# What should NASA do?



## skeptical (Oct 22, 2009)

Currently NASA is in debate mode, considering its future efforts.  It is hampered by the imminent retirement of the space shuttles, and by limiting budgets.   They are considering a return to the moon, a trip to Mars, probes out into the solar system.   What should they do?

Here is my idea.   I think space development should not take the form of one off projects.   It should be building on itself, so that capability is constantly increasing.   I think NASA should be building a deep space vessel - a kind of mobile space station.  This will be expensive, but as a long term project, the cost will be spread over many years.

This vessel will never touch down on any gravity well.   It will remain in space, and be re-used many times.   Thus, it can be used for trips to the moon, to Mars, to asteroids and comets, or even further.   I envisage a vessel made up of four modules.  A long, cylindrical central module will contain the engines.  A second module (possibly several modules) will attach containing the fuel.  Two modules will be living quarters, opposite sides of the engine module, and out on the end of hollow pillars.   The whole vessel will rotate, so that the living quarters will be under partial gravity, to maintain the health of the crew.  Two are needed for balance.

There will also be provision for attaching a landing craft to the vessel, so that journeys can be carried out involving landing on another body.

The engines of this vessel will be ion drives, so that low acceleration is used, but ultimately very high speed is achieved.

The crew will be able to crawl down the hollow pillars holding their living quarters out to centrifugal effect, and work on the engine module area, or visit the people in the opposite living area.

The deep space vessel will be constructed in space, and all maintenance will occur in space.  It will not have to be of solid construction, since it will never experience full gravity, and it will save weight from this.  It will not have to carry as much fuel as a vessel that has to lift itself out of a gravity well.

Initial missions could be orbital only.  Around the moon.   Around Mars.   Later, when the technology is proved, the landing vessel becomes part of the voyage.

At this stage, radiation exposure is still a problem, and voyagers will have to be prepared to take the risk of higher cancer risk.

I am aware that many people think we should concentrate on robot probes.   I cannot help but think that manned vessels will be needed, since there is no robot as versatile as a human.


----------



## Sparrow (Oct 22, 2009)

Helloooooo, in case you haven't checked recently, we're 12 trillion dollars in the red.


Do you really think we ought to be spending American Tax Dollars building a spaceship we can't afford so we can travel to places we don't need to go?  And all this from the same government agency that gave us the Space Shuttle.


And btw... Cosmic Radiation is quite a bit more dangerous than a "cancer risk".  It mutates and kills brain stem cells.  With our current technology (and understanding of the problem) an Astronaut would likely go insane long before the first cancers show up.


----------



## Parson (Oct 22, 2009)

I like your idea. I think that if there is ever to be a true manned presence in the solar system (outside of near earth orbit) that kind of space ship (and that's exactly what it would be) is necessary.

Although economics is often sighted as the reason against more space travel (long range that's a debatable point), the real issues are political will, long range thinking, and delayed gratification. --- In the USA all of which seem to be sorely lacking. {sigh!}.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Oct 22, 2009)

I agree with your point about long-term vs short-term, Parson. 
Which is something lamentably lacking in most parts of society, specifically banking and leads to these "boom and bust" cycles despite the inevitable 'crackdowns' and regulations which come in long after the horse has galloped out of the stable. If it any consolation, this is far from an American disease, though it was the most spectacular example.

I find it hard to believe that however publicly contrite some of these miscreants pretend to be, that they will indeed learn the lessons and become more 'risk-adverse' as a result. I'm sure that they will be so in the short term (although whether this is _because_ of legislation or merely the result of dismissals etc is up for question) but they will soon lapse back into venal self-interest as that is the core system to make as much money in as short a time as possible to placate ever more voracious shareholders.

But this is all disgressing from the points raised by skeptical. I think some kind of orbital ship has to be on the cards at some point, although the effort required in terms of EVA are (pun intended) astronomically challenging. It also raises the issue of cooperation. Financially I don't think it's wise for any country to 'solo' space anymore, though I can see the appeal from a vanity or national prestige factor, I just think it's an ego trip which detracts more than it offers.

Your design of the ship sounds interesting, but I'm more intrigued on the how of building than the what. I think if NASA wants to focus on robotic elements of it's space program, it could do a lot worse than trying to take a leaf out of the car industry and use robots to build in space. No cumbersome spacesuits, no radiation issues and less danger of lethal accidents hopefully. A lot of EVA time is 'wasted' because the astronaut physically cannot stay outside for long periods of time due to exhaustion, oxygen supplies etc.

So if I were in charge of NASA with an ever-decreasing budget, I would probably seek cooperation with other space agencies wherever possible, use the one-shot rockets for manned space travel for the next few years at least, and try to focus on expanding the International Space Station so that it's not just a small collection of modules but somewhere which could actually support a "staff" of between 12-30 people, from scientists/engineers to possibly even a "holiday" section, which would be offered up to 'space tourists' which, lets face it, could subsidise a larger part of the horrific costs of space travel at the moment. They would have to be closely guided & supervised so that the didn't endanger other parts of the station of course.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Oct 22, 2009)

This is what NASA needs to do:

1. Balance their budget.
2. Create capital [product for profit sales. 
3. Make a real marketing plan. 
4. Venture capitalists. Did you know that XM Satellite radio got ONE BILLION DOLLARS in venture capital to launch their satellites? SERIOUSLY NASA needs to catch up.

Sorry, but our world really doesn't care about anything that doesn't generate money unless it has a direct impact on our current lives (health care, for instance).


----------



## Pyan (Oct 22, 2009)

NASA's budget for this year was about 4.5 billion dollars. Th US defence and military budget was *1144 billion*. In fact, NASA cost less than two _Virginia_-class submarines.

Priorities seem a bit skewed, somehow...


----------



## Nik (Oct 22, 2009)

Um, didn't that financier make the equivalent of a manned Mars mission vanish into his Ponsi scheme ??
---

FWIW, give Alan Bond and 'Reaction Engines' ten million to prime the pump and let Skylon fly-- Runway to orbit to runway...


----------



## Urien (Oct 22, 2009)

I think we (all space agencies) need a noble aim that benefits or will benefit humanity. "What shall we do next?" is not a good guiding principle. There is vast resource, energy and space in our solar system, our technology is inadequate to pluck those apples currently, I feel we should work towards that. I doubt that, at least in the early days, the profit motive alone will be sufficient to provide the first steps, after that it might well be. 

Hence a combined effort to cheaply, consistently and easily get payloads into space is probably step one.


----------



## skeptical (Oct 22, 2009)

I think pyan has an excellent point.   The United States spends more than ten times what Russia does on the military, and Russia is the second biggest spender.   In fact, the United States spends more than the rest of the world combined on the military.

The money that Bush committed to unnecessary and idiotic military adventures in Iraq would be enough to keep NASA going for decades.

Currently we have a whole bunch of people who are saying that the US and its allies must increase its effort (and spending) in Afghanistan.   No-one ever learns!   Afghanistan has been invaded before by both Britain and the USSA.   Both left with their tails between their legs.   To win in Afghanistan requires an investment in money, human lives, and time that is way out of proportion to any benefit achieved.

Let the USA pull out of foreign military adventures, and it will have enough money to build a dozen deep space vessels!


----------



## Dozmonic (Oct 22, 2009)

I started writing an intelligent response to the thread but then I heard the Beverly Hills Cop theme tune and got distracted...

If we waited for an opportune moment to push frontiers, we would never see them expanded and explored. As for us not needing to go into space, the only reason we need is the same reason Mallory had for climbing Everest: "because it's there".

I don't just mean this with regards to space, but we need fanatics in all sorts of fields to keep on pushing. Fanatics are what keep the world moving


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Oct 22, 2009)

When it really comes down to it, how high on the priority list IS space travel anyway? It's nothing more than an insane, insatiable curiosity to figure out whether or not intelligent life exists beyond Earth. PERHAPS it could become a bigger issue if we could attempt colonization of another astral body, but trips to Mars with the Rover and whatnot hasn't been to try to find an appropriate colonization spot. It's been trying to find signs of life, existant or extinct.

How far does the blood lust of this world go when we get sick and tired of slaughtering other human beings and hope to find a new, challenging species to attempt to wipe out and take over?


----------



## dustinzgirl (Oct 22, 2009)

Actually space travel is very important to technology and the advancement of technology.

Otherwise, don't use your cell phone, satellite tele, Internet, or any of thousands of other products made capable by space travel and people who looked to the stars and asked...what if?

Oh, and don't use saran wrap either. Or get ceramic braces (the invisible ones). If your eyeglasses are scratch resistant, throw them out.

While you are at it, if you have a memory foam pillow or bed, don't use it. Burn it now!

And ear thermometers. Count those out too. 

And don't ever, ever make a long distance call.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Oct 22, 2009)

That's all from satellites, DG, not from firing off a space shuttle and going across the galaxy. There are some uses to the basis of space, but that's just right outside our atmosphere.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Oct 22, 2009)

Manarion said:


> That's all from satellites, DG, not from firing off a space shuttle and going across the galaxy. There are some uses to the basis of space, but that's just right outside our atmosphere.



Without building rocket ships how could they have LAUNCHED satellites? Since um, satellites can't be grown or built completely in space and have to like, be launched. 

Also, a lot of the technology stems from items that were necessary for survival in space climates. There are also a plethora of chemicals that are used in every day items that most likely would not have been discovered without NASA.

Space travel is important for the furtherance of the human race. 

And because eventually our planet will be hit by a planet killing asteroid or the sun will die. 

Then where will we be? 

_(and don't say it would be a good thing if there were no humans in the universe, because that's just silly, if people really felt that they would kill themselves and those around them). _


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Oct 22, 2009)

Alright, you have me there. Yes, most of today's modern technology has come from NASA, but still, how much more do we really need anymore!?! NASA, in my opinion, has either had its best days behind her or they haven't come up yet, and while I'm leaning towards the latter, right now there's not all that much importance to it. Other matters I would put first, actually, now that concepts have been realized and are being improved upon. I'm not saying do away with NASA at all-just put deep space exploration on hold.

What I think should be concerned right now is breaking off the war in the Middle East and improving this country's economy before we try to see what size planets the Andromeda galaxy might have.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Oct 22, 2009)

Yay I won!

There are lots of things to be concerned with in the world. 

In the global market, which is what we now have, technology and knowledge are the largest capital markets thus are imperative to the economy.

NASA develops technology and knowledge.

Think of how much our technology and economy has changed due to the speed of communications technology which stems from satellites?

Without NASA we would not have a global economy. 

It is likely that NASA, if their importance to our economy and our knowledge based resources flourishes as it did in the 60's, may once again change our world.

Imagine propulsion land based travel with NO emissions at all. Or, lunar colonization and resource mining from planets like Jupiter with massive scale resources, which would increase the amount of resources on planet earth and for the human race. 

There's way more potential than just finding and eating aliens!


----------



## Wiglaf (Oct 22, 2009)

I said it before and I will say it again; find a way to launch, retrieve, and repair satellites at a lower cost.  Honestly we need power plants and avenues to increase individual human capital way more than _manned_ missions to Mars.  The flag planting deal is all about ego.  Try concentrating on tangible benefits; it may pay for the pie-in-the-sky smoke dreams.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Oct 22, 2009)

Maybe we could grow them like the TARDIS?

Honestly, I find it surprising and pretty sad that people don't think that space travel is just awesome.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Oct 22, 2009)

And there Wiglaf hit the nail on the head.  I just didn't really know how to word it is all.


It's the intangible, bragging-rights missions that don't do anything. Do we REALLY need to know right now what Neptune's atmosphere is made up of? And if we figure it out, how can we apply that to Earthling science to better our situation here at home?

NASA has done tons to better our lives, no doubt, question, or joke about that. But I feel they've also wasted valuable resources in the past as well. The first lunar landing was awesome. Exploring Mars with the rover? Cool, but I can't see how it was at all necessary at this point. Maybe if we find a way to warm up and oxygenate its atmosphere or find a way to build greenhouses on it.

It all comes down to what the intention of their missions are and what the human race can get out of them.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Oct 22, 2009)

Yes we do. What if there is an unknown gas on the atmosphere, one that could improve our own standards of living as much as many of NASA's space travel related inventions have improved our standards of living?

Are you saying that we shouldn't explore resources beyond our own planet?

Mars likely contains a crap ton of our most important resource---WATER. Imagine if we can harvest clean, pure water for the less fortunate areas of the world, or use it to clean our own water supply?


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Oct 22, 2009)

Resource exploration, yes. Bragging rights, no.

Like I said, that which can better the human race I'm all for, but if they launch off a mission simply because they wanted to prove they could....


----------



## Dozmonic (Oct 22, 2009)

Intentions won't change outcomes necessarily. It's not only what they hope to learn, find or achieve, but what they actually do learn, find or achieve that can have a massive impact on our lives and our understanding of the cosmos.

Hell I wouldn't have had to study the Mariner 9 transmission codes for maths if they hadn't sent it up there. And that'd have been a few hours less of headscratching going on


----------



## Sparrow (Oct 22, 2009)

> dustinzgirl ~There are lots of things to be concerned with in the world.
> 
> In the global market, which is what we now have, technology and knowledge are the largest capital markets thus are imperative to the economy.
> 
> ...





Myths, myths, and more myths.

I get tired of people generously giving NASA credit for all sorts of things that in fact was nothing more than good old fashion American Industry at work.  The Apollo Program did not, I repeat did not, usher in the computer age!  Nor did NASA invent Teflon, Velcro, or Tang, the handheld calculator, and more importantly, they did not invent or even contribute funding to the first microprocessor chips.  You can thank some brilliant people at Fairchild Semiconductor and Texas Instruments for that. Teflon, btw, was invented by DuPont in 1941.  That wonderful concoction called, Tang, came out a year before NASA even existed (thank you so very much to General Mills). Velcro is a Swiss invention that also came about in 1941.

Likewise, NASA has had little to do with the communications satellites we all rely on so much.  They have been, and will continue to be, something the private sector is responsible for.  NASA simply launches these satellites, at an incredible cost I might add, and that is that.

Do you want me to go into fiber-optics, the personal computer, or GPS?
Roger Easton invented GPS, not so much for NASA as the Navy... though not nearly so simple as that.  Indeed, many of the inventions NASA somehow gets credit for came out of weapons programs.  You would be amazed how industrious us Americans can be when we're finding better ways to slaughter people.  Credit the Cold War, not the love of discovery, for many of the scientific and technological advances made since WWII.

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2007/mar/05/business/chi-0703050135mar05


----------



## dustinzgirl (Oct 22, 2009)

I did not mention any of the things you stated Sparrow. Not a single one of them. 

And actually, the first satellite was a Russian government invention.

I appreciate your attention to the details I presented.

The items I stated are very specifically related to NASA.


----------



## skeptical (Oct 22, 2009)

Manarion

Your priorities are probably sensible.  However, we are talking about a reasonable time scale.   If the powers that be are smart, they will clear up the messes in Iraq and Afghanistan within the next few years.   Likewise, the current recession should be done with in a few years.

What then?
What should NASA have as its target?  Its priorities?   Bearing in mind that the time scale is decades?


----------



## Granfalloon (Oct 22, 2009)

Manarion said:


> Yes, most of today's modern technology has come from NASA, ...



I'm sorry Karn (Yes I read the lounge stuff sometimes), I know you didn't mean to say this, but I had to rescue you before someone else jumped in. Most of our technology comes from the practice of "science" and a liiiitle teeny-weeny bit comes from NASA.  

Here's the point several people are trying to make, and I said the same thing a month ago in "Human's not meant for space" thread:

_We need to get out act together as a race, a world, a planet, and start acting responsibly toward each other and the environment before we go out into space and bring our insanity with us. _ 

I'm not saying the people who post on this site are messed up, although I really can't say, can I? Someone said it: "*Priorities*" That's the watch word. 


and by the way... 





> _(and don't say it would be a good thing if there were no humans in the universe, because that's just silly, if people really felt that they would kill themselves and those around them). _


Who says they're not? 

Now on the practical side, since the threat of radiation exists in space, maybe sending up robots to figure out the shielding issue_ is_ a good idea.

SPACE.com -- Surviving Space: Risks to Humans on the Moon and Mars


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Oct 22, 2009)

Regardless of whether or not NASA ORIGINATED modern technology or not, they've certainly had some sort of hand in it, directly or not.

But yes, priorities. I'm thinking both short AND long term. If I wasn't thinking long term, I would've said "halt deep space exploration" completely. I said, "Put it on hold". There's a big difference. Government money can be better spent elsewhere AT THIS TIME, like health care, return from the Middle East, the education system, and areas like that.


----------



## skeptical (Oct 22, 2009)

To Granfalloon

About radiation in space.
Your reference was good.  I had previously read a similar, but more comprehensive account in Scientific American.

I stated earlier that a round trip to Mars would substantially increase cancer risks, and that this would not stop would-be astronauts volunteering.   I stick by this.   Even if the travellers were to be hit with their NASA maximum radiation, or more, lots of volunteers will appear.  After all, every astronaut knows they are seriously risking their life just getting into orbit.   This is just one more risk to a group of people known to be unafraid of risks.

Long term protection requires a protective layer of 2 metres of water, or 10 metres of rock or concrete.  I have always said that the first dwellings on the moon or Mars will be underground for this reason.  

There is research into generators of powerful magnetic fields to divert charged particles (cosmic rays) away from a space vehicle.   This may work, but we are still a long way from perfecting this technology.

The very long term solution is to genetically engineer people to make them highly resistant to radiation damge at the cellular level.   We know of many species that are already so protected, and their genes in a human should do the trick.   This is still, probably, a century away, though.

If we do not solve the problem with magnetic fields or GE, then extra long space voyages (say, to the moons of Jupiter) will require the living spaces to be enclosed in a 2 metre thick layer of water ice, or perhaps a high hydrogen plastic.   The extra mass would make such a voyage energetically very expensive.  However, that is a problem for 50 years hence.

What NASA does, in my opinion, should be to look at the long term.   They have done too many 'stunts' that are just one-off events.   Sending a probe to Mars, or to a comet is all very well, but where is the hardware afterwards for another voyage?    They need to look at vessels that can be used again and again.  

The deep space vessel is one idea.   What of trips to the moon?   My view is that they should look at three re-useable vessels.
1.   A shuttle type vessel for carrying a load and passengers to Earth orbit.
2.   A deep space vessel for travel between Earth orbit and moon orbit.
3.   A re-useable moon lander.   This does nothing else besides travelling from moon orbit to the ground and back to moon orbit.   The deep space vessel refuels it.

When NASA has those three vessels, and the bugs out, they can run regular trips to the moon, including setting up a permanent underground moon base.   All this will, of course, take decades.  However, it will be progress - not just a series of one-off stunts.


----------



## Sparrow (Oct 23, 2009)

> skeptical ~I stated earlier that a round trip to Mars would substantially increase cancer risks, and that this would not stop would-be astronauts volunteering. I stick by this. Even if the travellers were to be hit with their NASA maximum radiation, or more, lots of volunteers will appear. After all, every astronaut knows they are seriously risking their life just getting into orbit. This is just one more risk to a group of people known to be unafraid of risks.




Please, stop to think what the real danger is when a human body is bombarded by cosmic radiation.  It won't matter how brave an astronaut is if he or she starts to lose mental capacity during a long space voyage.  This isn't just something that bravery and daring can overcome.  Brain stem cells are highly sensitive to the radiation you encounter in outerspace, simply having the "right stuff" isn't going to cut it.

As far as bioengineering humans specifically for space travel, well, I'm with you there.  But can you imagine getting funding for such a venture from Bible Thumping Conservatives in Congress?  It won't happen in our lifetime.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Oct 23, 2009)

You know...just...

Sigh.


----------



## chrispenycate (Oct 23, 2009)

Much as I would like to see your interplanetary cruise ship in action (and could even, with a relatively small modification get the screening from 'cosmic radiation' {presumably mainly charged particles from the sun, rather than the genuine cosmic, supernovae and colliding galaxies stuff} to work) the important first step is an economic way to get mass (preferably some of it human, but that's not essential) out of the gravity well.

The craft you've described is not going to be built out of prefabricated parts lifted into orbit by shuttles, or Soyuzes. SSTO? Probably not a big enough payload. Spaceplane, space elevator, laser launcher, ferris wheel, orion drive (nimby), thermonuclear pulse jet, something new coming from some branch of physics which nobody has considered in the same brain as space travel? 

But something, anyway, and it will doubtless be expensive to develop.

But feed people the dream and they will find the means. (not "money" as such; manpower and materials. Money is a government fiction, only existing if a majority of the population believe in it, a bit like a pyramid scheme.) The bootprints on the moon are the results of a generation of faith in technology, good old American know how (as applied by good old Americans like Werner von Braun)

We know it can be done, so it's not worth doing any more?


----------



## Rodders (Oct 23, 2009)

Personally, i don't feel that NASA can carry on as a single entity. I think that they should join forces with the Russians, Europeans and maybe the Chinese space agencies. The costs involved are far too much for any one nation. They definately need to make space commercial in order to actually get out there. I'd say the colonisation of the moon has to be their first priority.


----------



## skeptical (Oct 23, 2009)

Chris

Such a craft could easily, but slowly and expensively, be built in space from materials sent up by shuttles (or hopefully, their much superior successors).  After all, that is how the ISS was built.  An interplanetary deep space vessel need not be bigger than the ISS.  The massiest part would probably be the fuel modules, when full, and they can be filled using many shuttle, or equivalent, flights.

Re mental retardation from radiation in space.   This is not as clear cut as presented.   The primary risk of mental retardation is to an unborn child if a woman gets pregnant in space.  A good preventative is the contraceptive pill!   An adult astronaut is actually at much higher risk from cancer, to the best of our knowledge.

Radiation is a blend of solar radiation and cosmic radiation.   Solar radiation is more intense, but less energetic.  Cosmic rays are made of charged particles, each with immense energy.   This makes cosmic rays probably a bigger problem.   Certainly harder to shield against.

During times of high solar activity (lots of sunspots) the sun's magnetic field extends further into space, and is pretty damn good at diverting cosmic rays away from the solar system out to beyond Mars orbit.  Of course, solar radiation is higher then.  However, on balance, it is probably better to do the Mars trip during a time of strong solar activity.


----------



## Drachir (Oct 23, 2009)

Rodders said:


> Personally, i don't feel that NASA can carry on as a single entity. I think that they should join forces with the Russians, Europeans and maybe the Chinese space agencies. The costs involved are far too much for any one nation. They definately need to make space commercial in order to actually get out there. I'd say the colonisation of the moon has to be their first priority.




Well said.  Discoveries in space will enrich all of humanity.  It only makes sense for the world to share the cost.


----------



## Dozmonic (Oct 23, 2009)

Sparrow said:


> Please, stop to think what the real danger is when a human body is bombarded by cosmic radiation.  It won't matter how brave an astronaut is if he or she starts to lose mental capacity during a long space voyage.  This isn't just something that bravery and daring can overcome.  Brain stem cells are highly sensitive to the radiation you encounter in outerspace, simply having the "right stuff" isn't going to cut it.
> 
> As far as bioengineering humans specifically for space travel, well, I'm with you there.  But can you imagine getting funding for such a venture from Bible Thumping Conservatives in Congress?  It won't happen in our lifetime.




What won't happen in our lifetime. Bioengineering or the radiation shielding needed to reach Mars?


----------



## Sparrow (Oct 23, 2009)

> skeptical ~Re mental retardation from radiation in space. This is not as clear cut as presented. The primary risk of mental retardation is to an unborn child if a woman gets pregnant in space. A good preventative is the contraceptive pill! An adult astronaut is actually at much higher risk from cancer, to the best of our knowledge.




No, it really is clear cut.
At this point in time NASA considers it a, "show-stopper".  They've labeled it "Risk 29", and they are not at all sure what to do about radiation induced brain damage.  You seem hell bent on bringing cancer into this. It is brain stem cells we're talking about and how exotic radiation, radiation we are protected from on Earth, effects those stem cells.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Mars_Mission_Risk_29_Radiation_Induced_Brain_Damage_999.html


Try this on for size... "London, Dec. 28 -- (ANI): A new study by US researchers has revealed that pilots and other staff who spend a career at high altitude may suffer genetic damage from exposure to 'cosmic radiation'."  Imagine a team of astronauts in transit to Mars, a trip lasting months, what kind of immediate damage they might suffer.  We are not talking about the remote risks of producing retarded babies.  The danger is having astronauts unable to make snap decisions and retaining ironclad judgment during a long journey in space.


So you see, it doesn't matter how big we dream right now.
The technology needed to overcome these "show-stoppers" does not even exist on the drawing board yet.  And ask yourself, if this is "Risk 29", my god, what are the other 28 risks?


----------



## Sparrow (Oct 23, 2009)

> Dozmonic ~What won't happen in our lifetime. Bioengineering or the radiation shielding needed to reach Mars?




Well, since I wrote "It won't happen in our lifetime" at the tail end of a sentence that begins, "As far as bioengineering humans specifically for space travel", I'll let you decide what I meant.


----------



## Parson (Oct 23, 2009)

I hope that manned space travel is never the most pressing thing on the world wide agenda, because if it is, we're toast! (Think plant killing asteroid, alien invasion, solar flares orders of magnitude greater than what we know,etc.) As long as humans are around we will always have immense social problems to solve. But that does not mean that we can't invest time and money into a technology that in time will no doubt be vital.


----------



## Granfalloon (Oct 23, 2009)

Parson said:


> As long as humans are around we will always have immense social problems to solve.


Actually, I'm a bit more optimistic than that. When I say we should get our act together _on Earth_ before we go _into space_, I really mean it, and I believe we can. Even though I rained on DG's parade a little (who says that human's aren't killing themselves and each other - Sorry DG, I know you probably meant it as the majority of people), I believe we can get past this rather adolescent stage we seem to be in. Most of you here believe in evolution, like I do. So think - only 12,000 years ago, we didn't have the technology to do farming. We were "hunter/gatherers". Now, in most parts of the world, slavery has been abolished. (It was _big_ around 4000 years ago: History of SLAVERY ) We have civil laws in most countries that keep people from mistreating others (on a large scale) such as courts and so on. World War III either never happened, or it is going on right now, depending on how you want to see it. When the entire sentient human population looked around and began to understand the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction, they started having "peace talks". The majority of the world's people do not want to hurt anyone, they just want some food, shelter, and security (see Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs). Once we achieve that in a general sense, we can move on, and up to bigger and better things. 

Several folks have agreed that the space exploration process would benefit greatly from cooperation between countries. I fully agree. In fact, I'd say that even 4 major countries working together could make 10 times the amount of progress.




Parson said:


> But that does not mean that we can't invest time and money into a technology that in time will no doubt be vital.



We don't want to put NASA's employees out of work, but we should be allowed to have some say in their agenda. (Thoughts?)


----------



## Nik (Oct 23, 2009)

Um, I worry when weighty Congressional committees agree with my humble opinion about 'dump Ares and go commercial'...

FWIW, NASA could revert to roots and license their tech. IIRC, a daft proportion of aircraft currently fly on wing shapes derived from NACA/NASA wind-tunnel work. Same with a bunch of other aerospace tech...

Re-invent an escape system ? NASA's got a couple to use... 
Re-invent Apollo capsule as get-you-home life-boat ? NASA's got a couple to use... 
Re-invent orbital grade AirCon ? NASA's got a couple to use...
etc etc.

I'm sure commercial investors, passengers and insurers will smile *much* nicer if you can point them to your NASA-certified survival kit...

But, as I tried to say, Alan Bond's Skylon with that astonishing 'air-breathing' Sabre engine stands to blow most of the 'expendables' off the pad circa 2020. Runway to orbit to runway. ESA is part-funding it, a cut-down sub-orbital Mach-6-ish 'passenger' version is being designed for the Antipodean Route, there's commercial aerospace interest to be ready for when the business climate thaws...

Then, there's another wild-card: Polywell fusion. Given it works, if ITER's the 'mega-turbo-generator power-station' approach, Polywell would be a Ship's Diesel. A Polywell is almost born for the interplanetary cycling cruise-ship mission. Ample power for mag-shielding and ion thrusters, ample mass to super-clad storm-shelter(s), nicely modular in Skylon-pallet lumps...

Um, why have a beyond-orbit space program at all ?? Potentially Hazardous Asteroids aka PHAs...

Look in on eg...
SpaceWeather.com -- News and information about meteor showers, solar flares, auroras, and near-Earth asteroids

Scroll down to the count of known PHAs. Less than a year ago, that list stood well short of a thousand.  Now look at how many will fly-by closer than Moon this month alone... 

IIRC, careful tracking has reduced the infamous Apothis' (sp) approach risk from percents to ppm, but there's a jungle out there...

To do more than 'duck & cover', you really need both a clear decade's warning and heavy-lift interplanetary hardware.


----------



## skeptical (Oct 23, 2009)

To Sparrow

Re radiation damaging brain tissue.
Let me make my position clear.   Radiation causes cancer.  This is proven.   Radiation causing brain damage?   Possibly.  However, it is a hypothetical risk right now.

Airline pilots getting brain damage from radiation?    Again, hypothetical.   No significant damage has yet been measured in spite of attempts to do so.  

Astronauts getting brain damage from radiation?   Also possible.  However, in spite of lots of trips into high orbit or even around the moon, that has not yet been demonstrated.

At the moment, cancer is the risk, because it is* known*.   Brain damage is known from radiation in unborn children, yes.   But has not been demonstrated in adults.   The idea that a Mars voyager may suffer brain damage is a hypothetical risk.   The idea that our Mars voyager drastically increases cancer risk is a proven reality.

If we can dream up a practical method of screening at least some of the radiation in a deep space vessel, then great!   If we cannot, there will still be heaps of volunteers.   If this sound callous, remember that taking the risk is *their* choice.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Oct 24, 2009)

Radiation sickness is not cancer.

Radiation causes this. 

Radiation sickness or radiation poisoning targets the body's organ tissue. The brain is an organ. So, radiation causes brain damage. 

Radiation also causes damage at the genetic level.


----------



## skeptical (Oct 24, 2009)

To dustinzgirl

What you say is correct, but you need to take into account the *amount* of radiation.   

Charged particle radiation, like cosmic rays, can cause all kind of problems, from almost instant death, to slow death, to cancer, to mutations, right down to no harm at all.   In fact, it is strongly possible that low level radiation may even improve your health.
Radio-Adaptive Response to Environmental Exposures at Chernobyl

A three year mission to Mars would expose astronauts to sufficient radiation to increase cancer risk markedly.   However, the amount of radiation is insufficient to cause radiation burns or death by direct radiation effects.   The idea of it causing brain damage is hypothetical.  Perhaps that idea is correct, but it is also very likely that measurable brain damage cannot be caused by such a low dose.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Oct 24, 2009)

Actually, radiation can and does cause brain damage. 

Whole brain radiation therapy is used for brain tumors, but the downfall is that it can cause brain damage. 

So........................................................................

Also, my aunt lost a lung due to radiation poisoning that targeted (due to a leak in a panel) her neck and upper body. She also had to have parts of her neck removed due to cancer. She did not have cancer in her lungs, it was tissue damage/death. 

However, not all types of radiation at all levels cause the same problems, we are hit with radiation all the time and we have no idea what all the types of radiation in the universe are or what levels of what will have what effect since they haven't explored that far. 

But I know for a fact that earth bound radiation can cause organ, tissue damage and cancer. 

The brain is an organ. It is made of tissue. Brain damage is tissue and organ damage and can and will occur due to low doses of radiation over extended periods of time. Brain damage is the term used when parts of the organ tissue of the brain die or become damaged, often due to lack of oxygen but also due to bruising, swelling, or other external circumstances that alter the normal healthy function of the organ tissue of the brain. 

I don't mean to argue or disagree with you but I do have some knowledge in this area.

A targeted ray of radiation (radiation isn't just floating around everywhere like oxygen) in outerspace that hits the head of an astronaut at one time can cause brain damage because it can cause organ and tissue damage.

It does not always have to cause cancer or tumors.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Oct 24, 2009)

What DG says is correct. Not every blast of radiation, focused or even semi-focused (Like that of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki) will cause cancer. Necrosis and damage are often what they cause. Not everyone who survived the initial blast and took an equal amount of radiation came down with cancer.

Radiation CAN cause cancer, but it doesn't necessarily. I shudder to think, though, what an OD of any kind of radiation does to the unprotected human body.....


----------



## skeptical (Oct 24, 2009)

Let me repeat my earlier statement since dustinzgirl and manarion both seem to have missed the point.

It is the *amount* of radiation that counts.

We are constantly bathed in radiation.  Called background radiation.   That is harmless.   Moderately higher levels cause an effect known as radio-hormesis.  This seems to stimulate the DNA repair mechanisms of the body, and ironically improve our health.   Hormesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Go to an even higher amount, and we get genuine damage occurring, including cancers, and mutations.   Go higher still, and we get direct trauma to tissues and organs.   These higher levels can cause brain damage, radiation burns etc.   Go to a very high level and we get death.

The big unknown here is what level of damage the *amount* of radiation on a Mars trip will cause.  We know it will increase the probability of cancers.  Will it cause brain damage and mental retardation?   That is hypothetical, since higher levels of radiation are needed to cause this compared to what is needed to cause an increase in probability of cancer.


----------



## Granfalloon (Oct 24, 2009)

Manarion said:


> I shudder to think, though, what an OD of any kind of radiation does to the unprotected human body.....



Well, it's sure as Shinola that outfit in your avatar won't help. 

Sorry, it's late... or early I'm not sure .


----------



## dustinzgirl (Oct 24, 2009)

Actually it is not only the amount of radiation that counts but the length of time of exposure. 

I would recommend you read this http://www.afrri.usuhs.mil/outreach/pdf/llrinfo.pdf

or simply google "effects of low dose radiation over long time periods"

However, that is neither here nor there.


----------



## Nik (Oct 24, 2009)

Please don't forget the mega-dose effect of a Coronal Mass Ejection or mega-flare that crosses a crew's path.

Can't find the reference, but I remember reading that a flare that erupted between Apollo missions would have mission-killed crew had it caught them in space. 

IIRC, odds were one (1) of the crew would NOT die in space if caught en-route and able to do a #13 swoop around and back. He'd probably die in hospital within days of landing, share funeral with the others.

All dead if caught on Moon or in Lunar orbit. 

All dead if en-route and wrong pair of crew got too ill to pilot burns and re-entry...

There's a lot to be said for doing manned missions during Solar Minima. Also, the solar-observation sats now provide some warning...


----------



## skeptical (Oct 24, 2009)

Lethal scale solar flares, fortunately, happen only occasionally.  A trip to Mars would carry that, and many other risks.   However, there are lots of people who are happy to accept risks in order to achieve something wonderful.

I have this feeling about NASA that they have been involved in one-off stunts without actually building anything much long term.   Sure they are improving technology.   However, apart from the ISS, what tangible things have they put in place that are lasting?

A deep space vessel should be a major asset for many decades.  Think of how much could be achieved if a manned crew could be sent to intercept comets and asteroids, and orbit Mars, Venus, and the moon.   Even without a landing vessel to touch down in gravity wells, so much could be achieved.


----------



## Sparrow (Oct 24, 2009)

What Nasa includes as serious risks to extended stays in outerspace...
http://bioastroroadmap.nasa.gov/User/risk.jsp?range=0

01	Accelerated Bone Loss and Fracture Risk
02	Impaired Fracture Healing
03	Injury to Joints and Intervertebral Structures
04	Renal Stone Formation
05	Occurrence of Serious Cardiac Dysrhythmias
06	Diminished Cardiac and Vascular Function
07	Define Acceptable Limits for Contaminants in Air and Water
08	Immune Dysfunction, Allergies and Autoimmunity
09	Interaction of Space flight Factors, Infections and Malignancy
10	Alterations in Microbes and Host Interactions
11	Reduced Muscle Mass, Strength, and Endurance
12	Increased Susceptibility to Muscle Damage
13	Impaired Sensory-Motor Capability to Perform Operational Tasks During Flight, Entry, and Landing
14	Impaired Sensory-Motor Capability to Perform Operational Tasks After Landing and Throughout Re-Adaptation
15	Motion Sickness
16	Inadequate Nutrition
17	Monitoring and Prevention
18	Major Illness and Trauma
19	Pharmacology of Space Medicine Delivery
20	Ambulatory Care
21	Rehabilitation on Mars
22	Medical Informatics, Technologies, and Support Systems
23	Medical Skill Training and Maintenance
24	Human Performance Failure Due to Poor Psychosocial Adaptation
25	Human Performance Failure Due to Neurobehavioral Problems
26	Mismatch between Crew Cognitive Capabilities and Task Demands
27	Human Performance Failure Due to Sleep Loss and Circadian Rhythm Problems
28	Carcinogenesis
29	Acute and Late CNS Risks
30	Chronic and Degenerative Tissue Risks
31	Acute Radiation Risks
32	Monitor Air Quality
33	Monitor External Environment
34	Monitor Water Quality
35	Monitor Surfaces, Food, and Soil
36	Provide Integrated Autonomous Control of Life Support Systems
37	Provide Space Suits and Portable Life Support Systems
38	Maintain Food Quantity and Quality
39	Maintain Acceptable Atmosphere
40	Maintain Thermal Balance in Habitable Areas
41	Manage Waste
42	Provide and Maintain Bioregenerative Life Support Systems
43	Provide and Recover Potable Water
44	Mismatch Between Crew Physical Capabilities and Task Demands
45	Poorly Integrated Ground, Crew, and Automation Functions



All these things have to be figured out.
And this has little to do with the hundreds of technical questions concerning the spaceship itself.  What sort of propulsion system, what will the outer shell be made of, artificial gravity?.. Etc.

Reading Science Fiction can inspire us, but it can also make us stupid and naive.


----------



## Nik (Oct 25, 2009)

39 Maintain Acceptable Atmosphere

I suppose this covers hypervelocity impacts...


----------



## skeptical (Oct 25, 2009)

Sparrow

No-one denies that space travel is hazardous in the extreme.  A trip to Mars will include all the hazards you describe, and more.   So did the trips to the moon, though the shorter time lessened many.   Lives have been lost in the space program, and many more will, no doubt, be lost in the future.   However, there will always be people willing to take those risks.   For this, we should be thankful.


----------



## Sparrow (Oct 25, 2009)

A manned Mission to Mars is beyond hazardous, it's pointless.



Again, we have 12 trillion in the hole. Is it appropriate for us to be funding a fantastically expensive Mission to Mars with so much national debt?

And do you really trust NASA, really?



> The Shuttle was originally billed as a space vehicle that would be able to launch once a week and give low launch costs through amortization. Development costs were expected to be recouped through frequent access to space.





Nasa, like the Pentagon, can not be trusted.


----------



## Dozmonic (Oct 25, 2009)

Nor can any government be trusted.

Do you think listing difficulties will somehow stop those who dream and want to push frontiers from doing so? I personally hope that NASA keep pushing for these things so that ESA, the Chinese, the Russians, they all keep pushing their space programs. It'd be a sad day when a list of difficulties to overcome stopped us achieving something, and it'll be a cold day in hell when we've solved all our problems on earth and finally decide we're "ready" to take a step towards another planet.

Nobody here is saying that everything should be put into a space program, incidentally. We're just saying that it's a worthwhile venture along with a great many other endeavours of humanity.


----------



## Sparrow (Oct 25, 2009)

So the purpose of going to Mars is the same as it was landing Americans on the Moon.  So we can prove to the world we're better than everyone else?

That seems to be what you're saying, Dozmonic.

I have no problem accepting that Space is going to be used in the next war and that we had better be able to exploit it, but as romantic adventure and exploration for the sake of exploration... no, way too expensive. 


The problem with Mars, is that there aren't any good reasons for going to a dead planet.


----------



## Dozmonic (Oct 25, 2009)

Always so pessimistic 

The intention behind going to the moon did not change the countless advancements that came as a result - both direct and indirect - of it. Going to Mars is a challenge and a necessary stepping stone for future planetary settlement. Bragging rights will only last a generation or so, and even they seem low down on the agenda. What we will be left with is the knowledge that we have done something as a species and if we've done it once, we can do it again and find the next big challenge.


----------



## Pyan (Oct 25, 2009)

Sparrow said:


> The problem with Mars, is that there aren't any good reasons for going to a dead planet.



Earth escape velocity = *11.2 kilometers per second, or about 7 miles per second.*

Mars escape velocity = *5.0 km/s. or  3.11 mps* - less than half of Earths.

There's one good reason right there - it'd be a lot easier and cheaper to launch probes and ships from Mars than from the bottom of Earth's gravity well. But it's even easier from the Moon - that's why we should be going back there.

BTW, NASA's estimation of the cost of going back to the Moon *and *on to Mars is about 120 billion dollars over the next 20 years - that's about $20 per year each from everyone in the USA...


----------



## skeptical (Oct 25, 2009)

Pyan

Have you ever seen the book called _The Three Trillion Dollar War_?
Amazon.com: The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict (9780393067019): Linda J. Bilmes, Joseph E. Stiglitz: Books

The author estimates the long term cost of Bush's adventure in Iraq will cost the USA that amount, if you include such things as veteran long term invalid benefits etc.

The cost of going to Mars palls into insignificance!

My own view is that space travel is "blue sky research' both literally and practically.   If we look at it in terms of short term gains, it cannot be justified.   However, if we look at it in terms of humanity's long term gains, the benefits will be incalculable. 

Two NASA scientists wrote an item for_ Scientific American_ about a decade back, and suggested that the first manned space vessel to get to Alpha Centauri will be in 500 to 1000 years.   I think the time scale we should be pondering is that at least, if not 10,000 years plus.

By the time the first star ship leaves, we should have colonies on the moon and Mars, and habitats in space well clear of Earth orbit (eg in the asteroids or orbiting Jupiter and Saturn).

Eventually, I would envisage a time when more humans dwell off Earth than on.   And no, this is not a way to unload our surplus population.   The population off Earth will be descended from a small number of those with adventure and drive.   The populations elsewhere will render humanity pretty much immune to total disaster.   It will mean that our descendents, in one form or other, will still be dwelling among the stars in a million years time.


----------



## Granfalloon (Oct 25, 2009)

Re:_The Three Trillion Dollar War. _You really only need to see the title, and know that it's about "Operation: Money in defense contractor's pockets; A.K.A. Waste money in the desert while giving terrorists more reasons to hate America", to know that we could be on our way to Alpha-Centauri right now if it weren't for that misguided idiot that didn't even really win the first American election in 2000. (I'm not biased or anything, I just prefer the truth). 

Tony grazes the subject slightly in his nearby thread "*New Scientist magazine" *of global warming. This is another thing we really need to get a handle on before we leave the troposphere. Does anyone else know that the ozone depletion problem is acting as a catalyst for global warming? 



> "The same CO2 radiative forcing that produces near-surface global warming is expected to cool the stratosphere.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#cite_note-ipcc2007-45 This cooling, in turn, is expected to produce a relative _increase_ in polar ozone (O3) depletion and the frequency of ozone holes."


 (Ozone depletion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) 

What they don't come right out and say is that the radiation of heat that had previously escaped into the ionosphere and warmed it up are no longer escaping at the previous rate. Therefore the region that protected us from solar radiation cools off, letting more radiation through, which in turn heats up the troposphere (the part we live in) and it becomes a runaway process. Ozone is responsible for blocking harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun, so areas that are depleted will let more of these rays through, and people living in these areas will experience an increase in skin cancer. There is also an ozone hole over Antarctica, and it is causing the ice there to melt, and there is also a lessening of cloud formation involved which exacerbates the melting. 

All of the materials needed to build colonies on the moon (except possibly water) come from earth. The Saturn V carried 385.6 tonnes of propellant. 
How many cars does that represent?


----------



## Sparrow (Oct 26, 2009)

> pyan ~BTW, NASA's estimation of the cost of going back to the Moon and on to Mars is about 120 billion dollars over the next 20 years - that's about $20 per year each from everyone in the USA...




Do you know what the proposed cost of the Space Shuttle Program was?.. and what in reality it actually cost the American Taxpayer?

NASA has become little more than a place where Pentagon Contractors go in between weapons programs.  In the time it takes you to read this post our National Debt will have grown by another quarter million dollars.


----------



## Sparrow (Oct 26, 2009)

> Granfalloon ~Re:The Three Trillion Dollar War. You really only need to see the title, and know that it's about "Operation: Money in defense contractor's pockets; A.K.A. Waste money in the desert while giving terrorists more reasons to hate America", to know that we could be on our way to Alpha-Centauri right now if it weren't for that misguided idiot that didn't even really win the first American election in 2000. (I'm not biased or anything, I just prefer the truth).




You need to change "idiot" to "idiots", plural.

Depending on how the question was asked and who was taking the poll, support for the Invasion of Iraq was 55%-65%, and briefly as high as 70%.
So most Americans were right on board with Boy Bush.  Which begs the question, not can we go to Mars, but, should we go to Mars.

Do we allow weapons contractors, the very same ones that lobby behind closed doors for these misguided adventures in Iraq and elsewhere, to also build us spaceships?  Do you guys have any idea what a F-22 "Raptor" costs the taxpayer?.. and you're okay with these very same moral rejects building a spaceship bound for Mars.  There is no good reason to go to Mars.  But damn if these defense contractors won't sell us on the idea using the same pitch they sold us on for invading Iraq.


----------



## Pyan (Oct 26, 2009)

My point is, though, that the cost of NASA is a flea-bite when you compare it with the $850+_ billion_ dollars that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are going to cost you in 2009. 

As I said, priorities...cancel two submarines, and you can afford to go to Mars.


----------



## Granfalloon (Oct 26, 2009)

Sparrow said:


> But damn if these defense contractors won't sell us on the idea using the same pitch they sold us on for invading Iraq.



Yup, there goes your money - Boeing, Boeing, Boeing, like a Ball in Aerospace, Lockheeding right out the door like a North Grumdrop following the laws of General Dynamics and a Littony of other United Technologies that Rockwell when a Theon Ray hits them. Did I leave any out? You bet. It was bad to begin with. I didn't want to make it worse.


----------



## Sparrow (Oct 26, 2009)

> pyan ~As I said, priorities...cancel two submarines, and you can afford to go to Mars.





I guess I have an entirely different notion of what our priorities should be.


It's 2009 and we're well into the 21st century; yet, approximately 50% of our electricity is produced by burning coal.  Imagine that, we burn coal and fossil fuels for most of our energy needs and still feel destined for the stars.  

At this point in human evolution I think it best that we don't leave so much as a footprint on Mars.


----------



## Dozmonic (Oct 26, 2009)

Nobody is denying we need alternative fuel sources. We still think Mars is a good idea.


----------



## Granfalloon (Oct 26, 2009)

Sparrow said:


> I guess I have an entirely different notion of what our priorities should be.
> 
> 
> It's 2009 and we're well into the 21st century; yet, approximately 50% of our electricity is produced by burning coal.  Imagine that, we burn coal and fossil fuels for most of our energy needs and still feel destined for the stars.
> ...



How about an Eagle's feather? (The Eagle has landed! Hah-hah-hah-hah,heh, cough, erm...) 

I'm with you Sparrow. Although so far, everyone has completely ignored my plea. LOOK AROUND YOU! DO WE LOOK LIKE WE'RE READY TO GO ANYWHERE?

We're not even dressed properly for the weather out there. Meanwhile, the weather down here is changing rapidly.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Oct 26, 2009)

So....what you are saying is that...

NASA needs to fine oil in Uranus?


----------



## Sparrow (Oct 26, 2009)

> Granfalloon ~I'm with you Sparrow. Although so far, everyone has completely ignored my plea. LOOK AROUND YOU! DO WE LOOK LIKE WE'RE READY TO GO ANYWHERE?
> 
> We're not even dressed properly for the weather out there. Meanwhile, the weather down here is changing rapidly.




Pretty much my point.
I'm a little bit disgusted with my generation, and the total lack of sacrifices made for the young people coming up.  The only solace is that this next generation is even worse than ours.


And yeah, I didn't want to open the _Climate Change_ can of worms.
Climate Change and Over Population, just two things we need to look into before going to Mars.

Until then we can always get one of those ViewMasters we had as kids and enjoy the only Space Exploration we can afford.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000FSJ71U/?tag=brite-21

... wow, I'm amazed they still sell those things!

They even have picture disks for vacation destinations.  I'd love to see the one for the Red Light District in Amsterdam.


----------



## Parson (Oct 26, 2009)

I look at this kind of like I looked at the question of children. "If you wait until you can afford them you will never have them." So.... "If we wait until all the problems down here are solved we're never going anywhere."


----------



## Sparrow (Oct 27, 2009)

> Parson ~I look at this kind of like I looked at the question of children. "If you wait until you can afford them you will never have them." So.... "If we wait until all the problems down here are solved we're never going anywhere."




If the "problem" of Climate Change turns out to be our swan song, well then, we really won't be going anywhere. Over Population is the biggest factor concerning carbon emissions and Climate Change, so both walk hand in hand and need to be solved together.  Before we indulge ourselves in a mostly symbolic Mission to Mars we need to get our priorities straight.

I'm beginning to feel like the guy who petitioned the French Court for more loaves of bread.  Let them eat cake, indeed.


----------



## Parson (Oct 27, 2009)

Who knows what might be discovered as we research drive systems? We might just find a way to harness fusion, that would go along way to giving us the answer to energy without green house gases.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Oct 27, 2009)

Sparrow said:


> If the "problem" of Climate Change turns out to be our swan song, well then, we really won't be going anywhere. Over Population is the biggest factor concerning carbon emissions and Climate Change, so both walk hand in hand and need to be solved together.  Before we indulge ourselves in a mostly symbolic Mission to Mars we need to get our priorities straight.
> 
> I'm beginning to feel like the guy who petitioned the French Court for more loaves of bread.  Let them eat cake, indeed.



Actually the biggest factor in climate change is capitalism.

I'll let you figure that out on your own.


----------



## Granfalloon (Oct 28, 2009)

dustinzgirl said:


> Actually the biggest factor in climate change is capitalism.
> 
> I'll let you figure that out on your own.



That doesn't require any figuring out. It's just the fuel that makes the whole runaway engine runaway faster. The oil companies and OPEC are so h*ll bent on saving every dime, they won't even invest enough in green energy to give it a fighting chance. And if anyone doubts that the oil companies and OPEC are the biggest, baddest powers on earth, then I'd say go do some research. Oil in Uranus indeed. (I suppose I deserved that. )


----------



## Ursa major (Oct 28, 2009)

That would be crude oil, I expect.


----------



## Granfalloon (Oct 28, 2009)

Parson said:


> Who knows what might be discovered as we research drive systems? We might just find a way to harness fusion, that would go along way to giving us the answer to energy without green house gases.



Really Parson. Think about it. Everyone driving around in fusion powered cars. One too many episodes of "Back to the Future" I'd say. Not in the next 100 years. That is such a volatile technology that it will take untold amounts of time and research to figure out how to control it, and that's only if we figure out how to make it work at reasonable temperatures. And by the way (reference the sub-topic Sparrow and I have been altercating) we've only got 50 years at best before the greenhouse gas/ ozone issues are past the point of no return. Permanent damage to all living things on the planet.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Oct 28, 2009)

Granfalloon said:


> we've only got 50 years at best before the greenhouse gas/ ozone issues are past the point of no return. Permanent damage to all living things on the planet.



I very much disagree with that statement.


----------



## Granfalloon (Oct 28, 2009)

> I very much disagree with that statement.


Okay, prove me wrong. (Or if you're around in 50 years we'll find out the hard way).


Global Warming - Future

Don't stop 1/2 way through the article - read all of the consequences.

Here's an estimate that's very near in the future:

World has less than 5 years to stop uncontrollable climate change


----------



## dustinzgirl (Oct 28, 2009)

Ok. I didn't want to derail the thread this much, but since you give me blogs and wikis as scientific evidence of a doomed future, I'll turn to people I actually trust:

First Comes Global Warming, Then an Evolutionary Explosion by Carl Zimmer: Yale Environment 360

There are equal arguments on both sides that are basically future speculation. Also, the earth has went through many cycles of extreme weather throughout its exist as science shows. Of course the earth is warming up. Then it will go into an ice age. Then it will go through another several thousand years of moderate weather, in which humanity flourishes, then it will heat up, then cool down, all over again. That can be proven by science. What will happen in the next fifty years can not be.

"[FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica] In the case of global scientific models, the epistemic problem is that model predictions could be simple logical implications that provide information about what is possible, but they may not give us any sense of the most likely scenario.  In short, we use global models and we either expect that they will be applicable to the situation at hand (such as global warming) or that they will not be applicable. "[/FONT][/FONT]


The end is a long time coming. These links examine different ideas from different people. Also, I'm pretty dang sure that when mount vesuvius blew up, sending half the world into darkness and most of the rest into ash fallout, as well as all the other volcanos from earlier human history that exploded in ways our recorded history can't even fathom (as it was never recorded) people also thought it was the end of the world. 

*.)* *Q:*  You say that reliable records of hurricane wind speeds go back only to about 1950, so how can you say that there were not even more intense storms before 1950? How can you assert that the upswing in the last 50 years is a consequence of global warming?  *A:*  We cannot say for sure. What we can say is that everywhere we have looked, the change in hurricane energy consumption follows very closely the change in tropical sea surface temperature. When the sea surface temperature falls, the energy consumption falls, and conversely, when it rises, so too does the energy consumption. Both theory and models of hurricane intensity predict that this should be so as well. In contrast to the hurricane record, the record of tropical ocean temperature is less prone to error and goes back 150 years or so. Moreover, geochemical methods have been developed to infer sea surface temperature from corals and from the shells left behind by micro-organisms that live near the surface; these can be used to estimate sea surface temperature for the past several thousand years. These records strongly suggest that the 0.5 degree centigrade (1 degree Fahrenheit) warming of the tropical oceans we have seen in the past 50 years is unprecedented for perhaps as long as a few thousand years. Scientists who work on these records therefore believe that the recent increase is anthropogenic. 

Structure+Strangeness: Global Warming Archives

*Ice Ages*

Our current climate regime -– a regime we’ve had for the past ~2 million years –- is characterized by long periods of ice ages and shorter warm periods. The last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago, and since then we've been in a warm period. Some argue that global warming is no concern, since the Earth will naturally switch back to an ice age.
This is very likely to be true: an ice age is almost certainly in our planet’s future. But it’s a question of when.
Our current concerns about climate change focus on the coming decades to the next century –- the time period relevant to our children's and grandchildren's experience. But the ice age/warm period cycle operates on a time scale of tens of thousands of years.
Scientists have figured out that ice ages are triggered by subtle changes in the Earth’s orbit about the Sun. The next such triggering is not expected to occur any time soon – tens of thousands of years from now. Not quite soon enough to be relevant to our children's well-being.


*I would also like to state the importance of NASA in developing the technologies necessary to discover this and other data---including the data used to prove global warming----*


----------



## Sephiroth (Oct 28, 2009)

Not to turn this into another debate on climate change, but arguments centred on Pleistocene climatic fluctuations and making the assumption that (a) we are still in that regime, and (b) no anthropogenic changes to the system have occurred, are inherently flawed.  

Having said that, I agree that no definitive statements about the timescale and severity of the effects of climate change can be made, at present.  

I did argue in another thread that, while it may not be possible to predict the future, we would benefit from consideration of evidence that is available from the _past _(going back much further than 2 million years).  I also argued against the media-fuelled hysteria and 'politically correct' rhetoric of over-zealous adherents to catastrophist theories... but I _do _feel that a measure more prudence than we currently seem disposed to would be reasonable.  


Anyway, getting back on topic (sort of), I don't believe that climate change -- real or illusory -- can be used as an argument against space exploration.  Even if we do decide to do something proactive to combat the possible threat of serious and debilitating (to our way of life) climate change in our lifetime (or that of our children/grandchildren), it is hardly an effort that must use up all available resources.  _We have resources enough to do both -- and more besides_.  As has already been pointed out, we spend far more inventing ever more sophisticated ways to blow each other up than we do trying to address either of these concerns.  

It has also been pointed out previously that we have derived numerous beneficial technologies as a result of our space programs.  _It is not the case that space exploration has been nothing but a profligate frivolity_ -- it has contributed in very real ways to modern life as we know it.  


I'm all for humans, as a species, having grandiose ambitions, and long term plans, and _something to aim for beyond mere survival_... beyond the ability to earn money and spend it on consumer goods.  

Besides any real benefits which may emerge from such ventures, we _need_ the symbolism -- we need something to believe in, and what better to believe in than ourselves?


----------



## Nik (Oct 28, 2009)

Pretty please: Long-term natural cycles due to polar precession etc are one factor. Tectonic changes due opening and closing oceans, rising and falling mountain ranges are another. 'Black Swan' events like mega-volcanoes, flood-basalt eruptions and big impacts feature, too...

However, if you fast-forward the effects of slow geophysical changes by stripping bare entire rain-forest regions, burning a million years of gas/oil/coal seams' sequestered carbon, cooking carbonates wholesale for plaster and cement etc, then there are likely to be unfortunate consequences...

My location carries the reassuring Medieval dry-foot suffix 'On The Hill', so I can afford to be sanguine about the immediate future. Up the coast, however, communities are already releasing their ancestors' hard-won land back to salt-marsh before they lose it to storms and saline incursions...

In a parallel discussion on another board, I established that the antagonists of AGW would not accept any evidence of anomalous thawing less than, IIRC, Greenland suddenly sloughing most of its ice-cap or the EastCoast clathrates setting the sea alight. Would help if half of Antarctica sloughed, too...

Can't argue with that.

IMHO, expendable rockets are like Thor Heyerdahl's recreated reed boats that fell to bits as they went. But, they went. A decade should see the first, true runway-orbit-runway aerospace craft fly, after which Near Space is wide open. Alan Bond's Skylon with its Sabre engines stands to become the DC-3 of the Second Space Age. Who knows: Polywell or its ilk may break-even by then and open the Solar System...


----------



## dustinzgirl (Oct 28, 2009)

I'm not arguing for wanton destruction of the rain forests or anything else for monetary gain at all. I believe that our earth, in her great wisdom, has given us every possible resource and that we should use and replenish and respect these resources.

I'm arguing that removing funds and forced closure of programs like NASA or any other research based non profit organization will set us back in technology and intelligence and ultimately have the exact opposite intended impact than supporting organizations that teach us to dream, to hope, to think, to innovate, and to learn. 

The organizations responsible for the destruction of the world -- the oil companies, the chemical companies, ect ect--they don't care about research for learning's sake. 

They care only about their bottom line. 

Remove the organizations that care about learning for the sake of learning and you cut out the very heart and soul of humanity.

That is my argument. 

(and, the world is not going to be beyond repair in fifty years, but that was a side argument).

(ps: If my tone sounds abrupt and rude, I'm not trying to be. Its just my nature to be specific and blunt.)


----------



## Pyan (Oct 28, 2009)

Sephiroth said:


> Besides any real benefits which may emerge from such ventures, we _need_ the symbolism -- we need something to believe in, and what better to believe in than ourselves?



_Shabash_, Seph, nicely put.


----------



## Sparrow (Oct 28, 2009)

> Sephiroth ~It has also been pointed out previously that we have derived numerous beneficial technologies as a result of our space programs. It is not the case that space exploration has been nothing but a profligate frivolity -- it has contributed in very real ways to modern life as we know it.




How so?.. and what exactly are those "numerious beneficial technologies" that  we owe to NASA?

I've heard all kinds of claims to this effect but it turns out many of these technologies came via the private sector and had little or nothing to do with NASA.  We've gotten far more momentous technologies and derivative enterprises from programs run by the Pentagon than ever we will out of NASA.


----------



## Interference (Oct 28, 2009)

Too much to read!  Brain overload.

I'll  just retreat to my normal stomping ground of "Do right by the planet and each other and we'll all live longer."

Of course, human extinction is ultimately inevitable (that of consciousness being a debate for other times and other reasons), whether we are hastening it or not is irrelevant.  Bad things going into the atmosphere won't reduce the rising numbers of asthma sufferers if allowed to continue.  Bad things going into the water won't help the little fishies very much, either.  Eco-systems will eventually balance out, the question we must ask ourselves is "Do we want to play a role in the future eco-system of Planet Earth, or shall we move on to somewhere else and start ruining it?"

That's my view and I'm sticking to it.

Now, what's the subject heading of this thread all about .... ?


----------



## Sephiroth (Oct 28, 2009)

Sparrow said:


> How so?.. and what exactly are those "numerious beneficial technologies" that  we owe to NASA?
> 
> I've heard all kinds of claims to this effect but it turns out many of these technologies came via the private sector and had little or nothing to do with NASA. We've gotten far more momentous technologies and derivative enterprises from programs run by the Pentagon than ever we will out of NASA.



Your point seems to be that, because NASA worked with private companies to develop many of these technologies, they somehow deserve no credit for them.  Are we saying that only advances made 100% 'in-house' at NASA are to be considered fruits of the space program?  I think not.  As for my own argument, I did not mention NASA, _per se_: I talked about human space programs (not only the American one), which have involved a wide range of organisations around the world, in both the public and private sectors.  

As for beneficial technologies:

The first live television broadcast via satellite was relayed from the USA to France via the Telstar satellite on July 10, 1962.  The 1964 Olympic games were broadcast from Tokyo to the US and Europe using NASA satellites.  The Communications Technology Satellite launched in 1976 paved the way for direct broadcast television.  NASA worked with companies such as Bell Telephone Laboratories and AT&T to develop satellite TV technology... but it was the space program that launched this technology.  

Black and Decker developed their first cordless drill for use by astronauts on the Apollo program.  The first smoke detector was produced by Honeywell, Inc. for the Skylab space station.  Ionising water filters were developed by WWI to sterilise astronauts' drinking water.  Home insulation developed from the heat shields used to protect Apollo spacecraft is now being used to reduce vastly the cost of heating and cooling buildings.  

Laser heart surgery to treat atherosclerosis (the biggest single cause of heart disease) owes its existence to laser technology developed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory for remote sensing of the ozone layer (something which also has benefits with regard to the issue of climate change discussed in this thread).  Charged Coupled Devices (CCDs) are used to carry out mammographies without the need for an invasive biopsy (this technology was developed for the Hubble Space Telescope).  Both CAT and MRI imaging make use of computer software originally designed to distinguish among Earth surface features in Landsat image processing.  Harshberger used the foam insulation from the space shuttle external tank to make molds for the fitting of artificial limbs, reducing the cost and difficulty of this process significantly.  Dusty already mentioned infrared ear thermometers.  LEDs used for plant experiments on the space shuttle are now being used to activate photosensitive drugs used in cancer-treatment therapy.  'Smart' forceps have been developed from NASA's 'X33' composite material which allow doctors to measure the amount of pressure being applied to an infant's head during delivery.  Small 'pill-shaped' transmitters used to measure blood pressure and temperature of astronauts aboard the ISS are now being developed to monitor foetal activity, and to monitor athletes, firefighters and soldiers.  Technology used to study space probe photographs is now being used to analyse human chromosomes and detect genetic abnormalities.  

I could go on, and on, and on, since this is merely the tip of the iceberg... but you get the idea.  All of these technologies and more had _plenty _to do with the space program -- _they would not have been developed without it_.  




As for advances made through military-industrial research -- I am sure that they are manifold (though the same can be said of them as was said about many technologies developed for NASA, that is that they 'came via the private sector').  So what is the argument, here?  That we should ignore space research and concentrate solely on how better to kill one another, because the indirect benefits of military technology filtering through to 'everyday life' make it worthwhile?

I could do without those benefits if it meant that we, as a species, were less inclined to rip each other to shreds over the slightest disagreement (or, at least, less frighteningly efficient at it...). 

And given the gross disparity in spending on national defense versus the space program, I would contend that the latter has offered far greater 'bang for one's buck' in terms of beneficial advances made -- relatively speaking.  

And, crucially, the space program is not primarily destructive.  Any secondary benefits which we gain from it come in addition to the primary benefits of scientific advancement and an increase in human understanding.  Military hardware gives us death and destruction.  The space program gives us knowledge, and a whole new perspective on our place in the universe.  

I know which I prefer.


----------



## Nik (Oct 28, 2009)

*OT: One lump or two ?*

Getting OT, but here's a topical reason to have a deep-space program...

SpaceWeather.com -- News and information about meteor showers, solar flares, auroras, and near-Earth asteroids
Asteroid Impactor Reported over Indonesia

In short, approx ten (10) metre diameter, *not* previously tracked, air-burst equivalent to ~50 kt tac-nuke.

(Indonesians have not been so lucky recently, but they dodged this bullet...)

Expect a couple of such lumps each decade...
===

FWIW, given this known time/space datum, research may yet back-track it to a 'missing' lump tracked too briefly to establish a definite orbit...


----------



## Parson (Oct 28, 2009)

Ursa major said:


> That would be crude oil, I expect.



LOL! FOF! That might have been the worst pun ever -- (of course with puns the badder the better -- the better the batter?)


----------



## Granfalloon (Oct 29, 2009)

Ursa major said:


> That would be crude oil, I expect.



No, just rude oil. 

I give up. You guys go ahead and ruin the planet as much as you want. I'm going to have a financially secure future, and make sure my children don't suffer because of the excesses of modernistic "me, me, me" thinking. (i.e. "I can do whatever I want, and believe whatever I want regardless of how much damage it causes to the rest of the human race. I guess it's just too difficult to care about everyone else, particularly when I don't care much for myself to begin with.") The really sad part is, it's the people in "developing" counties that will suffer fom the climate change the most; caused by the materialistic industrial societies. That's where the rivers will dry up, and the farmlands will perish. Meanwhile you can watch the millions dying  on your big screen TV's and say "what a shame. Well at least I've still got my gas guzzling 4 ton chevy suburban to get me around, if Im still above sea level where I live. 

signed, 

-The capitalistic majority.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Oct 29, 2009)

LOL

I keep trying to say something, but I can't say it without being offensive myself, so I'm just going to let it slide away.

Oh, and anyone using a computer to shout about the environment is also selfish. Computers ruin the environment, too.


----------



## Ursa major (Oct 29, 2009)

Granfalloon said:


> No, just rude oil.
> 
> I give up. You guys go ahead and ruin the planet as much as you want.


 
While it would be naive to believe that the posting of puns in serious threads should be entirely cost free, I'm not sure the price should be to be identified as the poster boy of the despoilation of the planet, particularly as I have expressed no opinion on the matter - one way or the other - in this thread**.




** - Possibly because the thread was meant to be addressing a different topic entirely.


----------



## Sparrow (Oct 29, 2009)

But you may ask what does Buzz Aldrin have to say on the subject of NASA and space exploration...


> Just in case you were wondering about what NASA is supposed to be doing, you’re not alone. On Monday, Buzz Aldrin, Feng Hsu and Ken Cox submitted a scathing draft letter proposing a radical change to ex-President Bush’s 2004 Vision for Space Exploration, stating that “post-Apollo NASA” has become a “visionless jobs-providing enterprise that achieves little or nothing,” in the field of re-usable, affordable or safe space transportation. The authors also call into question that logic of returning to the lunar surface. -February 26th, 2009



One Giant Leap… into Obscurity.


----------



## Sephiroth (Oct 29, 2009)

Granfalloon said:


> I give up. You guys go ahead and ruin the planet as much as you want. I'm going to have a financially secure future, and make sure my children don't suffer because of the excesses of modernistic "me, me, me" thinking. (i.e. "I can do whatever I want, and believe whatever I want regardless of how much damage it causes to the rest of the human race. I guess it's just too difficult to care about everyone else, particularly when I don't care much for myself to begin with.") The really sad part is, it's the people in "developing" counties that will suffer fom the climate change the most; caused by the materialistic industrial societies. That's where the rivers will dry up, and the farmlands will perish. Meanwhile you can watch the millions dying on your big screen TV's and say "what a shame. Well at least I've still got my gas guzzling 4 ton chevy suburban to get me around, if Im still above sea level where I live.
> 
> signed,
> 
> -The capitalistic majority.



I can't see that anyone said anything to elicit that tone of response.  

I don't see any way in which you can equate support for the space program with climate disaster. It's a specious argument. The carbon footprint of the space program does not make it one of the major contributors to anthropogenic emissions. The only truly significant portion of CO2 emissions from the space program comes from the process of hydrogen liquefaction -- even this pales into insignificance when compared with annual emissions from any of the sources listed below. 

And on the contrary, it contributes technologies which enable us to monitor and better understand our global systems (including weather/climate). Also, renewable energies such as solar power and hydrogen fuel cells were developed initially for the space program. 

If you're looking for a villain, then you may find it in the energy industry, the airline industry, the automotive industry, the manufacturing industry; or, indeed, the food production industry. You may also, as Dusty has pointed out, find it in the IT industry -- the carbon footprint of the global mass of web servers and their cooling systems is expected to overtake that of aircraft emissions in the near future. 

You may well find it in our appetite for conspicuous consumption. I have already argued that I believe not enough is being done to alleviate the threat posed by climate change. I don't think the space program is a valid target for climate change activism, however. There are far bigger fish to fry, so to speak. 

Or, in your own words: "Priorities, that's the watchword."

...unless your argument is that we should immediately stop anything and everything that is contributing in any small way to increasing carbon levels in our atmosphere? In which case, we're in for an even rougher time than we would be if the worst climate scenario came to pass.




Sparrow said:


> But you may ask what does Buzz Aldrin have to say on the subject of NASA and space exploration...
> 
> 
> One Giant Leap… into Obscurity.



That's all well and good, but I imagine Mr. Aldrin's point is that we put the vision back into the program, rather than merely canning it wholesale.


----------



## Granfalloon (Oct 29, 2009)

dustinzgirl said:


> Oh, and anyone using a computer to shout about the environment is also selfish. Computers ruin the environment, too.



Yeah, I can't tell you how many times I've yelled at my kids: "Stop playing those computer games! You're ruining the environment! See all of that CO2 exhaust coming out the back of the computer? That's causing greenhouse gases to increase in the atmosphere. And because the current power company infrastructure uses more than 90% coal to give us electric power, the Gases produced by that are Gi-Normous. 

Typical power "ratings" for PC's anywhere from 75 watts (laptop) to 200 watts (PC tower + monitor) (2 light bulbs worth). Whereas your Blow Dryer consumes from 1000 - 1500 Watts for as long as it's on. And Air conditioners? One room - 1000 Watts, Central: 17585 watts (5 ton unit). 

You need about 980 Newtons of force to directly lift 100 kg.

In late afternoon on December 18, 1992, a three- stage Delta II lifted a 4,150-pound NAVSTAR II global positioning system (GPS) satellite into orbit, the 17th entry of an eventual 24-satellite constellation that will enable ground-, air- or sea-based users to accurately determine their true location within 50 feet, as well as the precise time within a millionth of a second under all weather conditions. The primary engine for the three-stage Delta II launch vehicle was Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne's RS-27A engine, which has a sea-level thrust of 201,000 pounds, and was augmented by nine solid rocket motors that are strapped to the exterior of the vehicle.

201,000 pounds = 91,000 Kg. Let's say you have 100 newtons of force (that's about 20 pounds of force) acting on an object to move it 20 meters. If you do this in 10 seconds then your power output was 200 watts. If you did it in 5 seconds then your power was 400 watts. 

201,000 pounds = 10500000 newtons acting on 4,150 lbs (1882 kg)

power = (joules/seconds = watts)
1 newton = 1 Joule/Meter

So how many watts were used to lift (one of the smallest payloads of any of NASA's rockets)? GPS satellites orbit much lower than communication satellites, so they only need to get up to about 4000 km. 

10500000 newtons/4000000 m= 2.62 joules to go 1 meter. How many seconds did it take to get up there? about 10 minutes = 6000 seconds 

power = (joules/seconds = watts) (4000000m*2.62j)*6000 seconds =

63 billion watts. 

The kilowatt hour is a unit of energy equal to 3,600,000 joules

The average U.S. household used 920 kWh a month in 2006. (Dept. of Energy) The U.S. as a whole used 3,883 billion kWh in 2003, or 13,868 kwH per person based on a population of 280 million. 

3883/63 = 61 rockets! Wow! we could send 61 rockets into space with the energy that 280 million people use in one year! 


If you weigh 150 pounds and you want to launch yourself into space, you'll need 150 pounds of thrust under your feet (or spewed forth from a jet pack) just to weigh nothing. To actually launch yourself, anything more than 150 pounds of thrust will do, depending on your tolerance for acceleration. But wait. You'll need even more thrust than that to account for the weight of the unburned fuel you're carrying. Add more thrust than that, and you'll accelerate skyward. 

Now, speaking chemically, do conventional rockets create greenhouse gases? 

Combustion & Exhaust Velocity

Consider the reaction of methane with oxygen

CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2 H2O

This equation states that one mole of methane reacts with two moles of oxygen to form one mole of carbon dioxide and two moles of water. This also means that 16 g of methane react with 64 g of oxygen to form 44 g of carbon dioxide and 36 g of water. All the initial substances that undergo the combustion process are called the reactants, and the substances that result from the combustion process are called the products.

CO2 is the worst of all of the greenhouse gasses (in terms of quantity). Would you like me to calculate how much CO2 is produced when a rocket takes off?


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Oct 29, 2009)

Granfalloon said:


> Would you like me to calculate how much CO2 is produced when a rocket takes off?


 
Please do, so I can shamefully plagiarise


----------



## dustinzgirl (Oct 29, 2009)

Granfalloon, you realize that your computer is made up of tiny parts called semiconductors. The manufacturing of semiconductors uses an immense amount of energy and releases many chemicals into the environment, including those that frequently poison workers in the facilities and frequently causes cancer.

So no, I think that your stance is absolutely ridiculous given scientific facts about what I know, specifically at this moment and without supposition or conjecture, about your impact on the environment and your contribution to some poor person's cancerous tumors. I suggest that you do some reading and research here to begin with. Would you like me to calculate how many people likely got cancer for you to type complaints and assumptions about our environmental use? And I wasn't talking about rockets, I was talking directly about your assumptive comments towards the members who have typed in this specific thread. 

You know nothing about mine or anyone else's in this thread other than we use computers and yet you make absolute statements that are well, rather rude. Nobody has spoken rudely to you at all. You know absolutely nothing about what me and mine do for the environment, nor did you bother to ask. 

What irritates me more than individual use of blogs and wiki's to prove a scientific statement is the use of assumptions and illogical, emotional conclusions.


----------



## Sephiroth (Oct 29, 2009)

Granfalloon said:


> Would you like me to calculate how much CO2 is produced when a rocket takes off?



By all means... and while you're at it, let us know what percentage that is of the ~9,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide emitted annually through burning fossil fuels alone (logging and timber burning contributes some ~2 billion tons on top of that).

Btw, the energy a system uses in watts need not equate in any way to its production of CO2.  Let's keep this simple, and deal in the amounts of carbon being emitted, rather than confusing the issue with irrelevant figures.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Oct 29, 2009)

Ion propulsion completely negates Gran's argument.

Ion propulsion may very well be in our trains and airplanes eventually.

NASA has done a massive amount of research on ion propulsion systems since the 1960's at the Glenn whatever research center.


----------



## Granfalloon (Oct 29, 2009)

dustinzgirl said:


> Granfalloon, you realize that your computer is made up of tiny parts called semiconductors. The manufacturing of semiconductors uses an immense amount of energy and releases many chemicals into the environment, including those that frequently poison workers in the facilities and frequently causes cancer.
> 
> So no, I think that your stance is absolutely ridiculous given scientific facts about what I know, here



LOL - You are talking to a computer engineer. I know more about all of this material than you could possibly know, especially since you are saying things like "you realize that your computer is made up of tiny parts called semiconductors." I know exactly what goes on inside a computer, and the amount of waste material produced by a computer chip factory is about 1000 times less than the amount of power used to run that factory. So the real culprit is the power company, and I must bow out now. I have never said anything rude to anyone. I have made a little fun here and there which is nothing compared to the ignorance I am enduring on a _Science Fiction_ website. I would have thought that the members of this site would be just a bit more intelligent. Yes, it's true that some new technologies are_ being developed _which will reduce the Global warming effect, but I am talking about what is happening _right now_. 



> Ion propulsion may very well be in our trains and airplanes eventually.



The key word there being "eventually". DG - You are using the computer as much as I am, so how can you come down on me for that? 

I'll be back later to tell you all about the current chemical composition of rocket fuels, and the by-products they are spewing. C-Ya.


----------



## Granfalloon (Oct 29, 2009)

Sephiroth said:


> Btw, the energy a system uses in watts need not equate in any way to its production of CO2.  Let's keep this simple, and deal in the amounts of carbon being emitted, rather than confusing the issue with irrelevant figures.



Seph, How much heat is involved in launching a rocket contributes to Global Warming. Is that simple enough for you? (I'm really not trying to upset anyone, I'm just stating facts. You guys are the ones who seem to be getting upset. (Why???)


----------



## chrispenycate (Oct 29, 2009)

Ion propulsion is really only practical in a vacuum. Not that it's impossible in atmosphere,  but it's definitely not easy. Besides, it is optimal (read "only usable at the present state of the art") for low acceleration, long periods of drive; definitely not good for planetary take offs. 

The Saturn series of rockets used liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen propellant; zero carbon dioxide production, (Lots of odd nitrous oxides and things produced by burning air, and I haven't considered how much carbon dioxide was generated while liquifying the gasses; I wouldn't try and claim that a launch was an environmentally neutral.) and while I don't know the constituents of the solid fuel boosters, I suspect other nasty compounds are more of a risk than oxides of carbon.

There are a couple of techniques that involve negligible chemical pollution, but all require large quantities of concentrated energy, which is normal as we need to get a largish quantity of mass up to escape velocity. There are others (such as Orion) that have a near-zero carbon footprint, but are ecologically catastrophic anyway.

It all comes down to how much we want it. Don't believe that money not spent on space exploration will automatically become available for socially positive projects; in all probability that money will never exist at all. Or will be used for a war somewhere. Debt accumulated within a society by payments made to members of that society for materials produced there is almost entirely recycled; it's when it goes outside that a balance has to be found.

A community needs a big project to stop it going stagnant, and exploration is a good one. So is fundamental research, de-desertification, purification of watercourses, slum clearance… But we've got enough excess population that we don't have to stop at one.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Oct 29, 2009)

Granfalloon said:


> No, just rude oil.
> 
> I give up. .............. Meanwhile you can watch the millions dying  on your big screen TV's and say "what a shame. Well at least I've still got my gas guzzling 4 ton chevy suburban to get me around, if Im still above sea level where I live.





Granfalloon said:


> So the real culprit is the power company, and I must bow out now.
> 
> The key word there being "eventually". DG - You are using the computer as much as I am, so how can you come down on me for that?
> 
> I'll be back later to tell you all about the current chemical composition of rocket fuels, and the by-products they are spewing. C-Ya.



So then the real culprit is not the people using the SUV's but the people making them, right? 

I come down on you for that because your tone and attitude towards those of us who disagreed with you took our comments way out of context and accused us of destroying the environment, while using a medium that wastes energy, causes cancer in its workers, and releases chemicals into the environment. 

Your argument seems to be that because NASA does it, it is all right for everyone else to do it, but only NASA should be shut down? I find that confusing.

I am also talking about what is happening right now. Right now, semiconductors and computer usage is a major contributor to energy waste and chemicals in the environment as well as many health problems. All billions of computers in the world combined, I guarantee that it is mathematically more impact on the environment than one rocket being shot off per year.

Also, considering the amount of computing that utilizes satellite technology and that satellites would not be up there without a rocket to send them off, you can add all that impact  to the total impact of computers on the environment.

This is happening...

RIGHT NOW.

There are NO rockets being shot into space RIGHT NOW. 

And yes, I am using a computer, I am also not making the same argument you are. My argument is that if you were that worried about the environment, YOU wouldn't be using a computer. 

I am not that worried about the environment.


PS: Chrispy------- you are correct. However, there is research occurring for atmospheric conditions.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Oct 29, 2009)

And here I thought by now all possibilities for this thread had been exhausted.


I really have to come down on DG's side with your comments, Graf. They just sound far too antagonistic. And she really is right about the whole matter, it's not just manufacturers that are pumping all this heat and wasted energy into the planet.


Regardless, what's really killing the environment is expansion. The Earth can recycle through pollutants and whatnot-after all, plants breathe in CO2 and breathe out O2-and Earth is as adaptable as humans are.


What the planet can NOT adapt to and recycle through is constant repair of concrete and asphalt covering her surface. If all maintenence halted, then slowly nature would gather her forces back.

In short, really.....IS the environment in so much danger? It'll recover after the human race is gone.


----------



## Sephiroth (Oct 29, 2009)

Granfalloon said:


> Seph, How much heat is involved in launching a rocket contributes to Global Warming. _Is that simple enough for you?_ (I'm really not trying to upset anyone, I'm just stating facts. You guys are the ones who seem to be getting upset. (Why???)



I'm upset?  I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion...  I always 'sound' like this.  All I have done is put forward my arguments in my normal manner.  

If you say you're not trying to upset anyone, then I take your statement at face value.  I would recommend that you have a think about how you phrase things, though.  If I _were _the type to get upset over a discussion with someone I didn't know over the internet, then comments like the one I've underlined might just have done it.  

I don't want to get involved in recriminations.  I'm not here to argue with you, and certainly not in a personal vein (we don't do that, here).  I'm here to debate the issue, nothing more.  What I _will _say is that when you made your post saying, among other things, that  we could 'go ahead and ruin the planet as much as we want', you weren't stating facts.  In my opinion, the tone of your post was unnecessarily combative, accusatory, and made unfair (and inaccurate) assumptions about the rest of us.

I appreciate that this issue is evidently one in which you have invested a great deal of emotion, and I do not believe that you set out deliberately to offend anyone.  But you asked 'Why?' -- well, if anyone _was _upset, that's probably why.


Anyway... can we leave aside the personal stuff, from now on?  We're capable of disagreeing over points of debate without the ad hominem arguments and barbed comments, right?



Which brings me to your assertion that _heat from rocket launches contributes to global warming_.  Can you give me some scientific evidence to back up this claim?  Because as far as I am aware, it's the increased effect of higher concentrations of 'greenhouse' gasses blocking (absorbing and re-emitting) more of the infrared radiation emitted from the Earth's surface that is suspected to be the primary mechanism behind global warming.  Other theories, such as increased solar flux, have been posited, although these remain conjectural. 

Nowhere have I seen it suggested that heat from rocket engines (infrared heat, I presume... or is this heat conducted directly into the atmosphere?) plays any kind of significant role in global warming.

(Which is why I asked that we stick to levels of greenhouse gas emissions in our figures.)

As a follower of the scientific method, however, if you present me with irrefutable evidence that this process plays a statistically significant role, I will accept it.


----------



## jojajihisc (Oct 29, 2009)

pyan said:


> NASA's budget for this year was about 4.5 billion dollars. Th US defence and military budget was *1144 billion*. In fact, NASA cost less than two _Virginia_-class submarines.
> 
> Priorities seem a bit skewed, somehow...


 
Shoot...there's the answer right there. NASA lobby D.O.D. to annex them. Think about it, NASA gets access to that vastly larger cash cow and D.O.D. can start working on the technology from *Ender's Game, The Forever War* and *Old Man's War*.


----------



## Sparrow (Oct 29, 2009)

> Sephiroth ~That's all well and good, but I imagine Mr. Aldrin's point is that we put the vision back into the program, rather than merely canning it wholesale.




Well, yes, I would think that goes without saying.
We wouldn't be having this debate if NASA had showed something resembling _vision_ over the past three decades.  But they haven't.

What NASA _has_ done is spend billions on mostly "fun stuff" instead of building the platforms we need to execute missions to Mars and beyond.
Granfalloon and myself and others are not ga-ga about this stuff, nor do we think writing NASA more blank checks for pointless projects that do little more than keep defense contractors in business, is a good idea.

Climate Change is the here and now.  A manned Mission to Mars is more of the "fun stuff" we cannot afford.  Science and Technology, and American intellectual energy should be focused on Climate Change and alternate (and cleaner forms) of energy.  The infrastructure in this country that perpetuates oil and coal burning needs to be replaced.  There isn't even sound estimates on what this will cost, but it will cost plenty.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Oct 29, 2009)

Wow. Nasa has done quite a bit of visionary stuff, and many things which you use every day are due to the influence and research of NASA. 

I really don't understand why everyone is completely against research and innovation related to the exploration of space. How can anyone be against learning and development of our humanity by reaching beyond our natural physical borders of earth?

NASA's research and contributions are all listed on their sites. For example, weather satellites, our carbon and ecosystems--in fact, much of the statements you've made regarding the environment are from research conducted with or by NASA. 

NASA Science


----------



## Sephiroth (Oct 29, 2009)

Sparrow said:


> Well, yes, I would think that goes without saying.



Forgive me for stating the obvious, then.  



> We wouldn't be having this debate if NASA had showed something resembling _vision_ over the past three decades.  But they haven't.
> 
> What NASA _has_ done is spend billions on mostly "fun stuff" instead of building the platforms we need to execute missions to Mars and beyond.
> Granfalloon and myself and others are not ga-ga about this stuff, nor do we think writing NASA more blank checks for pointless projects that do little more than keep defense contractors in business, is a good idea.


I see your point.  I'm not sure it's fair to suggest that all NASA has been doing is 'fun stuff', but I get what you're saying about a perceived lack of vision (on the grandest scale, at least).  I agree with you there, to some extent --  I think that the failure to capitalise on the immense progress made between the '50s and '70s was a great opportunity missed.  No doubt budgetary constraints and the waning of popular excitement with 'outer space' played a part in this, but I think it's fair to say that those running the program could have benefited from having grander visions of what they could achieve.  

At the same time, many of the things that NASA has done over the past three decades - in conjunction with other space agencies around the world, I might add -- has been _enormously _useful from a scientific point of view.  Numerous probes, space telescopes and observation satellites have been launched which have given us valuable new insights regarding our own planet, others in the solar system, the Sun, etc... and have _hugely_ expanded our horizons in the universe at large, enabling us to see further -- and deeper into the past -- than ever before (and in fascinating detail).  The information garnered from these missions has been crucial to the continuing development of human understanding of our environment, both local and universal, and collectively, we would be much poorer without it.  

The manned space program may have ground to a halt, near as damn it, but the unmanned stuff has yielded _swathes _of important data.  I don't agree that this is just 'fun stuff', and I don't think it amounts to 'pointless contracts to keep defense contractors in business', either.  You may disagree (I gather that you do), but I think these advances have been incredibly important.  They may not be as impressive as sending men to Mars, but in my opinion they are _far _more practical.  

And the fact remains that a great deal of very useful technologies -- including some that may prove vital in combatting climate change (I mentioned solar power, hydrogen fuel cells, vastly improved building insulation, climate monitoring satellites, etc) -- have emerged as a result of the space program.  



> Climate Change is the here and now.  [A manned Mission to Mars is more of the "fun stuff" we cannot afford.]  Science and Technology, and American intellectual energy should be focused on Climate Change and alternate (and cleaner forms) of energy.  The infrastructure in this country that perpetuates oil and coal burning needs to be replaced.  There isn't even sound estimates on what this will cost, but it will cost plenty.


With the exception of the bit I square bracketed, I fully agree with this.  I couldn't agree more.  I just don't feel that we have to can the space program to achieve it.  In fact, I don't even feel that we'd be well served in doing so -- I feel it would be a setback.  

IMO, the space program will continue to play a vital role in our efforts to understand and (hopefully) alleviate the impending changes in our global climate.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Oct 29, 2009)

You know, if you are going to use a scientific fact to make a point---say, ozone depletion---then say that the people who had a large hand in that discovery have done nothing contributory, then I really just have to dismiss your argument.

NASA Fact Sheets

There is quite a bit more, in fact I could go on and on about how NASA has directly contributed to the earth's environment in a positive manner. 

NASA - Environmental Management Projects and Activities

Please, do some research, at least minimal, before stating incorrect facts.


----------



## Granfalloon (Oct 30, 2009)

Sepiroth, You came in late. My original point was this and it has been all along (and seems to have been lost) is that Science must act responsibly or not act at all.

The same goes for the whole lot of us, myself included. I'm not joking around and I'm not intending to step on toes, but I am definitely p***ed off. I don't know how else to get peoples' attention. I have children, and I'm sure many of you have, or have grandchildren who are going to suffer the consequences of our apparent apathy. Write your leaders. Better Yet, Write to Obama and tell him to get the Kyoto Protocol signed into law for the US. Kyoto Protocol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Among the few have not are the US, and sometimes Canada. 

Chris - If you'd like to see the reasons why we don't use liquid oxygen and hydrogen anymore, look here (go down to section on "Disadvantages of liquid rockets." 
Liquid-fuel rocket - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm done.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Oct 30, 2009)

That doesn't even matter, you know, Gran. The planet is coming out of an ice age, and global warming could not be stopped by anything short of shoving our planet away from the sun. Greenhouse gases only speed the process, but no matter how much we "reduce" them, it'll be miniscule and insignificant unless we do away with them completely, and that is something the world will never do.


----------



## Sparrow (Oct 30, 2009)

> dustinzgirl ~NASA's research and contributions are all listed on their sites. For example, weather satellites, our carbon and ecosystems--in fact, much of the statements you've made regarding the environment are from research conducted with or by NASA.
> 
> NASA Science




uhhhh, well, you can color me shocked, you go to a NASA website to find out that NASA is doing all sorts of wonderful things that benefit our day to day lives.  Do you suppose there might be a little conflict of interest, maybe? 

What's next... visiting the Exxon Mobile website to help form an opinion on Global Warming.

But on a _(slightly)_ more serious note... I think some of you are confusing the delivery vehicle with the payload.  The payload is what matters and by and large it's private corporations, _and often then it's on behalf of a Pentagon project_, that have driven satellite technology, not NASA.  What NASA did do in the early 90's was pioneer Advanced Communications Technology Satellites (ACTS)... that was at least forward thinking and led to other more dynamic technologies.  And of course several engineers at these private corps were once NASA engineers.


----------



## Sparrow (Oct 30, 2009)

> Sephiroth ~I see your point. I'm not sure it's fair to suggest that all NASA has been doing is 'fun stuff', but I get what you're saying about a perceived lack of vision (on the grandest scale, at least). I agree with you there, to some extent -- I think that the failure to capitalise on the immense progress made between the '50s and '70s was a great opportunity missed. No doubt budgetary constraints and the waning of popular excitement with 'outer space' played a part in this, but I think it's fair to say that those running the program could have benefited from having grander visions of what they could achieve.



I'm in total agreement with your comment on missed opportunities.
They focused on the Moon far too long and didn't realize until it was far too late that much of the wizbang technology that got us their would need to be scapped.  I doubt very much if even now they've got a reasonable plan for getting us to Mars and back.

I think perhaps the single greatest failure was the Space Shuttle.
So much of what NASA had planned to do in the near and distant future hinged on a Space Shuttle that met mission criteria, safe-affordable-practical.
As Dr. Feynman concluded with respect to the Challenger, ''for a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.''


----------



## dustinzgirl (Oct 30, 2009)

So NASA is lying, and so is say, the Nobel Prize panel? The American Astronomical Society, and Harvard, and the Smithsonian?

They are all in cahoots, because NASA has done absolutely nothing in the last thirty years.

I can spend all day and night quoting and posting external research, but I'm not going to. I realize that you are resigned to your position, irregardless of my belief that it is extremely lacking in evidence and facts.

I do not see your point, Sparrow, and am in strong personal and rather vehement disagreement with your statements as I do not feel they are supported by any factual evidence from any reliable resource.


Here are some other tidbits of information.

40 years after moon landing, public unaware of NASA's tech contributions - Nextgov



> On July 20, NASA will celebrate the 40th anniversary of the first moon landing, but space enthusiasts and lawmakers are concerned that the public is unaware of the space agency's work and how its technological developments have improved everyday life.
> Many Americans think NASA's major contributions to technology include primarily the Apollo program and maybe GPS navigation, but agencies also have benefited from NASA-based information technology systems.
> Agencies such as the Agriculture and Health and Human Services departments and the Environmental Protection Agency have benefited from several NASA IT investments. The space agency's California-based Ames Research Center and Maryland-based Goddard Space Flight Center provide other agencies with access to some of the most powerful supercomputers in the world.
> Goddard's high-performance computing resources contribute to research on the Earth's climate, which could aid Agriculture with crop research, help EPA monitor global warming and assist the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration with weather forecasts, said Eric Wieman, general manager for Perot Systems government services' civilian IT division in Fairfax, Va.
> ...


----------



## Sephiroth (Oct 30, 2009)

Granfalloon said:


> Sepiroth, You came in late. My original point was this and it has been all along (and seems to have been lost) is that Science must act responsibly or not act at all.
> 
> The same goes for the whole lot of us, myself included. I'm not joking around and I'm not intending to step on toes, but I am definitely p***ed off. I don't know how else to get peoples' attention. I have children, and I'm sure many of you have, or have grandchildren who are going to suffer the consequences of our apparent apathy. Write your leaders. Better Yet, Write to Obama and tell him to get the Kyoto Protocol signed into law for the US. Kyoto Protocol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Among the few have not are the US, and sometimes Canada.



I came in late, but I did read the thread.  Anyway, I agree that science ought to be used responsibly, I just don't agree that the space program is an irresponsible use of science.  Far from it.  I think I've made it fairly clear in my previous posts what my opinion is, so I shan't reiterate it.  

As for being p***ed off -- I can empathise.  I could make a list as long as the human genome of things about humanity, society and Western civilisation that **** me off.  I'm well aware of the level of apathy for just about anything meaningful in the population at large.  When I said that we need something to believe in, I meant it.  The nihilism of our current era does not sit will with me.  I don't mind individuals choosing not to believe in anything -- but when the entire character of our civilisation seems to be defined by sheer vacuity, and even those in positions of power and/or influence seem content to encourage the status quo idea that progress is defined merely by increasing the wealth of an abstract entity (the economy 'personified'), and hoping that some of this wealth filters down to places and people that need it, then you'd better believe I'm as hacked off as you are.  I just express myself differently.  

Even where people hold views that I find reprehensible, I have never found that taking the aggressive, accusative approach has worked for me.  IMO, that only gets their attention in a destructive way -- it only leads to them biting back at me, and not listening to what I have to say.  

That's not to say that I haven't ever lost the plot.  But I try not to.  ^_^

And again, I agree that there is a need to take stronger measures to counter the threat posed by climate change.  This has been consistent in my position all along.



Sparrow said:


> I'm in total agreement with your comment on missed opportunities.
> They focused on the Moon far too long and didn't realize until it was far too late that much of the wizbang technology that got us their would need to be scapped.  I doubt very much if even now they've got a reasonable plan for getting us to Mars and back.
> 
> I think perhaps the single greatest failure was the Space Shuttle.
> ...



Well, we have found agreement on one issue, at least.  But everything else I have said still stands.  I still think it's disingenuous to characterise NASA (and the wider space program) as some kind of glorified delivery system for unrelated private enterprise schemes and military-industrial projects.  

The science is real.  

I like that you quoted Feynman.  He's one of my favourite scientists -- a brilliant man, and someone who, I'm certain, would have taken issue with your reluctance to credit the space program with the things that it _has_ achieved.  

_"Our imagination is stretched to the utmost, not, as in fiction, to imagine things which are not really there, but just to comprehend those things which are there."_ [~The Character of Physical Law (1965)]

We need all the help we can get.  Without the space program, our ignorance would yet be many orders of magnitude greater than it is today.


----------



## Granfalloon (Oct 30, 2009)

Manarion said:


> That doesn't even matter, you know, Gran. The planet is coming out of an ice age, and global warming could not be stopped by anything short of shoving our planet away from the sun. Greenhouse gases only speed the process, but no matter how much we "reduce" them, it'll be miniscule and insignificant unless we do away with them completely, and that is something the world will never do.



I'm going to put this as nicely as I can - Go do some serious research from at least 20 different scientific sources and you will discover that you are sorely mistaken. This is exactly the kind of thing I run into with people I've met who don't understand the facts, and it's making me want to break down and cry. The future of mankind is at stake, and you want to dismiss it with some tripe that some fool offered you. If there are enough people who think like this, and believe this, we are surely doomed. It is so profoundly sad I can't even find the words to express my grief and my astonishment.


----------



## Granfalloon (Oct 30, 2009)

> I did read the thread. Anyway, I agree that science ought to be used responsibly, I just don't agree that the space program is an irresponsible use of science. Far from it. I think I've made it fairly clear in my previous posts what my opinion is, so I shan't reiterate it.



Okay Seph - I agree that NASA is in no way a bad thing, and that we should explore space. I'm a science fiction writer for God's sake! It's just that the PRIORITIES are out of whack. _We need to mature as a race before we take this mess into space._ (You can quote me on that). It's seems obvious to me that you should agree with me on this, from that list you iterated. 

Yes, I went over the top once. I wont do it again, but I might express other emotions since the only time people like anger is when it comes out of a comedian.


----------



## Sephiroth (Oct 30, 2009)

Granfalloon said:


> Okay Seph - I agree that NASA is in no way a bad thing, and that we should explore space. I'm a science fiction writer for God's sake! It's just that the PRIORITIES are out of whack. _We need to mature as a race before we take this mess into space._ (You can quote me on that). It's seems obvious to me that you should agree with me on this, from that list you iterated.



I take a different view.  Perhaps I'm not as optimistic as you regarding our ability to _mature as a species? _ I'm not entirely sure that we _can _do that, you know?  I'm _certainly _not convinced that we can somehow effect such a change through top-down 'encouragement' of the masses. 

Compared to scientific/technological progress (in the modern era, at least), social change is painstakingly slow.  And unlike the former, it cannot successfully be engineered.  

So, I tend to think that those of us with the drive and belief to move things forward have to do so, while we have the opportunity.  I think it's always the case that the truly progressive thinkers, and agents of change, have to be a few steps ahead of the pack.  

The herd will follow, or they will not.  Efforts at making progress will be vindicated, or else fall into oblivion.  But we can't just hang around and wait for everyone to catch up.  We'd be waiting forever.......




> Yes, I went over the top once. I wont do it again, but I might express other emotions since the only time people like anger is when it comes out of a comedian.


Heh.  The thing is, it's takes an extra effort to make your anger come across as comedic in a medium such as this.  When we can't see or hear each other, but only read the words, it's very easy to misinterpret tone.  Especially when we don't know each other.


----------



## Granfalloon (Oct 30, 2009)

dustinzgirl said:


> You know, if you are going to use a scientific fact to make a point---say, ozone depletion---then say that the people who had a large hand in that discovery have done nothing contributory, then I really just have to dismiss your argument.
> 
> NASA Fact Sheets
> 
> ...



This is really wonderful to see. Thank you for finding this. Now, if they could find a way to make their rockets burn cleaner, with less greenhouse category gas emissions, then I'd be pleased as punch. In fact, where I think NASA should go (What they should do - getting back on topic) is find another way to get into space (besides rockets). Perhaps some anti-gravity research would be in order. Or space elevators. Anything to be part of the solution, instead of being part of the problem. 

It's not unusual for big companies to contribute to sophomore philanthropic causes to put on a sideshow while they continue the other stuff. 

For instance, Wal-Mart is the largest member of the Retail Industry Leaders Association, one of the main funders of the $30 million anti-union campaign called “Coalition for a Democratic Workplace.” 

Wal-Mart is ready to use its corporate power as America’s largest private employer to corrupt the political system to safeguard its profits. American Rights at Work has lots of info on Wal-Mart’s actions attacking the Employee Free Choice Act here and has a detailed report here on how Wal-Mart rolls back workers’ wages in an assault on the American Dream. Plus the worker advocacy organization also tracks the front groups behind the Employee Free Choice Act smear campaign, with info here. 



from: AFL-CIO NOW BLOG | Wal-Mart Wants to Make Sure Its Employees Don’t Vote Democratic

In 2002 Wal-Mart sent Jim Bill Lynn to Central America, in a new position in which he was to report on any abusive labor practices he came upon in the factories that make the clothes Wal-Mart puts on its shelves. Lynn was shocked: He discovered factories whose fire doors were padlocked from the outside, and where women workers were fired if they turned up pregnant. Lynn firmly believed that his reports to the home office would lead to improvements. Indeed, he believed he was doing just what the company expected of him, right up to the moment when he was fired.

Lynn's faith in the open door was still intact as he hastened back to Bentonville to talk to Wal-Mart's top executives. When he got there, however, he found they didn't want to hear from him at all. Today Lynn is one of several prominent Wal-Mart whistle-blowers suing the company in high-profile unjust-termination cases. Far from an open door, Bentonville had become Kafka's castle, from which abrupt and unalterable edicts descended with devastating force.

from: Article | The American Prospect


----------



## Granfalloon (Oct 30, 2009)

Sephiroth said:


> I take a different view.  Perhaps I'm not as optimistic as you regarding our ability to _mature as a species? _ I'm not entirely sure that we _can _do that, you know?  I'm _certainly _not convinced that we can somehow effect such a change through top-down 'encouragement' of the masses.
> 
> Compared to scientific/technological progress (in the modern era, at least), social change is painstakingly slow.  And unlike the former, it cannot successfully be engineered.
> 
> ...



It is this kind of thinking that will surely impede our progress as one common race. We are all integrated with one another in ways I don't think most people realize. We have to eliminate prejudice, poverty, war, and pollution before we can progress as a species. 

I believe there has to be other sentient beings out there. Look at the odds - just within this solar system! (Hey that's pretty funny, I think I'll leave it in. I meant to say galaxy) Do you want us to meet up with them and say "Oh, Hi there! Look how much we've progressed scientifically! Never mind all of those wars and starving people on our planet, that just can't be helped." ?


----------



## Urien (Oct 30, 2009)

"We have to eliminate prejudice, poverty, war, and pollution before we can progress as a species." Granfallon.

Laudable but alas I feel implausible and unrealistic sentiments. I feel that you have the causality wrong; it is progress that allows us to reduce the amount of war, poverty and suffering in this world. 

Of course if one seeks perfection then whose perfection do you seek? Arguably a perfect society is an impossible statement because it is so subjective. The different choices we would all make in this thread illustrate how each person has a different "right" course for the species.


----------



## Pyan (Oct 30, 2009)

Granfalloon said:


> This is really wonderful to see. Thank you for finding this. Now, if they could find a way to make their rockets burn cleaner, with less greenhouse category gas emissions, then I'd be pleased as punch. In fact, where I think NASA should go (What they should do - getting back on topic) is find another way to get into space (besides rockets). Perhaps some anti-gravity research would be in order. Or space elevators. Anything to be part of the solution, instead of being part of the problem.





> The effects of currently projected launches of the Shuttle and Titan IV annually will result in the depletion of ozone globally on the order of *0.0065 to 0.024* percent; ozone depletion in the 60–90 N latitudes will be about *0.2 *percent; ozone depletion near the exhaust plume is greater than 80 percent during ascent *but returns to normal within three hours*; acid rain is less than *0.01 percent *of global anthropogenic sources; local launch effects are confined to within 2,500 feet of the launch pad; *effects on global warming are less than one-millionth of all carbon dioxide (CO2) produced*



Not really a _major_ contribution then, I'd have thought. Less than the weekly output from a coal-fired power station - which the Chinese are opening at the rate of _one every three days_...

From Earth to Orbit: An Assessment of Transportation Options
BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | China building more power plants


----------



## Granfalloon (Oct 30, 2009)

Urien said:


> "We have to eliminate prejudice, poverty, war, and pollution before we can progress as a species." Granfallon.
> 
> Laudable but alas I feel implausible and unrealistic sentiments. I feel that you have the causality wrong; it is progress that allows us to reduce the amount of war, poverty and suffering in this world.
> 
> Of course if one seeks perfection then whose perfection do you seek? Arguably a perfect society is an impossible statement because it is so subjective. The different choices we would all make in this thread illustrate how each person has a different "right" course for the species.



Okay, so do you think poverty and prejudice and war are right? Do you think that we would have a perfect world after eliminating them? Do think it's really impossible to eliminate (most) of it? I have a dream, and it's just like the one Martin Luther King had. Maybe they should shoot me too, so you don't have to listen to such "airy-fairy, pie-in-the-sky" drivel.


----------



## Granfalloon (Oct 30, 2009)

pyan said:


> Not really a _major_ contribution then, I'd have thought. Less than the weekly output from a coal-fired power station - which the Chinese are opening at the rate of _one every three days_...
> 
> From Earth to Orbit: An Assessment of Transportation Options
> BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | China building more power plants



Made you Look!


----------



## Sparrow (Oct 30, 2009)

> distinzgirl ~So NASA is lying, and so is say, the Nobel Prize panel? The American Astronomical Society, and Harvard, and the Smithsonian?
> 
> They are all in cahoots, because NASA has done absolutely nothing in the last thirty years.




Not in cahoots, but given to the same exaggeration of NASA's contributions to satellite technology and "spin-off" enterprises.  Where are the monuments to the private sector and the incredible work done by private sector engineers and scientists?
And I have never said NASA has done nothing in recent history, just that they haven't done nearly enough to warrant the respect they get from the average American.

Take just one, one of many, Bell Labs... and yes, I know this is a sister site and just perhaps the historical data is slanted a bit...

http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/wps/p...ase64xml/L3dJdyEvd0ZNQUFzQUMvNElVRS82X0FfNDZL


We peer deep into the vast vacuum of space using Perkin-Elmer optics housed in the Hubble Space Telescope.  Which has helped us learn more about our Universe than just about anything else I can think of.
Certainly compared to manned missions.


----------



## Pyan (Oct 30, 2009)

GF said:
			
		

> Made you Look!



Oh yes - I don't mind debating a point, but I always make sure that I'm on firm ground with figures...



			
				Sparrow said:
			
		

> We peer deep into the vast vacuum of space using Perkin-Elmer optics housed in the Hubble Space Telescope.



Which was launched from the Space Shuttle, IIRC...developed by NASA.


----------



## Urien (Oct 30, 2009)

"Okay, so do you think poverty and prejudice and war are right? Do you think that we would have a perfect world after eliminating them? Do think it's really impossible to eliminate (most) of it? I have a dream, and it's just like the one Martin Luther King had. Maybe they should shoot me too, so you don't have to listen to such "airy-fairy, pie-in-the-sky" drivel." Granfalloon


Gran,

I think it's clear none of us want war and all the attendant horsemen. I have a different view to you. I feel progress lessens human ills and has done through history. You appear to feel that we should end progress and somehow achieve perfection. That is not a dream Granfallon, it's an implausible scenario completely at odds with human nature and history. 

We have different views of the causality, not the outcome we desire.


----------



## Sparrow (Oct 30, 2009)

And I need to breakaway from Granfalloon is some respects... I do not think America should be party to the Kyoto Protocol.  I am for America as Empire, integrated but separate from the rest of the World.  I embrace alternative energy sources not for love of the environment so much as hatred of the governments of countries that much of our money goes to in order to run our automobiles. 
We finance tyranny each time we fill up our gas tanks.

If changing that relationship means a cleaner and greener world, than so much the better.


----------



## Sephiroth (Oct 30, 2009)

Granfalloon said:


> It is this kind of thinking that will surely impede our progress as one common race. We are all integrated with one another in ways I don't think most people realize. We have to eliminate prejudice, poverty, war, and pollution before we can progress as a species.
> 
> I believe there has to be other sentient beings out there. Look at the odds - just within this solar system! (Hey that's pretty funny, I think I'll leave it in. I meant to say galaxy) Do you want us to meet up with them and say "Oh, Hi there! Look how much we've progressed scientifically! Never mind all of those wars and starving people on our planet, that just can't be helped." ?



_Au contraire_, it is this kind of thinking that has got us this far.  If it had been left to the masses, or to the establishment of any given time, to dictate the pace and direction of human progress, we would still be back where we started.  It takes individuals of great vision and strength of mind to go against the grain, and make the leaps of imagination that are required to take us forward.  

Prejudice, poverty, war and pollution have been around for as long as human civilisation has existed.  The most effective way to eliminate them, therefore, would be to eliminate human civilisation.  Or, to be sure of success, to eliminate human beings altogether.  

I'm not saying I don't share your desire for some more tangible form of social progress, but I think it's unrealistic to say that, until we achieve perfection, we should do nothing else.  Perfection, as Urien has stated, is an unattainable ideal, and we live in the real world, with all its attendant ugliness and flaws.  Do not underestimate the forces of social conservatism, either.  The majority of folk will fight tooth and nail against any attempt to change them into what you may consider 'better people'.  

It's all very well to make the statement that 'we have to eliminate prejudice, poverty, war and pollution' -- but how exactly would you propose that we do such a thing?  

And what makes you think that other sapient life in the universe would be any more 'perfect' than us?


As far as I can see, you're asking for nothing short of our complete transformation into something that is no longer recognisably human.  You're asking that we all become saints, or angels.  




*Sparrow*, you're splitting hairs -- whether or not certain aspects of space technology have been developed by private companies, they have been developed at the behest of, or under the auspices of, the various agencies (including NASA) responsible for human activities in space.  It doesn't make sense to separate them out and then play them off against each other.  All of these efforts have been collaborative.

As for the politics of 'America as Empire', I shall refrain from passing comment, since this is not a political discussion (in the narrow sense of the word).


----------



## Pyan (Oct 30, 2009)

Sparrow said:


> We finance tyranny each time we fill up our gas tanks.
> 
> If changing that relationship means a cleaner and greener world, than so much the better.



Gods! Something we agree about, Sparrow!...

The problem, though, isn't changing your relationships with the oil-producing nations; it's changing the attitudes of your fellow countrymen and women about the desirability of the internal combustion engine - and that's going to be the difficult part...


----------



## Granfalloon (Oct 30, 2009)

Urien said:


> "Okay, so do you think poverty and prejudice and war are right? Do you think that we would have a perfect world after eliminating them? Do think it's really impossible to eliminate (most) of it? I have a dream, and it's just like the one Martin Luther King had. Maybe they should shoot me too, so you don't have to listen to such "airy-fairy, pie-in-the-sky" drivel." Granfalloon
> 
> 
> Gran,
> ...



Why do you insist on taking my words and twisting them into something that suits your purpose? Do you just like to argue? I'm not asking for a perfect world. It's like you didn't even read the words in my last reply. I'm tired. I'm going top bed. Goodbye people.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Oct 30, 2009)

Now I'm confused---because private sectors have made developments to technology, which btw no where did I mention that they DID NOT, then it means that NASA has not made any visionary contributions in the last thirty years?

I do not recall that we were discussing the private sector, however if you want to delve into that arena---

The private sector is controlled by capitalism. Flat out, plain and simple. 

NASA and many other public sectors are social in nature, NASA is NOT the only one in the public sector. 

I do not support the private sector in so far as believing that it should have MORE rights to exist than anything in the public sector.

And now for our commercial break:

Jupiter


----------



## skeptical (Oct 31, 2009)

Hi guys

I have been away for a week, and this thread has gotten its postings together and reproduced!

Just a quick point about disease, famine, war and personal death.   (The four horsemen of biblical nature).

In fact, all four are in retreat.   This is due to technological progress.

Disease is reducing.   We have rendered smallpox extinct.   Polio almost extinct.   Leprosy rare.  Malaria kills about a million per year, down from 10 million at its peak.   Only AIDs is rampant, and it kills far fewer than the infectious diseases of old.  The biggest killer is heart disease, and it has become so important only because people are now living long enough for it to become a killer.

Famine is much lower than any time in history, per capita.   In the first half of the 20th Century, mega-million death famine occurred often.   India was especially bad.  India has not had a true famine for decades.  Today, about 15% of the human species is malnourished (still too many, I agree), which is lower than any time on record.

War is killing fewer people today than any time after WWI.   We have lots of brush wars, like Afghanistan, and morons committing suicide with bombs just to kill a few innocent people, but there is nothing to compare with the loss of life in previous decades.   55 million in WWII!

And even personal death is in retreat.   At no time in history have people lived so long.   50 years ago, life expectancy in developed nations was 55 years.   Today the USA is 79, and is the laggard in the collection of developed nations.

All these are highly tangible benefits for all of humanity arising from technological progress.   Lets push for more technological development!


----------



## Sparrow (Oct 31, 2009)

> pyan ~Which was launched from the Space Shuttle, IIRC...developed by NASA.



You've done it again.
Confusing the delivery vehicle with the payload.
It's the Hubble Telescope that deserves praise, the Space Shuttle has been a debacle of the grandest sort... we can thank Boeing & Rockwell for that, and of course horrible management by the NASA muckety-mucks.




> dustinzgirl ~The private sector is controlled by capitalism. Flat out, plain and simple.



A profit motive would have saved the Space Shuttle, and NASA for that matter.

It would help to recall President Eisenhower and his Interstate & National Highway System which was begun in the late 1950s (actually it evolved from work done under FDR during the Great Depression).  This more than any one thing opened our country for commerce, cheap-efficient-profitable.  That is the proper business of government, as a builder of infrastructure, a setter of standards, and an agent of goodwill and prosperity.

If you can allow yourself a temporary respite from notions of romantic space adventures, and instead view outerspace as an Interstate System, you will have a better understanding of what NASA should have been doing these past thirty years.  If NASA had gotten it right, you and I would have already known what it's like to see a sunrise like this...

http://www.livescience.com/php/mult...STS-127+on+July+17,+2009.+Credit:+NASA&title=


... that they got it so bloody wrong, means we can only imagine.


----------



## Pyan (Oct 31, 2009)

Sparrow said:


> You've done it again.
> Confusing the delivery vehicle with the payload.
> It's the Hubble Telescope that deserves praise, the Space Shuttle has been a debacle of the grandest sort... we can thank Boeing & Rockwell for that, and of course horrible management by the NASA muckety-mucks.



And you're splitting hairs again. Even if the Hubble had been launched by Titan, or a Saturn 1B, or even an Ariadne, it would be dead in space by now, if it wasn't for the relative cheapness of a Shuttle launch to go and repair it. Or in your determination to denigrate NASA, would you have preferred that rather than use a Shuttle launch, we'd just written the Hubble off?


----------



## Parson (Oct 31, 2009)

This thread is moving afield (or rather has moved into another field). The question before us is not "Did NASA make good decisions?" but rather "What should NASA do now?" You can argue "from now until the cows come home" [homey Iowa colloquialism, meaning all day] but you will never come to a consensus about that.

What should they do now?!

Probably the most "doable" thing for NASA in the next few years is to concentrate with other members of the world community in making the the space station, usable and more permanent. Then when better more efficient "shuttles" come along we will have a staging area for a true space ship.


----------



## Ursa major (Oct 31, 2009)

Speaking for myself, i'd like NASA - and other space agencies - to spend more effort trying to find out more about worlds, like Europa and Titan, where there is a chance that some sort of life exists.

Finding life beyond our own world would be a discovery of the utmost significance; transferring a few humans from Earth to Mars and back would "only" be a significant technological achievement**. The former might change our view of ourselves, the latter only reinforce our self-importance.




** - On the other hand, if they discovered life while they were there....


----------



## skeptical (Oct 31, 2009)

In my earlier posts, I argued that NASA should build a deep space vehicle, that would remain in space, and be refuelled from Earth.

Of course, the really big lack right now is a successor to the space shuttle.   I cannot but think that the original idea was right.   It was just the implementation that was stuffed up.

A new and better space shuttle is needed.  A craft that can take off from a normal airfield, like a jumbo jet, and rise into orbit to carry a payload.   Booster rockets that can parachute down for re-use.   The shuttle would return to Earth, and land on another airfield.

Why is it that, after 60 years of effort, such a vehicle cannot be designed and built?   Something reliable that will require minimal maintenance before refurelling and re-use?

If such a vehicle existed, it could dock with the deep space vehicle(s) to resupply and refuel them, and carry out such maintenence as the deep space vehicle needed.   With a system set up with a reliable, reuseable space shuttle, and deep space vehicles remaining in space, great things could be done.


----------



## woodsman (Nov 9, 2009)

I thin NASA should start a war, seeing as thats when we (humanity) seem to develop most of our technology. It's most likely much more fruitful, in terms of advancing our technology, than going to space ever is.



On a more serious note I'm with Ursa. Going to the moon means little or nothing but going further afield opens up a much greater field for discovery. Plus, I think a colony on Callisto or Ganymede would be a much greater step for man than one on the moon.


----------

