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

[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

 

[MotoH]

Well at least from what I hear the Europa missions are still a go.

 

[robertm]

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.

Why? We can only spend large amounts of money on human exploration?

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.

Do you mean to say that it's programs would yield a lousy public relations return on investment? If you send rovers to distant bodies specifically as precursors to future manned missions, and then don't ever carry out manned missions then what you say would make sense. But what I am saying is that projects like Hubble and the Cassini-Huygens mission (http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/introduction/" ) should be our models for the kind of science that NASA should be doing in space.

 

[Astronuc]

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.

Ummm - who determined that PO was practical? By what measure? Has is it been demonstrated - even on scale?

 

[bigaggie]

*IF* that's true, that change has a bigger scope than just "not going to the Moon by 2020". If the Constellation program and Ares I / Ares V are killed, that means that NASA won't have *ANY* proprietary means of getting stuff into orbit for the next 10+ years, and it will depend on third party systems (either SpaceX or Russian Soyuz/Proton rockets) to send anything, including the most trivial robotic spacecraft .

You're forgetting that the Air Force has its own means of putting things into orbit. Chances are they will be ordered (because I doubt they'd do it willingly) to give NASA the occasional lift. They will probably find a way to put a man on top of a Delta IV.

 

[D H]

Why? We can only spend large amounts of money on human exploration?

Correct. NASA does spend a significant amount of money on Earth observatories; those Earth observatories have an obvious and high return on investment. Without the motivation that people will follow, what exactly is the return on investment for monies spent on planetary science and astrophysics? Think like an economist or a politician, not a scientist.

Do you mean to say that it's programs would yield a lousy public relations return on investment? If you send rovers to distant bodies specifically as precursors to future manned missions, and then don't ever carry out manned missions then what you say would make sense. But what I am saying is that projects like Hubble and the Cassini-Huygens mission (http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/introduction/" ) should be our models for the kind of science that NASA should be doing in space.

No. I am saying those unmanned programs have a lousy return on investment compared to science done on the Earth. How much research could the National Science Foundation (another element of budget function 250) do with $720 million (the amount by which the Mars Science Lab is over-budget)? With $2.35 billion (the total estimated cost of the MSL)? With $2.5 billion (NASA's estimated contributions to Cassini-Huygens)?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

DH, I see your point. My gut reaction is to say that fundamental research in the form of interplanetary probes is practical and reasonably priced, so it is worth doing. How much should we spend on research like this? As with all fundamental research, that is a tough call, but to limit all research to practical issues would not be consistent with one critical component of the mission of science - discovery. The justification here is no different than that needed for fundamental physics research. Will a collider likely produce any results that will be significant to my life? Almost certainly not, but it is still worthy of the effort. Should we bankrupt the country in order to do it? Obviously we have to be practical and set limits based in part, but not entirely, on the ROI.

 

[mheslep]

Correct. NASA does spend a significant amount of money on Earth observatories; those Earth observatories have an obvious and high return on investment. Without the motivation that people will follow, what exactly is the return on investment for monies spent on planetary science and astrophysics? Think like an economist or a politician, not a scientist. No. I am saying those unmanned programs have a lousy return on investment compared to science done on the Earth. How much research could the National Science Foundation (another element of budget function 250) do with $720 million (the amount by which the Mars Science Lab is over-budget)? With $2.35 billion (the total estimated cost of the MSL)? With $2.5 billion (NASA's estimated contributions to Cassini-Huygens)?

I think that's a very difficult comparison to make, because it compares the Earth based with that which may have been impossible anywhere else other than space, or at least been delayed for decades. See, e.g., http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/gallery/2009-05/gallery-top-10-hubble-scientific-discoveries" , etc; COBE's background radiation, etc. NSF could perhaps do a lot more with that money, but it couldn't do those things with all of NASA's budget.

 

[DaveC426913]

mheslep is a vampire!

The above post by mheslep is ... invisible.

If I try to quote it, my post is empty. Even if I multi-quote, others show up. mhelsp's does not.


[EDIT: Oh. All better now. You were busy editing your post. What's really wild is that, for just a moment, there were two post #77's both by mheslep, both completely different.]

 

[mheslep]

mheslep is a vampire!

The above post by mheslep is ... invisible.

If I try to quote it, my post is empty. Even if I multi-quote, others show up. mhelsp's does not.[EDIT: Oh. All better now. You were busy editing your post. What's really wild is that, for just a moment, there were two post #77's both by mheslep, both completely different.]

Vorry, vit vas vo vopen vended vand vague, vo I veleted vit.

 

[D H]

Will a collider likely produce any results that will be significant to my life? Almost certainly not, but it is still worthy of the effort.

Almost certainly so -- assuming, that is, that past performance is a predictor of future success. Collider physics has contributed a lot to both our nations defense and to our everyday life. Eventually the expense of pushing the envelope to make a bigger, badder collider will reach a point of diminishing returns. The next step beyond the LHC might well be that point of diminishing return.

I think that's a very difficult comparison to make, because it compares the Earth based with that which may have been impossible anywhere else other than space, or at least been delayed for decades.

That is exactly the comparison that the executive and legislative branches make. They have to decide what kinds of science are worthy of large funding and what kinds aren't.

NSF could perhaps do a lot more with that money, but it couldn't do those things with all of NASA's budget.

There is not a whole lot of archeological research that be done with a particle collider. The government funds a lot more research in physics than it does in archaeology because Congress critters and the President see a lot more value returned from that physics research than they do from archeology.

 

[Cyrus]

But again, what point does it serve to return to the moon?

 

[MotoH]

What is the point of anything we do?

If it was possible to go to the moon for cheaper. Would you do it? Can you honestly say you wouldn't want to see man on the moon in your lifetime? Have you lost all sense of imagination and mystery?

If you can truly say that you wouldn't want to see a man on the moon (for cheaper of course) in your lifetime, you might as well be a rock.

(not pointing this at you cyrus, just an open question)

 

[turbo]

What is the point of anything we do?

If it was possible to go to the moon for cheaper. Would you do it? Can you honestly say you wouldn't want to see man on the moon in your lifetime? Have you lost all sense of imagination and mystery?

If you can truly say that you wouldn't want to see a man on the moon (for cheaper of course) in your lifetime, you might as well be a rock.

(not pointing this at you cyrus, just an open question)

There is absolutely no point in sending more humans to the moon, unless there is a vast already-enriched lode of unobtanium up there. The possibility of finding traces of frozen water in the bottom of a shadowed crater near the moon's poles is such a thin excuse that it does not even bear repeating, much less actual support. Let's use engineering studies and cost estimates to evaluate such projects, not just Rah, Rah, cheerleading.

 

[DaveC426913]

There is absolutely no point in sending more humans to the moon,

Research into off-Earth habitation engineering would benefit.

 

[turbo]

Research into off-Earth habitation engineering would benefit.

How? Apart from burying any permanent base, we cannot protect moon-residents from solar flares, mass-ejections, etc. Once we get out beyond the protection of the magnetic field in which our ancestors developed, we are in big trouble.

 

[Cyrus]

What is the point of anything we do?

If it was possible to go to the moon for cheaper. Would you do it? Can you honestly say you wouldn't want to see man on the moon in your lifetime? Have you lost all sense of imagination and mystery?

If you can truly say that you wouldn't want to see a man on the moon (for cheaper of course) in your lifetime, you might as well be a rock.

(not pointing this at you cyrus, just an open question)

To be perfectly honest, I just don't care. If no one ever goes back to the moon I won't loose sleep, or regret it. If we could go to the moon for the price of a trans-Atlantic flight (with the same level of safety) then I'd buy a ticket. That doesn't mean this is a good idea, or that it's anything more than an expensive tourist attraction.

I'm not sure why imagination and mystery comes into play on spending my tax money during these times of economic hardships. Spend that money on something more relevant, like finding a cure to cancer.

 

[MotoH]

Well, we should do the research on Earth to find suitable materials to block said hazards, and test them on the moon with robots!

 

[Cyrus]

Research into off-Earth habitation engineering would benefit.

I disagree with that. People should learn family planning, and we should reduce the population size on the planet to a level that is sustainable without having billions in poverty. Do that, then cure major health diseases, then travel to the moon.

 

[MotoH]

Why cure poverty? Since the dawn of man there has always been the fortunate and the unfortunate. It isn't human nature to care for others, so why start now? What makes helping other people any more important than our own personal satisfaction/achievement?

 

[Cyrus]

Why cure poverty? Since the dawn of man there has always been the fortunate and the unfortunate. It isn't human nature to care for others, so why start now? What makes helping other people any more important than our own personal satisfaction/achievement?

...?