Why is space so unpopular!!!

To begin with I would ask myself what is it that draws my attention to this subject. Launch vehicles? Space Shuttle, Apollo, Gemini ect. For me it was the space race that got me. As a small boy I remember my grandmother taking me to kennedy space center and looking at the Skylab Saturn V on the gantry. I remember being in such awe at such a huge machine. From that point on I was hooked. I remeber following very closly the upcoming Skylab shots and missions. Watching John Chansolor on NBC giving all the details. Then Apollo-Soyuz, and that got me very interested in the Soviet Space Program.When I was in the Marines I had the oppurtunity to study Soviet short and medium range missles. Good stuff.

So to get back to your question, what kits? Well there are the traditional Apollo Saturns, a recently re-issued 1/32 Apollo command mod. In resin, there are allot of different choices from Launch Vehs, to exploration spacecraft, to ICBMs. They are more money, but usually worth it. Exceptional detail in the resin. There were allot of different Soviet armored vehs that were used from transportation of ICBMs, to moble lauchers of various types of missles. Only after Desert Storm did we see a moble scud launcher in 1/35. I would Love to see more of these. Nike missle launchers in 1/35, good missle stuff from the 50's and 60's, but you don't see much in 1/35.

Take your time and reserch, then go online and search!

Cheers, Steve

---

---

...something to consider: I feel that space subjects are overshadowed by many things. Many military modelers served in the military themselves, so building a jeep or tank is close to that person's life experiences...very few people are lucky enough to travel in space, by comparison. In addition, the population as a whole has lost a lot of interest in the space program that seemed to peak, in my opinion, in the late 60's...the promise didn't meet what was delivered...in a pragmatic sense, space travel on a large scale will always be too expensive, dangerous and impractical...

...also, German tanks kick butt...(sorry, couldn't resist)...

sb36 wrote:

To begin with I would ask myself what is it that draws my attention to this subject. Launch vehicles? Space Shuttle, Apollo, Gemini ect. For me it was the space race that got me. As a small boy I remember my grandmother taking me to kennedy space center and looking at the Skylab Saturn V on the gantry. I remember being in such awe at such a huge machine. From that point on I was hooked. I remeber following very closly the upcoming Skylab shots and missions. Watching John Chansolor on NBC giving all the details. Then Apollo-Soyuz, and that got me very interested in the Soviet Space Program.When I was in the Marines I had the oppurtunity to study Soviet short and medium range missles. Good stuff. So to get back to your question, what kits? Well there are the traditional Apollo Saturns, a recently re-issued 1/32 Apollo command mod. In resin, there are allot of different choices from Launch Vehs, to exploration spacecraft, to ICBMs. They are more money, but usually worth it. Exceptional detail in the resin. There were allot of different Soviet armored vehs that were used from transportation of ICBMs, to moble lauchers of various types of missles. Only after Desert Storm did we see a moble scud launcher in 1/35. I would Love to see more of these. Nike missle launchers in 1/35, good missle stuff from the 50's and 60's, but you don't see much in 1/35. Take your time and reserch, then go online and search! Cheers, Steve

Steve,

I am just completing an Apollo CSM from the recent reissue by Monogram. I have an older Monogram CSM that I bought from Ebay a while back but it was missing all the clear parts.  It was original factory seal, I think they never made it into the box at the factory.  Before the CSM, I did a version of the LEM from Monogram.  Cool kit with the moon surface and coupla dudes in suits. :)  I also built a Nike Hercules with launcher kit and I have the Nike Ajax with launcher kit on my shelf, along with the Revell History Makers V-2 with launcher.

Normally, I am into WWII airplanes and some armor - though in real life I am an astronomer and witnessed the Apollo landings etc.  But what got me back into this area of modelling was my wife.  She started taking classes in space studies and had no clue about any of this stuff.  Being 9 years younger than me, she just missed all of it.  She only vaguely knew about Apollo, had no idea what the "LEM" was and had never, ever heard of the Nike defence shields.

Now, that particular thing - the Nikes - allowed me to give her some real field research and first hand experience!  There's two old Nike sites within a couple of miles of our home.  One of them, a launch site, is almost completely intact still - and it's open to public access.  The field next to it is a soccer field for the kids.  My wife had never known that these places ever existed nor what they were, so we went out there a couple weeks ago and climbed all around, taking pictures of the missile silos, the old air shafts, the missile assembly and armory buildings, the old barracks, old lights, gates, roadways, fueling areas, etc.  The buildings are falling apart but they are cool in their own way.  We had a lot of fun exploring and the wife learned a bit about local history.  I will be posting pictures on my website soon.  We will be heading out to the other nearby one soon to check it out.  I haven't been to that one in a very long time so I am not sure about its status.  Of the 12 that were around here when I was a kid, I know at least 5 of them still exist and are in varying degrees of intactness. 

These Nike sites existed around a number of the major cities back in the day (1957-1974 or so).  Many of them are still there, abandonded.  They make for interesting places to visit and see, first hand, some of our history and, in this case, where some of the models we build actually existed in real life.

-Ro

I think the generation gap has alot to do with it,as alot of modelers were born into a world with a space shuttle.I remember vividly as a child listen to walter crankcase,coach the eagle in for a landing,and watched Neil take his step on a small black and white t.v.,every kid on my block had the john glenn flattop haircut,and you drank tang even if it tasted like fishtank water.I also remember these silly putty like things,they called space foodsticks,which weren't the greatest but no worse than MREs!LOLThe space program was big and people were proud to be Americans over it,in a very bad time in american history as the late sixties were not so hot.I think that is the only single moement in my life that the whole world watched in awe as Neil walked on the moon,or in the desert as my great-grandmother said until her death bed.lol,she never bought the fact that man walked on the moon.I think it was a family thing too,building the gulf station,cardboard LM with my father,it was something that everybody could relate to,now adays it's paris hilton going to jail on the news,my hemorrhoids weep for her.I think we had better start looking back to space,because we have about wore out mother earth.Pay no attention to the raving of a middle aged man,at 4:00a.m.,where's my walker?lol

Hello, guys. Greetings from Brazil.

First of all, great topic. I read through most of it and would like to contribute with my couple of cents .

I was born in 1970, so I never really saw Apollo 11 and was too small to remember the other Apollo flights. I remember when Skylab fell from the sky (it was all over the news for a few days) and I was amazed by the images from Voyager I and II.  But one of the more vivid memories of the space program I have, is Columbia's first flight and landing. So, I have to say, I just love the shuttle. I think it's a fantastic machine from an engineering point of view but I think it never really fulfilled the expectations of it being a workhorse craft that would allow frequent and inexpensive space flights (at least, I remember reading as a kid that re-usable rockets were supposed to be cheaper than the disposable ones). But it does look really cool, in my opinion.

Apollo on the other hand, is one of the greatest things mankind ever accomplished. It was something epic that will probably never happen again in our lifetime.

When I talk to my friends about the Shuttle, Apollo or the russian space program, most people are just superficially interested. Some of my engineer coleagues also share the admiration I have to these really amazing human endeavours. But for most people, I think they cannot relate to that. They never dreamed about becoming an astronaut or being part of this somehow.  And I think it reflects on the modelers interests as well.

As far as modeling interests goes, I am very open-minded. I build anything, but my main interests are around airplanes, space, sci-fi and navy ships. Most of my airplanes are soviet and russian or german WWII fighters. I grew up in the 70's and 80's. So, although I live in a country that was not directly involved in the Cold War, it was a recurrent theme in all the movies, TV shows or comic books that I had contact with (most originally from America). Soviet/Russian aircraft were misterious. There was not a lot of information available. The pictures I saw were all grainy, black and white, blured. Russians were usually portrayed as the "bad guys". It all contributed to my interest on them.  And I think the same is valid to WWII german airplanes. With the addition of very cool camouflages. Building "bad guys" models is somehow attractive. I wonder if there is more interest among Star War fans in building Tie-fighters or Star destroyers as opposed to X-wings or other rebel crafts.

 I currently have a 1/144 shuttle project on the way and I am almost finishing a 1/288 Buran. I still have 3 other shuttles stashed in my closet waiting their turn on my workbench, togeteher with a 1/144 Saturn V and a 1/32 Apollo CSM.

Regards,

Luis 

 

 

 

It's interesting that I found this topic. My wife and I were talking about this the other day. I was born, gre up and still live in Florida. I was born here in 1970, so I'm not really old enough to remember the man on the moon. My mother did however save the newspapers back when it happened and I did read them all when I was older.  I still remember watching rockets launch from my home.  I live in the middle of the state and can see the launch about 30 sec- 1 minute into launch.  It's amazing still to see it.  I have been able to instill that facination into my 3 year old son also.  But we are a VERY SMALL minority.

The Space Program has lost the ability and the will to capture the imagination of the masses.  When most people talk about Space, it's to ask questions about why we are even still there.  Back in the 50's, 60's and 70's, it was all new and exciting.  Now, it's the same old thing.  When I get into a conversation about the space program, it really ticks me off.  I really don't think we have what it takes anymore to "get the job done".  Ex. The computer I am typing this message on right now, has more raw computing power than was used to put a man on the moon.  We have become too "safe and Protected" to be able to get back into exploration.  When the first manned mission burned up on the pad during preflight rehearsal, they carried on.  Yes, they had inquires and investigations, but they kept moving forward with the program.  Now, when they find a seal that MIGHT cause a problem, they shut down the program for months or even years, have a full Senate investigation, get rid of the people in charge of the program(even if they were not even there in the beginning of the issue) and put the program back years.  We are too sensitive now as a society to be able to do what needs to be done.  Spcae exploration is dangerous.  We forget that until something bad happens, then, there is a huge public anc political outcry.

We just don't know how to "Deal with it and move on" like our parents did.

RO,

Growing up on Long Island you herd about the old "missle" sites nearby, that my older brothers would talk about, but by the time I was in High School they were all torn up and decommisioned. They were in our back yards, built durning the hieght of the cold war. There was one in particular we use to hang out in when we were teenagers, but never gave it much thought. When I found out what they were, it grabbed my interest, but by then they were torn up and sold to real estate developers. Not many people can say they grew up around such places.

 Like I said before, I would Love to see it in 1/35, I'm sure it would make for some good modeling, a subject of the cold war you don't see anybody discuss, espcially in these forums.

Tamiya you listening?

My dad is an engineer and we were having a discussion when one of the shuttles burned up, He said that from an engineering standpoint, its a miracle that we've only lost 2 of the shuttles, but most people don't understand space exploation beyond what they are taught in school which is very little because most of it is about space. Also, look at the past and now, kids used to listen to Rock and Roll and now they listen to RAP and Hip Hop. Also, kids nowadays seem more interested in fantasy and fiction instead of history. At my school, on December 7th, there was not a single acknowedgement that today was when Pearl Harbor took place but there was announcing who one the Superbowl! That goes the same for space, theres nothing big on the news, maybe an article in the newspaper. Alot of people look at space exploration as just another thing, overshadowed by cars, fashion, and millions of other things. I think another reason is that somebody said "I saw the first man on the moon, I never thought I'd see the last one" I think alot more interest will be generated when NASA goes back to the moon in 2009.

David

ww2modeler wrote:

My dad is an engineer and we were having a discussion when one of the shuttles burned up, He said that from an engineering standpoint, its a miracle that we've only lost 2 of the shuttles, but most people don't understand space exploation beyond what they are taught in school which is very little because most of it is about space. Also, look at the past and now, kids used to listen to Rock and Roll and now they listen to RAP and Hip Hop. Also, kids nowadays seem more interested in fantasy and fiction instead of history. At my school, on December 7th, there was not a single acknowedgement that today was when Pearl Harbor took place but there was announcing who one the Superbowl! That goes the same for space, theres nothing big on the news, maybe an article in the newspaper. Alot of people look at space exploration as just another thing, overshadowed by cars, fashion, and millions of other things. I think another reason is that somebody said "I saw the first man on the moon, I never thought I'd see the last one" I think alot more interest will be generated when NASA goes back to the moon in 2009. David

...I believe they plan on a trip to Mars; haven't heard about the moon shot...as far as I'm concerned more wasted tax dollars so a few people can get off by riding on rockets and walk on another planet...and the 500 lb gorilla no one wants to acknowledge is that space travel is impractical and far too expensive when we haven't tackled the "small stuff" on earth, like starvation...and genocide...

You're missing the point of space exploration. Which is no different than Columbus sailing around the globe, or Hudson trying to find the Northwest Passage. The majority of technological advances of the past 50 years are direct descendents of the quest for space. I'm repeating an earlier post, but the entire Apollo mission cost less than American women spend on cosmetics in one year.

If you are serious about solving starvation and genocide, then you should join the chorus of people lobbying for further expansion into space. It is by pushing the boundaries that our civilization grows and matures.

Bgrigg wrote:

You're missing the point of space exploration. Which is no different than Columbus sailing around the globe, or Hudson trying to find the Northwest Passage. The majority of technological advances of the past 50 years are direct descendents of the quest for space. I'm repeating an earlier post, but the entire Apollo mission cost less than American women spend on cosmetics in one year. If you are serious about solving starvation and genocide, then you should join the chorus of people lobbying for further expansion into space. It is by pushing the boundaries that our civilization grows and matures.

I understand your point...but theory and reality sometimes cannot be bridged...our tax dollars are not paying for womens' cosmetics, so I don't care...and there are differences in exploring the North American continent (where there is oxygen and food to sustain life) and sending three of four priveliged astronauts to a place that won't support human life...and I disagree with your figure that "most" major tech advances are a result of space...most are actually a result of military conflict...  

 

Well, when it comes to the US Space Program, neither of us have any tax issues! You are probably on the tax hook for the ESA, however! While we are on the subject of tax dollars, I would prefer to see some of those dollars "wasted" in an attempt to colonize the Moon and Mars so that we can put dangerous technologies there, instead of Bhopal, India. I have a vision of clean and sustainable power due to large array solar satellites, but it seems we are insisting on draining the last drop of oil before we move onto the next (earth bound) fuel source. I would much rather see billions spent on reviving the space program (and not by NASA, they've turned into a massive bureaucracy), rather than on paying farmers not to grow their crops. I would rather see 3 or 4 "privileged" astronauts pushing out our boundaries and expanding our knowledge, then knowing that hundreds or thousands of farmers aren’t growing food. Pardon my naiveté, but can we not pay the farmers to grow the food and give it to the people who are starving?

Plenty of people died while trying to circumnavigate the globe, or explore darkest America, so while there might be oxygen and food, that didn't guarantee survivability. We also have explorers climbing mountains, crossing the Arctic and Antarctic and diving to the bottom of the oceans, none of which harbors much life.

There are plenty of technological advances from both the Space Race and the Arms Race, however, not as many of the advances from the Arms Race has trickled down to the average person. The Space Race has provided us with transistors, miniaturized computers, titanium wheel chairs, carbon fiber, and medical advances, just to name a handful. The simple fact is that the line between the two is blurred, as any advance in Space can also (and should be) considered an advance militarily and vice versa. Of course, we shouldn’t lose sight of the simple fact that the space program was primarily an US Air Force program.

"Pardon my naiveté, but can we not pay the farmers to grow the food and give it to the people who are starving?"

You make my point. We can't even get it right here on earth...yes we could, but we don't...but rather get in a tit for tat exchange, I'd rather say we both agree on more than we disagree, just have a different opinion on whether or not we have stretched the limits of practical space exploration for now...as far as where technology is being driven from, we again, are in agreement more or less...hmmmm...where did the internet come from, the US Army? Or was it Al Gore who invented it? LOL... 

Ha ha!  Okay, we are in close agreement that governments tend to waste tax dollars, and have collectively failed their people by not insuring proper distribution of wealth. And we'll agree that technological advances are typically the result of unsavory military expansion (on Earth or Space!). And we'll agree to disagree that we need to invest more monies in space for the future benefit of mankind.

I'm sure we can also agree that poverty, starvation and genocide are strictly human endeavors and not the result of mis-spent tax dollars due to space exploration.

The US Army did indeed invent the basis of the internet (ARPANET), Al Gore just took credit for it! As is his wont.

There is a huge difference between exploration and colonization.  One of the main and very best reasons to colonize the moon and/or Mars is as backup insurance for the survival of the human race, if nothing else. This is an often overlooked fact when it comes to these kinds of discussions.  If something were to happen to Earth - manmade or otherwise - where the human race was wiped out (and, yes, it *could* very well happen - ask the dinosaurs), the end result would be as if the human race never existed.  All of our history, our cultures, everything, would be gone forever - and with no one left to know/read/tell about it, it would be as if we never existed.

Manstein - you are incorrect about there being a lack of oxygen out there.  Oxygen is the most common element on the moon.  It's just not in readily breathable form (though rather easily made into such).  The resources available in space far exceed anything here on Earth. 

You are both incorrect in saying and/or insinuating that Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet.  Read your history boys.

When it comes to tax dollars being wasted, let us look at Iraq - a place costing us 10 times (so far) what the entire Apollo project cost and with far less return on the dollar.  NASA's annual budget is less than 1% of the entire budget of our country.  Space costs us pennies per person.  The return benefits have far exceeded any of this.  Your grandchildren will be paying off the debts of the current administration....

-Ro

Ro,

Neither Mannstein's Revenge, nor I, believes Al Gore invented the internet. Both of us were merely repeating the oft told joke that he claimed he did. Al Gore did not invent the internet! He did, however, attempt to take much of the credit for it with this statement:

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.”

This at the very least is a very self-serving remark to make.

I am hardly a "boy", and I do read history. It's a passion of mine that extends far beyond this hobby of plastic and paint. I've also been knocking about this "internet" for many years now. My first entry was on BBS's more than 20 yrs ago using my trusty Hayes Supermodem, with its blistering 2400 baud performance! Perhaps a refresher of the history of the internet is in order?

ARPANET, which was the Army's means of having a communications background that was supposed to be impervious to damage by massive amounts of servers that could quickly re-route past any physical damage. The universities that were involved in experimentation and research for the Army demanded use of this communications device to allow massive amounts of data to be quickly accessed by each other, and people wanted access to the "tax funded" network. As a CongressCritter, Al Gore was a vocal supporter of computer technologies, and he supported that endeavour. I dislike Mr. Gore for many reasons, but I concede that Al Gore, and his High Performance Computing Act, did much to make what became known as the Internet accessible to the common man. An early receiver of funds from that Act was Marc Andreesen, who co-authored the Mosaic browser, which of course became Netscape, and helped start Mozilla, the creators of the Firefox browser with which I am typing this post.

However, ARPANET, the Advanced Research Projects Agency NETwork was begun by DARPA, the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency. The agency was created in 1958 to organize and fund research into military technology and was started in response to Sputnik being launched. The concept of a global network for computers was first postulated in 1962, and serious work was started by 1966, with the actual network being in place by 1969. By the time Mr. Gore was elected to public office much of the internet was already in place, though limited to employees of the DoD and select Universities. I do find it difficult to accept his "took the initiative in creating the internet" statement!

Bgrigg wrote:

Ro, Neither Mannstein's Revenge, nor I, believes Al Gore invented the internet. Both of us were merely repeating the oft told joke that he claimed he did. Al Gore did not invent the internet! He did, however, attempt to take much of the credit for it with this statement: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” This at the very least is a very self-serving remark to make. I am hardly a "boy", and I do read history. It's a passion of mine that extends far beyond this hobby of plastic and paint. I've also been knocking about this "internet" for many years now. My first entry was on BBS's more than 20 yrs ago using my trusty Hayes Supermodem, with its blistering 2400 baud performance! Perhaps a refresher of the history of the internet is in order? ARPANET, which was the Army's means of having a communications background that was supposed to be impervious to damage by massive amounts of servers that could quickly re-route past any physical damage. The universities that were involved in experimentation and research for the Army demanded use of this communications device to allow massive amounts of data to be quickly accessed by each other, and people wanted access to the "tax funded" network. As a CongressCritter, Al Gore was a vocal supporter of computer technologies, and he supported that endeavour. I dislike Mr. Gore for many reasons, but I concede that Al Gore, and his High Performance Computing Act, did much to make what became known as the Internet accessible to the common man. An early receiver of funds from that Act was Marc Andreesen, who co-authored the Mosaic browser, which of course became Netscape, and helped start Mozilla, the creators of the Firefox browser with which I am typing this post. However, ARPANET, the Advanced Research Projects Agency NETwork was begun by DARPA, the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency. The agency was created in 1958 to organize and fund research into military technology and was started in response to Sputnik being launched. The concept of a global network for computers was first postulated in 1962, and serious work was started by 1966, with the actual network being in place by 1969. By the time Mr. Gore was elected to public office much of the internet was already in place, though limited to employees of the DoD and select Universities. I do find it difficult to accept his "took the initiative in creating the internet" statement!

Always a good thing to relist the history of the internet for the young pups here.  Most people I run in to actually believe Al Gore created the internet (though he was the first person to use the Iridium network).  Hard to believe, isn't it?  I suspicion Al's commentary was meant to be taken some other way than how history has handed it down to us plebes. 

Alas, my friend, you will have to survive as a  "boy".    Just kidding. My first modem was a Hayes 300 baud monster!  Got ya beat by 2,100 baud!  LOL!  It was so much fun actually watching the characters form on the screen....one.....by......one.....  The first "hard drive" I ever worked on was a drum drive, about the size of an old coffee can and it held a whopping 6,000 bytes.

Times have certainly changed, haven't they?

-Ro

LOL! Must have been frustrating to have us young pups come along later with our superior technology and have whole words appear all at once on the screen.

And without the space program driving the technology, where would we be today? The military had no real need for miniaturization like Apollo did. I have a Treo 650 Smartphone that can do more than my first five computers put together, and it easily fits into my pocket. Now if only my eye could read the screen without primitive technology (reading glasses) being used!

I thinks you guys are missing the point of Al Gore, no I dont believe he created the Internet either, however he did help make a mandate while in congress to get the Internet globalized. One thing All Gore has to his credit is getting the internet into schools and to home users like us, but I agree the Internet was already in place but there was no world wide web= WWW as we have now.  

Persephones_Dream wrote:

There is a huge difference between exploration and colonization.  One of the main and very best reasons to colonize the moon and/or Mars is as backup insurance for the survival of the human race, if nothing else. This is an often overlooked fact when it comes to these kinds of discussions.  If something were to happen to Earth - manmade or otherwise - where the human race was wiped out (and, yes, it *could* very well happen - ask the dinosaurs), the end result would be as if the human race never existed.  All of our history, our cultures, everything, would be gone forever - and with no one left to know/read/tell about it, it would be as if we never existed. Manstein - you are incorrect about there being a lack of oxygen out there.  Oxygen is the most common element on the moon.  It's just not in readily breathable form (though rather easily made into such).  The resources available in space far exceed anything here on Earth.  You are both incorrect in saying and/or insinuating that Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet.  Read your history boys. When it comes to tax dollars being wasted, let us look at Iraq - a place costing us 10 times (so far) what the entire Apollo project cost and with far less return on the dollar.  NASA's annual budget is less than 1% of the entire budget of our country.  Space costs us pennies per person.  The return benefits have far exceeded any of this.  Your grandchildren will be paying off the debts of the current administration.... -Ro

...oh, boy...here we go again...

I won't comment on the patronizing remarks you made about me and Bgrigs as he set you pretty staright on the net thing.  However, I will say that you are talking all theory where I tend to think of space in pragmatic terms. Sure, there are theoretically endless resources in space. Why don't you go get some for us---LOL. Aint' gonna happen. And oxygen being plentiful on the moon. Fine, too bad we can't breathe it....hmmmmmm.....minor technicality, I guess. And FYI, the earth, and all of the planets, in our solar sytem will eventually burn up as our sun ages (turns into a supervova) and dies out...so you are correct, the end for all of us, and earth, is only a matter of time. And Bush will have had nothing to do with it.

Rand,

Nope, not missing it at all. As evidenced by this sentence:

I dislike Mr. Gore for many reasons, but I concede that Al Gore, and his High Performance Computing Act, did much to make what became known as the Internet accessible to the common man.

I am VERY aware of Mr. Gore's work in this regard, as I am with the history of computing in general and in detail. I been mucking about them since punchcards, though I didn't have access to ARPANET back then.

Bill 

edited for clarity However, I will say that you are talking all theory where I tend to think of space in pragmatic terms. Sure, there are theoretically endless resources in space. Why don't you go get some for us---LOL. Aint' gonna happen. And oxygen being plentiful on the moon. Fine, too bad we can't breathe it....hmmmmmm.....minor technicality, I guess. And FYI, the earth, and all of the planets, in our solar sytem will eventually burn up as our sun ages (turns into a supervova) and dies out...so you are correct, the end for all of us, and earth, is only a matter of time. And Bush will have had nothing to do with it.

ALL exploration has been theory. If we waited for the pragmatists to act we would be building models (in stone) of stone tools! It was a theory that Columbus could sail around the world. Remember that his trip was an abject failure (he DIDN'T complete the journey), but by pushing the limits he discovered a whole new world! 

We'll get those resources, the moment the Gov't decides that floating at the upper limits of our gravity well is not getting the job done and actually start building space rockets again. I suspect that the Chinese will be beating us to space this time, instead of the Russians.

And yes, breathing the oxygen available on the Moon or Mars IS a minor technicality. We already have many tools to assist us in colonizing both planetary bodies. All we lack is the resolve to get there. 

...resolve, AND our tax dollars...LOL...

Bgrigg wrote:

edited for clarity However, I will say that you are talking all theory where I tend to think of space in pragmatic terms. Sure, there are theoretically endless resources in space. Why don't you go get some for us---LOL. Aint' gonna happen. And oxygen being plentiful on the moon. Fine, too bad we can't breathe it....hmmmmmm.....minor technicality, I guess. And FYI, the earth, and all of the planets, in our solar sytem will eventually burn up as our sun ages (turns into a supervova) and dies out...so you are correct, the end for all of us, and earth, is only a matter of time. And Bush will have had nothing to do with it. ALL exploration has been theory. If we waited for the pragmatists to act we would be building models (in stone) of stone tools! It was a theory that Columbus could sail around the world. Remember that his trip was an abject failure (he DIDN'T complete the journey), but by pushing the limits he discovered a whole new world!  We'll get those resources, the moment the Gov't decides that floating at the upper limits of our gravity well is not getting the job done and actually start building space rockets again. I suspect that the Chinese will be beating us to space this time, instead of the Russians. And yes, breathing the oxygen available on the Moon or Mars IS a minor technicality. We already have many tools to assist us in colonizing both planetary bodies. All we lack is the resolve to get there.

...are we having a "gentleman's disagreement" again? "edited for clarity"--LOL...I say LET the Russians or Chinese "beat" us to the moon, or wherever you want to set up shop...let them pay with blood and treasurre for a change...so has it come down to a testosterone race now?

Why do you think we have a lack of resolve to colonize the moon? I am curious.

 

I guess we are!

I only edited out the bit about the patronizing remark, as it wasn't germaine to the post.

I no longer consider the Russians to be much of a threat in space, but the Chinese are still inscrutable. I don't think either would be a very nice landlord from space, and we would pay with blood and treasure regardless. I'm surprised that a person with the Ukraine as a location would think that the Russians could be a good landlord.

As for resolve...

When Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee burned to death on the launchpad during Apollo One, there was hand-wringing, but not to the extent that there was during Challenger or Columbia. The dangers of space travel was evident. In fact, it was considered so dangerous that Apollo One was a test mission, the Saturn 1B wasn't even fueled for launch. It was "merely" an onboard problem that caused the oxygen aboard to combust tragically. One the dust had settled, they went back to the beginning and found the problem and continued with the mission.

When Apollo Thirteen malfunctioned (that pesky oxygen again!) and scrubbed the scheduled lunar landing, the fire was put out and Lovell, Swigert and Haise knuckled down and brought the ship back against many odds. It didn't stop them from launching Apollo Fourteen a mere eight months later. Which, of course, landed safely on the Moon and created one of the most historic memories I have.

Remember the quarentine chambers? I do. I recall there was much discussions of the dangers of the space mission, and how the astronauts could be subject to myriad diseases. That didn't stop them from volunteering to go into space.

I say we lack resolve because we aren't continuing the mission and colonizing the Moon. "It's too expensive, it's too dangerous, it's too whatever!". 

More people died today in car accidents than have died during the entire space program. 

I'll probably never convince you that pushing into space is necessary for our specie's survival, but I believe that to be true with all my heart. 

This view

(or one like it, I ripped this out of Google Earth, technology made possible by the space program. Like how I show Europe & Africa instead of North & South America?) has done more to convince people of how fragile our planet is, and why we should be better stewards of it. Of course, we wouldn't have that image, if not for... oh you get the picture!

I say we lack resolve because too many people like yourself send a clear message to politicians that they had better not "waste" taxes on space. So instead of covering ourselves with glory (and I don't mean NASA or the ESA, I would prefer to see the entire world get behind the space program for the betterment of ALL mankind) we let them continue their wasteful ways and fritter away our tax dollars on corruption, greed and war.

But, I'll not likely convince you, either. Better we just keep agreeing to disagree on this subject and get back to our hobby! 

...you know, you actually make some very good points, and articulate them well...I can't say that I am in disagreement with the fundamentals of your position, and I certainly appreciate your passion...I guess my point is that maybe we should solve some of the "simpler" problems here on Earth before we begin looking for another "cosmic condo" to lease.  Let's get our act together here before we take it on the road, so to speak. I mean, solving world hunger is not rocket science (pun intended). Shoot, more people die in ONE day in car accidents than in the entire space program. But there are a lot more drivers than astronauts...do you know how many folks die from malaria each year--MALARIA !!! I don't think I can, in good consience, help pay for a moon colony while people die here on earth for lack of a 10 cent dose of medicine to prevent their blindness or polio...

Apollo 13, now there is a story that should inspire anyone who reads about it or watches the very well made movie (IMO) starring Tom Hanks. Disagree or not, you gotta love that story.

Eric,

I wasn't "patronizing", I was joking.  Some things just don't come across well on these boards. Apologies if it seemed otherwise.

However, fyi, in *Real Life* I'm an astrophysicist, so I do have a clue about the sun and solar system's ultimate destiny, especially since I study stellar development   I am also a very large supporter of space exploration and colonization for very obvious reasons.  Unfortunately, we have inept governments managing our attempts to make science useful to all.  Politicians do not see beyond the elections.

BGrigg,

You make some interesting points.  Most people don't realize that one major airline crash kills more people than have ever lost their lives in space (at least, so far).  Space is dangerous and a very hostile place - but so is the bottom of the ocean, the sides of volcanoes, the rims of tectonic faults, etc.  They just have different dangers for the most part.  Humankind by nature is curious and explorative. Without something to explore, we would wither away.  Some people don't have this drive to discover and understand, so they really don't get the whole idea behind others desires to explore and colonize.  It's just that nature of us as individuals.  Of course, more than likely, our friend in the Ukraine's post to this board found its way here via geosat relays....without which, we would not be having this debate.

-Ro

...yes, sometimes things come across not as intended, appreciate the clarification...

...interesting comment about the "bottom of the ocean" and "sides of volcanoes"...there aren't any colonies there, either...and I can explain why: It isn't practical, given our current state of technology and risk factors...

...now, we can go in circles about exploration driving technology, sort of a chicken and egg question, but I will conceed that space exploration, like every human endeavor, advances the knowledge of man...and I totally agree with you about politicians and what NASA has become...

...by the way, didn't Gore invent geosat relays?

Eric,

Heh! Politicians have invented everything. That's how they get votes - especially from the people who don't bother finding out the facts first. ;)

I'd have to slightly disagree with you about there being no colonies on the sides of volcanoes. There are quite a number of them in the world whose slopes are populated, sometimes rather extensively - such as Mt. Etna and Mt. Vesuvius.  And, let us not forget Pompeii.

One of my favorite quotes of all time is related to both of the above: "Archeaology is the art of uncovering the Truth about the past whereas Politics is the art of covering the Truth about the Present."

Cheers!

-Ro

Watch out guys, we're in danger of a group hug!

Don't forget Hurculaneum, which is what Naples is built on top of, and every bit as destroyed as Pompeii and by the same eruption. Hawaii, Japan, Indonesia, the western coast of the Americas, Iceland. There are many places at risk of volcanoes, and if the smoke, lava, floods and ash doesn't get them, there's the earthquakes and tsunamis! Oh my, the cyclones, hurricanes, tornadoes, mud slides, forest fires, floods, avalanches. The list of earth borne dangers is huge, why would anyone want to continue living in such a dangerous place?

Malaria could be cured if not for the ban on DDT. Interesting article about that very subject in the new National Geographic, in fact.

Curing starvation is entirely within our ability, but that nasty resolve thing gets in the way. No-one seems to have the fortitude to complete the task and make sure that those who are starving get food. Instead they spend millions on aid, and all but a small percentage gets diverted into the coffers of the local war lords. Such is humanity! 

Ro, LOVE that quote! Astrophysicist, eh? Probably work for NASA (hawk, spit). Don't get alarmed, I'm mad at the bureaucrats at NASA, not the working stiffs like you! One of my daily stops is to see what marvel the Astronomy Picture of the Day has to offer. My desktop is currently showing today's pic of NGC 2903. NASA does some very good work, but it could do more if it had a clearance on some management types.