NY Times: Is Manned Spaceflight Obsolete?

[Urwumpe]

There are people who do the raw food thing. According to them the only reason we have cancer and disease is because we cook food. They say that our ancestors didn't die of cancer in the past because they ate raw food, failing to notice that they didn't live long enough to die of cancer.

And they still did develop cancer already in the past...

Also raw fish is something else than raw meat - we did not eat as much raw meat as we did eat raw fish in the past, since raw meat is not good at all for our digestion - and I would sure like to see a medical study on the raw meat eaters about their likelihood of cancer... should be pretty high especially for the liver or pancreas.

 

[adamb193]

Well here is a link to the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_foodism doesn't seem like a smart idea to me. I think that we still can learn more from manned space exploration. Keyword exploration.

 

[Rocketman527]

Obsolete? No. Impossible to get funding for so scientists are forced to use the next best thing? Yes. This is what happens when governments spend billions on killing people and lining their pockets. Such is the way of the world I guess...

 

[Keatah]

Obsolete? No. Impossible to get funding for so scientists are forced to use the next best thing? Yes. This is what happens when governments spend billions on killing people and lining their pockets. Such is the way of the world I guess...

This simply tells me we are not ready yet for space exploration. Obviously, war and greed *ARE* more important. If they weren't then perhaps space exploration would take precedence; alas it does not.

Again, and again I will say build a better spacecraft with better materials and propulsion. -- If you look inside one of today's spacecraft you are looking at a maze of pipes and wires and gauges and seals and screws, all not aesthetically pleasing and not to mention unreliable, noisy, dirty, expensive!

I certainly have no desire to sit inside *that*, and I'm sure other folks don't either.

When man needs to go into space I'm sure something will be developed. But right now there is no need. If you are concerned about getting blown up by an asteroid impact, well whooop-de-doo, we are blowing stuff up everyday in afghanistan!

I certainly don't want a plague of humans leaking out of the solar system into the cosmos. No way!

 

[Shadow Addict]

Does it really need to be aesthetically pleasing?

Also, I totally have a desire to sit in *that*, and I'm sure many others do. I'd go into space if I had the opportunity in a tin can as long as it could get me back home safe.

 

[RisingFury]

If you look inside one of today's spacecraft you are looking at a maze of pipes and wires and gauges and seals and screws, all not aesthetically pleasing and not to mention unreliable, noisy, dirty, expensive!

I certainly have no desire to sit inside *that*, and I'm sure other folks don't either.

STEVE!!! QUICKLY!!! WE NEED AN IROCKET!!!

 

[adamb193]

Because the Wright brothers said screw this it's a hunk of canvas and ropes let's quit this airplane business until they make 747's.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

This is just my two cents... But no, it does not have to be aesthetically pleasing.

I mean really, look at the LEM from the Apollo days. Sexy? Nope, not in the least bit. Fuctional? You bet. Performed her role perfectly, and in the case of the Apollo 13 mission, performed in such an exemplory fashion that one may say she operated well beyond her design.

I think eventually form may follow fashion, but current technology and metallurgy means that the Star Trek/Star Wars type ship are pure FANTASY. In the not-so-near future I can imagine something along the lines of a DGEX, perhaps even an XR-2, but the USS Enterprise is science fiction. Even (I think) for the 23rd century.

But, I'm a technician not an engineer. If a hot-shot engineer can design one (that'll work). I'll fix it when it's broke.

Man will explore space, it's a matter of desire, funding and sometimes a plain stubborn will to do such a thing. But to wait for the fantasy to become commonplace is to invite the event to never happen.

To make a frame of reference: The Viking longboats didn't evolve into the QEII over the period of a few decades. It took steady development, while that development was going on, people didn't wait for the QEII to arrive before sailing the oceans.

Honestly, and this might only be my opinion, but if I could go to space tomorrow in a Mercury capsule for a 3 orbit recreation of John Glen's flight I'd be packing my flight suit right now.

 

[Shadow Addict]

Honestly, and this might only be my opinion, but if I could go to space tomorrow in a Mercury capsule for a 3 orbit recreation of John Glen's flight I'd be packing my flight suit right now.

Most definitely. Of course, in a perfect world, I'd prefer to recreate Apollo 17 as Gene Cernan, but in reality I'd leap at a SpaceShipTwo flight if I had anything close to a chance at it.

 

[Hielor]

This simply tells me we are not ready yet for space exploration. Obviously, war and greed *ARE* more important. If they weren't then perhaps space exploration would take precedence; alas it does not.

Again, and again I will say build a better spacecraft with better materials and propulsion. -- If you look inside one of today's spacecraft you are looking at a maze of pipes and wires and gauges and seals and screws, all not aesthetically pleasing and not to mention unreliable, noisy, dirty, expensive!

I was thinking about this, and I absolutely agree.

We also shouldn't be building cars until we can make them look like cars from The Jetsons, or from the 2015 sequence in Back to the Future.

 

[Rocketman527]

The "industrial" look of spacecraft is part of the appeal, not considering the whole flying in space part

Also, the irony in this article is quite amusing

 

[dansteph]

Honestly, and this might only be my opinion, but if I could go to space tomorrow in a Mercury capsule for a 3 orbit recreation of John Glen's flight I'd be packing my flight suit right now.

Yep, but a roller coaster tour cost about 5$ not $2.8 billion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mercury

About viking: America would certainly still be an empty continent if the trip would have cost that price and there was no local ressource to survive. (resupply for 3-4 month more would cost the same price for 3-4 men only). One cannot compare earth exploration with space exploration.

So appart "roller coaster" tour and making some photos in front or cool rock "killroy was here" there is nothing to do yet for humain on other planets. Not with the current technology and at this price.

Again it's sad for us space fan but it's the today's reality.

Now we should continue research to reduce cost and make a lot of probe exploration to find something that either allow us to live there or find ressources that would worth the trip's cost. (miracullium?)

Dan

 

[PhantomCruiser]

I was just making the ship analogy to balance the kids post up there (and on a few other threads) that he doesn't think man should travel into space until it can be done in Star Trek style.
And I'm in total agreement with you about it being cost probitive for the time being. But, the Vikings did wander across N.America (OK, they left, but they did make the trip). Columbus's voyage was expensive also, quite a leap of faith on behalf of of his patron, Queen Isabella. Not only did Columbus get lost, he also got really, really lucky. His journey paid off.
Perhaps someday a probe will find that rare unobtanium that will prompt our journey to the stars. And I'll be one of the first to admit that we have a lot of learning to do before we go. But I think we will eventually go, not in my lifetime, but who knows what'll happen in the next 500 years or so?

 

[ex-orbinaut]

This simply tells me we are not ready yet for space exploration. Obviously, war and greed *ARE* more important. If they weren't then perhaps space exploration would take precedence; alas it does not.

War and greed, unfortunately, ARE the main incentives of technological progress. The eventual cost of a technological leap comes in the aftermath of such conflagrations. Had it not been for World War I and II, we would probably just about now be getting around to - a peaceful version of - the ME 262, and marvelling at it.

...Columbus's voyage was expensive also, quite a leap of faith on behalf of of his patron, Queen Isabella. Not only did Columbus get lost, he also got really, really lucky. His journey paid off.
Perhaps someday a probe will find that rare unobtanium that will prompt our journey to the stars. And I'll be one of the first to admit that we have a lot of learning to do before we go. But I think we will eventually go, not in my lifetime, but who knows what'll happen in the next 500 years or so?

Queen Isabella's funding. Maybe greed was the incentive there, too? That said, I see your point PhantomCruiser...

"There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Don't be surprised. I hedge my bets on EVERYTHING. My father was born in 1919. Even as he became an engineer apprentice before WWII, he never dreamed that he would ever see an aircraft go through the sound barrier. Did not even know what it was, or that it existed. He ended up working on such projects (TSR2, for example) in the post war years. Much less did he think he would see a man on the Moon.

And my father in law died last month, aged 102 years old. He was an Ecuadorian gentleman who drove the first Model T imported to Ecuador, before there was even electricity in this country. Think of what he saw. It was fascinating to listen to his recollections.

It is all in how fond you are of your present, until something forces you to change it. For example, if tomorrow some guy at some space agency approached any of you and said, "hey, we can transplant your brain into a space robot, and it will have a lifespan of 2 million years with the additives we put into it". Would you be interested? Would that be considered manned space exploration?

Fantasy? Of course it is. I am being silly...

I am not going into the tired old subject of what we might discover in a few years. We are certain to see that. I am interested in the human motivation...

 

[Ghostrider]

And my father in law died last month, aged 102 years old. He was an Ecuadorian gentleman who drove the first Model T imported to Ecuador, before there was even electricity in this country. Think of what he saw. It was fascinating to listen to his recollections.

Yeah, I almost envy him. He really saw amazing stuff happen. And then I think of my generation and all those that come after me, and the most they'll see will be the next iThing that does the same stuff of the old one with a little more glittery crap on.

 

[JamesG]

The "industrial" look of spacecraft is part of the appeal, not considering the whole flying in space part
[ /quote]

Function over form. Panels and covers have mass and so cost. Also you need to be able to get at systems to check or work on them. And you also need to be able to get at the pressure hull in to fix a leak.

Also, the irony in this article is quite amusing

More pathetic than ironic.

 

[Andy44]

Imagine the guys who fought in the American Civil War who lived long enough to see jet planes and atomic weapons. That's quite a tech spread over one lifetime.

 

[Kyle]

Same people who were born and remember the early 1900s and lived to last year.
Wright Brothers, Atomic bombs, Super Sonic flight, Sputnik, manned space flight, moon landings, super sonic commercial air travel, Space shuttles, and finally the 'big bang machine'. They've witnessed on the news the first airplanes to humans landing on another world to recreating the beginning of the universe, that's extreme.

 

[T.Neo]

As for spacecraft with exposed wires etc, it has been that way and will always be that way, and not only with spacecraft. Form follows function, and if you're lucky, you get a form that is asthetically pleasing.

I don't think we'll find any sort of extremely valuable substance that will require offworld human presence. All stable elements are known, and chemical compounds could be synthesised with probably less cost then a sustained interplanetary human presence.

There is an incentive to develop real space tech, to prevent bolide impacts. Such impacts if big enough could destroy civilisation. And even the small ones pose a risk- while they may be similar to perhaps a hurricane or earthquake in damage, they are predictable and perhaps preventable, which the latter disasters are not; something can be done to save lives and money.

The problem (from a spaceflight advocacy point of view, it's great from a safety point of view) is that these events are probably too rare to elicit a massively expensive program to prevent them.

I am an optimist. Human spaceflight isn't unviable, it's just unviable with the current popular opinion and government paradigm.

 

[JamesG]

As for spacecraft with exposed wires etc, it has been that way and will always be that way...

At least as long as there are still wires in spacecraft.

I don't think we'll find any sort of extremely valuable substance that will require offworld human presence. All stable elements are known, and chemical compounds could be synthesised with probably less cost then a sustained interplanetary human presence.

Yes, but there are bound to be alloys and properties that are unique to non-terrestrial processes. micro-g crystals and readily available hard vacuum are the most often described.

I am an optimist. Human spaceflight isn't unviable, it's just unviable with the current popular opinion and government paradigm.

Sadly true.