Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

NASA's recent budget woes, which might have brought an end to a moon landing in 2020, a lunar base, and manned missions to Mars, have got me thinking about space flight in general. It's amazing to me, looking back at the 1950's serial The Martian Chronicles, and Kubrick's 1968 film, 2001: A Space Odyssey, how far ahead people back then thought we would be by now.

In the US, it seems like since Nixon and the end of Apollo, we have given up on pushing human space flight beyond low Earth orbit, as NASA's budget continues to be cut by successive administrations. While it's true that robots can do a lot of things cheaper, and the success of Spirit and Opportunity show that, it's also true that as a species humans will one day have to leave Earth if we are to survive as a species (though that day is probably very far off).

One thing I have heard NASA is going to do is outsource to private development, and I think this is fine. NASA is in the throes of government budgets, and unfortunately it has not had the level of public or government support it's needed since the 70's. I definitely don't believe private industry is any more infallible than government (the recent banking crisis shows it's not) but if the government is not going to push the boundaries, then some area has to step up to take its place. Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic, offering suborbital space flights for paying customers, is the first step in that direction. And unlike NASA projects, it has progressed almost unhindered, and recently received a nearly $200-$300 million investor; in other words, they also have funding, unlike NASA.

By the way, please feel free to talk about space programs in other countries. For better or worse, I think one consequence of the US government's lack of commitment to space is going to be other countries stepping into that void. We may be hitching rides from Russia during the space shuttle transition, and China is already developing plans to mine on the moon.

I don't think we have just lost interest. We're really in the middle of two major steps: the Moon landing and the Mars landing, and because that seems far off NASA appears to be stagnate. You also got to think that it was a major step to get to the Moon, mainly because of the competition with Russia, and now public interest has lessened. But we are getting closer to Mars and a Moon base (or even colony), so interest will not completely fade. I think that the closer we get to 2020, the more that will come into the foreground.

Great topic, by the way.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

I've always loved the concept of living in outer-space and of us, as a species, existing well after the planet that we spawned from dies. Mind, I also grew up watching shows like Transformers and Gundam 0079, so a lot of the things I hoped for as a reality probably won't take shape. Or, at least not in my lifetime.

It saddens me that space-travel and the furthering of it's related sciences isn't more of a priority given the worries toward our ecosystem and environment, ozone and general health of the planet.

Budget cuts to programs like NASA seems like an inevitability in this economy, especially having spent the resources it has in the last few decades. Still, I can only hope that interest is soon rekindled. I know here in Canada, outside of a recent repair to our famous "space-arm", there hasn't been a whole lot going on either.

Let's get to Mars, already!

--------------------

Okay, but there was a goat!

Quote (Dragon_Fire @ 22nd August 2009 23:39)

Let's get to Mars, already!

I would guess that we'll make some kind of moon base by 2020, and then get to Mars by about 2030. That is what NASA is estimating now, but I am hoping it will be sooner.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote (BlitzSage @ 23rd August 2009 14:45)

I would guess that we'll make some kind of moon base by 2020, and then get to Mars by about 2030. That is what NASA is estimating now, but I am hoping it will be sooner.

But BlitzSage, that's the whole reason I posted in the first place. That whole plan you mentioned went under a review due to budget constraints, and of all the options mentioned by the review committee, almost none of them set a timetable for lunar base or Mars. So all that stuff, if it will ever happen, is set under an entirely indefinite timetable now.

Quote (BlitzSage @ 23rd August 2009 22:45)

Quote (Dragon_Fire @ 22nd August 2009 23:39)

Let's get to Mars, already!

I would guess that we'll make some kind of moon base by 2020, and then get to Mars by about 2030. That is what NASA is estimating now, but I am hoping it will be sooner.

Well,it must all be for a very good reason.

Not to mention that us has to first fix problems in the us and space travel costs alot of money.

First fix american problems and get funds and increase wealth again,then do space travel.


--------------------

We are stardust.Our bodies are made from the guts of exploding stars.

Neil Degrasse Tyson.

Quote (MetroidMorphBall @ 23rd August 2009 22:27)

But BlitzSage, that's the whole reason I posted in the first place. That whole plan you mentioned went under a review due to budget constraints, and of all the options mentioned by the review committee, almost none of them set a timetable for lunar base or Mars. So all that stuff, if it will ever happen, is set under an entirely indefinite timetable now.

Well, perhaps it may come later, but I would still guess that it will happen within the same decades, being the 2020's for the lunar base, and the 2030's for the Mars landing. Financially there are constraints, but the rate of advancement in technology is increasing. And as we get closer to those dates, the tech. involved will make the trip much easier, and I am sure that the gov't will have increased their budget by then.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

One of the major problems we are having with technology right now is the propulsion systems. There is somewhat of a limit on what is available right now with the space shuttle, which is why it is being replaced by the Ares series, which will use solid propellant boosters instead of the liquid the shuttle uses. This will provide a lot more power, but they are currently having a lot of issues with the vibrations induced by these more powerful boosters and as such, the project has been delayed. They are saying that they most likely won't be done until at least 2018, which means we'll be relying on other countries for our own space exploration for at least 7-8 years. The computer systems are progressing just fine, but the propulsion is what needs a big breakthrough right now, IMO. That and the financial issues, obviously.

This post has been edited by jollyredgiant87 on 25th August 2009 00:35

How long do they estimate the trip would be right now with the current propulsion system?

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote (BlitzSage @ 24th August 2009 13:13)

Well, perhaps it may come later, but I would still guess that it will happen within the same decades, being the 2020's for the lunar base, and the 2030's for the Mars landing. Financially there are constraints, but the rate of advancement in technology is increasing. And as we get closer to those dates, the tech. involved will make the trip much easier, and I am sure that the gov't will have increased their budget by then.

I wish I could share your optimism, but NASA's recent history suggests otherwise. The technology to reach the moon has been around since 1969, but the last manned mission was 1972. As the technology increases and budget decreases, it seems as though manned missions become even less of a priority, because the "robots can do it" argument becomes that much stronger.

This post has been edited by MetroidMorphBall on 25th August 2009 02:07

Quote (BlitzSage @ 25th August 2009 01:16)

How long do they estimate the trip would be right now with the current propulsion system?

It's less a matter of time and more a matter of mass, but obviously those are connected as the longer the trip, the more propellant mass you need to take along. I'm not sure of the exact values of the top of my head, but I know a trip straight to Mars from Earth takes maybe 3 years? Like I said, I don't remember exactly and I don't have any old school notes on hand. Obviously, what NASA had planned with building a moon base as a pit stop in between here and Mars would help reduce a bunch of complications due to the long trip considerably.

In comparison we can get to the moon in the matter of a few days, I think. No more than a couple of weeks. My memory is really foggy with the exact amounts of time right now.

I believe it took the Apollo astronauts 3 days to get to the moon. To get to Mars from Earth, I'd like to say a year maybe? But I don't know off the top of my head either. The Ares I was recently finished but, unfortunately, it might be another casualty of budget cuts. It was released with little fanfare, which people take as an indication that it will likely be shelved, with maybe money relocated to Ares V.

Quote (jollyredgiant87 @ 25th August 2009 02:50)

Quote (BlitzSage @ 25th August 2009 01:16)

How long do they estimate the trip would be right now with the current propulsion system?

It's less a matter of time and more a matter of mass, but obviously those are connected as the longer the trip, the more propellant mass you need to take along. I'm not sure of the exact values of the top of my head, but I know a trip straight to Mars from Earth takes maybe 3 years? Like I said, I don't remember exactly and I don't have any old school notes on hand. Obviously, what NASA had planned with building a moon base as a pit stop in between here and Mars would help reduce a bunch of complications due to the long trip considerably.

In comparison we can get to the moon in the matter of a few days, I think. No more than a couple of weeks. My memory is really foggy with the exact amounts of time right now.

If done at the right time you can do it in 4 months.

--------------------

If god is all-forgiving then why do we have to kill people in his name?

Quote (Messier17 @ 25th August 2009 15:01)

Quote (jollyredgiant87 @ 25th August 2009 02:50)

Quote (BlitzSage @ 25th August 2009 01:16)

How long do they estimate the trip would be right now with the current propulsion system?

It's less a matter of time and more a matter of mass, but obviously those are connected as the longer the trip, the more propellant mass you need to take along. I'm not sure of the exact values of the top of my head, but I know a trip straight to Mars from Earth takes maybe 3 years? Like I said, I don't remember exactly and I don't have any old school notes on hand. Obviously, what NASA had planned with building a moon base as a pit stop in between here and Mars would help reduce a bunch of complications due to the long trip considerably.

In comparison we can get to the moon in the matter of a few days, I think. No more than a couple of weeks. My memory is really foggy with the exact amounts of time right now.

If done at the right time you can do it in 4 months.

Ok, yeah I remember a little more clearly now. I did a project last year on a trip to Jupiter and going there directly from earth will take 2.75 years. So 4 months sounds about right for a direct path. The total flight time depends a lot on the location of the planets and on the trajectory. I know a gravity assist maneuver would most likely be used to get to Mars, so that increases time considerably.

So Obama's new budget effectively killed NASA's Moon and Mars program.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35131431/ns/te..._science-space/

I gotta say, on the heels his State of the Union, I'm really disappointed in this guy. He was an inspiring campaigner but has just become another run-of-the-mill politician. Although I agree with some stuff like health care reform, decisions like this just kill me. You can spend $800 billion on a spendthrift "stimulus" program to nowhere, but can't salvage the one good thing President Bush started during his presidency? Lame.

Don't be under any illusions, this move pretty much guts NASA. Even though he promises jobs and budget increases "in the long run" (haven't heard that before) that is based on pure speculation. We are throwing away years of research and billion of dollars in investment to start from scratch on commercial vehicles that will only take us to LEO, and on a totally indefinite timetable. In the meantime, our tax dollars will go to fund the RUSSIAN space program to ferry our astronauts.

It blows my mind that we if we could put a man on the moon in 1969 (and I'm not a hoax proponent) we can't do it by 2019, 50 years later. Well, that's OK, because humanity will one day break free of Earth orbit again. It just won't likely be the United States. The Chinese recently became only the third country in history to independently send humans into space, and have their sights set on a moon landing. Hell, I'll be rooting for them. Maybe that will sufficiently kick us in the butts.

Well to be honest I don't share your enthusiasm here. If we in the U.K. started spending ridiculous government money on space travel I'd be genuinely aghast. Best leaving matters of fun and curiosity to the private sector, like Virgin, and leaving the government to deal with things of more practical importance, like health care and education.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Well, I agree with you to a certain extent. The thing is, Virgin Galactic is only doing suborbital flights, and they are the only company to be anywhere close to accomplishing that. No private company is anywhere close to having a man rated vehicle for orbit, let alone to other celestial bodies. I'm all for the private sector getting in on it but not at the expense of all other exploration.

With NASA seemingly getting out of the space flight industry all together, with the Shuttle retirement and death of Constellation, we're talking about decades before anyone other than Russia or China is capable of flying humans into space again. This is a major step backwards, not forwards. The only silver lining is that Democrats and Republicans from space districts are furious about this and might totally kill the proposed budget. I sure hope that happens.

I have to admit, I'm disappointed in that news as well. I completely understand that there are sectors of government that are much more in need of a larger budget and that, with all that is going on here on Earth alone lately, it ties up a lot of cash-flow that could be going into NASA, space programs and general research.

Mind, I'm also in agreement that dropping billions of dollars into corporate bail-outs seems like an even bigger black-hole than the ones we'd be finding in space. All in all, this is a heart breaker. Here's hoping the Chinese or the Russians can get the job done, then. I want a Moonbase and I want one now.

--------------------

Okay, but there was a goat!

Smeh, space is always gonna be there, and it doesn't really matter how quickly we explore it. I like to think that it was the best decision, considering the economic woes and other factors. We have too much to worry about as a country to sit around and dream of space travel, and to waste billions of dollars on said dreaming. When we fix healthcare, fix the economy, fix the bank structures, finish the terrible war that we started for no real reason, repeal the no child left behind act, improve the overall education system and create more jobs, then I think we can maybe start to worry about space again.

Not to mention the fact that no one really cares. I mean, why waste billions on a program that hasn't really been relevant in 20 years? Mission to Mars? Peh, lets fix this rock before we head to another one and screw it all to hell.

--------------------

This is a webcomic and gaming blog where I rant about nonsense. Enjoy.

I was a soldier, now I just play one in video games.

I respect your opinion, but I also think it is attitudes such as this that kill space exploration. You're absolutely right, no one cares. In the 50's - 70's this would have been front page news. Competition between America and Russia meant that everyone was interested in this. Since the end of the Cold War, stories like these get buried.

I wish there was a nicer way to describe such views other than short-sighted. But think about what you said. What if the explorers of the 16th and 17th centuries had said "eh, don't worry about those landmasses across the Ocean, they'll still be there in another few centuries, we have to worry about what's happening on this continent now." We would live in quite a different world. Despite all the evils associated with colonization, it has also led to a more integrated world with cultures and technologies far advanced from that of its predecessors.

That is ultimately the justification for why we need to explore space. Take care of this planet? I'm totally in agreement with that statement. But taking care of this planet does not necessarily mean staying parked here indefinitely. Earth is a giant rock in space just like anything else, when you get right down to it, it just happens to be one with more resources. But those resources are finite and at some point as a species we will have to know how to live outside of Earth's borders if we intend to survive. The recent discovery of water on the Moon should be as good a cause as any to continue exploring it, especially considering that water sources are predicted to be a major source of conflict and warfare in the future.

As will come as little surprise, I can really understand both perspectives on this. Honestly, NASA kind of shot themselves in the foot on this one; they put a target on their own backs due to high-profile mistakes over the last decade. They also had some pretty big wins, but the general public, and by extension their elected officials really only remember the bad things. Hey, maybe with lower budget comes lower pressure and the end result can be a better focused space plan for the United States.

I also agree, though, with the fact that we do need to continue as much space exploration as possible, particularly due to the fact that we're in the midst of things that are hard to slow down midstream, such as continued ISS missions, outer system probes, and remotely-piloted probes on the surfaces of our nearest neighbors. Perhaps a middle ground can be found in which we continue the relatively low-cost (stressing, of course, the relative nature - it IS space exploration, after all), low-yield missions while taking time to regroup for the big stuff. This isn't something for which we should totally turn off the tap, but perhaps slowing the flow isn't a horrible thing.

As for other countries leapfrogging us, well, China in particular has leapfrogged us in a lot of things in the recent past, after decades of hanging around behind. Allowing someone else to do the heavy lifting for a while and then riding the coattails of expanded knowledge attained the hard way might not be the worst thing in the world for us right now, even if it is an affront to the overall pride and dignity that we as a nation have. It's worked for so many others, riding our own coattails for so long.

--------------------

"To create something great, you need the means to make a lot of really bad crap." - Kevin Kelly

Why aren't you shopping AmaCoN?

The reason why Bush's Mars mission got cancelled was mainly for the cost and partly because in a 4 month time period the radiation from the sun would leave you as a small pile of goo on the spaceship floor. Even a pure lead hull strong enough to survive exit from the atmosphere would weigh so much the fuel required would be something like 100 times the weight of the actual ship. The ISS is able to survive because It's still protected by the Earths magnetic field.

This is why I say we chill here for a bit until we can develop Freelanceresque Technology and give NASA a bigger budget to do that.

Or alternatively: The Worlds Biggest Cannon, Ever

This post has been edited by R8.50 Mango on 2nd February 2010 17:03

--------------------

Since I advertise CoN there I think it's only fair that I advertise The Wiki here.

It's true the Constellation program was over budget. To that extent, outsourcing to private industry might not be a bad idea for flying to low earth orbit. The first problem is that humans might not be flying anywhere outside of earth orbit for decades to come. That's unfortunate in my mind, because we may not see something as monumental as a moon landing (let alone Mars landing) in our lifetimes, at least not an American landing. Other countries may step up to the plate in our absence. The second problem is that the Obama budget has no solution for the gap between the shuttle retirement and when those commercial vehicles are ready.

For this country, I think a good middle ground would be to extend shuttle flights, accelerate development of private man rated vehicles, and instruct NASA to develop a heavy lift vehicle capable of leaving earth orbit. That would allow us to fly ourselves a little longer until commercial vehicles are ready, and free up NASA funds to work on human missions to other parts of the Solar System. That might be a budget that keeps us on track to push the boundaries of human space exploration while privatizing certain elements to save tax payer money, and one that Congress might be willing to approve.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8623691.stm

Hey hey! All's not lost for you yet MMB.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

"Mars by mid-2030's" is just Obama's way of punting the ball so far down the field that he doesn't have to worry about it. Other presidents (Bush I) have promised Mars and failed to deliver. The truth is that Obama is putting all his bets on private spaceflight and dismantling NASA. It's a risky move, and we'll see if it works out. I'm all for private spaceflight, and think they can handle the job of going to Earth orbit, and hopefully the competition will drive costs down, but the Bush plan of going to the Moon again is done if Obama has his way.

Obama says we have "already been there," which is a lame argument. The total time Apollo astronauts spent on the Moon is approximately one week. Going to the Moon again makes the most sense before going to Mars. It's a few days journey and is a great place to test long term human habitability on another celestial body before going on to Mars, which is a few months journey. Not to mention the recent discovery of water there. Besides, the "been there, done that" argument makes no sense when you consider we have already been to Earth orbit for about 50 years, and this plan does nothing but keep us there for decades to come.

Hopefully the Chinese, Russians or private enterprise might push the boundaries. Space Adventures, the only private company that has sent tourists to outer space, with the Russian government, is offering a circumlunar spaceflight: http://www.spaceadventures.com/index.cfm?f...n=Lunar.welcome. Maybe something will come of that.

This post has been edited by MetroidMorphBall on 19th April 2010 04:41

i have to say it would be very useful to go to others planets and get better resources but its just to annoying with the economics right now we have so much we need to fix before we can even consider before we start thinking about other planets

--------------------

[FONT=Impact][SIZE=14]BLAMO

you have been ninjad

Quote (legendary Soldier @ 21st June 2010 22:13)

i have to say it would be very useful to go to others planets and get better resources but its just to annoying with the economics right now we have so much we need to fix before we can even consider before we start thinking about other planets

That's not too big of a deal. We've carried on space programs during economic recessions before.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!