[horatio]

Originally Posted by Akula2ssn

I'm not talking about funding for launching more rockets like what we already have into space. That's about as pointless as dumping more money into the shuttle. I'm talking about funding money into technologies that make manned flight over extended periods of time possible such as radiation shielding and higher yield sustainable food production, new propulsion systems, new life support systems all of which are currently part of the existing research done in the hope of going to Mars.

Labs can be converted to work on different projects and so can factories, but that can only be done if the they have enough funding to maintain operations. I live in an area that used to do a lot of R&D in the aerospace sector from designing new vehicles to developing new materials and manufacturing processes which have had applications beyond the aerospace industry. When funding got cut on projects whether it was by the government or by the company itself, that money wasn't put into other projects of more immediate value. All that happened was all the labs that used to be in the area were shut down and are now parking lots and apartments. The knowledge and experience base also went out the door. So now, if Uncle Sam wants to put some public money into research that they feel Boeing might have knowledge in, Boeing has two choices, they can say, "Nope. Sorry, can't help you." Or they're going to have to charge the government for buying and building new facilities and equipment and hiring new people on top of the R&D cost. Time and time again in the aerospace field, funding gets cut and when funding starts up again, the people on the business and finance side scratch their heads wondering why the hell they can't do the work as quickly and as cost effectively as they used to. They never seem to understand that when they cut the project and didn't do anything else, they didn't just cut the project, they cut all their assets in the process. And when they try to hire people back with the knowledge and experience back, most of them don't want to come back. If you're lucky, the equipment in the labs and factories are sold off to another company and you can try to contract the work over to them when you do have funding for a project, but often times the equipment is scrapped and other companies that do have similar equipment and facilities aren't necessarily certified to do that work and/or don't have the engineering knowledge to do the work and that has been killing companies like Boeing and Lockheed for the past decade with constant technical problems, legal problems, and cost overruns.

Now Horatio I will say that last part of the previous paragraph is the key difference between what actually happens in the American aerospace industry and what you're proposing. Cutting funding to things like the space shuttles that have already outlived their intended use and spending that on something else is one thing and I don't have a whole lot of problems with it except for maybe a few of the really really fine details. But beyond this point the issue isn't what should or shouldn't be funded but more into what kind of business practices we use because the way business is currently done, neither your concerns nor my concerns would be addressed because research and development of any kind for any purpose on earth or in space would be considered a risky venture with no guarantee of profitability in the short term.

Sure, you basic point is absolutely true. Knowledge and expertise detoriate over time if they are not used, that's why economists call it human capital. Like a machine or a house, our intellectual skills depreciate.
But when we invest public money, we have to prioritize and IMO, many other research areas are more important than NASA. e.g. an AIDS cure or fusion power technology. When switching and cutting NASA funds, one simply has to take into account the loss of human capital in that area and that it will be more costly to get things running in a few years or decades.

[Akula2ssn]

Originally Posted by horatio

When switching and cutting NASA funds, one simply has to take into account the loss of human capital in that area and that it will be more costly to get things running in a few years or decades.

Won't get any argument from me on that.

[MrQ1701]

Originally Posted by Zardoz

Actually bacteria have been found on Mars, so life beyond earth has been found.

Really? I am surprised this was not big news. When did it happen? I remember a Mars rock that was found on Earth had what appeared to be fossilized bacteria in it, but it was never conclusively found to be bacteria (many thought it was bubbles formed during entering Earth's atmosphere) Do you have a link to more information? I did a quick google and only found a bunch of pages regarding the Mars rock.

(Did you just let one of those work secrets slip? )

Originally Posted by Zardoz

I have hope for humanity, don't get me wrong. But right now, we are just not ready.

I understand where you are coming from. I believe taking care of our planet and maturing as a people are both very important. What I believe is that investing in the space program is part of getting to those goals. When discoveries are made they help shape the way people see the universe and themselves. I don't think mankind will ever be "ready" for interstellar exploration WITHOUT the space program TODAY. I won;t debate how much the budget should be or where there money should be spent, but the space program is important to mankind moving forward. That is my belief.

[Akula2ssn]

Originally Posted by MrQ1701

I understand where you are coming from. I believe taking care of our planet and maturing as a people are both very important. What I believe is that investing in the space program is part of getting to those goals. When discoveries are made they help shape the way people see the universe and themselves. I don't think mankind will ever be "ready" for interstellar exploration WITHOUT the space program TODAY. I won;t debate how much the budget should be or where there money should be spent, but the space program is important to mankind moving forward. That is my belief.

Well I think the idea isn't about keeping or not keeping the space program in general, but rather less emphasis on manned space flight at this time. Certainly within the field of oceanography and atmospheric science, the space program is critical. Most of what we know about the ocean and our atmosphere today was made possible in no small part to the space program and we need the space program in order to continue to make the kind of precise measurements we can today and to expand on that. However, as much as I'm a proponent of manned space flight, the fact is much of those measurements done with unmanned space assets. And this not only applies to science but also to for things like land and resource management and other more practical parts in our everyday lives. So the need for manned assets is minimal in that regard. The part that you'd run into trouble with is if you launch a hundred million dollar satellite into space with all these instruments to do all these measurements here on terra firma and something goes wrong. Well then in that case you kind of blew all that money or you need to go up there and fix it, hence the long over due shuttle replacement.

[Zardoz]

Originally Posted by MrQ1701

Really? I am surprised this was not big news. When did it happen? I remember a Mars rock that was found on Earth had what appeared to be fossilized bacteria in it, but it was never conclusively found to be bacteria (many thought it was bubbles formed during entering Earth's atmosphere) Do you have a link to more information? I did a quick google and only found a bunch of pages regarding the Mars rock.

(Did you just let one of those work secrets slip? )



I understand where you are coming from. I believe taking care of our planet and maturing as a people are both very important. What I believe is that investing in the space program is part of getting to those goals. When discoveries are made they help shape the way people see the universe and themselves. I don't think mankind will ever be "ready" for interstellar exploration WITHOUT the space program TODAY. I won;t debate how much the budget should be or where there money should be spent, but the space program is important to mankind moving forward. That is my belief.

Remeber, in space, no one can hear your pocketbook!

[Saquist]

Space Flight programs should likely be canned untill after the US resolves the problems of the nations health care and primarily it's economy. Now that won't please many of you to but It's probably what's necessary. NASA is a leaky levy right now. They really have wasted billions on no direction at all. This Orion / Constellation program is already to the first 7 steps backwards.

NASA should be limited to the regulation of the ISS and satelite launches untill further notice.

[Zardoz]

Originally Posted by Saquist

Space Flight programs should likely be canned untill after the US resolves the problems of the nations health care and primarily it's economy. Now that won't please many of you to but It's probably what's necessary. NASA is a leaky levy right now. They really have wasted billions on no direction at all. This Orion / Constellation program is already to the first 7 steps backwards.

NASA should be limited to the regulation of the ISS and satelite launches untill further notice.

I don't disgree. Or doing joint operations with other countries for exploration and possible explotation of the Moon.

[Saquist]

Indeed.
We really need the best invovled with this project. Japan, Germany, sure go for China. If it can't be a joint effort it's just too costly to do on one's own.

[Zardoz]

Originally Posted by Saquist

Indeed.
We really need the best invovled with this project. Japan, Germany, sure go for China. If it can't be a joint effort it's just too costly to do on one's own.

A multinational mission to the Moon would rock!

[Saquist]

That is a brilliant idea.
But they would fight over whose the first to step foot on Mars if they all went.