Forbes: NASA needs a mission

zakur · 4th February 2003, 05:14 PM

Quote:

But, more than money, NASA needs a clear vision of what it should be and what it should do. Without a driving sense of mission, space travel isn't going to yield much science or technology.

Quote:

That's not to say we should ground our astronauts. Dreams and scientific discovery are hard to come by, and $15 billion is only a sliver of the $2.2 trillion national budget. But spending it on a glorified ferry service is a waste of money. If we're going to dream, we should do so on a grander scale. If we're going to send people into space, we should go boldly or not go at all.

Goshawk · 4th February 2003, 08:16 PM

Awfully nice of him to go spending somebody else's money like that. "Quit pissing the budget away on routine shuttle flights--let's go to Mars!"

5th February 2003, 08:23 AM

If people want to go into space, for whatever reason, then how about their mission be to allow them to do it as cheaply and safely as possible?

I don't mean putting astronauts in space, I mean actual people. Space Tourists. That's not possible yet and it would take too much money, I would think, for private firms to be the ones to do it, yet it would be highly profitable once developed, I'd think.

The technology developed would work for all kinds of things. The thing is not that there isn't anything useful to do in space, it's that it's way too expensive such that it's not worth actually doing most of the time. Just can't justify the expense instead of spending the money elsewhere.

Developing practical spaceflight for more normal people and increasing the ability to put more weight in space at a lower price seems to be absolutely the most practical possible thing to do, and it is almost 100% compatible for future missions such as going to Mars and/or establishing a station on the moon.

And yet it would be profitable, and it would directly and appreciably make people's lives better both by letting them do what they want (space tourism), and in the other uses for the technology developed (who knows what).

Seems perfect to me - realistic, directly useful, and profitable.

FutileJester · 5th February 2003, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Plutarck
Developing practical spaceflight for more normal people and increasing the ability to put more weight in space at a lower price seems to be absolutely the most practical possible thing to do, and it is almost 100% compatible for future missions such as going to Mars and/or establishing a station on the moon.

Agreed 100%. I'm not sure the government is going to be the place to look for this to happen though; economical commercial space flight has never been a goal of NASA, and perhaps shouldn't be. Private industry is trying to close the gap with the X Prize.

Keneke · 5th February 2003, 08:50 AM

This article employs a common Fallacy of Distraction called "False Dilemma". It tries to present a choice of two options, when clearly more are available. This presents a gray issue as black-and-white, and often leads to no-win situations.

The effort of space travel has consistently advanced our technology. Earlier, someone posted a list on here of technical achievements that come from the shuttle program that we use in everyday life. (Anyone have that link?) If space travel continues as it is, ferrying scientists to the space station for the mere cause of scientific experimentation and exploration, then it is a good enough cause for a slice of the federal budget. To boldly try for Mars is admirable, and to ground the space mission and use the money for other programs seems sensible. However, a moderate amount of funding, allowing the space program to continue, will continue to yield scientific data for our use without overburdening the economy. That is the third choice, and that gets my vote whole-heartedly.

Once again we must defend ourselves from people and ideologies who wish to force limitations on our views.

Goshawk · 5th February 2003, 10:36 AM

I'd have to say that, given what just happened on Saturday, space tourism as a mass market industry is going to have to wait until they get the technology to where it's on the same level of reliability and safety as the airlines.

http://www.safe-skies.com/safety_by_the_numbers.htm

Quote:

18 Year (1982-1999) Average Fatal Accident Rate for Major Airlines:

.0432 Accidents per 100,000 departures

1 accident for every 2,300,000 departures

1 accident every 6340 years if there is one flight per day*

.0000000004% odds of being in an accident each time you fly

patnray · 5th February 2003, 12:00 PM

While I wholeheartely agree that we must continue with space exploration, I think it is a mistake to place so much emphasis on manned space flight. The Shuttle and Space Station have consumed an enormous share of NASA's budget. There are litterally hundreds of other projects we have not funded because of our obsession with manned flight.

We could launch and return dozens of probes to Mars for the cost of a single manned mission. The most plausible scenarios for a manned Mars mission, by the way, require sending robotic modules ahead to support the mission. (Scientific American)

The question is not what have we learned/gained from the Shuttle program, but how much have we NOT learned because of it?

(Edited to add link.)

xouper · 11th February 2004, 10:25 AM

bump

4th February 2003, 05:14 PM	#1
zakur Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dayton, OH Posts: 3,265	Forbes: NASA needs a mission NASA Needs A Mission Quote: But, more than money, NASA needs a clear vision of what it should be and what it should do. Without a driving sense of mission, space travel isn't going to yield much science or technology. Quote: That's not to say we should ground our astronauts. Dreams and scientific discovery are hard to come by, and $15 billion is only a sliver of the $2.2 trillion national budget. But spending it on a glorified ferry service is a waste of money. If we're going to dream, we should do so on a grander scale. If we're going to send people into space, we should go boldly or not go at all.
	__________________ "I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -Thomas Carlyle "That's the problem these days: nobody thinks of the tumors." -steinhenge

5th February 2003, 08:23 AM	#3
Plutarck Guest Posts: n/a	If people want to go into space, for whatever reason, then how about their mission be to allow them to do it as cheaply and safely as possible? I don't mean putting astronauts in space, I mean actual people. Space Tourists. That's not possible yet and it would take too much money, I would think, for private firms to be the ones to do it, yet it would be highly profitable once developed, I'd think. The technology developed would work for all kinds of things. The thing is not that there isn't anything useful to do in space, it's that it's way too expensive such that it's not worth actually doing most of the time. Just can't justify the expense instead of spending the money elsewhere. Developing practical spaceflight for more normal people and increasing the ability to put more weight in space at a lower price seems to be absolutely the most practical possible thing to do, and it is almost 100% compatible for future missions such as going to Mars and/or establishing a station on the moon. And yet it would be profitable, and it would directly and appreciably make people's lives better both by letting them do what they want (space tourism), and in the other uses for the technology developed (who knows what). Seems perfect to me - realistic, directly useful, and profitable.
Plutarck Guest Posts: n/a

5th February 2003, 08:38 AM	#4
FutileJester Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 274	Quote: Originally posted by Plutarck Developing practical spaceflight for more normal people and increasing the ability to put more weight in space at a lower price seems to be absolutely the most practical possible thing to do, and it is almost 100% compatible for future missions such as going to Mars and/or establishing a station on the moon. Agreed 100%. I'm not sure the government is going to be the place to look for this to happen though; economical commercial space flight has never been a goal of NASA, and perhaps shouldn't be. Private industry is trying to close the gap with the X Prize.
	__________________ Many an ancient lord's last words had been, "You can't kill me because I've got magic aaargh." --Terry Pratchett, Interesting Times

5th February 2003, 08:50 AM	#5
Keneke Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 980	This article employs a common Fallacy of Distraction called "False Dilemma". It tries to present a choice of two options, when clearly more are available. This presents a gray issue as black-and-white, and often leads to no-win situations. The effort of space travel has consistently advanced our technology. Earlier, someone posted a list on here of technical achievements that come from the shuttle program that we use in everyday life. (Anyone have that link?) If space travel continues as it is, ferrying scientists to the space station for the mere cause of scientific experimentation and exploration, then it is a good enough cause for a slice of the federal budget. To boldly try for Mars is admirable, and to ground the space mission and use the money for other programs seems sensible. However, a moderate amount of funding, allowing the space program to continue, will continue to yield scientific data for our use without overburdening the economy. That is the third choice, and that gets my vote whole-heartedly. Once again we must defend ourselves from people and ideologies who wish to force limitations on our views.
Keneke Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 980

11th February 2004, 10:25 AM	#8
xouper Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 2,189	bump
xouper Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 2,189

4th February 2003, 08:16 PM	#2
Goshawk Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Decatur, Illinois, USA Posts: 1,453	Awfully nice of him to go spending somebody else's money like that. "Quit pissing the budget away on routine shuttle flights--let's go to Mars!"

5th February 2003, 10:36 AM	#6
Goshawk Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Decatur, Illinois, USA Posts: 1,453	I'd have to say that, given what just happened on Saturday, space tourism as a mass market industry is going to have to wait until they get the technology to where it's on the same level of reliability and safety as the airlines. http://www.safe-skies.com/safety_by_the_numbers.htm Quote: 18 Year (1982-1999) Average Fatal Accident Rate for Major Airlines: .0432 Accidents per 100,000 departures 1 accident for every 2,300,000 departures 1 accident every 6340 years if there is one flight per day* .0000000004% odds of being in an accident each time you fly

5th February 2003, 12:00 PM	#7
patnray Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 1,008	While I wholeheartely agree that we must continue with space exploration, I think it is a mistake to place so much emphasis on manned space flight. The Shuttle and Space Station have consumed an enormous share of NASA's budget. There are litterally hundreds of other projects we have not funded because of our obsession with manned flight. We could launch and return dozens of probes to Mars for the cost of a single manned mission. The most plausible scenarios for a manned Mars mission, by the way, require sending robotic modules ahead to support the mission. (Scientific American) The question is not what have we learned/gained from the Shuttle program, but how much have we NOT learned because of it? (Edited to add link.)