PDA

View Full Version : End of the Space Program



StarLab
2004-Nov-25, 09:03 PM
Hey, guys, I'm just wondering:

we seemed to be doing pretty good during and immediately after the Apollo program...then, after Apollo-Soyuz and SkyLab, things just fell apart. Had we been going at the pace we were going at in the sixties, we'd've had men (& women) on Mars by now.

So, why exactly did we stop? We could've kept going...what the h*ll happenned?

antoniseb
2004-Nov-25, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by StarLab@Nov 25 2004, 09:03 PM
So, why exactly did we stop?
Basically, we could have kept increasing the budget for space up to a point, but it couldn't have continued geometric growth for much longer, no matter what. But in terms of why spending levelled off, and new missions became less challenging, we'd have to take a look in the realm of politics, which really is off topic around here.

Ola D.
2004-Nov-25, 09:50 PM
Commenting on what previously said, the priorities of countries changed and money was spent more on education and social development, rather than space explorations and research.

StarLab
2004-Nov-26, 04:59 AM
I think I found the cause...Ford and Carter grrrr. :angry: <_< :( :mellow:

bossman20081
2004-Nov-26, 05:30 PM
Its simple, we wanted to beat the Russians to the moon. Then, when we got to the moon, support for it went away. It was more of a publicity stunt if you ask me.

Dave Mitsky
2004-Nov-27, 12:38 PM
Two acronyms come to mind: the STS and ISS.

Dave Mitsky

aeolus
2004-Dec-01, 03:25 PM
I was born 20 years after this all happened, so I don&#39;t know if this is a good line of thinking. Maybe some of my elders can share some of their experiences:

I&#39;m sure, had I been alive, I would have been as excited as the rest of the world when Armstrong steped out of Eagle. As fun as it would have been to watch, I would have been more than a bit peeved off to see we had spent billions of dollars to send 2 guys on a 300 000km golfing trip...

I wouldn&#39;t have supported any further lunar exploration after that. We set out to land on the moon and return safely, we did it. Why keep going at such an enormous cost when right here at home we had children to educate, patients to treat, roads to pave, and a country to defend?

antoniseb
2004-Dec-01, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by aeolus@Dec 1 2004, 03:25 PM
we had spent billions of dollars to send 2 guys on a 300 000km golfing trip.
Of course, it was Alan Sheppard in Apollo 14 that brought a club and some golf balls. I assure you, however, that each of the apollo missions brought back information from different parts of the moon, and only collectively were we able to determine what we believe to be its geological history. Had we stopped after Apollo 11, we&#39;d have learned very little for out 24 billion dollar investment. As it was, we are now better able to educate our children.

Today, I am a supporter of an increase in the robotic missions, and no increase in the manned missions, until we build a better infrastructure for supporting human life in space, and getting to and from space. This is something of a minority view around here.

Ola D.
2004-Dec-01, 08:46 PM
I believe that our recent space technology still isn&#39;t able to send human flights to space safely and successfully. Robotic missions are doing well at the current time. After a deep study of the martian surface and atmosphere by NASA&#39;s robots, I think we&#39;ll have a broad view of what kind of conditions astronauts will be exposed to , and a wider field of probabilities to build our assumptions and solutions on.

haute
2004-Dec-01, 09:43 PM
Say what you will about politics, money, and social prorities. I believe that the overall failure follow the Apollo program was a misstep in ambition.

To me it appears that somehow people lost sight of the greatness of our potential and got caught up in the mundane trivialities that we are more accustomed to.

It did not all happen at once, and their were some important acheivements - but 20+ years of an orbiting "space plane" doesn&#39;t have the same great feel and pull as does the exploration of depths of our solar system.

And as for robots vs. manned missions - automation really does lack the zeal of sending a person to land on Mars or look at the rings of Saturn. Besides, we all know, that no matter the dangers, the list of volunteers for such missions would be practically endless.

John L
2004-Dec-01, 10:00 PM
A few comments from me:

1. The Space Shuttle was not supposed to cost as much as it finally did to build, it wasn&#39;t supposed to cost anywhere near as much to launch as it finally did, and it wasn&#39;t supposed to be as time consuming to refit for each mission as it finally did. The Shuttle was supposed to allow us cheap and frequent access to space so we could build the gee-whiz 2001-style space stations and the big interplanetary ships. Instead we ended up with the ISS, an assortment of interconnected tin cans, that doesn&#39;t really give us anything useful. Too much cost killed the ambitious projects, or scaled them back to the point that they didn&#39;t really accomplish the original ambitous goals.

2. Astronaut Health. Radiation and the effects of zero-G are the two things we haven&#39;t figured out how to overcome. Until we do we&#39;ll stay within the Earth&#39;s protective magnetic field on short duration flights. If we can overcome those two problems we&#39;ll be able to send people anywhere. The zero-G thing has been the worst. NASA and the Russians wasted the last few decades focused on medical technology or some kind of activity programs to overcome the debilitating effects, but its starting to look like simulated G-forces will be the only solution that is viable. There are also some promising ideas using magnetic bubbles and passive static systems to shield the crews from radiation. If they can work those out (5-10 years) and build a centrifuge like system for the G&#39;s, then it looks like we can get back in the space exploration game.

3. Politics. We try to avoid talking about that on this forum, but there are exceptions. Funding manned space flight is still an expensive proposition, and some administrations have the "we have problems at home" mentality. I say we can pay for things here at home and still afford a good space program, but Carter and Clinton weren&#39;t too keen on expanded funding for NASA. The EU could kick in a little more space exploration money, too. With China and India in the game we (as in mankind in general) might be able to finally get something going. Competition is always a great motivator - friendly or otherwise.

Ola D.
2004-Dec-01, 10:14 PM
I think the biggest challenge here is maintaining the astronaut&#39;s health. Well, probably that what prevented us from taking any further courageous step; there are some barriers that we should resolve first.


Competition is always a great motivator - friendly or otherwise.

I just hope that the competition wouldn&#39;t turn deadly. Cooperation between governments and space agencies would be a good solution for the problem.

trevorsproston
2004-Dec-01, 10:23 PM
The role of Man in space is entertainment - discuss.

antoniseb
2004-Dec-01, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by Trevor Sproston@Dec 1 2004, 10:23 PM
The role of Man in space is entertainment - discuss.
I&#39;d like you to make a better case for your side than to simply state it as a debate topic and demand discussion. Man&#39;s role in space is changing. Entertainment was certainly part of it. Medical Test subject was another, as was on-site engineer, test pilot etc.

In the future, man&#39;s roles may move to include pioneer.

Right now man&#39;s role in space is trying to maintain a presence. I wouldn&#39;t call what&#39;s going on at the ISS entertainment. Cassini gets better coverage, and rightly so.

John L
2004-Dec-01, 10:40 PM
Trevor has a point. One possible role of man in space could be entertainment. An orbital sitcom? I&#39;d like to try Sapce-Diving. Jump out of one of Rutan&#39;s Tier II ships at about 150 miles up in a suit covered in copper foil. I could be The Green Torch leaving a great green streak through the night sky as I reenter the atmosphere. The suit would have to be lined with aerogel so I don&#39;t burn up with it, with some kind of kevlar like outer layer that can survive the heat, but it could be done. Once I get to about 10,000 feet I&#39;d pop a regular cute and settle gently to Earth. You could make a sport out of it with the winner landing closest to a target.

haute
2004-Dec-01, 10:52 PM
The role of Man in space is entertainment - discuss.


In short No&#33;

Our inate desire to learn is what makes us who we are. I find it most fustrating encountering those that do not feel as inspired by the heavens as do I. Leave Sci-Fi and Religon out of it, and Space becomes even more inspiring and more mysterious.

Outside of our increadibly small biosphere we call home, is all else. I imagine us as goldfish in a house. However, we goldfish have the abilty to don gear and board ships and see what else is out there.

Perhaps the knowledge we stand to gain is not immediatly applicable, but come on... Besides little Earth fishbowl is rapidly becoming over filled (and overexplored). Most places worth finding here have been found, and currently have a starbucks adjacent to staisfy all the Eurorailing tourists every summer.

wstevenbrown
2004-Dec-01, 10:59 PM
You better pop a drogue first at about 50Kft-- terminal velocity in really thin air is a lot higher. I&#39;d hate to see you come down in flapping rags. S

steve f
2004-Dec-01, 11:36 PM
We humans, especially those of us that live in countries that consume resources far beyond a sustainable level, ought to worry more about what we are doing on the only place that we know we can definitely live.

Many people have suggested that the greatest achievment of the moon missions was the enhancement of the environmental movement, in that we realised that Earth was truly a beatiful and unique place. I find this a little untrue, if we all lived to the means of the country that landed men on the moon, we would need something like 2 1/2 Earth like planets to provide enough resources.

The greatest challenge of the next century is not sending a handful of people to places like Mars, where we could never live in the long term, it is likely to be facing up to global environmental change. Sure we need to do research, and robots are a good way of doing this, but lets not ruin another planet.

John L
2004-Dec-01, 11:39 PM
I tried not to be too verbose. I did know about needing probably a few stages of drogues to control the speed of descent. No other issues with the idea, though? I think it would make a great spectator&#39;s sport. People all over the hemisphere could see the reentry standing outside, and then run inside to watch the landings. I wonder how close to a target you could get if you jumped from 150 miles up??? Maybe the winner would be the first to reach the target. Miss by too far and you&#39;ve got a long run.

haute
2004-Dec-02, 01:02 AM
If one only worries about recources in the context of todays culture, one can make a strong case for not going to space.

However, I&#39;m sure that the early voyages across the Atlantic stipped the forests of Spain in order to build ships. Now I&#39;m not saying that we will strike oil on the Moon, Mars, or elsewhere, but we all know that there are forms of potemtail solid fuels that are plentiful just in our solar system.

I will concede, that unless people accept the need to stop population growth, we will invariably run into a malthusian crisis everytime we stagnate at a certain point of expansion.

In the end we have many traits in common with common bacteria. The good news is that we have the intellectual capacity to head off future problems.

But all of this is off the point... We must explore, we must push the envelope of the possible, for if we don&#39;t we will simply decend into a more modern version of the European Dark ages. Just as the Greco-Roman world was on the cusp an industrial revolution - will people 2 thousand years from now lament that the PAX Americana world was on the cusp of Extra-Terran (?) colinization, and failed to do it?

steve f
2004-Dec-02, 01:54 AM
Not sure the voyages of the early Europeans stripped the forests of Europe, how ever many ships were there&#33; Anyhow trees can be replaced, unlike titanium alloys, and before people start saying in the future we can do this or that process, we can&#39;t do it now, and we are not entirely sure we&#39;ll be able to do it then.

spacepunk
2004-Dec-02, 02:11 AM
If one only worries about recources in the context of todays culture, one can make a strong case for not going to space
It&#39;s prudent to have a long term view of the possible limits to technology, and to question if there are enough resources to accomodate an ever increasing standard of living. In general people living in the industrialised countries and the elite in the rest of the world in 2004 enjoy a quality of life not dreamed about by royalty in the early 1900&#39;s. But if one still wishes to live in a trailer park or go camping with a tent while on vacation, you can see how culture is partly esthetic and people will adapt to whatever level of comfort is attainble. So if living in a cave with glass roof panels on Mars is the only option available then one would accept it.


I will concede, that unless people accept the need to stop population growth, we will invariably run into a malthusian crisis everytime we stagnate at a certain point of expansion
Malthus&#39; grandiose theory has been refuted and belongs in the dustbin, because he misunderstood the productive capacity of world agriculture which even today has not been realized. Naysayers of the 1970&#39;s predicted that there would be global famine by the year 2000, but it has been a recognised fact by the UN for many years that there is more than enough food to go around to feed the existing world population -- albeit political and distribution problems which have nothing to do with the growing of food. This planet alone could probably grow enough food for 100 billion people with existing technology.

In the end we have many traits in common with common bacteria. The good news is that we have the intellectual capacity to head off future problemsThe best plans for space colonization include those affording some form of sustainable presence, such as being self sufficient to some degree but mainly a net exporter of raw materials to Earth. That is, locate a moon colony near the poles where ice (water) lies and export Helium3 as a fuel to Earth
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/heli...um3_000630.html (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_000630.html)

aeolus
2004-Dec-02, 02:17 PM
Its all about balance, I say. Of course we need to look after ourselves as per the "Here & Now, what we&#39;ve already got" mentality. Yes, we must keep ourselves alive, healthy, and sustainable as individuals, nations, and a global society. I&#39;m all for that (staying alive) but if I&#39;m going to be living, I want to see those breathtaking images from Cassini, discover new galaxies, learn about my origins as a life form and explore possibilities of future planetary habitation and such. The "pioneers of the future" attitude (and the results thereof) is what makes life interesting and worth living.

For those that argue its all about the myth of progress ("The wave of the future"), its not. For those that argue its all about the pastoral myth ("The good ol&#39; days"), its not.

Its about both.

trevorsproston
2004-Dec-02, 10:43 PM
I wouldn&#39;t lay claim to any originality for my comment re entertainment. I believe it was first uttered by Maxime Faget during a BBC programme on the Challenger disaster. He knew a lot more than I ever will about spaceflight.

This is, I confess, a notion I&#39;ve used before in a forum on the exploration of Mars. simply that we should be clear and honest about our motives for wanting to send people out there, so that when they die, we [and perhaps they] feel the end justifies the sacrifice.

antoniseb
2004-Dec-02, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by Trevor Sproston@Dec 2 2004, 10:43 PM
we should be clear and honest about our motives for wanting to send people out there, so that when they die, we [and perhaps they] feel the end justifies the sacrifice.
Most poeple think of the sacrifice as financial, or lost services to the needy. The actual people that go take informed risks, just like vulcanologists, and hang-glider pilots.

None-the-less, You have now made it clear what you meant, and why. Thanks.

astromark
2004-Dec-03, 01:33 AM
:huh: well done, I think you&#39;ve covered it all.
Lets go to the Moon--- its a race--- open the cheque book and lets do it.
They did, and they won. Six missions landed on the moon, we got bored. the rattings dropped, and the money dried up.. end of story. Whats next? No.... wait for the politicly corect and the greenies to have their say and we will never justify the cost. Which is a shame becouse it would be great if.........................
Come on NASA find something to make it pay. Is that Gold I see on Mars?

Bobunf
2004-Dec-04, 04:36 AM
“we will invariably run into a malthusian (sic) crisis everytime (sic) we stagnate at a certain point of expan-sion.”

When has this ever happened in all the history of our species? Never, I think. Do we know of any such occurrence in our pre-history? I don’t think so.

“ Naysayers of the 1970&#39;s predicted that there would be global famine by the year 2000”

Naysaying happened even earlier. Paul Ehrlich, for instance, began spectacular doom saying in 1968 with his best-selling book “The Population Bomb” in which he stated, "The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines . . . hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.”

"Smog disasters" in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los Angeles.
In 1969, he stated "I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

The Malthusian hypothesis has been wrong for more than two hundred years in a row. How is it that any-body takes the idea seriously anymore?

Hypothesis, observation, confirmation or refutation.

How many more millennia before people say, "That guy had it completely wrong." It’s about five thousand years and counting right now.

Bob

Bobunf
2004-Dec-04, 04:56 AM
Astromark,

I was rather surprised to read your statement, “Six missions landed on the moon, we got bored. the rattings (sic) dropped, and the money dried up.. end of story.”

That’s not how we thought abut the decisions that were made.

It was more than forty years ago, and it’s not easy to recover the thinking and understanding of a time that’s past. Just for the record here’s how we understood it—and, by the way, how it really was. The Western democracies had barely withstood fascism. “…after Dunkirk; after the fall of France; after the horrible epi-sode of Oran; after the threat of invasion, when…we were an almost unarmed people; after the deadly struggle of the U-boat war…gained by a hand’s breadth…We should not be wiped out. Our history would not come to an end. We might not even have to die as individuals.” Fascism had been much worse than advertised.

Serious people understood that Communism was the other side of fascism; as vicious and dangerous. The American policy in the face of this threat was developed in the late 40’s and early 50’s, was based on American exceptionalism, and was uniquely American. Unique, in this instance, is a carefully chosen word; I know of no similar case in history.

The policy was containment and its essence was to stand as an example and to convert the Communist. It was a policy of redemption. Ultimately it worked, as Churchill, in the early 50’s, had predicted almost to the year. No war, no bloodshed, just changing people’s minds with our example with our “long twilight struggle.” An amazing and unique accomplishment—not always perfectly executed, but what human endeavor is?

That’s why the moon was important: to help in convincing the Communist that our way—freedom, democracy (the worst form of government except for all the rest), respect for the individual, the rule of law, capitalism—was better. It’s incongruent to talk about expense; “bear any burden, pay any price.” We meant it.

It wasn’t about adventure or science or money, and most certainly not about boredom or ratings.

It’s important to actually understand where we’ve come from so very recently if any of us hope to influence, or even understand, the processes by which space exploration is enabled.

You might read George F. Kennan, "Memoirs, 1925-1950" and Henry Kissinger&#39;s "Diplomacy." You&#39;ll have a better idea of how decisions are really made.

Bob

astromark
2004-Dec-04, 08:55 AM
Bobunf; :P I will be 53 in a few weeks, I can remember wotching the late night TV broudcasts from the moon, the rover bouncing along the dusty surface, I was riveted. But thats becouse i&#39;m interested. I was there, or is that their.?
I have only lived in the west for twelve years. (new zealand) and I am now a nzér and proud to be. I was born in and lived in China befor this. My friends of the early 70&#39;s and I saw the Apollo misions as very significant. Our first steps into space...
I will not enter into a politacal descusion with you. other than to say" your view is not mine, becouse we stand in a diferent places ".This is a scientificly based forum, not political. nor relgious... My coments regarding &#39;the money dried up&#39; was never ment to insult the american way. It just seemed that way for me. There is a miriod of resons why they canned missions 18 to 22.. I think on reflection it became a safty issue. For my english is not so good, when i say cost. I dont mean money. But I like to add that if they do find the funding to go for it.
Whos in charge.? I do hope its not an acountant. or a greeny, or one of those politicaly corect idiots, nothing would ever get done.
back to the thread, the space program, My plan would be to increas the sise of the ISS and to keep updateing it, untill it becomes the space station to step into space from. and move it to a geo-stationary point. Like a universaty in space.

trevorsproston
2004-Dec-06, 09:50 PM
There is a book "Late for the Sky - The Mentality of the Space Age", which is worth a read for all these fora. I can&#39;t find my copy at the moment, so I can&#39;t tell you the author.

Dave Mitsky
2004-Dec-07, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by StarLab@Nov 26 2004, 04:59 AM
I think I found the cause...Ford and Carter grrrr. :angry:* <_<* :(* :mellow:
It was Tricky Dick that cancelled the remaining Apollo missions.

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2573269.stm

A closed ambition

After the triumph of Apollo 11, it was clear that things were changing. At an Apollo 11 party, President Nixon said: "Here&#39;s to the Apollo programme. It&#39;s all over."

In a way he was right. Apollo was a closed ambition - the ambition that had been put into words by President Kennedy: "Before this decade is out to land a man on the Moon and return him safely to the Earth."

The jubilant celebrations after Apollo 11 were never repeated. Having achieved that great goal, many could not see what else there was to do. You wouldn&#39;t ask Lindbergh to fly the Atlantic again, it was said.

When Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins returned, Nasa had enough hardware for nine more landings, leading up to a grand finale: Apollo 20 was to stage a landing in the dramatic Copernicus crater.

It looked easier than it was. Later in 1969, Apollo 12 descended into the Ocean of Storms.

When Pete Conrad stood on the surface he looked into the mid-distance. There, 180 metres (600 feet) away, on the slope of an ancient crater, was Surveyor 3 that had landed two and a half years earlier.

When Apollo 12 returned, Apollo 20 had been cancelled, and 18 and 19 looked uncertain.

The crisis that gripped the world

Public interest was low as the Apollo 13 mission took off.

But people soon began to take notice as it became clear that an explosion on board made this the only expedition to the Moon that had suffered a catastrophic failure.

The drama that followed gripped the world. The crew clung on to life through the 87 long hours that followed the explosion.

The damaged Apollo 13 revived public interest. The interior temperature in Apollo 13 dropped to that of a refrigerator, and the cold seeped through the crew&#39;s thin flight suits. Despite fatigue and lack of sleep, in a wet and clammy capsule, they made it through the fiery re-entry and limped home.

But when they returned, the White House let it be known that space exploration no longer held such a high position in the national list of priorities.

Nixon was reducing America&#39;s global responsibilities as it faced new limits on its resources and will. The "pay any price, bear any burden" attitude of Kennedy-Johnson was over. Inflation was unchecked.

Nasa&#39;s head, Tom Paine, resigned. The hopes of a manned flight to Mars were gone, and the space shuttle and space station were in peril.


Dave Mitsky

Victoria
2004-Dec-07, 09:09 AM
had the opportunity to catch the wavehere; although, I will admit...I only caught the first page of ideas as to why a certain program or better yet, project was delayed. I hope to bring in a newlook after an adventure I have just successfully ventured. A 2500 mile journey across the U.S., with only 2 views of the night sky giving all the beauty to adore. A minutes gaze was all it took to remind me of a wonder worth investigating. Sometimes, one shot is all there is to share an idea worth retrieving. I give the ones&#39; who were brave enough to leap that unsure mile to make way for future interest. I believe there needs to be proper time to reflect on the advancements and achievements that have been endeavored. If, per say...there was a particular plan that had been achieved; though not in the exact likeliness of the team who had went great lengths to perfect...um maybe joint effort is the key to ensure quality research has been redirected in a way that can be invested in with great confidence of a bigger and better tommorow. After and Over All...every success comes with a shared experience to agree, two heads are better than one. :)

Telecom
2005-Jan-07, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by Dave Mitsky@Nov 27 2004, 12:38 PM
Two acronyms come to mind: the STS and ISS.

Dave Mitsky
I agree with the STS. What&#39;s wrong with the ISS?

Javid
2005-Jan-07, 06:28 PM
End of the space program

This is too gloomy. Sounds like end of the universe. Are you guys saying we wont have moon and mars base by 2150? Come on we should be more optimistic I think.
If this carries on Ahad&#39;s vision of launching his Centauri ship by 2175 will not be realistic.

http://uk.geocities.com/aa_spaceagent/movi...e-synopsis.html (http://uk.geocities.com/aa_spaceagent/movie-synopsis.html)

He may have to re-schedule launch to 2275 AD instead as he&#39;s keen to keep the story line very real.

Jav

zephyr46
2005-Jan-22, 03:01 AM
I think the program went downhill when they stopped at golf. If you continued with a cricket match, maybe some baseball and soccer, we would still have a very active manned program to the moon.

But heads up, with Russia and the ESA talking to each other and India and China all talking about going to the moon, I think the next 15 years will be very interesting.

If its not, garanteed we will get a repeat of the 60s :D

StarLab
2005-Jan-22, 04:41 AM
Maybe when I&#39;m older I&#39;ll move to Japan and set up a space program for lunar landings.


The funny thing is, we (NASA and private enterprises) have the money and supplies and materials to get to the moon...all we lack are public approval and awareness. But let&#39;s face reality - if we appeal to private business, we won&#39;t need to meet either of those requirements from the public domain.

zephyr46
2005-Jan-22, 05:18 AM
We have two very different understandings of the market Starlab.

I think you need massive public approval before you get any interest from businesses, that is why they focus on satelites and space tourism.

You need &#39;superconsumers&#39;, people with lots of money to spend, before business will pay any attention. It is more likely to cover a rocket lauching coffins with stickers that get you to the moon, alive.

That is why I think there needs to be a global welfare state. When everyone can eat, has a house, can read and write, and is supported in making their dreams come true, then, business might have somthing to offer, till then, it is better to think of most businesses as parasites (excluding scaled composites, SpaceDev and others like them), that take well funded government assets and cover them with stickers. :)

StarLab
2005-Jan-22, 05:25 AM
When everyone can eat, has a house, can read and write, and is supported in making their dreams come true, then, business might have somthing to offer, till then, it is better to think of most businesses as parasites Oh really? Then why don&#39;t you tell me what happened between the 50&#39;s and 60&#39;s, when almost everyone was living the "American dream" and businesses exploited this situation with the consumerism we see today.

I think the problem of economics is more psychological than one would imagine.

zephyr46
2005-Jan-22, 05:46 AM
I think the problem of economics is more psychological than one would imagine

Exactly, economics is based on desire, after need is satisfied. Where other ideas/philosophies/cultural paradigms dominate, the western model of supply and demand collapses, you get poverty and associated tragities and black markets, economies based on crime.

You need an economic model that protects irreplacible naturally based needs and produces an educated desire. The current system has these outgrowths, but it is not capable of deliberate change, only belated incremental change through government intervention.

It works, badly, and all other contenders have been crushed. This is the modern economy, and if it worked for you, we would not be having this conversation. :)

Dave Mitsky
2005-Jan-22, 07:18 AM
Originally posted by Telecom+Jan 7 2005, 09:54 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Telecom &#064; Jan 7 2005, 09:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Dave Mitsky@Nov 27 2004, 12:38 PM
Two acronyms come to mind: the STS and ISS.

Dave Mitsky
I agree with the STS. What&#39;s wrong with the ISS?[/b][/quote]
Nothing other than the fact the ISS will cost over &#036;100 billion dollars in the end and won&#39;t be good for all that much of anything.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/7-16-97.html

http://www.space.com/news/iss_fin_020918.html

http://space.com/news/iss_remap_020710-1.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88668,00.html

http://www.space.com/news/iss_panel_010824-1.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1723119.stm

http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/2222

http://www.desc.med.vu.nl/ISS/

Dave Mitsky

Bobunf
2005-Jan-22, 08:44 PM
“economics is based on desire, after need is satisfied”

I think your reasoning is flawed in making an economic distinction between “need” and “desire.”

In 1950 in the United States the average family consisted of about five people who lived in five rooms with
No air-conditioning
One bathroom without a shower
One black telephone that was essentially un-useable for long distance telephony because the cost within the United States could exceed &#036;20 per minute (2005 dollars)
One small refrigerator that had to be frequently manually defrosted
One car with manual transmission, no seat belts, no air bags, no anti-lock brakes, lacking a host of other safety and anti-pollution features, tires much more prone to blowout that lasted a third as long as today’s tires, and using &#036;3 (2005 dollars) per gallon lead-based gasoline.
One radio
No television
No fluoride in the water or toothpaste such that tooth decay was a much more prevalent problem with slow dental drills and much more primitive dentistry.
Life expectancy at birth for males was 65.6 years.
The expectation was that most of the children would finish high school, but most, especially the girls, would not go to college
And computers had hardly been thought of.

Such a family thought of themselves as fairly well off, especially compared to how their parents and grandparents had lived.

The “needs” of many humans, as they saw it, were well satisfied at, say, Elden Pueblo in 1100 AD. Two sources of perpetually flowing water were available within two miles. We don’t know the average family size, but, in any case, a family lived in one room without a bathroom, shower, telephone, etc. But it was a room adequately heated and ventilated.

Food was reasonably abundant and varied from agriculture, hunting, trade, and the products of what is now the Coconino National Forest. There’s no evidence of starvation or nutritional deficiencies. Clothing, footwear, and pottery were also abundant and varied. Life expectancy was probably around 45 years. While no one could read or write, we think they had a very rich religious and cultural tradition reaching back more than five thousand years to, arguably, the oldest continuously maintained cultural tradition on Earth.

One could also speculate about the material and intellectual possessions of man before agriculture, when life expectancy at birth was probably less than 30 years.

What’s the line between need and desire? Do we really need the things that raise life expectancy from 35 to 45, 65 or 75? Do we need pottery, when stone could serve? Do we need buildings, when caves could serve? More than one room per family? Literacy? Showers? Modern dental care? Tires that don’t blow out? When does desire start and need end?

I think it&#39;s a very slippery slope; so slippery the distinction doesn&#39;t exist in human economic behavior.

Bob

StarLab
2005-Jan-22, 08:53 PM
government intervention. And with policies such as Eisenhower&#39;s, we would have a very successful, stable economic system today.

And Bob, I think you beat Ian Malcolm as the biggest technological doomsayer in recent history. Your evidence seems well thought out, yet your thesis is extreme and pessimistic. We&#39;re here, we have higher life expectancy, live in buildings, etc.

Live with it.

Bobunf
2005-Jan-22, 08:56 PM
“The current system…works, badly…”

I think that the current system works better than any other model has ever worked by any objective measure, like life expectancy, age adjusted death rates, average or median GDP per capita, average or median per capita years of educa-tion. Tops in healthy, wealthy and wise is hard to beat. On what basis does it work badly?

And if one considers subjective measures, what about the rate of scientific and technological discovery? Egalitarianism? Or art? A city like Chicago produces more professional theatre productions each year than were produced in the whole world in any century before the 18th. Many other observations are there to see.

Must not “badly” be a relative term for human performance?

&#39;Badly&#39; again&#33; nothing but &#39;low&#39; and &#39;little&#39;&#33;
Why will you suffer so to flout me thus?

With apologies to Will.

Bob

Telecom
2005-Jan-23, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by Dave Mitsky+Jan 22 2005, 07:18 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dave Mitsky &#064; Jan 22 2005, 07:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Telecom@Jan 7 2005, 09:54 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Dave Mitsky@Nov 27 2004, 12:38 PM
Two acronyms come to mind: the STS and ISS.

Dave Mitsky
I agree with the STS. What&#39;s wrong with the ISS?
Nothing other than the fact the ISS will cost over &#036;100 billion dollars in the end and won&#39;t be good for all that much of anything.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/7-16-97.html

http://www.space.com/news/iss_fin_020918.html

http://space.com/news/iss_remap_020710-1.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88668,00.html

http://www.space.com/news/iss_panel_010824-1.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1723119.stm

http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/2222

http://www.desc.med.vu.nl/ISS/

Dave Mitsky [/b][/quote]
Dave,

"the ISS will cost over &#036; 100 billion" , you wrote.

So what? Are you seriously thinking that space station may cost lousy 10 cents? ;) :)

We have a Space Station, the only human outpost in space. I have read those links you mentioned. No one article was wrote by famous Russian or American expert of space technologies.No one author is a specialist of rocketry or space medicine. Those articles are nothing more than cheap propaganda. :)

Look, Russians can support permanent presence of people onboard the ISS. Now Americans can&#39;t do it because of different reasons. Among other reasons there is a low level of safety of Space Transportation System. In my opinion, the authors of mentioned articles just try to reduce the achievements of manned space exploration which was accomplished by Russian side. Nothing more... :angry:

Dave Mitsky
2005-Jan-24, 07:01 AM
That is simply not so.

From http://spaceresearch.nasa.gov/general_info/remap.html

"NASA Administrator Sean O&#39;Keefe has selected an independent task force to assess NASA&#39;s plans to prioritize and maximize the research conducted by the agency&#39;s Office of Biological and Physical Research.

Designated the Research Maximization and Prioritization Task Force, REMAP will be chaired by Dr. Rae Silver among other distinguished multidisciplinary experts and serves as a follow on to the International Space Station (ISS) Management and Cost Evaluation (IMCE) Task Force, which last year evaluated the budget and management challenges facing the ISS Program. Part of the IMCE charter was to advise NASA and the Administration on how to maximize the scientific returns on station while operating within the guidelines of the President&#39;s Fiscal 2002 Budget Blueprint."

Member of REMAP:

Rae Silver (Chair), Behavioral Endocrinology
David Shirley (Vice Chair), Nuclear Physics
Andreas Acrivos, Fluid Dynamics
Roger Beachy, Plant Genomics
Raymond Bula, Plant Physiology
Noel Jones, Structural Biology
Harold Metcalf, Atomic Physics
Patricia Morris, Materials Science
Elaine Oran, Combustion Science
Mary Jane Osborn, Microbial Biology
James A. Pawelczyk, Physiology
Frederick Pohland, Environmental Engineering
Richard Roberts, Biotechnology - Genomics
Rhea Seddon, Aerospace Medicine
Gary Stein, Cell Biology
Fred Turek, Sleep and Circadian Biology
Raymond Viskanta, Mechanical Engineering and Heat Transfer
George Whitesides, Nanotechnology in Biomolecules
Pierre Wiltzius, Materials Sciences and Engineering
Laurie Zoloth, Bioethics

The findings of the panel?

From http://www.space.com/news/iss_fin_020918.html

"NASA has work to do if the International Space Station (ISS) is to become a top-notch laboratory in space and a research outpost enabling long-duration human exploration in the future, according to an independent analysis.

A National Research Council (NRC) report issued today concludes that recent actions taken to reduce crew time, equipment and facilities make it unlikely that the ISS will become a world-class research facility as originally envisioned. Furthermore, scientific community interest in using the orbiting research station is in jeopardy and NASA&#39;s primary goal for the station is not clear.

The report, called Factors Affecting the Utilization of the International Space Station for Research in the Biological and Physical Sciences, looks at what limits the utilization of the station for research, and it suggests ways the research potential can be maximized."

I take it that you are not a citizen of the United States and therefore are not bearing the brunt of a tenth of a trillion dollar price tag for a cosmic white elephant that has sucked NASA&#39;s space science budget dry, that won&#39;t be capable of all that much research, and is in the wrong orbit for use as an "orbital launching pad".

Dave Mitsky

Telecom
2005-Jan-24, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by Dave Mitsky@Jan 24 2005, 07:01 AM

I take it that you are not a citizen of the United States and therefore are not bearing the brunt of a tenth of a trillion dollar price tag for a cosmic white elephant that has sucked NASA&#39;s space science budget dry, that won&#39;t be capable of all that much research, and is in the wrong orbit for use as an "orbital launching pad".

Dave Mitsky

OK&#33; Cancel the supporting of this "white elephant" and leave it to Russians and ESA&#33; You, citizens of the United States, talk a lot about Mars colonization while NASA refused to send an astronaut to ISS only for year-long spaceflight. I seriously doubt that you can accomplish an interplanetary travel without an experience of manned long-term flights in LEO. ;)

StarLab
2005-Jan-24, 05:31 PM
Telecom, I take personal offense to that.

Never single out a nationality.

Dave Mitsky
2005-Jan-24, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by Telecom@Jan 24 2005, 09:10 AM

OK&#33;* Cancel the supporting of this "white elephant" and leave it to Russians and ESA&#33; You, citizens of the United States, talk a lot about Mars colonization while NASA refused to send an astronaut* to ISS only for year-long spaceflight. I seriously doubt that you can accomplish an interplanetary travel without an experience of manned long-term flights in LEO. ;)
Why the hostility?

The ISS won&#39;t be "canceled" so don&#39;t fret about that. It&#39;s a matter of corporate welfare for the aerospace industry you see.

The HST is the first casualty of the ISS. There will be more.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/01/24/h...ding/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/01/24/hubble.funding/index.html)

Dave Mitsky

Tom2Mars
2005-Jan-24, 11:27 PM
Telecom, Re-
I seriously doubt that you can accomplish an interplanetary travel without an experience of manned long-term flights in LEO.

True. Kinda makes one wonder then, why "they" aren&#39;t actually practicing the techniques needed for interplanetary manned flights. Things like food production, water, waste and garbage recycling(instead of toss out and burn up), artificial gravity...little things like that.

Telecom
2005-Jan-25, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by StarLab@Jan 24 2005, 05:31 PM
Telecom, I take personal offense to that.

Never single out a nationality.
StarLab, what about Dave&#39;s post where he pointed out that I was not an american citizen?

Telecom
2005-Jan-25, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by Dave Mitsky@Jan 24 2005, 09:47 PM

The ISS won&#39;t be "canceled" so don&#39;t fret about that. It&#39;s a matter of corporate welfare for the aerospace industry you see.

Dave Mitsky



The ISS will not be cancelled because she is the only manned reseach laboratory in space in present days.An unique laboratory. Reporters may write various rubbish about ISS wherever they want but I&#39;d prefer to believe in professional points of view. ;)

antoniseb
2005-Jan-25, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by Telecom+Jan 25 2005, 03:51 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Telecom @ Jan 25 2005, 03:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-StarLab@Jan 24 2005, 05:31 PM
Never single out a nationality.
StarLab, what about Dave&#39;s post where he pointed out that I was not an american citizen? [/b][/quote]
Hi Telecom,

First, Dave didn&#39;t point out that you weren&#39;t a US citizen. He speculated based on the notion that you didn&#39;t seem to think the cost of the ISS was a big deal. To me this means you could also be a US Citizen who is simply too young to be paying taxes, or who got your money too easily to care.

Second, I&#39;d like everyone on this thread to think about decorum a bit. There is no need to get hostile. Be aware that you might be pushing people&#39;s buttons inadvertantly. Be quick to back off and perhaps apologise if you think it would help. Generally, try to avoid the usual hot topic areas of race, religion, nationalism, etc.

DisinterestedThirdParty
2005-Jan-25, 08:18 PM
As someone who grew up with the US Space Program, I found the whole abandonment of public support to be very depressing. Looking back, I also found even more depressing the NASA leadership.

Two great failures immediately come to mind and an comment....

1. STS
Never lived up to what it was sold to be. Never reached an operational state. I equate the whole thing as a guy with an 1987 Dodge Caravan. He knows he needs a new one, the cost of keeping it running is getting too much, and he doesn&#39;t have the money for a new one.
One of the smarter things that GWB has done is end it. I completely agree with this move. Yes, NASA has attempted, on at least two separate occasions, to come up with a replacement. Too much money spent and nothing to show.

What the ISS further did was prevent additional serious funding and research towards an effective way to launch space craft. Why spend the money on something when you have something that works? Well, kinda works. Well, if all goes well, it does work. So the momentum was lost and money went, instead of to R&D, to STS maintenance and enhancements.

We need something quick, dirty and cheap to get the first 300 miles into space. After that, the problems will take care of themselves.

2. ISS
No reason at all to launch or build this thing. I figured the major push behind this was the Russians had one, darn it, we ought to have one too. Currently, the whole project is a joke. Construction is on hold until item #1 gets sorted out. Once that happens, it will get built, but there&#39;s still not enough interest/money in making it operational. I look at the whole thing as a big meteor target. Would not surprise me if it&#39;s out of orbit in the next 5 years.

Comments...
This is a different world than 1968. People work differently. People have different attitudes. People think differently. There were very few working mothers. You could get a job and keep it until you retired. There was optimism in this country.

I&#39;d wager that 2/3 of Americans see the space program as a waste of money at best, corporate welfare for a handful of contractors in key states at worst. We, as Americans, were proud of being able to put men on the moon. But we lost the momentum. There were too many internal problems. There were too many problems to get men to the moon.

I don&#39;t see that interest coming back, unfortunately. Not unless there&#39;s some major breakthrough in propulsion. Perhaps the commercialization of space might be the driving force. But in reality, how many billions did Delta Airlines lose last quarter? Don&#39;t expect a big push into commercial space travel as the money just isn&#39;t there.

Telecom
2005-Jan-26, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by antoniseb@Jan 25 2005, 05:42 PM

Second, I&#39;d like everyone on this thread to think about decorum a bit. There is no need to get hostile. Be aware that you might be pushing people&#39;s buttons inadvertantly. Be quick to back off and perhaps apologise if you think it would help. Generally, try to avoid the usual hot topic areas of race, religion, nationalism, etc.

Thanks for the advices, antoniseb.

RUF
2005-Jan-26, 08:44 PM
I agree with Ola D&#39;s first post.

politically charged comment removed

Even though women in the 1960&#39;s spent more on cosmetics than the gov&#39;t spent on the Apollo Space Program, the politically charged comment removed in Congress thought that was too much.

"No bucks, no Buck Rogers."

antoniseb
2005-Jan-26, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by RUF@Jan 26 2005, 08:44 PM
The socialistic agenda...
Hi RUF,

We have a policy of severely limiting political statements such as this. The reason is that such statements are said, basically looking for a fight. I have removed the politcal portions of your previous message.

LunarBase
2005-Jan-27, 08:20 PM
What should a strategist think? People can live for a long time on the Earth either until the Sun novas or a cataclysm wipes us out. Fun for sure but limited. Certainly we might eat ourselves out of our home or ruin it by doing too much interior decorating. Or, we can continue to develop and grow, take chances, find a target and go for it. Hiding in a bomb shelter is not the answer, neither is repeating the mantra, &#39;We&#39;re the best so we don&#39;t have to change". Change is inevitable, so we do so by choice or it&#39;s done to us. Long term planning demonstrates to me that space travel is essential. Now to get the planners to figure out how, or have they done so already?
<_<

sky5000
2005-Jan-29, 02:27 PM
I always liked Zubrins take on all this - see

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10817
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/65/1
http://www.speculist.com/archives/000127.html

The problem is that NASA has had, until recently, no objective for its manned program - with the result that it goes nowhere. Quote:

"Within this decade. Sitting there in 1961 they say, if we&#39;re going to do this by 1969, we’re going to have to figure out how we’re going to do it in a year and then put out contracts, and then build the elements and have them test-flying around 67, and then go on to the Moon from there. And that&#39;s exactly what they did. Take the Saturn V: from1961 to 1962, they figure out how they&#39;re going to do the Moon mission. In 1962, they said okay, these are the elements we need: the command module, the lunar lander, the service module. We need a vehicle that can throw all that to a trans-lunar trajectory, the Saturn V, it&#39;s got to have this capability. They put out a request for proposals to select contractors. The deadline is to fly by 1969. They have the first test flight in 1966. And they send people to the Moon in 1969.

Now contrast that to NASA&#39;s more recent approach. In 1996, NASA administrator Dan Goldin says he&#39;d like to work on "new launch vehicle technology." No requirements, no deadlines, no nothing. So they spend a billion dollars and five years on the program they call X-33, which they cancel in 2001 without having flown anything, and without having achieved anything. And if you look at it, since the 1980&#39;s, NASA has had a series of launch vehicle programs: it was the Shuttle C, we had the Advanced Launch System, we had the New Launch System, we had the SpaceLifter Program, we had the X-33, we had the Space Launch Initiative — I know I&#39;m leaving a couple of them out. But they just start them up and shut them down; start them up and shut them down. They just spend money without making any progress.

Administrator O&#39;Keefe has been going around saying NASA should not have a goal. It should not be destination-driven. That&#39;s what he says."

Elsewhere he states that, inflation adjusted, NASA had about the same budget now as then - yet look at how much was acheived in terms of exploration the "Apollo" period 1961-73, compared to a similar period within the Shuttle era.. The Shuttle was the end of useful manned exploration by the USA. Retire it as quickly as possible & leave private enterprise to develop cheaper solutions to manned access. The ISS? I wouldnt build it again, but if we can find cheaper ways to access it lets do so for the rest of its days - again, lets see if private competitive enterprise can find cheaper solutions..

My own 2 cents..

zephyr46
2005-Feb-02, 02:51 AM
My own veiws are pretty much that I doubt we would have gotten to the moon if left to the market, you still need consumers who can provide the demand. Unfortunaly being wealthy doesn&#39;t mean you are adventurous or intelligent enough to look to the heavens ( or to solve poverty here on earth [unless you are richard branson or bill gates :) ]).

But, I agree with you, in particular, I would put some of those budgets in bounties for a vehicle to take crews to and from the ISS, then, a lunar ISS shuttle, that doesn&#39;t need to land and/or a LEO work horse that runs out of the ISS and doesn&#39;t have to return to earth. And a Space Tug&#33;&#33;&#33; somthing to push the Hubble within servicing distence of the ISS, give them both a fighting chance to exist.

Unless these resources are near each other, NASA is going to continue with a budget that could solve global poverty and wasting it on throwing away maintainable technolgy. Maybe NASA needs some serious budget cuts??? Maybe the Fed Government could fund some of those other space programs? And start a UN space Agency?

Oh yeah, and as for the Political and National sentiments, I think we should all keep in mind the amazing opportunity we enjoy to share our Ideas, however different regardless of where we live and government we live under. It is cool to love your country, that doesn&#39;t mean that everyone else has to. Some of Us would be happy with a United Nations, but that is the nature of this forum, we can share our veiws, just respect each other.

StarLab
2005-Aug-11, 07:28 PM
New question:

How can the aerospace industry take advantage of the conclusion of P. Bush&#39;s "lame duck" term in office?

astromark
2005-Aug-11, 07:34 PM
The title of this thread is &#39;Space exploration&#39;
Please put the questions in the questions;.....
and dont get in to polotics, It just encorages them.

StarLab
2005-Aug-12, 04:29 PM
How can the aerospace industry take advantage of the conclusion of P. Bush&#39;s "lame duck" term in office? Mark, the main focus of this new question is not politics, it&#39;s just a shift from the old space program for ideas to jumpstart the new one.

And, of course, as UTers we all know that NASA really needs a new one&#33;