[General Battuta]

Yeah, but that isn't NASA's problem. NASA consists of the people with the will.

[Kosh]

They have outright stated their willingness to send people to Mars.

Bush announced this only after it several other country's space agencies started making major progress.


The other part of the problem is their next generation space vehicles are basically the same type as what we had in the Apollo project. The difference being that the Apollo project was awesome because it was rather new (making engines that big were a huge challenge). But what do we have today? The same old stuff. When they aren't willing to make real progress , it is hard to be an inspiration. The concept of the shuttle was a good idea, although its implementation was flawed. NASA's overall failure to develop an inexpensive launch system has kept our space program stagnant for nearly a generation.

Yeah, but that isn't NASA's problem. NASA consists of the people with the will.

True, but NASA is still chained to an electorate that by and large doesn't care. I was still in the US when Bush's plan to go to Mars was announced......and frankly no one I knew at school gave a damn, none of the adults I knew gave a damn, and even online no one seemed to give a damn outside of a few specialized space related websites. The spirit of the Apollo era is gone.

[Fury]

I don't give a damn about manned space flights either, because they are inherently ineffective and waste of resources and money. Unmanned exploration on the other hand is far more effective and safer. While doing unmanned exploration, we can learn much and keep researching new technology. Then one day, we may be able to establish a moon spaceport and colonize Mars. Let's talk about manned exploration and colonies in another hundred years, technology by that time might be cost-effective enough.

And yes, I realize that we may have the know-how to establish a Luna spaceport today. But would it be cost-effective to do so? No, absolutely no. Same goes for manned spaceflights, there is nothing to gain by manned flights as opposed to unmanned. ISS is waste of money and resources as well. The only useful scientific research from manned SS is further research on human body in space. Other than that, it could have been fully unmanned save for maintenance.

[Liberator]

But without further development of manned flight, even that maintenance becomes a life threatening endeavour.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[newman]

Blaming NASA for not returning to the moon after the apollo program is short sited, to say the least; if you look at the political situation of that age, you'll find all the answers you need. Nobody lost the will to explore; but how come they were there in the first place? One thing that needs to be said is, in 1969 humans barely had the technology to send someone to the moon. Meaning it was a risky and expensive venture (just look at all the problems apollo 11 had - among other things, there was a good chance the astronauts will remain stranded on the moon - they worked out 50-50 chances that the engine of the Eagle would fire at all; Nixon already had a speech prepared for the event the astronauts do remain stranded). The fact they repeated it lots of times after this is a testament to the engineering skills of the people working on the project - but in any case, it doesn't change the fact that had it not been for the space race with the Soviet Union, they wouldn't have gone up there until the technology to do so matured a bit. After Korolev's death and 4 failures of the russian N-1 rocket, and the american success in 1969, the soviet moon program crumbled, and with it most of america's reasons to compete in a space race. After this there was no further need to prove to the world they can do it - so they naturally turned to the practical application of manned space travel; and that translates into orbital and sub orbital missions, mostly dealing with sattelites and space stations - first Mir, then the ISS.

Nobody lost the will to explore - all the unmanned probe missions all around the solar system are a testament to that. As for the moon, we've been there - and like it or not, there has been little reason to return there until now. Liberator says they should never have stopped the lunar missions - what would be the purpose of said missions? Hop out of the module, pick up some rocks, and stick a flag? Been there, done that. We have the technology to go to the moon - we've proven that. What we don't have is the technology to make the trip cost effective and worthwhile - moon's practical use may come into play if they do indeed find sufficient water for a moon base, in which case it would be an excellent launch base for manned missions to the planets. As I said, back in 1969 we barely had the technology to send a man to the moon. Now, I'm not sure we even barely have the technology for a safe manned trip to Mars - this mission would be endlessly more complex and risky then a moon mission. This isn't just sticking a few men on top of a rocket, and hoping that everything would go ok for the next few days.

At any rate, the technology advancement curve isn't a straight line going upwards - you always have a major technology boom, after which you don't get any dramatic new stuff for a while, but the technology does mature, making it better and safer. Space exploration ain't like dusting crops, it's the most complicated, dangerous and expensive venture humanity has undertaken. It's only been 40 years since the first moon mission - nobody's given up on space, but things like manned interplanetary travel take time.

[Kosh]

I don't give a damn about manned space flights either, because they are inherently ineffective and waste of resources and money. Unmanned exploration on the other hand is far more effective and safer.

Can robots do zero or low g research? No? The fact is there are things involved in exploration and research that robots simply aren't capable of (or can't do it within a reasonable amount of time). That's not to say we shouldn't have unmanned exploration, we do. They both have their place.

While doing unmanned exploration, we can learn much and keep researching new technology.

The single biggest driver of technological development has been need. Here is a list of things that have come from NASA, and much of it was from the manned portion of it.

But would it be cost-effective to do so? No, absolutely no.

Because we didn't bother to develop cost effective methods to launch stuff?

As I said, back in 1969 we barely had the technology to send a man to the moon.

I remember reading a rather interesting story about the first landing on the moon. Today's typical digital wristwatch has more computing power than the Apollo capsule, and your laptop has far more power than all the mainframes of the Johnson Space Center. Computing power was obviously very limited, so much so that when the lander was making its approach to the moon the crew turned on the radar to get a good look at the lunar surface........except that the radar crashed the lander's computers so they flew in blind and got lucky.

but things like manned interplanetary travel take time.

It also takes effort. We've been rather long on time but short on effort. Look at the miniscule amount of funding these projects get compared with what is actually being spent on other things. We've spend more than a trillion dollars bombing Iraq and another trillion bailing out failed financial institutions. We've had all these resources all this time and yet what we spend on NASA is still very small. Our priorities certainly are not getting us up there.

[TrashMan]

And yes, I realize that we may have the know-how to establish a Luna spaceport today. But would it be cost-effective to do so? No, absolutely no.

[russian_accent]
Capitalist pig! Do you see nothing but money?

VE do eet FOR SCIENCE!!!!
[/russian_accent]

[newman]

The biggest issue I see with manned space flight is propulsion. While rocketry did advance, the basic technological principles remain the same - burn lots of chemical propellant to generate enough trust to lift the desired mass into orbit, or beyond. The problem with that is, it's complicated, very expensive, and somewhat impractical when you start going further into space. Sure, we could send people to say, Mars, and if we're lucky we may even get them back alive. But then we'd be stuck with the same thing that happened when we got to the moon - yea we can get there again but why would we spend billions and risk lives of astronauts to do so? Without new, better, more efficient propulsion technologies, manned exploration of the solar system remains impractical. Rocketry is now a bit like cars - sure today's cars have advanced, but the basic principle - the internal combustion engine - remains the same since Ford model T. We need another technological boost to get things really going, and we won't achieve it by constantly sending astronauts to the moon and beyond on top of ridiculously large rockets - this will be achieved in advanced propulsion laboratories.

[Kosh]

We need another technological boost to get things really going, and we won't achieve it by constantly sending astronauts to the moon and beyond on top of ridiculously large rockets - this will be achieved in advanced propulsion laboratories.

We will achieve it when it becomes clear there is a real need for it. For example, in the 1960's NASA was developing a nuclear rocket. While it wasn't ready yet, it still was making progress. The project was canned because there was no demand for it (since we stopped sending people to the moon). The concept was revived with project timberwind, which was markedly more successful thanks to various tech advances, but again the project was cancelled again because of no demand.

[SpardaSon21]

A nuclear jet would be effective in space travel, but how useful would it be in propelling ships into orbit?  That's where the biggest problem with space travel is now, getting things into space itself.

[Blue Lion]

Space elevator!

[Janos]

We need another technological boost to get things really going, and we won't achieve it by constantly sending astronauts to the moon and beyond on top of ridiculously large rockets - this will be achieved in advanced propulsion laboratories.

We will achieve it when it becomes clear there is a real need for it. For example, in the 1960's NASA was developing a nuclear rocket. While it wasn't ready yet, it still was making progress. The project was canned because there was no demand for it (since we stopped sending people to the moon). The concept was revived with project timberwind, which was markedly more successful thanks to various tech advances, but again the project was cancelled again because of no demand.

They already use electric drives in satellites and have experimenting with ion drives; there are many other methods except the chemical propulsion but I can't be bothered to search Wikipedia again for a technofetishist listing of different engines . However, none of these are suitable for reaching the space and many of them are yet so weak as to be inferior to chemical drives in pretty much every aspect, but alternative propulsion does exist already.

The problems are A) leaving the planet and B) accelerating to achieve sufficient speeds for whatever is considered sufficient.

[NGTM-1R]

Space elevator!

's all well and good until it crashes on your city...

[Liberator]

Two words:

Orbital Elevators

You want a meaningful reason to go to space?  How about near limitless, free(at least for the next 4 billion years or so) energy.  Enough to solve all the energy worries mankind will have for the next 1000 years.  

Here's another one:  Living space

A ring constructed at geo-stationary altitude and orbital velocity and connected to the Earth with 3 or more orbital elevators would provide a significant amount of space that can be turned over to industrial, commercial and residential interests.

There, aside from cost, I've killed virtually any argument against expanding into the local space surrounding Earth and exploiting it for the improvement and enjoyment of mankind.

[Ioustinos]

Here we were, debating Obama's Peace Prize . . . and Obama attacks the moon!  Take that!

[General Battuta]

Two words:

Orbital Elevators

You want a meaningful reason to go to space?  How about near limitless, free(at least for the next 4 billion years or so) energy.  Enough to solve all the energy worries mankind will have for the next 1000 years.  

Here's another one:  Living space

A ring constructed at geo-stationary altitude and orbital velocity and connected to the Earth with 3 or more orbital elevators would provide a significant amount of space that can be turned over to industrial, commercial and residential interests.

There, aside from cost, I've killed virtually any argument against expanding into the local space surrounding Earth and exploiting it for the improvement and enjoyment of mankind.

Y'know, if you actually read threads, you'd see that was brought up not three posts ago.

And I don't know who you think is against expanding into and exploiting space. But, uh, lay into the straw man if you like...

[Liberator]

But, uh, lay into the straw man if you like...

S'what I do apparently.

[General Battuta]

Sorry. But, seriously, nobody in this thread has seriously suggested (I think?) that space exploration is a bad idea. This is a FreeSpace fansite, after all.

[StarSlayer]

Sorry. But, seriously, nobody in this thread has seriously suggested (I think?) that space exploration is a bad idea. This is a FreeSpace fansite, after all.

Humanity is a blight on existence and shouldn't be allowed to spread.  Just say no to Space Exploration. 

[MR_T3D]

Sorry. But, seriously, nobody in this thread has seriously suggested (I think?) that space exploration is a bad idea. This is a FreeSpace fansite, after all.

Humanity is a blight on existence and shouldn't be allowed to spread.  Just say no to Space Exploration. 

really? what stopping aliens from doing even worse, maybe one alien planet blew itself up with nukes, and the other one is still in dark ages.
assuming there are only 2 other planets with civilizations out there..
if that's true, then i'd say we're doing pretty good so far!