The direction of our space program

[West of the Rockies]

Anyone have any thoughts on what NASA and the ISA should be doing in terms of (wo)manned space travel?  Mars is the obvious and "sexy" destination, but it sounds like we're a ways from really trying (other than some sort of pie-in-the-sky private ventures being discussed).  I hear landing on an asteroid could prove very edifying and beneficial. 

It saddens me that we no longer have even the shuttle to kick around.  At least we do have the International Space Station.  It is one of the brightest objects in the night sky out where I live (northern Cal).

[Yorkshire pud]

I think the countries who are involved could collaborate more; I know they do in many ways, but if humans want to go out there, it's too much for just one space agency IMO. Destination? Pass! 

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Anyone have any thoughts on what NASA and the ISA should be doing in terms of (wo)manned space travel?  Mars is the obvious and "sexy" destination, but it sounds like we're a ways from really trying (other than some sort of pie-in-the-sky private ventures being discussed).  I hear landing on an asteroid could prove very edifying and beneficial. 

It saddens me that we no longer have even the shuttle to kick around.  At least we do have the International Space Station.  It is one of the brightest objects in the night sky out where I live (northern Cal).

For years now there has been debate about manned verses unmanned space missions: where should the funding go.  The problem is this: funding depends upon public support, and because the vast majority of the public is at the Star Wars/Star Trek level of ignorance about science, they tend to be interested in manned missions.  Why is that bad?  Because unmanned missions are vastly less expensive and complicated than manned missions.  There is essentially nothing that can't currently be done with machines that can be done by humans other than having a human presence.

The International Space Station is illustrative.  The Bush I administration wanted political support for the space station from space scientists, so they formed a committee of them to recommend priorities for space exploration.  The ISS was another pork barrel project to provide jobs and there was intense political pressure for the committee to rubber stamp the ISS to be at the top of the list.  The committee presented its findings to Richard Darman.  The first item on the list was not the ISS.  Nor the second, or third, or fourth.  In fact, by the time they got around to number nine on the list with no mention of the ISS, Darman uttered a stream of cuss words and stormed out of the meeting.

There is no substantial function for the ISS other than to be a playground for astronauts and to provide an iconic image of "Man Reaching for the Stars" in the minds of the public.  There is nothing that can be done on the ISS that can't be done less expensively on the ground or in a boutique spacecraft.  As of 2010 it has cost $150 billion dollars, with about $60 billion of that being paid by the USA.  Just to cite one example for perspective, the New Horizons spacecraft, which will provide the first encounter with Pluto and its moons, will cost approximately $650 million (There was an earlier proposed Pluto mission that was canceled in 2000 for budgetary reasons).  You could fund 90 to 100 similar space programs for what has been spent on the ISS, and the amount of science learned from the ISS is minuscule compared to even one of those probes.

The challenges of a manned mission to Mars are formidable, indeed.  In fact, there has been some talk about a suicide flyby mission there as the most realistic mission given current technology (that is, one or more astronauts travel to Mars, fly past it, and then die without hope of return to Earth).

I will say this, though.  While a mission to Mars would be fantastically expensive, we could be on the way right now as you were reading this.  We could have gone to Mars.  But, we decided to go to Iraq instead.

[West of the Rockies]

I think you're right, DigitalPig, about unmanned space exploration being very, very useful.  It's not as "sexy" though as manned space travel.  I've not heard about the Pluto venture.  What would the benefit of such a mission be?  There is zero chance of life on Pluto or Charon; does it have some attainable resources we want?  What's the point of such a mission?  I truly do not know.

It's nice to see you posting on a non-Falkie-related thread, BTW.

[Juan]

A couple of years ago, I had an interesting discussion with a 22-year old.  He had just seen the original 2001 and was laughing at the scenes outside the space capsule.  He contended that the stupid people in 1968 did not know that space looked like Star Trek.  He laughed at the scene where Dave blasts his way back into the space ship because there was no sound.

He could not accept that people in 1968 knew exactly what space explorations looked like because we watched all the Gemini and Apollo missions on television at home.

It reminds me of the caller to sNoory years ago who said that if we sent people to the moon now, we would not have that annoying delay between mission control transmissions and replies from the moon.  The caller contended that we have better, digital equipment now.  Like that changes the speed of light. Of course sNoory failed to challenge him.

It does appear that the Obama Administration has turned manned space flight over to private industry.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

I've not heard about the Pluto venture.  What would the benefit of such a mission be?  There is zero chance of life on Pluto or Charon; does it have some attainable resources we want?  What's the point of such a mission?  I truly do not know.

You've touched upon the core of the issue here.  Probes like New Horizons are intended to contribute to scientific knowledge.  More specifically, our knowledge about our solar system, how it is composed, how it functions, and how it might have come into being.  The specifics go right over the head of the general public.

Let me give you an example: one mission objective is to test the Pioneer Anomaly issue.  As briefly as I can, here's what that is about: The first space probes to travel on an escape path from the solar system are Pioneer 10 and 11.  They were launched over 40 years ago.  During that time, their positions have been plotted, and it turns out that their speed has slowed ever so slightly more than expected.  Some unknown force is accelerating them towards the sun.  For decades, various explanations have been proposed to explain this.  For many years, it was thought that a radioactive electricity generator was radiating heat preferentially in the direction of travel, and that this was what was causing the slowdown (you can see we are talking about an extremely tiny effect here).  However, that theory was debunked and there is no explanation on the table, other than that this is an unknown effect of fundamental physics.

The Pioneer probes were not designed to investigate this effect, since it was obviously unexpected.  The New Horizons craft, on the other hand, has been designed to test that anomaly with the objective of discovering whether it truly exists, and if so, gaining some insight to further understand it.  It is possible that our entire understanding of physics could be modified as a result of this mission (that's a bit hyperbolic, but you get the point).

The average citizen would read something like this and say, "Who gives a fuck?  I want to see Old Glory planted on Mars.  I wanna see spaceships zipping off to other galaxies like in Star Trek and bring back valuable crystals and gold nuggets the size of canned hams."  Well, that's all well and good, but it is our understanding of science that will lead us to be able to do those things someday, if ever.  It would be nice to know what lies in trans-Neptunian space before venturing out there, for example.

This is just one of a multitude of science objectives of that mission.  If you are really interested, you can read more about the probe here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Horizons

   

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

It does appear that the Obama Administration has turned manned space flight over to private industry.

That might not be such a bad idea.  There are some ventures that can't get off the ground (snicker) because the development costs exceed ROI projections.  Government can bootstrap development by funding research until the activation energy is low enough to make it a profitable private industry. 

Hey, James Cameron is one of only three people to ever descend to the lowest point on the ocean's floors.  I wouldn't mind seeing that fuckin Mark Zuckerberg zip off on some suicide mission to Mars.  Money well spent, if you asked me.

[Mind Flayer Monk]

Anyone have any thoughts on what NASA and the ISA should be doing in terms of (wo)manned space travel?  Mars is the obvious and "sexy" destination, but it sounds like we're a ways from really trying (other than some sort of pie-in-the-sky private ventures being discussed).  I hear landing on an asteroid could prove very edifying and beneficial. 

It saddens me that we no longer have even the shuttle to kick around.  At least we do have the International Space Station.  It is one of the brightest objects in the night sky out where I live (northern Cal).

There is a considerable amount of building and hiring in Southern California, on the outskirts of LA, for private space ventures.
What will most likely happen is a considerable amount of these privately-funded space ventures will lobby congress, congress will then fund NASA research. These space companies will then purchase the licenses developed from this tax payer-funded research (at $20 billion in tax dollars per year) at the cool price of $1. These licenses will be then resold to us at 10x whatever we, the tax payer, gave to NASA to research these technologies.

As for manned missions, I don't agree with using them because I think they are too expensive for the data they return.
I think I talked about this on the GNS thread, but I would rather have the money used to develop extremely cheap space research techniques-sort of like a giant DIY Space Program.
So instead of NASA research on how to get 2000 pounds to space, how about focusing on all kinds of ways to get 50 pounds up in space?

[West of the Rockies]

I wonder how feasible the space ladder concept really is...  That would be an inexpensive way to transport material into space once the initial cost of construction was dealt with....

[aldousburbank]

It does appear that the Obama Administration has turned our nation manned space flight over to private industry.

[Mind Flayer Monk]

I wonder how feasible the space ladder concept really is...  That would be an inexpensive way to transport material into space once the initial cost of construction was dealt with....

One of the Coast guests a few weeks ago put the price tag at $100 billion. I'm not sure of the amount of mass and functionality that elevator would have.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

One of the Coast guests a few weeks ago put the price tag at $100 billion. I'm not sure of the amount of mass and functionality that elevator would have.

About five or six years ago the Japanese said they could do it for $8 billion.  I don't know what the equivalent Japanese phrase is for "What the fuck are you smoking, dude?"

At a speed of 300 km/h, it would take about five days to go from one end to the other.

[steelbot]

About five or six years ago the Japanese said they could do it for $8 billion.  I don't know what the equivalent Japanese phrase is for "What the fuck are you smoking, dude?"

At a speed of 300 km/h, it would take about five days to go from one end to the other.

You can go from Northern Tip of mainland Japan (Honshu) to damn near the very southern tip in less than a day...I've done it.  And that was at speeds less than 300kmh

[Mind Flayer Monk]

How about you West, what would you like out of the space program?

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

You can go from Northern Tip of mainland Japan (Honshu) to damn near the very southern tip in less than a day...I've done it.  And that was at speeds less than 300kmh

Oh, haha, sorry.  What I meant was from one end to the other of the space elevator.  Estimates, obviously.

[cweb]

A couple of years ago, I had an interesting discussion with a 22-year old.  He had just seen the original 2001 and was laughing at the scenes outside the space capsule.  He contended that the stupid people in 1968 did not know that space looked like Star Trek.  He laughed at the scene where Dave blasts his way back into the space ship because there was no sound.

It reminds me of the caller to sNoory years ago who said that if we sent people to the moon now, we would not have that annoying delay between mission control transmissions and replies from the moon.  The caller contended that we have better, digital equipment now.

One of the things lacking in the younger generations (myself included) is a general understanding of the nature of space. I love Star Trek, but that rumble you hear in space from USS Enterprise is bullshit. Sound is kind of hard to do in a vacuum. Harder than eating salted pretzels in the desert without water.

And in between here and the moon is all this space. It's not next door. Radio waves have to travel a distance. Just because it's too fast for you to race in a souped-up Civic doesn't mean it's instant. Our solar system, our galaxy, our universe is butt-fucking huge. Stuff takes time! It's embarrassing how us kids don't seem to get that.

The Pioneer probes were not designed to investigate this effect, since it was obviously unexpected.  The New Horizons craft, on the other hand, has been designed to test that anomaly with the objective of discovering whether it truly exists, and if so, gaining some insight to further understand it.  It is possible that our entire understanding of physics could be modified as a result of this mission (that's a bit hyperbolic, but you get the point).

The average citizen would read something like this and say, "Who gives a fuck?  I want to see Old Glory planted on Mars.  I wanna see spaceships zipping off to other galaxies like in Star Trek and bring back valuable crystals and gold nuggets the size of canned hams."  Well, that's all well and good, but it is our understanding of science that will lead us to be able to do those things someday, if ever.  It would be nice to know what lies in trans-Neptunian space before venturing out there, for example.

You've made some excellent points so far. In my heart of hearts, I'd love to see a human walk on another planet. But you're right. Unmanned missions are much more feasible right now. And they really would be the key to sending dudez to Mars or further. I wonder if people forget that the earliest Apollo missions were unmanned. NASA didn't just go "lets send guys to space in this first ship lol."

I had a very long conversation with a friend about how mind-blowing it was that we made huge progress during the Space Race and then started dragging our feet in the 70s and beyond. Sure, there have been some useful missions since then but it seemed like the sense of enthusiasm and wonder about what's out there has waned.

What's beyond our solar system? What kind of stuff are the Voyager craft encountering right now? What does it look like out there? This type of thing blows my mind. Why doesn't the general public seem to have this sense of wonder and yearning for knowledge that my friends and I do? Why are the Kardashians more important? 

[Mind Flayer Monk]

Why doesn't the general public seem to have this sense of wonder and yearning for knowledge that my friends and I do? Why are the Kardashians more important? 

I disagree. There is more access to information about science, science news, and science shows than every before. The general public does have a substantial interest.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

I wonder if people forget that the earliest Apollo missions were unmanned. NASA didn't just go "lets send guys to space in this first ship lol."

Exactly so.  In the movies, everyone piled into a rocket ship and drove to the moon.  IRL, there were unmanned flybys; unmanned impact probes, unmanned orbiters, unmanned soft landing craft, unmanned soil samplers.  All of this preceded any manned missions to the moon.

I had a very long conversation with a friend about how mind-blowing it was that we made huge progress during the Space Race and then started dragging our feet in the 70s and beyond. Sure, there have been some useful missions since then but it seemed like the sense of enthusiasm and wonder about what's out there has waned.

In hindsight, people generally overestimated how difficult it was to go to the moon and underestimated how difficult it is to go anywhere else in the solar system.  It took about eight years between the first Earth orbital flight and the first moon landing.  There was a bunch of spaceflights during that time, including two manned missions that orbited the moon.  A mission every few months fit much better into the attention span of the general public, and the goal -- beating those goddamn Commies -- was simple and recognizable to everyone when it had been achieved.  No one needed to explain why we were doing it or why it mattered, or if the money wouldn't be better spent elsewhere.

In contrast, it took over six years for the first unmanned orbiter (Galileo) to reach Jupiter after launch.  It took twelve years for Voyager 2 to complete the Grand Tour.  It's going to take nine years for New Horizons to reach Pluto.  The cycles of learning and feedback are far longer and the value derived from them are generally incomprehensible to the average person, besides a few pretty pictures that don't look all THAT much different from what Hubble bangs out.  And do any of those probes produce a picture of the Hand of God like Hubble did?  Fuck no.

I'd agree with MFM that interest hasn't waned and access to information is far easier with the use of the Internet.  The carnival days of space exploration are over, though.  It's much more about hard science now than it was back then, and that necessarily leaves some people behind.  In the USA, anyway.  In China and Europe, perhaps not so much.

[cweb]

I'd agree with MFM that interest hasn't waned and access to information is far easier with the use of the Internet.  The carnival days of space exploration are over, though.  It's much more about hard science now than it was back then, and that necessarily leaves some people behind.  In the USA, anyway.  In China and Europe, perhaps not so much.

It's a good point to say that yes, information is out there and very accessible. I'm just not sure percentage-wise how much more coverage these topics get compared to others on a mass media scale. I'd say less. Because it's true that as you stretch space, things seem a bit "slow-going" and the only tangible stuff that's trickling in is hard science. That stuff goes to more specialized sources. The mass media sources will run Hubble's pretty pictures, but then they just go away until the next one.

I also made that (overgeneralized) statement because it doesn't seem like our government is putting the priorities where they need to be. I think the powers that be are evaluating the public's want to push the boundaries of space and either underestimating it or ignoring it. Neil DeGrasse Tyson always makes his "penny" speech about how little of the total budget actually goes into furthering space sciences. While we're bombing civilians overseas.

It's cool to see private industry enter this realm, and good will come of it. But if the government wants to try and help this endeavor, maybe you do need a little bit of "carnival" element to get the less scientifically-inclined into it. I'm not saying a pissing contest with another country, but perhaps try to relate the possible benefits to humanity better. As we destroy our planet, we should be taking steps to look at what it might take to help humanity reach out into this big ol' universe.

I believe that the sheer number of stuff out there lends a good possibility to there being other intelligent life. As we get further out, they get closer. (If they aren't around here already, which is another can of worms for other threads.) How captivated would the public be if NASA got out and made contact? Carnival, round two?

But none of this is instant, as we've said. We will endure years of waiting for data to come back or developing technology needed to develop more technology, et cetera. My fear is that because the hard science is turning people off, will we be losing minds (especially the young) who would otherwise consider space science? And if my fears are unfounded, that's awesome. I'm just not sure and I wonder what other people think about this.

[Juan]

We began to drag our feet in the 70s because some politicians began to compare the amount of money spent on space to the number of people in poverty.  By that time, the civil rights movement (particularly the Southern Christian Leadership Conference - the group lead by King and his followers) morphed into a poor people's group.  I remember well Hosea Williams and Ralph Abernathy demonstrating against the Apollo missions because of cost.  They talked about how many people could be fed for the cost of a moon mission.  They acted as though the money were put in a box, delivered to the moon and buried there.  They didn't or wouldn't understand that the money was going to pay a large number of salaries here on earth. Others also joined in the protests, but I remember the SCLC guys because I lived in Atlanta at the time.

It was never a technical problem - it was always a political one.

[West of the Rockies]

How about you West, what would you like out of the space program?

Well, since you asked, MFM, I'd love to see more deep-space probes.  A return to the moon would be costly, but maybe it would prove beneficial in inspiring a new generation of explorers/researchers.  I mentioned in the reading thread that I have just started astronaut Chris Hadfield's book.  In it he reveals that at the age of 9 (while watching the Apollo 11 moon landing), he decided he'd become an astronaut. 

I'd like to see continued work on the International Space Station.  I don't think it's a great thing that uber-rich people get to cross of items on their bucket-lists and "venture" into space for 20-40 million dollars per ride.  Yes, that dynamic does bring in needed cash flow, but I just think it is -- if you will -- morally offensive.  Once again, if you have the cash, you get to play; otherwise, sod off.

Asteroid exploration/research is probably our best direction.  If one of those behemoths should strike the Earth, absolute mayhem could ensue.  We need to be as able as possible to track those items in our solar system that could destroy the planet.  If there is a way to keep them from crashing into us, obviously that would be of extraordinary benefit to every woman, man and child on the planet.

[aldousburbank]

I've always thought that we should spend freely in the search for intelligent life on earth. Or has somebody already thought of that?

[West of the Rockies]

We began to drag our feet in the 70s because some politicians began to compare the amount of money spent on space to the number of people in poverty.  By that time, the civil rights movement (particularly the Southern Christian Leadership Conference - the group lead by King and his followers) morphed into a poor people's group.  I remember well Hosea Williams and Ralph Abernathy demonstrating against the Apollo missions because of cost.  They talked about how many people could be fed for the cost of a moon mission.  They acted as though the money were put in a box, delivered to the moon and buried there.  They didn't or wouldn't understand that the money was going to pay a large number of salaries here on earth. Others also joined in the protests, but I remember the SCLC guys because I lived in Atlanta at the time.

It was never a technical problem - it was always a political one.

Well, Juan, I think that space exploration has become a political football with both sides playing at it.  You are undoubtedly correct about citing those historical protestors.  However, I think there are those on the Republican side who also think NASA is a bloated do-nothing fund-sucking organization whose budget should be trimmed (taxed enough already and all that bit).

The space program started really under Eisenhower, correct?  (Of course, we were building rockets earlier to be used in WWII, but actual space exploration began in the 50's.)  Democratic president Kennedy gave it a big boost.  It perhaps reached its apogee under Republican Nixon.  Both sides DID support space exploration.  Space exploration inspired visionaries like Roddenberry, whose Star Trek captured our fantasy, bolstered the American spirit, made us believe anything is possible. 

I don't take as pessimistic a view as one stated above about young people caring for nothing but Kardashian-related fluff, but I think that as a nation we no longer have as much fire and fervor for space.  I'd love to see that turned around!

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

I've always thought that we should spend freely in the search for intelligent life on earth. Or has somebody already thought of that?

What do you think we should be doing that we aren't doing already?

[aldousburbank]

What do you think we should be doing that we aren't doing already?

Have you seen Idiocracy?  Ok, my idea is that we find some intelligent people to reprogram modern culture, turn this spaceship around toward edifying values, knowledge superseding education, a healthy biosphere replacing a monetized one, and the concept of humanity's quest away from the childish and banal, toward galactic discovery of our greater common selves. This would fix the whole desire to explore new worlds as it would be a primary and common planetary educational endeavor. While this may sound farfetched even to me, it's good to have goals. Does anybody want to sign up for my newsletter?

[West of the Rockies]

Sign me up, bro.  In the words of Dr. Horrible, the status is not quo.  We need an overhaul of the system!

[Juan]

I thought that's what we were doing here at bellgab.com

[West of the Rockies]

Ooops... I misquoted Dr. Horrible; it should be "The status quo is not quo...."

Yes, Juan, we are changing the world here!  And we're not one-at-a-timin' either -- we're mass communicating!

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Have you seen Idiocracy?  Ok, my idea is that we find some intelligent people to reprogram modern culture, turn this spaceship around toward edifying values, knowledge superseding education, a healthy biosphere replacing a monetized one, and the concept of humanity's quest away from the childish and banal, toward galactic discovery of our greater common selves. This would fix the whole desire to explore new worlds as it would be a primary and common planetary educational endeavor. While this may sound farfetched even to me, it's good to have goals. Does anybody want to sign up for my newsletter?

I didn't ask why you thought we should seek out [other?] intelligent life.  You said we should be spending more to do so, and I wondered what we would spend it on.  What program or idea isn't already being funded?  There's even a collaborative effort on the Internet to perform one type of search using unused CPU cycles on your computer.  Are you participating in that?

[aldousburbank]

I didn't ask why you thought we should seek out [other?] intelligent life.  You said we should be spending more to do so, and I wondered what we would spend it on.  What program or idea isn't already being funded?  There's even a collaborative effort on the Internet to perform one type of search using unused CPU cycles on your computer.  Are you participating in that?

Oh I get it. I haven't hooked up with the SETI thang on the computer cuz I'm pretty convinced that's a unicorn hunt on the radio frequencies. However, I have used my own CPU (Controlled Psilocybin Use) to seek out and make contact with alien intelligences. They told me to man up, quit with the shrooms, and to come back here and make some funny, so