Shuttle Retirement In 2010 Under Review 210
An anonymous reader alerts us to an Orlando Sentinel report based on a leaked NASA email, indicating that NASA is looking at options to extend the Shuttle program. The fighting between Russia and Georgia has put a strain on plans to rely on Russian boosters until the Shuttle's replacement flies in 2015. Yet extending the Shuttle's life is no sure thing. According to a former NASA program manager, "We started shutting down the shuttle four years ago. That horse has left the barn." And NASA Administrator Michael Griffin has told Congress that if the Shuttle fleet were to fly two missions a year until 2015, "the risk would be about one in 12 that we would lose another crew. That's a high risk... [one] I would not choose to accept on behalf of our astronauts." And then there's the matter of finding the $4 billion a year it would take to keep the fleet operational. The Sentinel mentions that John McCain has called for additional Shuttle flights, but doesn't mention that Barack Obama has made the same point, as the BBC reports.
Nothing is 'safe' (Score:5, Insightful)
--
Find My Ip Address [ipfinding.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nothing is 'safe' (Score:5, Insightful)
The average joe understood the space program just fine in the 60s when it was about doing something. The problem with justifying funding for the space program is that, frankly, the shuttle didn't justify funding. It did virtually nothing of merit in its entire lifespan. If the space program actually became about doing something - exploring, discovering, and pushing our way out into the universe - then it would be trivial to generate support for it. But short of a pretty-looking launch every month, which understandably got boring after 20+ years, the space shuttle does nothing of interest.
Returning to the moon, or going back to Mars, or making a sustained push to research Io, a moon that likely has liquid water? Any of those things would be trivial to justify to the American people.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It did exactly what it was designed to do; launch very large, very sensitive satellites. You all have missed a very large and important part of history.
Re: (Score:2)
true. the shuttle has been useful in launching satellites, like the hubble space telescope, and also the repairs for the hubble telescope. but other countries can now launch satellites far cheaper than the shuttle program costs. and, frankly, the shuttle program isn't being used to do much exploratory research like the space program was initially meant for.
it just doesn't make sense for the public to pay for expensive shuttle launches that really only offer direct benefits to private industries. that's not
Re:Nothing is 'safe' (Score:5, Informative)
Io is a volcanic hellhole. You're probably thinking of Europa.
Re:Nothing is 'safe' (Score:4, Funny)
Guess we're out of luck then - that's the one world we can attempt no landing on.
Re:Nothing is 'safe' (Score:5, Informative)
It did virtually nothing of merit in its entire lifespan.
That is entirely untrue. It functioned quite well as, shall we say, an "SUV" (Space Utility Vehicle). It carried satellites and other payloads into space, it carried astronauts to perform repair work on, perhaps most notably, the Hubble and the ISS. It hosted a variety of scientific experiments.
To say that the shuttle accomplished nothing is absurd. The problem with the shuttle is that it was too expensive for what it did. The reusable nature didn't reduce costs in the way it was hoped when it was designed.
The shuttle accomplished a great deal. The problem is that most of those things could have been accomplished for less money.
Re: (Score:2)
The shuttle accomplished a great deal. The problem is that most of those things could have been accomplished for less money.
Or rather, could be accomplished with less money using the knowledge we gained from the shuttle. I really think the best way to have done things would have been to treat the shuttle as a prototype, almost like an X-plane, and then after testing it for a few years used the lessons learned to design a better vehicle. Iterative development is a wonderful thing.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the real problem with the shuttle is it's too expensive for what we need it for, 24/7. For the small tasks.
You don't need an 18-wheeler with a rocket engine to get some food at a local grocery store. You can ride a bike or drive a hybrid there and save some cash that way.
The shuttle was and still is the only reliable and good method of launching massive stuff into space. It's not that great for just bringing up astronauts, though.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with justifying funding for the space program is that, frankly, the shuttle didn't justify funding. It did virtually nothing of merit in its entire lifespan.
The Hubble disagrees with you. It is unequivocally one of the most important scientific instruments of the past 20 years.
Granted, the hubble didn't *NEED* the Shuttle, but it was certainly instrumental in its launch, and vital to its repairs and servicing missions.
Considering just how monumentally important the Hubble is/was, you could almost justify the entire program based on that. Unfortunately, the rest of the shuttle missions weren't quite as productive...
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry: Only Shuttle was capable of lifting Hubble. It was designed to fit inside the shuttle's payload bay.
Sure, it could have been designed for another class of lifter, but it wasn't. If the shuttle had died after Hubble was built, it'd be nothing but a curiosity in a space museum somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry but no. The launch requirements of hubble were quite specific: It was shuttle or nothing. No ELV could have launched it, because it was designed for shuttle launch.
A different telescope could have been launched via some hypothetical heavy lift vehicle you didn't have then and don't have now. But not Hubble.
"Shuttle" and "give up" aren't the only options. (Score:3, Interesting)
Read Mullane [mikemullane.com]'s all too articulate book [google.com] to get some idea of how screwed up NASA's approach is if you haven't studied already.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just average Joe who asks "why... right now?"
Most people support the space program, they aren't completely short sighted. The problem comes with the price tags of manned flights, where the output seems to be far less, and costs are far more, than unmanned flights. Do we really need to spend billions on launches to put people in space so we can do simple experiments with bees and bubbles?
It makes more sense to
Re: (Score:2)
It makes more sense to continue research into efficient launch systems until prices for manned spacecrafts become more reasonable and safer. Unless there is some magic experiment I'm not aware of that would fix all of humanity's ills and can't wait 20 years?
Despite the way the discussion is usually framed around here (e.g. "Space" being a sub-category of "Science"), there are some things more important than science for humanity to do in space.
Re: (Score:2)
Dammed! if we don't die driving we will because a heart attack!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides the fact that most societies value the life of their people (generally speaking), you can also think of this from an economic standpoint: these astronauts have a lot of experience and very specific knowledge, and are also physically fit etc. A lot has been invested in them, and they're worth a lot. So risking your crew that way can cost a lot of money.
And then, of course, people have a lot of pride in the space program, and losing people in space gives a big blow to the average Joe's perception of
Re:Nothing is 'safe' (Score:5, Funny)
If we spend billions of dollars to blow people up, it's not going to sell so well to the public.
That's called the war effort. Wrong thread!
Re: (Score:2)
Those other risky things don't carry such high risk as a proportion of the number of people undertaking them - 1/12 chance of losing a crew equals quite a high proportion of the astronauts launched potentially dying.
A lot more people die while driving in terms of raw numbers, but a lot less if you convert it to a percentage of all car-owners.
The Joker put it best (Score:2)
Agreed - Most dangerous jobs (Score:2)
Let's make some comparisons, non-military:
Fishers and related: 118.4 per 100k. That means you're a bit over .1% likely to die on the job.
Logging: 92.9. Just a smidgen less
Aircraft pilots & engineers: 66.9.
A '1 in 12' chance - if that's per mission it's 8.3% likely to kill you. Assuming 1 mission per year.
If it's a 1 in 12 over the 5 year extension, 2 flights a year, it's not as bad. Assume any given astronaut only flies once a year, that's a .83% chance of being killed per year, discounting all othe
Re: (Score:2)
Large risks are only acceptable if large payoffs are available in return. Armstrong will forever be remembered as the first man on the moon. By comparison, do you know the names of the astronauts on the last shuttle flight? I don't. Hell, I can't even remember the names of the people who died on the shuttle crashes. So, as an astronaut, why would you want to take a 1 in 12 to die for nothing?
Maybe we could give COTS a try? (Score:4, Informative)
I mean, NASA already has the program in place and already has participants. It would take a hell of a lot less than $4B/year to speed up COTS.
More info: http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/esmd/ccc/ [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't want NASA any more involved in the independent programs than absolutely necessary. These things tend to balloon to meet political objectives. "Project A gets $15 million in additional funding if it builds the engines in Backwater, WY." NASA assigns program managers, the PMs get staff, the staff needs support...
I'm happy to leave the commercial groups to their own means, even if it takes a little longer, to keep government out of it to the extent possible.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm happy to leave the commercial groups to their own means, even if it takes a little longer, to keep government out of it to the extent possible.
From what I've observed though, COTS has been quite good about achieving a proper balance, offering financial incentives for reaching developmental milestones and end-goals, while making sure that the engineers at the companies (rather than government bureaucrats and politicians) are making the decisions about how best to develop their systems.
1 in 12 odds. (Score:4, Insightful)
Slightly better than russian roulette uh?
Seriously, you would think that the US would take a more "global" approach to space and start truly cooperating with other countries, say like uh.. Canada, UK, Japan, China, India, etc...
After all the race for the stars should be for humanity's sake, not just one country.
There would obviously be some economic advantages, that's for sure.
Russia, I believe would join in, if a real "space" coalition would be formed, I'm sure of that, if only not to be left behind in any form of discovery.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, what are you talking about? Soyuz is still in use, and it's quite small (comparable to Gemini). You might be thinking about Energia, but while it was big, it was far from simple, and only had one flight. You could probably revive the Saturn V as quickly as Energia with similar capabilities. Same with Titan 4. But why bother - what you need is a way to mount large payloads on a Delta 4 Heavy, which exists *now* and is still in production.
Brett
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, you would think that the US would take a more "global" approach to space and start truly cooperating with other countries, say like uh.. Canada, UK, Japan, China, India, etc...
I think that's why it's called the International Space Station because some 15 nations are involved in its construction. [nasa.gov]
Problem is Russia is acting like a thug and saying "we're an irreplaceable ISS partner so suck it..." We have to show Russia that she isn't irreplaceable otherwise she'll keep behaving like a thug. [michaeltotten.com] Sinc
Re: (Score:2)
We have to give the Russians a bit of leeway here.
First and foremost, this is a country that's only been so called "democratic" for less than 20 yrs.
It's got lots of internal problems to deal with for sure.
Second, they are not thugs, they have been useful when it comes to space duties. Admit it, and get over it.
Yes, they like to be recognized a lot, but that's a sign of immaturity, certainly, they are like children when it comes to dealing with the rest of the world, diplomacy isn't their forte. Do try an
Race for the stars? (Score:2)
"After all the race for the stars should be for humanity's sake, not just one country."
Given nobody has even the first inkling of a theoretical approach toward starting to work out how to talk about designing a warp drive, and most physicists seem to think it's a priori impossible, that would be a rather slow race.
Did you mean "the race to be the second country to land massively inefficient but impressive looking human rated spacecraft on a bunch of inhospitable rocks that aren't actually useful for anythin
Re: (Score:2)
I think the trouble is sending the *right* people in to space. Then again, I suppose we could just start sending oil drillers, they get the job done.
Re: (Score:2)
We're hairless apes, not monkeys
Re: (Score:2)
If we are to get philosophical about this, which could be fun, then I think that humanity's problem will be solved when we stop fearing the unknown and we stop fearing change.
The universe should really be our guide in this, for it is in constant motion and change. Adaptability is the key and therefore, we as humans need to be able to adapt not only in body, but in mind and spirit.
We must be able to understand that there are always new truths to learn, that whatever we know, should always be in question.
It
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bite. What is RIGHT and what is WRONG? Traditionally, for good or ill, we've used religion to define that sort of thing.
Accepting the prin
Re: (Score:2)
What is RIGHT and what is WRONG.. umm..
I'll make this very brief, because this could be a long post, but I'll try and keep it short..
Let's go fundamental here... Respect is right, the power of choice is right.. in Society, the laws should be done based on fairness, promoting well being and must ensure the protection of all within it. No one should be above those laws.
The power of society vs one person's individual freedom must also be weighed in.. Never should an individual's right be more important than
Re: (Score:2)
Why? What makes "respect" right? What makes the "power of choice" right? Why is China's society (which is not based on either "respect" (except for authority) and the "power of choice" (except by authority)) wrong? Why is the United States right? I won't quibble about whether either was intended by you, of course, but "respect" and "power of choice" are more common in the USA than in China, so equating those things with "right"
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, first and foremost, we all have a conscience and when it comes to right and wrong, we should use 1) compassion and 2) fairness.
To be fair is hard. Fairness is justice, believe me, it's not easy to be fair and impartial.
Now, as far as rebelling against authority. You are reading much more than I'm writing.
And most of all, I'm not talking about our current society or laws as we have them currently.
Forget what is, right now.
What I'm writing about is about "what should be".
You just can't have people doing
Re: (Score:2)
We have a conscience? I assume you can prove that? Somehow?
And why should we use "compassion and fairness"? Yes, it's very Judeo-Christian, but I have yet to see any sane argument that it was some objective Truth. Well, other than that inconvenient "Bible" thing.
No, I am not. Quoting yo
Re: (Score:2)
The State or the Society is where you get your rights from and therefore the rules to abide which guarantees you these rights and the privilieges which you are granted by following them. And I guess your point would be.. "Who sets the standards? or better yet, who says we have any form of rights?" And I say, "We as humans say we do."
We can affirm that, because as individuals, alone and not in cooperation with each other, we are doomed to fail, but as humanity, we can work together and achieve any goals we
Re: (Score:2)
Oddly enough, if you add up all the human misery in history, the Church (which, oddly enough, is NOT the same as the Bible) is a minor part of the total. Since you're likely enough American, your historical education has been biased by ignoring the majority of human history. China, for instance, has had a generous helpin
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want to indulge in human misery, if anything, I would wish that our civilisation, our humanity as a whole could work together and end suffering as we see it and know it.
History can certainly be a teacher and most of all, a warning of mistakes not to be repeated.
I propose a world where a society should be govern first and foremost by law and that religion isn't part of the law making process. Religion should be a choice, its practices shouldn't however, be above the law.
I don't think my ideas, even
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to deal with human misery, try working on the actual causes of human misery - don't just blindly assert that religion is responsible for the evils of the world.
Note, by the way, that this is in no way an endorsement of your ideas -
Re: (Score:2)
We have the right of life, we have the right of choice and we have the right of respect.
Why? because it's fair
"The basis of all morality is duty, a concept with the same relation to a group that self-interest has to an individual. ... But the society they were in told them endlessly about their 'rights.'"
"The results should have been predictable, since a human being has no natural rights of any nature."
Mr. Dubois had paused. Somebody took the bait. "Sir? How about 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'?"
"Ah, yes, the 'unalienable rights.' Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What 'right'
Re: (Score:2)
Right and wrong, in a very abstract sense, are those things that either advance or harm a society, respectively. What is perceived as an advance or harm will differ, sometimes greatly, from one society to the next. Some societies find all degrees of homicide as harm, whereas others make exceptions, ranging from self-defense to assassination to genocide. Similarly, some societies believe that it is wrong to treat a woman as anything other than private property, while others believe that it is wrong to gra
Re: (Score:2)
Can't argue with this. Note that the definition of "advance or harm" might be problematic. One must then ask "what are the defining characteristics of a successful society?" Note that if stability is included in that definition, then China is, in general, more successful than anywhere else on E
Ugh. Kill it. (Score:3, Interesting)
Kill the shuttle. Every year we extend the shuttle is a year that it's easier to make excuses for not having Orion ready. The shuttle was a disastrous decision from the start - a joke of a space program that made no progress in exploration, and provides nothing in the way of useful scientific research except inasmuch as it was used to work on the Hubble.
The sooner it is put out to pasture the sooner this country can have a real space program again.
Re:Ugh. Kill it. (Score:5, Funny)
Agreed. Besides, that 4 billion could be spent on extending the war in Iraq by another 1.6667 weeks!
Mostly true... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is clear to me that there is not serious desire to create the next space vehicle. President Bush promised a new Space Age, but failed to fund it. Clearly he has no problem spending money, even money we don't have, so the fact that we have no functioning Orion space craft 4 and half years af
shuttle industry (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Doy (Score:2)
Get rid of Nasa (Score:2)
Contract PRIVATE sector companies.
Re:Get rid of Nasa (Score:5, Funny)
Exactly. Then we'll need a government organization to manage the contracts. Let's call them, I don't know, "NASA".
Oh, wait...
Re:Get rid of Nasa (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How to do things differently (Score:5, Insightful)
Who precisely do you think actually builds, services and maintains these craft? Thats right, the OEMs and not NASA. The Shuttle was built by Rockwell, now maintained by Boeing. Orion will be built by private sector companies (Lockheed as prime contractor, with a whole bunch of others as subcontractors), Ares will be built by private sector companies (Alliant and Boeing as prime contractors) - so what do you propose to do differently?
A couple things:
* don't use cost-plus contracts, which reward waste
* Instead of specifying a single design and essentially giving one company a monopoly over manned spaceflight, do things like the rest of the transportation market and commercial satellite launches -- just purchase individual rides or payload deliveries. SpaceX [wikipedia.org] , Orbital [orbital.com], and Lockheed Martin [blogspot.com] are all currently working on orbital manned spaceflight systems. As it is now, it looks like they're going to have to end up competing against NASA's Ares I. Instead of competing against them, NASA should ditch Ares I and just offer transportation contracts to give these companies the financial incentive to speed development of their vehicles.
NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Systems [wikipedia.org] program is a huge step in the right direction -- it's only getting a fraction of the budget (total is less than a single shuttle flight) that Ares I is getting, but is already showing much more progress and promise.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
* Instead of specifying a single design and essentially giving one company a monopoly over manned spaceflight, do things like the rest of the transportation market and commercial satellite launches -- just purchase individual rides or payload deliveries. SpaceX , Orbital, and Lockheed Martin are all currently working on orbital manned spaceflight systems. As it is now, it looks like they're going to have to end up competing against NASA's Ares I. Instead of competing against them, NASA should ditch Ares I and just offer transportation contracts to give these companies the financial incentive to speed development of their vehicles.
If... and that's a big honking huge if, from what I've understood, any of these become actual commercial possibilities then sure. The first one you mention is SpaceX and they haven't made a rocket reach orbit yet, far less deliver cargo to orbit, far less something with a track record and security record to fly people for many years to come. I realize what you want but it sounds a little like the flying car that's always coming soon.
Re: (Score:2)
How many rockets has the Ares program launched so far? Also, do you dispute Orbital and Lockheed's ability to launch craft into orbit?
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't everything NASA does basically contracted from Lockheed and Boeing already?
Or are you talking about the penny-ante private sector companies, the ones who haven't managed to even get a payload into orbit yet? How many years away from having meeting the Shuttle functional requirements? Twenty? Forty?
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. They need to call it The Boeing and Lockheed rocket to remind people.
Why Did the US Partner with Russia? (Score:2)
IIRC the US brought Russia in on ISS support to give the Russian rocket scientists something to do so they wouldn't go work for the likes of the Axis of Evil(tm).
Which makes sense. Has that changed?
As for flying the STS beyond its planned retirement, I think estimates of its reliability don't take account of the tlc it receives. Those things get practically rebuilt by some very big brains every time they fly. I do respect his 1/12 failure probability it's probably a rigorous number, but conservative.
What pu
Re: (Score:2)
Russian scientists work for Russia. Always have.
We (the West/USA) deluded ourselves into thinking we 'won' the cold war and could look into the eyes of Russia and see their soul.
It turns out the cold war never ended, and any token partnership we had means nothing now.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are complicated internal processes in Eurasia, in the FSU, but you keep your delusion that it is you who calls the shots.
Eurasia is more than twice bigger than the North America by territory and more than 8 times by population.
"The West", the Western Europe against the whole Eurasia is like Vermont and Maryland against the whole USA.
Globalization is turning Eurasia in one giant market, 54 mill
Re: (Score:2)
Yes well. If Russia insists on being ruled by strongmen gangsters and China keeps killing anyone with original ideas, I don't think the west has much to worry about. The only horrible thing we will have to cope with is watching billions of Chinese and Indians starve and feeling rotten that there is nothing we can do.
Inevitable (Score:5, Interesting)
What does it mean? (Score:2, Informative)
According to Putin it was done to improve chances of one of the candidates, because when the international situation worsens, moves closer to a war, people tend to vote for a conservative candidate. Not for a change.
If it is true then it should not have been a surprise that there was the tension with Russia.
So the real reason then is not Russian pol
Damn commies, with their lousy... no, wait. (Score:2)
Communism was never the problem. The problem was and is, the Russians.
Astronauts are expendable. (Score:4, Insightful)
Compared to the cost of the ground support and the space craft. Launch the damn shuttle. If it blows up, it blows up. I bet you could find plenty of Americans willing to take their place, even with a 1 in 10 chance of getting killed, in exchange for a ride into space.
Come on. To many people, spaceflight is worth the risk of death. If astronauts aren't willing to take that chance, fire them, and get someone who will.
it's going to happen (Score:2)
It's inevitable. It would cost more to get Ares I to work than to make new shuttle parts. What about having 1 shuttle launch a year for crew transfer only & what if that freed up enough money for a shuttle derived lunar capability involving half a lunar payload on a shuttle & half on an Ares V.
Re:the shuttle sucks anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
I think suspending manned space flight for that long would be a disaster. At some point, if we have no space flights going on, the new shuttle replacement becomes "restarting manned space flight" rather than "continuing our manned presence in space". Congress will be a lot more likely to simply cut the program entirely if it's seen as starting an entirely new program rather than an evolution of our existing, and continuing, efforts.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that point would come at exactly the same time as the ISS re-entered the atmosphere. But I don't think that we should extend the shuttle program to support the ISS, I think that it's time for the ESA to shoulder the brunt of that burden (they are the wealthier superpower now) and NASA should get the shuttle replacement progr
Great - how do you get it done? (Score:3, Interesting)
You show me a battle plan and I'll climb aboard. But for now I'll just continue paying my NSS [nss.org] dues, encourage local kids to get into space-related stuff (spent about fifty bucks and about three hours on that in the past month), and stick to wha
Re:If the best we can do in "manned space flight" (Score:5, Informative)
Skylab massed 77,088kg; the ISS at present masses 277,598kg, and if ever completed it will mass 419,600kg.
Re: (Score:2)
ISS is a fucking joke, it's smaller than Skylab
Skylab massed 77,088kg; the ISS at present masses 277,598kg, and if ever completed it will mass 419,600kg.
Yeah, but Skylab was made out of the much less dense aluminum, while the ISS is made out of lead to shield against cosmic radiation. So technically, the guy was right, the ISS is smaller than Skylab,
Re:If the best we can do in "manned space flight" (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, but Skylab was made out of the much less dense aluminum, while the ISS is made out of lead to shield against cosmic radiation. So technically, the guy was right, the ISS is smaller than Skylab,
Oh, FFS.
Skylab's living volume: 10,000 sqft
ISS living volume: 15,000 sqft
(From Wikipedia. Admittedly, not as big a difference as I had expected)
I was going to make a joke in reply to GP about "oh, but it weighs virtually the same" but instead I had to reply to this silly comment. I hope you're happy.
- RG>
Re: (Score:2)
Re:the shuttle sucks anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
If you look at the overall federal budget, NASA gets a drop in the bucket compared to Social Services and Defense. The move to extend the Shuttle for a few more years is not a surprise. I don't know, I just get the feeling that if the manned space program ever ends, that will be it. People will start to ask, "Do we really need it?" If there is not something to replace the shuttle, especially if it is 5+ years from flying, politicians and people will start to ask, "What has NASA done lately? Oh just sink billions into that new rocket that is still in development and has another delay to 2018." So the budget shrinks from 15B a year to 10B or stays the same @ 15B a year, yet 15B today will not buy the same amount of stuff next year, things continue to get delayed and eventually, it's the end of the manned space program.
The shuttle is far from perfect, but it's all we got. And until that something better comes along...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:the shuttle sucks anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it's there. It's there, and it's big and unknown, and we're humans. And if we don't explore every bit of space that we can get to, we'll sit around itching to go. We go to space for the same reason we went to the south pole, or why we go up mountains that haven't been climbed yet. Because they're there, and we can.
The insidious lie of the modern space program is that there's more to it than that. That space stations and endless low earth orbit missions provide some sort of useful science, and are worth doing. They're not. The point of space is the unknown. So yes. Take out the solar system. Go to every frozen rock we can reach, and start thinking about the frozen rocks we can't. Because they're there. They're places people have never been. And fundamental to the human spirit is the sense that something that seems utterly crazy and impossible is the most important thing there is to do.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this might be the most insightful post I've ever read on Slashdot.
Bravo, sir.
Re: (Score:2)
Many people have thought about it for much longer than a second, more like their whole life and space exploration is for them a natural extrapolation of human life.
It won't be conventional propulsion systems that are going to enable a voyage outside of the solar system and development will take continuous effort.
You are looking for something usable, if it's truly a leap ahead of the u
Re: (Score:2)
I can think of a couple of purposes for visiting space:
1) Eventual redundancy of our civilization by creating colonies off-world. Keeping all our eggs in one basket is a little dangerous.
2) Mining the resources of the moon or planets.
3) Although, this is a long way away: eventually having more room for our expanding population would be nice.
Both of those will require pretty decent leaps in technology before they're feasible, but with a $0 budget you wouldn't get very far.
Re: (Score:2)
I would like to think I'm not a fatalist but it is my opinion that if the human race died off the Earth and galaxy probably wouldn't care much and may be better off for it. If evolution is to be believed then there will surely come something behind us that is better than we are.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think species evolve by doing nothing.
It could be just us (Score:3, Interesting)
I would like to think I'm not a fatalist but it is my opinion that if the human race died off the Earth and galaxy probably wouldn't care much and may be better off for it. If evolution is to be believed then there will surely come something behind us that is better than we are.
Sure sounds fatalist to me. And the galaxy can't care any more than the sentient beings in it. As far as we know (re likelihood of habitable star systems), we're it--and if we die, there may never be another. And it it wouldn't be better, just empty of any thought, good or bad.
For now, we have to assume that it's up to us and there is no other.
Re: (Score:2)
4) Technology transfer.
Technologies developed at NASA have had a remarkable tendency to reappear in the civilian sector several years later.
These days, it's composite materials that seem most heavily poised to become an integral part of our daily lives if the costs can be sufficiently reduced.
Re: (Score:2)
Before NASA started sourcing out every aspect of its operation to private contractors, a ton of general-purpose science got done there that made its way down to civilian applications.
All that included, NASA is a great morale-booster for the population, and also for the scientific community. After the moon landing, America took (and kept) the title of being the most scientifically-advanced nation for 30 years, despite the fact that the Saturn V was a german design, and that most scientific disciplines had n
Re: (Score:2)
Or, perhaps, the well-behaved plasmas that Voyager found while travelling through the magnetospheres of the outer planets, which gives us another direction to look in the development of practical fusion power [mit.edu].
That's the thing about exploration: If we knew what we were going to find, it wouldn't be "exploration".
"People will start to ask" (Score:2)
If you look at the overall federal budget, NASA gets a drop in the bucket compared to Social Services and Defense. The move to extend the Shuttle for a few more years is not a surprise. I don't know, I just get the feeling that if the manned space program ever ends, that will be it. People will start to ask, "Do we really need it?"
Shortsighted people have been doing that since day one. Its one reason NASA has such a small budget now. its hard to fight ignorance with science.
4B comes out of Ares budget (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadly though it's underfunded when you compare to other agencies, and again compare accomplishments. That $4B, I
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They were sort of backed into that corner due to budget issues.
NASA really couldn't afford to go the other route and have specialized transports as things would have been spread far too thin and jeopardize it all.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA wanted a small-scale crew vehicle and a massive cargo hauler. They were overruled because of budget constraints. Wikipedia has a decent rundown:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program [wikipedia.org]
So you're saying what they knew twenty years ago. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
The shuttle is only one way of boosting the orbit. The ISS has thrusters on one of the modules that can do it (eats into the station's fuel supply, though). The Progress resupply vessels can also do it, and the ESA's new supply ship is built to do it, though I don't think they did it with the first one.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There are worse things for the ISS to do than fall out of the sky. Staying up in it may well be one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Why bother with a graph when they just flip flop on the issues depending on whatever political gain they think they can get?
For example : As recently as Oct of 07 Obama was against telecom immunity in the FISA bill [talkleft.com] "Senator Obama has serious concerns about many provisions in this bill, especially the provision on giving retroactive immunity to the telephone companies. He is hopeful that this bill can be improved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. But if the bill comes to the Senate floor in its current fo