is space exploration worth the $$$ ?

[darknessesedge]

we went to the moon
we have the shuttles
we launch all sorts of probes.
is it time to rethink what were trying to do in space?
is it worth the billions for a space station/moon base/trip to mars?
or should we just concentrate on the issues here on earth instead?

[Joenumbertwo]

When we're spending billions of dollars on stupid **** like the war on drugs, something aimed to increase our scientific advancement is well worth it.

[Oddball]

When we're spending billions of dollars on stupid **** like the war on drugs, something aimed to increase our scientific advancement is well worth it.
Relative merits of your favored gubmint programs against those you don't favor isn't the question here.

While it may be arguable that NASA has come up with a few spin-off technologies that have been somewhat of a benefit to the average Amewrcan -like Tang- they're still vastly overrated.

[LouC]

When we're spending billions of dollars on stupid **** like the war on drugs, something aimed to increase our scientific advancement is well worth it.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[James Juno]

When we're spending billions of dollars on stupid **** like the war on drugs, something aimed to increase our scientific advancement is well worth it.

In fact, NASA is grossly underfunded. The way things are going, space could be our only hope someday.

[Lee Kington]

we went to the moon
we have the shuttles
we launch all sorts of probes.
is it time to rethink what were trying to do in space?
is it worth the billions for a space station/moon base/trip to mars?
or should we just concentrate on the issues here on earth instead?

Columbus had a difficult time getting funding for his voyage. Most did not think the effort was worth it.

The space station and programs provide much to address 'issues' on earth.

In the 1950s no one would have thought that medical science and medicines would be advanced by a presence in space. No one would have dreamed that so many people would be rescued, aided, because they had a cell phone. How many people who died in hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods years ago would have lived had they known it was coming?

You vision.... is short sighted if not totally blind.

[LouC]

we went to the moon
we have the shuttles
we launch all sorts of probes.
is it time to rethink what were trying to do in space?
is it worth the billions for a space station/moon base/trip to mars?
or should we just concentrate on the issues here on earth instead?

We are in the middle of space.

If we screw the pooch on this ship where do we go?

We have learned that the odds of extinction type events are real.

The sooner we have 'out there' conquered the sooner we can rest nearly assured humankind will continue.

I kind of like that idea.

[AeroEngineer]

A lot of modern technology we enjoy today (and our quality of life) is the product of our government's investment in defense and space research.

[LouC]

In fact, NASA is grossly underfunded. The way things are going, space could be our only hope someday.

Another person who gets it.

[Joenumbertwo]

Who knows if one day we find some moon may have an ocean of a new energy source or something. Maybe when the Earth is all messed up we'll need to get some land on mars. who knows.

[LouC]

A lot of modern technology we enjoy today (and our quality of life) is the product of our government's investment in defense and space research.

I would bet that every problem that we will need to solve to perpetuate life off the earth can be a solution adapted to aiding life on the earth.

[darknessesedge]

:clap:Relative merits of your favored gubmint programs against those you don't favor isn't the question here.

While it may be arguable that NASA has come up with a few spin-off technologies that have been somewhat of a benefit to the average Amewrcan -like Tang- they're still vastly overrated.

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

[darknessesedge]

Columbus had a difficult time getting funding for his voyage. Most did not think the effort was worth it.

The space station and programs provide much to address 'issues' on earth.

In the 1950s no one would have thought that medical science and medicines would be advanced by a presence in space. No one would have dreamed that so many people would be rescued, aided, because they had a cell phone. How many people who died in hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods years ago would have lived had they known it was coming?

You vision.... is short sighted if not totally blind.

I did not say I was for or against nasa or space exploration.
I just wanted a topic to discuss about this subject.
I am torn about it.
there is no plan for what we are trying to do.
what are we gaining?
what will we lose if we stopped?
im looking for answers and a healthy debate.

[Oddball]

A lot of modern technology we enjoy today (and our quality of life) is the product of our government's investment in defense and space research.
Like hell.

The moonshots weren't pulled off with cutting edge technology, that had the possibility of failure, but the working technology that was on hand at the time.

[ThrowCop]

I'll back anyone on the defunding of NASA once they do the following:


* Promise to never use a GPS.
* Don't use a cell phone or communicate with anyone who does.
* Do not install a smoke detector
* Do not buy or use a battery operated tool
* Don't use disposable diapers
* Don't ever get or have a family member get an MRI, ultrasound or CAT scan
* Don't use a digital camera
* Don't watch TV
* Don't insulate your house
* Don't have a breast exam or allow anyone in your family to get one
* Don't wear a modern helmet
* Don't call the fire department who use advanced breathing and fire protection suits
* Do not eat anything grown via hydroponics
* Don't listen to XM or Sirius radio
* Don't feed your child baby food
* Don't wear Oakley or Rayban glasses
* Don't use a Dustbuster vacuum
* Don't drink water from a modern water treatment plant
* Do not allow your children to get an occular examination
* Do not take a plane ride
* Do not listen to a weather forecast
* Do not buy a flat panel TV
* Don't buy a carbon fiber tennis racquet, gold club or bicycle
* Don't buy freeze-dried food or coffee
* Don't use a computer and definitely not the Internet
* And you can kiss your glass of Tang goodbye!



NASA is more than cool pictures of distant places. It is not pure science. It is practical science. We get back the investment in NASA 10 fold.

[darknessesedge]

Like hell.

The moonshots weren't pulled off with cutting edge technology, that had the possibility of failure, but the working technology that was on hand at the time.

they were inventing the technology as they went back in the 60's.
they really were on the cutting edge.

[James Juno]

I did not say I was for or against nasa or space exploration.
I just wanted a topic to discuss about this subject.
I am torn about it.
there is no plan for what we are trying to do.
what are we gaining?
what will we lose if we stopped?
im looking for answers and a healthy debate.

Well OK, let's think in terms of nationalism. It's a fairly touchy subject on this forum. Are you ready to relegate space to the Chinese? Because they're going there, with or without us. Do you suppose a Chinese-dominated solar system will afford them any technological tactical advantage over the rest of the world?

[darknessesedge]

I'll back anyone on the defunding of NASA once they do the following:


* Promise to never use a GPS.
* Don't use a cell phone or communicate with anyone who does.
* Do not install a smoke detector
* Do not buy or use a battery operated tool
* Don't use disposable diapers
* Don't ever get or have a family member get an MRI, ultrasound or CAT scan
* Don't use a digital camera
* Don't watch TV
* Don't insulate your house
* Don't have a breast exam or allow anyone in your family to get one
* Don't wear a modern helmet
* Don't call the fire department who use advanced breathing and fire protection suits
* Do not eat anything grown via hydroponics
* Don't listen to XM or Sirius radio
* Don't feed your child baby food
* Don't wear Oakley or Rayban glasses
* Don't use a Dustbuster vacuum
* Don't drink water from a modern water treatment plant
* Do not allow your children to get an occular examination
* Do not take a plane ride
* Do not listen to a weather forecast
* Do not buy a flat panel TV
* Don't buy a carbon fiber tennis racquet, gold club or bicycle
* Don't buy freeze-dried food or coffee
* Don't use a computer and definitely not the Internet
* And you can kiss your glass of Tang goodbye!



NASA is more than cool pictures of distant places. It is not pure science. It is practical science. We get back the investment in NASA 10 fold.

all of the above would have been invented whether we have/had a space program or not.
the japanese dont have 1..or much of one, and they invent stuff all the time.
my question is...what is the big goal for nasa?
what is the quest?
jfk gave us one in the 60's, but what is the next step for them now?

[Lee Kington]

Like hell.

The moonshots weren't pulled off with cutting edge technology, that had the possibility of failure, but the working technology that was on hand at the time.

Really?
Did the buy the rover at a Chevy dealer?
Did they get the space suits from Walmart?
Did the lunar lander come from an Army / Navy surplus store?

[darknessesedge]

Well OK, let's think in terms of nationalism. It's a fairly touchy subject on this forum. Are you ready to relegate space to the Chinese? Because they're going there, with or without us. Do you suppose a Chinese-dominated solar system will afford them any technological tactical advantage over the rest of the world?

i didnt say to give up on shuttles or satelights.
we need a space truck and satellights.
but a space station?
a moon base?
why?
whats the goal?

[AeroEngineer]

Like hell.

The moonshots weren't pulled off with cutting edge technology, that had the possibility of failure, but the working technology that was on hand at the time.

That was researched and built with government contracts...

[AeroEngineer]

And you're kidding yourself if you believe the Apollo capsule was composed of technology readily available in the mid sixties.

[Oddball]

Really?
Did the buy the rover at a Chevy dealer?
Did they get the space suits from Walmart?
Did the lunar lander come from an Army / Navy surplus store?
All of that stuff was based upon electronics and mechanics that NASA KNEW would work as advertised.

They could've equipped the flight compters with cutting edge technology that was lighter and less bulky, but you don't risk zillion dollar national prestige missions, not to mention three highly trained astronauts, on stuff that may fail because of develepmental bugs.

[Oddball]

And you're kidding yourself if you believe the Apollo capsule was composed of technology readily available in the mid sixties.
If Vista is buggy and XP works, you go with XP for the mission that has so much national prestige on the line.

[AeroEngineer]

What guidance/navigation computer should they have used instead, then?

Did Raytheon have a premium model?

[Sisupala]

Exploring new frontiers is inherently part of what we are. To deny the opportunity to see what lies beyond the next horizon is to deny our own humanity.

[Oddball]

What guidance/navigation/computer should they have used instead, then?

Did Raytheon have a premium model?
They should've used the one they had.

The notion that the moonshots were made with technology that pushed the technological envelope is popular urban myth.
Exploring new frontiers is inherently part of what we are. To deny the opportunity to see what lies beyond the next horizon is to deny our own humanity.
Fine. But operating that exploration with the same bureaucracies that have given us AMTRAK and the impending Socialist Insecurity meltdown is of, at least, dubious merit.

[Lee Kington]

All of that stuff was based upon electronics and mechanics that NASA KNEW would work as advertised. Gee... I sure wish you were around for my Dad during the missions. He was almost sleepless because of several potential issues that they were not certain about.

[AeroEngineer]

They should've used the one they had.

The notion that the moonshots were made with technology that pushed the technological envelope is popular urban myth.

What model?

I don't think anyone is saying that they flew with the best stuff they could have possibly made (I'm not). They were on a time crunch and certainly had to make due with what they could. Design is always a trade off, especially with limited funds or deadlines.

I'm saying that government contracts for space, defense, and research programs that got us into space spurred technological development that bettered our way of life.

[Oddball]

Gee... I sure wish you were around for my Dad during the missions. He was almost sleepless because of several potential issues that they were not certain about.
Everything has its risks. The smart money doesn't compound those risks by using unproven technologies, methods, materials and processes.

[Sisupala]

all of the above would have been invented whether we have/had a space program or not...
:))

From whence vent doth thou astute authority effloresce? :think:

[AeroEngineer]

Gee... I sure wish you were around for my Dad during the missions. He was almost sleepless because of several potential issues that they were not certain about.

My grandfather worked for RCA (now Harris) during the space race, he always talked about how hard it was to keep up with demands.

[Oddball]

What model?

I don't think anyone is saying that they flew with the best stuff they could have possibly made (I'm not). They were on a time crunch and certainly had to make due with what they could. Design is always a trade off, especially with limited funds or deadlines.

I'm saying that government contracts for space, defense, and research programs that got us into space spurred technological development that bettered our way of life.
They flew into space with the best of what they KNEW worked. The Redstone, Atlas, and Titan II boosters were know commodities faaaaaaaaar before any capsules bearing men were strapped to them. And the Saturn vehicles went through numerous unmanned and manned tests before the moonshots were made.

Given the technological race that was a major part of the cold war, the vast bulk of those advancements would've been made whether men were landed on the moon or not.

[Sisupala]

They flew into space with the best of what they KNEW worked. The Redstone, Atlas, and Titan II boosters were know commodities faaaaaaaaar before any capsules bearing men were strapped to them. And the Saturn vehicles went through numerous unmanned and manned tests before the moonshots were made.

Given the technological race that was a major part of the cold war, the vast bulk of those advancements would've been made whether men were landed on the moon or not.
That's an odd statement. The race to the Moon was largely about the Cold War. I don't know how you can separate the technology from the task. I can't imagine anything less than a Moon trip would have inspired the minds and talents of the best and the brightest.

[AeroEngineer]

I'd say that's a fair argument. It can certainly be said that the cold war started the space race and is therefore responsible for the subsequent technological advancement.

My whole point is that government contracts spurred the innovation. I even mention defense contracts in my initial post.

[CaptainPike]

I think we should only spend money on space exploration if it will benefit us with respect to national defense.

[Oddball]

That's an odd statement. The race to the Moon was largely about the Cold War. I don't know how you can separate the technology from the task. I can't imagine anything less than a Moon trip would have inspired the minds and talents of the best and the brightest.
Because the technology was meant to deliver nukes to Soviet targets, only to be adapted for manned space flight.

[Sisupala]

Because the technology was meant to deliver nukes to Soviet targets, only to be adapted for manned space flight.
To a certain extent. Delivering payloads to the Moon was only part of the task (which had already been accomplished by both the US and the Soviets long before manned landings). The manned landings were demonstrations of pure technological prowess.

[Oddball]

Well, yeah. But they also weren't made with the benefit of of technology advancements that had anything but the most nominal possibility of failure.

[Sisupala]

Well, yeah. But they also weren't made with the benefit of of technology advancements that had anything but the most nominal possibility of failure.
I think I've lost track of what your point is (mine as well). :)

[Lee Kington]

Everything has its risks. The smart money doesn't compound those risks by using unproven technologies, methods, materials and processes.

Really. I guess Bell should have called you instead of wasting all the time and money on developing the Assent engine for the lander. It seems that the 'problems' could have been avoided had they known about your time proven technology.

LINK (http://books.google.com/books?id=7m7Uq-B6RbYC&pg=PA180&lpg=PA180&dq=apollo+missions+Bell+Aerospace&source=web&ots=-i1iM_6Ndl&sig=NV54lAvyFMJLWgEXOpU9XIgXuAw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result)

[Oddball]

Really. I guess Bell should have called you instead of wasting all the time and money on developing the Assent engine for the lander. It seems that the 'problems' could have been avoided had they known about your time proven technology.

LINK (http://books.google.com/books?id=7m7Uq-B6RbYC&pg=PA180&lpg=PA180&dq=apollo+missions+Bell+Aerospace&source=web&ots=-i1iM_6Ndl&sig=NV54lAvyFMJLWgEXOpU9XIgXuAw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result)
Wow....You come up with ONE SINGLE counter-example, and that blows the whole mess out of the water!!

Hadda dig hard too, didn't ya??

[Lee Kington]

Wow....You come up with ONE SINGLE counter-example, and that blows the whole mess out of the water!!

Hadda dig hard too, didn't ya??

Only for an online cite. I did not feel like digging through the old original Bell material and scanning some of that in-house information.

BTW... you might want to educate yourself on the Abort Guidance System (AGS). Yet another mission specific technology that had to be developed.

LINK (http://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/yaAGS.html)

[Oddball]

So, why did they use integrated circuits, transistors, and flip-flops for their navigation and guidance computers, when rudimentary microprocessors were available??

[Dragon1963]

So, why did they use integrated circuits, transistors, and flip-flops for their navigation and guidance computers, when rudimentary microprocessors were available??

What you don't realize is that those rudimentary microprocessors didn't have enough processing power to match the integrated circuits, transistors, and flip-flops. The microprocessors would have need twice the room to do the same thing as the parts you pointed out. Microprocessors didn't have the power needed until the late-seventies years after the Apollo missions had been cancelled.

BTW your rudimentary microprocessors were roughly the size of an IBM punch card and a quarter inch thick.

[Oddball]

The rudimentary microprocessors also had a probability of failure that exceeded the risk willing to be borne by such a nationally prestigious mission.

[TombRaiderBC]

Besides the fact that I think the Space Program is really cool. And besides the fact that the Space Program has led to all sorts of neat new technology breakthroughs that we now kind of take for granted. And besides the fact that the budget for the Space Program is a drop in the bucket compared to so many of the wasteful and absolutely worthless pork projects that get passed each and every year...

Besides all that.

The same people who in the 1960s griped about spending money to send Americans to the moon, and who today gripe about building the space station or sending probes to Mars... would be griping if the Japanese or the British or the French were doing all this ahead of us. They'd be extolling these Euro/Asian nations for being light-years ahead of the U.S. when it comes to technology and exploration.

You can't win for winning.

:shifty:

[dbs944]

I've always felt that the space program is 'sexy' and very visable. How many kids went into science thinking the space program and found their nitch somewhere else and did great things in other fields? Without the space program they may not have persued a science degree. As a kid growing up, I loved the space stuff and I ultimately got a degree in Engineering. Without the space program, I would probably now be a liberal English teacher.

Just one intangable to consider.

[Sisupala]

I've always felt that the space program is 'sexy' and very visable. How many kids went into science thinking the space program and found their nitch somewhere else and did great things in other fields? Without the space program they may not have persued a science degree. As a kid growing up, I loved the space stuff and I ultimately got a degree in Engineering. Without the space program, I would probably now be a liberal English teacher.

Just one intangable to consider.
The space program has been manna for the human spirit. :dance:

[mrclean]

The moon landing some 40 years ago was the last great thing this country did.

[Sisupala]

The moon landing some 40 years ago was the last great thing this country did.
The Superconducting Super Collider could have been the next moonshot, but it was nixed. :(

(Three months in Iraq could have more than paid for it.)

[JeffR]

I'll back anyone on the defunding of NASA once they do the following:


* Promise to never use a GPS.
* Don't use a cell phone or communicate with anyone who does.
* Do not install a smoke detector
* Do not buy or use a battery operated tool
* Don't use disposable diapers
* Don't ever get or have a family member get an MRI, ultrasound or CAT scan
* Don't use a digital camera
* Don't watch TV
* Don't insulate your house
* Don't have a breast exam or allow anyone in your family to get one
* Don't wear a modern helmet
* Don't call the fire department who use advanced breathing and fire protection suits
* Do not eat anything grown via hydroponics
* Don't listen to XM or Sirius radio
* Don't feed your child baby food
* Don't wear Oakley or Rayban glasses
* Don't use a Dustbuster vacuum
* Don't drink water from a modern water treatment plant
* Do not allow your children to get an occular examination
* Do not take a plane ride
* Do not listen to a weather forecast
* Do not buy a flat panel TV
* Don't buy a carbon fiber tennis racquet, gold club or bicycle
* Don't buy freeze-dried food or coffee
* Don't use a computer and definitely not the Internet
* And you can kiss your glass of Tang goodbye!



NASA is more than cool pictures of distant places. It is not pure science. It is practical science. We get back the investment in NASA 10 fold.
Many people don't realize what the space program has done for us.

[Seedy]

we went to the moon
we have the shuttles
we launch all sorts of probes.
is it time to rethink what were trying to do in space?
is it worth the billions for a space station/moon base/trip to mars?
or should we just concentrate on the issues here on earth instead?

we went to the [Caribbean]
we have the [ships]
we launch all sorts of [expeditions].
is it time to rethink what were trying to do in [North America]?
is it worth the billions for a [colony/fort/trip to the interior]?
or should we just concentrate on the issues here [in Europe] instead?

[RoxyKLH]

OF COURSE IT IS!!

NASA's budget is less than 1% of the total Goverment spending.....OF COURSE IT IS and anyone who says otherwise is plain ignorant.

ETA: I am biased, the space program is my lively hood and that of most of the people I know. Without it my community would not be what it is. I believe in our space program more than anything this country does. It's bipartisan and inspires everyone, especially children.

[RoxyKLH]

I did not say I was for or against nasa or space exploration.
I just wanted a topic to discuss about this subject.
I am torn about it.
there is no plan for what we are trying to do.
what are we gaining?
what will we lose if we stopped?
im looking for answers and a healthy debate.

There most certainly is a plan, first we go back to the moon for long term exploration. This will also provide a starting point for our missions to mars in the future.

If we stopped then we wasted billions on a space station, which is a pretty damn cool thing if you aren't paying attention.

There is some pretty good information abotu NASA's plan for space exploration if you go looking for it. The only problem is Congress keeps cutting funding which is a damn shame.

[James Juno]

The Superconducting Super Collider could have been the next moonshot, but it was nixed. :(

(Three months in Iraq could have more than paid for it.)

The SSC would have already been made redundant, if not obsolete, thanks to CERN's new LHC near Geneva (that's days away from being switched on). Would have been a waste of money and the physics community at the time realized it, despite lobbyist support. (I'm not denying that the attempt to democratize medieval Arabs in the ME might end in failure as well).

[James Juno]

OF COURSE IT IS!!

NASA's budget is less than 1% of the total Goverment spending.....OF COURSE IT IS and anyone who says otherwise is plain ignorant.

ETA: I am biased, the space program is my lively hood and that of most of the people I know. Without it my community would not be what it is. I believe in our space program more than anything this country does. It's bipartisan and inspires everyone, especially children.

I consider it a crime that NASA gets less than 1% and the mere existence of this thread saddens me. In the end, space will be our last hope as a species.

[RickRhetoric]

President Obama says he will do away with the space program. So any money spent on it between now and then will all be in vain.

The program should be halted immediately and all that money should be given to the poor.

[Vaard]

President Obama says he will do away with the space program. So any money spent on it between now and then will all be in vain.

The program should be halted immediately and all that money should be given to the poor.

i guess that would be true if it werent untrue........

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26647

Barack Obama believes that the United States needs a strong space program to help maintain its superiority not only in space, but also here on earth in the realms of education, technology, and national security

[Seedy]

OF COURSE IT IS!!

NASA's budget is less than 1% of the total Goverment spending.....OF COURSE IT IS and anyone who says otherwise is plain ignorant.

ETA: I am biased, the space program is my lively hood and that of most of the people I know. Without it my community would not be what it is. I believe in our space program more than anything this country does. It's bipartisan and inspires everyone, especially children.

ROXY!!!!

So it took people attacking NASA to bring you out from under your rock! How have you been?!?

[Kazsirk]

OF COURSE IT IS!!

NASA's budget is less than 1% of the total Goverment spending.....OF COURSE IT IS and anyone who says otherwise is plain ignorant.

ETA: I am biased, the space program is my lively hood and that of most of the people I know. Without it my community would not be what it is. I believe in our space program more than anything this country does. It's bipartisan and inspires everyone, especially children.

The space program is way way behind schedule in my opinion.

we should have a Moon city by now and one on Mars.
When I was a little kid 1970 everyone beleived we where going to be a space faring race. I figured by the time I got married I might be part of a group heading to a new planet around a neighboring star.

I was 7 when I wanted to be an astronaut by the time I was 14 Nasa was already a side bar entity barely entering low earth orbit. with a few shining moments with probes and such.

I think we need to get to the nearest star systems with a probe as fast as we can send them in every direction. it would take 40 -100 years to get to a new system but the sooner we do the sooner we discover a second earth.

if they had send probes out when we went to the moon in 69 that was near 50 years ago and we might actually know what is circling the stars nearest us right now.

if we stay put and stay stupid we will become extinct.
we have to explore and sooner is better than later.
kaz

[Sisupala]

The SSC would have already been made redundant, if not obsolete, thanks to CERN's new LHC near Geneva (that's days away from being switched on). Would have been a waste of money and the physics community at the time realized it, despite lobbyist support. (I'm not denying that the attempt to democratize medieval Arabs in the ME might end in failure as well).
You're wrong there. Even when CERN's Large Hadron Collider comes up to speed it won't be able to muster half the power of the SSC.

[RoxyKLH]

ROXY!!!!

So it took people attacking NASA to bring you out from under your rock! How have you been?!?

Good, I just came back to see what the politically informed had to say on the election. I am truly afraid of Obama, who incidently doesn't give a crap about NASA or space.

You obviously didn't notice my other thread, about Boeing, from last week. :)

Good to see you Seedy.

[curtis123]

we went to the moon
we have the shuttles
we launch all sorts of probes.
is it time to rethink what were trying to do in space?
is it worth the billions for a space station/moon base/trip to mars?
or should we just concentrate on the issues here on earth instead?

It's in our nature to explore and discover. Where would we be if we didn't?

There will always be issues on Earth.

[Sisupala]

It's in our nature to explore and discover. Where would we be if we didn't?

There will always be issues on Earth.
Indeed.

[James Juno]

You're wrong there. Even when CERN's Large Hadron Collider comes up to speed it won't be able to muster half the power of the SSC.

The technology behind the SSC was unproven and plans were being revisited almost daily well into the first phase of construction that ultimately doomed the design to a yield below the present-day LHC. Whether you believe it or not, I was a participant. Superconductor cooling technology just wasn't up to snuff for the required scale, which explains much of the LHC's current design. The LHC is realistic whereas the SSC's "retroactive/retrofit" phase heralded the beginning of budget overrun dooming the project. Visionary, yes, but beyond the upper limits of funding. The final, bastardized "SSC" would not have cut muster against today's LHC.

[Sisupala]

The technology behind the SSC was unproven and plans were being revisited almost daily well into the first phase of construction that ultimately doomed the design to a yield below the present-day LHC. Whether you believe it or not, I was a participant. Superconductor cooling technology just wasn't up to snuff for the required scale, which explains much of the LHC's current design. The LHC is realistic whereas the SSC's "retroactive/retrofit" phase heralded the beginning of budget overrun dooming the project. Visionary, yes, but beyond the upper limits of funding. The final, bastardized "SSC" would not have cut muster against today's LHC.
I'll believe you if you were a participant. That's awesome. :)

[mrclean]

Us human beings have been blessed (I don't necessarily mean that in a religious way) with inquisitve minds.

To squander or deny that blessing is a sin and a waste.

[Sisupala]

Us human beings have been blessed (I don't necessarily mean that in a religious way) with inquisitve minds.

To squander or deny that blessing is a sin and a waste.
Yep. To go is reason enough. If you have to ask why, you ain't gonna understand.

[James Juno]

I'll believe you if you were a participant. That's awesome. :)

It was a source of much in-fighting between groups across the country, academia and government, that became unpleasant. I was glad to get out of it.

But you're correct, the SSC as originally envisioned would have been a spectacular instrument.

[Kazsirk]

Us human beings have been blessed (I don't necessarily mean that in a religious way) with inquisitve minds.

To squander or deny that blessing is a sin and a waste.

We are blessed and I mean by God.
We need to go and learn or remain ignorant and die.
money is tin and paper anyway.

[Sisupala]

It was a source of much in-fighting between groups across the country, academia and government, that became unpleasant. I was glad to get out of it.

But you're correct, the SSC as originally envisioned would have been a spectacular instrument.
Fermilab is about 30 miles from where I live. I get inspired just visiting the facility. I'm beginning to think it's time to take my 11-year-old son out for a visit.

[Oddball]

Us human beings have been blessed (I don't necessarily mean that in a religious way) with inquisitve minds.

To squander or deny that blessing is a sin and a waste.
Just bought Barry Hosannah Obummer's primer on writing better platitudes, did we??? :))

[Oddball]

OF COURSE IT IS!!

NASA's budget is less than 1% of the total Goverment spending.....OF COURSE IT IS and anyone who says otherwise is plain ignorant.

ETA: I am biased, the space program is my lively hood and that of most of the people I know. Without it my community would not be what it is. I believe in our space program more than anything this country does. It's bipartisan and inspires everyone, especially children.
That doesn't mean that a small amount of money is frittered away on NASA, just that the other 99+% of useless, bloated and ineffective gubmint is sooooooooo huuuuuuuuge.

[mrclean]

Just bought Barry Hosannah Obummer's primer on writing better platitudes, did we??? :))


Get real, that's not even close to being platitudinal.

[curtis123]

That doesn't mean that a small amount of money is frittered away on NASA, just that the other 99+% of useless, bloated and ineffective gubmint is sooooooooo huuuuuuuuge.

I rent space to some federal government offices. The inefficiency, redundancy, Job-justifying paper/busywork and just flat-out worthless laziness is shocking. And I see only a small part of it.

[Sisupala]

That doesn't mean that a small amount of money is frittered away on NASA, just that the other 99+% of useless, bloated and ineffective gubmint is sooooooooo huuuuuuuuge.
I don't know if you've ever done any contract work for NASA, but the reality is that they don't want to pay for anything that they absolutely don't have to.

[ThrowCop]

The Superconducting Super Collider could have been the next moonshot, but it was nixed. :(

(Three months in Iraq could have more than paid for it.)As a complete nerd who loves this stuff, I was actually physically dejected when that happened. :(

[Oddball]

I don't know if you've ever done any contract work for NASA, but the reality is that they don't want to pay for anything that they absolutely don't have to.Uh-huh...And the Socialist Insecurity Administration likes to brag about how low its relative bureaucratic costs are compared to other federal bureaucracies, to deflect from the more salient point that it's not any enumerated federal responsibility of the feds to be running either program.

What would the Wright brothers ever have done without NASA?!?!??? :rolleyes:

[Sisupala]

Uh-huh...And the Socialist Insecurity Administration likes to brag about how low its relative bureaucratic costs are compared to other federal bureaucracies, to deflect from the more salient point that it's not any enumerated federal responsibility of the feds to be running either program.

What would the Wright brothers ever have done without NASA?!?!??? :rolleyes:
Maybe I've missed something, or I'm just plain slow, but your criticisms--if that's what they are--appear to be scatter shot. May I ask what your point is?

[darknessesedge]

There most certainly is a plan, first we go back to the moon for long term exploration. This will also provide a starting point for our missions to mars in the future.

If we stopped then we wasted billions on a space station, which is a pretty damn cool thing if you aren't paying attention.

There is some pretty good information abotu NASA's plan for space exploration if you go looking for it. The only problem is Congress keeps cutting funding which is a damn shame.

finally a answer to my question.
so there is a game plan then.

[James Juno]

Fermilab is about 30 miles from where I live. I get inspired just visiting the facility. I'm beginning to think it's time to take my 11-year-old son out for a visit.

Excellent idea. Inspire him too! Our future depends on young minds like his.

[foxgurrrl]

It's definitely worth the money, worth more money, in my opinion. My belief is that NASA doesn't tell the public everything it discovers up there anyway, so if we knew exactly what was going on, we'd have no problems funding it.

[ISYairio]

I wonder how effective a sizable ($15 billion at very least, maybe $20 at least) billion dollar X Prize for space would be...

[Sisupala]

I wonder how effective a sizable ($15 billion at very least, maybe $20 at least) billion dollar X Prize for space would be...
I'm amazed by watching all the various private start-ups at work just how difficult it is to reliably launch a payload to an altitude of 50 miles, not to mention accelerating a payload to orbital velocity. Gravity--what a concept!

[AeroEngineer]

I don't know if you've ever done any contract work for NASA, but the reality is that they don't want to pay for anything that they absolutely don't have to.


I've worked for NASA, I'd say it depends on the facility and the project.

[Panhead0422]

Like hell.

The moonshots weren't pulled off with cutting edge technology, that had the possibility of failure, but the working technology that was on hand at the time.


Well DUH!!!!!

Of course they used components that had been proven to work instead of experimental components. They did the same for every rocket, shuttle or space station technology used so far. They also use or will use some technologies each time they upgrade the current system with backups that have been used in the past. You always want to test and debug technologies before depending on their functionality.

[Panhead0422]

all of the above would have been invented whether we have/had a space program or not.
the japanese dont have 1..or much of one, and they invent stuff all the time.
my question is...what is the big goal for nasa?
what is the quest?
jfk gave us one in the 60's, but what is the next step for them now?

Where is your PROOF that all of the listed items "would have been invented anyway"???
I admit that I can not prove that they would not have been invented, but, then I am not the one making what appears to be a baseless clalm.

Specifically, what have the Japanese actually invented in the last thirty or fourty years???
They have miniaturized a lot of things and improved on production processes, but I can not think of anything that they have "invented all of the time". This is not to down play their contributions, just questioning what their actuall accomplishments are.

I believe that the next major, but intermediate goal for NASA will be a base on the moon to facilitate further space exploration and practicing for the eventual landing on and colonization of mars. What better place to practice and design long term no atmospere dwellings.

[rob_b52]

Well DUH!!!!!

Of course they used components that had been proven to work instead of experimental components. They did the same for every rocket, shuttle or space station technology used so far. They also use or will use some technologies each time they upgrade the current system with backups that have been used in the past. You always want to test and debug technologies before depending on their functionality.

not really..... there is still the aspects of making people happy.. there is money involved and those who have money in it want results. case in point:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2007/070922-foam-quandary.htm

here is who needed to be happy...the environmentalists....

and I quote:

Environmental policy changes such as the implementation of the 1987 Montreal Protocol phasing out class I ozone depleting compounds and emerging Environmental Protection Agency regulations have necessitated changes to NASA's foam over the years, so what's used today isn't the same as what was originally used.

The space shuttle has always lost foam to some degree, but "the original foam was a formaldehyde-based foam and very tough and resilient," Paul Czysz, professor emeritus of aerospace engineering at St. Louis University, told TechNewsWorld. "Suddenly NASA went 'green' and the new foam would not adhere as well and crumbled easily."

When pieces of foam break off, they have a very high drag and very low mass, causing them to slow down quickly, Czysz explained. So, when the briefcase-sized, roughly 2-pound piece of foam broke off the Columbia tank, for example, the shuttle was moving at about 275 meters per second; the impact energy was equivalent to dropping a 10-pound object 100 feet, he explained.

The result: Damage sustained to the Columbia's left wing ultimately caused the shuttle to disintegrate upon reentry into Earth's atmosphere.

Tragic Realization

I am sure the scientists did not know what would happen, but how else can you explain it?

[Chuangtzu]

W/o reservation, yes. It may the only substantive avenue left to us. Heinlein was right: if we choose to remain eggs in only one basket, we get what we deserve when something big comes along and smashes that basket.

[sgtmac_46]

W/o reservation, yes. It may the only substantive avenue left to us. Heinlein was right: if we choose to remain eggs in only one basket, we get what we deserve when something big comes along and smashes that basket. I could not agree more! In fact, when I read the question Heinlein is exactly what came to mind.

Space exploration is about pursuing the noblest aspirations of the human spirit.

[Chuangtzu]

I could not agree more! In fact, when I read the question Heinlein is exactly what came to mind.

Space exploration is about pursuing the noblest aspirations of the human spirit.

Ad Astra.

[sgtmac_46]

Ad Astra.
What else is left? If you're not growing, you're dying.

[Chuangtzu]

What else is left? If you're not growing, you're dying.

In fundamental agreement. I grew up in Spacetown. It was our life's blood growing up. In that, we were lucky. Very lucky. Alan Shepard sat on the board of our local high school, and every student received an appropriate science and math education, especially if we wanted it. When I gave up lunch my soph and junior years, to double up on math courses, I was encouraged in that choice, not dissuaded from it. Of my 'circle of friends,' more than a few ended up in the Naval, Air Force or NASA aeronautics and space programs, more often that not with some detour through WPI, Rensselaer or MIT.

One of my classmates and friends went for sub duty, armed with the (I believe) prescient premise that sub crew were ideal candidates for the space program.

That saturation - Ad Astra - was permament. My sons certainly caught the bug, too. My oldest has decided on medicine as his ticket to space.

[sgtmac_46]

In fundamental agreement. I grew up in Spacetown. It was our life's blood growing up. In that, we were lucky. Very lucky. Alan Shepard sat on the board of our local high school, and every student received an appropriate science and math education, especially if we wanted it. When I gave up lunch my soph and junior years, to double up on math courses, I was encouraged in that choice, not dissuaded from it. Of my 'circle of friends,' more than a few ended up in the Naval, Air Force or NASA aeronautics and space programs, more often that not with some detour through WPI, Rensselaer or MIT.

One of my classmates and friends went for sub duty, armed with the (I believe) prescient premise that sub crew were ideal candidates for the space program.

That saturation - Ad Astra - was permament. My sons certainly caught the bug, too. My oldest has decided on medicine as his ticket to space. Wow......that certainly sounds like an interesting path to have trod.

[Radioflyer]

Columbus had a difficult time getting funding for his voyage. Most did not think the effort was worth it.

The space station and programs provide much to address 'issues' on earth.

In the 1950s no one would have thought that medical science and medicines would be advanced by a presence in space. No one would have dreamed that so many people would be rescued, aided, because they had a cell phone. How many people who died in hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods years ago would have lived had they known it was coming?

You vision.... is short sighted if not totally blind.
Ditto.

[Radioflyer]

A lot of modern technology we enjoy today (and our quality of life) is the product of our government's investment in defense and space research.
Where would we be if it weren't for Asia's, Europe's and the Islamic world's investment and successes in space research?

[Mobulis]

A mans reach must extend his grasp else what are the heavens for?

[waynevan]

Columbus had a difficult time getting funding for his voyage. Most did not think the effort was worth it.

The space station and programs provide much to address 'issues' on earth.

In the 1950s no one would have thought that medical science and medicines would be advanced by a presence in space. No one would have dreamed that so many people would be rescued, aided, because they had a cell phone. How many people who died in hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods years ago would have lived had they known it was coming?

You vision.... is short sighted if not totally blind.

It was all worth it just so I could have a friggin TomTom, that thing is awesome!

[darknessesedge]

It was all worth it just so I could have a friggin TomTom, that thing is awesome!

hahaha

[Dual867PowerMac]

It should be privatized.

[darknessesedge]

It should be privatized.

it is privatised..my $$ is private.

[Dual867PowerMac]

it is privatised..my $$ is private.
It should be private. It isn't.

[Sisupala]

It should be private. It isn't.
A mission to the Moon, an asteroid, or Mars would never pay for itself. That's why the numerous private space ventures today are focusing on lofting satellites and wealthy tourists.

[TimeToRelax]

NASA eyes debris as Discovery nears space station

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/images/060119_space_junk_big.jpg
National Geographic -- Space Junk


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96V82LG1&show_article=1


---------------------------
BTY, Tell me again why we don't have a space rescue vehicle permanetly docked at the Space Station . . . .
---------------------------



Mar 16 11:42 AM US/Eastern

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - NASA kept close tabs on an old piece of space junk Monday that threatened to come too close to the international space station, as the shuttle Discovery raced toward the orbiting outpost for a 220-mile-high linkup.
Experts initially warned that the debris from a Soviet satellite that broke up in 1981 could veer within a half-mile of the space station. But later in the morning, they said it appeared that the small piece of junk—about 4 inches in size—might remain at a safe distance.

The debris was in an erratic orbit, and that was causing the constant revisions. NASA said the trend appeared to be moving in the right direction, though, and that the space station might not have to move out of the way.

If Mission Control orders a space station maneuver to dodge the junk, it would be carried out Monday night, well ahead of the closest approach early Tuesday. That would force Discovery to adjust its course for Tuesday's docking; the shuttle is delivering one last set of solar wings for the station.

Just last Thursday, the three space station residents had to move into their emergency getaway capsule because another piece of space junk came uncomfortably close. In that case, it was short notice and the astronauts did not have enough time to steer out of the way.

NASA has moved the space station to dodge debris eight times in the past, most recently in August, according to NASA records. Generally, engines on the Russian living quarters or the attached Russian supply ships are fired to alter the path of the entire station. It's a relatively easy job, but uses up precious fuel.

The debris this time is from a Soviet military satellite called Kosmos 1275, which broke up somewhat mysteriously shortly after its 1981 launch. NASA orbital debris scientist Mark Matney said it may have crashed with another object that wasn't being tracked, although the Russians believe a battery explosion did the satellite in. In any event, the result was a cloud of 310 pieces of debris that slowly are falling into lower orbits, he said.

On board Discovery, meanwhile, the seven astronauts geared up Monday afternoon for an in-depth inspection of their ship's wings and nose with a laser-tipped boom. It's standard procedure the day after launch to check for any damage that may have occurred during liftoff.

[Marleysdaddy]

we went to the moon
we have the shuttles
we launch all sorts of probes.
is it time to rethink what were trying to do in space?
is it worth the billions for a space station/moon base/trip to mars?
or should we just concentrate on the issues here on earth instead?

I think we need to spend more money on space exploration...we landed on the moon almost 40 years ago...we should have put a man on Mars by now.

[JeffR]

Money spent on the space program has one of the highest returns of any gov't spending.