It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

justification for manned space program?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   
I can't help wishing NASA would stop spending money on the manned space program. The novelty of humans in space is mostly gone after 50 years. A computer animation of an unmanned probe like Curiosity is probably more inspiring than a clip of one more astronaut floating around in zero gravity. Or if NASA is serious about a manned space program they should be researching ways for the astronauts to hibernate so they can go somewhere interesting.

Sorry I guess this is just a rant.
edit on 6-12-2011 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   
I don't think hibernation is what they should look into. I think they need to start developing craft in space that doesn't have the intention of returning to the planet. We need to stop looking into craft that takes off from a rocket on earth as a means of traveling to other destinations in space.

This should be step one. Learn how to convey people though space first. Worry about the long haul later. Transport trucks and RVs weren't invented before cars.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by cloudyday
 

I disagree with you I think we should spend more on research into manned space flight. Why? because one day we will have to reach out to the star's for our species to survive, we have to figure out how to make sure our bodies can survive in space and last the long trip to get where we want to go.
Also there is the fact that we as Humans are explorer's it's in our very being to think "Whats over that hill, How can I get to the other side of that sea".



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by cloudyday
 


In comparison to the United States spending budget, NASA get sweet f'a.

There is a reason we send people into space, not because its a novelty event.... though the US government excels at spending money on completely useless, pathetic projects and bills etc.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


Exactly, eventually we will need to leave Earth, and that wont happen if we are 'space virgins'.

Also, was it the Russians that have been planning something like 3 months on Mars, and just finished some simulation for it?



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Nuff said.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by BeforeTheHangmansNoose
 


Yeah they made people live in isolation for what they figure is the length of the round trip. I forget the details but it seems to me like they are the only ones trying.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   
I agree with you op, manned space flight is costly, dangerous and has no real scientific merit these days. Robotic probes and space based telescopes offer a much better alternative until we develop the capabillity to travel around our solar system in months rather than years or decades. Hopefully we will make a breakthrough in propulsion technology sooner than is predicted and we can go out ourselves.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Atzil321
 


Robotic exploration is very limited. Man is much better at exploring themselves. Robotic exploration will never yield the kind of innovations that lead to discoveries that sending a live person can achieve. If the robot fails they build a new one. Humans are fairly resilient and inventive when presented with a dire oR complicated situation.

Put it this way. If they put robots on the ships in the 1400s yes they would have still discovered the new world but would it have achieved the same results?? These people also had time to explore and develop. Robotic exploration doesn't yield any kind of development.

I wonder how we in society became so afraid of exploration and adventure. I know many people who would jump on the ship even if they knew it was a one way trip only. I include myself in this.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by metaldemon2000
 
I agree with you totally, but we just don't have the technology to be able to pull it off yet. Thats the point i was trying to make.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Atzil321
 


That is a load of crock, technology in the 60's was sufficient to get us to the moon yet today, 50 + years later we can't so the same thing? Technology today is more than sufficient to sustain us on the moon or mars if properly applied. The only thing keeping it from happening is $$$. Technology is not the issue.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by cloudyday
I can't help wishing NASA would stop spending money on the manned space program. The novelty of humans in space is mostly gone after 50 years. A computer animation of an unmanned probe like Curiosity is probably more inspiring than a clip of one more astronaut floating around in zero gravity. Or if NASA is serious about a manned space program they should be researching ways for the astronauts to hibernate so they can go somewhere interesting.

Sorry I guess this is just a rant.
edit on 6-12-2011 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)


I think you miss the three main points of the manned space flight program which is usually collectively called the "space race."
Had you started with that particular descriptive name you would have closer to the explanation rather than with title as you used.

The origins of the "manned space program" in both the US and USSR were related to R&D in defense (rockets), the creation of an industry (jobs), and the the far less tangilble words of the human quest probably best represented in the words of JFK.

That quest, by the way, also was to know where the hell the UFOs were coming from.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by rcanem
 

I'd be too scared she would want to suck my brains out. I said suck!



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by cloudyday
 


It's a far better enterprise than the pursuit of Weapon technology to control dwindling resources.

We are a space race, we dream of it because it is our destiny, our collective memory knows that Earth is not safe.

Nature knows that Earth is not safe, so she has endowed us with the means to leave and to disperse the life born of Earth.

If we cannot do that simple thing, nature has also endowed us with the means to destroy ourselves.

Cosmic..



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


That never stopped James T. Kirk.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   
I'd be willing to say that once robotics reach a level of high intelligence at a nano level, and we have full control over them as we do our own bodies, robots will be used instead of physical humans, much like a player, playing a video game. But until then, the best thing we have is ourselves.

Have you seen one of the so cold "high tech robots"? No way that could perform the required duties of a human.

Though i bet a lot of money that some secret high tech, underground society, tptb, whatever you may wish to name them, already has some kind of super complex working robot. After all, mainstream society usually learns of technology many years after the government agencies have actually developed them.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   
NASA's participation in the ISS is more diplomatic than it is scientific. The move towards the privatization of near Earth orbit operations is appropriate at this time. NASA's manned program needs to focus on deep space exploration, beginning with the development of suitable reusable space operations only craft. This would best be done with international co-operation.
edit on 6-12-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
NASA's participation in the ISS is more diplomatic than it is scientific. The move towards the privatization of near Earth orbit operations is appropriate at this time. NASA's manned program needs to focus on deep space exploration, beginning with the development of suitable reusable space operations only craft. This would best be done with international co-operation.
edit on 6-12-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)


But what is the justification for sending humans to a near earth asteroid for example? How much is that SLS rocket going to cost compared to the unmanned missions? And that is only for the rocket - not for the rest of the expense of going to an asteroid. We could probably return samples from Mars several times for the price of one manned mission to one asteroid. In the early 60's manned exploration was hard to justify but now it is just silly.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by cloudyday
 



But what is the justification for sending humans to a near earth asteroid for example? How much is that SLS rocket going to cost compared to the unmanned missions? And that is only for the rocket - not for the rest of the expense of going to an asteroid. We could probably return samples from Mars several times for the price of one manned mission to one asteroid. In the early 60's manned exploration was hard to justify but now it is just silly.


We need to know how tightly packed asteroids are in the event we need to change one's course. In fact, if we need to deflect or destroy one, it would help if humans were actually present at the site of the operations. Human beings have a huge advantage over robotic probes for a very simple reason. Machines can explore the surface of another world systematically enough, but they are incapable of thinking: "Hey! What's that moving shadow over there? I'm going to go and have a look behind that rock!"



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by cloudyday
 



But what is the justification for sending humans to a near earth asteroid for example? How much is that SLS rocket going to cost compared to the unmanned missions? And that is only for the rocket - not for the rest of the expense of going to an asteroid. We could probably return samples from Mars several times for the price of one manned mission to one asteroid. In the early 60's manned exploration was hard to justify but now it is just silly.


We need to know how tightly packed asteroids are in the event we need to change one's course. In fact, if we need to deflect or destroy one, it would help if humans were actually present at the site of the operations. Human beings have a huge advantage over robotic probes for a very simple reason. Machines can explore the surface of another world systematically enough, but they are incapable of thinking: "Hey! What's that moving shadow over there? I'm going to go and have a look behind that rock!"


I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I think anything they need to know about near earth asteroids can be discovered with much less expense using unmanned craft. NASA should focus on ridiculing the whole concept of the manned space flight so they can free themselves from that burden. If China sends astronauts to the moon everyone should simply laugh at them for running a race that is 50 years old.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join