Apollo 13 Anniversary

[AtticaFlinch]

40 years ago this week, Apollo 13 was a pretty big deal. Now, our space disasters barely register in emotional importance. With the shuttle program ending, several key people from NASA's history have called for Obama to rethink cancelling the Constellation program.

“NASA’s human space program has inspired awe and wonder in all ages by pursuing the American tradition of exploring the unknown,” the group wrote in an open letter to Obama posted on the Sentinel’s Web site. “We strongly urge you to drop this misguided proposal that forces NASA out of human space operations for the foreseeable future.”

Is NASA still relevant, and should we continue to send people into space?

I say yes, but then again, I'm a Carl Sagan nut.

[TheNiche]

40 years ago this week, Apollo 13 was a pretty big deal. Now, our space disasters barely register in emotional importance. With the shuttle program ending, several key people from NASA's history have called for Obama to rethink cancelling the Constellation program.

Is NASA still relevant, and should we continue to send people into space?

I say yes, but then again, I'm a Carl Sagan nut.

It does seem evident that there is a justification for some level of manned orbital operational capacity, if only to deploy and maintain existing satellites or for the sake of secretly militarizing space; and to that end, I think that these missions could be rolled into the Air Force Space Command. Other missions, such as ferrying people back and forth to the International Space Station or performing run-of-the-mill scientific research can be carried out on Russian vehicles or using Ares rockets.

Ultimately, what's on the moon that we can use? Or on Mars? If we're going to develop permanent outposts on neighboring planets as a kind of insurance policy against an extinction level event, that's one thing, and it would need to be a specialized kind of mission with a budget that most people would consider unreasonably high...considering that most people would be dead if it ever became useful. If we're just trying to be space-faring for the sake of it, then screw NASA. I'd rather the money go to exploring ocean bottoms to try to find realistically-exploitable minerals, flora, and fauna. ...and that'd probably be a better place for "just in case" outposts, anyway.

[AtticaFlinch]

If we're just trying to be space-faring for the sake of it, then screw NASA.

I've got a costs-be-damned attitude about it. I like discovery for the sake of discovery. Contemplating the enormity of the universe makes my head spin, and I'd like to see further advancements made in unraveling the secrets of the cosmos in my lifetime. While I recognize many advancements and discoveries can be made from Earth, I prefer the tangible nature and the inherent danger of sending a human being out into the ether.

I wouldn't wish to limit oceanic exploration as a cost of space exploration either. I think we should open up the entire world's economic checkbooks to all exploratory science. I think it's a far better use for our money than neon lights in Downtown. As far as exploitation of resources, and the lack of easily recoverable resources so far known, and the question as to what benefit it would bring, just remember the Spanish (ie. Columbus) sailed across the Atlantic looking for a quicker way to the Orient for a more effective spice trading route. What they found was another continent entirely and literally tons of gold. Point being, we can't even begin to speculate on the economic benefits for space exploration with what we currently know.

[TheNiche]

I've got a costs-be-damned attitude about it. I like discovery for the sake of discovery. Contemplating the enormity of the universe makes my head spin, and I'd like to see further advancements made in unraveling the secrets of the cosmos in my lifetime. While I recognize many advancements and discoveries can be made from Earth, I prefer the tangible nature and the inherent danger of sending a human being out into the ether.

I wouldn't wish to limit oceanic exploration as a cost of space exploration either. I think we should open up the entire world's economic checkbooks to all exploratory science. I think it's a far better use for our money than neon lights in Downtown. As far as exploitation of resources, and the lack of easily recoverable resources so far known, and the question as to what benefit it would bring, just remember the Spanish (ie. Columbus) sailed across the Atlantic looking for a quicker way to the Orient for a more effective spice trading route. What they found was another continent entirely and literally tons of gold. Point being, we can't even begin to speculate on the economic benefits for space exploration with what we currently know.

War often leads to the serendipitous development of new technologies that ultimately benefit all of mankind. Perhaps we should declare war on a worthy foe, like Russia or China. MAY THE COSTS BE DAMNED!

[AtticaFlinch]

War often leads to the serendipitous development of new technologies that ultimately benefit all of mankind. Perhaps we should declare war on a worthy foe, like Russia or China. MAY THE COSTS BE DAMNED!

One costs money and lives. The other costs just money.

I don't dispute that warfare has brought about significant technological advancements, but if science were pursued for the sake of knowledge and technology were pursued for the overall advancement of the human species, the same results would likely have occurred. War's only real benefit has been to cull the human population when resources were scant. With the progression of modern day prophylactics and other birth-control methods, all we need now to achieve that end is adequate education and a decent condom distribution system.

Now, if we start building X-wing and tie fighters for interstellar war, I might grudgingly come on board.

[TheNiche]

One costs money and lives. The other costs just money.

So I'm guessing that this image doesn't mean anything to you?

I don't dispute that warfare has brought about significant technological advancements, but if science were pursued for the sake of knowledge and technology were pursued for the overall advancement of the human species, the same results would likely have occurred. War's only real benefit has been to cull the human population when resources were scant. With the progression of modern day prophylactics and other birth-control methods, all we need now to achieve that end is adequate education and a decent condom distribution system.

That strikes me as pretty naive. Firstly because the pursuit of science for its own ends lacks the imperative of survivalism or nationalism; the only reason we have NASA to begin with was the Space Race with Russia. Secondly because, as current legislative allocations to scientific endeavors indicate, politicians aren't very good investors in science for its own ends. And thirdly, because population losses resulting from warfare have historically tended to be entirely made up for--and then some--in such a way as causes blips on the growth curve but doesn't really affect the general trend; it's all about carrying capacity...and as you point out, now birth control.

Now, if we start building X-wing and tie fighters for interstellar war, I might grudgingly come on board.

Well...initiate war with Russia or China and see what happens.

[Subdude]

I'm all for space exploration. Look at the advances in cosmology that the Hubble telescope has enabled.

On the other hand I don't see much point in manned space travel. It is vastly more expensive and adds little to the benefit that I can see. It is more efficient to spend the money on robotic explorers.

[BryanS]

I've got a costs-be-damned attitude about it. I like discovery for the sake of discovery. Contemplating the enormity of the universe makes my head spin, and I'd like to see further advancements made in unraveling the secrets of the cosmos in my lifetime. While I recognize many advancements and discoveries can be made from Earth, I prefer the tangible nature and the inherent danger of sending a human being out into the ether.

...and to that end...

...It was ONLY the United States' human space flight capability, by way of the Space Shuttle program, that was there to deliver and service one of humankind's best instruments ever:

Only the Space Shuttle, with human astronauts, could pull this off. Not just launch... but launch and service.

Now almost 20 years in orbit. And has about 5 more years of useful life left.

Hubble discoveries... have re-written what we thought we knew about the universe, in many areas. Thanks to the human hands that built... and serviced Hubble, in orbit.

So... at the end of the day... when people ask: where 30 years of Space Shuttle flights "worth it" ... I would say "yes" - because of Hubble alone (at a minimum).

The jury is still out on the ISS. Hopefully, that will yield some scientific returns in the next decade...

All the noise about Constellation... is just noise, IMO.

"Gaps" in US access to space are nothing new.

There was a 5, 6 year gap between SkyLab and the first shuttle flight.

2+ year gap after Challenger.

2+ year gap after Columbia.

3 to 5 year gap, until our next capability, which will probably be commercial rocket access to space, by young start-up companies.

The US space program will be just fine.

[Subdude]

Of course manned intervention was necessary to deliver Hubble, but it doesn't require people inside the telescope at all times. That isn't the case with the ISS, the purpose or scientific accomplishments of aren't exactly clear.

[TheNiche]

3 to 5 year gap, until our next capability, which will probably be commercial rocket access to space, by young start-up companies.

The US space program will be just fine.

So far, the only revenue streams that I'm aware of that these new start-ups have available to them are from space tourism and a few highly-publicized prizes. How do they expect to turn a profit? And is the rate of return adequate to compensate them for capital investment and the inherent risks of space flight?

"Where's the beef?"

[AtticaFlinch]

How do they expect to turn a profit?

Space Aztec gold.

Edit: Let me clarify this as I don't mean this purely tongue-in-cheek. When the Spanish realized the New World was not the Orient, they still continued to go. Decades passed before the cost of travel was justifiable by the return on investment. It wasn't until Cortez with the Aztecs, and later Pizarro with the Inca, subjugated and stole huge fortunes that the return on investment was made. Prior to that, the Spanish were using the natives as slave labor to eke out minor profits panning for gold in the islands of the Gulf and the Caribbean. Often though, the rewards didn't outweigh the costs of expedition, both in human lives and in a pure dollar sense. But, they continued going. And despite what you may feel about the ethics of it, they ultimately made themselves rich off unexpected bounty.

I guess my point is we don't know the profit potential of space exploration. It could be, in a word, astronomical, but it's still an unknown. We really don't know yet. But to limit our willingness to explore because we can't immediately see a profit motivation is myopic.

[TheNiche]

Space Aztec gold.

Edit: Let me clarify this as I don't mean this purely tongue-in-cheek. When the Spanish realized the New World was not the Orient, they still continued to go. Decades passed before the cost of travel was justifiable by the return on investment. It wasn't until Cortez with the Aztecs, and later Pizarro with the Inca, subjugated and stole huge fortunes that the return on investment was made. Prior to that, the Spanish were using the natives as slave labor to eke out minor profits panning for gold in the islands of the Gulf and the Caribbean. Often though, the rewards didn't outweigh the costs of expedition, both in human lives and in a pure dollar sense. But, they continued going. And despite what you may feel about the ethics of it, they ultimately made themselves rich off unexpected bounty.

I guess my point is we don't know the profit potential of space exploration. It could be, in a word, astronomical, but it's still an unknown. We really don't know yet. But to limit our willingness to explore because we can't immediately see a profit motivation is myopic.

Spaniards were driven by god, gold, and glory...not necessarily in that order.

The mere rumor of gold (and even of golden cities) was sufficient motivation for continued exploration; but rumors, legends, and mythology supporting the idea that mineral resources can be exploited aren't at play anymore...much less that the resources could be harvested using slave labor.

Pagan Indians were the motive for Catholic missionaries, but good luck getting them on board with the space exploration mission to try to find space aliens to convert. Also, I'm pretty sure that the discovery of aliens would undermine their message.

What's left is glory. Screw that; our citizens and the citizens of closely-allied nations take for granted the accomplishments and superpower status of the United States, anyway. Leave it for hyper-nationalists from formerly Communist countries. Their scornful admiration of us isn't worth the cost to us. Ultimately, if glory is a big enough motivation then the private sector really and truly will step up to the plate.

[AtticaFlinch]

So I'm guessing that this image doesn't mean anything to you?

All the deaths in space exploration, from training accidents to ground crew accidents to in-flight accidents, total less than 500 people, and that total includes some massive catastrophes on the ground in the former Soviet Union.

In the same time period, say from 1960 to the present, around 25 million people have died in war.

It's tough to locate a figure on total dollar costs so far for either space exploration or wars since 1960. It seems no one's really too concerned about the costs to have compiled a list for either. Either way, I'm sure more dollars have been spent with fewer lives lost in space than in war. The Columbia disaster notwithstanding (lives lost: 7), I think it's still fairly safe to say without hyperbole the cost of space exploration is money, while the cost of war is human life and money.

[AtticaFlinch]

The mere rumor of gold (and even of golden cities) was sufficient motivation for continued exploration; but rumors, legends, and mythology supporting the idea that mineral resources can be exploited aren't at play anymore...much less that the resources could be harvested using slave labor.

That goal developed over time, but was not the motivation in the nascent stages of New World exploration. The early days were purely speculative exploration, and had competitors not begun to also send boats across the Atlantic, it's likely the Spanish would have given up long before the discovery of gold-plated empires. It was the continued exploration of the two continents, after the subjugation of the Aztec and the Inca, that was driven by god, gold and glory (definitely not in that order).

[TheNiche]

I think it's still fairly safe to say without hyperbole the cost of space exploration is money, while the cost of war is human life and money.

500-ish dead people are still 500-ish dead people. And your hyperbole is still hyperbole.

[TheNiche]

That goal developed over time, but was not the motivation in the nascent stages of New World exploration. The early days were purely speculative exploration, and had competitors not begun to also send boats across the Atlantic, it's likely the Spanish would have given up long before the discovery of gold-plated empires. It was the continued exploration of the two continents, after the subjugation of the Aztec and the Inca, that was driven by god, gold and glory (definitely not in that order).

Speculating upon what? That they might ultimately find the West Indies or a passage to it?

Look, what I think that I've already done (and very effectively) is to establish that there was a valid economic motive for exploration during centuries past. The motives changed as their understanding of the situation matured, however it was all ultimately about exploitation...whether of minerals, of humans, of civilizations, of flora, or of fauna. What ought to be the motive for space exploration? Because we can?

[AtticaFlinch]

500-ish dead people are still 500-ish dead people. And your hyperbole is still hyperbole.

To equate 500 dead to 25,000,000 dead is hyperbole. The lives lost to space exploration is .002% of the lives lost to war during the same time period. It's hardly hyperbole to dismiss those numbers as statistical anomolies. That's actually accepted practice.

Speculating upon what? That they might ultimately find the West Indies or a passage to it?

In part, yes.

Look, what I think that I've already done (and very effectively) is to establish that there was a valid economic motive for exploration during centuries past. The motives changed as their understanding of the situation matured, however it was all ultimately about exploitation...whether of minerals, of humans, of civilizations, of flora, or of fauna. What ought to be the motive for space exploration? Because we can?

You're right, it was always at least partly exploitive in nature, and who's to suggest the ultimate underlyer behind any scientific achievement won't have an economic benefit? Just because we can't currently envision what that will be doesn't mean there will never be a good fiscal reason for space exploration.

Also, much of the exploration in the past was done for bragging rights, or at least the motivations extend beyond exploitation exclusively. Spain and Portugal were the USSR and USA of the late fifteenth century with the naval exploration race, and Spain ultimately won out. But, that was more due to an inept pope and the Treaty of Tordesillas than any other inherent advantage. Portugal actually had about a century more of competent naval exploration experience than Spain, but what the Spanish lacked in fancy book learnin' they more than made up for in brazen chutzpuh. Much of the reasoning behind the initial voyages was simply to get there before someone else did, and let the benefits sort themselves out afterward. In this regard, had the Soviet Union not collapsed, and had we never made peace with the Russians either, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion. The motivation "because we can" would have been sufficient.

[TheNiche]

To equate 500 dead to 25,000,000 dead is hyperbole. The lives lost to space exploration is .002% of the lives lost to war during the same time period. It's hardly hyperbole to dismiss those numbers as statistical anomolies. That's actually accepted practice.

Were those 500-ish people any less human? If you pricked them did they not bleed? If you tickled them did they not laugh? If you poisoned them do they not die?

In part, yes.

So there.

You're right, it was always at least partly exploitive in nature, and who's to suggest the ultimate underlyer behind any scientific achievement won't have an economic benefit? Just because we can't currently envision what that will be doesn't mean there will never be a good fiscal reason for space exploration.

How about we agree to disagree, and you'll lobby Congress for an earmarked six-figure job where I do nothing more than drop, pick up, and drop a ball bearing over and over to see if it eventually drops up into space instead of drops down to the ground. The discovery of such a phenomenon, completely unexpected as it is, could revolutionize physics and space exploration. We won't know for sure until we try.

Also, much of the exploration in the past was done for bragging rights, or at least the motivations extend beyond exploitation exclusively. Spain and Portugal were the USSR and USA of the late fifteenth century with the naval exploration race, and Spain ultimately won out. But, that was more due to an inept pope and the Treaty of Tordesillas than any other inherent advantage. Portugal actually had about a century more of competent naval exploration experience than Spain, but what the Spanish lacked in fancy book learnin' they more than made up for in brazen chutzpuh. Much of the reasoning behind the initial voyages was simply to get there before someone else did, and let the benefits sort themselves out afterward. In this regard, had the Soviet Union not collapsed, and had we never made peace with the Russians either, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion. The motivation "because we can" would have been sufficient.

I thought I'd already covered this in Post #6. The motive wasn't "because we can", it was to achieve political leverage over the USSR. But not for the Cold War, no man would've likely ever walked on the moon.

[AtticaFlinch]

Were those 500-ish people any less human? If you pricked them did they not bleed? If you tickled them did they not laugh? If you poisoned them do they not die?

I'll answer your questions in the order asked:

1) Only about thirty were humans. The rest were dirty foreigners.

2) The Americans do. The rest (foreigners) only are hurt by a stake through the heart.

3) The Americans do. The rest (foreigners) only laugh when they see a child cry.

4) Moot point. They're already dead.

So there.

Only in part. Regardless, the outcome was unknown. It was still purely speculative exploration. But, I get what you're saying about there being some goal in mind, even if it didn't consume their entire focus. That said, these were times a century before Galileo was placed under house arrest for heresy due to his support of heliocentrism. No one was going to support a mission purely for the sake of scientific discovery... unless you consider cartography a science. 'Cause that happened all the time.

How about we agree to disagree, and you'll lobby Congress for an earmarked six-figure job where I do nothing more than drop, pick up, and drop a ball bearing over and over to see if it eventually drops up into space instead of drops down to the ground. The discovery of such a phenomenon, completely unexpected as it is, could revolutionize physics and space exploration. We won't know for sure until we try.

Alternative means of propulsion are actively being researched right now. If you move to California and submit an application to JPL, I'm sure someone will give you a job dropping ball bearings. The downside is you'd have to live in California.

I thought I'd already covered this in Post #6. The motive wasn't "because we can", it was to achieve political leverage over the USSR. But not for the Cold War, no man would've likely ever walked on the moon.

So? It still wasn't prompted by economic reasons either. The goal was winning, not making money, just like war, and the only problem I had with that to attain scientific discovery was the fact that millions of people had to die unnecessarily in the process. If we can achieve the same ends without wholesale human slaughter, then why wouldn't we?

[TheNiche]

i win.

[BryanS]

I'm all for space exploration. Look at the advances in cosmology that the Hubble telescope has enabled.

On the other hand I don't see much point in manned space travel. It is vastly more expensive and adds little to the benefit that I can see. It is more efficient to spend the money on robotic explorers.

But that's dull, boring, and uninspiring.

Heroic little robot pre-cursor missions, brave little explorers, were sent to the moon... before we landed men there.

You don't hear much about those missions. They were just lifeless machines.

But, the world sure does remember this:

"Houston, the Eagle has landed."

Wouldn't sound the same if it was said by something like this:

...but it would be cheaper to do, I'm sure.

I can just see it now... The Speak-N-Spell "robotic explorer"...

It's just not the same.

[AtticaFlinch]

i win.

Impossible. You're too busy being prudent and pragmatic.

Bryan S is the winner. His posts have visual aids. The Speak and Spell is the forum equivalent of landing a man on the surface of Jupiter while blasting a zombie between the eyes with a wrist-mounted laser cannon all while riding a shark/eagle/lion hybrid. It doesn't get much more awesome than that.

[musicman]

So I'm guessing that this image doesn't mean anything to you?

GFD niche. i've been amazingly silent. this is VERY disturbing. perhaps i will share their death with you.

[TheNiche]

GFD niche. i've been amazingly silent. this is VERY disturbing. perhaps i will share their death with you.

I guess I'll just give myself a *facepalm* on this one. I mean, I was hoping that you'd comment on the thread generally, but didn't even begin to think about your connections when I drove the point home, there. Really sorry, man. And yes, I'd be honored to hear about how it all went down.

[skwatra]

big picture compilation from STS-131

its been a great and challenging mission.

[musicman]

I guess I'll just give myself a *facepalm* on this one. I mean, I was hoping that you'd comment on the thread generally, but didn't even begin to think about your connections when I drove the point home, there. Really sorry, man. And yes, I'd be honored to hear about how it all went down.

well my original response disappeared. 2/1/2003 still disturbs me and the 2 people i was working with that morning. i distinctly mentioned that earlier this yr to both of them and immediately brought back bad memories. unfortunatly my parents property in san augustine was one of many sites in east TX where debris was recovered.

[AtticaFlinch]

well my original response disappeared. 2/1/2003 still disturbs me and the 2 people i was working with that morning. i distinctly mentioned that earlier this yr to both of them and immediately brought back bad memories. unfortunatly my parents property in san augustine was one of many sites in east TX where debris was recovered.

My apologies too, mm. I hope I didn't offend you too much, and despite my dismissive words, I don't take their deaths lightly.

[AtticaFlinch]

It seems Obama reads HAIF:

Obama outlines new NASA strategy for deep space exploration

[Trae]

So, what does this mean for the JSC? It appears the Constellation jobs will be transferred over. But, Obama is giving KSC some lovin (because Florida voted for him I guess), and dismissing us. I hope we would come down here and accept the invitation that Mayor Parker gave him.

[Porchman]

The effect is unclear. Lack of clarity creates uncertainty… creates fear…creates an opportunity for Channel 13 to flog the issue for their entire 6 PM broadcast.

What I think sucks about the Obama proposal:

· It’s too long term. We’ll see about eleven Presidential terms before we see Mars. I think we are closer to the technology to get us there. However, we could be far from there, based on changing political tides.

· It negates a program in which we already have a tremendous investment. Inconsistent.

· It creates a sense of deflation at NASA, and, potentially around space exploration as a whole.

· It negates Houston’s opportunity to annex the moon and put a billboard on it.

What I like about the Obama proposal:

· Public-private partnerships. I like introducing a profit motive to this. (It’s the American way, dammit.) But seriously, it’s coupling public money with investor money.

· It increases funding for space exploration.

· It aspires to testing frontiers. That is what our space program is about. Consistent.

I don’t know how this is going to play out for Houston or NASA. I am hopeful for both. It does mean a change in business model for many. You know, sometimes that happens in the non-government funded arena, as well.