Space exploration

[Warren Dew]

The unmanned, one way missions are certainly very cost effective; Everything on your list except the moon was achieved with only about 1% of the federal budget. The round trip, manned missions, not so much - the moon shots cost about 5% of the federal budget, which is quite a lot of money.

This is getting a bit off topic for this thread, though.

I agree with you - but, one of the main reasons for a space program is so that humans can go there....but, yes. Off topic.

So ... here's a new thread for it.

I actually do want to see people, and not just robots, expanding into space, too. However, given that's of limited scientific value compared to unmanned missions, I'm not sure the government should be involved.

Part of the reason I say that is that private industry, when they don't have the option of going to Congress to pay for cost overruns, tends to find much more economical and efficient solutions. SpaceShipOne and SpaceShipTwo, for example, are a far lighter and more elegant solution to getting people into space than the brute force methods government programs end up using. If the economy ever recovers to the point where there's a market for space tourism again, SpaceShipTwo will be a very efficient way to do it.

Ultimately what I'd like to see is not just one shot deals, but permanent colonies. That requires efficient, cost effective methods of transportation. I think that kind of technology is more likely to come from commercial satellite launch and space tourism efforts than from a government program.

[mistermack]

I think in the long term, going into space will be for practical reasons, rather than scientific.
Human achievements are limited on earth by lack of energy, and lack of room now.
Space has got both of those in almost unlimited quantities. It's not going to be easy, but when we crack the problems of living in space, the sky's the limit. (sorry).

I think the biggest problem is going to be radiation, in the long term. I'm no expert, but from what I've read, you need a lot of sheilding to reduce it to earth levels, so we may be restricted to low earth orbit, where radiation is low, for a long time. (Anybody got any details or links on that?)

I personally think we should be concentrating on the moon, at the moment. We should build a station there, aimed at improving safety technology, and learning to mine materials. If you can get raw materials from the moon, and learn to manufacture in space, you're on your way. It uses such a tiny amount of energy to take off from the moon, compared to earth. That's why our materials will have to come from there in the future.

It's great that they've proved that there is water on the moon, it will make all the difference, if it can be extracted efficiently.
.

[Trolldor]

Fucking hell.

Get a man in to Space and see his perspective change.
It is the one thing I want to do in my life, see the Cosmos from beyond the veil of Terra.

[Santa_Claus]

Private sector is definately the future.

Appreciate the Virgin spaceships do not reach space shuttle orbit, but not only done on budget that wouldn't keep NASA in post it notes for a year but also done with technology available in the early 70's.

Imagine what could be done using current (let alone cutting edge) technology.

IMO moonbase definately the way forward (chinese and indians already planning) to use to then explore (and colonise?! / conquer!!) the rest of the solar system. and beyond............

A prize of a billion dollars for whoever can demonstrate a replacement of the shuttle capabilities (shared between US & EU it's peanuts). Another billion for getting a man to the moon and back.

The future is limited only by your imagination.

[cowiz]

Non stick frying pans

/thread

[Santa_Claus]

I'd love to drop a log in zero gravity.

and wank on a bus.

[cowiz]

I'd love to drop a log in zero gravity.

and wank on a bus.

I wanked on a bus once. All my passengers were screaming blue murder!