News WSJ: Europe Ends Independent Pursuit of Manned Space Travel

[Codz]

Yes. Why not start with NASA?

NASA is barely scraping by with what it has...

 

[T.Neo]

Which is exactly my point. Eliminate the costly contract structure and the large amounts of spending, and NASA could be a lot more capable with in its budget, or even more capable within a smaller budget.

 

[Eagle1Division]

And 1% of that federal spending could be spent on stuff oh so much more useful.

Lay the foundations and ensure the freedom and survival of the human race? Really? Freedom? Freedom from what? :dry:

A brighter future? How? More economically advanced future? In an unlivable hyperdesert?

Can't we build a brighter future and ensure our survival on Earth? :dry:

Space exploration is a good idea... eventually. But there is no immediate need for space colonisation, and no driving factor for it. Earth is where humanity is located, and our primary efforts must be to ensuring the existence of the best possible civilisation on the surface of the Earth.

But you missed something key I said twice. Now this is the third time. I'm saying we should be developing and working towards technologies that make it possible. You said

...Space exploration is a good idea... eventually....

There's never going to be an eventually if the technologies aren't there.

Firstly, the space age was not the major driver of technological development during the 20th century... war was. The 20th century was pretty much defined by wide ranging and deeply impacting wars: the first world war, the second world war, and the threat of a third world war.

War was what made the space age possible. The essential knowledge for the manned space program(s) was gained via the development of ballistic missiles from WWII and onward. The first human spacecraft were converted ballistic missiles. A ballistic missile derivative- the Soyuz rocket- is very reliable and still in service today.

The massive industrialisation after the war was what enabled the space program. Some of these facilities were used in war efforts, for example. Many of the astronauts had served in the military.

The whole reason for the space program in the first place, was an international prestige battle between the superpowers. If it was not for that prestige battle, space travel would either have been a minor issue considered by scientific entities, or by the military (or both together).

Now, in no way whatsoever am I suggesting that war is a good thing, or that we need war to further our civilisation. But I think it is pretty important in understanding a lot of the driving factors during the 20th century. War has been far more important technologically, than spaceflight. It has far more spinoffs.

Spaceflight itself is a spinoff of war...

Secondly we need spaceflight for 'freedom'? Huh? To escape governments? To prevent dictatorships?

Sorry, but that's not how it works. The glorious future we should all be working hard to achieve, is one with strong democracy, strong education, and strong human development.

Not one with a population eagerly waiting for the life support system of some cold, lonely 'brave explorers' to cut out and leave them dead among the sands of Mars.

But technological development kept on going after WWII ended, and after the Soviet Union collapsed it kept on going. It's because there are people getting high-level education, and then entering the workforce. Manned spaceflight boosts the number of people that do this, so it is responsible for some level of the technological development at the time.

Once again, it very well may have been the New World that brought Europe out of the middle ages, for the exact same reasons.

And yes, the reason for the space race was a battle of prestiege. And so was the colonization of the New World. But now, 300 years later, was it a good idea? Yes, but not for the reasons it was done at the time. The course of human history shows it was a very good idea.

And yes, freedom from dictatorships. The only thing that really keeps the 'states free is the Constitution, which is constantly attacked in one way or another, by people stretching it's meaning or passing unconstitutional laws. It is the nature of any government ran by men to only grow in power with time, at the expense of the liberty of the people. One country that particularly gets my attention in this respect is England. The right to bear arms is sacred to myself and most Americans in this region...

Anyways, the point is that a Mars society would, in fact, help the cause of liberty, in the same way that the New World colonies did so for the rest of the world. They showed the world that it could be done, and the constitution was the beginning of the end for the era of monarchy.

Except: we are different, very different. We are industrialised, we are modernised, and we have a wealth of information at our fingertips. This already makes the dynamics of our civilisation far removed from that of people in years past.

Maybe it is still similar in underdeveloped and developing nations, but we can pretty much see the result of those conditions.

Humans always think the same. It's rather amazing how much people can ignore history and repeat the same mistakes. Moral decadence, anti-militarism, and anti-nationalism have been the signs of a nation about to fail, for the Roman Empire and at other times in history, yet nobody even notices, or really cares. All three of those things are becoming popular in the country I'm in.

The information is there, but nobody cares enough to find out. And they still think the same.

And if you really want to be cynical: our civilisation has not failed yet. Manned spaceflight has.

Manned spaceflight has failed at 'easy' Moon and Mars missions. It has failed at regular and 'safe' access to space. It has failed at being cheap enough to permit its wide scale proliferation. It has failed to provide useful applications in and of itself (useful applications in space are done by unmanned vehicles now).

I think that in a way, a lot of space enthusiasm is still thinking in the 1950s. We should know better by now.

The technologies are still being developed, it's open-ended. It's not over yet. And I think Falcon 9/Dragon by SpaceX might live up on their promise to half Soyuz's prices, and be an even safer rocket. They're on-schedule and on-budget. The big advances will probably be made in the much more efficient private sector, which has only just started.

The shuttle may be retiring, but I'd call this the beginning of a new era of manned spaceflight, not the end.

- Solar panels with far higher efficiency exist.

- Fusion? Yeah... very far away, has applications far more useful than spaceflight (power generation!) and won't solve everything- comes with a lot of problems.

- There is no more economically efficient way to reach LEO than chemical rocket engines. Physically more efficient, yes. But these schemes make things worse economically.

1. What is it? 16%? I know it's not significant, I remember that being a big issue with solar power.

2. Look, you can't keep pointing at things and saying "comes with a lot of problems". That's very loose. I could say anything comes with a lot of problems. Sure it has some issues, but they really aren't major. Use a small powerplant and you can easily have radiators big enough.

3. That's just being close-minded. What if a physically more efficient engine could be flown many times with little maintenance work? What if they find a way to fabricate Carbon Nanotubes in length, and make an orbital elevator? What about new engine schemes that haven't been discovered yet?
One interesting idea I remember was very new: use a heat-absorbent undersurface of the vehicle, hit it with microwaves, and let the heat transfer to a network of small tubes running with hydrogen. Smaller-scale experiments have shown an ISP up to 8,000, with significant thrust.

My point is that there's still ideas that nobody's thought of yet. You can't say that chemical rockets are the best there is. Technology marches on.

Sorry, but there are so many other things that you could do... that are far more useful.

How about ending reliance on fossil fuels?

Or how about an efficient global transit network?

A means of meeting the basic needs of people in underdeveloped nations?

All of these are far more helpful than sending a bunch of people to freeze on Mars.

Can you do any of those things on a budget of only $16 bil. a year?
No. You can't even come close. Those things require hundreds of times as much. You can easily do those and run a manned space program. NASA isn't strangling the U.S. budget. NASA gets nothing, almost. If you took all of NASA's budget and added it to one department, I doubt anybody would even notice. $16 bil. is a big number, but it's absolutely nothing compared to the trillions flowing through Congress.

 

[T.Neo]

There's never going to be an eventually if the technologies aren't there.

Technologies don't beat physics, physics controls technology. You can do all sorts of interesting things, but they will never solve the problems of space colonisation entirely. Namely the fact that space is an extremely poor environment to live in, for one.

But technological development kept on going after WWII ended, and after the Soviet Union collapsed it kept on going. It's because there are people getting high-level education, and then entering the workforce. Manned spaceflight boosts the number of people that do this, so it is responsible for some level of the technological development at the time.

Er... yeah. After WWII, technology development continued because there was an attempt to maintain parity between the superpowers. After the collapse of the USSR, it has been an attempt for the US to maintain parity as a 'hyperpower'.

Space doesn't drive technological development. Neither does a surplus of highly educated people. Competition drives technological development, and demanding technology drives up the demand for highly educated people.

I'm trying to figure out how a surplus of highly educated people is that much better than a deficiency of highly educated people. If there's a surplus of highly educated people, it means that there are many people who have invested time, effort and money in higher education, and are unemployed... which is not a desirable factor.

Once again, it very well may have been the New World that brought Europe out of the middle ages, for the exact same reasons.

I think your point there is interesting, but there were a whole lot of other factors at play there as well.

And yes, the reason for the space race was a battle of prestiege. And so was the colonization of the New World. But now, 300 years later, was it a good idea? Yes, but not for the reasons it was done at the time. The course of human history shows it was a very good idea.

40 years ago, was the race to the Moon a good idea?

Let's see... satellite technology is abundant, spurred on by the early pressure to get into space, and there are some nifty spinoffs, but otherwise, it makes very little difference to my life that humans have walked on the Moon.

In fact it makes very little difference to many people's lives.

No wonder people keep on thinking it was faked. :dry:

And yes, freedom from dictatorships. The only thing that really keeps the 'states free is the Constitution, which is constantly attacked in one way or another, by people stretching it's meaning or passing unconstitutional laws. It is the nature of any government ran by men to only grow in power with time, at the expense of the liberty of the people. One country that particularly gets my attention in this respect is England. The right to bear arms is sacred to myself and most Americans in this region...

:facepalm:

You... you want to go to Mars... to protect... your right to bear arms? :rofl:

Now don't get me wrong here, I have nothing against guns or the right to bear arms whatsoever. I really, don't like people banning guns for ignorant 'NIMBY' reasons.

But seriously, the people in the UK are not opressed. Their lives are not overpowered by the government, just because of UK gun laws. They do not die in droves because of UK gun laws.

Anyways, the point is that a Mars society would, in fact, help the cause of liberty, in the same way that the New World colonies did so for the rest of the world. They showed the world that it could be done, and the constitution was the beginning of the end for the era of monarchy.

Yes, I am sure they would help the cause of liberty somehow... by freezing to death. :shifty:

Also, I am glad you think that the US Constitution ended 'opressive' governments. Please tell that to the people living in Zimbabwe. Or Libya, I guess- who got rid of their opressive government without a Mars program...

Humans always think the same. It's rather amazing how much people can ignore history and repeat the same mistakes. Moral decadence, anti-militarism, and anti-nationalism have been the signs of a nation about to fail, for the Roman Empire and at other times in history, yet nobody even notices, or really cares. All three of those things are becoming popular in the country I'm in.

The information is there, but nobody cares enough to find out. And they still think the same.

I'm sorry, but what you are saying is starting to sound like an advertisement for conservative nationalism. We are all entitled to our views here, but some things are independant of politics.

And plenty of people find out. Ignorant people aren't the ones you need to worry about (unless they cause trouble somehow), knowledgeful people are. Sorry, but people have far more information available to themselves now than they did 200 years ago, and have more information available to themselves now than they did just 40 years ago.

The technologies are still being developed, it's open-ended. It's not over yet. And I think Falcon 9/Dragon by SpaceX might live up on their promise to half Soyuz's prices, and be an even safer rocket. They're on-schedule and on-budget. The big advances will probably be made in the much more efficient private sector, which has only just started.

The shuttle may be retiring, but I'd call this the beginning of a new era of manned spaceflight, not the end.

Obviously there is a new era of human spaceflight; as long as Congress does not kill COTS/CCDev for their monstrous pork rocket.

I am skeptical of SpaceX's costs, but even if they were to grow a fair amount, SpaceX would still be cheaper than their US competitors.

As I said though, technology won't make your problems go away. My little Mars EDL cost estimate there used Falcon Heavy with SpaceX cost figures. That amounts to quite a large amount of money.

You will not get Mars transit costs down to the same level as the cost per person to traverse the Atlantic in the era of the colonisation of the New World. This is a cold, hard, fact. Even with the most optimistic cost/kg estimates, it will cost a good deal to get to LEO, let alone Mars.

If we take the 'unrealistic holy grail' cost of $100/kg to LEO, it will already cost $7000 just to ship the mass of the human body to LEO (assuming weight of 70 kg). That isn't counting all other supporting stuff that has to be counted as payload as well, or the other costs related to shipping humans into space.

And this is just the cost to get to LEO. If you get any lower, you start to get closer and closer to the cost of the actual propellant, which makes your estimate less and less realistic.

And of course, a "Battlestar Galactica" fusion spacecraft does not fix this... because it would be immensely expensive in and of itself.

1. What is it? 16%? I know it's not significant, I remember that being a big issue with solar power.

More than 16%. The ISS panels are something around 14%, but they supposedly pretty old and primitive. Apparently efficiency is in the range of 20-25% now, with near term goals of 30-50%.

2. Look, you can't keep pointing at things and saying "comes with a lot of problems". That's very loose. I could say anything comes with a lot of problems. Sure it has some issues, but they really aren't major. Use a small powerplant and you can easily have radiators big enough.

It is extremely fitting to say "comes with a lot of problems" when referring to fusion propulsion. The first and foremost problem is probably the fact that we haven't created a break-even fusion reaction in a laboratory, let alone a powerplant... or a propulsion system.

3. That's just being close-minded. What if a physically more efficient engine could be flown many times with little maintenance work? What if they find a way to fabricate Carbon Nanotubes in length, and make an orbital elevator? What about new engine schemes that haven't been discovered yet?

Because rocket engines have extreme limits. You can't do much with them to make them magically better. They have a lot of constraints and they really have to perform amazingly to perform at all. Rocket engines make up the majority of the cost of the vehicle, as well as the reason for the majority of failures.

The creation of CNTs would probably be the smallest problem facing an 'orbital elevator'.

One interesting idea I remember was very new: use a heat-absorbent undersurface of the vehicle, hit it with microwaves, and let the heat transfer to a network of small tubes running with hydrogen. Smaller-scale experiments have shown an ISP up to 8,000, with significant thrust

Who is going to build the requisite humongous microwave dish to power this vehicle? What stops them from weaponising it in some way?

My point is that there's still ideas that nobody's thought of yet. You can't say that chemical rockets are the best there is.

Yes I can. If not universally, certainly in certain applications. Surface-to-LEO lift might just be one of those applications.

Surface to LEO is extremely demanding and extremely difficult.

Technology marches on.

The laws of physics do not.

It is pretty scary, that many, if not most, of the 'advanced concepts' for spaceflight, came about in the 60/50s or even earlier.

Rocket engines are actually a pretty old technological concept, albeit one that has seen many evolutions and improvements over the years. But we are also fully aware of their physical limits.

Can you do any of those things on a budget of only $16 bil. a year?
No. You can't even come close. Those things require hundreds of times as much. You can easily do those and run a manned space program. NASA isn't strangling the U.S. budget. NASA gets nothing, almost. If you took all of NASA's budget and added it to one department, I doubt anybody would even notice. $16 bil. is a big number, but it's absolutely nothing compared to the trillions flowing through Congress.

Not my point. My point is that a gigantic Mars colonisation program (which will cost far more than $16 billion, btw) is a pretty silly waste of money compared to all the various useful things that need to be done on Earth. It isn't even about NASA's budget (which does not spend many billions of dollars on an absurd colonisation scheme).

I think you could do a huge amount of Earth-bound research with $16 billion, if the space program can do what it does with that amount of money. In fact, it is such a huge amount of money, that it would be more likely to lead to a gigantic inefficiency in research than anything else.

 

[Eagle1Division]

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with 1% for space, or 2% for space. Or even 5% for space. I'm saying it is wrong- very wrong- to put the fantastical vision of a niche group, that has already failed and flopped over itself, in a position of priority over many of the very real problems facing our civilisation today.

Then why are we debating at all if you agree? We're not demanding 20% spending in space! I'd be totally satisfied with 5%! That would be an increase by an entire order of magnitude!

---------- Post added at 02:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:48 AM ----------

Okay, it's late and I've got a busy day tomorrow, I won't take the time to respond to the entire post right now. But I do want to address this:

:facepalm:

You... you want to go to Mars... to protect... your right to bear arms? :rofl:

Now don't get me wrong here, I have nothing against guns or the right to bear arms whatsoever. I really, don't like people banning guns for ignorant 'NIMBY' reasons.

But seriously, the people in the UK are not oppressed. Their lives are not overpowered by the government, just because of UK gun laws. They do not die in droves because of UK gun laws.

No, I don't want to go to Mars to protect gun rights. In that specific paragraph I was discussing liberties and the tendency of governments to grow in power at the expense of the rights and freedoms of the people.
When the people fear the government, and not vice versa, that's when you start sliding down that path. No oppression could have ever occured in history of people had always had their right to bear arms. Not to mention, I think recent events are solid proof that gun restrictions only lead to more crime.

But, please, let's not get off topic here. That paragraph was on the tendency of governments to grow in power and take peoples' liberties. This thread is on manned spaceflight.

If I say again how this connects, then that will be 3 times I've explained it, it's there if you want to read it, but I'm not going to explain again. It has to do with not near-term space exploration, but the stuff that lies ahead perhaps within the century, or around the end of, and the analogy of the New World. If you don't get it, read again, don't call me wrong because of a lack of understanding.

~It's late and I've got quiet a day tomorrow, I'll reply to the rest when I have time.

 

[T.Neo]

Then why are we debating at all if you agree? We're not demanding 20% spending in space! I'd be totally satisfied with 5%! That would be an increase by an entire order of magnitude!

Because I'm annoyed by people putting the importance of a "glorious future" in an extremely deficient environment above real needs and requirements in our immediate world.

No, I don't want to go to Mars to protect gun rights. In that specific paragraph I was discussing liberties and the tendency of governments to grow in power at the expense of the rights and freedoms of the people.

If I say again how this connects, then that will be 3 times I've explained it, it's there if you want to read it, I don't need to say it again.

I did not misunderstand you, I understood you perfectly and I don't think you're making much sense. Sorry.

 

[Eagle1Division]

Because I'm annoyed by people putting the importance of a "glorious future" in an extremely deficient environment above real needs and requirements in our immediate world.

I'm not putting it above other more pressing needs. I suggested a budget of 5%. How the heck is that putting spaceflight above other needs?

I think we're all saying that the current world is not spending enough in manned spaceflight. We're not saying it's the only thing that matters. We're just saying it matters more than how it's being valued.

I'm pretty sure everyone here realizes full well that other branches of science, and other expenditures are important. But the thing is, everyone knows those are important. What everyone doesn't know is that manned spaceflight is important. That's why we're discussing it, because it's budget should be increased by an order of magnitude to an entire 5%. Not because nothing else is important.

But you're advocating things that the world's already doing, and always has been doing. They don't need an advocate, they're already doing fine.

Manned spaceflight does need advocates, because we're not doing it enough.



Case in point: There are hundreds of programs, trillions of dollars, the entire spending budget of tens of nations, all going into the things you've been advocating, like Earth-based research, and various other programs and education.

But as of right now, there's only one freaking rocket, among all of human civilization, that is capable of (legally) taking people to space. A rocket that's 40+ years old, at that. And right now all worldwide spending on manned spaceflight probably takes less than 1% of the annual spending of my home country alone.

Just compare those two paragraphs.



You should advocate how things need to change, not how things are. You said manned spaceflght could/should take 5% of spending. So really, you should be advocating it instead of arguing against it, because according to that you agree with me and everyone else here. Of course it's not going to solve all of mankind's problems. They won't magically vanish. They'll never go away. But it will help to fight them. And in terms of effectiveness per dollar, so far manned spaceflight and exploration have been the most successful things ever done to improve mankind, specifically exploration and expansion.


And finally, they're extremely deficient environments, yes, but the key point is that these "hyperdeserts" (which I still believe is an incorrect term, and should only apply to vacuum-environments with no rescources. You can live off the land on Mars.) are very far away. And that's significant. That's very, very significant. That's how they're different than Antarctica or the Sahara. The dynamics are totally different because of that, making them an analogue to the "New World". Antarctica and the Sahara don't fit that, they aren't the "exploration" that has benefited mankind so greatly in the past.


To sum up the whole point here, we aren't "putting the importance of a 'glorious future' in an extremely deficient environment above real needs and requirements in our immediate world.". We're not putting manned spaceflight above education, foreign aid, or whatever. We're just saying not nearly enough is being put into manned spaceflight. We're not saying drop other programs for manned spaceflight, we're saying do both, 5% for manned spaceflight is perfectly acceptable, while other programs that have been going on and not doing anything new for the past century can continue to consume a monsterous 30% of the budget in their own waste.

 

[Tex]

Just a reminder to everyone; you can still post and enjoy the thread without engaging in an argument. Simply ignore the posts you feel the urge to argue about or press the X on the top of your browser for instant relief.

 

[Ghostrider]

I think I'll just ignore the whole thread because it feels like playing Unreal Tournament against a lone, unmoving bot that does not interact with the environment at all...

 

[T.Neo]

I think I'll just ignore the whole thread because it feels like playing Unreal Tournament against a lone, unmoving bot that does not interact with the environment at all...

Ghostrider, I am sorry that you find the suggestion that manned spaceflight is largely irrelevant and highly expensive so offensive. :dry:

I'm not putting it above other more pressing needs. I suggested a budget of 5%. How the heck is that putting spaceflight above other needs?

5% is a bit excessive, no? You seriously don't need to spend that much on spaceflight. 1% or even 2% is more reasonable.

I think we're all saying that the current world is not spending enough in manned spaceflight.

I think we are not spending money in the right places in spaceflight. We're operating a gigantic spacecraft in low Earth orbit that has only the goal of fuzzy "scientific research", we have had programs that are intent only on building shiny rockets and recreating Apollo, and currently our requirements are driven by the political pork-trough rather than engineers or mission planners or anyone of that sort.

We're not saying it's the only thing that matters. We're just saying it matters more than how it's being valued.

I think that's the crux of the issue. You think manned spaceflight should get more attention, I think it gets enough attention, even if it is maybe devalued in the global consciousness.

What everyone doesn't know is that manned spaceflight is important.

And I'm saying that it isn't. Not that it isn't important at all, but that it isn't majorly, hugely important. Which it isn't.

But you're advocating things that the world's already doing, and always has been doing. They don't need an advocate, they're already doing fine.

Heh. No they're not. No, the people in Afghanistan and Zimbabwe aren't doing fine... :dry:

No, our current consumption of fossil fuels isn't doing fine. No, our population growth isn't doing fine.

Say what you want about these things, but they are not 'doing fine'.

But as of right now, there's only one freaking rocket, among all of human civilization, that is capable of (legally) taking people to space. A rocket that's 40+ years old, at that. And right now all worldwide spending on manned spaceflight probably takes less than 1% of the annual spending of my home country alone.

And? Very few people actually need to get into space.

Soyuz isn't bad or primitive because of its age, rather it is reliable and tested after years of experience.

You are also ignoring the Long March rocket used to launch Chinese flights into space, which is almost certainly man-rated under their standards. Maybe not foreign standards, but it is still "legally". Or is there some international human-rating standard for launch vehicles and spacecraft, that I don't know about?

We spend likely less than 1% of the global budget on spaceflight because we don't need to spend any more.

You should advocate how things need to change, not how things are. You said manned spaceflght could/should take 5% of spending. So really, you should be advocating it instead of arguing against it, because according to that you agree with me and everyone else here. Of course it's not going to solve all of mankind's problems. They won't magically vanish. They'll never go away. But it will help to fight them. And in terms of effectiveness per dollar, so far manned spaceflight and exploration have been the most successful things ever done to improve mankind, specifically exploration and expansion.

Exploration and expansion into what? Into nothing. That is what space is. Literally what it is.

Effectiveness per dollar of doing what, exactly? Furthering an interesting activity, nothing more.

I would really like to know what useful discovery for people on Earth, has been made in space on a manned spacecraft by humans.

And finally, they're extremely deficient environments, yes, but the key point is that these "hyperdeserts" (which I still believe is an incorrect term, and should only apply to vacuum-environments with no rescources. You can live off the land on Mars.) are very far away. And that's significant. That's very, very significant. That's how they're different than Antarctica or the Sahara. The dynamics are totally different because of that, making them an analogue to the "New World". Antarctica and the Sahara don't fit that, they aren't the "exploration" that has benefited mankind so greatly in the past.

Let's see the definition of desert;

1.A barren area of land or desolate terrain, especially one with little water or vegetation; a wasteland.

A desert biome is defined as an area with an extremely low amount of precipitation, but biologically the concept of a 'wasteland' could be extended to essentially any place that has low biodiversity/biodensity.

But a place such as Mars or the Moon are not even biomes; they are not defined by life of any sort. They are totally and entirely dead. And they are an environment that does not cater directly to any of the basic human needs. They are not habitable, nor is it easy to make a small portion of them habitable.

They are hyperdeserts. And yes, you can 'live off the land' even on the Moon... but it is definitely not easy. It may be more difficult to live on the Moon than on Mars, but even Mars is a poor environment in and of itself.

Of course places like the Sahara or Antarctica did not become the "new world". Why? Because they were poor environments, that's why. And even then they were/are easier to get to than Mars or the Moon.

There is no pressure drawing people towards a deficient environment. Ever.

To sum up the whole point here, we aren't "putting the importance of a 'glorious future' in an extremely deficient environment above real needs and requirements in our immediate world.". We're not putting manned spaceflight above education, foreign aid, or whatever. We're just saying not nearly enough is being put into manned spaceflight. We're not saying drop other programs for manned spaceflight, we're saying do both, 5% for manned spaceflight is perfectly acceptable, while other programs that have been going on and not doing anything new for the past century can continue to consume a monsterous 30% of the budget in their own waste.

But look exactly at what you are saying: "consume a monsterous 30% of the budget in their own waste". You philosophically put your 5% above any of the real funding to real applications.

And to increase the funding for spaceflight to 5%, you will have to take money from somewhere else. Granted, you can take it from the military, but not all countries have the gigantic military spending that the US does.

In short, even if you don't believe that spaceflight is more important than other issues, you believe that it is radically more important than it really is, which is where the problem lies.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

5% is a bit excessive, no? You seriously don't need to spend that much on spaceflight. 1% or even 2% is more reasonable.

But the US only spends 0.5% on spaceflight - so what is your argument?

I don’t think anyone here – me included – is trying to argue that spaceflight is the most important issue facing mankind right now. Rather, we are merely saying that it is one of the important issues, that warrants at least a small effort and funding – which it gets. Sorry, but the 0.5% of funding that US spaceflight gets isn’t going to end all wars, or end all poverty. If the US spent 50% on spaceflight, you would have an argument, but it just doesn’t stand up in the face of a budget of 0.5%, because you can’t argue that spaceflight gets too much priority with a budget like that.

 

[N_Molson]

I'm not arguing with that, my point is that some things take priority over others, and right now manned spaceflight has extremely low priority compared to many other things.

Why ? You just put statements without justifying them. It's too easy. It's like everything you say has to be the truth. Things don't work like that, you can be wrong as often as other people can be. To throw statements you have to build a serious demonstration, use facts and figures (with references). Then an argumentation is possible. Else it's a circular logic game as it was practiced by the theologians in the Middle Ages.

 

[T.Neo]

I don’t think anyone here – me included – is trying to argue that spaceflight is the most important issue facing mankind right now. Rather, we are merely saying that it is one of the important issues, that warrants at least a small effort and funding – which it gets. Sorry, but the 0.5% of funding that US spaceflight gets isn’t going to end all wars, or end all poverty. If the US spent 50% on spaceflight, you would have an argument, but it just doesn’t stand up in the face of a budget of 0.5%, because you can’t argue that spaceflight gets too much priority with a budget like that.

And I'm saying that it isn't an important issue at all, relative to other things. Important enough for 0.5% maybe, but certainly not for 5%.

Why ? You just put statements without justifying them. It's too easy. It's like everything you say has to be the truth. Things don't work like that, you can be wrong as often as other people can be. To throw statements you have to build a serious demonstration, use facts and figures (with references). Then an argumentation is possible.

If you have facts and figures on how immensely useful human spaceflight is, please provide them as I'd imagine you would be very eager to do so. I stand by my case that space is an incredibly poor environment and there is no intrinsic value to placing humans in space beyond publicity and research that is only valuable to a select few people in very small areas of research.

 

[Codz]

His statements have basicly become little more than trolling. Why are you even using this forum if your beliefs are a mirror of all the "Joe Six Packs" out there? You refuse to back up your arguement. Why are you even using this forum if you're just going to say spaceflight isn't important at all?

 

[Wishbone]

Pessimism is not equal to trolling.

 

[T.Neo]

Actually, my beliefs are not equal to Joe Sixpack at all. Joe Sixpack hears space and thinks "aw dat useless stuff!". I hear about space and I think about a very adverse environment and a field of exploration that has massively failed in many respects.

I can't help but be pessimistic about space. I'd love not to be, but my views are shaped by what I observe in history and in the present day

 

[Codz]

Actually, my beliefs are not equal to Joe Sixpack at all. Joe Sixpack hears space and thinks "aw dat useless stuff!". I hear about space and I think about a very adverse environment and a field of exploration that has massively failed in many respects.

I can't help but be pessimistic about space. I'd love not to be, but my views are shaped by what I observe in history and in the present day

It's fine to be a little pessimistic, but do you honestly have no hope for space?

 

[T.Neo]

Yes, very, very little hope for space. But that doesn't mean we should ignore it totally. Maybe somewhere there is something useful in space, but it probably isn't very similar to the wild ideas that a lot of advocates seem to have, just as our space program is a radical failure compared to the visions from before the space age.

 

[Eagle1Division]

5% is a bit excessive, no? You seriously don't need to spend that much on spaceflight. 1% or even 2% is more reasonable.

Odd. You're the one that said 5% would be reasonable earlier.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with 1% for space, or 2% for space. Or even 5% for space. [...]

I think we are not spending money in the right places in spaceflight. We're operating a gigantic spacecraft in low Earth orbit that has only the goal of fuzzy "scientific research", we have had programs that are intent only on building shiny rockets and recreating Apollo, and currently our requirements are driven by the political pork-trough rather than engineers or mission planners or anyone of that sort.

Wait, are you saying there's no engineers or mission planners involved in LEO missions to the ISS? :blink:

I think that's the crux of the issue. You think manned spaceflight should get more attention, I think it gets enough attention, even if it is maybe devalued in the global consciousness.

And I'm saying that it isn't. Not that it isn't important at all, but that it isn't majorly, hugely important. Which it isn't.

You said it has some value. Seeing as the ISS is currently going to be de-orbited 2020 by the Russians, who have the only man-rated space vehicle of any western nation, I would say currently there is little or no value being placed on human spaceflight. Even if it's not majorly hugely important (which, yes, I think it is, for the reasons listed earlier, I'm still not convinced they're wrong), if it holds any importance at all, then I'd say it's still undervalued.

Heh. No they're not. No, the people in Afghanistan and Zimbabwe aren't doing fine... :dry:

No, our current consumption of fossil fuels isn't doing fine. No, our population growth isn't doing fine.

Say what you want about these things, but they are not 'doing fine'.

But they've got plenty of advocates, and their current situation now is really unrelated and irrelevant to human spaceflight. You keep mentioning these issues as if somehow they devalue manned spaceflight. These issues have always been with us humans, and always will, now is as good a time as any to take those small steps out, and doing so won't hurt planet Earth, Afghanistan or Zimbabwe. No, it won't hurt them a bit, and it won't stop us from helping them at all.

And anyways, if you're talking about other things distracting us, now is perhaps one of the most peaceful and prosperous times in the entire history of the human race. So how can you say things aren't good enough? If you use history as a precedent, then historically, things will never get any better. Now is best the time.

Exploration and expansion into what? Into nothing. That is what space is. Literally what it is.

Effectiveness per dollar of doing what, exactly? Furthering an interesting activity, nothing more.

I would really like to know what useful discovery for people on Earth, has been made in space on a manned spacecraft by humans.

You're flat-out ignoring my arguments about it causing an increase in educated individuals. No, not nothing, there are entire worlds out there just waiting to be explored, for the breadth of human experience to be expanded into.

Of course places like the Sahara or Antarctica did not become the "new world". Why? Because they were poor environments, that's why. And even then they were/are easier to get to than Mars or the Moon.

There is no pressure drawing people towards a deficient environment. Ever.

Not because it was difficult for people to live in the Sahara or Antarctica, but because it was impossible at the time. It was extremely difficult for people to live in the Americas, the vast majority of the early colonists died. At the time, it was a "deficient environment".

This borders into Human Geography: there are push factors and pull factors. For the New World, the push factors were religious persecution for the pilgrims. And the pull factors were the promises of freedom and a new world full of hope, where men were free to write their own destiny.

The reason we don't see colonies in Antarctica or the Sahara right now is because those aren't "New World"s. They're easily accessed by a single day of flying, and communications are instant. They're also politically tied to the rest of the world as well, which is perhaps the biggest distinction in-between them and the "New World".

But look exactly at what you are saying: "consume a monsterous 30% of the budget in their own waste". You philosophically put your 5% above any of the real funding to real applications.

Correct. A monsterous amount of money is being wasted on stupid programs in the USA, IMO. Things that the private sector could run much more efficiently, to reach a lot more people, and do a much better job... But this is just an example of how people today are not different than any other point in history. Communism and socialism are failed ideas, again and again in history it's obvious they just don't work. Yet people will still openly jump at any opportunity for "free" handouts.

They're getting bribed by their own money :dry:

And to increase the funding for spaceflight to 5%, you will have to take money from somewhere else. Granted, you can take it from the military, but not all countries have the gigantic military spending that the US does.

The largest figure I've ever heard was 30%. Smallest was 18%. Seeing as historically and constitutionally the primary purpose of the federal government was to provide for defense, I'd say that's not gigantic military spending at all.

In short, even if you don't believe that spaceflight is more important than other issues, you believe that it is radically more important than it really is, which is where the problem lies.

It will be very funny to see how 5% can be considered "radical", at a time when what used to be the world's leading space nation now has to go begging the Russians for a ride to what's mostly their own space station... :dry:

---------- Post added at 10:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:47 PM ----------

Yes, very, very little hope for space. But that doesn't mean we should ignore it totally. Maybe somewhere there is something useful in space, but it probably isn't very similar to the wild ideas that a lot of advocates seem to have, just as our space program is a radical failure compared to the visions from before the space age.

Because visions from before the space age realized only the basics of rocketry, not the entire scope of running an actual spacecraft actually is. It's radically more expensive and complex than they realized; that's the issue.

What I love is that private industry has entered the scene. Beforehand there was very little or no "strong" drive to make spaceflight cheaper and more streamlined. Now, there is. SpaceX is literally blowing peoples' minds with how they do things.

Dragon v.s. Orion:

Orion:
mass: 8,913 kg (capsule mass only)
Development: $22.4 billion (as of 2005)
Per Flight: $1,000 million
Crew: 4
Time: 7 years
Status: design phase

Dragon:
mass: 4,200 kg
payload: 6,000 kg
Development: $1 billion
Per Flight: $56 million (falcon 9 launch cost)
Crew: 7
Time: 6 years
Status: Cargo variant flown successfully, crewed variant has had successful ECLSS tests.

And this is only the beginning.

SpaceX believes the Falcon 9 medium reusable could bring the price down to as low as $1,286/lb (21,000 lb payload, $27 million per flight).

And yes, I realize private space can cut ticket price to some-odd $21-million, but it's still possible to drive it even lower with existing technology.
What we're seeing here is just the beginning.

And sure it won't hit "airline fare" anytime soon, but new technologies can change the whole game. An Orbital elevator might cost a tremendous amount, but per kg it would change all the rules. What of microwave rockets with the upper-ISP the same as NTR's? What about other, unforeseen technologies?

Now, sure, maybe even then it won't be airline fare, but consider this: Every year, the price of everything goes down slightly, not because of inflation, but because of various other factors and how society works, the entire world actually gets a little bit richer. So eventually, it will hit airline fare.

 

[Codz]

There is no point in argueing this anymore. It's like argueing with a moon hoaxer, they are so set in their beliefs that they refuse to see even the most clear cut evidence.