A big part of the space program, I think, is the drama of manned flight. The shuttles gave that with a vessel that could be reused. They were ships, not capsules; they had names, and they would sail again and again.
But for orbit work a disposable launch vehicle is the most economical, and a robotic retreival system for dying satellites is prefered if the satelite can be returned after refurbishing.
However...unless we are staging elsewhere there is no reson to go into space or to the moon. Mining? There are plenty of minerals on earth cheaper to find and mine, even if the supply run is a semi over a frozen Canadian lake in the dead of winter.
And staging elsewhere is a settlement colony, then what is the point of that if it costs millions to keep a miner alive to extract what could be extracted in the low four digits here? This isn't a case of sending a few overburdened tramp sailing ships to see what is out there.
It is hard, it is dangerous, and the return for doing so?
The space program is one of those things where a Reaganite can happliy break Burkean conservatism. Why would anyone, when offered the possibility of exploration of the universe, and the unraveling of countless unknown treasures it has to offer, want to sit in the corner and count their pennies and lament how awful it is that we're not being more... ugh!... practical? Have you no blood in your veins Mike?
It's hard
Oh, boo-hoo. There was a time when Americans thought having a work ethic was a virtue.
it is dangerous
So is driving home from the mall, and I don't see a whole lot of people clamoring for that to stop.
Everything you've said could have been said by Isabella with equal accuracy. There was nothing expected from the New World that could not be obtained in the Old, and cheaper. (And contrary to your attempt to say otherwise, those dirty little ships cost a crapload in 1492, especially when compared to the average wage.)
There was originally little practical rationale for leaving Boston or Philadelphia or New York, for Tennessee or Missouri or California. (The gold rush especially was a fool's errand, but the dirt they all washed away is now worth billions more than all the gold ever found there.) Luckily, there is always someone who believes there might be value in taking a risk.
After all we have earned from our risk-taking, was America worth it?
But TBR, all colonial efforts (as opposed those aimed at to dropping undesirables elsewhere) were cost-benefit ratios. And prestige, too, but not at no cost is too high.
To get a colonial program, and an extra-solar exploration program, going we will need a power source to lift a decent cargo above the earth. The shuttle and it's 1970's tech isn't the answer. It can't fly to the moon and return; it is too expensive a launch platform. Prestige? Yeah, we've done that. Now what do we need to get a real reliable reusable ship out of earth that can cheaply carry the cargo to make a useful interplanetary vessel?
We haven't got the lighter done yet; the galleon is going to take a lot of time.
The problem TBR, is that there just isn't a compelling reason to send squishy human beings anywhere in space aside from just being able to say that we've done so. The comparison with Columbus is silly (we're simply not going to have large scale colonies other planets and there is no real productive purpose to doing so), and the claim that we've seen lots of side benefits is just plain dishonest (its not like technological innovation only happens in the process of sending humans to space: heck, you want to spend money, spend it on technological innovation directly).
And Tennessee and California then were a heck of a lot more hospitable to life - like breathing - than low orbit, ot the moon, or Mars are now. And a pack-trader and three mules were not expensive in the 1700's, and a clipper was fairly cheap in the 1800's.
And a bunch of peasants on three coasters, to be paid when they got back? Really beneath price. Especially when compared to the prices paid to get the same goods over the silk road and then through a hostile Med.
The environmental hostility and the workings of gravity are the costs that must be endured, and that is going to take a load of time.
Even though I want star-cruisers now; I want to see the launch of a star package-freighter before I die, and here the tales of a tramp crew planet-side for an overhaul.
However...unless we are staging elsewhere there is no reson to go into space or to the moon.
Helium-3 is a very promising reason to start going into space. With cheap and efficient fusion generators we could solve our energy problems. Granted, it needs more research...
The Cost/Benefit ratio of surviving a planetary nuclear war as well as the ever hotter Sun, thus ensuring that life which originated on Earth isn't so easily extinguished seems to favor the 'benefit' side rather heavily...
"thus ensuring that life which originated on Earth isn't so easily extinguished seems to favor the 'benefit' side rather heavily..."
Honestly, we are probably more likely to get off the planet for real if we spend all our time and energy on developing really really good technology rather than spending all our money on useless vanity flights with only incrementally advanced tech.
The problem TBR, is that there just isn't a compelling reason to send squishy human beings anywhere in space aside from just being able to say that we've done so. The comparison with Columbus is silly (we're simply not going to have large scale colonies other planets and there is no real productive purpose to doing so), and the claim that we've seen lots of side benefits is just plain dishonest (its not like technological innovation only happens in the process of sending humans to space: heck, you want to spend money, spend it on technological innovation directly).
Um, Vic, were you dropped on your head as a small child, or merely bitten by an Estes model a long time ago? :))
Only someone completely ignorant of space development would claim that there have been no genuine spinoffs; and, no, I'm not talking about Tang or Teflon. And for your complaint that we should spend funds on innovation directly, most of the useful spinoffs have been serendpitous. One cannot -by definition- plan for unexpected benefits; one may merely take advantage of them. I'll admit that's really a secondary benefit to space travel, but don't blow it off so casually...
As for "there just isn't a compelling reason to send squishy human beings anywhere in space" Feh! There's no reason (as TBR pointed out) that we should go to those horrible wastelands known as Iceland, or Vinland, either.
Vic obviously forgets that Columbus wasn't searching for colonies, but for wealth. Virtually all of the original European explorers were interested in profit, pure and simple. It wasn't until Elizabethan times that Englishmen started looking at North America as an opportunity for "strange, new worlds." And Mike, the first Virginian colonies died out, and thousands of colonists perished over the next several centuries. Remember the Donner Party? America's frontier was a very deadly place for a very long time.
You can argue cost/benefit all day long, but the elemental question is very simple: what language do you want star explorers to speak? If you prefer English, then America has to get started again. If, on the other hand you prefer (say) Mandarin, just keep sitting on your hands. China has been taking their usual "generational" approach to this. Y'all do know that China has been sending men into space, right? They remember what many people in America have forgotton: the lesson of Vinland. Of Portugal, for that matter, too.
It's not who gets there first, it's who stays.
Or (to put it another way):
The meek will inherit the earth.
The rest of us will go to the stars...
Why? For what reason? And why now? The New World was a fertile place for humans to live and grow and exploit. Space, on the other hand, is just plain horrible for human beings. That doesn't mean that there aren't tons of great things to do in space. It's just that spending ridiculous amounts of extra time and energy to put HUMANS there is a waste of time and resources that could be better spent elsewhere. The Chinese are putting people in space to stroke their bruised egos at being Jonny come lateleys to national greatness. Let them.
And no, I wasn't dropped on my head as a child. I just happen to realize that spinoff technology is an exceedingly silly post hoc justification for the space program qua space program. And the argument that "most of the useful spin offs have been serendipitous" is even sillier. It's not like serendipity magically happens ONLY in space exploration R&D. You get unexpected benefits from ANYTHING you spend that sort of research and development money on: there's nothing special about the problems of space travel in that regard. At the very least we can spend money on some actually useful line of development (like robotics and AI) and then reap all the unexpected benefits from that as well.
"You can argue cost/benefit all day long, but the elemental question is very simple: what language do you want star explorers to speak?"
Given that space doesn't speak any language at all other than radiation, who the hell cares?
We've already sent people into space and spoken like, English on the moon. The moon, however, doesn't gives a rats ass.
You get unexpected benefits from ANYTHING you spend that sort of research and development money on: there's nothing special about the problems of space travel in that regard.
Sure there, is and it's the very reason you use to poo-poo my argument. Space is a very harsh place, and to conquer it you need to develop some very good answers regarding life support (light, pressure, temperature, etc). Because earth is naturally suited to sustaining our lives we are not forced to make these kinds of advances when studying other fields, like your example of robotics. It's not just pure luck that we stumble across these side benefits, advances usually occur in some way related to the area of study. Ask scientists studying the poles or the deep sea how much their work has advanced because we went into space - those are the extremes right here on earth that experience similar issues.
And yes, we might have achieved some of the same advances if we'd funded those scientists' work directly, but you run into two truths if you point that out: 1) People are far less likely to fund those fields, because some people are even less adventurous than you and don't see the benefit there - but the excitement of space travel is something they are willing to support, and probably more important 2) Space is so extreme we need to solve all the problems at same time. We have a breeding ground for solving many different questions simultaneously.
But as Martin so eloquently points out, I don't expect I'll be able to convince you. And I hope you never convince me, because that'd be a sad earth to live on, IMHO.
I guess in Vic Stein's world, we should only explore space when Earth is no more which by that time, we wouldn't be here either.
To me, the very size and scope of the universe is enough to compel me support spending on space exploration. Here we are, this glowing blue, white, and brown ball orbiting around a ball of fire that dominates our very existence. And this solar system we live in is just insignificant in the galaxy we reside in. Rewards goes without saying when leaping into the universe.
"It's not just pure luck that we stumble across these side benefits, advances usually occur in some way related to the area of study."
You guys can't even make up your minds. First these things are serendipitous, and then they are predictably linked to a field of study. Apparently, it's whatever it needs to be to provide magic benefits with no opportunity costs or substitutes.
The reality is simpler when you fund pure research into ANY set of hard or interesting problems (and space is hardly the only difficult problem in the universe) you get lots of interesting and, yes, unpredictable innovation and discovery. Again, you've provided little actual reason as to why space is special. It's harsh on humans. Big whoop.
And no, we're NOT any poorer off for not sending more and more people into space: you never bother to factor in the opportunity costs. If we had scrapped the shuttle program, we almost certainly would have Mars and other planets crawling with robot explorers right now. These missions are so much cheaper and so much more productive that it's not even funny.
"I guess in Vic Stein's world, we should only explore space when Earth is no more which by that time, we wouldn't be here either. "
A silly straw man: I'm all for exploring the universe. In fact, the ridiculous obsession with sending humans into places they can't live has clearly HINDERED that goal: what do you think got gutted to pay for Bush's Man to Mars mission?
It's just that at the moment and until we solve some very fundamental problems with physics and biology, sending one or two people into space is pointless. Someday we'll solve those problems, but only if we focus on THEM while meanwhile exploring the universe in a far far more powerful and effective way (i.e. with telescopes and unmanned missions).
"And this solar system we live in is just insignificant in the galaxy we reside in. "
Yes yes Vic it is a silly strawman. I love throwing them out there when I hear or read something silly like this:
It's just that spending ridiculous amounts of extra time and energy to put HUMANS there is a waste of time and resources that could be better spent elsewhere.
That can be said about any initiative. Better here than there. Better up than down. The larger issue is that humans are explorers. We are at our best many times when we are exploring. Space is frontier infinite. Exploration leads to discovery. Discovery leads to opportunity. So on and so forth. Heck I'd rather see coast-to-coast high-speed rail but since we launching an outdated glider to space before my dream rail, then space must be of suitable priority, eh? So I'm going to get stupid and say that space is of higher priority that coast-to-coast high-speed rail so we should do a better job of space travel. So there smart guy! :p
We are lots of things. This isn't an argument. And there's plenty we haven't explored right here on the earth. Where are our colonies on Mt. Everest? 20,000 Leagues under the Sea? Why aren't you pushing for those to happen? You paint it as if your pet endeavor is the only glorious thing humanity can spend its time and energy on.
"We are at our best many times when we are exploring."
But the great thing about our new grasp of technology is that we can explore space far far better with machines and scopes than we can with ships full of oxygen and poop.
Someday, we may have both the technology and a reason to head to the stars. Right now we really don't have either. We can send a handful of folks into space, but there really isn't much for them to do there other than go "wow, look, I'm in space!" Folks are welcome to do that of course, but there's no pressing need for the government to fund it. If an asteroid hits while we've got three people on the moon, the human race is just as over as if they hadn't been there.
C'mon Vic, stop taking all the arguments everyone is making and boiling them into some kind of despised minestrone of your own making.
I never advocated the shuttle as an ideal, I actually agree with Dean that it needs to be replaced. But when Mike decided to change the topic of the thread to, "Why are we in space in the first place?" I took the bait and responded to that.
Similarly, if you wanted to argue manned vs. unmanned, you took a real long route to get there. I also wouldn't mind changing the balance of funding to concentrate more on unmanned exploration. But I think there are also good reasons to maintain the manned program. Not the least of those reasons is that without a manned program it's not very likely that NASA would get any funding at all for an unmanned program. Once you've convinced people that man shouldn't go into space, it's hard to turn around and explain how you really DO want a space program with probes and telescopes. Most people aren't going to bother with that kind of subtlety, and when it comes time to suck off The Great Teat, most Congressmen will want something they can condense onto a bumper sticker. If you want a better balance, I'm more than willing to fight that fight alongside you, but you gotta stop swatting the flies with a sledgehammer by saying man doesn't belong in space.
Why not alter your argument to say NASA should develop programs that help private enterprise put humans in space (if anyone wants to) while concentrating their own efforts on unmanned programs? That way you get your way - minimal government expense and no government personnel - without telling everyone who wants a manned program to piss on their dreams. Or is the whole point to piss on people's dreams?
Lastly, I said exploration yields unexpected results, even when it seemed impractical at first. I never said the benefits were random. It was YOU who first used the word "serendipity", and I responded directly to you with clarification consistent with my own statements. Don't blame me for inconsistency when it was your argument that blew things out of proportion.
The space shuttle has proven much less economical, much less reliable, and much more dangerous than any of the launch systems it replaced. And has proven to be incapable of most of the things it was supposed to be able to do.
Actually, the Space Shuttle is statistically the safest, most reliable manned spacecraft to ever fly. It beats the Russian Soyuz vehicle by a small amount. Both have had two fatal accidents, but the Shuttle has flown 118 times vs. 96 times for the Soyuz. While Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo killed fewer astronauts (Apollo killed three before it even left the ground), they flew so many fewer times than either the Shuttle or the Soyuz that they're actually less reliable using Bayesian predicted reliability statistics (a statistical method to compare probabilities over varying occurrences):
Even as a pure launch vehicle, the Space Shuttle is one of the most reliable ever built, up there with Delta II and Atlas II. Where exactly it falls depends on how you classify certain Delta and Atlas missions where the payload fell short of the intended orbit but was able to achieve orbit and fulfill its mission on its own.
Even in the price/pound-to-orbit category, Shuttle stacks up reasonably well when you factor in the mass of the crew, crew cabin, life support system, robot arm, etc. which are usually considered payload on expendable launch vehicles but not for the Shuttle.
It's much less safe and reliable than intended, yes, but the Space Shuttle has its competition beat hands down in actual practice.
Part of the confusion comes from the fact that no one really knows how to determine the cost of a Shuttle launch. What they used to do was take the current annual Shuttle budget and divide by the number of launches during that year.
Yes, I know, it's a silly way to run accounting, but that seems to be the favorite method. Since NASA isn't constructed to handle accounting in the same manner as a for-profit company, it's difficult to compare apples to apples.
Another point I don't think anyone has raised yet: while the Shuttle may be the most reliable launch vehicle in operation, it's still less safe than commercial air travel by at least two orders of magnitude.
"Why not alter your argument to say NASA should develop programs that help private enterprise put humans in space (if anyone wants to) while concentrating their own efforts on unmanned programs? That way you get your way - minimal government expense and no government personnel - without telling everyone who wants a manned program to piss on their dreams. Or is the whole point to piss on people's dreams?"
Oh good grief. Lots of us have all sorts of different dreams. You guys are the ones who think that your dreams have some sort of special importance.
Dream away: and fund all you want! Just don't gut legitimate science and research (which is EXACTLY what the Mars program has done), or claim all sorts of benefits that just aren't there from the specifically human side of exploration. Going to space just isn't like colonizing the new world. For one thing, there's no atmosphere. Ok? And significant numbers of people just aren't going to live or travel there in anything approaching the near future (not just because of technology either: mostly just because no one can come up with a good reason to justify it)
"It was YOU who first used the word "serendipity","
Actually, not it wasn't (though it wasn't you either). I'd never ever think to use that big of a word on my own. :)
McKiernan: I have a hard time counting the fire on the ground that the Apollo experienced since it didn't happen during flight. Regardless, what is the source for your figures?
In any case, we have lost half our shuttle fleet, on a far lower number of missions than was ever promised.
I am bemused that the purpose of this thread--the terrible performance of the shuttle and the better things that the money could be used for to keep putting people into space--has been sidetracked.
I take it as a given that manned flight is a necessity for the program. My take is that the shuttle's been a horrible decades-long blunder in the wrong direction. The history of how much about them was overpromised just adds emphasis to that.
6.24.2007 2:26pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
But for orbit work a disposable launch vehicle is the most economical, and a robotic retreival system for dying satellites is prefered if the satelite can be returned after refurbishing.
However...unless we are staging elsewhere there is no reson to go into space or to the moon. Mining? There are plenty of minerals on earth cheaper to find and mine, even if the supply run is a semi over a frozen Canadian lake in the dead of winter.
And staging elsewhere is a settlement colony, then what is the point of that if it costs millions to keep a miner alive to extract what could be extracted in the low four digits here? This isn't a case of sending a few overburdened tramp sailing ships to see what is out there.
It is hard, it is dangerous, and the return for doing so?
THAT (500 flights per shuttle life) number was used to justify the 5B projected cost, which balooned at the time of the article to 16B.
I've alwasy been a BIG supporter of space exploration, but that seems quite insane.
It's hard
Oh, boo-hoo. There was a time when Americans thought having a work ethic was a virtue.
it is dangerous
So is driving home from the mall, and I don't see a whole lot of people clamoring for that to stop.
and the return for doing so?
Thank you for asking (and that's a short list)
Everything you've said could have been said by Isabella with equal accuracy. There was nothing expected from the New World that could not be obtained in the Old, and cheaper. (And contrary to your attempt to say otherwise, those dirty little ships cost a crapload in 1492, especially when compared to the average wage.)
There was originally little practical rationale for leaving Boston or Philadelphia or New York, for Tennessee or Missouri or California. (The gold rush especially was a fool's errand, but the dirt they all washed away is now worth billions more than all the gold ever found there.) Luckily, there is always someone who believes there might be value in taking a risk.
After all we have earned from our risk-taking, was America worth it?
PIMF
To get a colonial program, and an extra-solar exploration program, going we will need a power source to lift a decent cargo above the earth. The shuttle and it's 1970's tech isn't the answer. It can't fly to the moon and return; it is too expensive a launch platform. Prestige? Yeah, we've done that. Now what do we need to get a real reliable reusable ship out of earth that can cheaply carry the cargo to make a useful interplanetary vessel?
We haven't got the lighter done yet; the galleon is going to take a lot of time.
And a bunch of peasants on three coasters, to be paid when they got back? Really beneath price. Especially when compared to the prices paid to get the same goods over the silk road and then through a hostile Med.
The environmental hostility and the workings of gravity are the costs that must be endured, and that is going to take a load of time.
Even though I want star-cruisers now; I want to see the launch of a star package-freighter before I die, and here the tales of a tramp crew planet-side for an overhaul.
Helium-3 is a very promising reason to start going into space. With cheap and efficient fusion generators we could solve our energy problems. Granted, it needs more research...
Honestly, we are probably more likely to get off the planet for real if we spend all our time and energy on developing really really good technology rather than spending all our money on useless vanity flights with only incrementally advanced tech.
Only someone completely ignorant of space development would claim that there have been no genuine spinoffs; and, no, I'm not talking about Tang or Teflon. And for your complaint that we should spend funds on innovation directly, most of the useful spinoffs have been serendpitous. One cannot -by definition- plan for unexpected benefits; one may merely take advantage of them. I'll admit that's really a secondary benefit to space travel, but don't blow it off so casually...
As for "there just isn't a compelling reason to send squishy human beings anywhere in space" Feh! There's no reason (as TBR pointed out) that we should go to those horrible wastelands known as Iceland, or Vinland, either.
Vic obviously forgets that Columbus wasn't searching for colonies, but for wealth. Virtually all of the original European explorers were interested in profit, pure and simple. It wasn't until Elizabethan times that Englishmen started looking at North America as an opportunity for "strange, new worlds." And Mike, the first Virginian colonies died out, and thousands of colonists perished over the next several centuries. Remember the Donner Party? America's frontier was a very deadly place for a very long time.
You can argue cost/benefit all day long, but the elemental question is very simple: what language do you want star explorers to speak? If you prefer English, then America has to get started again. If, on the other hand you prefer (say) Mandarin, just keep sitting on your hands. China has been taking their usual "generational" approach to this. Y'all do know that China has been sending men into space, right? They remember what many people in America have forgotton: the lesson of Vinland. Of Portugal, for that matter, too.
It's not who gets there first, it's who stays.
Or (to put it another way):
Why? For what reason? And why now? The New World was a fertile place for humans to live and grow and exploit. Space, on the other hand, is just plain horrible for human beings. That doesn't mean that there aren't tons of great things to do in space. It's just that spending ridiculous amounts of extra time and energy to put HUMANS there is a waste of time and resources that could be better spent elsewhere. The Chinese are putting people in space to stroke their bruised egos at being Jonny come lateleys to national greatness. Let them.
And no, I wasn't dropped on my head as a child. I just happen to realize that spinoff technology is an exceedingly silly post hoc justification for the space program qua space program. And the argument that "most of the useful spin offs have been serendipitous" is even sillier. It's not like serendipity magically happens ONLY in space exploration R&D. You get unexpected benefits from ANYTHING you spend that sort of research and development money on: there's nothing special about the problems of space travel in that regard. At the very least we can spend money on some actually useful line of development (like robotics and AI) and then reap all the unexpected benefits from that as well.
"You can argue cost/benefit all day long, but the elemental question is very simple: what language do you want star explorers to speak?"
Given that space doesn't speak any language at all other than radiation, who the hell cares?
We've already sent people into space and spoken like, English on the moon. The moon, however, doesn't gives a rats ass.
Sure there, is and it's the very reason you use to poo-poo my argument. Space is a very harsh place, and to conquer it you need to develop some very good answers regarding life support (light, pressure, temperature, etc). Because earth is naturally suited to sustaining our lives we are not forced to make these kinds of advances when studying other fields, like your example of robotics. It's not just pure luck that we stumble across these side benefits, advances usually occur in some way related to the area of study. Ask scientists studying the poles or the deep sea how much their work has advanced because we went into space - those are the extremes right here on earth that experience similar issues.
And yes, we might have achieved some of the same advances if we'd funded those scientists' work directly, but you run into two truths if you point that out: 1) People are far less likely to fund those fields, because some people are even less adventurous than you and don't see the benefit there - but the excitement of space travel is something they are willing to support, and probably more important 2) Space is so extreme we need to solve all the problems at same time. We have a breeding ground for solving many different questions simultaneously.
But as Martin so eloquently points out, I don't expect I'll be able to convince you. And I hope you never convince me, because that'd be a sad earth to live on, IMHO.
-Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky-Kaluga
To me, the very size and scope of the universe is enough to compel me support spending on space exploration. Here we are, this glowing blue, white, and brown ball orbiting around a ball of fire that dominates our very existence. And this solar system we live in is just insignificant in the galaxy we reside in. Rewards goes without saying when leaping into the universe.
You guys can't even make up your minds. First these things are serendipitous, and then they are predictably linked to a field of study. Apparently, it's whatever it needs to be to provide magic benefits with no opportunity costs or substitutes.
The reality is simpler when you fund pure research into ANY set of hard or interesting problems (and space is hardly the only difficult problem in the universe) you get lots of interesting and, yes, unpredictable innovation and discovery. Again, you've provided little actual reason as to why space is special. It's harsh on humans. Big whoop.
And no, we're NOT any poorer off for not sending more and more people into space: you never bother to factor in the opportunity costs. If we had scrapped the shuttle program, we almost certainly would have Mars and other planets crawling with robot explorers right now. These missions are so much cheaper and so much more productive that it's not even funny.
"I guess in Vic Stein's world, we should only explore space when Earth is no more which by that time, we wouldn't be here either. "
A silly straw man: I'm all for exploring the universe. In fact, the ridiculous obsession with sending humans into places they can't live has clearly HINDERED that goal: what do you think got gutted to pay for Bush's Man to Mars mission?
It's just that at the moment and until we solve some very fundamental problems with physics and biology, sending one or two people into space is pointless. Someday we'll solve those problems, but only if we focus on THEM while meanwhile exploring the universe in a far far more powerful and effective way (i.e. with telescopes and unmanned missions).
"And this solar system we live in is just insignificant in the galaxy we reside in. "
:rolleyes:
That can be said about any initiative. Better here than there. Better up than down. The larger issue is that humans are explorers. We are at our best many times when we are exploring. Space is frontier infinite. Exploration leads to discovery. Discovery leads to opportunity. So on and so forth. Heck I'd rather see coast-to-coast high-speed rail but since we launching an outdated glider to space before my dream rail, then space must be of suitable priority, eh? So I'm going to get stupid and say that space is of higher priority that coast-to-coast high-speed rail so we should do a better job of space travel. So there smart guy! :p
We are lots of things. This isn't an argument. And there's plenty we haven't explored right here on the earth. Where are our colonies on Mt. Everest? 20,000 Leagues under the Sea? Why aren't you pushing for those to happen? You paint it as if your pet endeavor is the only glorious thing humanity can spend its time and energy on.
"We are at our best many times when we are exploring."
But the great thing about our new grasp of technology is that we can explore space far far better with machines and scopes than we can with ships full of oxygen and poop.
Someday, we may have both the technology and a reason to head to the stars. Right now we really don't have either. We can send a handful of folks into space, but there really isn't much for them to do there other than go "wow, look, I'm in space!" Folks are welcome to do that of course, but there's no pressing need for the government to fund it. If an asteroid hits while we've got three people on the moon, the human race is just as over as if they hadn't been there.
I never advocated the shuttle as an ideal, I actually agree with Dean that it needs to be replaced. But when Mike decided to change the topic of the thread to, "Why are we in space in the first place?" I took the bait and responded to that.
Similarly, if you wanted to argue manned vs. unmanned, you took a real long route to get there. I also wouldn't mind changing the balance of funding to concentrate more on unmanned exploration. But I think there are also good reasons to maintain the manned program. Not the least of those reasons is that without a manned program it's not very likely that NASA would get any funding at all for an unmanned program. Once you've convinced people that man shouldn't go into space, it's hard to turn around and explain how you really DO want a space program with probes and telescopes. Most people aren't going to bother with that kind of subtlety, and when it comes time to suck off The Great Teat, most Congressmen will want something they can condense onto a bumper sticker. If you want a better balance, I'm more than willing to fight that fight alongside you, but you gotta stop swatting the flies with a sledgehammer by saying man doesn't belong in space.
Why not alter your argument to say NASA should develop programs that help private enterprise put humans in space (if anyone wants to) while concentrating their own efforts on unmanned programs? That way you get your way - minimal government expense and no government personnel - without telling everyone who wants a manned program to piss on their dreams. Or is the whole point to piss on people's dreams?
Lastly, I said exploration yields unexpected results, even when it seemed impractical at first. I never said the benefits were random. It was YOU who first used the word "serendipity", and I responded directly to you with clarification consistent with my own statements. Don't blame me for inconsistency when it was your argument that blew things out of proportion.
Actually, the Space Shuttle is statistically the safest, most reliable manned spacecraft to ever fly. It beats the Russian Soyuz vehicle by a small amount. Both have had two fatal accidents, but the Shuttle has flown 118 times vs. 96 times for the Soyuz. While Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo killed fewer astronauts (Apollo killed three before it even left the ground), they flew so many fewer times than either the Shuttle or the Soyuz that they're actually less reliable using Bayesian predicted reliability statistics (a statistical method to compare probabilities over varying occurrences):
.967 Shuttle
.959 Soyuz
.941 Apollo
.917 Gemini
.875 Mercury
.875 Vostok
.750 Voskhod
Even as a pure launch vehicle, the Space Shuttle is one of the most reliable ever built, up there with Delta II and Atlas II. Where exactly it falls depends on how you classify certain Delta and Atlas missions where the payload fell short of the intended orbit but was able to achieve orbit and fulfill its mission on its own.
Even in the price/pound-to-orbit category, Shuttle stacks up reasonably well when you factor in the mass of the crew, crew cabin, life support system, robot arm, etc. which are usually considered payload on expendable launch vehicles but not for the Shuttle.
It's much less safe and reliable than intended, yes, but the Space Shuttle has its competition beat hands down in actual practice.
Mike
Part of the confusion comes from the fact that no one really knows how to determine the cost of a Shuttle launch. What they used to do was take the current annual Shuttle budget and divide by the number of launches during that year.
Yes, I know, it's a silly way to run accounting, but that seems to be the favorite method. Since NASA isn't constructed to handle accounting in the same manner as a for-profit company, it's difficult to compare apples to apples.
Another point I don't think anyone has raised yet: while the Shuttle may be the most reliable launch vehicle in operation, it's still less safe than commercial air travel by at least two orders of magnitude.
Oh good grief. Lots of us have all sorts of different dreams. You guys are the ones who think that your dreams have some sort of special importance.
Dream away: and fund all you want! Just don't gut legitimate science and research (which is EXACTLY what the Mars program has done), or claim all sorts of benefits that just aren't there from the specifically human side of exploration. Going to space just isn't like colonizing the new world. For one thing, there's no atmosphere. Ok? And significant numbers of people just aren't going to live or travel there in anything approaching the near future (not just because of technology either: mostly just because no one can come up with a good reason to justify it)
"It was YOU who first used the word "serendipity","
Actually, not it wasn't (though it wasn't you either). I'd never ever think to use that big of a word on my own. :)
Good points. It was overpromised, but it's the best anyone's been able to do.
In any case, we have lost half our shuttle fleet, on a far lower number of missions than was ever promised.
I am bemused that the purpose of this thread--the terrible performance of the shuttle and the better things that the money could be used for to keep putting people into space--has been sidetracked.
I take it as a given that manned flight is a necessity for the program. My take is that the shuttle's been a horrible decades-long blunder in the wrong direction. The history of how much about them was overpromised just adds emphasis to that.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.