• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Is the Space Program Dying?

Forums New posts
As noted by others, the problem is really one of perception. That Ares-Constellation or whatever looks pretty familiar. It looks like--dare I say it?--a bloated version of Apollo. It scares people. It doesn't scare me, but it's hard to blame the people who think we've been there and done that. I actually think it's smart to build on what you know will work, but space exploration is supposed to look like Star Trek by now, at least in the minds of the people who are now pissed off that the economy hasn't been fixed in a fraction of the time it took to wreck it.
 
Double Nought Spy said:
As noted by others, the problem is really one of perception. That Ares-Constellation or whatever looks pretty familiar. It looks like--dare I say it?--a bloated version of Apollo. It scares people. It doesn't scare me, but it's hard to blame the people who think we've been there and done that.
Click to expand...

It's not that the Ares program looks like Apollo, it's that Ares program has been plagued with shifting designs, cost overruns and basic design flaws (an early one was that no one realized the Orion capsule was too heavy to be lifted by the Ares booster). At this point, I'd be much happier if we just bought Soyuz hardware. At least that's reliable and available now.

FYI, both nasaspaceflight.com and nasawatch.com have been covering the political, engineering, and managerial issues with NASA far better than I can summarize here.
 
And this is exactly why any world leader with the responsibility of making far reaching decisions that impact the lives of many should experience space flight for themselves. I'm sorry, but for the longest time I've always held the contention that any person expecting to preside over the laws and framework that make up our lives here on this pale blue dot need to see it from space. It just doesn't make sense to me that an elected leader, making global decisions can go about making policy after policy without experiencing the greatest thing human beings have thus far been able to accomplish. The many changes and inspiring realignment of perception astronauts go through would be pivotal to a world leader, in my opinion. At least that would be my view of not even a great leader, but at least one with an informed point of view.

That right there I think is one of our many problems. You can call it the separation of "Government and science" if you will, but take a look at it from the perspective of another intelligent species encountering us for the first time: "Why are the liars in suits telling the guys in orbit what to do?"
 
ckbarrus said:
It's not that the Ares program looks like Apollo, it's that Ares program has been plagued with shifting designs, cost overruns and basic design flaws (an early one was that no one realized the Orion capsule was too heavy to be lifted by the Ares booster). At this point, I'd be much happier if we just bought Soyuz hardware. At least that's reliable and available now.

FYI, both nasaspaceflight.com and nasawatch.com have been covering the political, engineering, and managerial issues with NASA far better than I can summarize here.
Click to expand...

Yikes! It's worse than I thought. I knew there was a reason I had not been following the subject the way I used to. Thanks for the links.

I wish I could recall which politician it was who said a few years ago something like, "I can't believe we are buying tickets to space from the Russians!" That sounded like (and probably was) a frustrated spewing of a jingoistic culture in decline, but it sure was an interesting comment to this survivor of the Cold War.

Interesting comments, 111uminate. I do suspect we are quite puzzling in many ways to outside observers.
 
This is alittle off topic,

With this recent news about the space program. I have been listening to some of the back catalogue of the Paracast and stumbled upon the episodes with Mac Tonnies, i hadnt heard of him before but im really thankfull to have come across his work and plan on reading his books...while reading about him today i learned he has passed away im really saddened by this even though i have only just heard of him. Im pretty new to the topics we read about here but wow a very interesting thinker...My thanks to Gene and David for spending as much time on air with him as they did. With out the Paracast i may have never heard of Mac. Im really glad i downloaded these episodes...
 
Agree in the fullest. Mac had a very methodical way in illustrating his ideas and possible takes on things, and I've always appreciated that. Coming from anyone else, they would probably sound like fantastical diatribe, but Mac was imaginative and grounded all at the same time. I'm definitely glad Gene and Dave had him on a few times as well.
 
I suspect I will not see a human leave earth orbit again in my lifetime. Well, maybe a Chinese human, and that would be fine by me, only time will tell.

The Constellation program was underfunded. Obama needed to make it successful or kill it. Killing it while increasing NASA's budget was a political move that will work for Obama. He wont be funding a program that will end up behind schedule and way over budget, he will be spending money on NASA driven jobs. He's a socialist, look at socialist governments, creating jobs is a big part of socialist government.

As an aerospace company employee and as an american I was glad to see Bush put a plan in place to get humans back out into space but it wasn't necessarily a good plan and he didn't fund it adequately.

I am excited about private companies getting into the space flight business but those companies will eventually need to make money. Launching satalites, carrying passangers, even carrying astronauts to and from the ISS, can be profitable. I don't see going to the moon or mars becoming profitable if government isn't funding it.

I'm feeling a bit ambivilant about the whole situation. If we aren't on a really exciting path for human space flight, and I don't think we were, then there are better things governement could do with my tax dollars. I know they wont let me keep more of it!
 
"He's a socialist [Obama]".

No he isn't. In terms of actual policy he's to the right of Nixon and Eisenhower (of course, there are people who think they were socialists too... go figure). There's nobody in government today who 40 years ago would have been thought any more than mildly progressive. Nowadays if you think that people should have jobs and be able to go to the doctor if they're sick, you're a far-left radical. Ok, rant over.

The simple fact is that for science robot probes give you far more bang per buck than manned flight. Even sample returns (probably the most scientifically useful part of the Apollo missions) can now be done robotically. And as someone here or elsewhere pointed out, thanks to Moore's law probes will keep improving very rapidly.

Until someone identifies missions that only on-site humans can do, probes are the way to go.
 
NASA is not interested in space since they have become a environmental agency.
 
pixelsmith said:
NASA is not interested in space since they have become a environmental agency.
Click to expand...

Why do you say that?

Check out their current missions. Sure there are some that are Earth observing satellites that can be used to collect data to judge environmental conditions but there are many that observe beyond the Earth.

http://www.nasa.gov/missions/current/index.html

Here is their latest mission.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/main/index.html

NASA - Solar Dynamics Observatory: The Variable Sun Mission

Nasa just extended the Cassini mission to Saturn until 2017.

NASA Extends Cassini's Tour of Saturn, Continuing International Cooperation for World Class Science - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Here is an example of Nasa's interest in searching for Earth like planets.

A Little Telescope Goes a Long Way - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

We can't forget about Pluto.

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/podcasting/mission_update_newhorizons.html
 
Let me rephrase, NASA is not interested in space TRAVEL since they have become a environmental agency. There is probably more money in data manipulation now days.
 
I suppose you mean human space travel. Robotic missions are ongoing. Human space travel has been degraded since Apollo.

Dawn is exploring our asteroid belt.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/dawn/main/index.html

Opportunity is still exploring Mars even though Spirit is stuck.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mer/opportunity-update.html

Voyager is headed for interstellar space.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/voyager-20080703.html

---------- Post added at 06:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:26 PM ----------
pixelsmith said:
There is probably more money in data manipulation now days.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that they manipulate the data as much as just put it out there for others to do that.

Welcome to the NSSDC!

It says here they get $10 per CD plus shipping.

Frequently Asked Questions about NSSDC CD-ROMs

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/cd-rom/
 
NTS said:
The simple fact is that for science robot probes give you far more bang per buck than manned flight.
Click to expand...

I agree entirely with your statement about robots. I don't think that the entire purpose of the space program should be science, there is also exploration and for my money that eventually means humans traveling into space. Other than intellectual gratification what is the point of space science? I'm happy enough having tax dollars spent on science that I don't understand and will in all likelihood never benefit from in any way. What excited me about NASA as a child was watching humans go into space, eventually landing on the moon, spending extended time in orbit. As a middle aged person, I want the exciting part of the space program back. I want to see people living on the moon and visiting other places in our solar system not because it's the best way to advance science but because it's exciting and it's personal and for me, IMHO, it's worth paying for.

And, I believe Obama is a socialist, a socialist hindered by his surroundings and circumstances, but a socialist non the less.
 
Roro wrote "What excited me about NASA as a child was watching humans go into space, eventually landing on the moon..."

Yes, I too was an avid fan of the manned space program, from the Mercury days up through the early shuttle flights. But after the moon landings ended NASA seemed to lose its way as far as manned missions were concerned. Humans have to find things to do in space that robots can't do better. So far we haven't.

Obama is a socialist only in the imaginations of people who listen to talk radio. In reality he's more conservative than a number of Republican presidents we've had. Even if (as he should) he put the health insurance companies out of business and restored 1970s levels of taxation and financial regulation, none of that would be socialistic. It would merely be a necessary redress of some of the balance between average Americans and the wealthy, which for the last 30 years has tilted far too much toward the latter.
 
Jay said:
True, but hasn't it always been that way? Meaning real exploration has always been risky. Explorers take chances and many never came back. we can overcome the challenges if we have the will to.
Click to expand...

Absolutely but Mars is a REALLY long trip and due to that even more risky. Some say that we would have to go and stay for a while living off the "land" for the resources we would need.
 
Yes, a main reason the manned space program ran into trouble is that Mars was just too big a step after the Moon.

As I think I posted before, recently near-Earth asteroids have been proposed as the next logical destinations beyond the Moon (some may have important natural resources as well). But as far as I can recall this wasn't discussed during the 1960s-70s. Everyone seemed to think Mars was the next thing, but it just wasn't possible.
 
Senators to NASA chief: Agency lacks a goal
Without one, lawmakers say NASA is going nowhere, wasting time

Senators to NASA chief: Go somewhere specific - Return to Flight- msnbc.com

AP_NasaMissions.jpg
 
Back
Top