In light of NASA's present research in Nano Technology, I say Yes!


The way I understand it Nano Technology will impact life as we know it in ways we are only beginning to fathom.
Some Examples:


Another interesting .gov link.
http://www.nano.gov/

Questions for Debate:

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


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

I suspect this topic will shortly be closed as it is the same as two other threads right below it, however, might I recommend you consult the thread on the ISS for my most recent diatribe:

Space exploration certainly has value, but I have yet to hear a moderatly convincing argument as to why manned space exploration has any point at this stage.

Quite Frankly, I did not wish to force other threads off topic with a discussion of this specific area of research within our space program. I believed at that point it was the appropriate step to assign nano technology it's own thread. Now if I was incorrect which is quite possible, I am sure the thread will be shut down.

Since I was directed to your most recent "diatribe" maybe a quote from it that pertains to the subject at hand may motivate reading of the question for debate.



Nano technology is at it's beginnings of development. It's technology will affect manned as well as unmanned spacecraft. NASA is one of many avenues the government has assigned to pursue it's technological application. The effects of this technology are far reaching and very exciting. Might you have any thoughts on this?

Robotic telescopes are probably going to be answering the most important questions without any need for astronauts.

If NASAs TPF telescope launches on schedule we'll have images of earth sized worlds out to 40 ly within a decade. They will then be able to get a pretty good read on their atmospheric compositions and the odds that these imaged planets supports life as we know it. The Europeans have one on the drawing board as well.

Larger arrays of such telescopes will probably be giving us quality images of life bearing worlds ----long---- before any astronaut would be able to do anything about it.

If they continue to develope the space program then we will gain new technology. With this new technology they can start to solve problems like how to dispose of nuclear waste. Simply send it into the sun in an unmaned space ship. The cost of making space shuttles will go drastically down as we continue to develope ways to make them cheeper and easier.

I have never bought the argument that the space program is worth the investment simply because technologies are created by our drive to go to space. If nanotechnology is the wave of the future, then there will be research on it with or without NASA. Let's use nanotech. to solve the problems here on earth rather than the problems of getting into and surviving in space. I am not a huge free market guru, but I think in this case the American free market will ensure our continued prominence in the world technology scene.

Fox Posted on Feb 20 2004, 03:12 PM


You know, I have always tended to feel that way also, though while I have researched Nano Tech, I have come to the conclusion that we really need Government involvement.


The other concern I have had is that we as a nation as well as our economy may be left in the dust if we are not on the cutting edge of the development of Nano Tech.

Where will we be economically if we aren't there for the big Score? What if we don't own the right patents? Where will all of the jobs end up?

Corporations are large enough now that they can afford to look beyond that one to three year research-to-market time frame.


I would be interested in hearing from a business or economics major about the real impact of technology investment by the federal government on a nation's economy. It seems that we're pretty good at stealing technology from Asian countries, changing it enough that we don't violate patent laws, improving upon it through private industry, and selling it back to them and the rest of the world.

I lean left socially, but I'm more moderate fiscally. I want to see that national debt paid down. Show me the money! Even if it is the legitimate role of government to finance nanotech research, why do they have to do it in the guise of a space program? Just fund the research through universities and tech companies.

OK here is the NNS Budget: http://www.nano.gov/html/about/nnibudget.html
Budget, was $792 million.
A list of budget beneficiares
DHS— Department of Homeland Security
DOC —Department of Commerce
DOD— Department of Defense
DOE— Department of Energy
DOJ— Department of Justice
DOT— Department of Transportation
EPA— Environmental Protection Agency
HHS— Health and Human Services
NASA—National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NIH— National Institutes of Health
NIST— National Institute of Standards and Technology
NSF— National Science Foundation
TSA— Transportation Security Administration
USDA— U.S. Department of Agriculture

Actually NASA is a Mid to low level beneficiary see link. NSF is the greatest (Universities and Research) Now how I stumbled onto all of this; I was researching any Nano Tech companies publicly traded, I wanted to invest, Hubby and I wanted to get in on the ground floor. Aside of a few major Corps. where Nano Tech is a subsidiary to normal course of business


There really wasn't much going on except for our Government. Now my feeling on the matter is any course of research forwards the cause. The unique requirements of space travel and exploration could yield results beyond what we could ever fathom today. I really don't know if I would want to impede any progress in the research.

There's very little that human beings do that will matter more than space exploration in the long run. Ultimately that may be what saves the human race from extinction; diversification to other planets and stars will preserve the species in case of, for example, a massive meteorite strike or (God forbid) a nuclear war.

But I must disagree with the apparent premise of the poll, that government must always be the only actor in exploring space. Burt Rutan's current privately funded space project appears to me to show mure promise than anything NASA is doing. But then Rutan is an aerospace engineering genius and NASA has become a hidebound bureaucracy, run by the CYA career bureaucrats instead of by the astronauts. Maybe NASA can still be saved, but not without a massive management shakeup and a complete reform of its organizational culture.

Absolutely.

In this Universe, gradients drive everything, and stasis is death. Couldn't be clearer.

regards,
Frediano

Gradients?
Merriam Webster
1 a : the rate of regular or graded ascent or descent : INCLINATION b : a part sloping upward or downward
2 : change in the value of a quantity (as temperature, pressure, or concentration) with change in a given variable and especially per unit distance in a specified direction
3 : the vector sum of the partial derivatives with respect to the three coordinate variables x, y, and z of a scalar quantity whose value varies from point to point
4 : a graded difference in physiological activity along an axis (as of the body or an embryonic field)
5 : change in response with distance from the stimulus

It isn't very clear to me at all. Gradients drive everything? Stasis is death?? These are Universal laws???

Yours perplexedly,
Fox

Not necessarily. You have to remember that one of the main questions being asked is "Can Man exist there?" Tough to definitely answer that one unless you actually send Man there.

Also, you need to consider that many of the side benefits derived from space technology are due solely to the fact that they were necessary to put and keep Man in that environment.

Does this mean that the pros and cons of sending humans on specific missions shouldn't be considered? Absolutely not. I do believe that many missions can and should be accomplished without astronauts. But that can only get you so far--at some point, sending humans IS the mission.

I am not entirely willing to accept that. Why have we not sent a human to the bottom of the deepest parts of the ocean? We know less about it then we do about Mars, we KNOW it contains life and discoveries which will expand our understanding of biology and life on earth. I have read estimates that literally hundreds of thousands of completely unknown species likely live down there.

Sending someone down there would be very difficult, but I am willing to be it could be done for the cost of a single shuttle launch ($500 million dollars) or, in a pinch, two shuttle launches (1 billion dollars)

My point is, Mars and the moon are uninhabitable. With the cold war over, the propaganda value of saying 'we did it' is lessened. I am not against this kind of exploration and discovery, clearly there still is SOME propaganda/ PR value of walking on Mars... but I am against it when the cost for an attempt is measured in the tens of billions, and the risk to life is high, while the returnes are essentially zero.

You can build a modern Hospital for about 30 million. You can equip it with the absolute latest in high tech gadgets in all fields for about 50 million. You can pay a hospital staff of 100 to work there for their entire lives for about 20 million.

Thats 100 million dollars, to build equip and staff in perpetuity a damned impressive hospital. How many times does 75 million go into 10 billion? 100 I believe?

Can you tell me ONE trip to mars and back is worth more to the US then 100 fully staffed and equipped Johns Hopkins Universities around the country?


Look, space travel is cool, I watched Star trek too. And it should be continued, automated probes and the like should continue to expand our knowledge of the solar system and the universe. Eventually, once the technology allows it and the price has gone down, I think we should send people to mars. But right now it is a lot of risk and a LOT of money for a one-shot something which has a balance sheet return of zero.

Although I do support NASA and space exploration, I don't understand why Republicans do... I mean shouldn't it (from a republican "slim government" perspective) be left to the private sector?

However, I would like to point out that space programs fit in nicely with a socialist-style government. Yes, we did eventually win the space war with USSR, but they led us every step of the way up to the moon.

So what's the REAL reason Repubs are always all for it? It's patriotic? I dunno.

Vermillion,

I think we are arriving at the same place, simply from opposite directions . As I also stated, I do think the pros and cons (ie--risks and returns) need to be considered when deciding whether a space mission should be manned or not. Currently, the pendulum is probably too far in favor of manned missions--but let's try to make sure it swings back to the middle, rather than too far on the other side.

Manned will eventually give us some thrills but in my lifetime the most important finds will most likely come from probes.

Not saying that manned isnt fun but it shouldnt be the primary focus when our propulsion technology is so limited.

Speaking of important finds by probes, NASA is giving a press conference at 2pm tomorrow in Washington DC. Speculation is that they have found liquid water on the surface of mars in the form of salty mud that is too briny to freeze. All the news reports i've read have the scientists holding their tongues.

Is their much to attract the private sector into space travel?

I know the Russians have taken up 'Space Tourism' and satellites have commercial uses, but unless Mars turns out to be full of resources (and no, there won't be oil) I can't see much commercial applications at the moment.

I think NASA should focus on the high concept advances that are commercially unviable to research, but would bring economic benefits once achieved.

Space exploration / travel does seem to be something that the private sector could be involved in, possibly with the government as a customer.

I think manned space travel is well worth the costs and "dangers" (in america's 40 some-odd years of manned launches, only 17 people have died- apollo 1, challenger, and columbia) this is one of the few things I agree with bush on. I think we SHOULD be trying to put men on the moon, and in a couple decades mars. we should do it "not because it is easy, but because it is hard." manned spaceflight could very well improve our economy, it would definatly create jobs and it would give us a national goal again. we could even get the ESA in on it, as well as japan, russia and china. we could make it an international goal to put men on the moon again and eventually mars. why constantly fight and bicker when there is something that we can achieve together?

I am still on the fence with this one. Space exploration in private industry, maybe...

Space tourism sounds like a Jurassic Park like enterprise, High cost product which results in a small target market group. Will there be enough of a demand to sustain development and progress.

Out sourcing all NASA projects, we tend to out source a great deal anyway not sure of the numbers, the question is would we really save that much?

One thing I am sure of is that we must pursue space, it is human nature to explore or exploit, depends on you point of view.

That is the only way it will work. Private industry.


The same was said about airplanes.

One single small asteroid probably has enough precious metal to pay off the initial cost many many times over. Thats far away tech wise as in humans would need to go to attach a booster rocket to return to earth orbit, or mars, right now. But wouldn't take any new technology to accomplish.

Helium 3. This little jewel is all over the moon. One single shuttle load of this stuff has enough power to fuel America for quite some time. One single shuttle load!

Private operation could repair Hubble for far less than NASA could do it. Private companies could build the ISS for a hell of a lot less than government. Get it done quicker and more efficiently.

The unescapable need to explore and to dream. Priceless.

Exploit-
Thats is great, Asteroid Cowboys and prospectors. Worked in the past didn't it.
There is Gold in them thar Hills.


Explore-


Beautiful! Christopher, I like your Idea. Not ready to shut down NASA yet but it looks more feasible presented in this light.

Well, the Bush Mars plan didnt really get any funding from Congress (and Bush wasnt asking for much anyway) so I wouldnt expect a serious return to the high frontier any time soon. One congressman essentially said, "great plan but must be deferred".

Even with the Bush timetable (with funds) we wouldnt go back to the moon until 2015 and mars until at least 2030.

Now, who can say.

That is why NASA is not getting the funding it needs. People look at Mars and say it is uninhabitable and they are right. However, they only see one part of it. Mars is unihabitable, that's a scientifically proven fact. NASA wants to research Mars anyway, because there are theories that might very well make NASA inhabitable. It is possible that if enough Carbon-Dioxide is released into the Martian atmosphere then it would become warmer, melting the ice that may be on the planet. Then, plants would be placed on the planet and they would use carbon-dioxide and release oxygen, and eventually, enough would be released that we could breathe and inhabit the planet of Mars.

Now, that theory is not proven, and it may never be. So, I can definitely see why people are hesistant in giving NASA funding. I cannot say that I wouldn't be hesistant myself! However, NASA may be successful, and if that happens, we have a relatively close (in space terms) planet to inhabit.

I voted in the minority, against it.
Someone sent me a little joke that applies here, even if it is not true.
Seems we discovered that ball point pens don't work in space, so we spent millions of dollars developing one that would, even under water, any place, any time.
The Russians, on the other hand, just used pencils.
There just isn't enough control over the scientists, engineers, etc. to keep them on track toward doing just the things that need to be done. I worked at a Test Reactor in Idaho where I overheard our engineers admitting that we had tested, retested, and then tested again the same things, just to prove what we already knew. The handwriting was on the wall, and the program was soon shut down, but not until we had wasted millions of dollars. There are more important needs to be addressed in the here and now, space exploration needs to be done by robotics and space telescopes for now.

I support fully the space program.

From a discoverers perspective, I believe the need for exploration outweighs the desire for money. People will always be spending more money than you would think to find something that they think may or may not be out there. History and our current society's actions show this to be a strong driving force.



Well, not gold, but here's a little rock that might be worth some cash.


Wrt technology derived from the space program. It's the process of having a solid goal with no existing way of getting to it that brings about associated techologies that we have gotten from the program. "Put a man on the moon" was a goal, and in order to make that goal exist, new technologies had to be created to fit that goal.

With programs like this, it's beginning to show that Americans want to open up the competition, not just from different countries, but different companies. I'm excited to think of the advancements we'll make once America's fierce competitive spirit tackles the almost overwhelming goal of exploring the unexplored.

I fully support space exploration and the funds that are allocated to NASA. I mean, without those billions of dollars being spent we wouldn't have velcro or memory foam (the new bed material), and where would we be then? But seriously space exploration is something I feel is very important due to what we can learn about the universe and the Earth. There are many exciting discoveries being made and soon the first commerical flights into space will be made.

Scaled Composites

Uh, no offense here, but I think you have been reading a bit too much of Robinson's Green mars Sci-Fi series. Mars is suspected to have had a thick atmosphere at one point in the past, a theory which is confirmed by recent discoveries from the two rovers on the surface. However, due to the planet's small size and lack of magnetic protection, atmosphere and the containment of water vapour is not sustainable. Any water on the surface would have sublimated and lost into space. Only sub-surface ice could have survived, and even it is fading slowly.

The small size combined with lack of magnetosphere has caused the atmosphere to be stripped away by solar winds and other forces. Even now the thin atmosphere it has is bleeding off into space...


http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast31jan_1.htm

In my opinion, complacence is the biggest enemy to an individual, a society, and the human race. The recognition that we still have a lot to learn and a lot to achieve is the driving force behind scientific and technological advance. IMHO, space exploration programs are getting too LITTLE attention, not too much.

This here planet is a small place, and we should keep the spirit of exploration in us alive, and move on to other planets and eventually other solar systems. We can achieve this by starting manned missions to Mars and terraforming Mars in our life time.

Man, sometimes I wish I were born 100 or 200 years from now, when there is only one human race and the goal of that human race is to explore every corner of the universe.

Too idealistic you say? Bite me!

There are plenty of better ways to spend our money. True space travel is pure fiction. All we have done so far is go to the moon and back, and it is "in the next room" relative to any other celestial body. The logistics are beyond our current capabilities and will likely remain that way for another 50-100 years at least. And once we do find a way to travel, we have no place to go that we know can support life.
I think we already have existing avenues of research and scientific endeavors available to us that are realistically achievable. They may not have quite the glamor of the space program, but that does not mean we should ignore them.
I would like to see us solve our energy/pollution problems first.
Velcro, by the way, is not a discovery attributable to the space program.

you know, they said the same thing about flying 100 some-odd years ago. people KNEW in columbuses day that the earth was flat and sailing around the world was pure fiction.

truthfully, they don't know that there isn't someplace to go to. every extra-solar planet that's been found was because it an effect on it's star. 50 years ago extra solar planets were pure fiction as well, yet now we know there are at least jovian type planets outside our solar system.

while we do have problems here that need solving (such as enrgy and pollution) we shouldn't stop exploring. we CAN'T stop exploring, it's an inherient part of being human!

Verm, that is odd. I can swear I read somewhere that Mars had a ferris core. And Mars is not that much smaller than earth, don't forget the gravitational force on Mars is 0.9G, so it can't be that much smaller than this here rock of ours.

But don't you want to see humankind emigrate to other planets some time in the future?

Go where no man has gone before!

(i needa make more use of the spell check feature)

Actually, its more like 0.377 G's, or slighty more than just 1/3rd of Earth's gravity.

Absolutely. Someday.

PanzerKommand Posted on Apr 28 2004, 12:33 AM


Couldn't have said it better myself! What it boils down to with me is do we as a nation wish to spend our time and resources living in the moment or do we want to look to the future? To draw a "Down to Earth" parallel ... The Government not investing in the space program likens to the family that lives hand to mouth, whose only concern is paying the bills and how much money is left over to provide that weeks entertainment. With a little forethought and a bit of sacrifice they could save to buy a home, put the kids through college, or other investments of time and money that yield far greater rewards. As unabomber posted...

unabomber Posted on Apr 28 2004, 10:36 AM


To ignore this aspect of our nature, we just may become the "Fat Lazy Americans" that so many seem to like to label us as. A population of couch potatoes, whose only real exercise is thumb aerobics partnered with the remote control and greatest creative thought for the week was the discussion with their spouse as to what next weeks "Sopranos" will reveal.

If we really want to continue to be a world leader then space exploration / travel / technology is essential in the coming century.

We bought ourselves a lot of credit and gave the economy a significant boost with the innovations of computers and the internet. But take a look at what is happening now... all of those high tech jobs are getting sucked up by other countries desperate to get a foothold on technology. We can't rest on our laurels any longer.

If we want to continue to lead we must continue to innovate and there really isn't anywhere else left to go except up. Sure we could explore the ocean as someone suggested, but first that doesn't have much potential compared to space exploration and secondly space achievements have much more clout. There is a reason why people know who the first man on the moon is, but not the name of the deepest sea diver.

I think we should be spending far more money on the space program than we are. We need to establish a real working space station that is self sufficient such that we are capable of building things in space and avoiding the required energy expediture getting them into orbit. We need to put a man on Mars. Finally we need to establish a working colony/scientific station on either the moon or Mars. All of these big steps will create new technologies we don't have now making our world better. we'll gain that new technology trying to accomplish those goals as we solve problems.

If you take a big picture view of history, this is where we'll make our mark. How we handled the terrorist threat in the 21st century will barely be a footnote in a US History textbook in 50 years.

I have zero faith that manned space flight will accomplish anything in the next 30 years... Its too expensive to go further than we have and we are already unable to manage the national checkbook. The Bush plan wasnt exactly met with cheers and I think thats about more than just the current spending spree.

Actually there are a number of intriguing possibilities that may make manned spaceflight or, more specifically, entering/escaping Earth orbit inexpensive.

1. Dirigibles, yes, that's right, blimps in space: JP Aerospace and here's an article.

2. Space elevator: sounds like science fiction? think again.

3. Not to mention all the other XPrize goings-on.

The good thing is that these are all privately funded ventures. There's no taxpayer money involved.

Firstly, it is assumed (though not for sure) that mars has a solid ferrous or ferrous composite core, cooled and solidified. The magnetic field generated by this is a fraction of that generated by the Earth's rapidly rotating liquid iron core, and the magnetosphere of Mars is not enough to protect anything on the surfact, nor maintain any kind of atmosphere.

The Gravity on Mars is just over a third that of earth (EDIT Azure got there first) and again, not sufficient to sustain an atmosphere. Scientists are now quite sure mars DID have an atmosphere at one point, but it sublimated into space, same as any surface or near sub-surface ice on Mars is in the process of doing now.


As for settling other planets, Sure! Why not!

But lets wait until this bit of science fiction becomes even rmotely possible, AND we fins a suitable planet for colonisation AND we find some way to get there and stay alive.

Continue R&D absolutely. Continue unmanned space flight, absolutely. But manned space exploration is suilly, wasteful and incredibly expensive for little to no gain.

I have to disagree here, Vermillion. Traditionally funded (i.e. government funded) manned spaceflight has been very expensive; this doesn't mean all techniques of manned access to space must therefore be expensive as well. Tourism is proving to be a viable money-making proposition. It would behoove government space agencies to get in on the action. It is certain that tourism is the driving motivator for privately funded manned space ventures. If acess to space is made to be cheap, then most of the arguments against manned spaceflight are effectively rebutted.

Firstly, I think you massively overestimate the potential viability of Space Tourism with current technology. A single shuttle launch costs $280 million dollars or more. A single Soyuz launch costs $75 million dollars, but offers significantly fewer options in space, and is about 3x more dangerous.

(EDIT: Odd statistic drawn of NASA homepage, considering there has never been a disaster with the modern Soyuz module, and there have been 2 shuttle explosions: furthermore there have been MORE Soyuz launches than shuttle launches...)

Anyways...

Even ignoring the above stats, those are for orbital launches, which mankind has more or less perfected. For any kind of further venture, the cost muliplies by several factors.

Manned flights are always FAR more expensive, as people are fragile, have to be kept alive and most importantly have to be recovered. Unmanned probes are hardy, do not require atmosphere food or water, and can be left on the target.


For serious exploration space tourism is obviously not an option:
-Firstly bringing tourists along on a first-time exploration is incredibly dangerous and foolhardy, and increasesthe cost in space, food water abnd safeguards for what is essentially a useless crewmember.
-Secondly, given the VAST prices of manned space travel, even at $10 million dollars a head, you would still need a school-bus full of people to even defray a part of the cost, and half of that 'profit' would be spent keeping them alive and expanding the vehicle to take more than a core team.

Conservative estimates of a trip to Mars are between $5 and $15 billion dollars for a single trip (nobody is sure yet). Round trip would be close to 2 years long. Space tourism could not hope to cover even just that one trip.

Thats just a guess. The last actual cost estimate of a trip to Mars was done in 1989, and it produced a cost over 10 years of $400 billion dollars. Obviouslym that was 15 years ago and technology has improved, but nobody really knows how much a manned mission to Mars will cost.


Eventually, I can see space tourism making a small difference in costrs for local trips, but extra-orbital travel is not viable for tourism and is FAR more expensive.


Unmanned exploration: safer, FAR cheaper, faster and with far less risk to life, is the only viable alternative right now. Manned exploration at our current level of technology is national posturing descended from the Cold war.

I don't believe that I've overestimated anything. I think you've underestimated the viability of cheap orbital access. I do agree that what we have today is very expensive. It is mostly derived from ballistic missle technology motivated largely by military applications.

I strongly recommend you read some of the links I've given. Access to space doesn't have to be hugely expensive (just moderately so). Tourism is the primary motivator for cheap, manned space access. There are other motivations, such as science or manufacturing, but these do not have immediately tangible returns.

I agree that manned space flights will always have the life support issue to factor in. On the other hand, unmanned probes are not as versatile. And some types of operations require versatility. Probes do exactly what they're told even if it means crashing into a planet rather than landing softly. There are trade-offs. I don't disagree, however, that for exploration purposes unmanned space probes have the advantage.

Umm....I don't think I've mentioned manned exploration being the driving force behind manned spaceflight. And I agree that manned space exploration is pretty much a non-starter at this point. However, manned outposts for tourism, manufacturing, mining and so on, could be viable economically. It is really too soon to tell. Once access to earth orbit is sufficiently inexpensive, then we can continue the debate.

Yes, I think a manned trip to Mars while having a high cool factor has a low return value. If there is sufficient evidence of Martian life and our political/social/scientific will is great enough, then I could see where a manned science mission to Mars may be worth it. I think it is too soon at this point.

You mentioned the Mars stuff. Manned spaceflight into Earth orbit does not equal a mission to Mars. Nor is the only justification for manned spaceflight exploratory.

We DO know that there are no inhabitable planets in our solar system, with the exception of Mars possibly sustaining a small colony. A year of high radiation exposure during space travel to Mars could seriously impact the longevity and reproducibility of the travelers. And that is just getting to Mars, going further means having a colony on the ship that has to be sustained and protected until a suitable planet is found. The incredible cost of getting to Mars and providing support for a colony there could be better spent on educating our children. Once they get a good understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, etc. they will be less likely to believe in these far fetched dreams and then they could apply themselves toward more meaningful endeavors. How about exploring ourselves?
A good study of human psychology applied to the history of mankind might make us better understand why so many of us want to escape reality instead of facing up to it and making better use of our individual lives here on earth.
Space travel will remain fiction a lot longer than did flight, or traveling to the other side of the world.
If we ever get the chance to dictate to our leaders how our tax dollars are spent, I suspect it would then be up to voluntary donors to support the research on space travel.
Just because something is achievable doesn't necessarily make it worthwhile doing.

To be fair, "inhabitable" is a bit of a loose term here. Technically speaking, if you can survive somewhere -- with sufficient technological aids -- it is inhabitable. That said, you are absolutely correct that radiation exposure is a problem. There are solutions, but they really haven't been tested. My feeling is that if alot of taxpayer money is used for such a manned mission, there had better some darn good reasons (and not just: humans need to explore stuff).

I don't think anyone was talking about Battlestar Galactica here . Were we?

I find this line of reasoning fallacious. First, not all problems are solved by throwing money at them. Second, while some scientific/technological advancement can be done in parallel, it is just as often done serially, that is, it builds upon previous advances. Third, far-fetched dreams (such as personal communications devices) can and do occur with regularity. Fourth, education is often impacted by large endeavors. Fifth, history shows that money not being spent on education will continue to not go to education. Sixth, science != technology. Last, while I absolutely agree that education is very, very important, you're setting up a false dilemma as the crux of your argument.

So, your position is that a desire for space travel is escapist? I suppose in the sense that one escapes into orbit and beyond it is. However, this again appears to be a false delimma you've employed. You need to show why space travel does not better one's life and, of course, why bettering one's life doesn't involve space travel.

That's why private space ventures have so much promise. The "voluntary" donors are investors and paying customers.

Couldn't agree more. I usually say, "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."

I say that the government should incourage private/coprate ventures in space.

We must continue exploring our solar system.

Never retreat on being creative.


Have you seen the movie Core?
Could we use thermonucular warheads to get the core of Mars spinning or to help it spin better???

Could we use some of the astroid belt to inlage the mass of Mars???

Taking a voyage to Mars as an example, one of the important things to remember is that the destination isn't the most important aspect but rather the journey.

The technological advances for such an undertaking would be very substaintial in the applied sciences realm. There are some very complex problems that would need to be solved to make such a voyage possible, and we would have to make advances in several areas in order to solve them.

Space Travel/Colonization is our future, eventually the problems of over population, pollution, global warming, and depleted resources will be unmanageable on Earth. Will that happen in any of our lifetimes? Probably not, but if every government takes the position of "we won't worry about that, it is too long term", then eventually it'll be too late to do anything.

Keep in mind that "exploring the solar system" must be tempered by realistic approaches. Unmanned planetary exploration has been very successful and will continue to be the main means of planetary science for the forseeable future. The main applications for Earth orbit, though, have been military and commercial. There is no reason to believe it will not continue to be the case for manned orbital access, particularly commercial applications.


The Core movie was so unrealistic, unscientific and unphysically accurate as to make me cringe when I think about it .

I'm with CJ on this one. In fact, I can't think of a single program MORE worthy of expenditure than the space program. Two, three, four hundred years from now--you think they'll say anything about any of the various social programs in history books? I doubt it--but discover of new worlds, inhabititation of planets, discovery of alien life--that will certainly be noteworth. Not only are untold technical advances made in the achievement of these explorations (making it more of an investment than a cost), but the quest itself, learning about the universe we live in, how we got here, where we are going, who else is there?, cannot be answered in any other fashion. Some of this can be achieved with unmanned vehicles, some cannot. Judicious use of both would be best.

This morning spaceship one successfully reached the 100km mark, obtaining subspace orbit. I was watching CNN this morning and I'll have to say that I'm a little dissappointed in their coverage.

But, now that this has been done, it begs the question of what else is possible. The method in which this ship made it into orbit is new, and given the reduced cost maybe it is worth NASA taking a look right?

Shouldn't we focus more heavily on this project given that it has the potential to ease the barrier to entry into space and thus speed up further research and accomplishments?