I understand the arguments against it - the money can be used for other priorities, and the military angle is indeed troubling - but still. I grew up in awe of space travel, thought the Hubble Telescope was one of the single most important creations American science and technology has ever devised, and I'm a big fat fan of John F. Kennedy, who championed space travel (as a front in the Cold War, to be sure).

Maybe I'm naive, but I have always believed space travel and exploration to be fundamental and important. Space is what's next; we left the caves, spread ourselves across the land, learned to sail the seas, and then the air itself. There is so much we can learn and do, and we have to go there to be able to do it.

I don't know. Reading all the anti-space comments here really bums me out.

(/opinion)

The sciences and technologies developed to send men to the moon have paid for themselves multiple times.

Here are a few examples.

Remote medical monitoring - all those beepy things that allow medical personel to keep track of you, dad, and your kids in the hospital and at home. Developed to keep track of astronauts.
Miniaturization of circuitry - I'm assuming that you have a PC?


There are lots more, but honestly this is money that has already benefited the economy many times over within your lifetime.

All those things you mentioned are patented and profitable for the companies whose research we paid for, only to give them ownership of the results. The boondoggle isn't that we are spending money on "science", it's that the same companies that get military contracts are the ones that get NASA contracts. I have no problem with the government hiring scientists to do research or even to explore space. The current space program is part of the military industrial complex, which is and always has been stealing taxpayers dollars at a wicked clip.

is sort of like blaming the French Revolution for the Boston Massacre

Can't remember her name - but she was the one that served on the first Enterprise...Tapal...and she was over a hundred years old when she served on the Enterprise!

boy - you don't know anything...

:)

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinfaq.htm#spinfaq12

"Did NASA invent Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)?

No, NASA did not invent MRI technology, but it has contributed to its advances over the years, and elements of NASA technology have been incorporated into MRI techniques. In the mid-1960s, as a prelude to NASA’s Apollo Lunar Landing Program, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory developed the technology known as digital image processing to allow computer enhancement of Moon pictures. Digital image processing has found a broad array of other applications, particularly in the field of medicine, where it is employed to create and enhance images of the organs in the human body for diagnostic purposes. Two of these advanced body imaging techniques are CT or CATScan and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI).

Did NASA invent cordless power tools?

No. The first cordless power tool was unveiled by Black & Decker in 1961. In the mid-1960s, Martin Marietta Corporation contracted with Black & Decker to design tools for NASA. The tool company developed a zero-impact wrench for the Gemini project that spun bolts in zero gravity without spinning the astronaut. Black & Decker also designed a cordless rotary hammer drill for the Apollo moon program. The drill was used to extract rock samples from the surface of the moon and could operate at extreme temperatures and in zero-atmosphere conditions. Before the zero-impact wrench and rotary hammer drill could go into space, they needed to be tested in anti-gravity conditions. Black & Decker and NASA tested the tools either under water or in transport planes that would climb to the highest possible altitude and then nosedive to simulate anti-gravity conditions. As a result of this work, Black & Decker created several spinoffs, including cordless lightweight battery powered precision medical instruments and a cordless miniature vacuum cleaner called the Dustbuster, but cordless power tools predate the Space Agency’s involvement with the company.

Did NASA invent barcodes, quartz clocks, or smoke detectors?

Barcodes were not invented by NASA. NASA developed a special type of barcode for inventory of space shuttle and other space system components that could endure harsh environments, but this should not be mistakened for the original barcode. Similarly, NASA was not the first to use quartz as a piezoelectric material for timekeeping. The first quartz clock dates back to 1927. However in the late 1960s, NASA partnered with a company to make a highly accurate quartz clock. This clock was on the market for a few years but is no longer available. Further, NASA did not invent the smoke detector. NASA’s connection to the modern smoke detector is that it made one with adjustable sensitivity as part of the Skylab project. The device was made commercially available by Honeywell. The consumer could use it to avoid “nuisance” alarms while cooking. Like the quartz clock, this device is no longer available.

Are Tang, Teflon, and Velcro NASA spinoffs?

Tang, Teflon, and Velcro, are not spinoffs of the Space Program. General Foods developed Tang in 1957, and it has been on supermarket shelves since 1959. In 1962, when astronaut John Glenn performed eating experiments in orbit, Tang was selected for the menu, launching the powdered drink’s heightened public awareness. NASA also raised the celebrity status of Teflon, a material invented for DuPont in 1938, when the Agency applied it to heat shields, space suits, and cargo hold liners. Velcro was used during the Apollo missions to anchor equipment for astronauts’ convenience in zero gravity situations. Although it is a Swiss invention from the 1940s, it has since been associated with the Space Program.
"

I'm one of those anti-science luddites that doesn't believe in giving a blank check to Lockheed Martin simply because space flights are so fucking awesome. My point was that you can name as many great "by-products" of the space program that you want, but that doesn't mean paying padded contracts to defense contractors to build rockets (and own patents on all the things that we paid for) is the most efficient way to make scientific discoveries.

And that Germans and/or Americans hadn't "come by it" ...

Just like it's also possible that the Germans had already developed the atomic

bomb and fortunately hadn't used it -- waiting to produce multiples?

Some suggest that the two we dropped on Japan were actually German made --

And, there's always Roswell and Lt. Col. Philip Corso --

Try YouTube for that story --

And anything that does not return tangible value is boondoggle... like children.

Glad someone else thinks so.

I have one myself. I was just following his line of thought. And continuing with the honesty, they don't pay off.

They're a sinkhole until you die. I should know, my father is still helping me out.

But on the other hand, they're emotionally rewarding, most of the time.

art would be a boondoggle

Most of the money was spent on basic science, not the actual rocket, the space suit and all the material.

We got knowledge in pretty much every field back in return.

and you don't get much more scientific than space travel.

Some of us are just sick of seeing billions of dollars being pumped into the space program every year, while scientists in all the other branches of science get their funding whacked, and struggle for the limited research dollars. Especially when some of those billions go toward repeating things that have been done already--like going back to the moon. Meanwhile, we have plant and animal species going extinct all around us, many of which we know next to nothing about. How many cures for diseases are we losing along with them? We'll never know.

it from space exploration?

Leaving the distribution of $$ to the private sector (corporations) means only research with immediate profit potential gets funded, while pure research gets nada.

The whole point of scientific research, at least when I was in school, is that we have no way of knowing what will be discovered or where those discoveries will lead. It is clear that any pill to make your dick hard will make a ton of $$, but aside from piles of money, what is gained?

It's an argument that there is more to science than exploring space. And, only so much federal money available to go around. The less glamorous branches are getting the short end of the stick, and have been for decades. That the others need budget increases goes without saying.

BTW, NASA did not get their budget cut. It was increased. They just cut certain boondoggles, like the Constellation Project, and redirected funds away from manned space flight. There will still be plenty ofspace exploration.

alledged moon landings --

believe me, had we been able to do it, we'd be miliarizing and populating the moon --

Militarily it's "the highest hill."

What was the benefit even if true?

Other than PR?

One of the ways to understand how faked it was is to understand how boring it was --

What we might discover is that having polluted and destroyed this planet, we can jump

to another and destroy that one, as well -- and on and on?

IMO, NASA has also been militarized and corporatized -- needless to say.

And that happened waaaaaay long ago --

See Gus Grissom and the "lemon" --

Jesus Christ on a Trailer Hitch.

:wtf: :wow: :tinfoilhat:

Hekate

You've never questioned anything about the "moon landings" ??

Wow --

Never too late to start --

"Only fools never doubt" --



Start here -- enlarge it -- take a good long look --

Plenty of tin foil and easy on the rivets!!

&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.panoramas.dk%2Ffullscreen3%2Fimages1apollo.html&size=345k&name=apollo+lm+jpg&p=Apollo+11%2C+landing+module&oid=b7882ed7e6636bb6&fr2=&no=8&tt=326&sigr=11m3s7ebu&sigi=11avrpk6b&sigb=133pv5cll

Why don't you go tell the good people at Grumman what a cheap, shitty job they did on their phony lunar module, huh?

As it is, you're calling probably half a million people, starting with the current President of the United States, all the way down to folks like Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Alan Bean, Jim Lovell, Gene Krantz, etc. etc. bald-faced liars. Why? Because you don't think (you, who keep insisting that the Mir Space station is still in orbit) that the lunar module "looks real". Well, it is real. The moon landings were a triumph of ingenuity and hard work, and as the President said two days ago, "one of the greatest achievements in human history."

It is deeply offensive to insist, imply, or otherwise spread noxious bullshit about how it "didn't really happen". You've got proof? Show it. Otherwise, I'd strongly suggest you stop maligning the character of so many who worked so hard.

At the time, it was a brilliant way to be strong but extremely light.

Cutting edge high tech isn't pretty -- it tends to be functional only.

Construction might be a bit different today -- that was almost half a century ago, right?

Apparently, the airtight metal hull of the craft was so thin, the astronauts could have easily put a foot through if they stepped on it. I'm not sure how they kept them from doing that, but it gives you an idea of how weight-crazy the designers were about that particular spacecraft.

Remember, it never had to fly in an atmosphere. I love the blast guards below the attitude control thrusters. Pure lightweight function. Making it look nice would have just made it heavy.

By the way, I've had my own suspicions about the "New World". It was impossible for Columbus (or anyone else) to have reached the so-called New World in such dinky, wooden ships! There's absolutely no proof anyone did before steam ships.

And did you ever question early phones? Those things were wired to the wall! Yeah, like people used them. Right. ;-)

in your home, show them the picture --

Ah, but no one said it wasn't "pretty" -- !!

And, the rivets -- a joy to behold -- !!

:)



Apparently, the airtight metal hull of the craft was so thin, the astronauts could have easily put a foot through if they stepped on it. I'm not sure how they kept them from doing that, but it gives you an idea of how weight-crazy the designers were about that particular spacecraft.

Yep, why think about the Van Allen Radiation Belts -- !!

Or the fact that when you get a tooth X-rayed, you wear a heavy shield to protect you!

Also, I guess the Rover -- or was it 2 Rovers -- were also in there somewhere?

Or did we make a special trip to drop them off?


By the way, I've had my own suspicions about the "New World". It was impossible for Columbus (or anyone else) to have reached the so-called New World in such dinky, wooden ships! There's absolutely no proof anyone did before steam ships.

Unfortunately, the native American knows too well and too sadly that they did!

And did you ever question early phones? Those things were wired to the wall! Yeah, like people used them. Right.

No, but the FBI has told us that there was NO cell phone use from airplanes on 9/11/01 -- !!

to his face! Then see what happens.

:(

Ay-yi-yi!

take your pick!

Meanwhile, if you've never actually given thought to the moon landings,

start here --

&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.panoramas.dk%2Ffullscreen3%2Fimages1apollo.html&size=345k&name=apollo+lm+jpg&p=Apollo+11%2C+landing+module&oid=b7882ed7e6636bb6&fr2=&no=8&tt=326&sigr=11m3s7ebu&sigi=11avrpk6b&sigb=133pv5cll


Plenty of tin foil and easy on the rivets!!



:rofl:

And I don't blame him.

I don't blame him either -- I simply can't anyone imagine having the brainless balls to "confront" an astronaut with such idiocy.

Hekate

elusive and seemingly depressed --

Imagine the only people among us who had been to the moon being so reclusive?

And so boring!

Not likely --

Boring is in the eye of the beholder; why should he be "on" 100% of the time for the benefit of people who ask him stupid questions and deny his achievements? or even for the benefit of his fawning admirers?

Regardless, no one can win with you. I don't know what your problem is.

Hekate

When it comes to questions on the flight, he has given inane responses.

"100% of the time" --? The guy couldn't handle the original interviews right after the mission!

Couldn't be you who has a "problem" by any chance -- ?


:thumbsdown:

You should know.

That's all you need to know.

one bit.

" never given thought to the moon landings"

is that your code for questioning the validity of it?

You are free to question,
and you seem adamant to prove it to be false.

Nice pictures---and?

Yep, there's lots of tinfoil there,
enough to make many hats.

Nice picture ... ?

Notice the workmanship. . . --?

:eyes:



No wonder Gus Grissom hung a LEMON over the NASA symbol -- !!

Sure thing!

:eyes:

:rofl:

I don't think you're getting the message from me
at all- or you don't want to.

Excessive, repetitive use of :rofl: in posts( which are not :rofl: worthy)=desperate to make a point,
while failing miserably to do so.

:eyes:

Cause it sure looked like you wanted to ignore that point -- eh . . .

that tinfoil and sack of rivets!!

the "tinfoil" I mentioned was going-along-with
the ----- play on words.
It fits nicely with the CT image.

I know it's not foil.

Try actually addressing the shocking flimsiness and inanity of this

rickety structure ... !!!

And give some thought to what Gus Grissom -- who was there at NASA ---

was trying to tell you.

My post on Grissom and the LEMON . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8160179&mesg_id=8168549

This is an exercise in futility.
It's not worth it.

:banghead:

Start here . . .

&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.panoramas.dk%2Ffullscreen3%2Fimages1apollo.html&size=345k&name=apollo+lm+jpg&p=Apollo+11%2C+landing+module&oid=b7882ed7e6636bb6&fr2=&no=8&tt=326&sigr=11m3s7ebu&sigi=11avrpk6b&sigb=133pv5cll

Then you can backtrack to Gus Grissom's "lemon" and work your way forward again --

:rofl:

Harrrrrrr?

<snip>

Then there's the mysterious fire that killed Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee in 1967. Was it due to Grissom's being a thorn in the side of NASA? Well, if so, there was a much neater and less messy solution to the problem. Ground him. There was more than enough reason - Grissom lost his capsule on his first flight! When Scott Carpenter overshot his landing site by 300 miles on the second Mercury orbital flight, he vanished from the space program (he's still alive and well, by the way). Somehow Grissom redeemed himself well enough to get a second chance aboard a Gemini mission, and he was set to become America's first three-time space traveler when he was killed. This is a very strange way to treat a threat.

Okay, let's say for some reason Gus had to be terminated. The astronauts were constantly involved in dangerous survival training, not to mention getting their flying hours in. There were any number of low-key ways to do him in without killing two other astronauts and destroying a perfectly good Apollo capsule. An ejection seat malfunction during a routine training flight would have done it nicely. Destroying the Apollo capsule in 1967(!) put the goal of reaching the moon by 1970 in grave jeopardy. If anyone involved in the re-engineering failed to make schedule, the deadline would be missed. If NASA tried to rush things by approving a patently unready capsule, it would have raised an impossible number of red flags. So the conspiracy had to trust that thousands of independent agencies and contractors would get it all together in time, because all of these people still had to be kept ignorant of the conspiracy. A conspiracy that trusts - now there's a novel concept.

Interestingly enough, all of the Apollo astronauts themselves stayed hale and hearty for many years after their flights. Not a single one, apparently, was tempted to get rich and famous by blowing the whistle, and none even strayed enough from the party line to be a threat to NASA.

"The Experts Agree, the Answer is 250,000 miles Away"

The program ends by restating the pros and cons of the conspiracy theory, then finishes with the quote above.

No, the experts agree we landed on the moon. Some other folks disagree, but none of them can remotely be called experts. This is the well-known "experts don't agree, so pick whatever idea you like" scam of the pseudoscientist.

<snip>

Much more: http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/ConspiracyTheoryDidWeGototheMoon.htm

:evilfrown:

Yes, NASA killed him because his capsule sunk. :eyes:

I'm still waiting for the moon landing denial crowd to explain this picture, taken by NASA's LRO recently:

Grissom, Chaffee and White


In January 1967, Virgil 'Gus' Grissom, an American astronaut, held an unauthorized press conference in which he told reporters that the United States was "at least a decade away" from even contemplating a lunar mission. He was severely rebuked for giving that interview without permission.

Clearly Mr. Grissom did not fit NASA's requirement of an easily-controlled, brain-dead military man.


Following this reprimand, Gus Grissom later came out of a water tank reduced gravity simulation of the supposed lunar landing module,

and hung a lemon

attached to a coat-hanger in front of a NASA emblem to indicate to any cameras present, without speaking, what he and his fellow crew members, Roger Chaffee and Edward White, thought of the Apollo programme.

http://www.realityreviewed.com/Grissom.htm


Here's also some help on the splashdown capsule accident where Grissom almost drowned . . .

Following splashdown from that flight, Grissom almost drowned when his space capsule filled with water and sank into the Atlantic before it could be recovered.

After the flight, NASA awarded Grissom with its Distinguished Service Medal and he received his astronaut’s wings on Dec. 7, 1961. On July 15, 1962, he was promoted to the rank of major. He received the first General Thomas D. White Trophy on July 19, 1962, for being "The Air Force member who has made the most outstanding contribution to the nation’s progress in aerospace".

http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles/people/g/grissom_gus/grissom.html

As I recall the cause of this accident, the hatch lock opened prematurely -- filling the capsule

with water.


Reflect on how wrong you are here . . . and where you got the info --

Then there's the mysterious fire that killed Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee in 1967. Was it due to Grissom's being a thorn in the side of NASA? Well, if so, there was a much neater and less messy solution to the problem. Ground him. There was more than enough reason - Grissom lost his capsule on his first flight! When Scott Carpenter overshot his landing site by 300 miles on the second Mercury orbital flight, he vanished from the space program (he's still alive and well, by the way). Somehow Grissom redeemed himself well enough to get a second chance aboard a Gemini mission, and he was set to become America's first three-time space traveler when he was killed. This is a very strange way to treat a threat.

In fact, Grissom Grissom helped design and construct the spacecraft of Project Gemini, a series of missions designed as an intermediate step between Project Mercury and the Apollo Moon project. On April 13, 1964, he was selected to be the first Gemini pilot and on March 23, 1965, the first two-man space flight was launched with Grissom and John W. Young co-piloting Gemini III.

During the mission he achieved another first by maneuvering the craft manually from one orbit to another. Both astronauts were awarded NASA's Exceptional Service medals.


It's also naive to think that they weren't trying to kill all three -- we don't really know.

Or that they weren't just as happy to see the "perfectly good Apollo capsule" gone --

First -- and you can look to Vietnam and perpetual war for this . . . MIC is always happy to

replace equipment -- make junk and replace it -- shoot it down and replace it.

Okay, let's say for some reason Gus had to be terminated. The astronauts were constantly involved in dangerous survival training, not to mention getting their flying hours in. There were any number of low-key ways to do him in without killing two other astronauts and destroying a perfectly good Apollo capsule. An ejection seat malfunction during a routine training flight would have done it nicely. Destroying the Apollo capsule in 1967(!) put the goal of reaching the moon by 1970 in grave jeopardy. If anyone involved in the re-engineering failed to make schedule, the deadline would be missed. If NASA tried to rush things by approving a patently unready capsule, it would have raised an impossible number of red flags. So the conspiracy had to trust that thousands of independent agencies and contractors would get it all together in time, because all of these people still had to be kept ignorant of the conspiracy. A conspiracy that trusts - now there's a novel concept.

Grissom was saying . . . "United States was "at least a decade away" from even contemplating a lunar mission." This accident might have also provided an alibi for delays.


And, this . . .

Interestingly enough, all of the Apollo astronauts themselves stayed hale and hearty for many years after their flights. Not a single one, apparently, was tempted to get rich and famous by blowing the whistle, and none even strayed enough from the party line to be a threat to NASA.

is kind of an argument against their having ever been in far outer space.

Remember, the MIR is only in "low earth orbit."

Even at that, many men have come off it being unable to walk and existing into a wheelchair.

In fact, Shannon Lucide for a while held the record for time on the MIR but she existed walking.

We've always know that females can physically withstand the rigors of space better than males.

Meanwhile, also keep in mind that studies seem to suggest that our career commercial airline pilots

seem to be suffering effects of radiation on their brains and they are only exposed at the level

of airplane elevation!


Took a fast look at your link --

The opportunity for filming the sky/stars would have been wondrous and the explanation

is lame. First, no film would have survived the flight. It is acknowledged that there

were no special precautions for the cameras or the film.

Also notice from your link some suggestion that critics have said that the fake was made

OUTSIDE Area 51? Not to my knowledge. Most of it looks like it was done indoors.



As for the Russians, the first response would have been "sour grapes."

Who would have listened? Others also point to vast shipments of crops which were sent

to Russia after that.

Same with James A. Van Allen whose work on the Van Allen Radiation Belts suggest that no

human could survive in outer space. After being told that they had, what could he possibly

say?

Here's a very brief YouTube link which includes comments by Gus Grissom's son --

the family blames sabotage for the accident. "Intentional" --

Gus Grissom's wife also appears in this video.

You can also see/hear Gus Grissom just a few moments before the accident commenting on

the communications system having failed. Grissom is commenting that if they can't communicate

between the two buildings, how do they communicate from space? The capsule then bursts into flames.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfYBJFPuiwE

Grissom, Chaffee and White


In January 1967, Virgil 'Gus' Grissom, an American astronaut, held an unauthorized press conference in which he told reporters that the United States was "at least a decade away" from even contemplating a lunar mission. He was severely rebuked for giving that interview without permission.

Clearly Mr. Grissom did not fit NASA's requirement of an easily-controlled, brain-dead military man.


Following this reprimand, Gus Grissom later came out of a water tank reduced gravity simulation of the supposed lunar landing module,

and hung a lemon

attached to a coat-hanger in front of a NASA emblem to indicate to any cameras present, without speaking, what he and his fellow crew members, Roger Chaffee and Edward White, thought of the Apollo programme.

http://www.realityreviewed.com/Grissom.htm


Here's also some help on the splashdown capsule accident where Grissom almost drowned . . .

Following splashdown from that flight, Grissom almost drowned when his space capsule filled with water and sank into the Atlantic before it could be recovered.

After the flight, NASA awarded Grissom with its Distinguished Service Medal and he received his astronaut’s wings on Dec. 7, 1961. On July 15, 1962, he was promoted to the rank of major. He received the first General Thomas D. White Trophy on July 19, 1962, for being "The Air Force member who has made the most outstanding contribution to the nation’s progress in aerospace".

http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles/people/g/grissom_gus/grissom.html

As I recall the cause of this accident, the hatch lock opened prematurely -- filling the capsule

with water.


Reflect on how wrong you are here . . . and where you got the info --

Then there's the mysterious fire that killed Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee in 1967. Was it due to Grissom's being a thorn in the side of NASA? Well, if so, there was a much neater and less messy solution to the problem. Ground him. There was more than enough reason - Grissom lost his capsule on his first flight! When Scott Carpenter overshot his landing site by 300 miles on the second Mercury orbital flight, he vanished from the space program (he's still alive and well, by the way). Somehow Grissom redeemed himself well enough to get a second chance aboard a Gemini mission, and he was set to become America's first three-time space traveler when he was killed. This is a very strange way to treat a threat.

In fact, Grissom Grissom helped design and construct the spacecraft of Project Gemini, a series of missions designed as an intermediate step between Project Mercury and the Apollo Moon project. On April 13, 1964, he was selected to be the first Gemini pilot and on March 23, 1965, the first two-man space flight was launched with Grissom and John W. Young co-piloting Gemini III.

During the mission he achieved another first by maneuvering the craft manually from one orbit to another. Both astronauts were awarded NASA's Exceptional Service medals.


It's also naive to think that they weren't trying to kill all three -- we don't really know.

Or that they weren't just as happy to see the "perfectly good Apollo capsule" gone --

First -- and you can look to Vietnam and perpetual war for this . . . MIC is always happy to

replace equipment -- make junk and replace it -- shoot it down and replace it.

Okay, let's say for some reason Gus had to be terminated. The astronauts were constantly involved in dangerous survival training, not to mention getting their flying hours in. There were any number of low-key ways to do him in without killing two other astronauts and destroying a perfectly good Apollo capsule. An ejection seat malfunction during a routine training flight would have done it nicely. Destroying the Apollo capsule in 1967(!) put the goal of reaching the moon by 1970 in grave jeopardy. If anyone involved in the re-engineering failed to make schedule, the deadline would be missed. If NASA tried to rush things by approving a patently unready capsule, it would have raised an impossible number of red flags. So the conspiracy had to trust that thousands of independent agencies and contractors would get it all together in time, because all of these people still had to be kept ignorant of the conspiracy. A conspiracy that trusts - now there's a novel concept.

Grissom was saying . . . "United States was "at least a decade away" from even contemplating a lunar mission." This accident might have also provided an alibi for delays.


And, this . . .

Interestingly enough, all of the Apollo astronauts themselves stayed hale and hearty for many years after their flights. Not a single one, apparently, was tempted to get rich and famous by blowing the whistle, and none even strayed enough from the party line to be a threat to NASA.

is kind of an argument against their having ever been in far outer space.

Remember, the MIR is only in "low earth orbit."

Even at that, many men have come off it being unable to walk and existing into a wheelchair.

In fact, Shannon Lucide for a while held the record for time on the MIR but she existed walking.

We've always know that females can physically withstand the rigors of space better than males.

Meanwhile, also keep in mind that studies seem to suggest that our career commercial airline pilots

seem to be suffering effects of radiation on their brains and they are only exposed at the level

of airplane elevation!


Took a fast look at your link --

The opportunity for filming the sky/stars would have been wondrous and the explanation

is lame. First, no film would have survived the flight. It is acknowledged that there

were no special precautions for the cameras or the film.

Also notice from your link some suggestion that critics have said that the fake was made

OUTSIDE Area 51? Not to my knowledge. Most of it looks like it was done indoors.



As for the Russians, the first response would have been "sour grapes."

Who would have listened? Others also point to vast shipments of crops which were sent

to Russia after that.

Same with James A. Van Allen whose work on the Van Allen Radiation Belts suggest that no

human could survive in outer space. After being told that they had, what could he possibly

say?

Here's a very brief YouTube link which includes comments by Gus Grissom's son --

the family blames sabotage for the accident. "Intentional" --

Gus Grissom's wife also appears in this video.

You can also see/hear Gus Grissom just a few moments before the accident commenting on

the communications system having failed. Grissom is commenting that if they can't communicate

between the two buildings, how do they communicate from space? The capsule then bursts into flames.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfYBJFPuiwE

Congrats.

Life support systems make for heavy and expensive payloads

What it takes a robot weeks to do could be done in hours with a human.

The amount of ground covered by the Mars rovers in six years could have been covered by a human on foot in a single day, or a human in a rover in about thirty minutes.

And a human wouldn't die after getting stuck in six inches of sand either.

Robots are a long way from being able to substitute humans. A robot geologist, for instance, might take weeks analysing a Martian landscape or a piece of lunar rock that a human specialist could evaluate in minutes. Steve Squyres, the principle scientist on the Nasa mission to explore Mars, pointed out that for all their apparent sophistication, space robots are still relatively primitive machines. "We are many decades away from robots that can match humans even in the lab. And laboratory robotics is about 20 years ahead of space robotics," he said.

It will take far more money to put a man on mars then it did for the cost of those 2 rovers.

And technology has gone so much further with the launch of those 2 bots.

I'm all for the space program, but so much more for much less could be achieved, with a proper mission directive.

How far would it go with a human doing the geology?

How far has it gone with a robot who made 10 km in 5 years?

I'll tell you why: Because sending robots will produce new technologies in electronics, materials and a few other disciplines, but sending people will result in thousands of new technologies and disciplines, from medicines to zero-g flower arranging.

However, the little bots do provide research at a far lower cost.

btw, I'm pro space program, I just see a need to do as much as possible within a limited budget. We can send a few people to mars, or we can land a few thousand robots on many planets and have a broader understanding of the solar system.

The money for all those probes, and a moon and mars mission ( and to feed every human on the planet, plus all the dogs and cats ).

people would still be whining that's it's not worth it.

and the poor choices we make over and again --

Humans are eartbound -- the Van Allen Radiation Belts make that so --

and tho man may flail around trying to do damage to the Belt with violence/nuclear

weapons the only thing man has accomplished is destruction of nature --

and we are part of nature . . . so that's really bright!

we've got good telemetry for lots of the Martian surface from unmanned orbital satellites. And if the Mars Rover seemed slow and clunky, it nevertheless lasted some years, during which time we didn't need to provide it with clean water and fresh air and food and shelter and careful emotional support. Absolute minimum time for a signal to travel between Earth and Mars and back would be measured in minutes; of course, this is frustrating for robotics work, but it would be even more frustrating for human-human conversation, especially if anyone needed to discuss a quick fix for a busted gizmo. If we actually want (say) Mars rocks, it will a lot cheaper and easier to land a robotic on Mars, collect some samples, and ship them back here than to do the same thing with a human payload attached going down to the surface and blasting back


... It's a two year round trip to Mars by a direct minimum energy orbit each direction, with a few month's wait at Mars as well ... To send people to Mars, you'll need to take everything they need to get there, and live in space, for two years. That's a lot of material! ... http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980419b.html

unmanned flight is the way to go --


And this is quite some chunk of tin foil -- !!

&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.panoramas.dk%2Ffullscreen3%2Fimages1apollo.html&size=345k&name=apollo+lm+jpg&p=Apollo+11%2C+landing+module&oid=b7882ed7e6636bb6&fr2=&no=8&tt=326&sigr=11m3s7ebu&sigi=11avrpk6b&sigb=133pv5cll

on unmanned robotics. Cassini has been fantastic

boring as hell -- as audience clammored for a return to "I love Lucy!" programming --

Agree with you on the money --

Doubt the reality of Armstrong etal/landing --

If we ever landed anyone on the moon, I would guess they didn't survive!


"Only fools never doubt" --

is that we are creatures of the earth but not of space. Our bodies evolved as part of this atmosphere, biosphere and gravitational field, and until we evolve beyond our physical containers, travel outside our environment will always demand more resources than we can afford.

To that end I believe space travel will speed that process up and as we become more proficient at space travel, increasing amounts of resources can be harvested from our solar system and eventually beyond.

Earth's resources; are finite and with out space travel, will become exhausted, I believe switching to sustainable energy and materials will extend this period but I see it as inevitable at some point.

long enough for our bodies to evolve to the point where space is a natural environment for us. Until that time, the amount of energy required to support human life is prohibitive, it seems to me.

As others in the thread have pointed out, unmanned exploration is quite a different matter and ought to be pursued and funded.

Wait what, another million years?

and you do know that evolution works in response to an environment. if we're not up there, we'll never "evolve" to handle it.

I don't see how human bodies can be supported in space for the amount of time it's going to take to "colonize" anything. We're part of the earth.

Now, if our minds could escape our bodies....

The longest stay in space was 438 days. That's more then a year.

3 days to the moon, maybe 2 years at most for astronauts to mars. There's also something called centrifugal force which can simulate gravity.

As far as our minds escaping or bodies, keep dreaming. I don't believe in it.

Our distant ancestors should never have left the oceans and given up gills.

unless we design engines that take us close to the speed of light and we discover worm holes.

The closest star to us is 4.2 light years away. It would take 4.2 years one-way IF we could go at the speed of light, which is a logical impossibility. The closest we could get is a 9 year long human-staffed trip in a ship that would have to go near the speed of light.

Human flight could maybe get to Mars. That's about it.

Robotic space exploration is great, and we should keep that up. But until we have engines that can go at 164,999.9 miles per hour, "man" ain't going nowhere.

being just a couple of effects.

What happens after so many generations are born, living and dying in space, lower gravity worlds or other environmental variants?

The first watercraft was paddle power and within a relative few thousand years we harnessed the wind, steam, diesel and nuclear but we had to start somewhere.

I believe we're at canoe power now in space and just beginning to go with the wind via Ion engines, etc.

As for maximum speed of travel, I believe we don't know what we don't know.

I agree that robotic exploration is important and necessary but I also believe the pursuit of human space travel even with our vast limitations will have multiplying effects with time from the standpoints of physiology, psychology and technological advancements.

Even an altered global philosophical point of view could pay tremendous intangible dividends if Earth focuses on something bigger than it self.

This may seem at odds with my last sentence, but this is one reason I wish they had placed that telescope between the Earth and Sun always focusing on the Earth as a live full view mirror of the entire planet, I believe Bush canceled that one.:(

Will we send a human to another star in our lifetime? No
This century? No.
This Millennium? No.

Never. Really?

The amount of construction material in asteroid belt is massive. A human race which has significant interplanetary expertise could mine it. By making spacecraft at lagrange points the gravity well (and huge energy cost) is eliminated.

Once we have colonized our solar system (of the course of thousands of years) the next first step would be probes pushed by light sail. Build a massive laser (acutally a collection of lasers) in deep space. Point the the laser at a solar sail attached to a small probe and you eventually can get it up to a good fraction of the speed of light. Within a century or two we could have mapped every start within 20 light years of earth, detailed information of habitable planets within range of a colony ship.

Final step would be building a colony ship. A large ship capable of reaching 0.3c could get to Alpha Centauri in 30 years. Is the torus of ship spins it would have gravity. An entire generation would live and die in space and their children would be colonists on an Alien Star.

Can we do it today? Of course not. You honestly think the human race can never do it? Every. Not in 1000 years, not in 5000 years, not in 100,000 years? That is sad.

If we don't eventually something (like K-T) event will extinct humans. Everything we have ever done as a species will be lost.

There are two ways to move humans across interstellar distances.

1. Build spacecraft that can move at the speed of light or faster. So far, the physics needed to make this happen isn't even on the horizon.

2. Extend the human lifespan to the point where transit time becomes irrelevant. A 200 year transit isn't a big deal if you have a 3000 year lifespan.

That second possibility is MUCH closer than most people think. Scientists have already identified the seven biological hurdles that must be overcome to induce effective human immortality, and there are different groups hard at work at each of those seven problems right now. Depending on which estimates you believe, we'll be there in 30-100 years. Think of all the reading you could get done...

Of course, there are also DOZENS of research projects focusing on cryonics, stasis, and human suspended animation that wouldn't require ANY modifications to the human body. All we need is for one of these groups to figure out a successful process, and space will suddenly be opened to human exploration. Climb into a stasis chamber, push a button, take a nap, and wake up orbiting a new planet 400 years later. It's not Star Trek and warp drive, but it will get the job done nonetheless.

We'll get out into space, and there's a decent chance we'll get there in the lifetimes of some of the people living on the planet today. Heck, the first human to set foot on Europa could be playing tetherball at the elementary school up the road from you right now.

I can just hear the repukes now...

Meanwhile, imagine what Swiss Cheese humans could make of the entire universe given

a shot at it --

Look at the wonders we've done for this planet!!

What we need patriarchy to do is cut the violence and arrogance and get in tune with

nature --

Every attack on nature is an attack on ourselves!!

"Survival of the fittest" is not about the most violence species succeeding --

it is about the survival of the species which best cooperates with nature.

That ain't us!!

:evilgrin:

limited by the Van Allen Radiation Belts --

and the Russian Cosmonauts seem to suggest that they had dead

comrades -- those who "volunteered" to go -- none we'll ever hear about.

May have been the same with us?

Doesn't our exploitation of this planet and its people, however, give you some caution

about flying thru space, jumping from planet to planet and destroying them?

What have humans done but destroy life with their violence?


Resources? In fact, if we don't soon develop a solar airplane, it will be likely that

either the price of oil or peak oil will ground all flights!

Natural resources are too often seen as something to be chewed up, pounded out --

Soon this blue planet will be a cement ball --

looking more like a crushed soccer ball having suffered having its ballast removed.


We are PART OF NATURE . . . every bit of it that we destroy is self-destruction.

it's called "search" --

And, how is it you're so interested in space and you've evidently read little

of the Russians? They were leading us in space -- years ahead of us --

Oops!

Here's some fun tinfoil -- !!


&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.panoramas.dk%2Ffullscreen3%2Fimages1apollo.html&size=345k&name=apollo+lm+jpg&p=Apollo+11%2C+landing+module&oid=b7882ed7e6636bb6&fr2=&no=8&tt=326&sigr=11m3s7ebu&sigi=11avrpk6b&sigb=133pv5cll

There was a trio who died because their capsule sprung a leak.

never any who died because of radiation.

Someone is just off on a nice trip, if you know what I mean.

Try YouTube

But you can't evolve to a low gravitational environment unless you're out there.

I'm not suggesting a single generation or even several would become adept at living in space but over time it's inevitable, that they would.

Have you noticed the Homeless being ignored -- the unemployed still with us?

Have you noticed any violence?

Past or present?

Recall anything about genocide or slavery?

This is not a species which should be moving out and spreading around --

this is a species which should, more likely, be contained!

Keeping us to one planet will assure it, just as the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

It's not -- the species which survive are those who best cooperate with nature --

Your presumption of a privileged status in nature for humans is humorous --

As man destroys nature so too does he destroy himself!

Meanwhile, the Van Allen Radiation Belts assure that humans are going no where --

we're earthbound.

"Only fools never doubt" --

You are the one thinking we can continue to live on this planet indefinitely, forever. That's simply impossible, you seem to assume that we will find a balance before we kill ourselves, or that we should just be resigned to our fate. That's stupid.

Humans evolved in a half forest, half Savannah environment, but we didn't stay there, we find ways to adapt to other environments through the use of technology or changing the environment itself. Think about this, human beings are NOT adapted to the climates of the Northern Hemisphere, unprotected we wouldn't last a winter there, we adapted to it using technology. Are you saying we should never have left Africa?

or flying into the air until they sprouted feet and wings. "We are creatures of the water; this air stuff is for the birds, whatever they are". Then again, they didn't have enough mental capacity to realize just how improbable it was for a fish to fly or walk on the land. To that, we are as much creatures of space as we are of earth. We are as much of this galaxy as we are of the earth, which is where our ashes will be spread yet again in our inevitable future. It's just that it's still too early to leave our mother earth except on short leaps into space. Like those fish that kept falling right back into the water. Up until the day one just kept going up and didn't come back.

I've read too much anti-science drivel posted here over the years to be much surprised at anything, anymore.

Money spent to expand the breadth of our knowledge is money well spent.

Sid

Edit: left out a word

those who would have greeted Columbus when he came back from discovering the new land and then set about burning his ships because they could see no benefits from his adventure that the Queen funded with "their" money.

He was attempting to find another route to the East Indies in order to break the Portugese monopoly of the spice trade.

He was just badly misinformed about the size of the Earth.

There is no similar plausible economic benefit from sending humans to Mars. It is more like 12th century cathedral building where you tax the peasants in order to build huge edifices with no practical purpose.

Better and more efficient hydroponic farming techniques. Another would be the development of more efficient solar power arrays.

"There is no I cannot imagine a similar plausible economic benefit from sending humans to Mars."

Fixed.

Such as CO2.

Global warming anyone?

In fact, if some aspect of the "more effcient hydroponic farming techniques" depended on something unique to going to Mars, such as growing in zero gravity, then it would not be applicable on earth anyway. Similarly for growing semiconductor crystals in zero gravity -- it makes them uneconomical.

So you have not established any necessity for spending money to go to Mars in order to do this research.

Neither do children. Should we stop doing both?

Religious pilgrimmages were "big" back then...that's why all the need for saints' relics...

led to things like the development of flying buttresses to reinforce walls, using more advanced techniques in masonry and other building technologies that lead to advantages for humans everywhere the technology touched.

Which is why they were so gung ho on showing some profit or potential for profit. And goes a long way to explain why they took slaves.

They are doing several things right now.
Manned Space Station, Earth Orbital missions
Unmanned Earth Orbital missions
Unmanned exploration/discovery missions
Obama Canceled the Manned exploration missions. I believe this to be a mistake. Moon Dust could literally be the way we power our cities in the future--We won't develop the technology by not going there.

because maybe there is something valuable there doesn't seem worth it to me. I'd rather have missions to the asteroids or Phobos any day. Getting past the moon is what Obama's plan is all about. It's about long duration missions that eventually build towards a landing on Mars.

But you don't get to Mars without going back to the moon.

You don't get to long duration by cutting long duration.

Let's face it. Obama canceling the return to the moon and Mars landings is not going to get us to Mars faster.

the space station will work fine for that and already has. Landing on the moon also doesn't help research the best ways to enter the Martian atmosphere which is critical or the actual landing vehicle either. The moon doesn't have an atmosphere and only has 1/3 the gravity of Mars. By cutting out the costs of a trip back to the moon, Obama is making a trip to Mars much more likely.

We'll go back to the moon again. Maybe for h3, maybe to set up an observatory or maybe even a solar farm. Unfortunately, those projects aren't even on the horizon yet.

that the entire world has benefitted from, but IMHO we are looking at diminishing returns on our investment as time goes on. And I question the fundamental premise that we CAN travel in space beyond earth orbit or MAYBE a couple of the closest planets. I think human life has some biological constraints on it that make the absence of gravity a deal-killer.

So I'm a fence-sitter on the whole thing these days.......

We will flower and die, as a species, on Earth, just as every other species before us has passed away. As an interplanetary civilization, maybe we'll become something else. How could anyone not dream of that?

As beautiful as it is, the Earth cannot sustain a global human population. It simply cannot. The cycle of growth and collapse will continue.

a death of maximum entropy, or the expansion will reverse and it will disappear in a "big crunch."
There really aren't any other alternatives.

We get what's behind door number one. Actually, expansion appears to be increasing.

regardless of what's going on right now.


:D

Personally, I think if we can move the transportation into earth orbit to civilian companies that would be good. After all, we don't need to subsidize taxi drivers. The science behind yellow cabs is well known.

Also, a project to put 5 people on Mars provides high paying jobs for thousands. Those thousands of people spend that money in American Communities. We get the research that increases human knowledge and economic benefits.

This is one area where we enjoy a technological edge. How about we hang onto that edge. And historically there has been a tickle down technological boost from the research you cite. The only 'trickle down' that actually works.

The money goes to the bottom and trickles up.

when I joined DU over the years, to discover that there are luddite liberals.

I love space travel. I love learning about it. I love reading about it. I love all the new things we learn from all the R&D in preparation for it.

Space exploration is a good use of the large resources of a modern day empire. I really think that if we didn't have a space program, we would be involved in A LOT more conflicts around the globe.

luddites among us?

doesn't say much for our self esteem as a species. I would love to be around for the launch of the Starship Obama.

re this species, you're not paying attention!!

Notice the Van Allen Radiaiton Belts --

the signifance is that we are earthbound --

42 years since we've been to the moon -- give that some thought!

And take a good look at this hunk of tinfoil and the rivets and give it some thought!


&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.panoramas.dk%2Ffullscreen3%2Fimages1apollo.html&size=345k&name=apollo+lm+jpg&p=Apollo+11%2C+landing+module&oid=b7882ed7e6636bb6&fr2=&no=8&tt=326&sigr=11m3s7ebu&sigi=11avrpk6b&sigb=133pv5cll

I understand how you feel. I think that one of the reasons so many people are apathetic these days it that they're just terminally bored. They see nothing interesting to shoot for, just life in a cubicle or McJobs. Space exploration gives this country something interesting to strive for.

I understand wanting to solve problems on Earth, but we shouldn't use that excuse to put a halt to exploration and science. Ending NASA won't put a dent in the world's woes. It would actually cause more woes by hurting the (already limping) aerospace industry.

. . . with being against 'science' and 'space travel'.

I have detailed objections here, if anyone is interested.

on DU. The Mars thing is the latest episode.

It happens every time the space shuttle goes up, too, and especially if it crashes. "It's a waste of people and money!!"

I also remember as a kid how everyone united behind the idea. I was only 4 when McCain... I mean Armstrong walked on the moon and I remember watching it with my family. I was amazing!

priority of exploration of space and military action only for self-defense, I could go for it. But, I believe we will just be making war with each other as other nations, we don't approve of, compete with us to lay claim to real estate on the moon and other planets that can be mined for minerals that we need.

It seems to be our nature to first fight about a thing, then in the process learn to share it.

So, you could be right. We could be in for just simply transferring our conflicts that we have now into space. But I fully believe that we could get to some approximation of The Federation or Interplanetary UN eventually. That is our nature also.

from stuff I gathered and wrote about a little while back (links to the quotes long ago severed). . .


____ A senior U.S. military officer under Bush warned (in 2003) that, "Space may become a war zone in the not-too-distant future," in an apparent reaction to China becoming the third country besides the U.S. and Russia to put a man in space.

"In my view it will not be long before space becomes a battleground," Lieutenant General Edward Anderson, Deputy Commander, United States Northern Command, and Vice Commander, U.S. Element, North American Aerospace Defense Command, said at a geospatial intelligence conference in New Orleans.

"Our military forces depend very, very heavily on space capabilities, and so that is a statement of the obvious to our potential threat, whoever that may be," he said.

Anderson served on the Army staff in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, Development, and Acquisition in the Pentagon as a space acquisitions and appropriations warrior.

"They can see that one of the ways that they can certainly diminish our capabilities will be to attack the space systems," said Anderson, who was formerly with the U.S. Space Command.

"Now how they do that and who that's going to be I can't tell you in this audience," he warned ominously.

In a Reuters article published in the same month as Anderson's remarks, Rich Haver, former special assistant for intelligence to Donald Rumsfeld, said he expected battles in space within the next two decades.

"I believe space is the place we will fight in the next 20 years," said Haver, now vice president for intelligence strategy at Northrop Grumman Mission Systems. (sincere, concerned look on his face as he speaks)

"There are executive orders that say we don't want to do that," Haver explained. "There's been a long-standing U.S. policy to try to keep space a peaceful place, but ... we have in space assets absolutely essential to the conduct of our military operations (and our portfolios), absolutely essential to our national security. They have been there for many years," he asserted.

"When the true history of the Cold War is written and all the classified items are finally unclassified, I believe that historians will note that it was in space that a significant degree of this country's ability to win the Cold War was embedded," Haver extolled.

Responding to a question about the implications of China sending a man into space (at the time), Haver said: "I think the Chinese are telling us they're there, and I think if we ever wind up in a confrontation again with any one of the major powers who has a space capability we will find space is a battleground."

How long was it from The Crusades to the UN? 800 years?

It does bum me out, but I'm not surprised by it. While a lack of intellectual curiosity and pursuit of adventure is usually a right-wing meme, it has it's adherents on the left too.

it's useless and costs way too much money.

More money is spent on candy bars globally than on manned space exploration.

The real science is in the unmanned stuff.

The Spirit rover died because it got "stuck" in about 2 inches of dirt.

A combination of fleets or probes backing up a small number of humans can provide larger return on investment.

for a fraction of the price for a single manned landing on Mars.

Still I am in favor of rovers but just wait until the anti-nuclear nuts learn we are sending "NUKES" to Mars.
How quickly will they turn on Rovers too?

Hope you enjoy your 20 minute lightspeed communication delays, lol.

Good luck with the vehicle accident that kills the whole crew and sets the whole space program back thirty years.

Because of the risk an accident "could" set back space program 30 years we should instead Intentionally set the space program back 30 years and then we don't have to risk it.

Similarly to avoid losing a million dollars in the stock market you should burn it all, that way you no longer have it to lose if the market crashes. See I "saved" you a million dollars.

or stay home because it's scary.

At least there aren't terrorists in space. :3

Billions of dollars isn't negligble, it can feed millions of the world's hungry.

The worlds economy is $60,600 billion.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=world+GDP

A tiny fraction of that could feed the entire world.

NASA budget is about $18 billion. Rest of world spends about another $12 billion on Space Exploration.

$30 billion / $60,600 billion = 0.05%.

The human race spends roughly 1/20th of 1% of our resources on Space Exploration.

Robots are useful because of their low cost but they are limited.
There have been massive limitations on what the missions can do because of limited cabilities of robots.

Of all the robots we have sent to Mars we have never dug more than 12" down.
We have absolutely no idea what is under the first 12" of soil/rock on Martian surface.

A human could dig, take a break, dig some more. Spirit sample gathering tool broke. A human could simply grab a spare and continue working. There has been large amount of data "missed" because the rover didn't have the ability, time, or capabilities to reach that location.

If we ever reach a point where a Robot can do everything a human can in Space a Robot can do everything a human can on Earth.

It will cost a fraction of the cost and will happen much sooner.

The human body is extremely versatile.

So you build a robot designed for digging but that one is likely heavier and slower resembling more like a minature oil rig than a rover. So it is good at digging but not so good at other stuff.

Robots also tend to not be good at the unexpected. If a drill breaks a human can adapt, figure out a solution, or jury rig repairs, they are extremely capable in making changes. Robots not so much.

We should use robots but they will not provide as complete a picture as humans will.

A robot with as much versatility, flexibility, and adaptability to completely replace a human astronaut would also be able to replace any other human occupation. We are nowhere close to that point yet.

and the fact that there is no risk involved makes the lack of versatility worth it. You can build specialized robots to do whatever it is that you want to do.

Humans are far more versatile. Planning everything a robot may encounter decade before it encounters it tends to mean the realistic goals are much less.

If robots were so effective they would replace just about everything.

Mining for coal is dangerous. Why don't he have a robot army do that? Building high voltage lines are dangerous why don't we have robots do that? Warfare is incredibly dangerous why don't we use robots for that? While you may point to drones we don't use robots exclusively. Drones only have value when combined with other adaptable humans on the battlefield.

We have used humans for dangerous work since beginning of time because there is no substitute.

but we are talking about simple research. Digging rocks up, seeing what they are made of, etc. We do not need humans for that.

However these plans take decades to put into motion.
Planning today would be for humans in 2020.

Complicating things further is the fact that we only have 3 realistic windows to reach Mars this century.

Due to our dissimilar orbits Mars will only be "close" to earth 3 times this century. Launching at any other time would take much longer (30%-80%), require more fuel/mass, and more cost.

The first window is in 2020, the second in 2036, the third is 2060.

what you are talking about (mining, etc) would take another century to fully realize. If we sent people to the moon in the next decade they wouldn't do anything a robot couldn't have done.

To illustrate that robots are neither infallible nor as flexible as humans.

The value humans add to a mission is flexibility. We are "general purpose" machines and can adapt to a variety of tasks.
Traveling long distances, digging deep, using tools, conducting repairs, improvising, observing unexpected scenarios.

Nobody is planning to mine mars this century (if ever). For mining asteroids provide a lot more value than anything Mars could ever offer. They also have the added bonus of the material being outside a gravity well thus making them even more useful for space exploration.

examples of what they could actually do in the near term that robots can't be designed to do?

Yes, robots wont be able to adjust. But if you find a problem all you do is send another robot up there. No lives are lost and the financial impact isn't as large as with manned missions even if you have to send 20 robots up there.

You make is seem like it is a trivial tasks.

From planning to landing on Mars is about a decade long delay. Also the ability to pick a landing site for these primitive spacecraft is very limited. They kinda aim for the right area but the range of error is in dozens of miles. When you combine that with limited range the ability to get back to a particular location is limited.

It took the probe 88 days to get to the first interesting feature within range. Given that landing site is semi-random that was just luck. It easliy could have been 188 days or 1000 days. The mission is adapted based on the extremely limited tools at disposal of the rover, its limited range, and long delay between each command (20 minutes earth -> mars -> earth). When designing a mission the goals are artificially low because of the probes short lifespan. No matter where Spirit landed it was incapable of going more than 10-30 km. The further is goes the more of its life is spent moving and not researching. So compromises have to be made.



A human could have accomplished Spirit task 739 days in about a day or two. The last 2 years Spirit has been stuck in loose sand because the danger wasn't seen from its limited sensors. It failed to wakeup due to dirt on the panels which could be wiped clean by a human in a matter of seconds.

All the robot exploration of Mars since begining of space program while yielding massive amounts of data is a tiny fraction of what even a modest missions (3-5 astronauts and 90 days on surface) could accomplish.

The spirit rover laster 21 times longer than it was expected to, over 5 years. I dont know exactly when this rover was designed but it must have been the late 90s. 10 years later the technology has evolved extensively. The spirit rover has a 20Mhz processor on board just to give you an idea of how old the technology is. Yet it outperformed everyone's expectations.

It might have been limited to an area within 30 Km but a manned mission probably wouldn't have explored much more than that. Everything else you said about the problems the rovers had would be applicable to humans (aside from the getting stuck in sand many years after the robot was supposed to end its mission and the 20 minute communication gap). Yet the rovers have a lot of advantages humans don't, affordability and minimal risk being the big ones. You could design a rover every year and keep sending them up there. Each one can be designed for different experiments. Each one can be dropped in different locations. You wouldn't be able to do that with manned missions.

The communications delay issue can be imporved by designing better AI. The dust on solar panels can also be fixed. This was our first try at something like this, and it uses technology that is over a decade old. We got a lot of experiance from those rovers, and now we can build on that and make them 100 times better.

It was our 8th "try" the second rover.

It wasn't limited to an area of 30km. It was limited to an area of 10km.

I do give the rover a lot of credit. I posted sadly the first day it failed to "wakeup". The point is it isn't a battle humans vs robots rather a synergy. Robots & humans.
Any manned mission to mars would bring along lots of robots also to improve productivity of the limited and valuable time the humans have.

We could send a probe every year but we don't. Politics, budget, and stupid policies like "getting real about the budget" by scrutinizing the the program which gets 0.1% of GDP means that number of missions is extremely limited. We will be lucky to send 2 or 3 missions to Mars in next decade. Taking humans out won't increase the amount of science. If NASA scaled it up to 2 dozen probes then same anti-science idiots will be crying about starving kids and pushing for that to be cut back.

We are fixing the solar panel issue. The next rover (about 5x as large) will be carrying a nuclear decay powerplant (RTG). Just wait till the anti-science idiots joint up with the anti-nuke idiots.
How many people will be pushing to end robot exploration also? Remember "bomb the moon" how long before the gnashing of teeth that we are "nuking mars"?

..you will probably not reach that level any time soon.

You scope is limited because you limit it. Its circular logic to say that robots can do it - when "it" is scoped according to the robots capabilities.

In fact we should use more robots. They already answer phones and anyone who is ever in voicemail knows how efficient that is.

What do you do for a living? Perhaps we should develop You 2.0. Waddayathink?

A NASA robotics scientists said

"what it takes a robot weeks to do could be done in a few hours by a human"

ahh, yes, the 50's and 60's...

same old bullshit, differen century...

it was proven wrong then, just as it is now...

opposed to scientific exploration, just skeptical of manned missions in most cases.

Sending a human to mars 'because it's there' doesn't do it for me.

You're no longer a child. Now, you must justify your advocacy for these massive outlays of resources with logic, not appeals to "awe".

The x-ray and penicillin were both discovered with no practical applications in mind. When the electron was discovered a century ago, we had no use for it at all...and here we are today, living in a world run on electrons.

So it goes for space exploration and travel...and ifyou really feel that "awe" (read: "inspiration") has no place in human affairs, I do genuinely feel sorry for you.

"So it goes for space exploration and travel...and ifyou really feel that "awe" (read: "inspiration") has no place in human affairs, I do genuinely feel sorry for you."

Have you considered LSD? It would provide an outlet for you need to experience pseudo-religious states of being without costing nearly as much. Users describe their experiences in much the same way you have here--without any appeal to rational argument. :silly:

That's logic enough for me. As long as we are spending ridiculous amounts of resources on the destruction of the Middle East, I will defend the comparative paltry sum that would spur another generation of future scientists.

They basically couldn't find jobs in their fields by that time.

We'd have enough technical manpower if about half of it wasn't being squandered on the Military-Industrial complex.

We don’t have children based on financial returns. It costs a lot of money to raise them, and they often do not “pay off.” We don’t go out to dinner or to movies or amusement parks for financial returns. We just enjoy doing those things. Financially, they harm us.

The real reason to send people into space makes sense only if you have a sense of wonder, get a thrill from trying to accomplish difficult, untried things. If you are energized by discovery. In other words: if you are human.

Yeah, some humans—especially “bean counters”—will never understand the appeal of space travel. I pity them; they miss out on so much.

von braun

This entire line of argument is as baseless at the OP's. It isn't a lack of curiosity or imagination that makes people prefer that we spend that money--and brain power--solving crushing problems we face here and now. And the analogies you posted don't cut it. Children are necessary to propagation of the species, and leisure is privately funded. Sometimes you just have to count the beans before going out to play.

"Children are necessary to propagation of the species"

and that's the reason we had her.

"Children are necessary to propagation of the species"

Obviously, you are the one of the people who he was talking about, "the bean counters" with very little in the way of imagination.

Shit, "Children are necessary to propagation of the species" makes that obvious. I feel sorry for any kids you may or might have.

and $18 billion in a $2.5 trillon budget isn't even play money. It's pocket change.

I give more of my yearly income to the bums who ask for money then that.

Von Braun is right:

"Yeah, some humans—especially “bean counters”—will never understand the appeal of space travel. I pity them; they miss out on so much."

Never better said, and still not understood.

As he said, I pity you; you miss out on so much.

I was clearly in error trying to communicate with you like an adult. It's not a mistake I'll be repeating.

It's probably better you don't.

Nostalgia and "ooooh that's cool" isn't a good enough reason to blow that kind of money, any more than the emotion of fear is a good enough reason for us to gallop around blowing up the middle east.

Although I do also understand the opposition to what many regard as a waste of resources. In my opinion, exploration of space (both inner and outer) is humankind's destiny, unless we are destroyed by nature or by our own folly before it can happen in earnest.

On the other hand, unless and until science finds a way to overcome the limitations of physics as we currently understand things (i.e. we can only travel at such an intolerably slow rate), poking around at the other rocks and/or gaseous objects that are orbiting our sun isn't likely to amount to much aside from an adventure, and maybe a morale boost or something. Perhaps we could exploit their resources, assuming there is anything useful to exploit, if there was a feasible way to make use of them here on our planet. Some kind of breakthrough in the physics of propulsion is the key, and blasting off into space with rockets isn't going to advance that anyway.

Now, space-based solar power...there's something worth spending some research money on in the meantime (if you ask me...)

But back to the "I agree" part...it totally bums me out to think that human space exploration is so unsupported. It feels like giving up or something, to think we're just resigned to being earth-bound for the foreseeable future.

was that intentional?

:D

The benefits from the space program have paid dividends a thousand fold.

Sadly NASA isn't a commercial enterprise and they didn't patent inventions and charge huge licensing fees. If they had they would be awash in lifetime revenue streams now.

NASA did the right thing and gave away technology and research for decades. They did so because they assumed (naively I guess) that people would always see the value of theoretical research.

We have become the Big Mac and American Idol generation. No longer reaching for the impossible. Eventually I think other countries will.

Latin America, India, and China are growing rapidly. As their influence and wealth expands they will be progressive enough to put 0.1% towards exploration beyond this rock.

I think a human will land on Mars eventually i just doubt it will be an American. Our empire is in decline not just militarily, or economically but also scientifically. Eventually the rest of world will no longer look towards us for progress or innovation.

Cheer up though we can still watch American Idol while eating a Big Mac though because nobody would dare consider that a waste of money.

NASA budget: $18.6 billion.
DOD budget: $663 billion.

That doesn't include another $200 billion for current wars, nor another $460 billion in indirect costs.

How about we cut defense budget (about $1.2 trillion) by 10% = $120 billion savings and DOUBLE funding for NASA.
Wouldn't that be the progressive thing to do?

We aren't. Obama budget raises defense spending by 5%. The INCREASE (just the INCREASE for fraks sake) in defense spending for FY2011 is MORE than entire budget of NASA.

"Then let "the world" pay for it; we are broke."

=

Then let the world benefit.

You can get all the data you need with robotic missions without the necessity, and danger, of carrying an atmosphere and all the other requirements for bringing living people into space. There were over 20 robotic missions canceled due to cost overruns in the Space Shuttle program alone.

Here is a great site for reviewing various robotic missions:

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/space_missions/unmanned_table.html&edu=elem&portal=vocals&nl=7l

I do believe we should continue to research for further manned missions in the not too distant future, but we can get the job of learning done just as well with robots. There is though the wonderful allure of putting people on Mars just to say we did...

it's stupid. Yeah, it cost 24 billion, if i recall correctly, to go to the moon. Was that money wasted? Not to the people who got it. They spent it. And paid taxes with it. If you think there were better ways to spend that money, then go gather it up again. It's still there.

Why don't we ban Hollywood? Now there's a waste of resources. All that money being spent on movies that most of us don't see anyway.

Money is always there but the pockets change; it is not in the same pockets after a change, and that is all there is to say about money.
- Gertrude Stein

Un-manned missions is where the action is at.

When you are asking barefoot hungry people to foot the bill, you should expect them to express reservations about the costs.

I too grew up with the fantasy of space as the final frontier. But I also remember Earth the home planet needs my attention first.

Yet you cry "what cost".
If we cut defense budget by just 10% and TRIPLED NASA budget we would still have a surplus to spend on "barefoot hungry people".

It is the mother of all strawmen.

Here is an interesting Stat.

Obama FY2011 budget increases defense spending by 6.8%. The INCREASE (not whole spending just the INCREASE from previous year) is $45.2 billion.

NASA FY2011 budget is $16.8 billion.

Starting to see how cutting a bean in half isn't going to do anything to help the poor when we are pouring massive (AND INCREASING) amount of money into defense.

. . . and Interior (nuclear system support).

Would you accept a claim from a right winger who says you aren't accounting for billions in hunger relief "hidden" in the defense budget.