What is our manned space program trying to accomplish?
 

I am not trying to make a point here, I am genuinely confused.

As I understand it, the thrust of our manned space program is to establish a moonbase and eventually to reach Mars. We are retiring the Space Shuttle in 2010, developing Orion (sort of an Apollo like ship and moon lander) which is scheduled to fly 2015, and presumably heading moonward after that. I don't hear anything about new space stations or expanding the International Space Station. This was the plan formulated in the Bush Administration and the Obama administration does not appear to be changing it.

So my question is, what is the rationale for this? Why do we want to return to the moon, is there something interesting that we did not find during Apollo? Why do we want a moonbase? Is a moonbase expected to be a jumping-off spot for Mars, and why?

Any insight on this would be appreciated.

A surge of national pride - similar to what the lunar landing did in 1969. I think that's part of it - as well as to maintain our established position as the world leaders in space exploration. China and India are now making serious runs at manned space programs too and have the technical know-how to beat us at our own game if we let them.

Of course both countries have economies that are highly dependent on ours (and Europe's) too, so even if we have to curtail our programs due to budget reasons, I'd suspect they would too...

I love the space program and the history behind it. Always have. It'd be a tragedy to slash these programs, but given just how bad things are these days, I could seriously understand (and probably support) a five-year moratorium on new spending for such things. We need to get our house in order first and work on immediate concerns like energy independence, national security and economic stability first. Fly the shuttle 3-4 missions a year through 2015, then if everything else is resolved by then, resume the timetable for the return to the moon, etc. Just my $0.02 on what should be done here.

For the past 8 years, NASA and the science community have been struggling with how to best use their modest budget. Many would prefer unmanned missions like the various space telescopes and planetary probes. Unmanned is cheaper, and you can do more targeted scientific missions than if you add "manned" to the missions. The previous administration seemed to have an interest in manned missions, but I also never understood the why behind it. It may have had little to do with a scientific/technological vision, but, we may never know.

Years ago I read a book:
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Mars-Plan-Settle-Planet/dp/0684835509/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235827394&sr=8-1
that argued a manned Mars mission was possible with Saturn V technology, all it required was the political will.

While I've never been a great fan of JFK the whole "We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too". is quite inspirational and perhaps what the country (& Western World) needs, rather than the pessimistic, introspective timidity currently infesting our culture.

That made a lot of sense when the Soviets were competing with us in space and we were gripped by the anxiety of the cold war. I think we get many of the same scientific and technological benefits from unmanned missions, and, at the same time, we learn more about the solar system and the universe. IMO, of course.

$$$ spent on technology

My ongoing fantasy concerning the space program;

Cameras rolling, showing our space-suited moon-walker. He stops, picks up a rock. Shows to camera. Walks on.

He stops ...picks up something. Shows it to the camera.

Arrowhead!

Reasons to keep going.

1. Technological advances. They come a lot faster when you have someone with the will and the means to push the edge a little.
2. The moon is a good jumping off place due to the lower gravity. Presumably the loss of bone density would happen at a slower rate with a constant gravity source for the occupants. With an ice source, water and oxygen are already available, saving the cost of transport.
3. The L5 Lagrangian point might arguably be a better jumping off point fuelwise since gravitational forces would be minimal, but there is also the problem of space debris that is an increasing hazard.
4. Unmanned missions are a good deal for the cost and a good supplement but to me there is no complete substitute for being able to send a person. It does make the problem more difficult and means that a solution has to be that much more reliable, which also has the effect of pushing the technology farther.

An interesting note on the SSME is that several of the parts are NLA. Either the businesses that made them are gone or they threw out the tooling while waiting on more work to come in and gave up to do other work. I personally do not think we have all the technology in place to build another Saturn V that would be as reliable as the first one.

The space program is suffering some of the same problems as our military in that budget cuts over a long term evenutally lead to reduced capabilities.

One thing I do not understand is the dichotomy of saying that we need to fix our economy by spending lots more money on new projects and in the next breath saying that we need to cut our spending and cancel a lot of projects.

I worked at Space Camp the first year they were in existence and I find it amazing how many predictions we had back then that were only 20-30 years away are STILL 20-30 years away.

I want to start mining asteroids. I call dibs on the one that is 4500 tons of titanium.

First, the purpose of the manned portion of the space program is to create the ability for human occupation beyond our planet over an indefinite period of time. Wow, could I possibly be an more specifically unspecific? It's not even beer:30 yet.

Why would we wanna do that ? I can see the following plausible reasons:

- Well, its in our social fabric. Manifest destiny and all that stuff. #$%!~ expands to fill the space given it...

- Scientific. When we loose the desire to learn more, we become stagnant. At this time, much of science still requires a human presence where the science is being conducted. Maybe in the future it won't be necessary but today it is.

- Economic. Our style of capitalism whether you like it or not requires constant growth (ala Ponzi-schemish or reverse pyramid scheme). We have acheived globility. Thus the days of growth are numbered unless we can expand our presence and thereby expand markets. Well thats what space if for!

- Offensive/defensive capability. The ability to project force from space closes the hole in force projection umbrella. Perhaps in the future this won't require a manned presence but at this time it does.

- Planet Protection. Our planet has evidence of roids pummling us. A means to protect the planet from such, which is crucial to our long term survival would be much more effective if there was a manned presence in space.

Regards,
Carlton

I love NASA and the space program but manned mission are terribly impractical.

You don't hear much talk of the very likely situation that any person going to Mars probably won't survive to return to earth. I sure people will still volunteer to go but I doubt the public will get behind the project once they learn it is a suicide mission.

Now a base on the moon, that would be cool!

The "driving technology" argument held water before, but less so now. We pour unbelievable amounts of money into weapons technology. The realistic scenario is to keep doing that but look for technology spins offs there. There is a "Tang" in the Predator system somewhere...

As for the national pride thing, imho we need to look at our own country and build that up. I'd rather a vision of self-sufficiency is put forth and we try to realize that along with creating the next infrastructure. The green movement has elements of this but is mired in politics and stupidity.

I agree with ya' but ultimately rockets and guys in spacesuits are sexier and a better sell on TV for grandstanding politicians than a bunch of buildings with cool roofs, trombe walls and solar panels.

At its core, it's really about politics (and nationalism is tied into that).

Snow tires.

I love space exploration and technology as much as the next guy but as adults we need to look at our budget and spend what we have wisely. If your "company" is a a gagillion in debt, you have to decide if the company sponsored car racing team is the best use of your money.

IMO, the space program is a combination of bread and circus and defense industry welfare. The space station was a political tool to keep Russian scientists busy doing something "good" vs working for some evil dictator, etc.

I think a lot of this stuff would go away if people actually got to check off what you wanted to pay for:

1. Would you like to donate money to the space program? +$19.40
2. Would you like to remove the inheritance tax on people inheriting more than $1 million? + $10.33
3. Would you like to subsidize ethanol production? +$32.45

This comes off as pejorative but you'd have links to more information to help people decide what they wanted to fund. When consumers are disconnected from the actual cost of things, they tend to make decisions as if someone else is paying.

-Chris

Agreed 100%.

I've said for years that it'd be great if we had a flat tax and the TAXPAYER decided how their particular tax payment gets appropriated among various agencies/programs when they file their return.

Personally I'd probably select military defense of our country, border security, a few R&D programs, local police/fire and maybe a handful of public assistance programs to help the unemployed, disabled, etc. Beyond that I doubt I'd fund very much - including the space program (even though I do love it and find it fascinating).

One word..............................Chimps

Could you imagine if we sent chimps out and they made first contact, got spooked, and totally mauled the little alien dudes?

Hahha, they would take it as an act of war with the planet Earth. LOL...maybe chimps aint the best idea. ;)

IMO it's important for reasons we might not know about. Remember Portugal in the 1400s, when the world was "flat" and if you sailed too far out into the ocean you would fall off the edge? We need NASA.

The cost of the Iraq war so far is 34.6 times the 2008 NASA budget.

On the other hand how much do we spend exploring our own ocean that is so much more important to us?

Their goal today is to spend as much money on anything that wont make a difference. I mean, how many space shuttles does it take to put find out if moss grows in zero gravity.