Mojlnir Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 We touched this topic briefly in a long-ago dead discussion, but I think that with Bush making a renewed space proposal this afternoon we can have some really good discussion about the direction humankind is taking in regards to space. The proposal, coming out later this afternoon, calls for cancelling the shuttle program, development of new space craft, the establishment of a moon base, and eventual manned travel to Mars. What does everyone think? Should Man go to the stars? Can this be an international goal? How do we avoid the "Americanization" of space? I love the idea of space exploration and colonization. I think NASA has lacked vision and funding over the last decade and its time to go after space exploration with renewed vigor. If the shuttle has to go, so be it. Its expensive, inefficient, and down-right dangerous...we need something newer and more reliable. What do people think about private organizations (corporations, etc.) getting involved in attempting to push the technological envelope? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pack Rat Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 I aprove and disaprove exploring space. I aprove it because it brings the nations together. This time not one nation dominates the others, this is the example of how it really should work. I disaprove it because mankind isnt ready for it... We know very few of our own planet and we already wish to go discover other planets? We dont even know whats going on in 91% of our oceans.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Almelexia Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 I disaprove it because mankind isnt ready for it... We know very few of our own planet and we already wish to go discover other planets? We dont even know whats going on in 91% of our oceans.. Yes thats right, and we doesnt have the right tecnology to stay on mars for a longer time. I think NASA should stay on earth and build a better space ship and then finally when we can stay there for a while we can travell there. But I agree that NASA having the right thought and moving into space and maybe live there after many years would be a great step in human tecnology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 The proposal, coming out later this afternoon, calls for cancelling the shuttle program Complete idiocy and a political move. Sure, there was one problem... but you take risks every day driving to work, etc. And every person who flies on that shuttle accepts that risk willingly. 1 problem in a long history of success is nothing. And we've got nothing even close to ready to replace it. So the only reason is to gain some popularity points by taking advantage of people who don't really look beyond the initial image. development of new space craft Very good. The shuttle is old, and perhaps not ideal for future plans. So yes, start working now on its replacement. the establishment of a moon base A nice long term goal. If they can get cargo/people to the moon reliably and for a reasonable cost, then yes, do it. The technology for the base itself exists, the only problem is getting it there. eventual manned travel to Mars A nice longer term goal. Once again, the technology for the base itself exists, the only problem is gettting it there and keeping up regular supply flights. But you're talking about months of travel each way just to get there and back, so you need even bigger spacecraft to hold enough supplies to make it worth doing. Should Man go to the stars? Why not? If the technology and desire are there, why shouldn't we? Can this be an international goal? Question of politics. Yes, it could work as an international goal, and probably would be best as that. Even if just to spread the costs around. The only problem is getting other countries to commit to such a massive project. How do we avoid the "Americanization" of space? By not bringing our weapons with us? I mean, unless we're going to start destroying any country that tries to compete, there's nothing stopping them from establishing their own presence. But if nobody else wants to do it, then "Americanization" is not a bad thing. I think NASA has lacked vision and funding over the last decade and its time to go after space exploration with renewed vigor. I agree. It seems recently too many people have been satisfied with just business as usual instead of trying to advance. But of course for a vision to be realistic, the government needs to provide enough funding. Maybe we should've spent all that money wasted on war on this! If the shuttle has to go, so be it. Its expensive, inefficient, and down-right dangerous...we need something newer and more reliable. Expensive, yes. All space travel is, and the shuttle at least reuses parts over and over again. Inefficient, maybe... I haven't compared the numbers. Dangerous, no. Stop looking at the media overkill and look at the facts. One problem and a long history of success. You're not going to get any better than that. But yes, something newer would be nice. Age is a factor, and the shuttle might not be the ideal design for future goals. But abandoning it before its replacement is operating is a terrible idea. What do people think about private organizations (corporations, etc.) getting involved in attempting to push the technological envelope? Why not? If a government can go into space, why shouldn't a corporation if they want to? And if you want a more realistic reason, private involvement (resources) would make a huge difference in what can be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojlnir Posted January 15, 2004 Author Share Posted January 15, 2004 The plan does not call for the immediate cancellation of the shuttle program. Perhaps my post was misleading, but the shuttle program would be ended once the International Space Station has been completed. The idea is to begin R&D on a replacement vehicle immediately so that America is only without a space-capable vehicle for a period of 3-5 years. Also, the shuttle is dangerous, and there has been more than one catastrophic failure...there have been two. It is dangerous because of its complexity and its age. It works, yes, but it is highly inefficient and time consuming to restore each shuttle to pre-flight status. The post-Columbia commission has recomened that the shuttle either undergo a complete revamp by 2010 or be scrapped. Because the technology is around thirty years old, NASA is going to put it out to pasture and get moving on something more practical and modular in order to allow for flight to the Moon or Mars.For too long NASA has focused on near-Earth space and relied on the Shuttle and crappy space station stunts to make it look like we're exploring space. To that I say...Nuts! Now, space travel is inherently complicated and dangerous, and people will die, that's the nature of the beast. It's time to take the lessons learned from the Shuttle and get our asses off this rock. :bye: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimVig Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 One thing has bothered me... The Americans went to Moon in 1969, and that's it. Why were there no other missions? Now I am not stating that it was a fake, but rather that they did this to outrun Russians for once and for no other reason. For 30 years we have had the basic technology to go to Moon. All it would need is a bit of perfecting, and a base could already be established, if USA was really interested in it back then. I agree that the Shuttle is expencive and inefficient. This comes from the fact that it has to drop 3 HUGE parts every time and they need to be replaced. A new propulsion system is needed to get the ships off the planet. Now on Moon, this wouldn't be a problem, as the gravity there is so much smaller. Once we have a production-capable base there, space exploration will become that much easier. From there on to Mars and beyond! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaiv Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 I aprove and disaprove exploring space. I aprove it because it brings the nations together. This time not one nation dominates the others, this is the example of how it really should work. I disaprove it because mankind isnt ready for it... We know very few of our own planet and we already wish to go discover other planets? We dont even know whats going on in 91% of our oceans.. I agree. We dont know what to do with what we have, and that greatly improves our chances of failure on something that we know next to nothing about....plus water would have to be brought from earth, but that wouldn't work because it would injure earth's environment, and it would evapourate off of the moon and into the universe....there is no atmoshpere to catch it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loveme4whoiam Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 plus water would have to be brought from earth, but that wouldn't work because it would injure earth's environment, and it would evapourate off of the moon and into the universe....there is no atmoshpere to catch it. I understand that the water would have to be brought from Earth, which would be a huge logistical undertaking, but i'm unsure as to what you mean about the water evaporating off. I'm assuming that the "moonbase" would be some kind of self-contained bubble, like the Eden project in the UK. If water was transported to the Moon then wouldn't it be caught by the roof of the base? I've read in several magazines (by no means the cutting edge of scientific journalism by the way) that NASA have a prototype in the works for a new Space Shuttle. The pictures they have look kind of like the original Space Shuttle with upturned wingtips and larger engines. Apparently its designed for easy-exit of the atmosphere by taking off like a normal plane then using powerful engines to escape the atmosphere when it reaches a high altitude. Can anyone confirm (or deny) this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojlnir Posted January 15, 2004 Author Share Posted January 15, 2004 That plane sounds a lot like the R&D thats been going on concerning ramjet or scramjet powered space-planes. I don't know anything more about than youm but you've got the gist of it. They take off like normal jet powered aircraft and climb continually until they have reached the speed and altitude necessary for the ram/scramjet to kick in and off they go.As for the Moon base, it would have to be a sealed facility. There is no chance that the Moon could ever support an atmosphere, there is not enough gravity. And concerning water, you can make it out of hydrogen and oxygen, so there is no need to haul liquid water...just bring the gasses, or extract them from the Moon's mineral base, and combine for refreshingly pure Moon-water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pack Rat Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 Look, if it's a NASA only project than defenitly NO!If Nasa, so that would mean the USA, would be willing to co-operate with the ESA and the European nations ( this also includes Russia ) than I support it... But on the other hand we could use the money to go discover our own seas... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.