Space exploration crippled and slow

You'd think within 70 years the leap from atoms to string theory, microcircuits to nanotech, propelors to jet engines, 8 floor buildings to 110 floors... You'd think we'd have made more progress into space?
Its like were stuck in the shallow end of a pool holding onto the edge

Is there honestly hundreds of hurdles in the way preventing further expansion?
It just seems like a slow process, one exclusive to Govt missions and generally speaking are show-pony events for tax payers?

Is the debate for NASA to recieve more funding?
Is it an issue of public involvement (commerical space)?
Is there something else behind this? (ufo cough)
Does it cost too much for our govt to speed up the process?
or is part of the program under 'black ops' category for security reasons?

Originally posted by fennek77
string theory

sucks

nanotech

chemistry

jet engines

weak

110 floors

too many

You'd think we'd have made more progress into space?

no

Its like were stuck in the shallow end of a pool holding onto the edge

good

Is there honestly hundreds of hurdles in the way preventing further expansion?

yes, and bad grammar is one of them

It just seems like a slow process, one exclusive to Govt missions and generally speaking are show-pony events for tax payers?

welcome to the club

Is the debate for NASA to recieve more funding?

what debate?

Is it an issue of public involvement (commerical space)?

what is the issue?

Is there something else behind this? (ufo cough)

behind what?

Does it cost too much for our govt to speed up the process?

my girlfriend thinks the speed is just right

or is part of the program under 'black ops' category for security reasons?

i have no idea, maybe you should start over again

I think it is a sad/sorry combination of several factors:

Lack of mission.

Lack of vision (to develop a new mission/purpose).

Lack of funding.

And, most serious of all...

Lack support from a public, more interested in which semi-telantless celebrities are "doing the nasty", than what the cosmos is telling us about our past and future.

Hey, fennek77

Great question. I'm sure there are as many responses as there are members on this board, but here's my two cents worth...

originally posted by fennek77:
Is there honestly hundreds of hurdles in the way preventing further expansion?

No, there aren't hundreds of hurdles - there are just a handful of them that we can't seem to get over. First and foremost I would say that it is a question of cost. Space exploration requires an enormous infrastructure that is essentially unique to space exploration- that is to say, the technology needed to send a man to Mars doesn't immediately translate to other industries. The rockets, rocket engines, launch platforms, payloads, etc. must be designed very exacting engineering tolerances. This requires talented workers to design, build, launch, and care for rockets and payloads at essentially every point in that system's life. Even after we launch an unmanned payload (like the MER Rovers) that payload sometimes requires a standing army of controllers, programmers, and engineers to attend to it. The same is true of designing a new type of rocket engine, assembling a rocket, etc.

Is the debate for NASA to recieve more funding?

In many ways, yes. Any country (I'll out myself as an American and use the United States as an example) can afford to go to War, fight crime, fund social welfare programs, build highways, or explore space; the catch is that doing ALL of those things is very, very expensive. The Apollo Program was curtailed because of the expense of the Vietnam War (among other things). Russia's Buran shuttle died after a fairly successful test flight thanks to the economic collapse of the Soviet Union, a collapse that the insanely expensive Energia/Buran project had a hand in.

Is it an issue of public involvement (commerical space)?

We'll see. The next 5-10 years will show whether or not commercial space exploration/exploitation will speed up the process of discovery or not. Right now my money is on yes, in the long term. Commercial space projects will take a while to get up and running, but once they do they are unlikely (IMHO) to slow down.

Is there something else behind this? (ufo cough)

Sorry. I don't buy the UFO argument - mostly because I don't believe we've been visited by, or are in contact with, ETs.

Does it cost too much for our govt to speed up the process?

It costs too much both in terms of money and time. Apollo probably pushed the limits of what can be accomplished simply by throwing money at a problem. See the story of Apollo 1 to find out what happens when you try to push a complex engineering problem too far too fast. A huge problem with space exploration is that it can be very hard to learn from your mistakes - if an engine fails to fire in space, a payload doesn't deploy properly, or your lander crashes into another planet, you can't very well examine the wreckage to find out what went wrong. This gives space exploration a much steeper learning curve than most other engineering projects.

or is part of the program under 'black ops' category for security reasons?

Again, IMHO, most "black ops" programs are probably unmanned and limited to LEO based technologies - KH-11, KH-12, and similar surveillance satellites, anti-satellite weapons, and the like. There's not much point in having Black Ops space planes and astronauts - unless I'm wrong about the whole ET thing!

Like anything these days, space explorations progress is directly based on 2 factors, cost and value, just like in everyting else in this capitalist world.

The progress made is directly related to how much value space exploration holds in the eyes of goverments and bussines, as you already said, in the eyes of goverment, this worth can be 2 fold, either its for pulbic aww and votes or for just plain for profitability.

The cost will persistently outweigh the value untill a time comes where the needed speed is attained to be able to:

A: get to resources quickly.
B: launch missions swiftly and to locations that grasp public aww and approval.

Alot of space exploration is activly being done, around our planet. Many satelites are launched every year, a whopping lot of data is recorded by all the satelites in orbit and the shuttle missions. But very few of that data ever makes it to the public, at least not directly.

But as long as its not easy to goto other planets in our solar system, harvest asteroids or actualy leave our solar system, the cost will keep outweighing the value of space exploration and the only real advances being made will be purely propaganda pieces to boost public opinion and morale.

Top shelf response mate
I agree with it all, except the UFO part disclosure project, buzz aldrin reporting seeing ufos etc. High society reports do it for me

anyway, nice feedback

[edit on 13-8-2006 by fennek77]

The first part of the space exploration was made during the Cold War, the participants had a strong motivation.

Today that motivation has gone, and the scientific interest remains the same, so we can say that today's missions have less reasons to exist than those on the 60s and 70s.

Space-tourism could be the next motivation.

ESA has created an initiative called 'The Survey of European Privately-funded Vehicles for Commercial Human Spaceflight'.

Source

Under this initiative, private companies across Europe already involved in planning activities for space tourism are invited to submit their space tourism plans.

ESA's General Studies Programme will select up to three of the proposals for further study. Each selected company will receive 150,000 Euro to further develop their plans. A team of experts from ESA's Launchers Directorate, who are involved in the development of the technologies for the next generation launcher, will manage the selected studies and share their expertise with the companies.

The aim of the study will be to critically review the spacecraft design and mission profiles, ensuring they are technically feasible, and develop sound business plans in order to allow companies to approach potential investors. An interesting aspect of the study will be to define the experiences the space tourists can expect, such as how much time they will spend in weightlessness, how much training they will need and how fit they need to be.

I think people are perhaps too critical of the rate of growth in the space program. We oftne liken it to Columbus sailing to the new world, and while that may be accurate, it is not necessarily right on the money. Columbus had state of the art ships (for his time) which had been tried and tested on the high seas for centuries. Ships which had taken several millenia to develope.

Currently mankind is akin to a lonely tribesman standing on the beach who has only so far managed to craft a primitive raft for crossing rivers. He has alot of work to do and it will take time. I don't think that reaching around the solar system will take several millenia, but a few hundred years might be in order.

Anyone saying its due to lack of public interest is talking BS, its just in the last 30 years there hasnt been anything to get excited about. . Do you think the world would be any less entraced seeing man walk on mars for the first time compared to the moon???? Fact is, everybody would be watching it. You just need to change NASA back to a vessel of human endeavour from its current state as a huge scientific lab set.

Okay,first off everyone wants to go into space. Space is great,but we dont even know enough about our own planet. We havent been to the bottom of the deepest point in the ocean yet. We discover a new species of life in the deep ocean everyday. Compared to ocean exploration,space is easy and we suck at that. Make deep sea study colonies,the tech and research gained from deep sea exploration will help further space technologies.