Should we continue to put humans in space?

[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.

[Ice Cream Jonsey]

Yeah. Absolutely. Any argument otherwise - ok, it's one of those things that drive me crazy. I've never heard an argument against manned space exploration that didn't make me think the person making the argument was something other than an aspie retard.

I would like to be alive when the first person ... the first American, I hope, walks on Phobos, Deimos, Ceres and Mars. The amount of money it would take to do something as unforgettably cool as that is a drop in the bucket. It would also go a long way towards making math and science culturally important in this country (again?).

I doubt it will ever happen, because apparently "going to Mars" has to be something the President of the United States has to decree, and for what ever reason, they're all against it. And WHAT DO YOU KNOW, we've had nothing but terrible Presidents lately.

[Ice Cream Jonsey]

That's the problem with this BBS. We don't have anyone who disagrees with people getting into/off in space.

[Flack]

That's the problem with this BBS. We don't have anyone who disagrees with people getting into/off in space.

Ok, I'll bite.

I don't see any point in what we're doing in space. That's not to say that I don't think there are worth while things we could be doing in space ... I just don't think we're doing them.

In the 60s we sent people up in space to orbit the earth. 40 years later we ... well, we do the same thing. I mean, now there's in a little Capsela-looking thing, but really they just float around and then eventually come back. If they did something useful while they were up there (shoot a zero gravity porn, grow some sweet zero gravity fruits and vegetables, cure cancer, etc) then I would be behind it. But really all we do is float around. Spend that time building a hotel on the moon or something, and you can color me impressed.

Flying to Mars will take 500+ days, so right now they have some pseudo-astronauts locked up in a simulator for a year and a half, waiting to see how they will fare mentally before they try it in real life. I know how this ends; it's called "Real World Season One".

During the space race of the 1960s, I wonder if people thought we were going to do more on the moon than drive a car around, golf, and stick a flag in it. If they had built an amusement park or something there then hell yeah, I'd be all excited about a venture to Mars. As it stands, if we ever do send people to Mars all we're going to do is drive a buggy around on it, play some golf and stick a flag in it. The first two my grandpa does every weekend at his local golf course.

[Ice Cream Jonsey]

I would like to see an astronaut get to Mars and throw out a collection of seeds. LIFE FINDS A WAY! I know it's like -40 degrees on the surface, but I trust Jeff Goldblum telling me that LIFE FINDS A WAY more than I trust psh "science."

There's really a limited number of interesting places we can go. The dark side of Mercury. Phobos, Deimos, Mars, Ceres, Pluto, Pluto's sniveling brood of moons, and the crap floating around the big gas giants. Also, when we land on Europa for the first time, tedious nerds everywhere are going to basically shut down the Internet with their tediousness. I accept that future.

But really, we have tons to read about the moon because we landed there. Very selfishly, I'd like to have that same amount of content about Mars, because people went there, too.

[AArdvark]

Wouldn't it be much much easier to send a droid-like robot to Mars and have it fling seeds into the sand like some metallic Johnny Apppleseed? Didn't they just have a space probe take some pretty cool close ups of an asteroid. We could never have done that with humans with our current technology. I think NASA is still working with a Space-Race mentality from the 60's

Maybe we should re-think the direction of our space program. Sure, eventually we'll need to put humans on Mars and a more permanent settlement on the moon but this silly amusement park ride program of Ferris-wheel-ride-around-the-Earth is so costly. And the returns are so little for the investment. We could put a thousand deep space probes into action. All with different destinations and we'd get so much more information and there would be no humans in harm's way. Geez, I sound like one of those privatization spokespeople now.


THE
AARDVARKS
IN SPAAAAAAAAAACE!!

[Flack]

\Geez, I sound like one of those privatization spokespeople now.

Maybe NASA should team up with Honda and send one of those robots they build up in space. Or, you know, a Real Doll ...

[Ice Cream Jonsey]

Well, here's the pie chart for NASA's funding, versus other parts of the federal government:



They might as well have made the color blank, because you can barely see it as is.

Now keep in mind, you have to be pretty bright to work as a janitor at NASA. Let's say you don't get in - well, we've encouraged a generation of kids to care about engineering, and they're not just going to give up instantly and go work at McDonald's. They can innovate. They can DO things. They're actually useful members of society.

Look at the budget for the Department of Homeland Security. We've got no problem funding fascist bully boys who exist only to wiretap Americans, but NASA is at less than one percent? Anyone can find a portion of that pie graph that is sillier to spend money on than NASA. My brother hates social services. I hate the money spent on the International War Against Terror. Drawing from each side could ridiculously fund NASA.

Forget about going to Mars, then, even though it would be amazingly cool - if NASA could figure out how to get an asteroid down here, the raw materials gained from such a venture would be AWESOME. We're all going to run out of lithium soon, which directly affects the electric car. But there's plenty of raw materials sitting around out there for the taking, and "Other Discretionary Spending" and the war in Iraq sure isn't going to get them. We've got a terrible deficit at the moment, sure. But if that kind of material was brought down by NASA (and therefore the property of the US government) it would, say, lessen the blow of bailing out the bankers while they still gave themselves bonuses.

[Ice Cream Jonsey]

But yes, even before he was elected, Barack Obama was saying that he'd freeze or cut spending to NASA. It was a colossally stupid thing to say that pretty much made him completely unqualified to lead the United States, but then, on the other side you have a tongue-wagging retard singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," so what are you going to do.

[AArdvark]

Space probes!


Now if they can just keep the budget from getting cut.


Let's send welfare recipients into space! Then we cold justify 21 percent of the national budget spent on them.


THE
BASE JUMPING TOPIC
AARDVARK

[AArdvark]

This is interesting

So for a paltry 200K they can get a person up to suborbital distances. Hmmph. Why can't NASA do that? I would imagine they could go even higher if they wanted.

The Lynx takes off from a runway, but its rocket engine can propel it to about 65 miles above the Earth — what's considered the edge of outer space. When the rocket engine shuts off, the Lynx glides to a landing back at the airport's runway.

Sounds like what the space shuttle was originally intended to do.

[Tdarcos]

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.

[pinback]

Why should we spend so much time out there when we still don't understand what's... in here. /points to heart, /clamps front teeth over bottom lip /tilts head to the side /raises eyebrows plaintively /nods compassionately


EDIT: ALSO YOU ARE STILL NOT ALLOWED TO POST UNTIL YOU EXPLAIN WHY FARGO IS THE SECOND WORST MOVIE EVER

[AArdvark]

In here is getting waaay too crowded. If you think about it, all the life as we know it is a thin film on this this planet. Move up or down more than a couple miles and life stops.


THE
WE GOTTA GET OUT OF THIS PLACE
AARDVARK

[pinback]

Depends on how you define "life".