Sights are off the moon, and maybe put away for good.

[ideasrule]

It's depressing to think that humanity is doomed to stay in low-Earth orbit for the next few decades, and probably for the rest of our lives. The really awful prospect is: what if our children think the same way we do, and humans never travel beyond the Moon?

I don't know how beneficial human spaceflight is to science: mission cost more, but much more can be accomplished in one mission because humans can use tools with more flexibility and speed than a robot.

However, I do know that seeing humans walking on another planet is inspiring, especially for children but also for all of humanity. I grew up in China, and it's highly significant that out of all the articles I read in our textbooks, only one praised the United States. That was the one about the Eagle landing on the moon, one of the most memorable moments of the 20th century and something that gives the entire world a reason to be proud. It's sad to think that human spaceflight reached its glorious peak 40 years ago and has only regressed from there.

I also know that going into space is the dream of hundreds of millions of people around the world, many of whom are willing to risk their lives for such a trip. Sure, manned missions are ambitious undertakings, but since when have pushing the limits of what is possible been a sin?

 

[ideasrule]

I agree. The benefit to cost ratio is way too small to justify any space exploration yet. I'd much prefer hundreds of billions more be channeled into R&D than having astronauts riding chemical propulsion rockets. We need cheaper ways to launch things into orbit, develop new propulsion drives like the VASIMIR, better energy storage, and some kind of nuclear reactor in space.

There already is a fully practical method for fast interplanetary travel and even relativistic interstellar travel: http://en.wikipedia.org/Project_Orion" . Does that mean it'll be pursued? No.

 

[edpell]

How about robot development of the Moon and Mars? That is some of us desire to create bases on these bodies that can support humans. Let's do it using robots. When they are fully built and functional then we can add humans. The idea is to build using local resources so just a modest amount of robots and material launched from Earth but with a fair amount of telepresence (humans on Earth providing guidance).

 

[edpell]

As to Ares I and Ares V they accomplished almost nothing with massively larger amounts of time and money than Space Exploration Corporation. SpaceX accomplished so much that NASA will now buy launch services from SpaceX. I am glad to see the Ares government welfare program for older workers die.

 

[mgb_phys]

I am glad to see the Ares government welfare program for older workers die.

Don't worry Boeing and UTC will get lots of other military contracts to make up the shortfall.

 

[rootX]

It's depressing to think that humanity is doomed to stay in low-Earth orbit for the next few decades, and probably for the rest of our lives. The really awful prospect is: what if our children think the same way we do, and humans never travel beyond the Moon?

We can sustain ourselves on this planet for at least a century I think so there is no need of Mars for distinct future .. I would also love the idea of going to Mars when we need it, we need resources that are not available here, and we cannot sustain ourselves here, or we have the technology and we can utilize Mars resources.

 

[turbo]

There already is a fully practical method for fast interplanetary travel and even relativistic interstellar travel: http://en.wikipedia.org/Project_Orion" . Does that mean it'll be pursued? No.

How can a project that was never properly tested by called practical? Nobody is going to sit still for letting some company detonate thousands of nukes to prototype and test an engine.

 

[ideasrule]

How can a project that was never properly tested by called practical? Nobody is going to sit still for letting some company detonate thousands of nukes to prototype and test an engine.

It's practical because it's possible to build using 1960's technology--and indeed, the designers fully expected it to be built.

 

[ideasrule]

We can sustain ourselves on this planet for at least a century I think so there is no need of Mars for distinct future .. I would also love the idea of going to Mars when we need it, we need resources that are not available here, and we cannot sustain ourselves here, or we have the technology and we can utilize Mars resources.

Mining another planet's resources is not going to become profitable at the snap of the finger: there needs to be decades of sustained development and improvement before the cost goes down.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

However, I do know that seeing humans walking on another planet is inspiring, especially for children but also for all of humanity. I grew up in China, and it's highly significant that out of all the articles I read in our textbooks, only one praised the United States. That was the one about the Eagle landing on the moon, one of the most memorable moments of the 20th century and something that gives the entire world a reason to be proud.

That may qualify more as a statement about China that about the US. The US has much to proud about. If China can't see that, then the problem lies with China. That they were inspired, as were we all, is a good thing. That this is all that inspired them about us is a very sad comment on China.

All of this inspiration is fine until a $trillion and a half dozen astronauts burn up in the Martian atmosphere, or are destroyed on impact, or bounce off into space, because someone didn't convert feet to meters.

Also, as for inspiration, I think there is a bit of a fallacy at work here in the notion that only human landings can inspire. I found the landings of the Mars rovers to be profoundly inspirational. For the first time we were going to explore another planet. Wow! Honestly, I was reduced to tears. The success that followed was nothing short of astounding. I couldn't be happier about how my tax dollars were spent.

 

[MotoH]

Us science literate folks of course were inspired by every single launch into space. But for the average person, who is paying the taxes for this, only gains true awe out of seeing a man on another planet. And even then most people don't care about space. I could go around my high school, and ask any question regarding space exploration, and about 1 in 3 kids would say "so what?"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Us science literate folks of course were inspired by every single launch into space. But for the average person, who is paying the taxes for this, only gains true awe out of seeing a man on another planet. And even then most people don't care about space. I could go around my high school, and ask any question regarding space exploration, and about 1 in 3 kids would say "so what?"

Then you should be putting your efforts towards educating those who lack appreciation, rather than soliticiting a government that is crippled with debt. People would certainly be thrilled to see astronauts walking on Mars, but wait until they get the bill! This is orders of magnitude bigger than a lunar mission, which in itself has no practical value. Also, people quickly lost interest even in moon landings. What better way to sour the public on science than to engage in yet another useless and exotically expensive program.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think it is evident that the Hubble scope, for example, has been profoundly inspirational, even for those who are not big devotees of science. I seem to recall perhaps a half dozen Hubble images that made the evening news.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Something else that must be considered: What would be the costs in terms of political ramifications, budgets, public confidence and favor, and even perhaps international relations, as it pertains to science [and beyond], should a trillion dollar [or more] venture fail catastrophically? With the lunar race, we were either going to lose or win the perception war; there were no other options. It was really an arms race. Today our motivations are much different and we have options.

I think we need to consider the entirety of the potential losses should a mission fail. We can't do it just because it would be cool; because every kid on the planet would like to dream it is possible that they will walk on Mars. The cost of failure is far too great, and failure far too likely.

Where did all of our conservatives go? Leave it to the private sector!

[these socialists and their government spending! ]

 

[MotoH]

Well it is late but I can't sleep at the moment so let's give this a go.

By catastrophic failure I am assuming you mean complete loss of human life, like a failed atmospheric entry on mars.

Well I believe that the possibilities of this are far less likely than what you believe. The data gained by sending in probes about atmospheric conditions, how hot the spacecraft becomes during entry, the angles needed for a safe launch, when to safely deploy parachutes/retro-rockets. All of that data will be obtained prior to a launch considering the technological advancements.
We wouldn't be going into Mars blind like the Apollo 11 mission did with a computer failure. Sure the moon race was an arms race, but we are not trying to beat anyone to Mars, which will give us time to think and design the best possible spaceship for a mission such as mars.
There will always be a failure rate in space missions, but the more we do to lower that rate the better chance we have of succeeding (obviously!)

I am contradicting myself here, but if you told the average American that we were going to land a man on Mars, I believe they would pay the extra money in taxes for this.

Here is a novel idea, take the money out of welfare, and send it all to NASA. Problem solved!

A complete failure would demoralize the country, but I sure as hell bet you we would try again. There is no way the USA I know would try something so grand and not see it to the end.

 

[Cyrus]

Well it is late but I can't sleep at the moment so let's give this a go.

By catastrophic failure I am assuming you mean complete loss of human life, like a failed atmospheric entry on mars.

Well I believe that the possibilities of this are far less likely than what you believe. The data gained by sending in probes about atmospheric conditions, how hot the spacecraft becomes during entry, the angles needed for a safe launch, when to safely deploy parachutes/retro-rockets. All of that data will be obtained prior to a launch considering the technological advancements.
We wouldn't be going into Mars blind like the Apollo 11 mission did with a computer failure. Sure the moon race was an arms race, but we are not trying to beat anyone to Mars, which will give us time to think and design the best possible spaceship for a mission such as mars.
There will always be a failure rate in space missions, but the more we do to lower that rate the better chance we have of succeeding (obviously!)

I am contradicting myself here, but if you told the average American that we were going to land a man on Mars, I believe they would pay the extra money in taxes for this.

Here is a novel idea, take the money out of welfare, and send it all to NASA. Problem solved!

A complete failure would demoralize the country, but I sure as hell bet you we would try again. There is no way the USA I know would try something so grand and not see it to the end.

...errr.

 

[russ_watters]

There already is a fully practical method for fast interplanetary travel and even relativistic interstellar travel: http://en.wikipedia.org/Project_Orion" .

That's a pretty generous characterization considering it's never had even a technology demonstration test.

It's practical because it's possible to build using 1960's technology--and indeed, the designers fully expected it to be built.

It can't be said that something is possible (much less practical) until it has been demonstrated. The project is far too ambitious for a small-scale study (that's all it ever really was) to tell us that it can be done or be practical.

 

[ideasrule]

Something else that must be considered: What would be the costs in terms of political ramifications, budgets, public confidence and favor, and even perhaps international relations, as it pertains to science [and beyond], should a trillion dollar [or more] venture fail catastrophically?

Let's think about that. Is the failure of Apollo 1 seen as a reason we should never have gone to the Moon? It's Apollo 11 that will go down in history. Its impact on political ramifications, budgets, public confidence, and international relations far, far exceed what effect Apollo 1 might have had. If a trillion-dollar project to Mars fails, we'll send another one. There's no shortage of brave explorers willing to take significant risks to visit Mars.

We can't do it just because it would be cool; because every kid on the planet would like to dream it is possible that they will walk on Mars.

And this is somehow an argument against a Mars mission? I think it's one of the strongest arguments for. Every kid and most adults on the planet dream of walking on Mars; wouldn't it be great to fulfill their dreams and those of the generations after us? I consider a worthwhile life to be one of achievement or of making the world better (more technologically sophisticated and space-faring would count). I wouldn't be happy if my life consisted of studying, working, paying my bills, and then going to a retirement home. Pursuit of happiness, aspirations, aiming for far-off goals are what make life worth living. I'd rather go to Mars than live in a world with 5% less crime. I think most people would, too.

The cost of failure is far too great, and failure far too likely.

Source?

 

[ideasrule]

That's a pretty generous characterization considering it's never had even a technology demonstration test. It can't be said that something is possible (much less practical) until it has been demonstrated. The project is far too ambitious for a small-scale study (that's all it ever really was) to tell us that it can be done or be practical.

By your criteria, the Apollo project wouldn't have been possible, let alone practical, when it was proposed. It was too ambitious for a small-scale study, so although all the technology was there to send a man to the Moon and there's no reason why it couldn't be done, engineers couldn't say it was "possible".

Project Orion doesn't rely on exotic technology or demand extreme-precision machining. It depends on nuclear explosions, which have been very extensively studied, and shock absorbers, which are again well-characterized. Of course there's always room for things to go wrong, but saying Project Orion is not possible is like saying it's not possible to build a robot because the various proven technologies that it relies on have never been assembled in that particular fashion before.

 

[Cyrus]

I'm an aerospace engineer, and I never gave two squats about NASA or the moon growing up. I liked airplanes. But in any event, so what if people 'dream of walking on mars'?

I don't feel like paying for that to happen because its a worthless idea. Space is a huge vast place of nothingness. So why are we going to travel to mars, when we can't go anywhere outside our solar system? This seems a bit of a self-serving endeavour (which is exactly what going to the moon was).

 

[edpell]

All of this inspiration is fine until a $trillion and a half dozen astronauts burn up in the Martian atmosphere, or are destroyed on impact, or bounce off into space, because someone didn't convert feet to meters.

We do not have to architect the project as a one quick sprint show off project. We can go step by step. 1) Low Earth station 2) high Earth station (say 0.5 million miles orbit) 3) Mars stations (say two stations, one as backup) 4) three Mars ferries (one backup in orbit, one backup at the backup ground base) 5) preexisting Mars bases (say two bases, one for backup within walking distance) robot built.

Yes people may die in this effort. I happily volunteer. We will have no issue finding people willing and eager to go.

But since the US federal government is way past broke I guess this will be done by someone else. :(

 

[mgb_phys]

I think it's one of the strongest arguments for. Every kid and most adults on the planet dream of walking on Mars; wouldn't it be great to fulfill their dreams and those of the generations after us?

Then wouldn't it make as much sense to dream of walking on the bottom of the ocean?

The technology to walk around in a suit under 5km of water is just as difficult - and has a lot more practical uses than sending someone to mars.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Let's think about that. Is the failure of Apollo 1 seen as a reason we should never have gone to the Moon? It's Apollo 11 that will go down in history. Its impact on political ramifications, budgets, public confidence, and international relations far, far exceed what effect Apollo 1 might have had. If a trillion-dollar project to Mars fails, we'll send another one. There's no shortage of brave explorers willing to take significant risks to visit Mars.

And what has been the fate of the Shuttle program? Did it ever deliver as promised? Not even close! Were the design and operating budgets anything close to estimates? Not even close! Also, we cannot compare Apollo to anything else because that was a war program.

And this is somehow an argument against a Mars mission? I think it's one of the strongest arguments for. Every kid and most adults on the planet dream of walking on Mars; wouldn't it be great to fulfill their dreams and those of the generations after us? I consider a worthwhile life to be one of achievement or of making the world better (more technologically sophisticated and space-faring would count). I wouldn't be happy if my life consisted of studying, working, paying my bills, and then going to a retirement home. Pursuit of happiness, aspirations, aiming for far-off goals are what make life worth living. I'd rather go to Mars than live in a world with 5% less crime. I think most people would, too.

5% less crime? What are you talking about? For a little perspective, in 2003, the US spent $19 Billion on the so-called war on drugs. So fifty [2003] years of "the war on drugs" costs about the same as one Mars mission.
http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

Dreams are great. So, work hard, get funding, and develop less expensive modes of space travel. Earn your dreams and don't expect handouts.

Source?

Something like 1 out of 3 Mars missions have failed. And those missions were orders of magnitude simpler than a manned mission.

 

[D H]

The budget numbers are out. The one surprise (to me) is that Obama is proposing to cancel all of Constellation, not just the lifters. Congress will have something to say about this proposal. I suspect Obama will win the day regarding Ares I and V and that a stop-work order is in order on these two projects. I won't even hazard a guess as to whether Orion and Altair will be cancelled.

 

[ThomasEdison]

I would rather see more funding towards the discovery of more "Earthlike" extrasolar planets than a manned mission.

The extrasolar planets are a really big deal and I get confused that many people I meet are not even aware that their discovery has happened in the last decade. I grew up in an age where the idea of extra solar planets was just a really well educated assumption. The discovery of extra solar planets and so many of them is as big a deal to me as the moon landing and yet no one I meet even knows this has happened.

If we discover signs of life beyond Earth on these extra solar planets that would jump start the space program more than even a manned mission.

I grew up in an age where there were only nine planets now there are 400 and more every day. I hope we keep using our telescopes and build better ones to find more of them and the smaller ones like our own and this is where I would like the funding spent.

I do realize that the term "Earthlike" is abused and that is why I quote it. The ones they've claimed were Earthlike were not, but I feel confident that they are out there and that we can improve the technology to find them. I prefer this research over manned missions or even robotic ones at this point in time.

 

[zomgwtf]

I would rather see more funding towards the discovery of more "Earthlike" extrasolar planets than a manned mission.

The extrasolar planets are a really big deal and I get confused that many people I meet are not even aware that their discovery has happened in the last decade. I grew up in an age where the idea of extra solar planets was just a really well educated assumption. The discovery of extra solar planets and so many of them is as big a deal to me as the moon landing and yet no one I meet even knows this has happened.

If we discover signs of life beyond Earth on these extra solar planets that would jump start the space program more than even a manned mission.

I grew up in an age where there were only nine planets now there are 400 and more every day. I hope we keep using our telescopes and build better ones to find more of them and the smaller ones like our own and this is where I would like the funding spent.

I do realize that the term "Earthlike" is abused and that is why I quote it. The ones they've claimed were Earthlike were not, but I feel confident that they are out there and that we can improve the technology to find them. I prefer this research over manned missions or even robotic ones at this point in time.

The only reason I would agree with this is because I assume it's much, much cheaper to search for extrasolar planets than it is to travel to even the moon. However I think that finding extarsolar planets, even if we find a method to determine if there is life on said planet, is just as useless as a human landing on the moon right now.

Like I agree completely that it would be the greatest discovery of mankind but what use will we have of it? The knowledge that we're not alone? Most people already assume that anyways... I doubt merely 'proving' it will make any difference.

 

[turbo]

There are much bigger questions to be answered than those that can be addressed by studying more moon-rocks or looking for traces of water. Even now, ground-based telescopes (SDSS) have discovered high-redshift objects that are highly metallized. We need space-based telescopes that can reach deeper into the infrared (Webb is coming) and perhaps some dedicated wide-angle space-based survey instruments. Observational astronomy (a real science) is being wagged by the tail of cosmology for the last few decades, and that situation needs to be balanced. We have only one universe, and have no real means to tweak it from a distance. We can only look and make conjectures. In this sense, cosmology is not as "scientific" as fields in which controlled studies and comparative tests can be performed.

I confess, I have more sympathy for LQG than for String, but proponents of both of these theoretical fields should give us a roster of testable predictions that observation astronomy might confirm or deny. LQG has done a bit of that with the notion that the speed of light might have a frequency-dependent variability in c that could be demonstrated by the arrival times of light from GRBs. String's observational tests? Nothing that I know of.

 

[russ_watters]

By your criteria, the Apollo project wouldn't have been possible, let alone practical, when it was proposed.

It wasn't!

(and certainly, though it proved possible it never was practical)

Project Orion doesn't rely on exotic technology or demand extreme-precision machining. It depends on nuclear explosions, which have been very extensively studied, and shock absorbers, which are again well-characterized. Of course there's always room for things to go wrong, but saying Project Orion is not possible is like saying it's not possible to build a robot because the various proven technologies that it relies on have never been assembled in that particular fashion before.

That's basically all wrong. Including the characterization that I said Orion isn't possible. I said it hasn't proven to be possible and beyond that I took issue with your claims that:

1. Orion is practical.
2. Orion can achieve relativistic travel.
3. Orion can be built with 1960s technolgoy.
4. Orion doesn't rely on exotic technolgoy or precision machining.

The best you can say is you don't know any of those things until you actually try to build it. You don't even know what problems you'll have (much less if they can be overcome) until you start the engineering program.

 

[robertm]

I'm with turbo-1 and Ivan Seeking, observational Astronomy should be priority number one. I don't see anything inspiring about sending a couple guys to neighbouring bodies; and even if I did, it would count for zilch in determining government spending.

If you want to go stand on Mars so bad, for whatever reason, then get rich and do it yourself. NASA and the rest of us should be left out of it.

Space based telescopes and planetary probes have a high success rate and provide real results costing chump change compared to long distance manned missions. This is about real science, not 'national pride'.

 

[D H]

I'm with turbo-1 and Ivan Seeking, observational Astronomy should be priority number one. I don't see anything inspiring about sending a couple guys to neighbouring bodies; and even if I did, it would count for zilch in determining government spending.

Neither Congress nor the President thinks like you. Good thing that; if that were the case, NASA's budget would be a pittance of its current state. NASA is a part of federal budget function 250. It has to compete with other science and technology programs. Without the added "oomph" that humans will follow, NASA's science programs yield a lousy scientific return on investment. NASA's science budget is getting a 12% increase per Obama's budget, but almost all of this is going to Earth science. The planetary budget is only receiving a small increase, more or less keeping pace inflation.

The biggest changes in this budget are a 20.8% decrease in operations, a 13.8% increase in exploration, and a whopping 130% increase in aerodynamics, space research and technology. The decrease in the ops budget is to be expected. The Shuttle is ending and part of Constellation came out of ops. Most of the exploration budget is oriented toward human space flight. The huge increase in aero & space technology is a mix of an increase in aerodynamics research and new funding for commercial human launch capabilities. All in all, human space flight still gets over half of NASA's total budget. Planetary science: less than 10%.

 

[Cyrus]

DH, I don't understand this comment you made:

Without the added "oomph" that humans will follow, NASA's science programs yield a lousy scientific return on investment.

How does a perceived "oomph" make something a better return on investment?

That aside, I still see no one putting forth good arguments as to why we should spend tax money on going to the moon. ...For what?

 

[Pythagorean]

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/7638/1264769718wolfmoon.jpg

This post about sums up this thread. Good work.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Neither Congress nor the President thinks like you. Good thing that; if that were the case, NASA's budget would be a pittance of its current state. NASA is a part of federal budget function 250. It has to compete with other science and technology programs. Without the added "oomph" that humans will follow, NASA's science programs yield a lousy scientific return on investment. NASA's science budget is getting a 12% increase per Obama's budget, but almost all of this is going to Earth science. The planetary budget is only receiving a small increase, more or less keeping pace inflation.

The biggest changes in this budget are a 20.8% decrease in operations, a 13.8% increase in exploration, and a whopping 130% increase in aerodynamics, space research and technology. The decrease in the ops budget is to be expected. The Shuttle is ending and part of Constellation came out of ops. Most of the exploration budget is oriented toward human space flight. The huge increase in aero & space technology is a mix of an increase in aerodynamics research and new funding for commercial human launch capabilities. All in all, human space flight still gets over half of NASA's total budget. Planetary science: less than 10%.

I don't understand your point here. The budget for human flight is for near-earth activities. I don't think anyone was disputing the value of that research.

 

[D H]

I don't understand your point here. The budget for human flight is for near-earth activities.

For now, that is. Why send "robotic precursors" if there is nothing for those robotic precursors to precede?

I don't think anyone was disputing the value of that research.

Many do, including many human space flight proponents.

 

[D H]

Nobody has posted the proposed budget yet.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/420990main_FY_201_ Budget_Overview_1_Feb_2010.pdf