AArdvark wrote:I mean, we've pretty much done everything there is to do in a zero gravity environment. We haven't done any human type exploring. Space in general is not a good environment for people. Putting people in space is tremendously expensive compared to an unmanned mission. We've done more with remotes than with any people.
Well, there are a number of arguments over the issue, but the simple fact is the problem with lag. The speed of light delay between here and Mars is, what, 12 minutes, figuring if something is noticed, it took 6 minutes for the information to get here, and 6 minutes to transmit a response back. If you get a situation where a prompt response becomes absolutely necessary, the delay can kill you. Or the robot.
It just occurred to me that DARPA is spending money to solve this problem although they don't admit it. There is a big prize for someone who can develop an unmanned vehicle that can pass through a selected area of the Western U.S. desert without intervention. It has to find a way through by figuring out how to get around, above, or by various obstacles. If it can do that, it can be converted to use on Mars. Or possibly other planets. They hold a contest every year, get lots of entrants and always they fail. If we can't do that here on earth, doing this on Mars is going to be a big problem.
But the fact remains that because every pound we put into space is expensive, it's encouraged the development of technology to reduce components and equipment. All of these developments produce spinoffs which become usable in civilian use. A lot of technology exists now that did not exist 20-30 years ago because of the spinoffs from space technology.
Computers are smaller and much faster and more powerful because they were necessary to develop a way to send a manned capsule into outer space and return it safely to earth. That took a lot of technological developments to make the capacity possible that then spawned civilian uses of the technology.
If you build a robotic device to go into outer space, if you lose it, it's just money. Human beings are generally irreplaceable and we can't afford to have that happen, thus we have to design redundancy and failsafes. This can then translate into technology that has civilian applications.
I'm not sure if it ties in, but there hasn't been much in the way of either military development for a major war, nor space development for manned space operations, and as a result, we aren't seeing a whole lot of revolutionary development in technology. Yes, we do get some improvements, but nothing like the huge changes that occurred in the 1960s and 1970s.
The miniaturization of computers; CD and DVD players; microwave ovens; satellite TV; and other substantial technologies are a result of space technology. But we aren't making developments in this area and we are seeing the effects of this in the lack of new technologies. The stuff that is being developed is good but we could do better. But that requires pure research and R&D which a lot may not have a direct affect on a particular company's product line. The tremendous developments in the 1960s and to some extent the 1970s, was a direct result of technology spinoffs from the space program.
So it's not merely the Manned space program, it's space technology in general that we're not funding. We're seeing the results in the slowing of economic development and other countries getting better in science and engineering.
We may see another manned moon landing. But the country that sends it won't be the United States. I fear that it might have a PRC flag on the side. Which would be a terrible loss. Then again, the Soviets beating us to satellite deployment around 1962 with Sputnik gave a real impetus to put a kick in the ass to the space program.
[quote="AArdvark"]I mean, we've pretty much done everything there is to do in a zero gravity environment. We haven't done any human type exploring. Space in general is not a good environment for people. Putting people in space is tremendously expensive compared to an unmanned mission. We've done more with remotes than with any people.[/quote]
Well, there are a number of arguments over the issue, but the simple fact is the problem with lag. The speed of light delay between here and Mars is, what, 12 minutes, figuring if something is noticed, it took 6 minutes for the information to get here, and 6 minutes to transmit a response back. If you get a situation where a prompt response becomes absolutely necessary, the delay can kill you. Or the robot.
It just occurred to me that DARPA is spending money to solve this problem although they don't admit it. There is a big prize for someone who can develop an unmanned vehicle that can pass through a selected area of the Western U.S. desert without intervention. It has to find a way through by figuring out how to get around, above, or by various obstacles. If it can do that, it can be converted to use on Mars. Or possibly other planets. They hold a contest every year, get lots of entrants and always they fail. If we can't do that here on earth, doing this on Mars is going to be a big problem.
But the fact remains that because every pound we put into space is expensive, it's encouraged the development of technology to reduce components and equipment. All of these developments produce spinoffs which become usable in civilian use. A lot of technology exists now that did not exist 20-30 years ago because of the spinoffs from space technology.
Computers are smaller and much faster and more powerful because they were necessary to develop a way to send a manned capsule into outer space and return it safely to earth. That took a lot of technological developments to make the capacity possible that then spawned civilian uses of the technology.
If you build a robotic device to go into outer space, if you lose it, it's just money. Human beings are generally irreplaceable and we can't afford to have that happen, thus we have to design redundancy and failsafes. This can then translate into technology that has civilian applications.
I'm not sure if it ties in, but there hasn't been much in the way of either military development for a major war, nor space development for manned space operations, and as a result, we aren't seeing a whole lot of revolutionary development in technology. Yes, we do get some improvements, but nothing like the huge changes that occurred in the 1960s and 1970s.
The miniaturization of computers; CD and DVD players; microwave ovens; satellite TV; and other substantial technologies are a result of space technology. But we aren't making developments in this area and we are seeing the effects of this in the lack of new technologies. The stuff that is being developed is good but we could do better. But that requires pure research and R&D which a lot may not have a direct affect on a particular company's product line. The tremendous developments in the 1960s and to some extent the 1970s, was a direct result of technology spinoffs from the space program.
So it's not merely the Manned space program, it's space technology in general that we're not funding. We're seeing the results in the slowing of economic development and other countries getting better in science and engineering.
We may see another manned moon landing. But the country that sends it won't be the United States. I fear that it might have a PRC flag on the side. Which would be a terrible loss. Then again, the Soviets beating us to satellite deployment around 1962 with Sputnik gave a real impetus to put a kick in the ass to the space program.