The Space Program

[kvnchrist]

Yeah, they outsourced our space program to Russia.

 

That is not true. There are companies here in the US already gearing up to take the place of the shuttle program. Any role Russia will be playing in terms of sending manned flights into space will be a very short term one. Also, the space program has not been outsourced to anywhere. NASA is still running the space program right here in the US. They simply don't have an overburdening shuttle program holding them back from moving on to deep space exploration...which is what it seems like you want them to be doing.

 

And I take it we are not paying good money to be taxied to the international space station on vessels far older than the shuttles.

 

Gearing up, still means they are still in the invention mode, which the shuttles were tried and true. They might be old but until these so-called wonder companies have something viable, we are still at the mercy of technology that the space shuttle makes look like a Conestoga wagon.

 

I was wondering where you get the incite to say how long we will be at the mercy of the Russians? That must be a magical gift indeed.

 

The difference between HeyYou and your argument is that he is looking at the present and you are looking at the future. The future is nice, but we still have to get there.

We can get there faster if we focus on research...

 

I think its perfectly fine that our shuttle program ended. We won't be able to do much with our modern space shuttles.

 

 

We need backups to get us up to the space station and back down. It would be handy especially since what's going on with the soviet space program.

[HeyYou]

Not to mention that we currently don't have any private company even remotely close to being able to replace the Shuttle. NASA doesn't have anything workable yet either. Most programs for research in that direction were killed off.

 

Right now, the only way anything from the US gets into space, is if someone else puts it there. We have indeed outsourced our space program. At this point, NASA is no different than any other company trying to break into the 'space race'. They are just government funded........

[Ghogiel]

We need to get John Carmack on the case.

[SilverDNA]

Not to mention that we currently don't have any private company even remotely close to being able to replace the Shuttle. NASA doesn't have anything workable yet either. Most programs for research in that direction were killed off.

 

Right now, the only way anything from the US gets into space, is if someone else puts it there. We have indeed outsourced our space program. At this point, NASA is no different than any other company trying to break into the 'space race'. They are just government funded........

 

When government founding isn't enough, ...

... then public founding might be enough to step in and get a space program going, since a lot of people are interested, and the NASA has the know how.

Edited September 20, 2011 by SilverDNA

[HeyYou]

Not to mention that we currently don't have any private company even remotely close to being able to replace the Shuttle. NASA doesn't have anything workable yet either. Most programs for research in that direction were killed off.

 

Right now, the only way anything from the US gets into space, is if someone else puts it there. We have indeed outsourced our space program. At this point, NASA is no different than any other company trying to break into the 'space race'. They are just government funded........

 

When government founding isn't enough, ...

... then public founding might be enough to step in and get a space program going, since a lot of people are interested, and the NASA has the know how.

 

Imagine what NASA could have accomplished of the folks all trying to reinvent the wheel had instead used that to help finance NASA...... but of course, there is no profit in doing that, and god knows that is what is MOST important to these companies. They are looking at fat, juicy, government contracts......

[WrathOfDeadguy]

Tossing space exploration into private hands is unfortunately not yet a viable solution. Corporate entities have drive, but no ambition- they will not sink billions of dollars into missions to other planets unless they are certain there will be a return on the investment. What they will do is what they are doing- which is to say, they'll come up with dozens of ways to boost human beings up and bring them back down. Remember, it's only been in the past decade that private spaceflight happened at all. No private manned spacecraft has reached orbit yet. Not one. It has been fifty years since Yuri Gagarin orbited Earth. The sad fact is that space exploration, if entrusted solely to the private sector, will proceed at a snail's pace; we'd be lucky to see another moon shot within the century.

 

Tickets are already selling even though the flights aren't happening yet. That is the sole and exclusive reason why anybody is pumping money into the development of private sector spacecraft- they're already being paid for what those spacecraft are going to do.

 

Here's how I see the evolution of private spaceflight happening:

 

First step (in progress): Development of the 'amusement park ride' model. Tickets sold for suborbital flights with no motive other than the experience of being in space.

 

Second step: Use of suborbital craft for long-distance passenger flights. Spacecraft take over the niche previously filled by the defunct Concorde, but are still not affordable.

 

Third step: Reliable, re-useable orbital spacecraft developed and employed as a satellite launcher, primarily serving telecommunications companies.

 

Fifth step: 'Space hotel' model. A space station is established as a destination for wealthy tourists. Different from the handful of 'tourist' flights already made in that this space station would exist exclusively for this purpose.

 

Sixth step: Robotic presence established on the moon to explore mining opportunities.

 

Seventh step: Human presence established on moon, largely to oversee robotic operations and maintain equipment on site.

 

...and that's about as far as I see it going in the foreseeable future. Corporations are cautious by nature- their collective survival instinct is much stronger than any given individual's. Governments, on the other hand, are always looking for ways to define themselves. Politicians love to create legacies, even if they bankrupt their nations doing so. That, IMO, is why space exploration funded by a government will tend to aim higher than any private endeavor... a flag planted somewhere nobody else has ever been is a powerful symbol. The US is still cashing in on the political capital gained during the Apollo program; we're the only nation that has ever sent people to another world.

 

Trouble is, we pretty much called it a day when we saw that nobody else was trying to catch up. We'll get another manned ship up and running, but I'm not holding my breath for it to be aimed much farther than a few hundred to a few thousand miles up. Russia is barely scraping by; it's frankly amazing that they still have a space program... though at least their ships are new (despite being a very old design, since Soyuz capsules are single-use every launch is in a new ship). China, despite being an up-and-coming economic powerhouse in no danger of running out of funds, seems to be satisfied with the few orbital flights it's sent up. No other nations have even tried, and the private sector isn't exactly using "The Man Who Sold the Moon" as inspiration.

 

Forget about out and back... what needs to happen is a one way mission. If we go to Mars, then we ship the crew off with everything they need to establish and maintain a base until they can be resupplied from Earth. The spacecraft design could be streamlined because it would not need to return- it would need reaction mass only for the trip out, which would allow enough payload space for provisions to last several years. Anybody who goes there, stays there- with the goal of increasing the size of the colony until it becomes self-sustaining. If the first flights aren't ongoing missions, then there will be a temptation to abandon the project... just as the moon was abandoned. When humans go to Mars, there should be no humans coming back from Mars until there are humans being born and raised on Mars. Likewise the moon- when we go back to the moon, we need to do it with the stated goal of establishing a permanent base from the very first landing onward. To set our sights any lower would accomplish nothing.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Wrath_Of_Deadguy01

[HeyYou]

Faster than the speed of light? Is this our first glimpse into the possibility of faster than light travel?

[marharth]

Faster than the speed of light? Is this our first glimpse into the possibility of faster than light travel?

Would suck if that was true, would have to rollback a lot of theories.

[Nintii]

The American Space Program is dead ... the government has got far more things to be concerned with ... rather, it's the Russians who will be blasting American astronauts into space.

 

And I quote .....

 

"Russia’s Space Program Could Crush the U.S. Over the Next Decade

 

When NASA retires its three space shuttles in 2010, US astronauts will have to rely on the Russian space program to gain entry to space and the International Space Station. Until 2015, when the Constellation program is scheduled to begin launching the Orion spacecraft, the US plans to purchase seats on the Russian Soyuz craft. Now some NASA officials are warning that America's presence in space could be hindered further by US-Russian tensions and the emerging Chinese program.

 

In 2004, the Bush administration introduced its “vision for space exploration,” which includes retiring NASA’s existing shuttle fleet and introducing Constellation, a new launching program using an updated capsule and rocket system. However, the administration, not wanting to inflate NASA’s budget, decided that manned space missions would go on a five-year hiatus, and that American astronauts should instead fly on Russian spacecraft.

 

But the recent political tensions between the US and Russia have complicated this plan. Although NASA does not doubt Russia’s commitment to transporting US astronauts, the US’s commitment to manned spaceflight will be greatly tested if relations with Russia continue to deteriorate. Following Russia’s military action in Georgia, Congress was stalled the bill to approve NASA’s purchase of seats on Russian spacecraft beyond 2011. The approval for the purchase of seats through 2016 did ultimately pass, but the incident prompted NASA administrator Michael D. Griffin to speak out against the current policy, which he called "unseemly in the extreme":

 

In an e-mail message he sent to his top advisers in August, Dr. Griffin wrote that “events have unfolded in a way that makes it clear how unwise it was for the U.S. to adopt a policy of deliberate dependence on another power.”

 

Griffin further suggests that the gap poses an unnecessary risk to the US space program:

 

“In a rational world, we would have been allowed to pick a shuttle retirement date to be consistent with Ares/Orion availability,” Dr. Griffin wrote. Within the administration, he wrote, “retiring the shuttle is a jihad rather than an engineering and program management decision.”

 

Griffin fears the consequences of any delay in the Constellation program, which comes at a time when China’s space program is rapidly advancing. Even if the current plans go according to schedule, the US will not return to the moon until 2020. Proponents fear that by then, the US will already be behind the curve."

 

End quote ....

 

 

Quote taken from ... io9 ... in their own words ... "io9 is a daily publication that covers science, science fiction, and the future".

[marharth]

Well if Russian starts hating the US at least we might have another space race...

 

That being said, why does it matter what country is doing the space program? Space exploration should be something for all of humanity, not something that is about competitive nationalism.