I agree with your take on the news coverage of SpaceShipOne's remarkable flight this morning, CJ. I was switching around channels like crazy and found the best coverage to be the local LA Fox television station, KTTV. CNN, MSNBC, FOX News Channel were all horrible.

However, this aircraft didn't actually go into orbit, far from it. It merely penetrated the 100 km altitude mark which has been agreed on by scientists around to the world to be the threshold of space, and it "only" reached speeds of around 2500 mph well short of the minimum speed of around 15,000 mph required to actually enter orbit. Still though, it was an impressive achievement for Burt Rutan and his folks. I don't know that it's going to lead to anything truly significant in the long term like actual commercial space travel, but it was still an impressive achievment for Rutan. I'll give him that even though I have some "personal issues" with him.

IMO opinion, this is the same moment as the birth of the airplane.
When they go for the X Prize I shall make the trek to see it. I wanted to be in Mohave for this but am still recovering from surgery.
I see this as the spark that gets things going. There are a great many business ventures that can realistically be launched from an independant wild cat set up.
I don't expect to suddenly be on mars by november, but you should all remember this moment. NASA is probably doomed but Hell they have more than earned their slide into museum history.
I admit I am jealous of the coming generations.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that found the coverage on all stations to be horrible. I can remeber when something like this would have been on every station, and I'm not even that old!

To your point, they did make the distinction it wasn't a true orbit of earth. What I found the most interesting was their methods of getting to the orbit they achieved and also the landing method as well. If this were to work for a full orbit, it would have a huge impact on the space program I think due to reduced costs, this program thus far has only cost 1/25th of a single shuttle launch.

Scientists have said going into Low Earth Orbit is a whole 'nother ball game, but I only see that as an engineering problem at this point, not something insurmounatble.



I think I plan on going as well, a group of friends and I were talking about camping out in Mojave Sunday night and going for this morning's launch, but it didn't work out. So instead we all met at my place at 6am to watch the news coverage and were subsequently very disappointed in it.

The spirit beihnd the X-Prize is not to produce a commerically viable, reuseable, launch system. The goal is to prove that it can be done privately.

Its true that the 100KM limit suborbital, but it is high enough for rapid transit and Aerospace planes to operate in global travel, and it is high enough to eventually vastly reduce the cost of getting a sattelite into orbit via booster from a vehicle at that alititude.

The Ansar 1 X-Prize was established in the spirit of prizes such as the $25K Orteig Prize that Linburg won for the first non-stop transatlantic flight. Much of what we today know as the the "air travel industry" owes its existance to prizes like th X-Prize, given away for doing what was certainly unprofitable and impractical, and often thought of as impossible, until someone actually went and did it.

The X-Prize prize founders realize that to a certain extent, until it is proven that something can be done, no one will try it out.

No one is going to attempt a venture that is commercial from the word go, but they will find funding for and attempt something simply to be the first to do it. Once it has been done it becomes feasilble to do again.

I think that its too early to tell what the fallout from this will be. There are 26 different teams from all ove rthe world trying for the prize. That means there are 27 different designs being created. It stands to reason that many of these have their eyes looking past the prize knowing that even of they don't win it, once it has been done by someone, they have a great argument to continue developing their design for actual commercial purposes.

Say we lose 1/2 to 3/4 of all the competitors once the prize is won. That still leaves 10 or so different launch mechanisms. 10 different companies, worldwide, is HUGE in a market that only has 3-4 real players right now. Sure it will be outrageously expensive, but that will change. The most expensive and risky part of space vetures, at the moment, is getting something out of the atmosphere. Once the cost and risk come down, the sky is, in fact, the limit.

I am excited by the recent success of SpaceShip One as well. I foresee the commercialization of human space access to follow something like:

1. more prize money to encourage infrastructure investment
2. sub-orbital tourism (up & down in 1/2 hour to an hour)
3. short-duration orbital tourism (< 1 day in orbit)
4. sub-orbital air transportation
5. long-duration tourism (multi-day stays)
6. orbital hostels (again tourism driven)
7. micro-g fabrication/manufacture

Subsequent lunar access will only be commercially feasible when 1-6 (and probably 7) are financially viable. As you can see, I believe that tourism is the only workable near-term strategy for commercial human space access. This is precisely what boot-strapped the commercial aircraft industry.

I think NASA needs to look at me and consider investing in this new type of space vehicle because the current shuttles are outdated and cost too much to maintain. If NASA wants to look at oppurtunities to cut spending, scrap the current shuttles and buy a few of these new vehicles

I think you'll find that the payload capacity of SpaceShipOne is considerably less that the of the Space shuttle.

Before people get too excited, they should recall that the first man America put into space in 1961 also made a short, sub-orbital flight in a very small, state of the art capsule reaching the altitude of 116 US miles.

The difference's between todays flight and Commander Alan B Sheppard's flight are not so great as might be imagined and it bears consideration that the power required to lift a small payload into space in 1961 is still the same as it is today.

Burt Rutan's success today is an admirable first step on a long and exciting journey, but it is not going to be a journey that replaces the technology we have to lift heavy payloads into space today.

Just a bit of a news update on SpaceshipOne, it appears they are ready to compete for the X-Prize.

I think it is important that there is continued investment in space-faring technology, because it's an excellent morale booster for the planet and goes some way to alleviate the constant focus on things like war and poverty. Everybody in the world is proud of Yuri Gagarin, Neil Armstrong, and everybody who made their voyages possible. There's very little in this world that you could say the same of.

And although the focus of space travel is now mainly on voyages to the moon an Mars (and beyond), the importance of journeys a little closer to home should not be underestimated - most likely this post will travel via a satellite at some point from client to server, as does many a television programme and news report. A fair few cars these days are fitted with satellite navigation - this just wouldn't have happened without the space programme.

It may sound a bit Star Trek, but my personal vision for space travel is the concept of maglev space elevators. The most hazardous part of any space journey is re-entry, and lift-off is no walk in the park either. Space elevators would allow us to bypass these steps, and while the initial venture would come at massive cost, all future space travel would be cheaper and much less hazardous. The only thing stopping us from disposing of nuclear waste in the sun at the moment is the danger involved in liftoff - an instant killer app. I know it sounds fanciful, but I think it's the kind of vision we need these days; one that goes beyond mere profit gathering.

I think I'll beat CJ to it this time. Looks like SpaceShipOne has completed the first of two flights for the X Prize $10 million purse though it wasn't without problems. The goal is to reach at least 100km twice within a two week interval with a reusable space craft and with private financing. This is way cool. Already another purse has been annouced for $50 million for the first privately financed team to reach orbit. The owner of Virgin Atlantic has created a new company called "Virgin Galactic" partnered with Scaled Composites (SpaceShipOne folks) to start suborbital tourist flights by 2006.

The gauntlet has been thrown down again and this time the bar has been raised - rules set for America's Space Prize.


So it appears that private industry is kind of taking this on as its cross to bear while NASA sits around, hands tied. I find this very encouraging that we are in fact heading toward a space revolution.

It also appears that they are taking a big leap here, this flight would be much more significant than the flight by SpaceshipOne.

I agree with your first part. Maybe I read too much Science Fiction, but to me, space exploration is vital, colonizing a planet is vital (Mars is the best bet), and keeping all of our eggs in one basket is a bad idea. Heinlein said that, I think. Aside from being a fascist who sold socialism out during the Cold War, he was also my favorite author from the time I was too young to be reading his books up to the time I found Orson Scott Card, and his books are still some of my favorites, even if I now know to have the saltshaker handy when I sit down to read them. Not really sure fascist is the best word for his views, though. What do you call someone who glorifies the concept of a group of super smart people leading the 'ignorant masses' around by the nose using force and trickery, 'for their own good' of course?

Anyway, back to the main point: Your second opinion will make sense when the program is sure to turn regular, forseeable profits. I just don't think it's there quite yet. And the companies who want contracts with NASA often lobby for overly complex (expensive, and so profitable, for them), means to, for example, colonize Mars.

There is an excellent book on the subject I think you'd like, it's called The Case for Mars. It was written by Robert Zubrin.


Here is a review that sums up the content fairly well:




According to Zubrin, we could have started the first Mars colony for far less than it cost to start the war with Iraq. I sort of wish someone would find affordably extractable oil there, it's one place that could use some global warming!




I'm happy nanotech is credited in part to NASA, I hope this keeps people willing to pay for it, it's certainly a better bet than continuing to pay for the losses of corporations who lose investments overseas!

In light of this, Do you support Americas present focus on Space travel?

My initial interpretation of nano technology, is that it is to good to be true. Now to rationalize that belief...

First off, the atomic structure of any non-homogenous (a.k.a non-uniform) visible object, is to complicated for us to analyze. Scientists are still struggling to even outline the quantum physical propertys of proteins, and those are extremely small. Thus, the idea that nano bots could create something as infinitely complex as food, is laughable.

Second, the computing capacity of something as small as a nanobot is nill. They would have to be run by remote control (under assumption that its even possible to make receiver that small), and nothing could be pre-programed, so computers would have to be constantly directing the movements of millions of nanobots (each on an individual level) simultaneously. Hence, while nanobots may be small, their brains wont be.

Third, while machines are capable of competently carrying out preset instructions, their innovative abilitys are extremely limited. Because nanobots aren't stationary (different positions require different movements), preset instructions wont work.

Fourth, how in gods name do you hold an individual atom anyway?

My reasons for doubting nanotechnology aside, on to the main question. Do I support our current focus on Space Travel?

Well it cant hurt, though it will certainly be expensive..

I can tell you right, Bushes rantings about this have been misleading. Scientists having been trying to create fusion energy for about 50 years, and it just does not work. It takes more energy to contain the fusion, then is extracted from the fusion. Consequently, a bit of moon dust isn't going to power the whole world for a month.

Also, I don't think mining the moon would be cost effective, because the safe entry into the Earths atmosphere would be to expensive.

Be that as it may, it would be cool to land people on the moon and mars. As for terraforming, that will take a lot of investment, and a few hundred years or so before we'd get some return. Keep in mind, the Earth population is growing much slower that people thought it was going to in the 90s. However, I still think terraforming would still be an interesting thing to do.

If not, How will we as a nation be able to retain our technological status in the world?

Well who is going to beat us? Europe?

Preface: Well guys, i'm a newbie, and I just kind of joined, i'm pretty young and I stumbled on this forum searching google with the other weird intentions. But nonetheless found a spark of interest if a few of the topics discussed. I am aware i'm not as reputable as some of the people here, or not even as close as educated., but I just wanted to voice my opinion.



Poll question: Is Space Travel Worth It?

Yes there is always room in the budget for the space program. [ 37 ] ** [58.73%]
While space travel is very important, lets get our economy back in check first. [ 21 ] ** [33.33%]
This is alot of hype, why waste our time and money. [ 5 ] ** [7.94%]

Total Votes: 63

Observations: Its pretty obvious how some of us feel about the space travel. Apparently 58% of us feel that the budget for the space program could be enlarged. I on that issued would agree. I maybe stumbling off topic, and i'm not sure if my idea has been posted, because i've only read a fraction of the posts on this thread.

I think in order to promote space travel/exploration, it has to be transformed in to a commercial venture. A profitable commercial venture at that. The idea with offering space travel/tourism has its limitations as it has been obviously discussed, focussed mainly with its incredibly small market. But where has any venture ever succeed without any type of divergence of resources ? It may take time and money, but there has to be an instigator. U.S being the economic powerhouse it is now, would most likely be the best candidate. Whoever that cataclyst is, is besides the point, once space travel/exploration/habitation/mining etc.. whichever field it has the greatest potential, other nations will begin the race to space. Much like the arms race in 1940's, competition always invokes improvement.

And once that has begun there are endless possibilities to technology. The best way to push our space program is with incentive. Monetary incentive being the most inviting.

Well thats enough blabbing for me, im young and i don't know much but meh, its just what I think.

I voted for the last option, all this time, energy, and more importantly MONEY we spend on a fruitless endevure like space travel, we COULD BE investing in important things like healthcare and social security..

Like I want to find aliens anyway so the next set of politicians can declare war on them, or makeup confusing arguments over monogamus relationships with one, or God only knows what..

I'm with you fellers who voted for keeping NASA in the budget. Although we have immediate needs that require short-term attention as well, the paybacks on research are usually worth the effort.

Nanotech is interesting stuff, especially the use of carbon-based components like the tubes I've seen in various science articles. And since NASA has a need to make things smaller and lighter to keep on exploring, there you go. The need will be filled eventually, and then we get something far more useful than Velcro and non-stick frying pans.

That's not the only thing though. We've already established technologies that will eventually replace our major current energy sources, and the processing capabilities of our computers keep reaching beyond the so-called limitations.

Meanwhile, the entire world's economy is changing, seemingly by the hour. Keeping a tech edge is highly desireable, and creating new techs is necessary. I think that someday, government funding will be moot as industry takes on the R&D like it did for computers and networks. By then I don't think anyone will be thinking nationally about economics, war will become obsolete, Jupiter will allign with Mars, and we'll get that Age of Aquarius going.

Or we might just blow ourselves up. I am a terminal optimist you see, and so can't give up the positive outlook until the bitter end. Pakistan has been fingered on the training ground for the London bombers, and that brings on a nervous feeling, being that Pakistan has nukes right now. Hope things don't get out of hand.

So, assuming we survive the current era of high tensions, the technical and economic long-term futures look bright enough to wear shades.

Despite my background in science, I have always been skeptical of space exploration, because it's half science and half national pride. Let's face it, in some ways there's not a great deal of difference between the Shuttle blasting off and the fireworks displays on the Fourth of July. Hooray for us! Rah! Rah! Rah!

I am very much in favor of the scientific aspects of space research, and we have certainly derived enormous benefits from satellite technology.

[Aside: I am writing to you through a satellite. The other day, a neighbor (who also uses a satellite for email) needed a bit of information. So I shipped the file to her. It went 20K miles up to the satellite, 20K miles down to the processing station, 20K miles up to the satellite, and 20K miles back down to her house -- a journey of 80K miles to travel just 2 miles. Ah, the wonders of modern technology!]

My objection is to the aspect of space exploration that caters to national vanity. Yes, I think it was a good thing to put a man on the moon for reasons of national vanity. That really did have a huge impact on all of us. But, say, putting a man on Mars is wasteful; we can learn far more at the same price using robots.

Lastly, I must address the value of spin-offs. This has been a claimed benefit of space technology since the 60s. Teflon, for example, is a spin-off of space technology. However, a professor of mine way back then pointed out that we could get useful spin-offs from any big research program. We could spend a billion bucks on supersonic tricycles and get some useful spin-offs. Serendipity is not confined to space exploration.

With the Soviets out of the space race, I think that space exploration is no longer a competition, it is a collaboration.

The Space Shuttle Discovery is going up, in part, to resupply the International Space Station. The Space Station is a collaborative effort, with the US simply another partner. There is no nationalism involved.

There are many things that we cannot understand simply by doing experiments on earth. Ambient radiation in space is filtered by our atmosphere, for example. Gravity affects some experiments. We cannot get clear images of the far reaches of space due to the filtering and distortion of our atmosphere. The list of limitations simply by being on earth is endless.

Going to space allows us to expand our understanding in ways that we simply cannot accomplish otherwise.

In the grand scheme of the federal budget, we spend next to nothing on space exploration. I think the returns on the investment have been overwhelming and have given us an understanding of the universe that we would not otherwise have.

As I said, I support the use of space for scientific research, and all the satellite work is very worthwhile. I draw the line at manned exploration beyond earth orbit. I just don't see any benefits in sending people galavanting all over creation. Robots can do the job better.

I don't buy robots can do the job better argument. Or, rather, I only buy the argument when applied to a very specific project. We simply do not have the technology (yet) that rivals the versatility of humans. For certain undertakings, a human is the best answer because the human is versatile. I believe that unless we develop self-replicating/self-repairing robots using materials in situ, then humans are the only reasonable answer to medium to long term operations off planet. I'm talking about economic things like mining or micro-/zero-g manufacturing and not necessarily science experiments.

The biggest economic incentive by far though is tourism. And it is here that private sub-orbital and orbital projects will excel whereas the biggest government/political incentive is military -- it will always remain so. That said, for strictly scientific endeavors with very specific goals it is almost always true that a robot is better. However, there is much a robot cannot do and it here where humans should be evaluated as viable option.

OK, so we're in agreement: so long as space exploration is confined to scientific research, we're probably better off using robots than people. Once we get into industrial and other activities, then we need people. Those other activities, however, are not in the immediate future.