jkmartin

OK I got it now. NASA invented every bit of technology that is in use today. NASA gives hope to those in whatever depressed part of the country you want to choose, and by putting astronauts in earth orbit (as it has for 50 years), NASA is exploring brave new frontiers looking for spices and slaves and converting (or killing) aliens to our religion.

Your cynicism is unfortunate. This may never have dawned on you but ROCKET SCIENCE IS HARD e.g it is relatively expensive. While Mars can be within our technological means in 15 years or so, there is no political directive to do it. Why did we go to the moon? Beat the Russians. Plain and simple. NASA had scientific goals for going to the moon in 15-20 years but Kennedy saying that it should be done within the decade is what got the financial backing to make it happen.

No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

If people decided that it was worth making mankind a an interplanetary species, and recognized all the long term benefits that come from setting such a lofty goal, getting the backing to go to Mars would be easy. Alas, cynics like yourself ask what NASA has done, when what NASA hasn't done is quite dependant on you the taxpayer.

This needs to be bold:

As for long term benefits; just how many scientists and engineets in the USA have been inspired by Apollo? Applications to technical universities and enrollment in science and math majors QUADRUPLED in the years after Apollo. These are the same scientists and engineers who've changed the world in the last decade with global communications, genetic engieering, the internet, etc. Our prosperity as a nation is directly attributed to our intellectual prowess, and that is starting to change. We're becoming a nation of information driven industries, and that alone cannot support our current prosperity.

If going to Mars is nothing other than a boondoggle to insipre the young to take up technical professions, it is worth it. The economic dividends alone warrant it.

Please don't double post...

And let's not forget that orbiting an astronaut by the Chinese is the most polite way of telling the rest of the world that you now can deliver an ICBM to the front door.

for instance, I'm down with this project:

http://earth.nasa.gov/



meat-bags-in-space is a huge drain on the budget with very little in return

optikeye

I know far more about the operations of NASA than you can imagine little man.


we can photograph the Earth just fine from space without having hairless monkeys work the buttons.

Arcanum The strange thing, is that for the most part I agree with you completely.

Discordian36

NASA- I support the institution, not it's leadership. I support the technicians and the scientists, the researchers and the astronauts. To fix NASA - Quadriple funding, fire all the top admin, and GIVE THEM A GOAL.

You and I are in total agreement. Management is so out of touch with the guys in the trenches it is pathetic. Like most goverment agencies, we promote people who can't do their current job. I don't care if that's how it works in the Post Office, but NASA upper management needs to justly come up through the ranks and that doesn't always happen

Drivinwest-

That's about the best way I can think of to explain diminishing returns to someone who doesn't understand that the technology that built Apollo contributed greatly to the machine he's typing on now.

Drivinwest nails it when he points out that when you set a goal like reaching the moon, the ancillary technology developed along the way to building your moon rocket will end up changing the world. However, it's been so long that there's not a lot of new technology coming from our past endeavors anymore, just refinements and improvements.

people are stupid. thus, sending people into space is stupid

eureka, it makes sense!

If putting a human on Mars would actually improve the psychological disposition of humans today in a positive way, then I would consider it.

but it must also be acknowledged that it can also be equally detrimental.

I am not unaware of the grand illusion that falls over men when a great engineering feat has been achieved.

But mankind is now at a stage where it needs to become introspective, not nationalistic whiners seeking new glory

optikeye

wah! I'm taking my blocks and going home. *pout*

come back anytime you want to mock my age or knowledge.

dbaggins-
"meat-bags-in-space is a huge drain on the budget with very little in return"

In LEO maybe. But you're forgetting that the point of the continued LEO manned missions is to proof technology for interplanetary exploration. An astronaut with digging tools and a PHD in geology can tell you a hell of a lot more about Martian strata than a rover or orbiter can, or ever will.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030307.html

a good link where Cecil talks about man-in-space.

" Short version: It's unlikely we'll ever be able to colonize other solar systems--they're too far away. Using next-generation propulsion systems it'd take 5,000 years to reach the nearest star. We'll probably never go much faster because of the physical limitations of the cosmos--you can't reach the speed of light (or even get remotely close to it) with any technology now on the horizon due to the vast amount of energy required. Talk of hyperdrives and such is just Hollywood fantasy. We could colonize our own solar system, but who'd want to go? The other planets are inhospitable rock piles, toxic cauldrons, or frigid balls of gas. Some say: Surely one day we'll figure out a way to sidestep the basic laws of the universe. I reply: Never say never. But it won't involve a bunch of creaky space buckets with loose tiles."

There is not a single current or forseeable, or even imaginable technology advance we are going to make while floating in LEO that is going to allow us to make the trip to other hospitable planets.

If we are EVER going to bend the laws of physics to let us violate the fundamental restrictions of movement, it is going to happen in a laboratory on earth, by physicists.

jerfy

Before we go to Mars, maybe we should:

1) Figure out what to do with regards to the International Space Station

Agreed - mind you I'm a bit biased as I am an ISS Flight Controller. Above and beyong all else ISS is a stepping stone to moving far beyond low Earth orbit. It takes between 6 and 18 months to get to Mars (remember also that going faster isn't always better - you still need to spend energy to slow back down!). If we want our astronauts to be able to walk once they get to Mars, we need to figure out how to keep them alive and healthy on the way. That is one of many things that ISS is doing for us now.

2) Figure out how to safely get astronauts to space and back safely (China and Russia did this this year, and we couldn't? Aiii.)

Actually, the Shuttle has put more people into space and brought them back safely than any other vehicle. Sure, it has its faults but you need to remember that it was the 1st reusable space vehicle ever designed by man (and put on paper during the Apollo era).

3) Figure out our plans a few steps deep. Is the future the ISS? Or is the ISS a step to colonizing the Moon [just don't detonate explosives and mess up the orbit] or Mars? After Mars, THEN what? Seems like we hit a brick wall at that point.

Permanent habitation of Mars, followed by terraforming. We're centuries away from the ability to do that but the science it is based on is sound. Sure, I'm a bit of a romantic in that I hope that we alive today leave the human race better than we left it. Some benefits are very long term, but the stages along the way make the journey worth it.

Now, JPL as far as I'm concerned, is doing fine.

Remember, JPL built the failed Mars probes. They do great work, but even the guys at Cal Tech (JPL) have troubles. Like I said, rocket science is hard.

Discordian36

I knew you'd arrive sooner or later. Whatever happened to the reference mission, I heard someone had dusted that off recently, with the new Project Prometheus research going on.... Personally, for a plan designed around the old Saturn V, I thought it made sense. Habs first, return vehicles, then rotating crews....

I have to confess not knowing much about that, but something tells me NASA's goals didn't jibe with the political environment of the time.

which then brings us to the beginnings of NASA's dirty little secret.

we cannot adequately recreate the earth environment for humans to survive in for decade-scale habitation.

even a small difference the the gravity you experience, over the years, kills you.


People just haven't yet grasped how highly evolved humans are to the planet of our origin.

dbaggins

But mankind is now at a stage where it needs to become introspective, not nationalistic whiners seeking new glory


So what then? Feed the hungry? House the homeless? 9% of the US federal burget went to Apollo each year of the 60s. Critics argued there was a better way to spend the money. We now spend only $15B a year on NASA, and a much smaller amount on manned spaceflight. There are still hungry. There are still homeless.

Drivinwest, as far as no political directve to get to Mars, please look up the comments of the first president Bush. And that was nearly 15 years ago.

The math and science expenditures of the government started shortly after Sputnik, not with Apollo. Apollo was the end. Since Apollo NASA has been lost and floundering and unable to make its self relevant. The space shuttle by almost any measure is a failure. The ISS is a joke.

I would like someone to give NASA a goal. Why doesn't NASA give itself a goal and try to inspire those cynics like me that it's worth pursuing? Tie it into the war on terrorism and you'll get your money from this administration.

There are other avenues for spending government R&D money that have even higher return on investment.

NASA isn't the only game in town.

NSF, DoE, DoD, NIH.

dbaggins

we cannot adequately recreate the earth environment for humans to survive in for decade-scale habitation.

even a small difference the the gravity you experience, over the years, kills you.

You are wrong. Mars has 0.38g. Experiments on the Shuttle and ISS have determined that only 10-20% of 1g is enough to maintain near complete skeletal density and muscular mass in mammals.

Care to rephrase your "dirty little secret" comment?

bone density isn't the only problem.

You can spend some time yourself talking with the micorgravity department at NASA Marshall

neurological disturbances, blood production decline, g-jitter syndrome.

more ?

You don't get to hear much from Dr. Polyakov these days.

jkmartin

Drivinwest, as far as no political directve to get to Mars, please look up the comments of the first president Bush. And that was nearly 15 years ago.

The math and science expenditures of the government started shortly after Sputnik, not with Apollo. Apollo was the end.

Gov't expenditures, yes. Degrees given in the sciences (most notably degrees like Aerospace/Electrical/Mechanical Engineering) peaked in the late 70's. Those people were kids during Apollo.

Since Apollo NASA has been lost and floundering and unable to make its self relevant.

It is as relevant as the political environment allows it to be. People like flashy things; it isn't NASA's goal goal to be entertainment for the tax payers. Provided that people still

The space shuttle by almost any measure is a failure.

The Shuttle has ferried more people up and down and has a better people launched/people killed ratio than anything esle. If the Shuttle is a failure in your eyes, then I wonder how you feel about the Soyuz.

The ISS is a joke.

You can't go to Mars successfully (an example of the lofty goal you are looking for) without surviving the trip.

I would like someone to give NASA a goal. Why doesn't NASA give itself a goal and try to inspire those cynics like me that it's worth pursuing?

NASA has been doing research into a manned Mars mission for decades. Until the money taps are turned on, however, the budget doesn't exist to take more than a few baby steps.

Dbaggins-

"NSF, DoE, DoD, NIH."

Non-Sufficient Feds, Devoid Of Ethics, Department of Deceit, National Institutes of Hypocrisy.

Right?

I personally like a civilian program, who does the odd job here and there for Space Command. At least I know that they're not building orbital mind control lasers with my tax dolla....

[removed for export control]

just to live on Mars, or an even less hospitable planet in the solar system.


walking with our spring loaded pants and shoulder weights (so as not to get calcium ion channel problems). Protected by heavy sheilding, growing our meager harvest.

hey, lets go play soccer !! uh...


I'm not saying we can't meet every single problem that arises with some new technology fix, over and over. I also don't think there will be much problem finding volunteers. People volunteer for all sorts of dangerous and pointless stuff. It doesn't make it any more meaningful.

dbaggins

bone density isn't the only problem.

You can spend some time yourself talking with the micorgravity department at NASA Marshall

neurological disturbances, blood production decline, g-jitter syndrome.

You know what, you're right. It's hard so let's just not bother. Trying is the first step to failure.

sending humans into space is meaningless.

I get the idea of beating the Soviets and influencing the geopolitical landscape.



but the claim "all science is good" doesn't cut it anymore.

dbaggins

It doesn't make it any more meaningful.

Overcoming obstacles so that our species can take the next major leap in our scientific evolution is not meaningful?

heck, triple NASA's budget. Lots ofd good work going on there, I cited some specific programs.

just jettison the manned space program.

or would that put a certain person in this thread out of work ?

dbaggins

sending humans into space is meaningless.

So long as your idea of Manifest Destiny died 100 years ago, you are right. We're fortunate that throughout history there are people unlike yourself who have cared to imagine what can be and try to make it happen.

dbaggins

or would that put a certain person in this thread out of work ?

Given that the few people that leave manned spaceflight for other industries typically double or triple their salary, I think at worst it could make me a rich man.

dbaggins-

I don't think the solution to what you're upset about is to kill human spaceflight. I think the solution is to vote in a president and some senators who WILL commit to getting us to Mars, and WILL give NASA the money to do it. Kill ISS and stop HSF, you'll end up having to play catch-up for 15 years when you DO decide to go. Think about how long it would take to re-start a Saturn V program if all of a sudden the monolith from 2001 landed on the moon (ok, bad example but you get the point). You really want to be racing the Chinese there on a sprained ankle?

I'd as soon transfer the whole budget to NOAA

major leap in scientific evolution ? what the hell are you wailing about ? is that supposed to impress the ignorant savages to not touch your budget ?

dbaggins

or would that put a certain person in this thread out of work ?

Given that the few people that leave manned spaceflight for other industries typically double or triple their salary, I think at worst it could make me a rich man.

dbaggins

major leap in scientific evolution ?

You actually deny that going to Mars would increase mankind's scientific knowledge?

I guess I just don't buy into the religion that

a) there is something immensely valuable and undiscovered out in the void that requires humans to find.


b) merely striving against a hard task bears some kind of fruit that outweighs the distraction of the task.

dbaggins-

"I'd as soon transfer the whole budget to NOAA"

Ok, that statement is enough to convince me that you're not worth arguing with. I mean, of all the things you could have said... NOAA?

-I deal with you not liking HSF, I guess. At least you're not one of those no moon landing-loonies.

we will learn things going to Mars.

so what ?

I've listened to NASA guys at talks spin this one.

The straining of credulity about how this knowledge could be applied is embarassing.

Is that knowledge worth killing volunteers over ? we DO run a pretty high risk of killing a few volunteers for knowledge of martian geology.

just yanking your chain with NOAA.

I have an easier time in committee listening to them justify their tiny budget.

dbaggins-

"b) merely striving against a hard task bears some kind of fruit that outweighs the distraction of the task"

Give me a modern-day example where that theory HASN'T held true.

fling a few robots at mars and we can learn almost as much.

not perfect of course. a human would be somewhat more adaptable, but not all that much more.

In short, it is NOT the scientific knowledge that we try for humans on Mars. The argument is just too flacid

I guess I just don't buy into the religion that

a) there is something immensely valuable and undiscovered out in the void that requires humans to find.

Have you no curiosity? Do you think Hippocrates set out to unravel the Human genome? We don't know what we'll find, but not doing anything guarantees we'll find nothing.

Give me a modern-day example where that theory HASN'T held true.


There is not such counter example, since I cannot prove the negative. The lack of fruit makes many useless endeavours invisible to the rest of mankind.


but to take the possiblity that all hard endeavours bear fruit, we could pick from a whole mountain of equally useless tasks and strive to overcome them. All these actions would yeild a positive return ?

At least I had some decent antagonists today for this one.

Wow, 2 man thread.

Personally, I retain a romantic desire to see outer space. Let me think.. triple the budget.. $45 billion / 250 million people.. Yeah you can have another $120/year for it from me.

dbaggins

we will learn things going to Mars.

so what ?

That is really sad. You basically say that expanding humankind's understanding of our universe is not worth it.

I've listened to NASA guys at talks spin this one.

The straining of credulity about how this knowledge could be applied is embarassing.

fark applying it. Why do univerities fund billions of dollars worth of research into things that don't have practical applications in the near term? Because our species (present company excluded) is driven by understanding.

The only leg you have to stand on is saying that $15B would be better spent on X. When you tell me what X is, you then must look at all the things the US gov't spends more than $15B a year on and rank them in order of necessity. I think you'll find NASA's budget very low on your list.

The main problem I have with manned space exploration is that it helps maintain the fantasy of many many a human that we can live somewhere other than Earth.


humans are stuck here, in all probability forever, and when everybody gets this idea firmly rooted in them, I think it will change how some people view the world and how they act.


space travel provides this unconscious patch for peoples cognitive processess that allow them to avoid thinking properly

...and with that, I have to leave. Regards.

what is sad is still wishing on a star.

grow up. there is not tooth fairy, no Santa Claus, and no space colonization.