PDA

View Full Version : We remain grounded.


Del_Boy
10-14-2008, 02:02 PM
Does anyone know why man has not returned to the moon again or travelled to mars yet ?

Rogue Nine
10-14-2008, 02:03 PM
There's no oil on the moon.

Lance Monance
10-14-2008, 02:12 PM
You don't have to prove that you're better than the Soviets any more. :D

Astor
10-14-2008, 02:15 PM
Mars is too far away to send a manned mission - space technology still hasn't advanced all that far since 1969. That's about the furthest we've sent anyone - the only other times we've sent people has been into orbit.

I would very much like to see a man on Mars, and we may in our lifetimes, but not any time soon.

Q
10-14-2008, 02:40 PM
Um, because where manned spaceflight is concerned NASA has proven itself to be grossly negligent and incompetent?

Yar-El
10-14-2008, 02:43 PM
Does anyone know why man has not returned to the moon again or travelled to mars yet ? Just a guess -- We depend on one company for space exploration. NASA. Our limitation is from the lack of vision, funds, and risk taking. We also stoped believing in the science; thus, it has prevented a full blown push for exploration. We may need another visionary to inspire and rejuvinate human curiosity.

Astor
10-14-2008, 02:44 PM
We don't rely on just one company - the Russians and Chinese both have fully operable space programs.

Unless you were talking about America?

Yar-El
10-14-2008, 02:47 PM
I didn't see where he lived. :) NASA is a national space agency. My fault.

Web Rider
10-14-2008, 03:22 PM
Just a guess -- We depend on one company for space exploration. NASA. Our limitation is from the lack of vision, funds, and risk taking. We also stoped believing in the science; thus, it has prevented a full blown push for exploration. We may need another visionary to inspire and rejuvinate human curiosity.

Technically, no we don't. The fact is simply that nobody's bothered to compete with NASA 'cause the budget was HUGE. But now their budget sucks.

Anyway, there are some guys, like Scaled Composites with their Spaceship One who have gone into space.

But yeah, I generally agree that if there's more serious competition, we'll get into space faster and better. I mean, competition was the only reason we did it in the first place, albiet with Russia instead of with another corporation.

ET Warrior
10-14-2008, 03:40 PM
Probably because many people in the space industry believe that we're better served spending the budget on science missions that increase our understanding of the universe and how it works as opposed to sending people to hop around on the moon and take pretty pictures.

Arcesious
10-14-2008, 03:56 PM
We may need another visionary to inspire and rejuvinate human curiosity.

Can I have dibs on the position? :D

Anyways... I think that first we need to solve the problems here before we go messing everything up out there...

jrrtoken
10-14-2008, 03:59 PM
There's no oil on the moon.No, but it is made of cheese.

KinchyB
10-14-2008, 04:13 PM
Does anyone know why man has not returned to the moon again or travelled to mars yet ?

Can you even prove we were on the moon to begin with?! :D lol, j/k

Anyway...seems it would be multiple reasons, most of which are in this thread...


Lack of funding
The U.S. is reliant on NASA as opposed to private companies
Lack of vision
We have no goals really that would require these two things to happen
Regarding Mars...we need better technology first for a manned mission


Off the top of my head anyway...

Pho3nix
10-14-2008, 04:14 PM
Does anyone know why man has not returned to the moon again or travelled to mars yet ?
Budget cuts, probably. It all comes down to money in the end.

I, for one would like to see more space exploration, but I also understand that while it is an exciting and ambitious project there are other more important issues that require our attention.

Achilles
10-14-2008, 04:43 PM
There's no oil on the moon.No, but there is Helium-3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3). :)

You don't have to prove that you're better than the Soviets any more. :D95% chance of /thread

Anyway...seems it would be multiple reasons, most of which are in this thread...98% chance of /thread

Yar-El
10-14-2008, 05:02 PM
Can I have dibs on the position? :D
:lol: What are your long term plans for the human species?

Anyways... I think that first we need to solve the problems here before we go messing everything up out there... We can send our junk into the sun. :D That may increase solar flares, so that may be a bad idea. OIL IN SPACE! Future government officials fighting over the rights to drill on Saturn. :migraine:

Pres. George Bush VI, "Mars has the capability for weapons of mass destruction. It is now a terrorist threat."

DOD official interupts, "Sir, no one lives on Mars."

Pres. George Bush VI replies, "Oky, how about Venus?"

DOD official returns, "You would think after so many generations intelligence would finally kick in."

ForeverNight
10-14-2008, 05:25 PM
Pres. George Bush VI

Assuming of course that the people are letting him in office...

As for the moon, that's also bugged me big time. It seems that we did it backwards, first we build these giant Saturn V rockets that send the LEM and Command Capsule to the moon... then we build these grossly limited space shuttles...

Shouldn't we have explored LEO and GEO before sending people to the moon... and I don't mean explore like we did with Mercury and Gemini, but actual exploration like we were doing the past... 20 years or so?

Yes, as I say we I am referring to the US. Mainly because I haven't seen much of the European, Chinese, Russian... you name it, Space Programs.

But, anyway, I figure if we try to solve our problems on Earth before we leave it, then we're never going to leave. The best way to 'solve' the problems of Earth, that I can see, is open up a new planet or three for colonization and just leave it. People will leave Earth if they want, and people will stay. You'll eventually have 2-4 planets populated by humans all of which have a strong identity as Humans, not as American/Canadian/English/German/Russian/etc.

But, that's all way, way, way, way into the future....

Litofsky
10-14-2008, 05:27 PM
Pres. George Bush VI, "Mars has the capability for weapons of mass destruction. It is now a terrorist threat."

DOD official interupts, "Sir, no one lives on Mars."

Pres. George Bush VI replies, "Oky, how about Venus?"

DOD official returns, "You would think after so many generations intelligence would finally kick in."

If we've got a Bush Dynasty running our government, I think the people would take matters into their own hand.

As for why we haven't done much, there was really no point to it after the USA beat the Soviets to the Moon. With America's motivation gone, the budget for NASA was deflated and reprioritized.

If there was some super-valuable resource in space, or another reason to go back into space, you can bet your country's national budget that we'd be back in space within the month of discovery. :xp:

Astor
10-14-2008, 05:30 PM
A bush dynasty would probably the reason for an exodus to Mars...

Rev7
10-14-2008, 10:47 PM
Cuz it's too expensive

mimartin
10-14-2008, 11:00 PM
Cuz it's too expensive
Cuz we are short sighted. :xp:

Corinthian
10-14-2008, 11:00 PM
Because there's no real point.

Rev7
10-14-2008, 11:13 PM
Cuz we are short sighted. :xp:
:lol:

But we can already see the moon.

Arcesious
10-15-2008, 12:11 AM
What are your long term plans for the human species?

Um... I'll try to get back to you on that... :xp:

Tommycat
10-15-2008, 01:44 AM
One of the major stumbling blocks has been the inefficiency of the space program itself. The Saturn rockets cost less to manufacture and launch than the relaunching of the shuttle. Drives me nuts.

Other planets in our solar system may have resources we want. mars has a lot of iron. one of the moons of Saturn has liquid propane oceans. There's a whole bunch of possibilities for finding any number of minerals that are either scarce or very useful. The moon makes a good jumping off point to outer areas. Lower gravity and lack of atmosphere would make it ideal for launching from.

Personally I want to see what we can do as a space faring society. I just understand that there isn't much in the way of real competition as of yet. It's not like we have a lot of corporate competition. I would love to see something like a gold rush take place in space. Or some kind of real competition with 30% of NASA's annual budget going to the winner.

Corinthian
10-15-2008, 03:42 AM
Tommycat, what on earth do we need more iron for?

Lynk Former
10-15-2008, 04:06 AM
China has been doing a lot with their space program lately. I'm sure they're aiming for the monn as well. Chances are they're bidding to be the first to start a base there...

Tommycat
10-15-2008, 04:54 AM
Tommycat, what on earth do we need more iron for?

Actually we could use Mars for manufacturing with the available ores. It's pretty well certain that it should have several other things than just Iron. But it seems like a good source for other things. Plus the lower gravity may open up new manufacturing tech.Granted it is also a rather inefficient use of resources... I mean shooting manufacturing off to another planet to be shipped back might not be all that good.

Personally I think Mars would be interesting for the idea of making an environment that isn't exactly human friendly a place for human kind to exist

Lynk Former
10-15-2008, 06:25 AM
Actually planetary mining wouldn't be as good as mining the asteroid field within our solar system that's between Mars and Jupiter. You'd be able to find more concentrated sources of ore there. However, that said, mining from an extraterrestrial source and bringing those materials back to earth would be an extremely dangerous process because we don't know what kind of effect it would have on our environment.

As for human colonies... the moon is our best bet at the moment. Once we are able to survive on the moon, then we will be ready to settle other worlds... of course we'llhave to figure out a way to exist on this planet first without choking it to death XD lol.

Corinthian
10-15-2008, 04:23 PM
There's nothing IN the asteroid belt. It's not like the movies. The belt is so sparse it might as well not exist.

Anyway, unless we can get petroleum in space, effectively impossible, there's really not much of a point.

Rev7
10-15-2008, 07:26 PM
Anyway, unless we can get petroleum in space, effectively impossible, there's really not much of a point.
QFT.

Which, as far as I know, is not possible. Gas (petroleum) is a fossil may I remind you. Fossils are needed. I don't think that there are any fossils in space...

mimartin
10-15-2008, 08:08 PM
Of course there is no petroleum guys, but what about Beryllium Spheres and Dilithium Crystals?:xp:

Tommycat
10-15-2008, 10:32 PM
QFT.

Which, as far as I know, is not possible. Gas (petroleum) is a fossil may I remind you. Fossils are needed. I don't think that there are any fossils in space...

I dunno though they have liquid ethane on one of the moons of Saturn. Titan I think it is... (by the way I was mistaken about the propane lakes... it was ethane). It has a nitrogen methane atmosphere. So you can say that at least one other place in our solar system has a useful chemical... granted... getting the methane and ethane off of Titan might be difficult... Oh and NO SMOKING!!! it also happens to be -300f. Also known as OMFG cold. Nobody from earth will be joining the Titan Polar Bear Club.

Lynk Former
10-16-2008, 12:39 AM
There's nothing IN the asteroid belt. It's not like the movies. The belt is so sparse it might as well not exist.
I know that, but it's still a lot better than carving into Mars. Either way, we all know the asteroid belt is going to be surveyed for mining purposes anyway so we'll see what's there then :p

Anyway, unless we can get petroleum in space, effectively impossible, there's really not much of a point.
Unless we can come up with a better fuel source than petroleum then we're not going to get very far in space. Our dependency on petroleum is one of the factors that is limiting space travel.

Corinthian
10-16-2008, 12:44 AM
The moons of Saturn are a little bit of a stretch, given that we haven't even attempted a manned mission to our nearest neighbors, much less gone out past Jupiter.

Lynk Former
10-16-2008, 12:49 AM
They haven't even tried to make a moon base yet and they're thinking about a base on Mars...

Corinthian
10-16-2008, 12:52 AM
Mars is a pretty far cry from Saturn.

Lynk Former
10-16-2008, 01:22 AM
Everything beyond the moon is too far for any manned mission of any sort at the moment.

mimartin
10-16-2008, 01:24 AM
The moon is even too far at the moment.

Sabretooth
10-19-2008, 01:19 PM
Do not fear, my friend. You may still be an astronaut yet! Look at this list of future manned lunar missions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_future_lunar_missions#Manned_Missions).

Do some research first.

vanir
11-28-2008, 09:37 PM
Hmm...I'm unconvinced. The proposed space program reminds me of funding and resource competition in prewar Germany. It seemed everybody had a revolutionary new technology and each of the services had revolutionary ideas which all only required adequate commitment...
So somewhere in the region of 90% of the Nazi secret projects were paid for and never received, around 400% of the actual available resources of Germany were committed and in turn further committed to the nation to large scale war at some time, and it took sensible heads like Milch and Speer to inject a little realism in project development and general production to even try to fight this war.

So what was on Bush's mind? A bit of Middle East "policing" ultimately funds Mars?

Space exploration it has already been mentioned is expensive. Not just expensive, it is ridiculously expensive and not just ridiculously expensive but prohibitively expensive and furthermore entirely whimsical. But what the hell, nations have been conquered and peoples enslaved for no more than international prestige.

Part of another issue however is technology. The old Space Race virtually funded the digital age and helped evolve a wide array of domestic technologies, as mentioned at ridiculously prohibitive cost...but then it was all for things like guidence accuracy and sabre rattling in the climate of very real nuclear threat.

I dare say the day after China nukes India and Stalin II is elected in a democratic Soviet Socialist Republic covering half the globe and yelling something about we've become the modern Nazis, we'll be back at the Moon waving six shooters.
Nevertheless a Mars project will probably await the prohibitively expensive development of the Uni of Chicago's fusion-ion drive technology.

My two cents.

GarfieldJL
11-30-2008, 03:07 PM
Um, because where manned spaceflight is concerned NASA has proven itself to be grossly negligent and incompetent?

That's not entirely true, I'd say it's more of recent management.

Anyways the difficulty with going to Mars is two-fold, there is an issue with supplies, and the fact there is no shielding that we currently have that can adequately protect Astronauts in the advent of a solar flare. We're protected and Astronauts are protected currently by Earth's magnetosphere. Mars and the even Moon both lay outside that bubble that protects life on this planet.

vanir
12-01-2008, 03:51 AM
Van Allen radiation belts would do it. We can improvise ion shielding amid magmetic fields, but again...expense fellers. It's a whole new technology from scratch. And yes so was half Saturn V but again that was in the defence budget...

Supplies is no drama. Water ice is all we seriously need and there's tons of it out there. You've got fuel and air, food is easy. Shielding is a concern (ie. cost) and so too is propulsion technology. Backups...something goes wrong and you're looking at what, two years for a rescue? Doesn't look good in the press release, "Corpses finally recovered."

New propulsion technology can turn six months into weeks. But...guess what? Expense.

So...who's paying for all this? GM Motors?

GarfieldJL
12-01-2008, 01:39 PM
Van Allen radiation belts would do it. We can improvise ion shielding amid magmetic fields, but again...expense fellers. It's a whole new technology from scratch. And yes so was half Saturn V but again that was in the defence budget...

No because Mars is outside the Van Allen belts, seriously they'd have no protection. Maybe in the future, but it doesn't exist currently.


Supplies is no drama. Water ice is all we seriously need and there's tons of it out there. You've got fuel and air, food is easy. Shielding is a concern (ie. cost) and so too is propulsion technology. Backups...something goes wrong and you're looking at what, two years for a rescue? Doesn't look good in the press release, "Corpses finally recovered."

Food is harder than you think, because plants are also vulnerable to radiation. Additionally, the water ice argument doesn't work because you'd have to intercept an object that contains ice while enroute, if there are even any objects containing water in the path they take which isn't very probable.


New propulsion technology can turn six months into weeks. But...guess what? Expense.

Uh what propulsion tech is that, if you're referring to ion drive there are problems when it comes to larger objects, further some of the propulsion systems suggested would cause riots because they'd be nuclear in nature.


So...who's paying for all this? GM Motors?

We're assuming we'll even have a space program still, it really depends on who is in office.

vanir
12-02-2008, 02:07 PM
No because Mars is outside the Van Allen belts, seriously they'd have no protection. Maybe in the future, but it doesn't exist currently.

Of course I was suggesting replicating them. It is not the magnetosphere which is needed to protect a Mars mission spacecraft, but an ionised field suspended within one. The Magnetosphere protects largely, only from solar radiation (ie. the solar wind). The Van Allen belts help degenerate gamma particles and other extrasolar, deadly radiation by producing muons. This kind of technology would also protect better against unforseen events like solar flares.

Most importantly what I was outlining is that space technologies and the development of a space program, indeed technology in general is not a matter of theory, but expense. It has been said man could've gone to the Moon in the 19th century no problem, but the relative GDP of the United States was incapable of supporting the development of the technologies at the time.

Money, not technology limits space exploration. It's all money.

Uh what propulsion tech is that, if you're referring to ion drive there are problems when it comes to larger objects, further some of the propulsion systems suggested would cause riots because they'd be nuclear in nature.

Fusion-ion drive. There is no problem moving large objects, the problem only lay in sustaining fusion reaction. There is no issue with environmental groups being that there is less danger to the environment of space by setting off a Hiroshima bomb than there is on most days of the week due to the normal radiation environment.

Q
12-04-2008, 01:49 PM
Um, because where manned spaceflight is concerned NASA has proven itself to be grossly negligent and incompetent?
That's not entirely true, I'd say it's more of recent management.
There's nothing "recent" about it. NASA has been plagued by upper-echelon incompetence and complacency for decades. Please refer to this thread (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=189090) for my arguments on the matter.

Del_Boy
08-15-2009, 03:10 AM
Update.....................

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Constellation

I had no idea !