I've been vigorously defending manned space flight the past 24 hours on another board (Free Republic). It seems many people see this accident as proof that the Shuttle is a boondoggle (they may have a point), and ALL tasks in space can better be done remotely, with robotics.



Aside from the obvious point that it is man's fundamental nature to explore, what other reasons do we have to send men into space? And what do you think should be our next long term step?

Can this be used as the impetus to replace the Shuttle with something more advanced?

I apologize in advance if this thread appears to have been posted too soon after the fact.

Mars

X-33, not as a replacement to the shuttle, but to complement it. Using a shuttle to ferry crew up to a space station is like using a cargo freighter to (legally) carry passengers across the Atlantic.

Well, to answer Tomblvd, can you imagine the the government shutting down the railroad the first or second time there was a train wreck? Or highways being banned because people die on them every day in accidents? Or all factories being shut down because one or two had a mishap that led to an explosion?

Sure space travel is dangerous, but where would we be if we let the threat of danger control our lives?

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

Well,whoever,these people were,they sure weren,t voting yesterday because the (unscientific) poll I participated in showed that 88 percent of those who voted were in favor of continuing manned spaceflight despite the risks.

I truely think we will see a bnoom in our space industry and exploration. As i said in the other thread, this might be good for the space industry overall. It is horrible that people had to die, but at least their deaths were not in vain. It is all over the news of when will we go back into space? When will we go to mars? What is next? I think there is more furvor for space now than the last ten years combined. I really can see us now getting the funding for Mars and beyond. But this can all be pure optimism. We have to wait and see how much money NASA is going to get in the next budget.

__________________
GIYUL :-)
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." - Dan Sandler 2002

As posted by someone elsewhere, I can only hope this brings a stronger effort to develop the next generation of Earth-to-Orbit vessel. It will still take 10-15 years to develop and implement a new system.

And as discussed in previous months on this board, I think we need to find a viable economic plan for this venture. Science and research in of itself (at least for me) is reason enough to explore space. But it (like love) doesn't pay the bills. If we can set an economic purpose, goal and incentive to use the new fleet, then it will happen with unanamous support.

Advertising on the shuttl. The Pepsi mars lander and the Coke mars orbiter! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

J/K

I think if we privatized some aspects of space and allowed certain reliable companies into space we could go a long way. How to choose those comanies? Well obviously ones that won't put up weapons into space for other nations.

Allow mining on the moon and passing asteroids. Allow them to preform manufacturing in space on their own satelites and stations. Than we would be able to do it. I think some companies once the economy gets better will realize the profit potential of being in space. Basically no rules, don't have to worry about ruining the environment, and no taxes!! Nobody owns space.

__________________
GIYUL :-)
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." - Dan Sandler 2002

It seems many people see this accident as proof that the Shuttle is a boondoggle (they may have a point)

Far from boondoggle. But there is a legitimate question over whether it's the best solution for our manned space flight needs. For all its faults, it's the system we know best how to operate, and that's a serious advantage in that business.

ALL tasks in space can better be done remotely, with robotics.

I strongly disagree. There is no computer equivalent to the human brain, no camera equivalent to the human eye, and no manipulator equivalent to the human hand. While there is a place for automated spacecraft, the best work in and the best exploration of space is done in person.

Aside from the obvious point that it is man's fundamental nature to explore, what other reasons do we have to send men into space?

Because learning how to protect ourselves and flourish in new and hostile environments helps us better protect ourselves and flourish in the hostile environments closer to home.

And what do you think should be our next long term step?

Personally I think it would be nice to return to the moon before the last of the Apollo moonwalkers passes on.

Can this be used as the impetus to replace the Shuttle with something more advanced?

That's been contemplated for years. Clearly it will be impetus to increase the safety and reliability of our space systems, whether that means continuing to improve STS or more seriously examining the next step.

Morbid as it seems, engineers always learn more from failure than they do from continued success. When loss of life is concerned, though, this maxim seems pale and ineffectual. However, the space program will emerge from this with greater knowledge of its capabilities and limitations, and that will be priceless in ensuring greater success and safety.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

What was the status of the next generation shuttle? I understand that some decision had been reached on which company's idea was to be pursued, but to what point had things moved?

Thanks for all the replies. Thinking about this aspect of the tragedy is cathartic.

Focusing on the above quote a question came to mind. How many of the planetary probes that we have lost throughout the years do you think could have been saved if a human had been on board?

Tomblvd said:
Well, I'm probably going to get dirty looks, but there really isn't any other reason for us to be going into space, other than the fact that humans wish to explore, and learn. Jay points out why humans should go for our exploration, but why we choose to be going doesn't really have any other reason. We could turn to the answers used historically - discovery, resources, trade routes, growth. How do those apply to the situation? *shrug*

Of course it can be used as an impetus. It probably should be used as an impetus. But whatever the outcome on that, the shuttle will continue to be used because there is no alternative for the near term. It will take about a decade to build a replacement vehicle. We've already seen the problem with stopping your current method before the next version is complete (Saturn rockets). Let's not repeat Skylab with ISS.

Tomblvd asked:
All of them? The reason for the loss of the two Mars vehicles have been traced to lack of information available or confused information to the human controllers. Being on site (i.e. on the vehicle) would have eliminated that confusion.

Reason #2: Sooner or later the Earth is going to get blasted by an asteroid. If we're not set up somewhere else by then, we're not only history, we're the next intelligent species' paleontology.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

I found this on the internet. I had first seen it a couple years ago. I am not making light of yesterday's tragedy, I just thought it fit this particular quote perfectly:


*Link to pic discontinued*

Why should we be sending humans into space? I'll let Isaac Asimov quote Michael Faraday on the subject of abstract knowledge:

The exploration of space is certainly in the "newborn baby" stage. I have a feeling that our descendants will look back at those who question its practicality much the same way we do towards that anonymous questioner.

If our species is to survive over the long haul, we simply must move out into the wider universe, despite the risks. The alternative, as another poster pointed out, is to become another civilization's paleontology.

From the Babylon 5 episode 'Infection' in season 1.

The Interview (end of the show about why to spend money on the B5 station)

Reporter: "After all that you've just gone through, I have to ask you the same question a lot of people back home are asking about space these days. Is it worth it? Should we just pull back, forget the whole thing as a bad idea, and take care of our own problems, at home?"

Sinclair: "No. We have to stay here, and there's a simple reason why. Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics - and you'll get ten different answers. But there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on: whether it happens in a hundred years, or a thousand years, or a million years, eventually our sun will grow cold, and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us, it'll take Marilyn Monroe, and Lao-tsu, Einstein, Maruputo, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes - all of this. All of this was for nothing, unless we go to the stars."

Kizarvexis

I was looking at the image SKY posted and had to wonder if I was on the wrong forum. The picture made me think I was at a NASCAR forum [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

It was kinda funny looking. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Kizarvexis

hi, new here.

how about this: if we switched to unmanned flights, the public would lose even more interest, making it even more justifiable for congress to cut even more funding (which would also be compounded by the penny pinching justification that we'd only need to spend a tiny pitance, since safety is not a concern with robots).

after all is said and done, switching to a totally human free space program would result in having no space program worth mentioning.

Hi and welcome, sac.

60 Minutes had a segment on tonight's show about this. Someone associated with congressional funding for NASA mentioned that there is a faction that believes exactly this -- that the manned program is the lure that keeps the public interested in space exploration.

Yes, unmanned missions give more science for the buck. But there's an unquantifiable factor at work, too. Flying into space is an adventure, and we all share it vicariously.