|
Author
|
Topic: 50 years on, does human spaceflight matter?
|
LM1
Member Posts: 667
From: New York, NY
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 04-12-2011 09:16 AM
   
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
Would you care to name them? Your original post said "building man-rated craft". A "system" is hardly a craft.
It would be very useful in this discussion of "human spaceflight" if you could name any country other than the US, China and Russia that is engaged in some sort of development of manned spacecraft or systems. If you mean that other countries are making PARTS for our manned spacecraft, that would explain the TEN that you stated. |
bigcrash3
Member Posts: 36
From: Summerfield, NC, USA
Registered: Jun 2007
|
posted 04-12-2011 09:20 AM
quote:
Originally posted by MrSpace86:
NASA should also be more militarized.
I agree about more military involvement in space. This does not mean I necessarily promote the militarization of space. The fact is the US military is WELL funded. The 2012 budget request for the US Air Force alone is $150 billion dollars with a $16 billion dollar overseas contingency request. This is one branch of service. I think I read somewhere that in today's dollars the cost of the entire Apollo program was $100 Billion. This over several years. I know the Air Force is secretive about the complete operational nature of the X-37b but it looks to me something to be excited about. I prefer the glass half full.. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-12-2011 09:44 AM
quote:
Originally posted by LM1:
...name any country other than the US, China and Russia that is engaged in some sort of development of manned spacecraft or systems.
I'll name one and it should point you to another: Japan. They have plans and consider their uncrewed flights-to-date as part of their development for a crewed version of the H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV) and man-rated H-II launch vehicle. |
LM1
Member Posts: 667
From: New York, NY
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 04-12-2011 09:45 AM
I am not in favor of the militarization of space. I think that the United Nations has a treaty banning the use of space or the moon for military purposes. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1042
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 04-12-2011 10:16 AM
I seriously doubt militarizing NASA will give human spaceflight any more impetus than presently.Since NASA is universally renowned as a civilian US government agency, what would become of peaceful exploration or international co-operation under military command and control? |
bigcrash3
Member Posts: 36
From: Summerfield, NC, USA
Registered: Jun 2007
|
posted 04-12-2011 12:53 PM
Guys, I do not promote the militarization of space but lets not forget there is quite a bit of military hardware in space. Also, many of the rockets used to send men on peaceful missions in space were made to deliver warheads. Our roots were military. I am just following the money. For some reason justifying NASA's pitiful funding to the masses is very difficult..but the military gets a pass. The F-35 JSF will cost $382 Billion dollars with double that for continued operation and maintenance for a grand total of $1 Trillion dollars. So, whatever it takes to keep people flying in space, fine by me. If the patch on the space suit says Navy, Air Force or NASA, I could care less. |
Kite
Member Posts: 831
From: Northampton UK
Registered: Nov 2009
|
posted 04-12-2011 01:00 PM
I have been following this thread and it is rather depressing. As one who remembers Apollo at that time I was looking forward to a Mars landing, possibly in the eighties. As has already been mentioned there are always strong arguments against pushing the frontiers of space but hey, where would civilisation be today if there was nobody in the past who were doing just that in many different fields. Always push forward and I'm sure things will find a way to pay for itself.Education is the answer I'm sure. I went to a lecture by that eminent naturalist Sir David Attenborough who said that he is often asked when did he become interested in animals. His reply is to ask the questioner when did they become uninterested because all children are fascinated by animals and he had simply never lost that interest. I think space is the same because again most children are filled with wonder when learning about the planets and the universe. Young people are our hope and future and even though it may be a long time mankind will explore space again because it is our instinct to push the boundries. Keep the faith and stay optimistic, even in these hard financial times, there are people out there who will eventually make it happen. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 04-12-2011 02:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
By my count, there are closer to ten nations with human spaceflight systems currently in development.
This was your original post Robert. You still have only named four - US, Russia, China and Japan. Are we going to be informed of the other six? |
Philip
Member Posts: 5952
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 04-12-2011 02:54 PM
Certainly a depressing topic for manned spaceflight aficionados... During outreach events I can't help but noticed that youngsters are more interested in the Mars rovers (read robots) than in any manned mission. To list some "other countries" planning manned spaceflight: - Canada
- ESA (18 member states but France had plans for its own space plane)
- Ecuador
- India
- Iran
- Malaysia
|
LM1
Member Posts: 667
From: New York, NY
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 04-12-2011 03:23 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
Certainly a depressing topic for manned spaceflight aficionados...
I do not think that this thread is "depressing" at all. This is your way of putting your opponent down. These are dire times, and if you do not want to acknowledge that, it is your problem. There will be a manned space program to the Moon and to Mars - but not for quite some time - in another generation (25 years). The next American to set foot on the moon may not be born yet.I said above that NASA has bad press and no one disagreed with that. They have ALWAYS had bad press. They are not the slightest bit interested in really educating the public about the benefits of manned spaceflight. Their slogan should be "NASA - take it or leave it." The average person on the street (who pays taxes) knows nothing about spaceflight. I have family cable and I do not get the NASA channel. NASA needs better communicators who can tell us the benefits of space. It is a shame that Neil Armstrong is so introverted and speaks at events that are controlled in some manner to accommodate his character. (The list of countries who you think are interested in manned spaceflight is interesting. They could actually do it - if they unite on the idea and work through the United Nations.) |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 04-12-2011 03:46 PM
The first fifty years are the result of a vision and push in the first ten plus years. We have lived off their laurels for over thirty years. The end to their work is here. In spite of the hyperbole by some about the current “plan”, as the crowds that will congregate at the Cape for the last two shuttle launches will attest, it’s over … for now. The existing lack of vision and budgetary pressures will bring even more change to a beleaguered US space program. This end will not lead to a balanced budget, to all the roads and bridges being fixed, nor to an end of hunger. If we wait until all our problems are solved before we venture farther into space, humans will never return. If we refuse to go because we do not now have the answers, then we will never go because the quest for the answers will never begin. We need to restore competition. We have not built the starship Enterprise, where we are all one big happy world. Humans perform best when they compete. We, the world, benefit when we (individual countries) compete. Does it matter? In my opinion, at this point in time, the answer is no, but it will matter again. One day the vision and drive will return, and a program similar to that of the U.S. moon program of the 1960s in its reach, not its budget consumption, will return somewhere on this globe. We will not waste money, as we are now, by spending on underfunded programs just to keep a job. We will make choices then commitments as to where to spend the money we have, and this space place will be one. The first fifty years was a great running start. It appears that we will now take a pause, but someone will one day bring the dream back to life.
|
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 04-13-2011 01:46 AM
An interesting list Phillip. However, there is a world of difference between planning to build a manned craft and actually doing it. You cannot mean surely that Iran, for example, are going to launch a craft with 'Made in Iran' stamped on the side?In an earlier post I suggested that by this criteria one should include Idi Amin's Uganda. At least they got to the point where they were training astronauts, even if they hadn't thought about manufacturing the spacecraft to contain them. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-13-2011 08:01 AM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
You cannot mean surely that Iran, for example, are going to launch a craft with 'Made in Iran' stamped on the side?
The BBC, citing state media, reported in July 2010 that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his country plans to send a man into space by 2019. Further reports clarified that the first flight would be aboard an Iranian-built sub-orbital spacecraft.But even if you discount Iran for political posturing, the same cannot be said for Japan's effort, nor for that matter ESA's, which like JAXA, has shared details for manning its Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) for flights to Earth orbit and even lunar orbit. India has already funded and begun development of a crewed spacecraft. They have tested reentry methods and materials on two test flights. It is debatable if Ecuador should be on the list as its plans include using a suborbital spacecraft built by Russia, but Romania has been developing a suborbital craft for some time now, and has completed at least two atmospheric unmanned test flights. So, let's see: U.S., Russia, China, Japan, ESA, India and Romania all have earnest efforts underway and there are between a few and a handful of other nations toying with the idea, in the early stages of planning and testing, hence my earlier comment. |
MrSpace86
Member Posts: 1618
From: Gardner, KS, USA
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted 04-13-2011 09:53 AM
Militarizing NASA would mean that NASA would have input in helping develop safe and reliable aircraft and spacecraft. NASA has extensive research and knowledge with the SR-71 Blackbird, many of the X planes, and various other aircraft. That being said, a lot of these breakthroughs eventually trickle down to the commercial markets and designs. As for space travel, NASA doesn't only do human spaceflight. The military does weather, reconnaissance, and all those great satellites. It wouldn't be militarizing space, it would just be a cooperation to make the world a better place. |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 04-13-2011 11:49 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
So, let's see: U.S., Russia, China, Japan, ESA, India and Romania all have earnest efforts underway and there are between a few and a handful of other nations toying with the idea, in the early stages of planning and testing, hence my earlier comment.
JAXA has had proposals on the books for years, and probably decades. While they have had technical problems, their main problems have been funding and need, with the biggest problem being no money. Considering the problems Japan has at this point in time, any manned spacecraft is probably still some distance into the future. A similar history plagues the ESA efforts. While they have had manned spacecraft plans on the books for 35 plus years (remember Hermes?), they have never had the money to develop and fly any manned craft. There is no reason to believe the funding will suddenly be there in the near future. Romania? Really? Then please consider this. I have about 10 different Estes model rockets in a box. There are of vehicles in various states of development for the X Prize competition ... at least they were at the time the models were sold. With the exception of the Scaled Composites vehicle, the one way these vehicles will ever fly is as an Estes model rocket….and even Scaled Composites has yet to get another vehicle in suborbital space years after their stated goal. After 50 years there are only three. If I get out my crystal ball, I would guess India would be next and even they are most likely a decade away from manned orbital flight. Your assertion of 10 counties, or even close to 10, grossly overstates any foreseeable expansion of manned spaceflight.
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-13-2011 12:24 PM
While its true that JAXA and ESA have had proposals on the tables for years, they are now both flying craft that reduce the financial and technological hurdles of making the next step to human spaceflight. That's significant progress to merit consideration in any list of nations pursuing crewed flight.Like you, I suspect India will be next to achieve orbital flight, but had Japan not suffered its recent tragedy, than they very well could have been. And yes, Romania has been pursuing the same goal since the announcement of the X Prize, but the point is, they are pursuing it. There was a time not too long ago that even the thought of a country other than the U.S. or Russia (and maybe China) even attempting to build a crewed launch system was considered unlikely. |
Colin E. Anderton
Member Posts: 63
From: Newmarket, Suffolk, England
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 04-13-2011 01:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
We need to restore competition.
That's what's missing - and what is unlikely to return. That's why I believe the future for humans in space is bleak indeed.But more than that... I think space exploration (in the true sense) ended in 1972 with Apollo 17. The Shuttle has provided improved living conditions in space, certainly - but little else in the exploration sense. In fact, in many ways it has been an enormous red herring, steering man away from any idea of further exploration. |
KSCartist
Member Posts: 2896
From: Titusville, FL USA
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 04-13-2011 01:48 PM
quote:
Originally posted by LM1:
They are not the slightest bit interested in really educating the public about the benefits of manned spaceflight.
Based on what? NASA's mandate form the beginning included disseminating information to the public. They have always made their findings known to those interested in viewing them. They have Teacher Resource Centers across the country that hand out free materials daily - just for the asking. What NASA cannot control is a fickle public more interested in who the next American Idol or "Survivor" will be. quote:
I have family cable and I do not get the NASA channel.
If you don't get the NASA Channel (broadcast for free to any cable provider) then complain to your cable provider. quote:
It is a shame that Neil Armstrong is so introverted and speaks at events that are controlled in some manner to accommodate his character.
Neil Armstrong served his country faithfully and well. He does not need to forego his personal life. He speaks at many events and the hosts do not always charge admission. If you're unhappy with the venue then complain to the venue. The man is eighty years old he does not owe anyone anything.Your problem is with the general public not with NASA. It was the general public and a disinterested Congress and White House that killed Apollo before it's time. The greatest exploration of the 20th Century and people were complaining that TV coverage of moonwalks interrupted their damn soap opera! There's arguments today about heavy lift capability - we had HL and threw it away. The shuttle program was canceled in 2004 as a result of the Columbia tragedy. Neither the President nor the Congress acted to fund Constellation properly and doomed it from the beginning. There's all kinds of blame to go around but to blame NASA who has had to beg for funding like some kind of Dickens character when the return on investment is $7 dollars for every dollar spent is misguided at best. |
fredtrav
Member Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 04-13-2011 02:25 PM
I have to agree with the earlier post in some regards. NASA has not made its case to the public. They need to tout more the achievements that matter to the general public whether it is velcro, better computers, GPS, etc. What will start our manned program past LEO will be when the Chinese land men on the moon and start using its resources. I know what the UN says about it being international property but that will not stop them if there is something to exploit. They will put bases there. The same goes for Mars and the asteroids. Maybe that will be the wake up call we need to get going again. Manned spaceflight might have been much different if Korolev had lived and pushed the USSR to the moon. With competition, the US would have stayed and expanded the program, but without the push, it faded from the public and political arena. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1042
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 04-13-2011 03:20 PM
quote:
Originally posted by MrSpace86:
It wouldn't be militarizing space
Armed forces personnel are presently on loan to the human spaceflight programme, be it American, Canadian, European and Russian. That level of military involvement is acceptable and sensible. But unless this planet faces a major threat from an asteroid or comet, then I see no need for a more dominant role. Having said that, perhaps this reason more than any other offered thus far should be a priority for NASA, Roscosmos and ESA to go further, faster before something ominous is found. |
Philip
Member Posts: 5952
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 04-16-2011 03:32 AM
It's the end of the Space Shuttle era... in manned spaceflight NASA is behind. It seems the US is no longer interested and has chosen the unmanned option (X-37B and some great planetary missions). In my opinion, the right choice, more science (intelligence) return for the same buck! |
issman1
Member Posts: 1042
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 04-16-2011 07:21 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
...more science (intelligence) return for the same buck!
That's precisely what the UK decided to do in the 1970s and look where we are today. We're not even at the forefront of robotic spaceflight! |
advertisement