|
Author
|
Topic: 50 years on, does human spaceflight matter?
|
issman1
Member Posts: 1042
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 04-09-2011 04:56 AM
  
Fifty years on, does human spaceflight matter? It's a question that's being asked by some. Really don't want to get bogged down in a geopolitical debate, because I'm an apolitical person. But since the International Space Station will soon be entirely dependent upon foreign and commercial U.S. entities, I feel the very existence of human spaceflight hangs in the balance. Nothing else is planned, so what importance or relevance does it offer now and in the future? |
LM1
Member Posts: 667
From: New York, NY
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 04-09-2011 05:57 AM
In my opinion, human spaceflight is on hold, except for the ISS. In the beginning, with Gagarin and Glenn, the question was "can we do it", now the question is "why are we doing it". Human spaceflight beyond the ISS is on hold until the world economy improves dramatically. We will not return to the moon for perhaps 40 years. China and others plan to go to the moon in 15 years or so. This will not answer the question of "why are we doing it", because we have done that six times and China doing that will be redundant. Perhaps China's success will spur US on to return to deep space. Mars is a fantasy. We will not see a man on Mars in our lifetimes in my opinion. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1042
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 04-09-2011 06:50 AM
quote:
Originally posted by LM1:
We will not return to the moon for perhaps 40 years.
After the spectacle in Washington over the past year, I'm inclined to agree with you. There's speculation that ISS will continue until 2028, which is great, but what does that mean for a lunar base? quote:
Mars is a fantasy.
For those of us in our 40s, it is. But there's also a real danger that ambitious robotic missions to Mars and even Europa won't happen. While robots may lack glamour, only they can realistically return Martian dust/rock samples or penetrate Europa's ice. |
LM1
Member Posts: 667
From: New York, NY
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 04-09-2011 08:40 AM
I am very much in favor of more robotic missions to Mars and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Europa is a must. The use of much larger robotic vehicles and even unmanned remote planes of some sort would be great. But a manned mission to Mars in the next 50 years is probably out of the question because of the enormous cost and the fact that we just are not ready or capable of a round trip manned mission to Mars. We appear to have the technology to do this, but in reality we do not. We need more research with robots. The ISS will eventually have to be abandoned. It was not meant to last for 25 or 30 years. In my opinion, we need the ISS to return to the moon, but China may go directly from the Earth to the moon as we did in 1969-1972. That was 40 years ago. We need a reason to return to the moon, some incentive or a discovery. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 04-09-2011 08:43 AM
quote:
Originally posted by LM1:
In the beginning, with Gagarin and Glenn, the question was "can we do it", now the question is "why are we doing it".
Or "why should we be doing it?", no matter who does it, nation-wise or public or private.Personally if I don't see a book about Gagarin in the next few weeks (or months), that will be a sign that it's over. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1042
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 04-09-2011 09:30 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
...now the question is "why are we doing it".
I've read interviews in which many former astronauts and cosmonauts accuse space agencies of being risk averse. Perhaps the bureaucracy within space agencies has permeated such a culture? More recently, however, governments of the ISS partner nations have used the depressed economic times as a pretext to scale-back space funding. That combination could prove disastrous unless something is discovered on the Moon very soon. Or if China has a major space coup, such as a circumlunar flight before 2015. |
LM1
Member Posts: 667
From: New York, NY
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 04-09-2011 11:01 AM
I agree, the world economic situation is killing the space program. Does space matter anymore? Probably not - we have much too many problems on Earth to fix first. Perhaps a robot will find gold on Mars. Then we should send a robot to get it, not a human being. We are not ready for human spaceflight beyond the moon. |
Aztecdoug
Member Posts: 1405
From: Huntington Beach
Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 04-09-2011 11:11 AM
Does Human Spaceflight matter? Depends who you ask. American society as a whole? Not so much really from my perspective.Actions speak louder than words in my opinion. What level of action do you see going on past the next one or two shuttle flights? There is your answer. Simple. |
Tykeanaut
Member Posts: 2212
From: Worcestershire, England, UK.
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 04-09-2011 11:40 AM
Short answer, YES. |
LM1
Member Posts: 667
From: New York, NY
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 04-09-2011 01:02 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Tykeanaut:
Short answer, YES.
But WHY? I am not suggesting that what we have already accomplished in space was a waste. It was not. It was a prelude to the future - a future we are not ready to approach in space. We need much more experimentation with robots and in earth orbit and then on the moon for many decades and then perhaps to Mars well in the future. Of course, we can be reckless with human life and with our economy and go to Mars in a few years, but that will lead to disaster. Better to wait and experiment and prepare the way for future human activity in space.
|
issman1
Member Posts: 1042
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 04-09-2011 01:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Tykeanaut:
YES.
Some might say NO. Not me personally, but your concise answer in many ways exposes a fundamental flaw. Let's stop dwelling on trying to go beyond earth orbit, for the time being, and highlight what is in low earth orbit. What percentage of the UK population even knows that the International Space Station can be seen at certain times of the morning or evening? And how many know who's on board or what they're doing? If ISS residents were as well-known as English Premier League soccer players or reality TV show contestants, the space programme would get its due recognition. |
star51L
Member Posts: 340
From: Vilano Beach, FL, USA
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 04-09-2011 03:15 PM
I agree with many of the sentiments regarding the world economy having a direct effect on any spaceflight efforts, human or non. I also see any future deep space missions as multi-nation "planetary" efforts, as opposed to a single nation trying to go it alone financially. |
LM1
Member Posts: 667
From: New York, NY
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 04-09-2011 05:30 PM
I agree. Any future manned missions, even missions to the moon, should be multinational. |
David Bryant
Member Posts: 986
From: Norfolk UK
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 04-10-2011 01:25 AM
When I'm asked the 'why spaceflight' question, I generally come back with the stock answer involving CAT scanners, micro-computers, materials technology, sat-navs etc: all of which is true and relevant.But it's more than that: it's a much larger question: 'What's the point of mankind?' At the moment, it looks as if all we'll ultimately achieve here on Earth is factionation, warfare, depletion of resources and destruction of the environment. Only a concerted, pan-global outward push provides any long-term hope for mankind. One thing politicians NEED to take on board is that a consensus from the masses is not necessarily a pre-requisite. (After all: no-one asked us for our agreement for the Iraq / Afghanistan / Libya adventures.) I don't know if it's different elsewhere, but here in the UK we're rapidly approaching a Huxleyan 'Brave New World' state, where the majority of the population are drugged-up, complacent, consumers who are barely sentient beyond TV soaps and sport. Using their veto as a mandate to abandon space is plain ridiculous! They don't have the data to make an informed decision... Finally: the cost to UK citizens of the 2012 Olympics is currently $14 billion and rising. This compares to a declared final cost of $23.5 billion for the entire Apollo program. Hmmmmm... |
Tykeanaut
Member Posts: 2212
From: Worcestershire, England, UK.
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 04-10-2011 03:28 AM
As humans we are supposedly the most intelligent life-form? We are explorers, inquisitive and thirst for knowledge. Therefore not only in spaceflight, but in every field of science we must and surely want to push boundaries? |
Colin E. Anderton
Member Posts: 63
From: Newmarket, Suffolk, England
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 04-10-2011 03:41 AM
David, I don't think Apollo would cost $24 billion in today's money - that was the cost back then! I dare not think what it would be in today's equivalent!!!As I've said before in earlier posts, Apollo was born out of a unique set of circumstances. Humans going out into deep space again simply is not going to happen in our lifetimes. That's why I have always being such a voracious collector of audio and video from those times. It needs preserving, because as far as we are all concerned, it isn't going to happen again. When the last shuttle mission flies, as far as American manned launches are concerned, that's it - it's over! Sad, but true. |
LM1
Member Posts: 667
From: New York, NY
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 04-10-2011 05:02 AM
I agree with Colin, with one exception. After the last shuttle we will still have the ISS for perhaps 12 years - to what end I do not know. I do not think that we should crawl back into a hole and ignore space - I am not suggesting that anyone above said that. We should still "expand the envelope" through testing and experimentation with bigger and bigger and more efficient robots to Mars and beyond and prepare the way for a manned mission eventually. I look forward to sending robots to Europa and Titan and the moons of Mars. Mankind is NOT ready now for a Mars landing. Anyone who thinks that we are is mistaken in my opinion. As for Britain helping in the major conflicts in the world alongside the US, everyone who I have spoken to about this thinks that Britain did a very noble and honorable thing. Now the whole world is going through a severe recession. We must have priorities. We can put space exploration on the back burner for a while until the world economy improves. The cost of man venturing into deep space is enormous. We have very serious problems on Earth to solve. We need leadership to overcome these problems. We will return to space when the time is right. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1042
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 04-10-2011 05:55 AM
quote:
Originally posted by LM1:
We can put space exploration on the back burner for a while until the world economy improves.
Even when the global economy wasn't in such dire straits, there was no political will for exploration. So I see no cause for optimism. quote:
Originally posted by David Bryant: ...the cost to UK citizens is currently $14 billion and rising.
I'm indifferent to the London Olympic Games, but the ultimate debacle must surely be the Millennium Dome. A far better way to celebrate the beginning of the third millennium would have been a contribution to the ISS, such as the Habitation Extension Module.And unlike the Dome, which is now a music venue, a module could be visible to everyone in the UK. Our national leadership isn't capable of making informed decisions. |
David Bryant
Member Posts: 986
From: Norfolk UK
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 04-10-2011 06:00 AM
All good stuff: but I don't believe those of you in the US have any idea how frustrating it has been over the past fifty years to watch Space Science / Aerospace technology grow increasingly marginalised over here. Forty years ago we had Concord / the Harrier / field-leading IT companies and public heath / educational systems that were the envy of many 1st world countries. Now we are just another minor part of the European superstate... |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1586
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 04-10-2011 06:08 PM
Spaceflight matters for many different reasons--knowledge, and the nature human instinct to explore, spinoffs--to name a few. To the U.S. Federal government for the most part, and to the average American, who cares more for reality t.v.---no. That is why we will likely never go back to the moon, or visit an asteroid or Mars, in the next 50 years. However, if we space enthusiasts keep the dream alive, just maybe a miracle will happen. Maybe there is another JFK out there. "Never Surrender," with thanks to Mr. Springsteen. |
FFrench
Member Posts: 3161
From: San Diego
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 04-10-2011 06:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
"Never Surrender," with thanks to Mr. Springsteen.
"Never surrender" was Winston Churchill. "No Surrender" was Bruce Springsteen. Churchill delivered a good speech, but I hear he was a lousy lead guitarist...  |
LM1
Member Posts: 667
From: New York, NY
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 04-11-2011 09:09 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
However, if we space enthusiasts keep the dream alive, just maybe a miracle will happen. Maybe there is another JFK out there. "Never Surrender," with thanks to Mr. Springsteen.
This is the IDEALIST view. These days we must be REALISTS. We cannot afford to return to deep space now, and, mankind is not ready to either colonize the moon or go to Mars for a short period. We must have PRIORITIES. We could return to the moon and go to Mars and spend all of the money in our budget on this. Is that logical or reasonable - NO. The US does not have any money for such things because in reality we do not have any money for anything. This country is totally in debt to China and other countries. We must get out of debt before we can pursue a deep space program. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-11-2011 10:43 AM
There will always be people who will say that human spaceflight is too expensive, that we have too many problems here on Earth and that spaceflight should not be a priority. Fortunately, those people aren't the ones who actually make human spaceflight happen. They aren't the people who put the first 500 people in space over the past five decades and they won't be the ones who will send countless more people to space over the next 50 years. If we want to talk about reality, then let's talk about reality. There are more countries and companies building — not planning but actually fabricating and testing — human-rated space systems today than any time in our history. |
spaceman
Member Posts: 1104
From: Walsall, West Midlands, UK
Registered: Dec 2002
|
posted 04-11-2011 10:46 AM
We can and must invest ever increasing amounts into spaceflight/exploration. The worsening/recovering economy is a poor excuse as every single penny is spent here on Earth to the benefit of all providing jobs and creating wealth. Space spurs on developments in science and technology and spins off into all our lives.Its good for the heart and mind.There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again. The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in this race for space. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 04-11-2011 11:26 AM
Nice sentiments Robert. Unfortuately the people who say that spaceflight is too expensive outnumber those who disagree at the ballot box.More nations building man-rated craft than at any time in our history? Three, possibly four, out of 190+ nations is hardly enough to give one confidence in human exploration of the cosmos over the next generation. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1042
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 04-11-2011 11:40 AM
quote:
Originally posted by LM1:
We must have PRIORITIES.
Indeed. And I think it should be building upon the legacy of the shuttles and the space stations they helped construct and maintain (including Mir). We, as in the entire world, should now consider populating Near-Earth space by making orbital travel as commonplace as air travel. It's not REALIST or IDEALIST to send a handful of scientists to live on the Moon or explore Mars, when not even a fraction of people living have seen their home planet as Gagarin did. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 616
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 04-11-2011 11:53 AM
Human spaceflight matters little after 50 years.The US will soon be a non-player for what may be a longer period of time than anyone can imagine. Russia will hobble along with the ISS in low earth orbit accomplishing little up until the time the ISS fails and has to be abandoned. China will be spending money to repeat what was already done 40+ years ago, land on the moon. While enthusiasts like those here (myself included) still marvel at what did happen over the last 50 years the average person gave up any interest decades ago. The shuttle, the ISS, the chinese are not capable of reigniting the public's imagination or passion.
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-11-2011 12:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
Unfortuately the people who say that spaceflight is too expensive outnumber those who disagree at the ballot box.
While massive public support can affect change, it is not the only way in which progress is made. quote:
Three, possibly four...
By my count, there are closer to ten nations with human spaceflight systems currently in development. |
Colin E. Anderton
Member Posts: 63
From: Newmarket, Suffolk, England
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 04-11-2011 01:28 PM
I bet that in fifteen years time, the only nation putting humans in space will be China - and that will be in earth orbit.So many people assume that China can accomplish what the US did; I simply don't believe any other nation could accomplish a manned lunar landing at any time in the foreseeable future. I hope this post is still here in 15 years time - I bet I'm right!
|
328KF
Member Posts: 1234
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 04-11-2011 02:12 PM
I too am not overly optimistic that the current situation will result in some kind of renaissance in how we get to space. The current disagreement in how we move forward is a national embarrassment. The Administration wants one thing, Congress wants something different, and the NASA administrator seems to want to disregard the current law and not build anything that will get us out of LEO.The concept that this vacuum created by the lack of a reliable space transportation system will force commercial development to fill it is full of flaws. Upstarts like SpaceX have had some success and some failures. They are currently on a hitting streak, but wait until they find themselves in a slump. Public and Congressioonal support will quickly fade, and a new urgency will be found to go back to the "old way" of doing things and let NASA build their own system. As I have stated all along, I have nothing but great hope for these companies to be successful, but I disagree that the U.S. taxpayer should be footing the bill for their development and flight test at the expense of a system with a higher likelihood of return on investment. The entire effort right now is being steered away from exploration and toward relatively simple LEO transportation. As stated above, ISS is a day-to-day proposition. It could cease to be viable tomorrow by a variety of means, and then there would be no destination for SpaceX or anyone else. Then what? As for predictions...my greatest concern is the end of ISS operations. NASA will never have the budget to operate it, develop a viable exploration system, and continue to funnel taxpayer money to commercial transportation providers. Bolden seems to be okay with that, and I have found that to be both surprising and disappointing. The day we close ISS for good might well be the day we lose the national need to go into space. I think if Virgin Galactic is successful as a business and maintains a reasonable safety record, those quick spurts of suborbital spaceflight might be all we have left. Apollo came about by a now well understood confluence of geopolitical events. Kennedy saw an opportunity and he took it. A future politician(s) will be faced with another opportunity with the end of ISS, and no one today can predict which path he or she will take. All we do know is that we are not doing what needs to be done to lay the groundwork for real exploration today. So does human spaceflight matter? It should, but sadly I see its' importance in the national conciousness fading at an alarming rate. |
LM1
Member Posts: 667
From: New York, NY
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 04-11-2011 03:37 PM
This is a very interesting thread. I find myself agreeing with many of the comments above, too many to quote here. I find myself in serious disagreement with anyone who trivializes the current financial situation which the US is in at this time. The US is in serious debt. China and other countries hold over $1-trillion in US bonds. We have no money of our own. To go forward with a manned space program would be reckless. I applaud everything that we have done in space thus far. The astronauts were and are very brave to allow themselves to be launched into space on a missile. Many have lost their lives. But that was not in vain. We WILL return to space when the world economy improves, but it appears to be worse every day. Added to that is the explosion of countries in North Africa. Each of which wants the same freedoms that we have. Human spaceflight, while heroic, is a luxury. And, due to really bad press by NASA (which they have always had)and their failure to point out the benefits of space, we find ourselves in a position where we have to choose between life's necessities and a luxury that we cannot afford and which does not appear to have any real benefit in relation to the cost. We have done it. We have landed on the moon six times. We proved that mankind can do it. It will be for a future generation to "expand the envelope." We have reached an impasse. The Shuttle will soon end, the ISS will eventually end and appears to have no real purpose, funding for everything is being decided at this moment in Congress. Manned spaceflight is a luxury. Saying that we cannot afford it sounds trivial, but it is true. Congress is cutting back projects that are much worthier than the manned spaceflight program. NASA must get in line with repairing our infrastructure, making our country safe from terrorism, health care, social security, our involvement in two wars, and many other serious matters. Seriously, when the ISS falls in 12 years or so, we will not be able or willing to replace it. We have already done that too. It is very easy for someone to say that realists have no vision. We have vision and we can see that certain parts of our society are in need of funding more that sending a human to the moon or Mars. It is human nature to want to see a manned landing on Mars in our lifetime. But, as I said before, we are not ready for a colony on the moon or a landing on Mars. We do not have the technology to overcome long-term exposure to cosmic rays, solar flares (radiation) and regolith (the material on the Moon's surface that jams every machine and could even kill astronauts). Some day we will be ready to return to space. Now it is out of the question. The bridges and roads in every state are falling apart after 50 years of use. Let's build new roads and bridges and later we will build bridges to the moon and beyond. |
MrSpace86
Member Posts: 1618
From: Gardner, KS, USA
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted 04-11-2011 03:47 PM
While I believe handing private companies the reigns to NASA has been beneficial, as stated earlier in this thread by LM1, NASA should also be more militarized. NASA could really help protect the country and hey, that would be an excuse to keep the space program going and maybe even developing manned military vehicles. After all, the Space Shuttle was designed for that. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 04-11-2011 04:09 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
By my count, there are closer to ten nations with human spaceflight systems currently in development.
Would you care to name them? Your original post said "building man-rated craft". A "system" is hardly a craft. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-11-2011 09:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
Your original post said "building man-rated craft". A "system" is hardly a craft.
No, my original post is unedited; it said system. You may have interpreted that to say craft but my choice of terms was purposeful. My post was in reference to not just the crew cabins... |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 04-12-2011 12:56 AM
OK Robert. So by your reckoning in the 1960's one has to include Uganda alongside the US and USSR as a nation actively involved in man-rated spaceflight systems! |
arjuna
unregistered
|
posted 04-12-2011 01:06 AM
Respecting the non-political nature of this website, I will only say that the current U.S. budget issue is indeed a matter of priorities, and a different set of priorities on spending and revenue would lead to very different conclusions that would allow continued investment in NASA, stem cell research, infrastructure improvements, education or just about whatever else is considered important. (The long-term budget is a different but obviously related issue.) Anything beyond this is outside the scope of what Robert probably wants here (and I'd agree). Aside from that, with respect to the opinions expressed here, I'm a little taken aback by what seems to me to be something of a defeatist attitude by many. Again, budgets reflect agendas, and economically (perhaps not politically) all budget problems are solvable. But a defeatist mindset will lead to defeat. Yes, most people don't have spaceflight at the top of their list of priorities, but they are also numbed by 30 years of less-than-inspiring LEO stuff, and second, are under the misimpression that NASA consumes 20-something percent of the budget. Go out and educate and evangelize! Space enthusiasts should share their passion and get others excited rather than bemoan what we can't currently do. Nobody gets inspired by that. And finally, NASA's budget is never going to zero; consider the possibility that much of whatever slack that occurs may be filled by commercial space operations that supplement, rather than compete with, NASA. I don't know what's going to happen - no one does - but change is not only not a bad thing - it's necessary and healthy. I encourage people to embrace it. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-12-2011 06:24 AM
quote:
Originally posted by LM1:
To go forward with a manned space program would be reckless.
Congress appears to disagree.While the FY2011 budget compromise reduces NASA's overall budget by about 1.3 percent (as compared to 2010 funding levels), the House Appropriations Committee increased the space agency's funding for future crewed exploration missions above and beyond its proposed out-year budget. Space News reports: The bill, H.R. 1473, carves out $3.8 billion for Exploration, including $1.2 billion for a multipurpose crew vehicle based on NASA's in-development Orion capsule and $1.8 billion for a heavy-lift vehicle "which shall have a lift capability not less than 130 tons and which shall have an upper stage and other core elements developed simultaneously." Exploration was funded at $3.625 billion in 2010, a sum that would rise to $3.7 billion under the agency's spending plan for 2012. |
David Bryant
Member Posts: 986
From: Norfolk UK
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 04-12-2011 06:31 AM
Gosh, Robert: I really hope all this happens: the world NEEDS a US initiative in Space.... |
LM1
Member Posts: 667
From: New York, NY
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 04-12-2011 09:03 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
While the FY2011 budget compromise reduces NASA's overall budget by about 1.3 percent (as compared to 2010 funding levels)
Where does that leave us? When the shuttle missions end this year, that leaves us Soyuz spacecraft to reach the ISS. What manned missions is Congress appropriating funds for? |
LM1
Member Posts: 667
From: New York, NY
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 04-12-2011 09:11 AM
quote:
Originally posted by arjuna:
Aside from that, with respect to the opinions expressed here, I'm a little taken aback by what seems to me to be something of a defeatist attitude by many.
You cannot or should not say "with all due respect" and then call people "defeatists". I am a realist, not a defeatist. NASA will have manned missions to the moon and Mars but well in the future. Realistically, at this time the US does not have any funds (we are totally in debt to China) for luxuries such as manned spaceflight. Congress is still at this moment discussing the budgets for this tear and next year. They do NOT want to de-fund NASA. NASA's budget will never be zero because they still have all unmanned missions to the planets and all satellite launches in Earth orbit. |
advertisement