Hi Deckard. I haven't thought very deeply about some of the more philosophical aspects, but here's my first take. (1) Basically, no. With the same funds, what we could do observationally and with probes would be *amazing*. Where current technology, signal processing, and cosmology are all headed, it is a crucial time to be building new observational platforms and probes, I think. (2) We landed nicely on an asteroid without using human pilots, so the vision of sending an oil rig crew into outer space ( ) is not really that relevant. I'd be happy trying to fragment and/or divert something via unmanned devices. Though that leaves the question of what we do with James Garner and Bruce Willis types of guys. (3) Interesting. We were in the lead for 20 or so years. Not clear to me now that we're in the lead. I know Sam was joking earlier about lasers, but seriously, if we focus on becoming the leader in unmanned space exploration, the manned programs can kiss our butt. They will be irrelevant, IMO. It will be as if we built the fastest jets, but some other country is saying, "yeah, but our RVs are the best! You can't fit yer family in a fighter jet for a vacation!" Nobody would care. Now, where all of my arguments fall apart (if not in other places) is where you want to start truly building facilities on a foreign body, like the moon. Not sure robots can do that as effectively as people, given the variety of tasks and motions and decisions, etc. But I'm not up on 2007 robotics so much.
I just guffawed sitting at my desk. I suppose even an evil space monkey makes a funny joke every now and then, maybe one of these days if you bang on a typewriter enough you will come up with a sequel to King Lear.
Unlikely allies: Obama and Tancredo. Maybe they can combine on a ticket and use the NASA money for Federal schools in the shadow of the border wall. <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tbu0n_IAGvE&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tbu0n_IAGvE&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Thanks for the response, B-Bob. I thought the movie was awful, but I'm not surprised that you'd use it. I definitely disagree about whether we have the lead in space technology. Jokes aside, I would not want to depend on robotic spacecraft to save the planet from an on-coming asteroid or comet. They might work, but they might also face a situation they cannot handle, and all our eggs would be sitting in that basket. I'm disappointed that you have such a cavalier regard for the manned space flight program, but respect your opinion. You said you weren't sure if robots could truly build facilities on the Moon, or elsewhere, but you didn't say whether building facilities on the Moon was something you supported, or not. Frankly, I think you are most interested in getting the most "bang for the buck," given the declining budgets for space research. I respect that. The Hubble is going to stop working someday soon. It would be damned near impossible for a robotic spacecraft to repair it, from what I've read, but not impossible for a manned expedition. Do you support repairing and updating it, or are you content with the nebulous future of proposed replacements, and the improvement of ground based research the last few years? Thanks again. I wish I knew a fraction of what you know about the nuts and bolts of this stuff. I'm a huge fan of the space program, space science and research, and manned space flight (like I am of the Rockets) for many reasons, having some relatives that worked for NASA in the past, and work there now, as well as being an avid reader of science fiction for 50 years. I don't disagree that NASA needs a major boot in the rear, either. D&D. Attempt Something! Impeach Bush for Creating Idiots.
Use hydrogen. It's fuel and a radiation barrier. (yeah yeah, logistically nuts, but still I like that idea)
Who did these experiements? The same people who say no one can ever leave the van allen belt? How come this crazy radiation that microwaves our astronauts does not wipe our light probes already sent.
He said it would need 3-5 meters thick shielding. THAT is impossible (or impractical, either way it won't happen) The shielding will be the same shielding we have used for 40 years.
This, unfortunately, is not true. http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q2953.html http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/25aug_plasticspaceships.htm
Lets see Apollo 8 was 1968. We passed through all those terrible deadly van allen belts then with the Apollo and the new Orion is based greatly on the Apollo.
You might try giving the articles a look. It would certanly save me from having to type a reply: [rquoter] Protecting astronauts from deep-space radiation is a major unsolved problem. Consider a manned mission to Mars: The round-trip could last as long as 30 months, and would require leaving the protective bubble of Earth's magnetic field. Some scientists believe that materials such as aluminum, which provide adequate shielding in Earth orbit or for short trips to the Moon, would be inadequate for the trip to Mars. [/rquoter]
I love how its a "major problem" on the surface of mars the radiation level would take a long time to cause side effects. It would be years before they even met the bottom of the safety limits.
So basically you are admitting your primary interest is nationalistic. That I believe we actually need to make tough budgetary choices instead of spending money like drunken sailors? That big government may not be the answer to all of our problems? That I don't believe the US has to be dominant in everything? That I am not troubled by a Chinese Moon base? Those things blow you away? They might not now but for space travel to be practical will eventually require the private market. I do want to go back though and try to understand your fear of having other countries take the lead in space. Do you really fear that other countries will not save the rest of the planet if threatened by impending disaster? Do you believe that technological breakthroughs developed in other countries won't be shared with us leaving us a technological backwater? Consider that the PRC has built a successful space program rapidly and efficiently largely by copying Soviet technology. Its not like we won't be able to learn and advance our space program based upon what happens in other countries. You and Otto make it sound like there will be no space program if Obama's program goes through and we are instantly doomed to a killer asteroid and being turned into a Third World by superior foreign technology.
Except you are forgetting that not only are humans relatively fragile compared to robots we also need to send them will all of that heavy and expensive stuff to keep them alive to stop the killer asteroid. All of that adds up and with robots for the price of sending Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck you could send a whole armada of robots and still have a battalion to spare. Sending a manned mission to stop your killer asteroid is putting your eggs in one basket as so many more things can go wrong with humans in space than robots.
I'm pretty sure he is from america so whats the problem with that. Space exploration on the timeline set out by project constellation is not spending like drunken sailors. The Apollo was but we did it in less than a decade with limited tech. This is a 13 year project. Taking it slow and thrifty. Has to be dominant or has to try to be? Why not strive to be the best? Challenge yourself and allow good things to come. This is no space race. If it was we would be there in about 3 years. Space travel or exploration? Exploration is research and is used to further our technology and solving problems to benefit society. Most scientific research is publicly funded because it has positive side effects but industry will not fund it if they have a choice. Why would they share anything? We did not share with the russians. You seriously think if the chinese obtain better technology they will alow US to examine it and reproduce it for free? No it is like that. Just because another country has a well trained team of a few thousand people and factories able to produce better technology, scientists with more money and new problems, bigger research facilities will help us out at all. In fact it will keep more of the top minds IN CHINA instead of flocking to the USA an the drop of the hat if they get a chance. Why do you think 70% of grad students in the USA are international? We have the lead and keeping it is up to us. Once we lose it we lose the future.
Thrifty? In inflation adjusted $$, the Apollo program annual budget was about 3x NASA's current annual budget, IIRC. And this is something far more ambitious - with no real end in sight if the goal is permanent moonbase.
