Do we still need a space program?

[Khamûl]

This topic was touched in the thread about the Columbia disaster, but I would like to open it up to more widespread discussion. I'm also writing a paper about it and figured that it would be interesting to hear what other people think.

So, do we still need a space program? For the record, I say yes.

[Celebriel]

I believe we cannot avoid a space program. As long as there are uncharted places in the universe and curious scientists, we will have one.

I do not understand the main purpose to the space program, though. Are we expecting to be pushed into space? Or is America so empirialistic we MUST know what is out there, for gain?



- Celebriel

[LuthienTinuviel]

i think that curiosity is what determines the "advanced" species from the "i-only-live-to-eat-and-procreate" lifeforms.
Humans a re curious, always have been always will be.
i thin kthat there needs to be a new mode of getting into space though. shuttles are fulll of little spaces for error.

[Insidious Rex]

Our destiny is in space. Not on this tiny speck of dust in this small part of the galaxy. the space program is an investment in our species perhaps greater then any other. It would be both foolish and most likely impossible to try to resist the natural course of things and not go out into space. we are an exploring species. we cant be held back.

[IronParrot]

Considering that two weeks ago in a debate tournament, I ran a case on the viability of the space shuttle alone, with a page of notes on the subject, I have lots to say here.

I'm going to elaborate on this when I have more time, but here's what I think:

- Yes, a space programme is absolutely necessary and should never be forgone. There are questions to be answered in the name of knowledge, and I believe that the pure pursuit of knowledge is something valuable to be treasured.

- However, some serious thought (and serious funding) needs to be put back into the aerospace R&D sector, especially with things like the Space Launch Initiative that was cancelled last year (the project to replace the shuttle with an entirely reusable passenger vehicle, something that's been in development hell for who knows how long).

- It's too late to turn back on the International Space Station now, but its utility needs to be seriously reconsidered and justified. I believe that fundamentally, it's a project I support, but in practical terms, it's a huge burden for the U.S. government.

- Space science should definitely continue, but the people behind it need to maintain their focus on the questions we all want answered - questions about the very nature of the universe. The Israeli Space Dust Experiment aboard the Columbia's final mission is not a good example of this.

- NASA, the Mars Rover was a huge step in the right direction. Now take a second step before you trip and fall.

I'll respond in detail later.

[FrodoFriend]

I agree with both IR and IP in this.

How can anyone just sit here on this little planet and not be at least curious about what the other 99.999999999999999% of the universe consists of? (I'm aware that those nines would have to go on for a hell of a longer time, but it doesn't seem necessary to type them all. You get the idea, right?)

[johnnyrod]

Every year a litle bit more is learned from what we started with, which seems insignificant at the time, but it's what got us from digital watches to palm pilots, and from the flat earth to the moon. Anyway, people are like gases or loudmouths, they seek to fill a space when they find one.

[markedel]

I agree. A space program is vital to the long-term development of humanity. How it's run is a different story.

[Coney]

I'm in two minds about this.

I believe that the first thing people need to consider is what we are actually doing in space at the moment......sure there are valuable scientific experiments happening but far more money is spent whoring out space for profit. i.e. TV/Radio/Spy satelites.

I read a newspaper report today that said the shuttle may have exploded because it hit a piece of debris in space......we're poluting our orbital area already.

In the future space exploration will be invaluable, when we have the technology to also make the cost of such explortion viable.

At this moment in time (and probably for the next 50 yrs or so) I feel that the money, effort and time spent on the space program should be used to better this planet.

That's not to say I feel that space journeys should totally stop......but I feel that they should be slowed down until the resources (both technological and monetary) become available for real space exploration.... i.e. colonisation, a space station that is actually self sufficient etc.

[Firekitten2006]

I've got a question. Why do we need a space program? I see why we need programs to find cures for diseases, I see why we need programs for lots of other things, but why space? I mean i know it hasnt benefited me personally in my life. I havent gotten any wonderful benefits from people going out into space. I mean I dont think that we would have any serious problems with getting rid of it.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Coney
At this moment in time (and probably for the next 50 yrs or so) I feel that the money, effort and time spent on the space program should be used to better this planet.

But its a drop in the bucket. It wouldnt really make a noticable difference on a global level. And anyway you know very well its a LOT more complicated then ok take 10 billion from space stuff and put it all into say building houses for low income people or something. It just wouldnt happen. no way. its hard enough doing that for one government let alone every one in the world. what a mess that would be. and too many people would want a piece of it for their own special little projects or they wouldnt give their support so right away youd end up with half as much money and then there would be debates about it being another welfare program and you have to have certain requirements and such before it can be initiated and that would bog things down. and (in our country) the administration would want to figure out a way to apply some of it to the deficit or emergency homeland security spending or (god forbid) blowing up Iraq or something and guess what youd have left after all that. squat. so until we actually live in a simplistic utopia i dont think this argument really works at all.

That's not to say I feel that space journeys should totally stop......but I feel that they should be slowed down until the resources (both technological and monetary) become available for real space exploration.... i.e. colonisation, a space station that is actually self sufficient etc.

well then you get into a whole circular chicken and egg thing there. we cant explore space until we get to a point where exploring space is streamlined and safe and relatively cheap and immediatly beneficial but that will never happen until you explore space but you cant explore space until..... etc.

[Coney]

But its a drop in the bucket. It wouldnt really make a noticable difference on a global level. And anyway you know very well its a LOT more complicated then ok take 10 billion from space stuff and put it all into say building houses for low income people or something. It just wouldnt happen. no way. its hard enough doing that for one government let alone every one in the world. what a mess that would be. and too many people would want a piece of it for their own special little projects or they wouldnt give their support so right away youd end up with half as much money and then there would be debates about it being another welfare program and you have to have certain requirements and such before it can be initiated and that would bog things down. and (in our country) the administration would want to figure out a way to apply some of it to the deficit or emergency homeland security spending or (god forbid) blowing up Iraq or something and guess what youd have left after all that. squat. so until we actually live in a simplistic utopia i dont think this argument really works at all.

The question is exactly what this ten billion in being spent on at the moment? In actuallity manned spaceflight has learned very little new information since the mid-eighties, it's only through long-range space exploration that (Hubbel telescopte, Mars robot landings) that crucial data for space exploartion is being gathered.
So why the need for so many shuttle missions, and the expense they incure?

(sorry but I couldn't really care less what America spends it's money on, if you feel that money saved on a space program would be fritted away, that's your problem).

well then you get into a whole circular chicken and egg thing there. we cant explore space until we get to a point where exploring space is streamlined and safe and relatively cheap and immediatly beneficial but that will never happen until you explore space but you cant explore space until..... etc.

We already have enough information about what is necessary for deep space travel (mainly thanks to 30 yr old Pioneer missions), we know the effects of zero-g (thanks to the Apollo missions) and we know the effects of radiation in space (the biggest problem with a manned mission to Mars is that we cannot design a ship with enough radiation sheilding that is able to leave the earths atmosphere).......We already have the relavant information for deep space travel, what we are lacking is the technology and the money to be able to do it.

Until we have these resources then I see no point in as many space missions that are actually taking place.

If we were to wait until we have the technology for colonization or a decent space station, in the long term, cost's of space exploration would be minilamized........after all, the most expensive part of any space mission is getting the vehicle away from our gravity and into space.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Firekitten2006
I've got a question. Why do we need a space program? I see why we need programs to find cures for diseases, I see why we need programs for lots of other things, but why space? I mean i know it hasnt benefited me personally in my life. I havent gotten any wonderful benefits from people going out into space. I mean I dont think that we would have any serious problems with getting rid of it.

thats my specialty: wiping away ignorance. allow me...

heres just a few:

Artificial Heart:Technology used in Space Shuttle fuel pumps led to the development of a miniaturized ventricular-assist pump. The pump has been successfully implanted into more than 20 people and looks to change the whole face of artificial organ development.

Blood Serum Research: experiments done in zero gravity allow you to discover things about our blood that is much harder to do on earth leading to advances in medicine.

Artificial Limbs: Development of special foam insulation used to protect the Shuttle's external tank is already being used to replace the heavy, fragile plaster used to produce master molds for prosthetics.

Photodynamic Therapy: Special lighting technology developed for plant-growth experiments on Space Shuttle missions is now used to treat brain tumors in children.

Medical equipment: Infrared sensors developed to remotely measure the temperature of distant stars and planets for the Space Shuttle program led to the development of the hand-held optical sensor thermometer used in hospitals every day.

more medical research: Devices built to measure the equilibrium of Space Shuttle astronauts when they return from space are now widely used by major medical centers to diagnose and treat patients suffering head injury, stroke, chronic dizziness and disorders of the central nervous system.

Faster Diagnostics: NASA technology was used to create a compact laboratory instrument for hospitals and doctor offices. This device quickly analyzes blood, accomplishing in 30 seconds what once took 20 minutes with conventional equipment.

Land Mine Removal: The same rocket fuel that helps launch the Space Shuttle is now being used to actually destroy land mines and has saved thousands of lives.

Tracking Vehicles on Earth: Tracking information originally used for Space Shuttle missions now helps track vehicles here on the ground. This commercial spin-off allows vehicles to transmit a signal back to a home base. Many cities today use the software to track and reassign emergency and public works vehicles. Without it many ambulances may not have been able to save as many lives as they did.

(cont. in next post)...

[Insidious Rex]

Rescue Technology: Rescue squads have a new extrication tool to help remove accident victims from wrecked vehicles thus saving many lives. The hand-held device requires no auxiliary power systems or cumbersome hoses and is 70 percent cheaper than previous rescue equipment. The cutter uses a miniature version of the explosive charges that separate devices on the Space Shuttle.

Crime Fighting: Image-processing technology used to analyze Space Shuttle launch videos and to study meteorological images also helps law enforcement agencies improve crime-solving videos.

Gas Gauges: A gas leak-detection system, originally developed to monitor the Shuttle's hydrogen propulsion system, is now being used by the Ford Motor Company in the production of a natural gas-powered car.

Thermal Protection Systems: Materials from the Space Shuttle thermal protection system are used on cars to protect drivers from the extreme heat generated by the engines. This same material is also used to save the lives of firefighters.

Fire Resistant Foam: A unique foam developed for Space Shuttle thermal insulation and packing is now being used as thermal and acoustical insulation in aerospace, marine and industrial products. Since it's also fire resistant, it's being used as well for fire barriers, packaging and other applications requiring either high-temperature or very low-temperature insulation in critical environments.

Fire Sighting: A sensitive, gas infrared camera, used by NASA observers to monitor the blazing plumes from the Space Shuttle's solid rocket boosters is also capable of scanning for fires. Firefighters use this hand-held camera to pinpoint the hotspots of wildfires that rage out of control. Wildfires that would otherwise cause billions of dollars worth of damage.

Jet Stripping: NASA developed a tool that uses powerful jet streams of water to strip paint and primer from the Space Shuttle's solid rocket boosters. A commercial version of this water jet is now used to treat turbine-engine components, airframe components, large aerospace hardware, ships and other mechanical devices, using only pure water. Hazardous chemicals are no longer needed.

Quick Fit Fasteners: Fastening items in space is a difficult task. A Virginia company developed a fastener that can be pushed on, rather than turned. These quick-connect fasteners are flexible and strong, and have been used by NASA astronauts and now the product is used by firefighters and nuclear power-plant repair technicians, and has other commercial applications.

Slick Products: A lubricant used on the transporter that carries a Space Shuttle to the launch pad has resulted in a commercial penetrating-spray lube, which is used for rust prevention and loosening corroded nuts. It's also a cleaner and lubricant for guns and fishing reels, and can be used to reduce engine friction.


Thats just a quick few.... and those are just things developed thanks to the space shuttle alone. Nevermind stuff like oh sattelites, Bar coding, Smoke detectors, Portable computers, etc. etc.

Oh and dont forget Nerf and Tang!

[IronParrot]

A number of quick points:

First of all, regarding "necessity" - since when was society built purely around the maintenance of said society? Yes, there are billions of dollars going into this project that could go to health care or third-world debt relief or strengthening the arsenal in the Gulf or whatever, but then you'll just have an isolated society of ignorance.

It is indeed true that in the past twenty years, the space programme has hardly been about exploration. The shuttle is, by its very nature, not an exploratory vehicle. It's a surface-to-orbit service taxi and cargo delivery unit, more than anything. Really, all NASA has had to show us in recent years is the Mars Rover and a bunch of Hubble photographs every now and then.

It should be noted that with all the stuff Insidious Rex pointed out above, the accomplishments were largely indirect "side-effect" discoveries. When aerospace engineers struggled with problems of how to shoot things into space, they found solutions that could be applied beyond their intended scope.

What I mean to say is, we didn't know we needed such technology. Why? Because that technology didn't previously exist. By breaking new ground, we are opening doors to new opportunities in scientific accomplishment.

... which is why it makes absolutely no sense for NASA to cut off its R&D funding for new hi-tech space vehicles, etc. and still try and maintain the space shuttle. Before the Columbia disaster, they were planning to keep the shuttle in service until 2020. Geez, do I hope they re-evaluate that.

I read somewhere that until about two or three years ago, the shuttles were still using computers with 8086 processors. For reference, the notebook computer I'm typing this message on is a few thousand times more powerful than that.

Currently, space science is behind the curve. Its benefits, as pointed out above, were because it was originally way ahead of the curve in those fields to begin with. It's time to return to that.

I have a NASA colouring book from the pre-Challenger years, where the last few pages had the International Space Station and the rocketless "space taxi" design slated for completion by the turn of the twenty-first century. They're ridiculously behind schedule.

[Legolas_Frodo_Aragorn]

yes we do. There has to be other life forms and things out there. It does pay to keep on using the space program and exploring space

[Evenstar1400]

if they stopped the space program now, that would be pointless.
you see in 1997 (i think) a satalite called Cassini was sent out to saturn. it would take 7 years to actually reach saturn, so i think it should be arriving in 2004 or so. this satalite will help scientists and astronimers learn more about saturn and its moons and atmosphere.

i think the space program needs to continue because if it is discontinued sooner or later the human curiosity is going to come into play and everything will start all over again. to end the space program now will put a halt in all space research and over the course of the years the knowledge we have of space and the technology we gained may be lost.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Coney
The question is exactly what this ten billion in being spent on at the moment? In actuallity manned spaceflight has learned very little new information since the mid-eighties, it's only through long-range space exploration that (Hubbel telescopte, Mars robot landings) that crucial data for space exploartion is being gathered.
So why the need for so many shuttle missions, and the expense they incure?

Oh I agree with you basically. The shuttle is an experiment vehicle for hire. and therefor its easy to justify and make front and center exactly BECAUSE its cheaper and quicker then sending mining craft to Pluto or something. Which is really what we should be doing. Digging up martian soil. Peaking into the oceans of Europa for life. sampling ring material from Saturn. solar sailing beyond the solar system. all sorts of cool stuff! But things like that are extremely expensive even if you do cut them down to bare minimums. So its hard to argue for funding for that kind of thing when you have people saying hey what did the space program ever do for ME damit. theyre throwing my tax dollars away!

(sorry but I couldn't really care less what America spends it's money on, if you feel that money saved on a space program would be fritted away, that's your problem).

Of course it would be fritted away this is America. It would be spent before the ink was even dry on the order to cancel the space program. But I thought your comment referred to space exploration in general not just to the British space program. which begs the question.... is there one?

Until we have these resources then I see no point in as many space missions that are actually taking place.

Youve got no argument here if you are referring to the endless shuttle trips to do little experiments and such (although from my post above you can see how just doing that has indirectly lead to many beneficial things). But yeah Im all about the big picture and getting OUT there. But this would require MORE money then we are currently spending. Are you willing to pay that price tag?

If we were to wait until we have the technology for colonization or a decent space station, in the long term, cost's of space exploration would be minilamized........after all, the most expensive part of any space mission is getting the vehicle away from our gravity and into space.

I still dont get this logic. How can you sit on your hands and hope that time will allow things to become cheaper? you have to actually DO them. Make mistakes. Make an effert THEN you get places. Its like saying Henry Ford should have sat on his designs until we had steel belted radial tires and CD players.

[Coney]

Oh I agree with you basically. The shuttle is an experiment vehicle for hire. and therefor its easy to justify and make front and center exactly BECAUSE its cheaper and quicker then sending mining craft to Pluto or something. Which is really what we should be doing. Digging up martian soil. Peaking into the oceans of Europa for life. sampling ring material from Saturn. solar sailing beyond the solar system. all sorts of cool stuff! But things like that are extremely expensive even if you do cut them down to bare minimums. So its hard to argue for funding for that kind of thing when you have people saying hey what did the space program ever do for ME damit. theyre throwing my tax dollars away!

That's my point exactly. The technology and resources simply dont exist to make real advances in space discovery possible.....so what is the point of continuing space missions that don't discover anything? Far better to wait until said resources are available before wasting even more dollars on pointless, public image building missions for the sake of the tax $'s spent IMO.

Of course it would be fritted away this is America. It would be spent before the ink was even dry on the order to cancel the space program. But I thought your comment referred to space exploration in general not just to the British space program. which begs the question.... is there one?

Yep we contribute quite heavily towards the European Space Agency . The Arian Rocket is the most cost effective method of getting a satelite/probe into space.

Youve got no argument here if you are referring to the endless shuttle trips to do little experiments and such (although from my post above you can see how just doing that has indirectly lead to many beneficial things). But yeah Im all about the big picture and getting OUT there. But this would require MORE money then we are currently spending. Are you willing to pay that price tag?

It really depends on how immediate you wish to get into deep space. Funding current missions that gain absolutely no ground towards deep space exploration is simply throwing money away IMO. Spending the saved money from cancelled space missions for funding towards improving technology seems a much better idea.

I still dont get this logic. How can you sit on your hands and hope that time will allow things to become cheaper? you have to actually DO them. Make mistakes. Make an effert THEN you get places. Its like saying Henry Ford should have sat on his designs until we had steel belted radial tires and CD players.

OK, let me put it like this.

If Henry Ford had all the plans for steel belted radial tyres and CD players........how would the his first car have been?

We already have all the facts and figures we need for deep space travel.......what we need is the technology to implement them....further space exploration in the current vein is pointless. We need to develop the technology from the scientific facts we already have, not plow the few resources we have into the same old missions.

[IronParrot]

Insidious Rex wrote:

"Oh I agree with you basically. The shuttle is an experiment vehicle for hire. and therefor its easy to justify and make front and center exactly BECAUSE its cheaper and quicker then sending mining craft to Pluto or something. Which is really what we should be doing. Digging up martian soil. Peaking into the oceans of Europa for life. sampling ring material from Saturn. solar sailing beyond the solar system. all sorts of cool stuff! But things like that are extremely expensive even if you do cut them down to bare minimums. So its hard to argue for funding for that kind of thing when you have people saying hey what did the space program ever do for ME damit. theyre throwing my tax dollars away!"

"But yeah Im all about the big picture and getting OUT there. But this would require MORE money then we are currently spending. Are you willing to pay that price tag?"

In terms of cost justification, let's do a compare-and-contrast here.

Current shuttle programme:

- About US$500M per flight, not including upgrading and maintenance.
- Maintenance, etc. is still using old technology and materials from the original shuttle design.
- Non-reusable rocketry still required - and the cost of hydrogen and oxygen for rocket fuel isn't exactly going down.

Developing something new (i.e. the now-defunct Space Launch Initiative):

- Yes, R&D would cost as much as many, many shuttle flights.
- Development of a vehicle that doesn't require a rocket to launch it would, when it is introduced, eliminate the huge cost of rocket fuel.
- An entirely new design would take advantage of more cost/energy-efficient developments in materials science, etc. that were developed after the shuttle.
- Overall, the R&D for new space technologies may be costly, but the price tag of maintaining these technologies (and that's the real money-sucker here) would be substantially less than that of the current space shuttle.

As you can see, the problem isn't how many billions of dollars are going into NASA. The problem is where it's being spent. Right now it's being put into the shuttle, and that money should instead go towards developing something new. This does not place an additional burden on taxpayers, because it attacks the key problem here - distribution of funds.

Insidious Rex, if I get you correctly, you're trying to argue that continuing shuttle missions is far cheaper than far-reaching dream technologies that haven't been developed yet, but that's under the assumption that the shuttle programme is doing anything today.

Yes, the development of the space shuttle led to many earthly benefits - but that was in the past. Now the space shuttle is far behind the times, far behind current technology that exists down here on the ground, and it is no longer doing anything groundbreaking.

The development of something entirely new, and putting effort into that, is going to contribute to these groundbreaking discoveries you cited.

"I still dont get this logic. How can you sit on your hands and hope that time will allow things to become cheaper? you have to actually DO them. Make mistakes. Make an effert THEN you get places. Its like saying Henry Ford should have sat on his designs until we had steel belted radial tires and CD players."

Yes, but the development of steel belted radial tires and CD players didn't rely on Henry Ford's money. Development of new space technologies does rely on NASA, and it's not going to happen while they're still committing all their money to the shuttle.