What are your views on the future of Space Exploration

[ralilu]

It is no secret that the days of mankind are numbered on Earth. Humans have the whole universe to explore to find resources or another spaceship. Will this be taken seriously by the general public or will it remain a dream of a fanatical few? Is there future in space exploration and would a career in that field be wise? I'd like to hear all of your opinions!

 

[flatmaster]

Leaving the solar system takes a LONG time to get anywhere, so that's out of the question for now. We'll most likely make it as far as the moon and mars.

 

[Bob S]

We have not yet found an alternative to photosynthesis and agra-(or aqua-)culture for our food. It requires at least 12 visible photons to make a single monosaccharide (sugar) molecule. Any Mars mission will either have to carry all food for the astronauts, or grow it in a special pressurized facility with artificial LED lighting for urban agriculture (solar insolation on Mars is about half of insolation here). The eight earthbound astronauts who lived inside Biosphere 2 for two years were not able to grow enough food on half an acre. If the Mars mission has its own agriculture (including domesticated animals?), all the CO2 (and water vapor) has to be recycled.

 

[russ_watters]

I think the current path is the one that we are going to follow for the forseeable future: phasing-out manned spaceflight in favor of robotic probes. The reason is simple: bang for the buck.

And travel beyond Mars isn't a matter of being taken seriously or not, it is, at the moment, essentially technologically impossible.

 

[ralilu]

I understand the amount of time it would take to travel beyond our solar system ,but maybe one day physicists and engineers will figure out how to make use of wormholes. With wormholes the whole universe will be within our reach.
I feel the only way we can travel further than the solar system is if we can manipulate time (e.g the wormhole)

But for now, i hope we put a lot of emphasis on taking advantage of Mars or the moon because it will offer so many solutions to todays problem...

 

[thomasxc]

i think we have gotten a lot of new technology because of it, but i still think its way too expensive, and i think much of the money could be far better spent.

 

[ralilu]

i think we have gotten a lot of new technology because of it, but i still think its way too expensive, and i think much of the money could be far better spent.

in the short run the government will have to spend lots of money on it ,but in the long run it will be a good investment because besides the new technology and science to be discovered... lots of industries, businesses and jobs will be created.

 

[thomasxc]

this is true. and perhaps I'm a little hypocritical, because i would give a leg to work at NASA.lol (i will be majoring an aerospace engineering)

 

[ralilu]

haha, me too. that's why i started this thread. what college u planning to go to? what do u tnk about embry riddle?

 

[thomasxc]

i am 60 miles from embry riddle. i fell in love with it as soon as i stepped on campus. and then i saw the price tag. ouch! over thirty g's a year...but i think its almost worth it.havent really decided yet.

 

[ralilu]

cool. coz I'm having trouble deciding btw georgiatech (way cheaper than embry riddle) and embry riddle (way more specialized)...i will probably make a last minute decision.

 

[thomasxc]

huh. I am not sure. these days i lean more towards a college w/ an ROTC program so that i can jump into the air force after i graduate..and i will prolly make a last minute decision as well.

 

[russ_watters]

I understand the amount of time it would take to travel beyond our solar system ,but maybe one day physicists and engineers will figure out how to make use of wormholes. With wormholes the whole universe will be within our reach.

Assuming, of course, that they exist!

But for now, i hope we put a lot of emphasis on taking advantage of Mars or the moon because it will offer so many solutions to todays problem...

Such as...?

 

[thomasxc]

russ brings up good points..

 

[ralilu]

Some of the problems space exploration can solve include but are not limited to:

unlimited energy - if solar panels are placed in space and beamed back towards the Earth we will have an unlimited supply of solar energy

One of the main reasons nuclear energy is not used is because of the storage of nuclear waste but if we explore space we could find a place to deposit the waste

unlimited resources - planets and asteriods have resources that are otherwise limited on earth, we can find a way to mine them

etc

Most of todays theories predict hidden dimensions and wormholes so in the future when technology catches up with speculation maybe wormholes and hidden dimension will be manipulated unless all the current theories of physics get some serious revision

 

[russ_watters]

unlimited energy - if solar panels are placed in space and beamed back towards the Earth we will have an unlimited supply of solar energy

That does not require human space exploration.

One of the main reasons nuclear energy is not used is because of the storage of nuclear waste but if we explore space we could find a place to deposit the waste...

That does not require human space exploration (and isn't necessary anyway).

unlimited resources - planets and asteriods have resources that are otherwise limited on earth, we can find a way to mine them

Even if there were gold plated diamonds covering the surface of the moon, it wouldn't be economical to mine them.

Most of todays theories predict hidden dimensions and wormholes so in the future when technology catches up with speculation maybe wormholes and hidden dimension will be manipulated unless all the current theories of physics get some serious revision

"Will"? Just because theory predicts they exist (and maybe they do...), that does not in any way imply they might be able to be exploited.

 

[ralilu]

okay, i guess human space exploration might not solve today's problems and we will just have to wait and see about wormholes...But humans should start exploring space for the sake of the future.

The new technology and science will benefit us all. Setting human outposts in space will ensure the survival of the human race from catasrophes on earth. Mining other planets and asteroids might not be economical today ,but if space travel becomes a everyday thing then it will be.

 

[thomasxc]

i wouldn't hold my breath on the wormhole thing...

 

[bill nye scienceguy!]

Just to add my two cents:

I'm firmly of the opinion that we should continue manned exploration because as Neil Armstrong points out; as humans, it's what we do. We discover a new frontier, we explore it, we colonise it and we exploit it. It's denying our nature not to continue.

 

[Gannet]

It my opinion we need moon mission immediately to provide the innovations required to get us out of this economic doldrums we are now in. I would suggest that we re-engineer both the Apollo and Saturn V designs to current technology.

In addition, we need to develop a propulsion system that can reduce the trip time to Mars from four to six months to approximately four to six weeks.

The U.S. needs to continue prove to rest of the world, especially China, that it is still a Technological Superpower. It appears that we are getting by on our past laurels

 

[ralilu]

It my opinion we need moon mission immediately to provide the innovations required to get us out of this economic doldrums we are now in. I would suggest that we re-engineer both the Apollo and Saturn V designs to current technology.

In addition, we need to develop a propulsion system that can reduce the trip time to Mars from four to six months to approximately four to six weeks.

The U.S. needs to continue prove to rest of the world, especially China, that it is still a Technological Superpower. It appears that we are getting by on our past laurels

i agree

 

[russ_watters]

It my opinion we need moon mission immediately to provide the innovations required to get us out of this economic doldrums we are now in. I would suggest that we re-engineer both the Apollo and Saturn V designs to current technology.

In addition, we need to develop a propulsion system that can reduce the trip time to Mars from four to six months to approximately four to six weeks.

The U.S. needs to continue prove to rest of the world, especially China, that it is still a Technological Superpower. It appears that we are getting by on our past laurels

If we are going to do a crash program of Apollo or Manhattan proportions, why not do one with a targeted goal, such as fusion research or nuclear or solar power deployment instead of hoping that spin-off technologies would make the program worthwhile?

...And if your'e going to do a new mission to the moon and want spin-off technology, why would you re-use Apollo technology?

 

[Bob S]

For any extended manned mission, agriculture becomes a serious problem. On Earth, around ~ ½ acre per person is required world-wide to grow food sustainably, twice as much land on Mars. NASA is developing more efficient (calories out per unit solaration) plants, but there is a limit unless someone discovers a more efficient fourth photosynthesis cycle. Plants now require about 120 gallons of water annually per pound of food. each astronaut will eat about 700 pounds of food per year. Do we want to send astro-farmers to Mars?

Unmanned missions to Mars are more versatile, and less expensive. If we could only train the Mars rovers to avoid the Martian sand traps. See

http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/home/index.html

I vote for unmanned missions, with the astronauts using joysticks in Houston.

Bob S

 

[Gannet]

The bailout we gave to AIG would have been more than enough to fund manned missions to the Lunar South Pole. And the rest of the $700 billion TARP money could have funded: the manned missions to Mars, technologies that alleviate climate change, renewable fuels and nuclear fusion energy research, etc. This would have provide innovation needed to produce jobs and generate new wealth instead of redistributing existing wealth. The United States will never maintain its superpower position unless it starts generating new wealth.

I have never seen any reports that stated unmanned missions are more versatile than manned missions. The time delay in communications would make teleoperator control cumbersome, ineffective, and would affect the productivity of surface exploration. Manned missions will also include unmanned vehicles for surface exploration.

Also, what's next robots playing sports for us or taking our vacations.

 

[russ_watters]

The bailout we gave to AIG would have been more than enough to fund manned missions to the Lunar South Pole. And the rest of the $700 billion TARP money could have funded: the manned missions to Mars, technologies that alleviate climate change, renewable fuels and nuclear fusion energy research, etc.

You underestimate the cost of such missions.

I have never seen any reports that stated unmanned missions are more versatile than manned missions.

You clearly have never searched for such information, nor put much real thought into it yourself. google it ( types "manned vs." into google and it'll fill in the rest). You will find that even most learned people who argue in favor of manned spaceflight concede that unmanned is better for science.

The time delay in communications would make teleoperator control cumbersome, ineffective, and would affect the productivity of surface exploration.

I think the Mars rovers would disagree with you. Visit their website and see how they do it. Consider that if a rover can do even 1% of what a human can do in a day (all of it pre-planned the day before), the fact that you don't need to feed it or supply it with oxygen means overall the robot will do about the same amount of exploration as the human. Then multiply that by the fact that for the price of a manned mission, you could send thousands of robots.

Also, what's next robots playing sports for us or taking our vacations.

Obvious non-sequitur. The goals of science and vacations/sports are nothing alike.

 

[Gannet]

You underestimate the cost of such missions.

Suggest you review
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/382362main_40%20-%2020090801.1.mars2019.pdf"

By boosting NASA’s projected annual budget of $19.1 billion to $23.8 a year from 2010 to 2025, the agency could return to the moon by 2017 and put Man on Mars by 2019. Some of the funding should come from other space agencies.

Also on page 6 of the report there is a chart showing cost of different scenarios

 

[gmax137]

Also, what's next robots playing sports for us or taking our vacations.

Obvious non-sequitur. The goals of science and vacations/sports are nothing alike.

Russ, I think maybe Gannet's point was more along the lines of the Neil Armstrong quote upthread, "exploration is what humans do..." The question is, does robotic exploration fill that role (satisfy the human imperative), and even if it does, how long will it do so? Do you think in 10,000 years humans will still be planet bound? I don't think so (but I've been wrong before). Time's a-wastin' - let's get on with it!

 

[MotoH]

Until we find a viable form of propulsion, that actually works mind you, we will be stuck to sending robots to far off places, which is fine by me. Quite frankly sending humans into space on an ICBM isn't the best idea, for the 60's sure it was alright but until there is a new form of propulsion humans are Earth bound and must rely on robots to do our bidding.

 

[Bob S]

We should answer the question of whether we need to go to the Moon or Mars, or whether we just want to go. The main objectives of going to either the Moon or Mars are:

1) Life (meaning human life) on Earth is not sustainable, so we need to populate other planets. If we stay on Earth, global warming, population growth, depletion of resources, environmental pollution. etc. will make Earth uninhabitable in xx centuries (fill in xx). Other venues (e.g., Moon, Mars) offer the resources we need (begin with air, earth, fire and water, the four Greek elements) to survive. Nonsense. The least hostile place in the solar system is, and will be, right here. Our energy consumption in the United States, to support our standard of living, is the equivalent of more than 1000 square feet of solar cells per capita continuous, twice as much on Mars.

2) Innovation requires that we populate other planets. Absurd. In the 5 years before President Kennedy proposed the Man on the Moon mission, solid state electronics began replacing the vacuum tube in laboratory instrumentation. The first random-access non-volatile magnetic core memories had been available for ~ten years. Development of integrated circuits had started (DTL or RTL chips). The rapid development of solid state electronics was inevitable. In terms of rocketry, Sputnick (1957) started our rocket development (along with Werner Von Braun's help). Man on the Moon was just a facade for our developing military supremacy in space.

3) "Exploration is what humans do". Explorers of the future should study math, science, engineering, and biology rather than prepare to be astronauts. Space exploration has been the fantasy of youngsters even before Orson Welles' radio broadcast of the alien invasion in 1939. (It is easier to fantasize about walking on the Moon than learning calculus).

Fantasizing about space exploration rather than facing the very difficult problems here on Earth is like eating our dessert before the vegetables. Sooner or later, we have to eat the vegetables. We will need to establish a permanent colony on Mars when we trash this one.

Bob S

 

[slide_Rules]

Unmanned missions to Mars are more versatile, and less expensive. If we could only train the Mars rovers to avoid the Martian sand traps. See

http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/home/index.html

I vote for unmanned missions, with the astronauts using joysticks in Houston.

Bob S

I agree with using unmanned missions. However, rovers need more power. While controversial, a small fission powered (10-20kw) rover of 1-2 tons would open up a lot of exploration possibilities. With a small nuke, you get constant speeds of a slow walk and a lifetime of several years. Not to mention the improvements in digging and robotic strength.

 

[MotoH]

I agree with using unmanned missions. However, rovers need more power. While controversial, a small fission powered (10-20kw) rover of 1-2 tons would open up a lot of exploration possibilities. With a small nuke, you get constant speeds of a slow walk and a lifetime of several years. Not to mention the improvements in digging and robotic strength.

The Average time delay is 10 minutes for information to be sent and received from NASA to Mars, and vice versa. http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/mesur.html" And if there was to be a reactor malfunction, 10 minutes seems plenty enough time for a total reactor meltdown and a complete mission loss. Not to mention the fact that having a LWR on Mars just doesn't seem like a great idea.

 

[slide_Rules]

Not to mention the fact that having a LWR on Mars just doesn't seem like a great idea.

Start with a lunar rover. Time lag is < 3 seconds.

I don't know what type of reactor would be feasible. Sure, it's a challenge. Orbital assembly of components may be necessary. OSHA's Orbital Work Regs may have to be tweaked.

But this is within our current tech ability. Or China's / Japan's near-future tech ability.

 

[MotoH]

Well, it appears that I was relatively wrong. this isn't a Nuclear reactor, but it uses the heat from radioisotopes to power the craft! http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/fact_sheets/radioisotope-power-systems.pdf"

It makes sense now, the heat generated will keep the craft warm and operational, and it will also produce electricity to run the craft.

 

[mheslep]

Well said on #1 and #2, as for #3:

...
3) "Exploration is what humans do". Explorers of the future should study ...

More to the point is that, though I agree with premise of "Explorations is what humans do", the human space program as envisioned by NASA does not now nor plan to accommodate 'humans' on any scale, but only a group of a couple hundred elites, which is only funded by the 'humans'. One could argue NASA's been making the situation worse - raising the cost of human space travel over the decades, not reducing it, leaving the rest of us would-be explorers only the role of fan-boys.

 

[D H]

One of the primary goals of the Shuttle program was to make spaceflight cheaper. Unfortunately, the Shuttle program became a typical government-run over-specified and under-funded behemoth that had to not only take people but cargo into space and be able to fly up from Vandenburg, snatch a Russian satellite, and return to Vandenburg all in one orbit. This is one of the reasons to hold some hope for the direction in which Obama and Bolden have redirected NASA.

As for humans versus robots, why send robots if humans will never follow? Those robots aren't doing any more to fix the problems here on Earth. They aren't even advancing science by all that much compared to their price tag. How many geology grad students could be sent out into the fields here on Earth for the 400 million dollar cost of the two year delay in the Mars Science Laboratory program? How many could be sent out into the field for the 2.3 billion dollar total cost of that program?

Those robotic precursor missions are just that -- robotic precursors. They exist primarily as a path finder for the human missions to follow. The rather limited science that they do conduct is a secondary benefit.