The next "space race"

It was interesting watching the recent Discovery series about the space race, and NASA..

Got me thinking.

Does anyone thing there will be another "space race"? Where the entire country not only supports the program, but the participants are held high as heros. Where we all stop and watch with awe and remember where we were when something happened. Where people have a strong desired to work on that project, and many of the nation's top engineers, scientists, and designers are willing to work more than just overtime to reach this goal.

Heck, I remember as a kid that I wanted to be an astronaut. I remember watching the Columbia land for the first time on TV- even when it wasn't as high profile as going to the moon- it was important.

Is there something out there that will take people's attention from sports (and stop pretending these guys are heros)? Or some event were we will be watching a ticker tape parade down Broadway?

Thoughts?

Eric

Absolutely! I think we are on the verge of the greatest "Space Race" yet. China is achieving more with every manned flight, Russia is still a player, and many countries are either totally supporting of existing space programs, but also creating their own!

Not to mention the continued interest of private ventures in general, and the Rutan/Virgin alliance in particular.

Once the Orion spacecraft really gets going into the engineering phase instead of the design phase I think we'll see a surge of enthusiasm. Going back to the moon will be a big deal, but going to Mars is just EPIC. We've never sent man out of Mother Earth's orbit/sight, going to another planet is an amazing dream!

I certainly hope so. It seems to me that the general populace is sorta blase' about the whole thing unlike the Apollo moon mission days. I clearly remember the first moonwalk and it was all anybody talked about for days afterward. Now shuttle launches get buried on the 3rd or 4th page of the newspaper and don't get mentioned at all on the news stations (unless something goes wrong, of course).

Going to Mars, now that's huge! It was a pipe dream when I was a kid, now it looks like it will probably happen in my lifetime.

I would love to see it. When I was a kid we always stopped what we were doing to watch the space shuttle launches until the Challenger explosion when I was in 5th grade. That was also when I first became aware of my sick sense of humor. They brought us all into the gym to watch the first school teacher be shot into space, and when it crashed the principal started to take questions. I asked when we could get the rest of the teachers signed up. I'm still a little surprised I said it.

Most likely not, the US economy is in no condition for a space race. Sending people into space would help get the general public more interested in science (always a plus), but at the end of the day it's pretty much a big waste of money compared to sending an unmanned probe, entertainment aside.

Then again if the US and China get into a proper dick-waving competition, there will be another space race, damn the budget, full speed ahead!

Wall-e wrote: I would love to see it. When I was a kid we always stopped what we were doing to watch the space shuttle launches until the Challenger explosion when I was in 5th grade. That was also when I first became aware of my sick sense of humor. They brought us all into the gym to watch the first school teacher be shot into space, and when it crashed the principal started to take questions. I asked when we could get the rest of the teachers signed up. I'm still a little surprised I said it.

The forces of awesomeness and political incorrectness are in heated conflict!

P71 wrote: Once the Orion spacecraft really gets going into the engineering phase instead of the design phase I think we'll see a surge of enthusiasm.

I want to see, instead of the "Orion Spacecraft" a "Project Orion" style ship built.

Here's the thing. Space exploration will grow by leaps and bounds once two things happen:

One, commercial fusion power generation, Two, materials science breakthrough to allow for a space elevator.

That's it. Get those two things and the entire solar system is ours. Hell, the universe is ours. A Laser-Fusion "Orion" ship could go anywhere we were willing to wait for it to get to. Until then, all manned spaceflight is garbage. Until we know pretty much all we can know about our solar system from probes, it's stupid to send a person. Yes, sending a person gets more knowledge, but our solar system should be filled with Voyagers and Pioneers and the like, and it isn't. Why are we wasting the money, time, and life (accidents happen) to put a person on Mars. Look at what Spirit and Opportunity have learned for us, Mars should be crawling with them.

Hi therex,

I’m sure space is and has been profitable for a long time. The trouble is that we don’t attribute the benefits from the space program directly so we’re left with just soft savings. Imagine if every time you turned on your computer or made and international call, you had to send NASA a royalty check? McCain has been talking about a Mars mission and although I’m excited, I think it’s a tactical mistake as many individuals that want it are already committed to voting for him and those that don’t have one more reason to not vote for him. I’m afraid we’re about to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory here…like the way Bobby Rahal spent his career getting Honda into a competitive position only to retire just as the wins started coming in…so to NASA where much of the expense, risk, and hard work were invested only to hand over the lead just as the good times were starting. To me, the brass ring is the vast reserves of Helium III in the Moon’s topsoil that can be used to power fusion (not high radiation fission) reactors on Earth for thousands of years.

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/pdf/wcsar9304-1.pdf

Maybe you interpreted my comment as disparaging of further NASA missions, casting it off as a waste of time and money.

Believe me, nothing and I mean nothing could be further from the truth. Whatever the NASA budget is, it should be tripled, but we shouldn't be wasting our time on manned space flight. It's too expensive, too risky, and offers too little reqard. I mean, think about your examples: Telecommunications and Computing. What's special about Manned spaceflight that drives that as opposed to unmanned flight? We spend alot of money trying to keep 3 dudes alive in a metal tube while setting off a giant explosion behind them.

Nah, I mean, manned spaceflight has it's place, but it should be on the back burner compared to unmanned probes and rovers.

Hi therex,

Fair enough…I’m a little disheartened about manned space flight myself since it has fallen prey to political correctness. If candidates were selected solely on merit with no regard to quotas, I’d see astronauts as hero’s, the best and the brightest, individuals to look up to and aspire to emulate. The moment they started letting the set designers from the “It’s A Small World” ride control the candidate selection process, the interest was lost.

While I appreciate the comments about NASA, I really wasn't asking the question in a literal sense- whether we will go to Mars or whatnot...

But in a figurative sense.

Will it be possible that a company or our nation or something will happen so that the entire nation sits up to take notice, kids want to do that item when they grow up, and the best of the best scientists, engineers, and planners get onto that project to that it transends what is going on.

The space race DID that. As did flying in general.

Can anyone see a ticker tape parade for something that someone does- ala- flying across the Atlanic for the first time, first American in Space, first American on the Moon- someting like that.

When the first plane flew around the world non-stop, it seemed like barely anyone noticed, even though it was a pretty significant achievement. When the speed of sound was broken on the ground, many of this board was watching pretty close- but few out of the auto world.

I even think going to Mars will not captivate the world...

alfadriver wrote: Does anyone thing there will be another "space race"?

Funny you should ask that question. This guy seems to think there is one: http://tinyurl.com/6p2ftf

P71 wrote: Once the Orion spacecraft really gets going into the engineering phase instead of the design phase...

Huh?? I don't understand the distinction. As a mechanical engineer working on the Orion Crew Module, I'm providing design support for test articles and the manned vehicle. The first flight test, PA-1, is scheduled for late 2008.
Here are some photos and info about the PA-1 test vehicle: http://tinyurl.com/6mptph and http://tinyurl.com/3bzokb
NASA's Constellation website: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/main/index.html

GameboyRMH wrote: Most likely not, the US economy is in no condition for a space race. Sending people into space would help get the general public more interested in science (always a plus), but at the end of the day it's pretty much a big waste of money compared to sending an unmanned probe, entertainment aside.

I agree that there probably won't be the enthusiasm for a US mission to the Moon as there was for Apollo, largely because we've been there, done that. NASA is notoriously poor at PR. We also live in a jaded age, where it's difficult to find a groundswell of excitement for anything real.
However, I stongly disagree with you that manned spaceflight is a waste of money, since there is a significant technological and symbolic difference between sending robots and sending men into space. Also, compared with Apollo's budget Orion/Constellation is pennies on the dollar.

therex wrote: I want to see, instead of the "Orion Spacecraft" a "Project Orion" style ship built. Here's the thing. Space exploration *will* grow by leaps and bounds once two things happen: One, commercial fusion power generation, Two, materials science breakthrough to allow for a space elevator. That's it. Get those two things and the entire solar system is ours. Hell, the universe is ours. A Laser-Fusion "Orion" ship could go anywhere we were willing to wait for it to get to.

Why not throw Star Trek transporters in as well? Here in the real world, technology advances through hard work and evolution. Politics and budgets don't permit the rapid development of theoretical and hypothetical technologies into practical ones. The roads through NASA are paved with much smaller stillborn and cancelled projects.

therex wrote: Until then, all manned spaceflight is garbage. Until we know pretty much all we *can* know about our solar system from probes, it's stupid to send a person. Yes, sending a person gets more knowledge, but our solar system should be *filled* with Voyagers and Pioneers and the like, and it isn't. Why are we wasting the money, time, and life (accidents happen) to put a person on Mars. Look at what Spirit and Opportunity have learned for us, Mars should be crawling with them.

We can't know all about our solar system from probes alone. Sending a man into space isn't like a drive to Walmart. Going to the Moon has additional challenges on top of the ones we're used to with Station/Shuttle missions. There's a lot we know about going to the Moon, but there's a lot more we don't know about sustaining a presence there - which would be invaluable for sending men to Mars. Accidents happen, but it's a real engineering challenge to mitigate their probability. There has always been a tension between advocates of manned and unmanned spaceflight. The advocates of robot missions point to the scientific knowledge gained, but usually neglect or downplay one of the most important reasons of all for any exploration: glory. It's the reason we participate in motorsports, whether we want to admit it or not.

To be fair, all is not wonder and perfection in Orion/Constellation. As in any large scale project, there is infighting and stupidity. Here's a pretty good but depressing blog: http://rocketsandsuch.blogspot.com/

Peter

Well, it seems like American interest in space is greater now than it has been since the early days of the Shuttle program, but I think the one component we're lacking for the next "Space Race" is the competition.

Not that there aren't other countries/companies working toward similar goals, but there doesn't seem to be any real regard to who gets there first. Partly I suppose it is due to the global age we live in, but also there's no real "Us" vs. "Them" to drive it either. I don't think most Americans think of China as the enemy, as Russia was viewed durring the Cold War/Space Race.

Now, if the Taliban or Al Qaeda were heading for Mars, I think American sentiment may be a bit more enthusiastic toward our space program.

PeteWW wrote: Why not throw Star Trek transporters in as well? Here in the real world, technology advances through hard work and evolution. Politics and budgets don't permit the rapid development of theoretical and hypothetical technologies into practical ones. The roads through NASA are paved with much smaller stillborn and cancelled projects.

That's my point. We're not spending enough money on developing new technologies from a pure science perspective. But I think you read over my point entirely. Fusion and a space elevator aren't "crazy science fiction" like a Star Trek style transporters are, and it's my humble opinion that manned space flight is risky, a poor way to spend money, and stupid until those two technologies are proven. Once they are, we can start building big ships to send out to wherever.

And you're right, of course...we can't know all about the solar system from probes alone. But when we're at the point where we go "You know, these probes just aren't cutting the mustard" that's when it's time to send a person.

This demonstrates the short-sightedness of this country. Our economic prosperity can be attributed to the development of space tech from the 60s and 70s. Digital watches, personal computers and many other things we take for granted came from the space race. We need a leader to set a long term goal that we can attack as a united country just as going to the moon in the 60s. It wasn't (and isn't) what we learned once we got to space, it was all about what we learned getting there.

Battery technology alone will benefit. Isn't that the primary push of the nation right now?

Manned space flight has a few big pluses: it's good to have a human on board to figure things out, like when one of Hubble's original solar panels got stuck. Basically, an astronaut gave it a shove and it finished deploying. Hard to see a robot doing that.

An ingenious human can perform many more experiments than a robot and is in a better position to interpret the results on the spot. Remember the furor a few years back when one of the Mars rover experiments seemed to 'prove' there was life there but the results were wrong? I can't help but wonder if a person would have spotted the anomalies early on and not gotten the entire scientific community into an uproar.

Finally, there is no 'hook' to get people really interested in a space mission 'manned' by robots. The rank and file population look at spaceflight very much as they do NASCAR; they aren't really there for the racing. They are there to see someone risk his/her neck and they are happy to see a crash. Someone remarked once that the shuttle missions were too long on caution and too short on danger and death to capture the world's attention (and thus support), and I swear they are right, even after the Challenger and Discovery crashes. Not to mention after those two incidents the news media centered on the 'blame game' rather than the fact that the astronauts knew they were doing something exceedingly dangerous which contained the distinct possibility that they would not survive, yet they chose to do it anyway.

It's hard to sell the average person on the side benefits (the steak) of the space program, even though they are everywhere: computers, pacemakers, microwave ovens, digital displays, you name it. It has even helped racing: carbon fiber laminates and lightweight high efficiency thermal insulation are both directly from the space program. Instead, NASA needs to sell the sizzle rather than the steak. Play up the danger and romance of space exploration. But of course the safety weenies and those who would eviscerate the pioneer spirit in the name of ultimate safety won't go for that.

What makes me crazy is that they found water on Mars (a HUGE achievement) and nobody seemed to take notice. It was debated for decades and it was considered the single most important thing they would find in our solar system in the search for life outside of Earth.

What do you think will happen if they find evidence of life on Mars? Even though it will probably only end up being fossilized bacteria, it should create quite a commotion.

I've got a couple of connections to NASA. We do a ton of work for contractors since we're right in the middle of "NASA" central here, and my dad worked for them (through a govt. contractor, where most of the work is designed) for 40 years, engineering pieces for not only the Apollo missions and Space Shuttle, but everything in between.

The real benefit of the program reaches far beyond what you see visually. Not only does a lot of the technology eventually trickle down to everyday use (you should hear about the materials now in use by Nasa and other govt. agencies, it makes titanium and kevlar look prehistoric, or the massive computer systems the size of a grain of sand, or the technology for communications that do not use radio wave the way cellular does, and on and on.) but most are funded by the government for military and / or space use.

The real benefit though is the inspiration it brings in sciences. We are now sadly lacking in the production of scientists and engineers, ranking far below China and Japan. Without the ability to keep up with technology, we're pretty much screwed. Until recently, most of China's elite came to the US, but this coming to an end. I cannot stress enough the problem that this has become.

The space race of the '60's in particular created an enormous interest in all types of science, and the US benefited in areas most cannot imagine. During the past year we've had the good fortune to interview pretty much a who's-who of the area, and a to a man, they almost all said it was watching the Apollo missions that got them into it in the first place.

One even carried Werner Von Braun up the courthouse steps here downtown when he was a teenager. That man now is the world's leader in biotechnology, and either him or one of his companies created much of the DNA techology used worldwide. (a current project by one of his protoges, determining everything wrong with a human body by one drop of blood)

This is just one example, but there are thousands of others, and none would have happened if it weren't for the Apollo missions. Many people out there think that investing in space is a waste of money, but really, it's a waste not too. I get a little passionate about this, as I wish everyone could see the very real benefits that come from a high profile mission such as the one proposed for Mars.

With the drastic cuts in Nasa's budget in the early '90's by the Clinton administration, many of the companies had to survive by changing what they do, and for whom. Imagine what could have come about had the governement continued to explore space and other advanced technologies?

therex wrote: We're not spending enough money on developing new technologies from a pure science perspective.

In a perfect world, we would be able to spend as much money as necessary to develop unproven technologies to maturity. Unfortunately, we live in this one. Politics plays a huge role in government funding of all research: in which constituency will the work be done, what company will get the contract, etc. Beyond that is the competition that science always has with other government funding priorities.

Politicians and voters tend to be critical of science projects that appear to have no sense of near term breakthrough. There is outrage when failures occur, which is perceived as a waste of taxpayer money. A huge percentage of the probes sent to Mars have failed, one notable one through stupid human error. Each failure receives extraordinary scrutiny - as they should - but such failures challenge the continued funding of the entire project.

therex wrote: But I think you read over my point entirely. Fusion and a space elevator aren't "crazy science fiction" like a Star Trek style transporters are, and it's my humble opinion that manned space flight is risky, a poor way to spend money, and stupid until those two technologies are proven. Once they are, we can start building big ships to send out to wherever.

I was being somewhat facetious. Your examples are possible but are so undeveloped and theoretical that they are in the realm of sci fi. This is especially true of the space ladder, since materials technology doesn't exist to allow construction and whether it actually works is entirely theoretical. There are other advanced propultion technologies, such as plasma rockets, that have near term promise and have funded research (I don't know if your examples have gov't funded research). The point is that advanced technology is being funded, but they are so immature that massive funding at this stage would be a waste of money.

I can't disagree that manned spaceflight is risky. So is driving my car to work. I strongly disagree that it's a "poor way to spend money, and stupid..." The development of practicable and affordable technology is incremental. Man didn't go from pushing boulders to building Toyotas in one step. There are obviously many smaller technologies that had to be developed in between. Space technology is no different: in order to do amazing things in space, we first have to do mundane ones. We learn by doing; we learn by making mistakes. Waiting until warp drives are built is a guarantee that they never will be.

Within NASA's manned spaceflight funding, the shuttle/station gets an enormous chunk, leaving little (in comparison with Apollo) with which to develop Orion. Back in the perfect world, we wouldn't have wasted time and money with building and flying a shuttle fleet with nowhere to go for most of it's life, or a space station of dubious scientific research benefit. We should ebay the whole mess or give it to the europeans to play with while we concentrate on worlds beyond our own.

Well, we're not going to agree on this topic, but really my whole statement here is a "if I ruled the world" kind of thought. I know politics get in the way, I know NASA can't sell the steak, and I know that the "best" path isn't the one with the most return on investment, but rather the one that actually gets things done in the environment we live in.

I understand this, so you don't have to keep reiterating it.

But my two examples, in particular, are my requirements for when I think manned spaceflight will no longer be a waste of money. And theoretically speaking, both my requirements are sound. Fusion is just around the corner (and has been for 40 years :-p) and the space elevator is a sound theory that is basically waiting for a way to make cheap carbon nanotubes. Not to mention that existing materials technology would enable us to build an elevator off the moon or Mars. Sure, it's science fiction, but so what? So is a manned mission to Mars. I think that overcoming the engineering difficulties of a Mars mission isn't much greater than a space elevator.

Anyway, I'm perfectly allowed to think that manned spaceflight is currently a big fat waste of resources. :-p It's a legitimate view that isn't exclusive to me.

The technology for a manned trip to Mars already exists, and has for a long time. The obstacles are money needed for the project, and the length of time it takes. Sure there are details to work out, but it has been in the planning stages since the late '60's, its just that not many have the attention span to see it happen.

Also, most people don't know that the space shuttle originated in the mid '60's, its extremely old and outdated. It was never intended to have a service life this long, budget cuts have kept it flying in its current form.

racerdave600 wrote: Also, most people don't know that the space shuttle originated in the mid '60's, its extremely old and outdated. It was never intended to have a service life this long, budget cuts have kept it flying in its current form.

Many of you drive cars that originated in the 60s. Can they not get you to the grocery store time after time again just like they did in the 60s? The duty of going to the store, holding groceries, and then docking with your garage has not changed - why change the vehcile?

Just a little bit of devil advocation . . .

It would be nice to see an orbiter that can easily sling shot itself out of orbit, given proper timing, and fly to the moon. Although, I think the next vehicle they want to send there will be a multi-stage rocket, similar to the Apollo ships.

Edit: also, it would be nice to see a ship that can be launched, flown through space safely, and brought home without breaking the bank every time.

You don't get incinerated when your carburettor hiccups, or if you get a flat tire in your 60's car.

Salanis wrote: You don't get incinerated when your carburettor hiccups, or if you get a flat tire in your 60's car.

You do if your carburater hiccups and you happen to be driving a Lamborghini Miura.

Shuttle disasters don't happen too often. It's extremely sad when they do, but it's still rare.