Krieger

How does that make the ISS a failure? Large NASA projects almost always have those kind of problems. Congress loves to cut NASA, even though it has a relatively small annual budget.

NASA - 13 billion
The Military - 500 billion (and probably more this year)

Just like those manned missions to the moon. This is more a matter of human achievement, like building the pyramids.

echidna

If you�re concerned about cost, then one of your main problems has to be the Space Shuttle itself. Initially designed as a cost saving, 30 years later the concept of a re-usable space vehicle has proved far more costly (and risky) than a combination of disposable manned and unmanned rockets.

In all the hoo-hah emerging over complaints about NASA budget cutbacks of 40%, those advocates for increased NASA spending (primarily representatives of the states which benefit most oddly) fail to note that the shuttle�s budget has NOT suffered the same cuts.

Krieger

The space shuttle is very old, and needs to be replaced by a better, reusable craft. Building a cheaper, safer "space plane" is really one of the most important, non-science research missions that NASA needs to start funding.

echidna

Why does it need to be re-usable ? Current engineering suggests that this may be more of an thought from Buck Rogers than an economist.

Amen-Moses

What, like the Russians did it! Blasphemy!

Amen-Moses

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by FairFiend
The author makes the case that space exploration is better suited for robots and machines rather than humans. Why spend trillions of dollars to send people to Mars for example, when we can send a robot (which we already have) at a much, much less financial cost and at no human cost?

Trailblazing certainly should be done by robots. Also, I don't think we should send humans anywhere unless they are going to stay a while. Apollo was politics, but bad science.
Ironically, had NASA not been quite as good we might have gotten a lot more out of Apollo. For a while they were having a big problem with getting the astronauts home and they were trying to beat Kennedy's deadline. A plan under consideration was to send two rockets. #1 is unmanned and contains 5 years of supplies. #2 is manned. #1 lands before #2 is launched. #2 lands next to #1, the crew digs in for radiation shielding and spends the next 5 years on the moon. By the end of that time if NASA has solved the return problem they send a return capsule, otherwise they send another 5 years of supplies.


Also, I think we shouldn't have built the shuttle. Instead there should be three vehicles although with many componentst in common:

#1) Passenger lift vehicle. Rather like the shuttle with the cargo bay chopped out. It does *NOT* haul cargo beyond the life support for the crew.

#2) Bulk lift vehicle. Rather like the ass of the shuttle. No wings, no shield. The important parts fit inside vehicle #3 for recovery. Note that this can lift far more cargo per launch than the shuttle can.

#3) Bulk cargo vehicle. Rather like the shuttle without the passenger provisions. Launches and brings back cargo including type #2 boosters. 3 or 4 boosters fit inside a #3. For things like repair operations a #1 and #3 can be docked in orbit.

The author also asks, what really important scientific discoveries has the space program discovered as a result of sending humans into space? Tang? Has it discovered any new advances in medicine? Physics? Chemsitry? Do we really need to build a billion dollar (or is it trillion dollar?) international space station to study the effects of weightlessness on ant colonies?

In the long run science is a good investment. At the time, though, we often don't know what we are going to learn.

After all, wind the clock back 50 years. What's the point of sending stuff into space? Arthur Clarke saw something of the value of communications satellites but the patent office laughed. Now, look at the space-based telecommunications. Geosync orbit is prime real estate. Look how much better weather forcasting is since we have satellites up there that can see the weather. Consider how valuable GPS is.

I still believe in the importance of the space program, but I do think the author does make some good points. I would like funding for the space program to go towards scientifically worthy endevours rather than for some political/public relations image.

I'll agree. The ISS is more politics than science.

Loren Pechtel

1) There's a lot less time. Earth will be unsuitable long before the sun goes red giant. Over the eons the sun is growing gradually warmer. It's still perhaps a billion years, though.

2) Asteroids are a far bigger threat. In any one year the risk is low, but over the years the risk adds up. Extrapolation of what does hit says sterilization-level impacts should be expected on average every 2 billion years.
Just look at the pounding Jupiter took from Shoemaker-Levy. Something like that could end man's reign as a technological species.
Also note the various hits and near misses the Earth has suffered in recent times. Tunguska, had it fallen 7 hours earlier would have wiped Leningrad from the map. Something grazed us in the US Northwest some years back. Had it hit it would have been quite a bang but it managed to get away leaving only a fiery trail (clearly visible in full daylight) in the sky. A year or two ago something went boom with a-bomb force over the Med. Had it fallen a few hours later it might have triggered a nuclear war between India and Pakistan before we could convince them it was of natural origin. (They don't have the facilities to see that it was from outer space and not an enemy missile.)

beyelzu

Why, besides the fact that you dont like america of course?

any other reason?


perhaps a logical one?

Amen-Moses

You're obviously not keeping up with the news, The next planet killer will hit in a little over 200 years (with a confidence level of around 95%). Scientists are now heavily involved in working out what to do about it. (i.e the offending asteroid has been identified and it now is just a matter of deciding what the options are, it may miss by a few hundred miles but would still be a "killer" in the sense that even that close a call would decimate virtually all of civilisation )

I believe the date in question is around 2270 btw.

Amen-Moses

Krieger

That was a pathetically vague accusation. I could reverse the accusation and say, "Why do you not agree with me, besides the fact that you hate every nation in the world besides America?"

The reason it should be (and will be) an international mission is to help unify humanity, rather than to serve as a propaganda campaign for one particular nation.