat them to the Moon, and beyond that, perhaps have gone on to put offensive missiles there.
Certainly a plausible point of view after 1962.
I believe it is a worthwhile investment in taxpayer capital to put a member of a representative republic and a capitalist on the Moon or Mars, permanently. As backward and completely contradictory as that above statement sounds, in this case, once we have a permanent place to go in space, then a viable private business model will be in obvious evidence.
The only entity that can assume a risk of that magnitude without being bankrupt in five minutes by the tort bar is the US Government.
As such, I absolutely agree that for NASA to remain viable, they need to work against a credible threat. Today, there doesn’t appear to be one.
“Only a “bit” of a stretch? Pretty much an acknowledgement of my point. Thank you.”
No, it wasn’t, but this *just* isn’t about “the science”.
It never was.
It is about the colonization of our solar system. It is about making sure that WE, not other countries, are at the forefront of that. Dying civilizations turn inward. Just like China when it mothballed its exploration fleet centuries ago.
“I don’t believe the era of manned exploration is over. Else Bigelow would be a fool and Space-X’s Elon Musk would be wasting their time and fortunes.”
Flights to LEO is not “manned space exploration”.
“If you knew anything about the Bigelow test articles (and I suspect you do) you would know they are far more robust than ISS because they are far better able to absorb the everyday abuse orbital platforms are subjected to. Saying they’re irrelevant (the thrust of your point) because they aren’t manned is shortsighted.”
Saying test articles are superior to operational systems is more than shortsighted.
“In fact, it’s a point I would expect an engineer to make. No imagination, no ability to see the future, just turn out a better lock nut. That pretty much sums up your outlook. Good luck with that and I’ll end it here. Have a good day.”
This, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the viewpoint of someone who has no idea how engineers think or what we do for a living. None. At all. LOL... I’m sure the engineers at the private space launch companies would also appreciate your ignorant insults.
“Don’t be too sure.”
Oh, I’m quite sure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
