People will regret what the government did to NASA when China lands the first man on Mars.

(08-02-2011 12:38 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  We don't need men in space to be active there. It's expensive and dangerous to fly manned missions

So is war, and we have plenty of that going on right now. Oh, excuse me "military conflicts". I'd rather have men die trying to build a space station than trying to "build" Middle Eastern countries. I'd rather "waste" money on a space program, than waste money killing people in foreign countries...

(08-02-2011 12:38 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  We disagree here Ninerfan. We don't need men in space to be active there. It's expensive and dangerous to fly manned missions, while you can do a lot w/ unmanned launches.

We also have commercial entities working on the manned missions if those are needed.

Great exploration has always had significant risks. As MileHigh said there are many things man can do in space that machines simply can't.

But my main concern is the technological advancement that we miss out on by not pushing exploration of space anymore. mlb is right the shuttle program was set to end, but also as MileHigh mentioned the Constellation program was well into R&D. They had developed plans for multi-stage technology whereby you would launch a crew into space, leverage the international space station as a jumping off point and then on to the moon and then to Mars. Getting back to the moon is the first logical step in a manned mission to Mars.

Do any of us here really believe that China won't look to weaponize space? Russia as well, though they lack the funds to really push it right now.

I realize that we can't put the full investment in it right now, but to scrap it all together, leaving us with no vehicle to get us to space other than a Russian rocket is a very poor decision strategically. At minimum they should have kept one shuttle, fully serviced and ready to go if need be.

What I don't get is not long ago, these same conservatives that are now posting this stuff about NASA were the ones whining about how NASA 's budget needed to be cut. You righties just can't seem to make up your minds as to what you want.

(08-02-2011 06:51 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  People will regret what the government did to NASA when China lands the first man on Mars.

My first response would be, "So?" Travelling to Mars is expensive, and I fail to understand any ROI other than national pride. My opinion is that the Chinese hold life cheap, so they may be able to get there w/ less cost than the US, but...so?

Ninerfan1 Wrote:But my main concern is the technological advancement that we miss out on by not pushing exploration of space anymore.

We haven't totally forsaken space. It's manned exploration. And it's hard to know what we'll miss. Has anyone (else) been concerned about the condition of Kodak? How much chemistry and photochemistry will we miss out on b/c we all switched to digital cameras?
In the end I agree the gov't can make really dumb decisions about R&D funding, but I don't expect them to be omniscient or infallable. While many of you disagree w/ me, I don't see this as a dumb decision.

Quote:mlb is right the shuttle program was set to end, but also as MileHigh mentioned the Constellation program was well into R&D. They had developed plans for multi-stage technology whereby you would launch a crew into space, leverage the international space station as a jumping off point and then on to the moon and then to Mars.

I agree w/ you that this piece may have been a dumb decision. There are lots of uses for Constellation other than manned missions, and the US needs a vehicle (Delta IV?)

Quote:Do any of us here really believe that China won't look to weaponize space? Russia as well, though they lack the funds to really push it right now.

Remember, NASA is a civilian organization. Given my past experience, I can tell you that weaponizing space is not a NASA mission, so their change in philosophy doesn't mean the US isn't interested.

Manned space travel is more expensive and more dangerous than unmanned. Unmanned can do many of the things that manned can.

That's thee reasons why we need to do manned space travel, not three reasons not to.

(08-03-2011 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Manned space travel is more expensive and more dangerous than unmanned. Unmanned can do many of the things that manned can.

That's thee reasons why we need to do manned space travel, not three reasons not to.

Only if there is a sound ROI.

(08-03-2011 09:13 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  We haven't totally forsaken space. It's manned exploration. And it's hard to know what we'll miss. Has anyone (else) been concerned about the condition of Kodak? How much chemistry and photochemistry will we miss out on b/c we all switched to digital cameras?
In the end I agree the gov't can make really dumb decisions about R&D funding, but I don't expect them to be omniscient or infallable. While many of you disagree w/ me, I don't see this as a dumb decision.

This is a fair point. I just wonder if by foresaking manned flight we are setting ourselves too far behind the 8 ball. Back in the 70's when we wasted the last Apollo rocket to dock with the commies we were absent from space for almost 11 years until the shuttle came online. Back then we could swallow that because there was no country with the resources to take advantage of it. That's no longer the case.

Quote:Remember, NASA is a civilian organization. Given my past experience, I can tell you that weaponizing space is not a NASA mission, so their change in philosophy doesn't mean the US isn't interested.

True but I have to assume there is knowledge sharing between them and DoD. And NASA is a great cover for military experimentation.

China is a real strategic threat to the US. We're already behind them in education, engineering especially. Soon we'll be behind them economically. Once we're behind them technologically we'll never get back ahead in my opinion.

(08-03-2011 09:36 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-03-2011 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Manned space travel is more expensive and more dangerous than unmanned. Unmanned can do many of the things that manned can.

That's thee reasons why we need to do manned space travel, not three reasons not to.

Only if there is a sound ROI.

A substantial portion of that ROI has to lie in neighborhood effects, which are difficult if not impossible to quantify. Even vastly understated, they still will justify the effort.

(08-03-2011 10:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-03-2011 09:36 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-03-2011 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Manned space travel is more expensive and more dangerous than unmanned. Unmanned can do many of the things that manned can.

That's thee reasons why we need to do manned space travel, not three reasons not to.

Only if there is a sound ROI.

A substantial portion of that ROI has to lie in neighborhood effects, which are difficult if not impossible to quantify. Even vastly understated, they still will justify the effort.

We'll have to disagree here then. I'm always open to more specifics, but at this stage I don't see the justification. I can't see the markets that require space, and I don't see the spin offs having enough impact. And, I got very disillusioned when I saw NASA fabricating results:
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2005/ip_8.html

(08-03-2011 08:36 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  As MileHigh said there are many things machines can do in space that man simply can't.

FIFY. If you disagree, then name one, outside of being test subjects. We don't need pilots for that.

(08-03-2011 08:36 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  But my main concern is the technological advancement that we miss out on by not pushing exploration of space anymore.

Outside of spacesuits, which have little application for people on the ground, where is the innovation? The mandate in engineering for NASA is to use COTS - commercial off the shelf - wherever possible. That doesn't tend to stimulate innovation, but it does have affects on subordinate economies...

I really tend to agree with Dr. Torch.

The traditional reason that those who are serious with research in space encourage manned exploration is the idea that with the manned program, you get $XXX dollars for space probes and serious research, but without it, you'd get ($XXX * 40%) for research. Thus, while they don't necessarily think that the manned program is important or a good use of money, they support it to get more for the unmanned programs.

(08-03-2011 10:55 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(08-03-2011 08:36 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  As MileHigh said there are many things machines can do in space that man simply can't.

FIFY. If you disagree, then name one, outside of being test subjects. We don't need pilots for that.

(08-03-2011 08:36 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  But my main concern is the technological advancement that we miss out on by not pushing exploration of space anymore.

Outside of spacesuits, which have little application for people on the ground, where is the innovation? The mandate in engineering for NASA is to use COTS - commercial off the shelf - wherever possible. That doesn't tend to stimulate innovation, but it does have affects on subordinate economies...

I really tend to agree with Dr. Torch.

The traditional reason that those who are serious with research in space encourage manned exploration is the idea that with the manned program, you get $XXX dollars for space probes and serious research, but without it, you'd get ($XXX * 40%) for research. Thus, while they don't necessarily think that the manned program is important or a good use of money, they support it to get more for the unmanned programs.

Really?...You don't see the INNOVATION that came from the space program. Here's a list...

• "Cool" Laser Heart Surgery
• Space Telescope Looks for Cancer
• Body Imaging
• New Arms and Legs
• Infrared Thermometer
• Light emitting diodes (LED)
• Composite Forceps
• Pill-Sized Transmitter
• Chromosome Analysis
• Digital Mammography
• Camera on a Chip
• Lightning Protection
• Windshear Prediction
• Collision Avoidance
• Moonsuit Stadium
• Helmet Padding
• Golfball Aerodynamics
• Firefighter Breathing System
• Powerful Jaws for Rescue Tools

And it keeps going...future advancements are just that future advancements. We don't know what they are yet so to say we've gained nothing from manned space flight is nonsense. Who knows what we'll gain when we get back on board. But not being involved at all is a mistake!

(08-03-2011 09:13 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-02-2011 06:51 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  People will regret what the government did to NASA when China lands the first man on Mars.

My first response would be, "So?" Travelling to Mars is expensive, and I fail to understand any ROI other than national pride. My opinion is that the Chinese hold life cheap, so they may be able to get there w/ less cost than the US, but...so?

This may sound cliche but, that isn't the true American attitude. This is why we are a second rate country now, and will continue to fall. Kids will read in history books about what we used to accomplish, then ask their teachers "what happened to America?" And our sad downfall will be that our civilians stopped caring. Stopped striving to be the best, and settle for anything. We should cut military spending. We spend 700bil a year while the second highest country is China who spends 115bil. We should cut 500bil from the military pull troops our of the world. Let the rest of the world do as they please.

(08-03-2011 11:25 AM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

(08-03-2011 09:13 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-02-2011 06:51 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  People will regret what the government did to NASA when China lands the first man on Mars.

My first response would be, "So?" Travelling to Mars is expensive, and I fail to understand any ROI other than national pride. My opinion is that the Chinese hold life cheap, so they may be able to get there w/ less cost than the US, but...so?

This may sound cliche but, that isn't the true American attitude. This is why we are a second rate country now, and will continue to fall. Kids will read in history books about what we used to accomplish, then ask their teachers "what happened to America?" And our sad downfall will be that our civilians stopped caring. Stopped striving to be the best, and settle for anything. We should cut military spending. We spend 700bil a year while the second highest country is China who spends 115bil. We should cut 500bil from the military pull troops our of the world. Let the rest of the world do as they please.

I didn't stop caring, and I don't settle for anything. I just believe we can't do everything.

The cliche is "there is no free lunch." There are opportunity costs to everything. We may be able to explore and develop something far more interesting if we don't do manned space flight.

Also, don't forget, US private enterprise is pushing for manned space flight. We're not out of the game.

(08-03-2011 11:31 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-03-2011 11:25 AM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

(08-03-2011 09:13 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-02-2011 06:51 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  People will regret what the government did to NASA when China lands the first man on Mars.

My first response would be, "So?" Travelling to Mars is expensive, and I fail to understand any ROI other than national pride. My opinion is that the Chinese hold life cheap, so they may be able to get there w/ less cost than the US, but...so?

This may sound cliche but, that isn't the true American attitude. This is why we are a second rate country now, and will continue to fall. Kids will read in history books about what we used to accomplish, then ask their teachers "what happened to America?" And our sad downfall will be that our civilians stopped caring. Stopped striving to be the best, and settle for anything. We should cut military spending. We spend 700bil a year while the second highest country is China who spends 115bil. We should cut 500bil from the military pull troops our of the world. Let the rest of the world do as they please.

I didn't stop caring, and I don't settle for anything. I just believe we can't do everything.

The cliche is "there is no free lunch." There are opportunity costs to everything. We may be able to explore and develop something far more interesting if we don't do manned space flight.

Also, don't forget, US private enterprise is pushing for manned space flight. We're not out of the game.

While I do support private space flight and think that it will help with American accomplishment, I also think that the actual research would get done at NASA.

(08-03-2011 11:23 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(08-03-2011 10:55 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(08-03-2011 08:36 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  As MileHigh said there are many things machines can do in space that man simply can't.

FIFY. If you disagree, then name one, outside of being test subjects. We don't need pilots for that.

(08-03-2011 08:36 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  But my main concern is the technological advancement that we miss out on by not pushing exploration of space anymore.

Outside of spacesuits, which have little application for people on the ground, where is the innovation? The mandate in engineering for NASA is to use COTS - commercial off the shelf - wherever possible. That doesn't tend to stimulate innovation, but it does have affects on subordinate economies...

I really tend to agree with Dr. Torch.

The traditional reason that those who are serious with research in space encourage manned exploration is the idea that with the manned program, you get $XXX dollars for space probes and serious research, but without it, you'd get ($XXX * 40%) for research. Thus, while they don't necessarily think that the manned program is important or a good use of money, they support it to get more for the unmanned programs.

Really?...You don't see the INNOVATION that came from the space program. Here's a list...

• "Cool" Laser Heart Surgery
• Space Telescope Looks for Cancer
• Body Imaging
• New Arms and Legs
• Infrared Thermometer
• Light emitting diodes (LED)
• Composite Forceps
• Pill-Sized Transmitter
• Chromosome Analysis
• Digital Mammography
• Camera on a Chip
• Lightning Protection
• Windshear Prediction
• Collision Avoidance
• Moonsuit Stadium
• Helmet Padding
• Golfball Aerodynamics
• Firefighter Breathing System
• Powerful Jaws for Rescue Tools

And it keeps going...future advancements are just that future advancements. We don't know what they are yet so to say we've gained nothing from manned space flight in nonsense. Who knows what we'll gain when we get back on board. But not being involved at all is a mistake!

I'll agree that it's hyperbole to say there are no innovations that have come from the manned space program (not that I said that directly). But, you've clearly lumped in items that were unmanned programs, like the Hubble space telescope. That it was deployed by the shuttle is a matter of logistics and the fact that we were "all in" on manned cargo delivery was strictly politics.

DrT's line of argument - that it's clearly not worth the ROI - probably avoids getting into sidelines about whether LEDs, Velcro, or Tang were innovations of the space program or not.

Ultimately, the manned space program was never about innovation - that has been used from time to time to try to shut down arguments about the worthiness of funding it. But, I don't see how anyone who is true to their principles of whether exorbitant federal programs are worthy of the federal government can really make the case for the manned program. While the space shuttle was really cool, and it's nice to have a US flag on the moon, in truth the shuttle has been a colossal waste of money. That said, there are probably dozens of military programs that have been equally exorbitant but cool to have during the same time frame.

(08-03-2011 05:39 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(08-03-2011 11:23 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(08-03-2011 10:55 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(08-03-2011 08:36 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  As MileHigh said there are many things machines can do in space that man simply can't.

FIFY. If you disagree, then name one, outside of being test subjects. We don't need pilots for that.

(08-03-2011 08:36 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  But my main concern is the technological advancement that we miss out on by not pushing exploration of space anymore.

Outside of spacesuits, which have little application for people on the ground, where is the innovation? The mandate in engineering for NASA is to use COTS - commercial off the shelf - wherever possible. That doesn't tend to stimulate innovation, but it does have affects on subordinate economies...

I really tend to agree with Dr. Torch.

The traditional reason that those who are serious with research in space encourage manned exploration is the idea that with the manned program, you get $XXX dollars for space probes and serious research, but without it, you'd get ($XXX * 40%) for research. Thus, while they don't necessarily think that the manned program is important or a good use of money, they support it to get more for the unmanned programs.

Really?...You don't see the INNOVATION that came from the space program. Here's a list...

• "Cool" Laser Heart Surgery
• Space Telescope Looks for Cancer
• Body Imaging
• New Arms and Legs
• Infrared Thermometer
• Light emitting diodes (LED)
• Composite Forceps
• Pill-Sized Transmitter
• Chromosome Analysis
• Digital Mammography
• Camera on a Chip
• Lightning Protection
• Windshear Prediction
• Collision Avoidance
• Moonsuit Stadium
• Helmet Padding
• Golfball Aerodynamics
• Firefighter Breathing System
• Powerful Jaws for Rescue Tools

And it keeps going...future advancements are just that future advancements. We don't know what they are yet so to say we've gained nothing from manned space flight in nonsense. Who knows what we'll gain when we get back on board. But not being involved at all is a mistake!

I'll agree that it's hyperbole to say there are no innovations that have come from the manned space program (not that I said that directly). But, you've clearly lumped in items that were unmanned programs, like the Hubble space telescope. That it was deployed by the shuttle is a matter of logistics and the fact that we were "all in" on manned cargo delivery was strictly politics.

DrT's line of argument - that it's clearly not worth the ROI - probably avoids getting into sidelines about whether LEDs, Velcro, or Tang were innovations of the space program or not.

Ultimately, the manned space program was never about innovation - that has been used from time to time to try to shut down arguments about the worthiness of funding it. But, I don't see how anyone who is true to their principles of whether exorbitant federal programs are worthy of the federal government can really make the case for the manned program. While the space shuttle was really cool, and it's nice to have a US flag on the moon, in truth the shuttle has been a colossal waste of money. That said, there are probably dozens of military programs that have been equally exorbitant but cool to have during the same time frame.

I think we missed each other’s points...Those innovations didn't all come from the pursuit of manned spaceflight. But the endeavor is a point of national pride and having manned missions to space directly or not influenced all of those products. The point is that humanity always has and always will directly benefit from the research that came as a result of space exploration. Oh and satellites can’t fix themselves…so ultimately manned spaceflight is necessary.

Russian propaganda. Old adversaries are seeing the weakening of the US as an opportunity to make themselves appear stronger. 2012 can't get here fast enough.

(08-03-2011 07:26 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  I think we missed each other’s points...Those innovations didn't all come from the pursuit of manned spaceflight. But the endeavor is a point of national pride and having manned missions to space directly or not influenced all of those products. The point is that humanity always has and always will directly benefit from the research that came as a result of space exploration. Oh and satellites can’t fix themselves…so ultimately manned spaceflight is necessary.

I think that unmanned space exploration does provide significant benefits in terms of the knowledge that we gain and it is a very worthwhile endeavor. The argument that manned spaceflight is necessary is fallacious, though. With regards to the Hubble Space Telescope, just the mission costs to launch and service it probably spent $2-3 for every $1 that it would have cost to have built an additional one and discard the first (that's even granting that the HST overran it's budget pretty significantly). In the absence of the manned program, it may well have been that we wouldn't have gotten close to the benefit out of it that we have in retrospect. But, this case is such an outlier that it doesn't come close to justifying the existence of the manned program ... it is one of a very few cases where a manned mission to repair the satellite or probe was even possible.

The basic arguments that you've made fail in terms of cost effectiveness - research benefits and deployment and repair logistics. If you were to set out to stimulate research to create products that are useful for medical imaging, small scale radio transmission, and packaging, would the logical answer to that be "let's create a multi-billiion dollar budget to send an airplane into space"? If your goal is to put research telescopes and probes into space to escape the atmosphere, does it really make sense to spend $10 for a manned cargo vehicle for every $1 it would take to build and deliver the telescope using an unmanned vehicle? It takes some tortured logic to answer yes to that latter question, but that's what researchers have traditionally done due to the politics involved.

Until a gov't program becomes efficient, it cannot be cost effective. Name one gov't program that is efficient? Cost effectiveness and gov't program are contradictions in terms.