Isn't dismantling the space program long overdue?

[ron4711]

How much money was flushed down the toilet on those two shuttles that crashed? Can anyone name one achievement of the program in the post cold war era that was worth the cost? I think you can make an argument that battling the ruskies in the race to the moon was a far better alternative to waging war on the field of battle. With jobs going overseas at a disturbing rate aren't those funds more needed here on the ground?

Do you think NASA puts wads of cash into a rocket and shoots it out into space or another country? There are many industries that work in the aerospace industry , here in the US, and the money goes right back into the economy. The space program creates jobs, not just burger flipping jobs. but jobs for highly educated and talented people that love what they do.

NASA motivates our youth with dreams of a better tomorrow, adventure and the pride of achieving what no other country can. When I was a kid I couldn't put down books about the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs. I didn't wind up being a rocket engineer but a computer programmer. My motivation was the amazing use and development of computer systems that went on in space exploration. I saw that what I strived for could be a part of the great achievements technology could make.

Now I would agree that the use of the shuttles was not the best way to achieve space flight during the thirty years of its service. It turned out to be an expensive, complicated and dangerous system. But even here NASA learned much and developed ISS as well as being able to launch and maintain Hubble.

So do you think we have learned enough and the capability to put satellites in orbit is sufficient for now? Maybe learning to grow food in an enclosed system, life support systems and generating electricity using solar is at a point where we do not need to develop more innovation. Maybe the exploration of space gives us some new knowledge that, though is interesting, does not have practical applications.

But the world keeps changing and if we want to stay ahead we cannot leave the race, China is getting more ambitious. Countries like China, Russia and combined countries of Europe will continue to innovate. What if they discover anything new, it is not like they will keep that info a secret? But the innovation goes deeper than just a presence in space. It is a development of the infrastructure that keeps us in space. Scientist don't launch objects into space because they want to keep their job

When we stop innovating, other countries will take our place and then all the future junk that is being shot into space will be handled by other countries. So pulling out of space development we would be allowing others to become leaders in that realm.

 

[Riverwolf]

Do you think NASA puts wads of cash into a rocket and shoots it out into space or another country? There are many industries that work in the aerospace industry , here in the US, and the money goes right back into the economy. The space program creates jobs, not just burger flipping jobs. but jobs for highly educated and talented people that love what they do.

NASA motivates our youth with dreams of a better tomorrow, adventure and the pride of achieving what no other country can. When I was a kid I couldn't put down books about the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs. I didn't wind up being a rocket engineer but a computer programmer. My motivation was the amazing use and development of computer systems that went on in space exploration. I saw that what I strived for could be a part of the great achievements technology could make.

Now I would agree that the use of the shuttles was not the best way to achieve space flight during the thirty years of its service. It turned out to be an expensive, complicated and dangerous system. But even here NASA learned much and developed ISS as well as being able to launch and maintain Hubble.

So do you think we have learned enough and the capability to put satellites in orbit is sufficient for now? Maybe learning to grow food in an enclosed system, life support systems and generating electricity using solar is at a point where we do not need to develop more innovation. Maybe the exploration of space gives us some new knowledge that, though is interesting, does not have practical applications.

But the world keeps changing and if we want to stay ahead we cannot leave the race, China is getting more ambitious. Countries like China, Russia and combined countries of Europe will continue to innovate. What if they discover anything new, it is not like they will keep that info a secret? But the innovation goes deeper than just a presence in space. It is a development of the infrastructure that keeps us in space. Scientist don't launch objects into space because they want to keep their job

When we stop innovating, other countries will take our place and then all the future junk that is being shot into space will be handled by other countries. So pulling out of space development we would be allowing others to become leaders in that realm.

Though, to be perfectly honest, I don't entirely see anything wrong with that.

 

[YmirGF]

Though, to be perfectly honest, I don't entirely see anything wrong with that.

Other than the old adage of "use it or lose it".

 

[Riverwolf]

Other than the old adage of "use it or lose it".

I mean in terms of "leader"-ness.

I, frankly, don't care much which country is leader of the space program at this point.

 

[apophenia]

I am very surprised that no-one has mentioned energy generation and mineral resources.

During the 1960s Gerard K O'Neill managed a government funded think-tank which investigated these subjects. The think-tank was comprised of graduate engineers who took part in the project as an alternative to writing their own thesis to obtain a Masters Degree. They were asked to answer the question "Is the earth's surface the optimum location for a growing industrial society ?"

It was this effort which produced the mass driver to deliver minerals mined in the asteroid belt (later transformed into the 'rail-gun' for the SDI - Space Defence Initiative) and designs for orbiting solar generators.The generators were to power orbital space industry, and to provide electricity for the earth via microwave transmission.

The answer to the question was a conclusive "No" - for two main reasons. One was that fossil fuels are a finite resource ( peak oil was approaching ) and the other that 95% of all energy used by industrial societies is consumed resisting gravity.

The sun is a 24/7/365 source of energy in space. Efficiency of microwave delivery was then around 38%, probably higher now. Regarding investment, the amortisation schedule was very encouraging, promising cheaper electricity on the ground within a few years of establishing the generators.

The asteroid belt has mineral resources equivalent to thousands of earths.

This is why bases on Mars are so appealing, and why there is an international race to achieve them. The asteroid belt, site of the biggest possible mining operation in human history, is just past Mars ...

Honestly, I am staggered at the naivety of people who actually believe that international governments are spending untold billions of dollars in the name of 'scientific curiosity'. It is a very romantic ideal. And we all know how much the 0.01% love spending big money on romantic ideals, LOL. Cute, understandable, WRONG.

You better hope this works ...

Klaatu Barada Nikto

 

[ron4711]

I mean in terms of "leader"-ness.

I, frankly, don't care much which country is leader of the space program at this point.

Leadership has its advantages. Look at the ISS. The US lead that effort and it included other countries and fostered advances in technology and cooperation.

 

[Riverwolf]

Leadership has its advantages. Look at the ISS. The US lead that effort and it included other countries and fostered advances in technology and cooperation.

Yes, but would it have been a whole lot different if some other country lead the effort?

 

[Musty]

My understanding is that a significant part of the US economy is built on science, engineering and technology.

 

[ron4711]

Yes, but would it have been a whole lot different if some other country lead the effort?

Better or worse? I think it is pretty good for the US the way it happened.

 

[Wirey]

How much money was flushed down the toilet on those two shuttles that crashed? Can anyone name one achievement of the program in the post cold war era that was worth the cost? I think you can make an argument that battling the ruskies in the race to the moon was a far better alternative to waging war on the field of battle. With jobs going overseas at a disturbing rate aren't those funds more needed here on the ground?

Are you wearing a plastic dry cleaning bag over your head? The moon mission was the last time America was united on a single goal. They took on space itself and won. The technological advances made during the space program turned America into the global powerhouse of the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Now, short-sighted people with no ability to think objectively are trying to save a few pennies, and ensuring Chinese dominance of this century through the stagnation of Western scientific ability.

Wanna keep jobs in America? Invest in it. Stop giving away your advantages so you can save $1.50 on a pair of sneakers.

 

[YmirGF]

Wanna keep jobs in America? Invest in it. Stop giving away your advantages so you can save $1.50 on a pair of sneakers.

I think that's a very important point, Wirey. All monies spent on "space" are actually spent right here on Earth, oddly enough. What was it, something like 48 of the 50 states directly contributed to the space program? Is there any other program that can boast those kind of numbers?

 

[dust1n]

NASA spin-off technologies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Riverwolf]

Better or worse? I think it is pretty good for the US the way it happened.

Sure, but the way I see it, space has always been the frontier of all of humanity, and not just any one country. I don't much care which country first sets up permanent research stations on the moon, because it would mean so much for everyone in the long run.

After all, Armstrong said "One giant leap for mankind", not "One giant leap for America."

 

[Penumbra]

Sure, but the way I see it, space has always been the frontier of all of humanity, and not just any one country. I don't much care which country first sets up permanent research stations on the moon, because it would mean so much for everyone in the long run.

After all, Armstrong said "One giant leap for mankind", not "One giant leap for America."

I agree that space is the frontier of humanity rather than one country.

But,

a) Not every country currently has the combination of size and expertise to do extensive space missions. The United States does. If organized towards the effort, the European Union does as well. Russia does, although not as consistently so far, and China may one day be able to create an advanced space program. Other countries may one day be able to. Currently, there are a rather small number of organizations capable of leading very large space projects.

b) If citizens of a given country are discussing about the economic ramifications about cutting or increasing space research, then it's primarily a focus on that country. If Americans don't want to do the work and get the benefits anymore, then they're not going to reap the core technological rewards of doing the work, will not be the center of innovation that they once were, and they can maybe hope that other countries will at least.

So far,
-The U.S. is the country to land people on the moon.
-The U.S. is the country to launch the Hubble Space Telescope (by using a space shuttle, OP), the Spitzer Space Telescope, and is leading the planned launch of the James Webb space telescope with contributions from Europe and Canada.
-The U.S. is the country to launch the two probes that have left the solar system and are still in contact, and also launched the third that will leave the solar system.
-The U.S. is a major contributor to the International Space Station, with other countries.
-Space X, Planetary Resources, Blue Origin, Armadillo Aerospace, Interorbital Systems and Virgin Galactic are headquartered in the US. Virgin Galactic is a subsidiary of Virgin Group, which is in the UK.
-The Global Position System satellites were American developed and launched. Russia has an alternative system called Glonass which is not as extensive.

There's little reason to assume that if the U.S. didn't do these things, that other countries would have done them in as timely a manner. In the future, all countries including the U.S. can either step up and continue to advance human interest in space, or they can hope other countries do it.

For example, the U.S. spent $2+ billion making the world's largest particle accelerator but cancelled the project mid-way through. Years later, Europeans built a comparatively smaller particle accelerator to completion called the Large Hadron Collider which found evidence of the Higgs Boson. So there could have been a larger one, at an earlier time, but Americans decided to waste that money instead.

The great thing of course is that it's not a zero sum game; it's not mutually exclusive. Every advanced country can decide to independently or in partnership with other countries, contribute to space research. Whether the U.S. should greatly increase its space and overall science research or not doesn't mean other countries cannot. I believe all advanced countries would do well by increasing scientific research.

 

[Aquitaine]

I agree that space is the frontier of humanity rather than one country.

But,

a) Not every country currently has the combination of size and expertise to do extensive space missions. The United States does. If organized towards the effort, the European Union does as well. Russia does, although not as consistently so far, and China may one day be able to create an advanced space program. Other countries may one day be able to. Currently, there are a rather small number of organizations capable of leading very large space projects.

b) If citizens of a given country are discussing about the economic ramifications about cutting or increasing space research, then it's primarily a focus on that country. If Americans don't want to do the work and get the benefits anymore, then they're not going to reap the core technological rewards of doing the work, will not be the center of innovation that they once were, and they can maybe hope that other countries will at least.

So far,
-The U.S. is the country to land people on the moon.
-The U.S. is the country to launch the Hubble Space Telescope (by using a space shuttle, OP), the Spitzer Space Telescope, and is leading the planned launch of the James Webb space telescope with contributions from Europe and Canada.
-The U.S. is the country to launch the two probes that have left the solar system and are still in contact, and also launched the third that will leave the solar system.
-The U.S. is a major contributor to the International Space Station, with other countries.
-Space X, Planetary Resources, Blue Origin, Armadillo Aerospace, Interorbital Systems and Virgin Galactic are headquartered in the US. Virgin Galactic is a subsidiary of Virgin Group, which is in the UK.
-The Global Position System satellites were American developed and launched. Russia has an alternative system called Glonass which is not as extensive.

There's little reason to assume that if the U.S. didn't do these things, that other countries would have done them in as timely a manner. In the future, all countries including the U.S. can either step up and continue to advance human interest in space, or they can hope other countries do it.

For example, the U.S. spent $2+ billion making the world's largest particle accelerator but cancelled the project mid-way through. Years later, Europeans built a comparatively smaller particle accelerator to completion called the Large Hadron Collider which found evidence of the Higgs Boson. So there could have been a larger one, at an earlier time, but Americans decided to waste that money instead.

The great thing of course is that it's not a zero sum game; it's not mutually exclusive. Every advanced country can decide to independently or in partnership with other countries, contribute to space research. Whether the U.S. should greatly increase its space and overall science research or not doesn't mean other countries cannot. I believe all advanced countries would do well by increasing scientific research.

Less money on Wars, more money on Science ^_^

 

[Riverwolf]

I agree that space is the frontier of humanity rather than one country.

But,

a) Not every country currently has the combination of size and expertise to do extensive space missions. The United States does. If organized towards the effort, the European Union does as well. Russia does, although not as consistently so far, and China may one day be able to create an advanced space program. Other countries may one day be able to. Currently, there are a rather small number of organizations capable of leading very large space projects.

b) If citizens of a given country are discussing about the economic ramifications about cutting or increasing space research, then it's primarily a focus on that country. If Americans don't want to do the work and get the benefits anymore, then they're not going to reap the core technological rewards of doing the work, will not be the center of innovation that they once were, and they can maybe hope that other countries will at least.

So far,
-The U.S. is the country to land people on the moon.
-The U.S. is the country to launch the Hubble Space Telescope (by using a space shuttle, OP), the Spitzer Space Telescope, and is leading the planned launch of the James Webb space telescope with contributions from Europe and Canada.
-The U.S. is the country to launch the two probes that have left the solar system and are still in contact, and also launched the third that will leave the solar system.
-The U.S. is a major contributor to the International Space Station, with other countries.
-Space X, Planetary Resources, Blue Origin, Armadillo Aerospace, Interorbital Systems and Virgin Galactic are headquartered in the US. Virgin Galactic is a subsidiary of Virgin Group, which is in the UK.
-The Global Position System satellites were American developed and launched. Russia has an alternative system called Glonass which is not as extensive.

There's little reason to assume that if the U.S. didn't do these things, that other countries would have done them in as timely a manner. In the future, all countries including the U.S. can either step up and continue to advance human interest in space, or they can hope other countries do it.

For example, the U.S. spent $2+ billion making the world's largest particle accelerator but cancelled the project mid-way through. Years later, Europeans built a comparatively smaller particle accelerator to completion called the Large Hadron Collider which found evidence of the Higgs Boson. So there could have been a larger one, at an earlier time, but Americans decided to waste that money instead.

The great thing of course is that it's not a zero sum game; it's not mutually exclusive. Every advanced country can decide to independently or in partnership with other countries, contribute to space research. Whether the U.S. should greatly increase its space and overall science research or not doesn't mean other countries cannot. I believe all advanced countries would do well by increasing scientific research.

I don't disagree at all with what you've said. ^_^

I just don't balk at the idea that the US won't one day be the leader of space exploration.

 

[Ouroboros]

How much money was flushed down the toilet on those two shuttles that crashed? Can anyone name one achievement of the program in the post cold war era that was worth the cost?

There are plenty. Google is your friend.

NASA technology helped improve pacemakers, for one thing.

I think you can make an argument that battling the ruskies in the race to the moon was a far better alternative to waging war on the field of battle. With jobs going overseas at a disturbing rate aren't those funds more needed here on the ground?

The space program costs a tiny fraction of any of the health, welfare, or military. Besides, NASA has an even smaller percent of the budget now than in the 70's or 80's.

NASA costs you about $5 a month. That's only one MacDonald's meal per month. Then compare that to how much was spent on fixing the banks and their corruption...

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_money_is_spent_on_space_exploration_each_year

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Less money on Wars, more money on Science ^_^

And equally on the arts....

Hey, I'm just saying.

 

[Revoltingest]

And equally on the arts....
Hey, I'm just saying.

Of course, the arts are easier to do on a shoestring than space exploration, which is a massively expensive collaborative affair.
But fear not fair wench...I've an olive branch to hand you. I nominate you to choreograph the first dance piece done on the moon.
Imagine the possibilities of such low gravity!

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Of course, the arts are easier to do on a shoestring than space exploration, which is a massively expensive collaborative affair.
But fear not fair wench...I've an olive branch to hand you. I nominate you to choreograph the first dance piece done on the moon.
Imagine the possibilities of such low gravity!

Awww, thanks!

I don't have to hold my breath the whole time, do I?