Space Shuttle replacement scaled back still more. (1 Viewer)

[KyleS]

Maybe the competition from China about going to Mars will spark more interest from America and lead to additional funding for NASA? Who knows it may be just what the space agency needs with the way things are going.

KyleS

 

[Todd Hochard]

I'm not sure it can be done on the current budget, but I will agree that they seem to need better money management. But, then again, what government agency doesn't?? NASA surely isn't at the top of that list.
Heck, I could argue that we can fully defend this nation, against all credible threats, on FY 1999 or 2000 DOD budgets.

 

[RobertR]

I seem to keep repeating myself, but I really wish there was private incentive and ability to go into space, so we wouldn't have to worry about the problems involved with having to build a political consensus for such things.

 

[Todd Calhoun]

I'd like to add my voice to the "no big deal" crowd.
While I have every respect for "vision", "dreams", and the "conquering spirit", I don't think others' visions and dreams should be hoisted on the backs of the unwilling, taxpaying public. With all that is going wrong in this country and world, I think it is preposterous to channel billions of our dollars into flinging fancy science projects off the planet, just to see how far they can go, and what they see when they get there.

The space effort will be undertaken, even if the first humans to walk on Mars speak a language other than English. It is inevitable.

If another country sends a successful manned mission to Mars, why will you feel less excitement and "Pioneering Spirit" than if it was a US mission? From a scientific standpoint, what difference does it make if the they're US, Russian or Chinese? It will still be a wonderful acheivement for mankind, and if it comes as a burden on another nation's economy, so much the better.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

The day we see a meteor on an unavoidable collision course with this planet will be the day people wake up to the necessity of further development of our space programs. Like the Trade Towers, it will be too late.

How would the American public feel if they found out Iraq or al Queda, or any other non American interest had successfully reached the moon or Mars, and were claiming it as their own? If the human race is to have a future, we must go into space. Do we really want to play catch up again? The west has already been humiliated once in this arena.

 

[Max Leung]

A fraction of the military budget could sustain NASA for many years. Hell, the fraction of any other country's military budget could fuel a successful space program quite easily.
If everybody thought launching satellites into orbit was a waste of money, how would they feel if someone told them that they could have put up a weather satellite that would have warned them of a devastating hurricane or tornado hours in advance, saving many thousands of lives?
GPS satellites are another amazing application of space technology. And then there is satellite communications, where we can know, within seconds, what is happening in another corner of the world?
We will rue the day that we could have prevented an asteroid strike on our planet, if we had only spent more than a pittance on the space program.
The scientific knowledge that would be gained from a mission to Mars is worth more than a million B2 bombers, IMHO. What can a B2 bomber tell you about the world we live in? Nothing you and I don't already know...
Since detractors are so concerned about the money being spent, then think of it this way: Can you afford NOT to invest in the space program? How much damage, in dollars, could a 2 km asteroid do to the world economy? Think of all the unemployed! And think of all that lost capital! Trillions of dollars, at the very least!
Goshdarnit, let's get the insurance companies investing in the space program...they'll save many trillions of dollars on insurance claims alone!

 

[Ashley Seymour]

Let's not confuse the benefits of unmanned space exploration with manned space flight. The cost to continue the space shuttle puts a severe crimp on funding unmanned space probes, for a very little gain in knolwedge. Had we not landed an unmanned probe on Mars, and set up orbiters to map the surface and take magnetic measurements, there would be no way to even consider a mission to the planet.

Every year our computers and unmanned robotics will make exponentional advances in capabilities. Every year our ability to put a human on the planet will barely advance.

Within 25 years we the issue of going to Mars will be even less compelling as electronic probes give us as much information as we can possibly analyze.

The only thing missing is that the probes won't have testosterone - unless we program the R2D2-esq droids to try to hump the rocks they are sent to investigate.

Increase the unmanned budget - decrease the manned portion.

 

[Jack Briggs]

There is room for both, and it is not either/or.

In preceding a manned expedition to Mars, robotic explorers will yield much of scientific value.

But leaving the planet is a natural urge. Humans will make the progession toward being an interplanetary and, some day, an interstellar species. I had just hoped to see more enthusiasm here at the dawn of the Space Age.

"Dawn."

Who says Apollo was the "golden age" of the Space Age? We haven't even seen the "golden age" of spaceflight yet.

The best is yet to come. I was just hoping to see some it!

 

[Max Leung]

Yes I agree that unmanned space exploration is extremely important. Most (nearly all?) of the major scientific discoveries in space were made by these incredible probes!

Yet, there will always be things that a probe can not do in space or on another planet.

Humans have incredible spatial perception...extremely important when doing non-trivial geological surveys. Remember that last couple of Apollo missions? I seriously doubt a probe would be able to pick out glassy volcanic rock as well as a human eye can. The human would walk up to it, pick it up, look it over, check its brittleness, appraise it, and stuff it in a bag.

Humans get around the long latency with ground controllers on Earth. Exploration of a planetary surface can be made much more efficient (provided a probe scouts it beforehand for promising areas) with a human on hand. No need to wait hours for step-by-step instructions from Earth for every little thing!

A good compromise is to have humans control probes from orbit. Low-latency, efficient exploration, with minimal risk. Plus, if a probe fails, there is a possibility of repairs before it is sent down.

So, you gotta have both. I'd think that the unmanned AND manned space budgets be increased to support a human-probe hybrid mission. A mission to mars, with 90% of the exploration done from orbit, would be excellent in my book.

 

[Peter Kline]

NASA's budget is one of the smallest in t he government. At one time I read that American's spend more money on cosmetics then the entire NASA budget... and that was during its heyday of moon landings. The agency has become very politcized and run rather poorly with no real objectives. Going into space has provided us with benefits right here on earth. Not one alien has been helped by this world's various space programs (I think).

 

[Max Leung]

Here's an idea to keep NASA afloat:

"Want to lose weight? Instead of spending your $5 on a greasy burger and heart-attack french fries, just donate that cash to NASA!"

There you go. Space program budget crisis solved!

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

I agree that a mix of manned and unmanned programs are required. If we are to properly survey Mars, we need humans on the surface. However, I don't think Mars should be the primary objective. There are many good reasons for creating a SSTO program. A space station is a necessity with the amount of hardware orbiting this planet, and coming up with an efficient, and less costly (in the long run) method for getting to and from space is essential.

We spend billions protecting ourselves from other humans. With all the advances we have made as a race, all it would take is a small piece of rock to undo everything we've created. While the chances may be slim that we'll be hit with something from space, it is not unrealistic.

There are also technologies to explore that would deliver power to remote regions on earth, which could change how liveable they are. The space program isn't just about planting flags on other planets, it is about bettering our existance here on earth. Anything done in the search of knowledge is a far better investment than weaponry ever will be.

 

[Thomas Newton]

How would the American public feel if they found out Iraq or al Queda, or any other non American interest had successfully reached the moon or Mars, and were claiming it as their own?

If it was one of the first two on that list? Very afraid, once the new "colonists" demonstrated their ability to make 9/11/2001 look like a Sunday afternoon in the park.

Heinlein pointed this out in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress. Who needs nuclear weapons, when you can throw a bunch of large rocks down a gravity well with similar catastrophic results?