Forbes: NASA needs a mission

[zakur]

NASA Needs A Mission

But, more than money, NASA needs a clear vision of what it should be and what it should do. Without a driving sense of mission, space travel isn't going to yield much science or technology.

That's not to say we should ground our astronauts. Dreams and scientific discovery are hard to come by, and $15 billion is only a sliver of the $2.2 trillion national budget. But spending it on a glorified ferry service is a waste of money. If we're going to dream, we should do so on a grander scale. If we're going to send people into space, we should go boldly or not go at all.

 

[Goshawk]

Awfully nice of him to go spending somebody else's money like that. "Quit pissing the budget away on routine shuttle flights--let's go to Mars!"

 

[Plutarck]

If people want to go into space, for whatever reason, then how about their mission be to allow them to do it as cheaply and safely as possible?

I don't mean putting astronauts in space, I mean actual people. Space Tourists. That's not possible yet and it would take too much money, I would think, for private firms to be the ones to do it, yet it would be highly profitable once developed, I'd think.

The technology developed would work for all kinds of things. The thing is not that there isn't anything useful to do in space, it's that it's way too expensive such that it's not worth actually doing most of the time. Just can't justify the expense instead of spending the money elsewhere.

Developing practical spaceflight for more normal people and increasing the ability to put more weight in space at a lower price seems to be absolutely the most practical possible thing to do, and it is almost 100% compatible for future missions such as going to Mars and/or establishing a station on the moon.

And yet it would be profitable, and it would directly and appreciably make people's lives better both by letting them do what they want (space tourism), and in the other uses for the technology developed (who knows what).

Seems perfect to me - realistic, directly useful, and profitable.

 

[FutileJester]

Developing practical spaceflight for more normal people and increasing the ability to put more weight in space at a lower price seems to be absolutely the most practical possible thing to do, and it is almost 100% compatible for future missions such as going to Mars and/or establishing a station on the moon.

Agreed 100%. I'm not sure the government is going to be the place to look for this to happen though; economical commercial space flight has never been a goal of NASA, and perhaps shouldn't be. Private industry is trying to close the gap with the X Prize.

 

[Keneke]

This article employs a common Fallacy of Distraction called "False Dilemma". It tries to present a choice of two options, when clearly more are available. This presents a gray issue as black-and-white, and often leads to no-win situations.

The effort of space travel has consistently advanced our technology. Earlier, someone posted a list on here of technical achievements that come from the shuttle program that we use in everyday life. (Anyone have that link?) If space travel continues as it is, ferrying scientists to the space station for the mere cause of scientific experimentation and exploration, then it is a good enough cause for a slice of the federal budget. To boldly try for Mars is admirable, and to ground the space mission and use the money for other programs seems sensible. However, a moderate amount of funding, allowing the space program to continue, will continue to yield scientific data for our use without overburdening the economy. That is the third choice, and that gets my vote whole-heartedly.

Once again we must defend ourselves from people and ideologies who wish to force limitations on our views.

 

[Goshawk]

I'd have to say that, given what just happened on Saturday, space tourism as a mass market industry is going to have to wait until they get the technology to where it's on the same level of reliability and safety as the airlines.

http://www.safe-skies.com/safety_by_the_numbers.htm

18 Year (1982-1999) Average Fatal Accident Rate for Major Airlines:

.0432 Accidents per 100,000 departures

1 accident for every 2,300,000 departures

1 accident every 6340 years if there is one flight per day*

.0000000004% odds of being in an accident each time you fly

 

[patnray]

While I wholeheartely agree that we must continue with space exploration, I think it is a mistake to place so much emphasis on manned space flight. The Shuttle and Space Station have consumed an enormous share of NASA's budget. There are litterally hundreds of other projects we have not funded because of our obsession with manned flight.

We could launch and return dozens of probes to Mars for the cost of a single manned mission. The most plausible scenarios for a manned Mars mission, by the way, require sending robotic modules ahead to support the mission. (Scientific American)


The question is not what have we learned/gained from the Shuttle program, but how much have we NOT learned because of it?

(Edited to add link.)

 

[xouper]

bump