4 ms·

It's easy to see this as tragic or humiliating, but I think if you look deeper the current situation is actually quite exciting. It's true that the US has stopp

by cryptoz 16y ago

It's easy to see this as tragic or humiliating, but I think if you look deeper the current situation is actually quite exciting. It's true that the US has stopped building spaceships and has stopped going to space on its own, but this is very very temporary. The private companies (specifically SpaceX) are picking up the slack fast and should be able to do full ISS resupply missions within a few years. And I'd definitely bet that the NASA will be the first organization to build the epically huge rockets, the heavy lifters to take people to asteroids and eventually to Mars. They'll take longer than any of us want to wait, but they'll do it properly and safely and it'll be magical. Here's to hoping the Russians or Chinese decide they can beat us to Mars. That'd do the trick nicely, get the competition going and the excitement in the air.

metatronscube 16y ago
Yes, it would get the competition going again, but I think it may be China that have the determination and drive to pull that one off (if they keep to their schedule). Although the US has been known to pull a few rabbits out of their hats from time to time. But perhaps not as willing to take risks any more and that may be what is needed.
- 51Cards 16y ago
  Sadly I agree with you. The loss of a couple shuttles was a very public event and I think that has taken some steam out of the drive to push the edge. Exploration is by its nature risky and you just can't make it completely safe. All the money and time you spend trying to eliminate (not reduce, eliminate) the risk factor only destroys budgets and delays advancement. I use the analogy of ships of explorers/settlers heading for the new world. Some ships never made it, some did but the settlements never took. Today we cross the oceans almost without thinking about it. Space is no different, just on a grander scale. But when those early settlers board the ships they will be taking the risk too. If our ancestors didn't do it we wouldn't have explored the world until the late 1900's. Nor would we have learned to build reliable ships as quickly.
  - uikjhgyujmn 16y ago
    That's the risk - you make an unnecessary manned vehicle to launch satellites because you can get funding for it being 'our brave heroic astronauts' then when it goes wrong the same publicity comes back and bites you. Exploration of the West wouldn't have been possible if Nasa had been in charge: http://www.spacefuture.com/vehicles/how_the_west_wasnt_won_nafa.shtml http://www.spacefuture.com/vehicles/how_the_west_wasnt_won_n...
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      Or, to put it bluntly, if you are not killing people, you are not pushing hard enough. I may be a weird person, but since when strapping yourself to a tank, the size of a building, filled with high explosives and riding it to orbit could be expected to be a safe thing? If astronauts wanted safety, they'd be accountants.
      - uikjhgyujmn 16y ago
        The problem is that Nasa don't seem to have a reason for having astronauts there - other than without the astronauts there would be no interest and no Nasa. You could make it safer by replacing the Shuttle with an Apollo era capsule and sticking it on the front of every commercial ArianeV / Atlas IV launch. Wouldn't be any point in having the man there but it would be safer manned spaceflight.
        rbanffy 16y ago
        There is not much reason to have astronauts up there other than to have astronauts up there. You can do a lot of science with unmanned probes, you can launch satellites with unmanned rockets. OTOH, you can't repair the Hubble without meatware close to it. And no machine can tell you an inspiring story of adventure and exploration. And that's what NASA should focus on. Returning scientific data is important, of course, but stories of exploration are what inspire us.
        16y ago

by cryptoz 16y ago

metatronscube 16y ago

Yes, it would get the competition going again, but I think it may be China that have the determination and drive to pull that one off (if they keep to their schedule). Although the US has been known to pull a few rabbits out of their hats from time to time. But perhaps not as willing to take risks any more and that may be what is needed.

51Cards 16y ago
Sadly I agree with you. The loss of a couple shuttles was a very public event and I think that has taken some steam out of the drive to push the edge. Exploration is by its nature risky and you just can't make it completely safe. All the money and time you spend trying to eliminate (not reduce, eliminate) the risk factor only destroys budgets and delays advancement. I use the analogy of ships of explorers/settlers heading for the new world. Some ships never made it, some did but the settlements never took. Today we cross the oceans almost without thinking about it. Space is no different, just on a grander scale. But when those early settlers board the ships they will be taking the risk too. If our ancestors didn't do it we wouldn't have explored the world until the late 1900's. Nor would we have learned to build reliable ships as quickly.
- uikjhgyujmn 16y ago
  That's the risk - you make an unnecessary manned vehicle to launch satellites because you can get funding for it being 'our brave heroic astronauts' then when it goes wrong the same publicity comes back and bites you. Exploration of the West wouldn't have been possible if Nasa had been in charge: http://www.spacefuture.com/vehicles/how_the_west_wasnt_won_nafa.shtml http://www.spacefuture.com/vehicles/how_the_west_wasnt_won_n...
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    Or, to put it bluntly, if you are not killing people, you are not pushing hard enough. I may be a weird person, but since when strapping yourself to a tank, the size of a building, filled with high explosives and riding it to orbit could be expected to be a safe thing? If astronauts wanted safety, they'd be accountants.
    - uikjhgyujmn 16y ago
      The problem is that Nasa don't seem to have a reason for having astronauts there - other than without the astronauts there would be no interest and no Nasa. You could make it safer by replacing the Shuttle with an Apollo era capsule and sticking it on the front of every commercial ArianeV / Atlas IV launch. Wouldn't be any point in having the man there but it would be safer manned spaceflight.
      - rbanffy 16y ago
        There is not much reason to have astronauts up there other than to have astronauts up there. You can do a lot of science with unmanned probes, you can launch satellites with unmanned rockets. OTOH, you can't repair the Hubble without meatware close to it. And no machine can tell you an inspiring story of adventure and exploration. And that's what NASA should focus on. Returning scientific data is important, of course, but stories of exploration are what inspire us.
        16y ago