Why is space so unpopular!!!

OK...I'm really not one to wave the flag and espouse that the United States is the greatest country in the world - mostly because it's just that attitude that has most of the world wanting to see us take it on the chin.  We shouldn't try to be the world's policeman, or shove democracy down the worlds throat.  I think every country has their good and bad side, but we all populate this one world.

However, I believe that if you are not American, you don't have the right to criticize what NASA has/has not done or become.  Spend your energy - and money - getting your own governments to build the next generation of space vehicle and go back to the Moon, go to Mars or wherever.  Otherwise what's the point? 

Now can we all please just get along!

Ro,

You're right about the lack of R&D. One of the blogs I read daily is Jerry Pournelle (scifi writer and computer bon vivant) and I echo his concerns over NASA. He worked as a Statistical Engineer for JPL in the Mercury/Gemini days and was the Chairman of the Citizens Advisory Council on National Space Policy. He was also the founding President of Pepperdine Research Institute. He is the person I stole "I saw the first man on the moon, I never thought I would see the last" from.

His son works for XCOR the private rocketship company, and they've been struggling to find an American educated aerodynamicist. We've not only lost most of the ability to do R&D (Bell Labs and SPARC are sorely missed), but we've lost the manufacturing ability that was once a given. We could not duplicate the D-Day effort. Imagine building 27,000 B-17s these days!

Edit My mistake, I check Jerry's site and realized that my memory was faulty (I read the posting on the 16th). It's an AERODYNAMICIST they require! My apologies!! Now where are my glasses? /edit

Alas, I do basically agree with you guys here.  Our nation has turned itself inward, to personal pleasures and distractions, and few - if any - care about the Greater Good of Mankind (whatever that actually is).

The only reason I mentioned the finding of incontrovertible proof of life on Mars as being a major impetus to get us there is because that is precisely what happened when the science community announced the finding of ALH84001 (meteorite from Mars with very curious *fossils* embedded in it).  The debate of ALH84001 is still raging, but it did fuel a lot of money for the current batch of Mars rovers and orbiters that weren't even thought of at the time of the announcement. One thing is for sure - without ALH84001, we would not have Spirit, Opportunity, MRO, etc.  So, that was at least partially a good thing.

I suspect that we Americans (and I know not everyone here is American) are witnessing the Elder Days of what was once a shining example of scientific pursuit and discovery.  We no longer have the R&D and, worse yet, the Vision, to seek out and discovery/invent and lead in the world of science like we once had.  Our R&D is practically dead.  Most of our science/tech jobs are being offshored.  What kind of a picture (and inspiration) does this draw for our young people, the same young people who *might* have been a part of all of this otherwise?

-Ro

Mansteins revenge wrote:

All politicians are concerned with is their "legacy"...the offices of Govt. (particlarly the Presidential) are now their personal quests for immortality (in the History books)...and I am not so sure that even your two examples: 1) The Chinese getting there first 2) The discovery of incontrovertible evidence of life on Mars ...will be enough for us to act...I believe today's generation and culture could care less if the Chinese got there first (let them spend their blood and treasure)...not to mention the culture of wanting to let everyone "win"...don't want to hurt the feelings of the Chinese...I'll bet the Chinese have better disciplined astronauts to be sure...

Sigh, you're probably right. The newer generation doesn't seem to care about much at all, except their own pleasure. The Chinese or Russians (they're not gone yet!) will get there first, to our regret. Somehow given the history of both of those regimes, I doubt they will make good landlords of space. 

Persephones_Dream wrote:

Bgrigg wrote: NASA has turned into a huge bureaucracy who spends more money each year on administration than space programs. We’ve ended up with drunk astronauts who sleep around. I consider the space shuttle a "waste" because had we taken the last Saturn V and used it, instead of turning it into a roadside attraction, we (meaning the world) would have a base on the moon. NASA took our dream and put it in a geosynchronous orbit. I blame the late Senator William Proxmire, who used to hand out “the Golden Fleece” which he claimed was examples of tax dollars being wasted. He took the big money away from the Space Program and handed it to the dairy farmers in Wisconsin. Take a look at how much the US spends on farm subsidies and compare that to the entire budget of NASA and think hard on it.   I have to pretty much agree with you here.  But, keep in mind that the Apollo program was doomed by 1966, which was the peak year of funding for it.  The Nixon administration strangled it.  That wasn't NASA, that was an administration and country that - by Apollo 12 - had lost its interest in the fact that Apollo really wasn't about "science", it was about National Pride.  Once we realized we were going to be the first on the moon no matter what, it became a moot point and our attentions turned elsewhere.  Unfortunately, everything else went with it. I remember well the Golden Fleece awards.  SETI was also a recipient of such a noble award.  But, in many ways, nothing has changed.  There are no LEADERS in our country that are LEADING.  They are doing their own pet projects, pet wars, pet spendings, etc. to make sure they stay in office for as long as they can.  They don't care about anything but themselves, their wallets and their votes.  None of them have VISION, which is what it takes to look beyond The Office and do something useful/beneficial for Mankind. There will really only be two things that will find us spending a lot of money to get to Mars: 1) The Chinese getting there first 2) The discovery of incontrovertible evidence of life on Mars Short of either or both of these two happening, we will watch the Universe from LEO at best. -Ro

All politicians are concerned with is their "legacy"...the offices of Govt. (particlarly the Presidential) are now their personal quests for immortality (in the History books)...and I am not so sure that even your two examples:

1) The Chinese getting there first

2) The discovery of incontrovertible evidence of life on Mars

...will be enough for us to act...I believe today's generation and culture could care less if the Chinese got there first (let them spend their blood and treasure)...not to mention the culture of wanting to let everyone "win"...don't want to hurt the feelings of the Chinese...I'll bet the Chinese have better disciplined astronauts to be sure...

Bgrigg wrote:

NASA has turned into a huge bureaucracy who spends more money each year on administration than space programs. We’ve ended up with drunk astronauts who sleep around. I consider the space shuttle a "waste" because had we taken the last Saturn V and used it, instead of turning it into a roadside attraction, we (meaning the world) would have a base on the moon. NASA took our dream and put it in a geosynchronous orbit. I blame the late Senator William Proxmire, who used to hand out “the Golden Fleece” which he claimed was examples of tax dollars being wasted. He took the big money away from the Space Program and handed it to the dairy farmers in Wisconsin. Take a look at how much the US spends on farm subsidies and compare that to the entire budget of NASA and think hard on it.

I have to pretty much agree with you here.  But, keep in mind that the Apollo program was doomed by 1966, which was the peak year of funding for it.  The Nixon administration strangled it.  That wasn't NASA, that was an administration and country that - by Apollo 12 - had lost its interest in the fact that Apollo really wasn't about "science", it was about National Pride.  Once we realized we were going to be the first on the moon no matter what, it became a moot point and our attentions turned elsewhere.  Unfortunately, everything else went with it.

I remember well the Golden Fleece awards.  SETI was also a recipient of such a noble award.  But, in many ways, nothing has changed.  There are no LEADERS in our country that are LEADING.  They are doing their own pet projects, pet wars, pet spendings, etc. to make sure they stay in office for as long as they can.  They don't care about anything but themselves, their wallets and their votes.  None of them have VISION, which is what it takes to look beyond The Office and do something useful/beneficial for Mankind.

There will really only be two things that will find us spending a lot of money to get to Mars:

1) The Chinese getting there first

2) The discovery of incontrovertible evidence of life on Mars

Short of either or both of these two happening, we will watch the Universe from LEO at best.

-Ro

Cool, was it a device of your own design or a kit? I was given a V-2 ish looking pickle with a pair of tail fins that had a slight twist. it was a clear colored plastic about  8" or so long, with a nozzle that plugged onto a hand held water pump. You charged the thing up like the squirt guns kids have now, and released it and it shot up a ways twirling.

I never had the Estes kits, I think my father wanted me to keep my fingers; but as aforementioned, I had my ways...

BTW the hot squirt gun back in the day (1965) was a accurate Luger with a pump trigger.

bondoman wrote:

I think that the reason space (modeling) has become so unpopular is because we spend too much time on the internet and not enough time building rockets out of cigar tubes packed with match heads.

LOL...I remember in middle school I built a V-2 model rocket (the kind you launched) and it was an awesome experience to get it in the air...the packing I used was toilet paper though and the chute burned up when it deployed so it came down faster than planned (but didn't reach supersonic speed as they did over Britain)...

gulfstreamV wrote:

Mansteins revenge wrote:  Bgrigg wrote: Oh I realize that once on the moon we can do all sorts of things. But we haven't been to the moon in over 30 years. First we have to either rent the Russian's equipment, or re-engineer the Saturn V to launch umpteen loads to the moon, land, build a facility that can support life, manufacture a ship and fuel it. Once all that's done, easy-peasy! I wonder how many kilos all that lot is? More than 10 I bet! I think this will be Buck's point. It would be cheaper and quicker to build a single use ship, blast to Mars, land, plant the flag (thereby owning Mars for all time, according to the Russian's Arctic claim!) and return. It will take a LOT of energy to just build that base on the moon. Of course, doing that single use ship would be a mistake in the long run. This is the reason I've never been happy with the shuttle. All that money we "wasted" building what is in essence a very high altitude glider, to build a space station that will immediately start decaying in orbit, both actual decay of the equipment, as well as the constant boost to stay in orbit. We could already have established a base on the moon, and be building the interplanetary space craft.  NASA knows all of these things...so why did we all think they keep us in near-earth orbit, just to somehow placate those of us who want to be "Space Frontier Trekees"? To create the illusion we are somehow exploring the vastness of space? Where the shuttle goes is hardly worthy of being called "space"...even a moon shot is barely scratching the outside of space...I feel it is simple propaganda... Your not NASA or anything close to being Knowledgeble in what NASA has as a data base of what it takes to manufacture,prepare,man,stage and launch anything close to what you dream of space travel is. Why you keep saying NASA is a joke makes me wonder.You must know somthing they haven't learned in 30 years? Like I said, send in your resume' cheif, you may have the right stuff?

...you are kidding me right? you think all of these posters on here are writing things that the Space Agency of the US is ignorant of? C'mon...just because you disagree with my opinion doesn't mean you have to be so disingenious...I am not qulaified for the job at NASA and that is my point: The people running our space program know what and what isn't getting done in terms of what COULD or SHOULD be getting done...and according to many on here we should already be on Mars...

...my point is, why aren't we? Is NASA (you seem to think they aren't running our space program for some reason) just "going thru the motions" of space exploration? And please stop telling me to apply for the job, it has lost it's charm of being cute...

I grew up during Apollo and believe the dream. Many of the scientists and engineers involved in Appolo came straight of the lab floor at AVRO after the plug was pulled on the Arrow project.

Why am I concerned with how the US spends it's tax dollars? Because when you live next to an elephant, you feel every move it makes.

Geosynchronously speaking, I could care less what you think. 

Bgrigg wrote:

gulfstreamV wrote: I know Canada had a major part in the boom/articulating arm on the shuttle, but why are you considering that a waste of money? NASA is what it is, and I'd like to think of it as a program that does what it can with the resources it has. Public opinion seems to be always smarter and more efficent. Maybe NASA should just shut it's doors and let Canada or some other nation take over? Have at it, Space is a big place. NASA has turned into a huge bureaucracy who spends more money each year on administration than space programs. We’ve ended up with drunk astronauts who sleep around. I consider the space shuttle a "waste" because had we taken the last Saturn V and used it, instead of turning it into a roadside attraction, we (meaning the world) would have a base on the moon. NASA took our dream and put it in a geosynchronous orbit. I blame the late Senator William Proxmire, who used to hand out “the Golden Fleece” which he claimed was examples of tax dollars being wasted. He took the big money away from the Space Program and handed it to the dairy farmers in Wisconsin. Take a look at how much the US spends on farm subsidies and compare that to the entire budget of NASA and think hard on it.

gulfstreamV wrote:

I know Canada had a major part in the boom/articulating arm on the shuttle, but why are you considering that a waste of money? NASA is what it is, and I'd like to think of it as a program that does what it can with the resources it has. Public opinion seems to be always smarter and more efficent. Maybe NASA should just shut it's doors and let Canada or some other nation take over? Have at it, Space is a big place.

NASA has turned into a huge bureaucracy who spends more money each year on administration than space programs. We’ve ended up with drunk astronauts who sleep around. I consider the space shuttle a "waste" because had we taken the last Saturn V and used it, instead of turning it into a roadside attraction, we (meaning the world) would have a base on the moon. NASA took our dream and put it in a geosynchronous orbit.

I blame the late Senator William Proxmire, who used to hand out “the Golden Fleece” which he claimed was examples of tax dollars being wasted. He took the big money away from the Space Program and handed it to the dairy farmers in Wisconsin. Take a look at how much the US spends on farm subsidies and compare that to the entire budget of NASA and think hard on it.  

Mansteins revenge wrote:

Bgrigg wrote: Oh I realize that once on the moon we can do all sorts of things. But we haven't been to the moon in over 30 years. First we have to either rent the Russian's equipment, or re-engineer the Saturn V to launch umpteen loads to the moon, land, build a facility that can support life, manufacture a ship and fuel it. Once all that's done, easy-peasy! I wonder how many kilos all that lot is? More than 10 I bet! I think this will be Buck's point. It would be cheaper and quicker to build a single use ship, blast to Mars, land, plant the flag (thereby owning Mars for all time, according to the Russian's Arctic claim!) and return. It will take a LOT of energy to just build that base on the moon. Of course, doing that single use ship would be a mistake in the long run. This is the reason I've never been happy with the shuttle. All that money we "wasted" building what is in essence a very high altitude glider, to build a space station that will immediately start decaying in orbit, both actual decay of the equipment, as well as the constant boost to stay in orbit. We could already have established a base on the moon, and be building the interplanetary space craft.  NASA knows all of these things...so why did we all think they keep us in near-earth orbit, just to somehow placate those of us who want to be "Space Frontier Trekees"? To create the illusion we are somehow exploring the vastness of space? Where the shuttle goes is hardly worthy of being called "space"...even a moon shot is barely scratching the outside of space...I feel it is simple propaganda...

Bgrigg wrote:

Oh I realize that once on the moon we can do all sorts of things. But we haven't been to the moon in over 30 years. First we have to either rent the Russian's equipment, or re-engineer the Saturn V to launch umpteen loads to the moon, land, build a facility that can support life, manufacture a ship and fuel it. Once all that's done, easy-peasy! I wonder how many kilos all that lot is? More than 10 I bet! I think this will be Buck's point. It would be cheaper and quicker to build a single use ship, blast to Mars, land, plant the flag (thereby owning Mars for all time, according to the Russian's Arctic claim!) and return. It will take a LOT of energy to just build that base on the moon. Of course, doing that single use ship would be a mistake in the long run. This is the reason I've never been happy with the shuttle. All that money we "wasted" building what is in essence a very high altitude glider, to build a space station that will immediately start decaying in orbit, both actual decay of the equipment, as well as the constant boost to stay in orbit. We could already have established a base on the moon, and be building the interplanetary space craft.

NASA knows all of these things...so why did we all think they keep us in near-earth orbit, just to somehow placate those of us who want to be "Space Frontier Trekees"? To create the illusion we are somehow exploring the vastness of space? Where the shuttle goes is hardly worthy of being called "space"...even a moon shot is barely scratching the outside of space...I feel it is simple propaganda...

Bgrigg wrote:

Oh I realize that once on the moon we can do all sorts of things. But we haven't been to the moon in over 30 years. First we have to either rent the Russian's equipment, or re-engineer the Saturn V to launch umpteen loads to the moon, land, build a facility that can support life, manufacture a ship and fuel it. Once all that's done, easy-peasy! I wonder how many kilos all that lot is? More than 10 I bet! I think this will be Buck's point. It would be cheaper and quicker to build a single use ship, blast to Mars, land, plant the flag (thereby owning Mars for all time, according to the Russian's Arctic claim!) and return. It will take a LOT of energy to just build that base on the moon. Of course, doing that single use ship would be a mistake in the long run. This is the reason I've never been happy with the shuttle. All that money we "wasted" building what is in essence a very high altitude glider, to build a space station that will immediately start decaying in orbit, both actual decay of the equipment, as well as the constant boost to stay in orbit. We could already have established a base on the moon, and be building the interplanetary space craft.

Oh I realize that once on the moon we can do all sorts of things.

But we haven't been to the moon in over 30 years. First we have to either rent the Russian's equipment, or re-engineer the Saturn V to launch umpteen loads to the moon, land, build a facility that can support life, manufacture a ship and fuel it.

Once all that's done, easy-peasy! I wonder how many kilos all that lot is? More than 10 I bet!

I think this will be Buck's point. It would be cheaper and quicker to build a single use ship, blast to Mars, land, plant the flag (thereby owning Mars for all time, according to the Russian's Arctic claim!) and return. It will take a LOT of energy to just build that base on the moon. Of course, doing that single use ship would be a mistake in the long run.

This is the reason I've never been happy with the shuttle. All that money we "wasted" building what is in essence a very high altitude glider, to build a space station that will immediately start decaying in orbit, both actual decay of the equipment, as well as the constant boost to stay in orbit. We could already have established a base on the moon, and be building the interplanetary space craft. 

Bgrigg wrote:

I await Buck's response as well, but he may be taking into consideration that first you have to GET to the moon. Escaping the gravity well of Earth is the part that costs.

Keep in mind that you can manufacture all the fuel you need to get to Mars on the moon.  There is no need to lift it out of the Earth's gravity well.  So, yeah, *getting* to the moon is one thing, but you don't need to take along a whole lot of mass (ie - fuel) to get to Mars.  Make it in situ on the moon.

Also, for the record, the cost get getting off Earth is somewhere around $20,000 per kg.  Heh.

-Ro

espins1 wrote:

grandadjohn wrote: To much attention is given to the negatives and NOT enough to the positives. Man's future may while depend on us leaving earth Not according to the people in this thread with "the world is flat" mentality.....   p.s. I'm not one of "them", I know the importance of continued exploration in space.

I know, if it was up to them, we would still be living in caves

grandadjohn wrote:

To much attention is given to the negatives and NOT enough to the positives. Man's future may while depend on us leaving earth

Not according to the people in this thread with "the world is flat" mentality.....  

p.s. I'm not one of "them", I know the importance of continued exploration in space.

Typical Mission sequence: 1) Space Shuttle launched today. Tune in for tile damage report on 6:00 news... 2) Space Shuttle is in orbit with what Nasa calls "minimal tile damage" from today's launch... 3) Nasa considers space walk after close up pictures taken from the special robotic arm, that was designed to take pictures of damaged tiles, revealed damaged tiles today after shuttle performed "space flip," a manuever designed to show damaged tiles on the belly of the shuttle... 4) yadda yadda yadda...

Just because the media only focuses on "What's gone wrong this time" in the same way they focus on murders, bombings, floods, hurricanes etc... does not mean that Space is boring, too conservative or not worth pursuing. 

Come on folks...see past the sensationalistic media and look to what we are doing. 

We ARE putting human beings in an environment that is completely hostile to life.  We do this with a modicum of regularity and success.  Yes we've had failures...terrible, tragic ones that have caused us to stop, analyze, improve and then try it again.  Unfortunately, the media (and the lemming public and politicians) only focus on the negative. What about the positive?

We are exploring the greatest unknown left to the human race.  We've walked on one celestial body and scratched the surface of another.  We put human beings in a place that is lethal to our exisitence.  We do this to explore the unknown, to try and answer the questions of:  Are we alone?  Can we move away from this little blue marble and survive?  Can we learn to live in harmony with the universe instead of just using it up?  Will there be a continuation of the human race...?  We do this because I believe it's in our nature to explore the unknown.

I enjoy SCUBA and when I'm underwater 100' below the thin little slice of my entire existence, I stop sometimes and wonder what it would be like to be floating above the earth, looking down at it.  I recognize that I too - in that momemt - am in an envirnonment lethal to my existence and that it would take only a very small malfunction to end my life.  But I do it because I want to experience in person what I've only seen on that little square box called a TV.  I want to explore in my own little way a piece of the universe unkown to me.

We MUST move out of near-earth orbit.  We must expand our knowledge beyond the moon, beyond our solar system...beyond our galaxy.  Why?  Because it's there and we're here! 

We're just little chicken trying to get to the other side !

LOL!

In this case, "costs" also includes energy and time. Factors ignored by the neo-cons! 

"Escaping the gravity well of Earth is the part that costs."

I dunno ... if we use situational science, a la the Bush administration regarding environmental issues,  it shouldn't be a problem at all.

Astronaut Buck wrote:

The myth that we can launch from the moon to mars is flawed as well.  Never happen...take way more energy to get off the moon to mars than from the earth to mars.

Buck,

It would be interesting to have you explain this as the escape velocity from the moon is 2.4km/s compared to 11.2km/s from Earth.  If you have the same specific impulse engine and the same mass to move, you get a lot further from the moon than the Earth.  Depending, too, on when  you launch, there are smaller delta-v's from the Moon.....

-Ro

grandadjohn wrote:

They have become TOO concerned with safety

Typical Mission sequence:

1) Space Shuttle launched today. Tune in for tile damage report on 6:00 news...

2) Space Shuttle is in orbit with what Nasa calls "minimal tile damage" from today's launch...

3) Nasa considers space walk after close up pictures taken from the special robotic arm, that was designed to take pictures of damaged tiles, revealed damaged tiles today after shuttle performed "space flip," a manuever designed to show damaged tiles on the belly of the shuttle...

4) yadda yadda yadda...