test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Really Depressing Information
starkaos
Member Posts: 11,556 Arc User
It has been over 40.5 years since Man has landed on the moon. What has happened to our sense of exploration?
Post edited by starkaos on
0
Comments
Meanwhile, just three days ago, NASA launched the Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph (IRIS) probe aboard a Pegasus-XL rocket to explore the sun's chromosphere.
In all honesty, I think two things caused the halt we've seen.
1. The end of the Cold War. Nothing causes scientific progress like hating another country.
2. Challenger. I think that tragedy really sucked the fire out of our space shuttle program. I remember watching it in school and everybody was devastated. Absolutely devastated.
Like you, though, the fact that we're not exploring the stars makes me sad.
On the bright side, more and more private companies are taking an interest in space travel. If there's one thing that's a stronger motivator than hating other countries, it's money.
Its not a matter of what we can find on the Moon, but what we can build there. Telescopes that have much better resolution than anything that can be build on the Earth. The ability to perform dangerous experiments or create dangerous chemicals that could harm or kill millions of people if something goes wrong. Also we only scratched the surface of the Moon so it might contain valuable resources that we know nothing about.
sig
http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/5451/om71.jpg
It is a peculiar phenomenon that we can imagine events that defy the laws of the universe.
My mom used to let me stay home from school to watch the shuttle launches and landings and seeing Challenger explode is one thing I will never forget for the rest of my life, and then to find out later that they didn't die instantly in the explosion.
Challenger should have been the wake up call that the rocket technology was too unstable and too obsolete and that a new solution was needed. The real problem was no one knew where to begin on a redesign, they didn't have the budget and resources for an extensive redesign/refit and they had a schedule to keep.
Every wide-eyed dreamer from the 50's until the late 80's wanted to fly amongst the stars, and those that had the opportunity to try knew the risks and still wanted to anyways.
Being an 80's baby I loved the space shuttle and the program, but in many ways the Shuttle greatly outlived it's lifespan. There was already much more advanced technology not just in theoretical but in practical forms as well.
Unfortunately budget and "been there, done that" took over and we stopped seeing a need to go back to the moon or even farther than Earth orbit. Now Nasa wants to take three steps back and return to the moon, but with an antiquated design with more modern technology. Let's not forget the Staged rocket and capsule design had it's fair share of issues and tragedy as well.
A moon base for manufacturing, research and development, resource gathering (both on the moon and capture and recycling "space junk", construction, and as a stepping stone is where we need to head next. All the money and research to this end has been done (Biosphere 2), failures occurred and were learned from and corrected, but even now it still sits unused. This could have been done yesterday or even 10 years ago.
The disbanding of the Shuttle program has had one good effect, the private sector is starting a miniature space race of it's own. They're on the starting line, and once the race finally begins I believe we'll see more advances come from that alone than we have since the cold war ended.
I agree on all counts.
I think there are a lot of reasons things slow down. money, politics, the space race itself was clearly a major factor that once was won, did not need to be raced again and there really is no pressing need to go elsewhere in any hurry. if mars had life on it then there would have been a real desire to get there quickly. as it stands, it was a dead world in the 70's and it will be a dead world when we get there. so no rush.
also just keep in mind how vast space is. going to the moon is like popping down the road. going to mars is a much much more complex journey. lots of complex tech has to be invented and its not quick or cheap.
Considering that consider this: Dapra had made some really good legged robots/exoskelton, and they got the funding. Meanwhile NASA's funding was cut back.
Honestly, I think the most prophetic movie in regards to the future is the first Alien.
It's a world where corporations run everything, everything is about profits and shares, and the big corporations are indistinguishable from government agencies.
Sounds pretty accurate to me.
I was born and grew up in the Apollo era. My first memory is of being put in front of a TV to watch Neil Armstrong step on the moon. I do think there were some lessons learned by stepping on the moon, beyond just a Cold War statement, but I'd like to point out what clear benefits there were at home.
Technology took a huge leap at home, thanks to developments needed for the Apollo program. Things we take for granted now, were cutting edge in 1970, or were significantly advanced by the program:
--methane fuel advancements
--solar paneling advancements
-- better dialysis techniques and equipment
-- precisely metered medication
-- better heart monitors
-- for firefighter safety
-- for HazMat safety
-- for more durable shoes
-- for stronger, lighter building construction
And this is just a small list. I myself remember ogling the glass cases at my dad's store that displayed the first digital watches and the ball-point pens that would write upside down, something that was truly amazing at the time when fountain pens were still a significant presence in the market.
As I was writing this, I remembered several and looked up a few others. NASA has a page with a few more highlights here.
I'm sure arguments will continue for decades as to whether we explored "anything useful" moon-side, but the truth is, putting Apollo 11 on the moon helped us explore a world of beneficial technology planet-side. Another whole-hearted effort to reach the moon or even Mars will likely have another boom in benefits to mankind.
I'd also like to note that, although it was not the moon, the Apollo-Soyuz mission, an outgrowth of the moon missions, was the first time as a kid of the Cold War that I got the feeling we opposing sides might just find a way to get along and not blow everyone up. Today we work cooperatively on a space station. I'd consider that effort hugely useful.
Dude you've been watching WAY too many episodes of Gundam wing and one too many episodes of Voyager.
Space elevators are a great sci-fi tech for really advanced civilizations, but just like a Dyson's sphere their hugely impractical. They need massive amounts of materials, manpower, and monetary funds, not to mention technological advances in materials and technology that we simply don't have the capability of yet.
We (as in humans) have spent nearly half a century launching countless platforms into space that have become obsolete or malfunctioned and are just sitting there cluttering up the neighborhood so to speak. All that space junk we've accumulated is hugely beneficial in providing the next stepping stone of a moonbase. Metals, composites, gold, solar cells, nuclear reactors, the list goes on of all the materials we have just sitting there waiting to be recaptured and recycled. To bring all of these materials back to Earth would be hugely expensive and time consuming, but could supply a moonbase with extremely cheap resources for manufacturing a moonbase at much cheaper costs, especially when combined with the resources on the moon itself.
If you really want to sci-fi it up the logical progression would be moonbase, mars, Jupiter refueling/resupply station and from there out to the great unknown. On top of the resources in space junk and on the moon there would also be resources from mars and the asteroids as well all based around refinement, manufacturing and construction in space.
There's a massive amount of profit in it. Far more profit than they could make from mining actual materials.
Any company that can make space travel safe for civilians will make billions, if not trillions, just in the tourist market. They don't have to mine a thing. Selling seats for space flights is already a huge money-maker and it's not even (pardon the pun) off the ground yet. It's totally a status symbol. It's not just for the space nuts. It's for the super rich who want to say they've done it.
And that means they can charge anything they want for a ticket.
The tourist market is far more profitable than anything involving resources. They make more on tourist and spend less on specialized equipment. It's why so many companies in America are shifting from manufacturing to service.
cause sometimes its party time!
And the current method is a waste. Build a rocket to throw it into space when we are done with it is too wasteful. There is also the amount of chemicals used up with a launch. A space elevator would only require electricity to run and we won't have to worry about getting a ton of equipment into orbit. Of course, there is always the possibility of some breakthrough like shielding a spacecraft from gravity so the Earth would move away from the spacecraft rather than the spacecraft moving away from the Earth, but a space elevator is more likely.
cause sometimes its party time!
The sad fact of the matter is that for any meaningful exploration to occur, people are going to die. Hundreds of thousands. The alternative is to stop, microanalyze every little detail of every aspect of the spacecraft whenever anything goes wrong, stop all action for years, and then start timidly sending people up 6 at a time again. Happened with Challenger, happened with Columbia (albeit for a shorter period of time), and it will continue to do so.
Q said it best - although I forget the quote, it was when Q introduced Starfleet to the Borg, wherein he stated that we were whining because we got a bloody nose. He also said the wonders of the universe were both subtle and gross, but it is not for the timid. He was right, and we, as a society, are the timid. The people in these programs are VERY aware of the risks. Some of the smartest, most driven people on the planet fight tooth and nail against each other for the chance to be strapped to a hundred thousand gallons of explosive and launched hundreds of miles into the sky, and then come back down again. When Challenger exploded - and note the subtle curse that name carries, I've seen far more ships in STO named after every shuttle BUT Challenger - it was at least one family calling for an end to space exploration. But I will bet you that if you asked the astronauts their opinions they would not want anything stopped. There are already thousands of people who want a place in being sent on a one-way trip to Mars, and while these are not astronauts, they show the mentality of would-be space explorers.
While I am not saying that engineering should ignore everything - far from it - the simple fact of the matter is that people are almost completely unwilling to stomach casualties for space exploration. As long as this is the state of affairs, we will continue to send out robots. And as long as we send out just robots, we are not going to be spending what is deemed to be much on those robots, especially when they do little of practical use. The chemical composition of Pluto is unlikely to revolutionize computer manufacturing techniques for the next 20 years, for instance. Instead, it is going to get a bunch of Ph.D students new fodder for dissertations, go in some books, and that's about it.
Worse yet, nobody in engineering is willing to accept the fact that the escape systems, as currently designed, are essentially useless. With most of the escape equipment they've got, there is little to no realistic hope of anyone surviving with it. They knew this putting into the shuttle. They quietly acknowledge it. In fact, as I recall, during early space shuttle training, they simply stopped talking about contingencies at a certain point, and the elephant in the room was that the ship and crew were completely forfeit at that point. And we spend many millions of dollars on these systems that are useless, which take more fuel to put in the air as well. Even the original ejection seats would have only been usable for a few seconds into the flight.
Note that I am not saying we should stop exploration. We should do it more. But we must be ready, willing and able to accept casualties, and possibly a whole lot of them, to get it done. And while you may not agree with my points here, I would strongly suggest that you consider them, cold-blooded as they may sound.
And this is were you just figuratively screwed yourself. no offence.
A space elevator capable of any meaningful cargo capacity would require an enormous amount of materials to construct, and a massive amount of energy to operate. This isn't even factoring in the various structural challenges and risk involved in this technology.
The private sector has been rigorously researching, developing, and testing cleaner more efficient and more cost effective fuels and launch procedures. much of the future Earth-moon travel would be using such methods. once self sustaining facilities are in place on the moon and beyond there is no need for cargo transports from Earth so the launches would be primarily passenger in nature. This method is much less wasteful and cost effective than devoting huge amounts of earth materials into a space elevator that in the end would yield little to no benefit.
There's also no data (theoretical or practical that I'm aware of) on the effects of electrical currents interacting with the atmosphere. Not only would there be potential risk from the electrical systems powering the elevator, but also the risk of a lightning strike travelling along the elevator super structure.
Sadly manned exploration is in a bit of a trough right now, because of both financial and technical restrictions.
I fail to see why Challenger was responsible for the dismantling of the Space Shuttle Program when Columbia was effectively the "last nail in the coffin".
I was more angry that people (Including ignorant Christians) used this disaster as a way to derail the space program. Fear and ignorance never generate anything and the loss of those 14 (7 from Challenger and 7 from Columbia) people essentially mean nothing.
Yes, disasters are awful things but that doesn't mean that Humanity should stop trying, does that mean that because the Titanic sank, nobody should go on a cruise liner?
I think the main reason is that space exploration is not profitable and that's really all the Americans are concerned about "profit, profit, profit". If you cannot make money out of something, then its not worth doing.
I think what is worse is that Virgin are now trying to commercialize space. If there are aliens out there then I'm not surprised they haven't wanted to come here. Humanity is must look pretty pathetic in their eyes with their obsession with material wealth.
This is exactly the reason why the United States should not lead the way in space exploration and development because I fear that once capitalism has destroyed this world, it will just move on to the next. It should be a United Nations thing, for the benefit of all humanity.
cause sometimes its party time!
I didn't say it can't be done. Although I have some skepticism that I won't go into right now regarding the physics thereof (not including FTL, that's a whole separate kettle of fish), I am more concerned that public opinion will prevent it from being done, as per my first post. The media thrives off of dead astronauts when available, the public wilts in the face of media coverage of dead astronauts, and Congress backs off in the face of wilted voters.
Not necessarily directed to you, just trying to cover as many bases as possible here.
Discharge would be more than easy enough to solve, and you can power the platform with steam and/or run a second cable from the station in orbit. If we build it large enough, we can send humans on deep space assignment on something as simple as a space barge. That or use robots and recent developments in the INVITRO (nipple-necks) ideas to spread mankinds seed through the cosmos.
cause sometimes its party time!