Obama’s Space Plan

[BIGUN 1,490]

Political positions aside, it's an opinion question about the space program.

For at least the past 20 years, I have been curious as to why we have not settled on a goal for space exploration. It's been 41 years since we put a man on the moon and I question, "Why haven't we "colonized" a small contingent on the moon yet?"

In addition to those thoughts; have been - If all we're going to do is keep going up and down, then why not spend that money on earth/ocean research? Is it more advantageous/likely that as the world's population continues to grow that we should explore ocean dwelling, clean fuel, etc. more... can we learn more from ocean dwelling that could be applied to space colonization?

Do you think the NASA program should be "re-engineered" with some definitive goals and time-lines, scrapped in exchange for earth/ocean exploration, combination of both?

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[regulator 0]

Well for one they should totally scrap the existing space shuttle (It's still running 80386 processors for the love of ..) If space exploration is as viable as the president thinks, then a new tranportation vessel should be constructed to keep up with the times.

[shropshire 0]

But, if there is no viable alternative to the current shuttle in production... why scrap it... would that then entail a long-ish pause?

As for the 386 'argument' .. if it does the job why change ... do they NEED a more powerful processor at this stage? - newer ain't always better young un

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[quade 4]

Quote

"Why haven't we "colonized" a small contingent on the moon yet?"

Because it's mind bogglingly expensive. People keep thinking of it as Europeans colonizing the Americas, but the reality is nothing could be further from the truth. Even the reason for going there in the first place was significantly different.

In the 1400s, Europe knew where it wanted to go, India, in order to trade and make money, so they had a financial incentive to get there quickly and a way to finance the entire enterprise once it was established.

The Americas were stumbled upon by accident, but even so when the explorers returned, they didn't come back empty handed. They brought back trade goods from indigenous people. The colonists that followed were all about trade and the exploitation of resources.

Contrast that with the Moon. There's nobody to trade with and, other than scientific data, nothing there that's really worth a damn to bring back. Even if the Moon were made of entirely of diamonds, I'm not sure it's cost effective to go up and get them. Further, pretty much everything you want to use there, you have to take from Earth and that's really not cost effective at all.

Do we need to establish a colony on the Moon? Scientifically; yes. For any commercial purpose; I highly doubt it. Considering that, it's going to take longer than you or I will be alive.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[shropshire 0]

I'm guessing that the primary purpose of establishing a base on the Moon is not for commerce but as a staging post for an onward journey ..... but that would be like setting up a port on the Isle of Mann to help get to the US of A from the U.K..... well sort of

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kallend 2,154]

Quote

Quote

"Why haven't we "colonized" a small contingent on the moon yet?"

Because it's mind bogglingly expensive. People keep thinking of it as Europeans colonizing the Americas, but the reality is nothing could be further from the truth. Even the reason for going there in the first place was significantly different.

In the 1400s, Europe knew where it wanted to go, India, in order to trade and make money, so they had a financial incentive to get there quickly and a way to finance the entire enterprise once it was established.

The Americas were stumbled upon by accident, but even so when the explorers returned, they didn't come back empty handed. They brought back trade goods from indigenous people. The colonists that followed were all about trade and the exploitation of resources.

Contrast that with the Moon. There's nobody to trade with and, other than scientific data, nothing there that's really worth a damn to bring back. Even if the Moon were made of entirely of diamonds, I'm not sure it's cost effective to go up and get them. Further, pretty much everything you want to use there, you have to take from Earth and that's really not cost effective at all.

Do we need to establish a colony on the Moon? Scientifically; yes. For any commercial purpose; I highly doubt it. Considering that, it's going to take longer than you or I will be alive.

Is there any purpose besides scientific for having a permanent settlement at the south pole?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 4]

Quote

I'm guessing that the primary purpose of establishing a base on the Moon is not for commerce but as a staging post for an onward journey ..... but that would be like setting up a port on the Isle of Mann to help get to the US of A from the U.K..... well sort of

Yes, but to what end?

Ultimately if the entire thing doesn't pay for itself it's literally not worth it. Robots are vastly more cost effective to do scientific research until we reach the limits of their capabilities. Human explorers make sense to do things robots can't. But in either case colonies only make sense if they can ultimately pay for themselves.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[BIGUN 1,490]

Quote

I'm guessing that the primary purpose of establishing a base on the Moon is not for commerce but as a staging post for an onward journey

My thoughts also... Not only as a staging post, but more as a "can we go further" based on what we learned here. As to cost, the combined total spent since 1969 might have covered the cost to place a small colony on the moon.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[quade 4]

Quote

Is there any purpose besides scientific for having a permanent settlement at the south pole?

None that I can think of. However, cost of operations at the south pole are insignificant compared to what a Moon base of similar size would be.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

As to cost, the combined total spent since 1969 might have covered the cost to place a small colony on the moon.

Highly doubtful.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Quote

I'm guessing that the primary purpose of establishing a base on the Moon is not for commerce but as a staging post for an onward journey ..... but that would be like setting up a port on the Isle of Mann to help get to the US of A from the U.K..... well sort of

Yes, but to what end?

Ultimately if the entire thing doesn't pay for itself it's literally not worth it. Robots are vastly more cost effective to do scientific research until we reach the limits of their capabilities. Human explorers make sense to do things robots can't. But in either case colonies only make sense if they can ultimately pay for themselves.

It could be argued that the commercial market for spin off technology for manned space flight from the 1950s until now has more than paid for the cost of operation. Just because there isn't a direct profit that you can personally quantify, doesn't mean that significant contributions to the GDP haven't occurred. Regardless of that, the technological advancements are simply staggering!

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[shropshire 0]

Oh I agree with the ultimate use of Robots/UAVs tp do the exploration, but 'we' may still need a base on the moon from which to launch deeper space missions (reduced fuel requirements?)

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[quade 4]

Quote

It could be argued that the commercial market for spin off technology for manned space flight from the 1950s until now has more than paid for the cost of operation. Just because there isn't a direct profit that you can personally quantify, doesn't mean that significant contributions to the GDP haven't occurred. Regardless of that, the technological advancements are simply staggering!

Consider the "colony" I'll call "Detroit."

It doesn't matter what technological spinoffs result as a matter of their research, if it doesn't pay for itself, the colony collapses.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,121]

>I'm guessing that the primary purpose of establishing a base on the Moon
>is not for commerce but as a staging post for an onward journey

If that's the case, a space station would work a lot better. Alternatively, Mars is an even better option; it's much more hospitable, fuel can be found there, and the gravity well is much shallower than Earth's. (And it's an interesting place for humans to live to boot.)

I mean, if you want to go to the moon for scientific reasons, I'm all for it. But just going there to go there isn't a great idea IMO.

[millertime24 8]

Sorry to inform, but Ive already beat you guys to setting up on the moon. I now have a colony up there who's mission it is to man a giant frickin LASER.

Muff #5048

[billvon 3,121]

>but 'we' may still need a base on the moon from which to launch
>deeper space missions (reduced fuel requirements?)

I think they increase. You have to land on, and then take off from, the moon, and design any spacecraft to operate in a lunar gravity environment to boot. That's all going to add weight and delta-vee requirements.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Quote

It could be argued that the commercial market for spin off technology for manned space flight from the 1950s until now has more than paid for the cost of operation. Just because there isn't a direct profit that you can personally quantify, doesn't mean that significant contributions to the GDP haven't occurred. Regardless of that, the technological advancements are simply staggering!

Consider the "colony" I'll call "Detroit."

It doesn't matter what technological spinoffs result as a matter of their research, if it doesn't pay for itself, the colony collapses.

Wow, with that kind of forward thinking we would all still be in Europe or our other cultural countries of origin!

So you must have short term benefits, no long term benefits for the betterment of commercial industry and society as a whole?

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[champu 1]

Quote

Do we need to establish a colony on the Moon? Scientifically; yes. For any commercial purpose; I highly doubt it. Considering that, it's going to take longer than you or I will be alive.

I'm inclined to agree with the president in that having low Earth orbit pretty well worked out and having been to the Moon several times, NASA needs to move on. Other than for studying the Moon itself, long duration manned missions there don't really serve much of a scientific purpose in my mind. Plus the technical challenges of establishing a permanent Moon colony (upmass, communications, transit time, space weather, local weather) are all watered down versions of the challenges in sending a manned mission elsewhere in the solar system.

The tag-line of NASA's manned space program needs to read, "Transforming the incredible to the mundane, and leaving the mundane to others."

[shropshire 0]

Maybe... it's about time that we lose the nationalistic approach and establish a more globally encompassing organisation ...

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It could be argued that the commercial market for spin off technology for manned space flight from the 1950s until now has more than paid for the cost of operation. Just because there isn't a direct profit that you can personally quantify, doesn't mean that significant contributions to the GDP haven't occurred. Regardless of that, the technological advancements are simply staggering!

Consider the "colony" I'll call "Detroit."

It doesn't matter what technological spinoffs result as a matter of their research, if it doesn't pay for itself, the colony collapses.

Wow, with that kind of forward thinking we would all still be in Europe or our other cultural countries of origin!

So you must have short term benefits, no long term benefits for the betterment of commercial industry and society as a whole?

You have to have both if you want to survive long term.

The governments needs to step back from being big corporation's free R&D department.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[champu 1]

Quote

Maybe... it's about time that we lose the nationalistic approach and establish a more globally encompassing organisation ...

By "transforming" I don't necessarily mean alone and by "others" I don't necessarily mean nations.

[zuluguy 0]

Quote

I mean, if you want to go to the moon for scientific reasons,

I understand where you are coming from but do we really need to justify science or on its pretext to go to moon. There have been ample studies and opinions form famous theoritical physicists, cosmologists that space exploration should not need to be justified or done in the pretext of science.
On one had honestly, a lot of research done from moon or from ISS can be also cost effectively done from earth. I'm not discounting the micro-gravity environment but you get the idea.

Exploration is inherently a quality of human existance, I think we would be fooling ourselves if we said lunar missions leads to better science. However, it clearly will spur jobs, engineering, rocket design R&D, electronics, space habitat, etc.
Unmanned programs have yielded better science in terms of understanding the solar system formation, planets, moons of saturn etc. etc. However, I support manned missions because human explorations is inevitable.

[quade 4]

Quote

However, I support manned missions because human explorations is inevitable.

Is it? If October 1962 had turned out differently, man certainly wouldn't have landed on the Moon in 1969 and my guess is all space science would have come to an abrupt halt.

It certainly seems as if continuous exploration by man is inevitable, but civilizations destroying themselves seem just as much so. So far horizontal exploration only barely beats out self destructive entropy. Exploration by horizontal movement is vastly more cost effective than vertical exploration. That may be the limiting and deciding factor.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,121]

>Exploration is inherently a quality of human existance . . .

Right. But why not explore, say, the mantle of our own planet or central Antarctica? It's closer, easier and we'll learn more stuff. We will never be able to live on the moon for very long; it just doesn't have much of what we need to stay alive. Places like Mars, although they're no picnic, are a lot easier (and more useful) to explore. Heck, get a transparent tent, pump it full of Mars air, culture the soil beneath it and you could be growing corn within a few weeks; that's something you'll never be able to do on the Moon.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

We didn't go to the moon in the sixties for scientific or commercial reasons.

We went for purely political reasons. To beat the Soviets.
The Mercury program was for the exact same reasons.

We had satellites (comm and early weather) up in orbit, and the X-15 program was flying into the lower limits of space (not being shot up on a big ass firework).

Eisenhower thought (correctly IMO) that we were on a good course to get into space. But the political crap overtook him.
So NASA was formed and Mecury was started to make the US look good.

When Kennedy took office, he continued the game for a while, but Mercury wasn't able to beat the Soviets into orbit.
So Kennedy asked the scientific community what we'd be able to beat the Soviets at for certain.

He was told the moon.
So he made the speech and set us on course for the moon "within this decade" but actually ended up wanting to kill the program. He couldn't for political reasons, of course, but looked very seriously at it.

I'm a big fan of NASA and all they've done.

The book The Dark Side of the Moon that details all this and more was one of the more depressing books I've read in a while.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo