Space & Exploration

[Archamedes]

Okay, we put a man on the moon in 1969, for its time it was an amazing feat, it opened peoples minds & the sci fi film and fiction genre greatly expanded. However putting the man on the moon was a race against the russians to get there first. since then everything has come to a stop. Sure we put loads of probes on mars and spent billions on pointless experiments like finding out the effects of lego and china teacups in space etc... From 1969 onwards people expected to have a colony on the moon, an american flag on mars and able to live in space stations orbiting earth by now.

I would like to see a man on mars by the time I die, but it seems its now up to the Russians or chinese. I do know that russian astronauts have been doing tests to see the effects of being locked in tight confined spaces for up to 6 months (the estimated time to reach mars) and it seems only those with the strongest mental strentgh can handle this, but the russians really are hard b'stards so who knows. What does everyone else think about this?

[chrisgiff]

Okay, we put a man on the moon in 1969, for its time it was an amazing feat, it opened peoples minds & the sci fi film and fiction genre started. However putting the man on the moon was a race against the russians to get there first. since then everything has come to a stop. Sure we put loads of probes on mars and spent billions on pointless experiments like finding out the effects of lego and china teacups in space etc... From 1969 onwards people expected to have a colony on the moon, an american flag on mars and able to live in space stations orbiting earth by now.

I would like to see a man on mars by the time I die, but it seems its now up to the Russians or chinese. I do know that russian astronauts have been doing tests to see the effects of being locked in tight confined spaces for up to 6 months (the estimated time to reach mars) and it seems only those with the strongest mental strentgh can handle this, but the russians really are hard b'stards so who knows. What does everyone else think about this?

I think it has to happen.

I was actually watching the Mars episode of this last night. Its only a couple years old and there is this part where they say we could reach Mars by as early as 2013. Sadness...

Anyway, there is this really interesting take on terra-forming Mars on there that blew my mind. Essentially, we would build factories and pump as much pollutants in the air as possible in some crazy expedited global warming process. Basically over as little as 200 years they think we could melt the ice caps, have liquid water and vegetation. CRAZY.

The thing that always slaps me back to reality is the fact that even if we went to Mars, or even Neptune, its still like traveling from Boston to New York in terms of what we actually know is out there in the universe.

I want to go to space.

[dupont2005]

I wouldn't consider the past few decades in space research pointless. As a matter of fact I'd consider several breakthroughs far more valuable than manned missions back to where we've already been. The space program isn't for entertainment. Watching an astronaut swing a golf club on the moon may be interesting, but NASA is about far more than that.

[Toreador]

All we would need is for Russia or China to land on the moon and the space race would be full bore on again. The US hates to lose and would pump tons of money into NASA (the Repubs would finally agree to raise taxes on the 1%) to make a moon base and a manned expedition to Mars.

I read years ago an article that explains a relatively simply plan to terraform Venus using bacteria to process the gasses and lower the temperature of the surface to tolerable levels.

[Paradox]

I'm more and more leaning towards the current idea that putting a man on anywhere isn't all that necessary. It's far far more economical to send robots. Space exploration should continue, but manned missions don't bring a whole lot more to the picture than unmanned missions do.

[Iangould]

I'm actually a lot more optimistic about space travel now than I have been for quite some time.

The first big thing is, of course, Planetary Resources, the company that claims they'll be mining asteroids inside a decade.

Then you have SpaceX, another private company, abouty to launch a supply mission to the ISS.

Plus the ESA and the Japanese have both demonstrated new automated ships capable of resupplyign the ISS and the Europeans at least are discussing a human-rated version of their ship.

Then you've got a bunch of other companies with credible advanced plans for launchers.

Even inside the US government, you've got the X-37, the classified military unmanned reuseable spaceplane. Boeing's supposed to be working on a larger, manned version of that.

But what really excites me is that people are talking abotu the technologies that will make a real practical difference to the cost of spaceflight in the short term: in-situ resource extraction and in-space refueling.

As long as we spend US$20,000 a kilogram to put stuff in orbit and we ship everything we need up from Earth we aren't going very far.

There's plenty of ice floatign aroudn up there and there's plenty of soalr pwoer, put those two together and you can start making fuel in space. On a Mars mission using current technology about 99% of the initial launch weight is fuel.

If you can get most of that fuel in orbit instead, the cost of such a mission woudl come down drastically.

So yeah, 20-30 years from now, I think there will be people on the moon and on Mars and that we'll have studied the rest of the solar system to a degree we can barely imagine now. In retrospect, the whole "We'll never go past Earth orbit" thing will seem as strange as the belief that nuclear war was goign to wipe us out or that the Cold War would last centuries.

[chrisgiff]

I'm more and more leaning towards the current idea that putting a man on anywhere isn't all that necessary. It's far far more economical to send robots. Space exploration should continue, but manned missions don't bring a whole lot more to the picture than unmanned missions do.

I read something with Neil Degrasse Tyson recently where he said that it has to be a manned mission because that's the only way to capture the public's attention. People don't care about robots I guess. We have 2 rovers on Mars already, not to mention Voyager I, II and the Kepler out there and no one seems to care at all.

[JDogindy]

I'm more and more leaning towards the current idea that putting a man on anywhere isn't all that necessary. It's far far more economical to send robots. Space exploration should continue, but manned missions don't bring a whole lot more to the picture than unmanned missions do.

Manned missions only would really bring more of national pride. Remember, the Soviets were crooning about having a man in orbit, so we one-up'd them by sending some of our guys to the Moon.

Personally, I think robotics would make more sense. Once you develop a cohesive measure of understanding the nearby celestial bodies should you consider manned missions.

[dupersuper]

I'm more and more leaning towards the current idea that putting a man on anywhere isn't all that necessary. It's far far more economical to send robots. Space exploration should continue, but manned missions don't bring a whole lot more to the picture than unmanned missions do.

In general robots would be safer, but long term we'll have to look at manned missions because:
1 overpopulation
2 decisions will need to be made if we establish mining or other facilities
3 every romantic "spirit of exploration" speech from Star Trek and other sci-fi
4 the aforementioned Neil Degrasse Tyson reason
5 research
6 possible alien contact if we start going far enough (I said long term)
7 sun dying (I said long term)

As inhabitable as Earth seems to you, Mars and the moon are even more inhabitable.

I think you meant uninhabitable...