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

[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?

...?

 

[MotoH]

...?

Explain to me why poverty is any more important than the advancement of the United States in showing off our might?

(I don't personally believe the things I am typing) But why should you say that helping others is more important than personal gain, since personal gain has been the status quo since the dawn of man.

 

[zomgwtf]

Explain to me why poverty is any more important than the advancement of the United States in showing off our might?

(I don't personally believe the things I am typing) But why should you say that helping others is more important than personal gain, since personal gain has been the status quo since the dawn of man.

I'm pretty sure he was stating his opinion. He doesn't really need to justify his opinion of why he thinks we should better ourselves as a species here on Earth at all...

 

[zomgwtf]

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.

I agree with everything you've said here. However it will probably cost much MORE money to accomplish even the first goal

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

In my lifetime? I doubt it. And that gets to the crux of things here. How much do I want to pay for benefits that I will never see, if they ever come? Beyond that, I certainly hope for more than better weapons. That is the least of my concerns.

Perhaps we could go to Mars, but only tax people for it who are under thirty years of age. We could call it the Whippersnapper Tax for Exploration.

 

[Cyrus]

But there is still the basic unanswered question. Ok, so you go to mars. Then what, the Sun?

 

[zomgwtf]

But there is still the basic unanswered question. Ok, so you go to mars. Then what, the Sun?

I am sure that if we actually ended up going to Mars there would be PLENTY to do there for many years. We would probably attempt to send more humans to Mars possibly to try and live there for extended periods of time.

After this however, I'm not sure at all... hopefully it would lead to a lot of solved questions about Mars though (biggest one being about life...)

Why do we have to do something after traveling to Mars anyways? How long would it take to travel to Mars anyway about 5-6 months?

 

[Cyrus]

Because if all you're going to do is go to mars, then the sun is going to die out, swell up, and kill you (even faster) than if you were at earth.

The only point in going to another planet is if you can eventually leave our solar system. There's still the problem of a lack of oxygen, food, climate, to name a few, on mars.

I really don't think we need to trash/over crowd another planet. Right now people don't have things like basic healthcare. Going to Mars should be last on the list of things to do.

Solve diseases, develop better preventative medicines, take care of global warming, produce clean drinkable water, these are much more worthwhile - tangible - things people need to see done. When we get closer to finding solutions on that front, we can have 'fun money' to spend going to Mars for the hell of it. I seriously doubt any of the rocks you find in Mars will of medicinal or material value. Even if Mars were made of solid gold, who in their right mind would ship tons of it back to earth?

 

[aquitaine]

The Apollo project inspired an entire generation of scientists and engineers, something which benefitted us greatly in the last 30 years. What would be the point to going to the moon? As a first step towards further expansion into space.

There's still the problem of a lack of oxygen, food, climate, to name a few, on mars.

And the solutions to these problems can't be applied here on Earth for certain problems?

Solve diseases, develop better preventative medicines

There's far far more being spent on that than on space exploration.

take care of global warming

Huge amounts of money are already being spent on developing better batteries for our vehicles, and we already have the ability to replace our coal powerplants with a (potentially) zero carbon source of energy, but envrionmentalist scare mongering have been holding that one up.

produce clean drinkable water

We have the capability to do this, have had it for a long time. We spent enormous amounts of money on aid to help developing countries do that amoung other things...the result? Waste on a collosal scale.

these are much more worthwhile - tangible - things people need to see done.

I agree but it won't be done throwing money at them. Problems like poverty in the third world are solved with economic development and industrialization, not handouts. No matter how many tens of billions of dollars we send them, it won't ever be enough until they industrialize. Sacrificing the space program will do none of these things.

I seriously doubt any of the rocks you find in Mars will of medicinal or material value.

It allows us to build stuff in space much much easier.

Here's another thought to consider: Future economic development of space. Long term think of all the jobs we can create up and down the pay scale if we actually did industrialize it and develop it even close to its potential, not to mention the potential benefits of technological developments. The funny thing is when you invest in science and technology, the results are not always predictable, that's why "return on investment" arguments don't work with argueing against them.

 

[ideasrule]

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.

Why find a cure for cancer? Why deal with poverty, global warming, or any of those problems? If these problems become too big/personal, we can pull out a gun and suicide.

I'm asking you to ponder seriously. I don't commit suicide every time I face a problem because I want to get the best out of my life: the most excitement, the most adventure, and the most intense sense of achievement. I'd rather get cancer at age 70 after designing the first spaceship to send men to Mars than do nothing and die of a heart attack at age 80.

 

[ideasrule]

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.

For somebody on a science forum, you have an astounding lack of curiosity or sense of wonder.

 

[ideasrule]

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

Not to mention with an order of magnitude fewer safeguards.

 

[ideasrule]

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.

This has been mentioned before, but launching from the Moon is much easier than launching from Earth. With a moon base, space exploration becomes easy, and that includes launching satellites into Earth orbit.

 

[robertm]

This has been mentioned before, but launching from the Moon is much easier than launching from Earth. With a moon base, space exploration becomes easy, and that includes launching satellites into Earth orbit.

A moon base with crew and supplies capable of producing and launching satellites?
You do realizes that the moon does not have the natural resources that we take for granted here on earth?

I think that pretty much anything you would actually end up doing on a moon base could just as easily be done in orbit.

If you want to be inspired, do it with your own dollars. Pragmatism is the highest goal to which the bureaucrats who spend our money can strive.

 

[ideasrule]

You do realizes that the moon does not have the natural resources that we take for granted here on earth?

Natural resources? You mean iron, copper, silicon, helium 3, water, and solar energy? One thing the Moon doesn't have is fossil fuels; thank goodness for that.

Even if only 80% of a rocket's weight is manufactured on the Moon while the other 20% has to be brought from Earth, launching the rocket from the Moon would still be vastly less expensive than launching it from Earth. Compare the Saturn V with the small portion of the lunar module that lifted the astronauts off the Moon and you'll see the difference.

 

[aquitaine]

You do realizes that the moon does not have the natural resources that we take for granted here on earth?

It has titanium, aluminum, and silicon. That right there is enough to build a simple probe once you refine the materials. If the solar energy isn't enough for that kind of energy intensive refining there's always nuclear. Japan's lunar orbiter discovered uranium. Not to mention we can use that stuff to build things in lower Earth orbit much easier that pre-fabbing it on earth. Of course this would provide jobs for people, can't have that now can we...

Of course the purpose of the space program aside from cutting edge exploration and space science should be to lay the foundations for private enterprises to do exactly that, industrialize space. To some degree this has been accomplished.