I love the space program and it's a shame funding is being cut. But I agree with Zef in that I'm glad it's being seperated from government spending. It sucks, sure, but like Zef said, we'll get there eventually. Hopefully before I'm dead.

Private business have a long history of doing jobs better and more efficiently than public ones (on a general scale, some private business practices are why we're in this mess but c'est la vie.) Space travel at the moment is pointless. There is nothing out there we can use profitably at our current technology. Going anywhere besides the moon is such a huge project and time sink that with our current situation financially and politically, it's not even a pipe dream at this point.

The first step in getting "space travel" out of science fiction and into reality is cheap, fast surface to orbit transit. The most promising candidate for that is a space elevator. However, currently the tallest building on earth is 2,717 ft tall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_Khalifa) while to get into orbit a space elevator would need to be at least 12 miles (63,360 ft) tall to access "near space" altitudes. To get to true space, the structure would need to be able to reach 62 miles (327,360 ft) above Earth's surface. And finally, the true sci fi dream station, a geosynchronous station capable of acting as a ferry point between Earth and the rest of the solar system would need to be 22,300 miles (117,744,000 feet) above Earth's surface.

I agree the the government has a hard time doing anything right, my biggest peeve is our federal government is so restrictive on private business especially in reguards to space travel.

But I'm also upset that as a nation, my fellow country men don't recognize the importance of space research. It is vital to our nations defense, it bears limitless resources, and eventually (probably sooner then later) will become necessary to maintain the race.

I'm disgusted at our lack of progress too, but any progress is better then giving up.

As for times being tough… We're an incredibly wealthy nation, cutting our space program only emphasizes how backwards we have our priorities.

What purpose would the Constellation project serve anyways? It's goal was to go back to the moon for….no real reason. There's nothing on the moon we want or need. We still have tons of moon rocks kicking around in warehouses if we wanted to do research. We're far and away from the technology to be able to put a base on the moon. There's nothing there for us except photo ops, and sinking several billion dollars into photo ops sounds like a waste of money to me.

NASA's funding is actually increasing, it is simply the Constellation program being axed. The program even it's supporters admit is not being undertaken for any practical reasons. Space research is a vital field, but it doesn't have to be done on the moon. Or by humans. Some of the proposed budget INCREASES are for NASA's research into robotic missions.

And those limitless resources? We are decades if not centuries from being able to profitably access even the smallest hint of them. Our nation is in serious financial trouble. Spending money we don't have is unsustainable, so when the funding axe falls, it must fall on the least practical programs first.

Who decides the practicality of a given program is a discussion impossible to resolve, and yet another reason politics in general disgust me. But saying "our space program is being canceled" is hardly being honest.

we could put a laser on the moon….."DEATH STAR"

"psshht ok darth"

What purpose would the Constellation project serve anyways? It's goal was to go back to the moon for….no real reason.Xionis

Helium-3.

There's nothing on the moon we want or need. We still have tons of moon rocks kicking around in warehouses if we wanted to do research.Xionis

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mystery-surrounds-missing-moon-rocks-1787120.html

Afaik we never had warehouses full since there was a very limited weight capacity that the lunar lander could handle. Moon rocks are actually retardedly rare, most research is actually done on synthetic moon rocks which fail to mimic all properties of the original at any given time. The article I posted isn't a great one but I'm at work and didn't feel like finding a good one.

And those limitless resources? We are decades if not centuries from being able to profitably access even the smallest hint of them.Xionis

This is not true. Say what you want about NASA but they engineered the shit out of the old Saturn V rockets. According to this article,
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/1283056
and assuming it's estimates to be at least moderately on the money (lets face it, it's not popular economics) the old rocket design could be retrofitted for modern purposes with a promising rate of returns.

Idk I guess what I'm getting at is that while I understand the economic climate and the current limited use of manned space flight, but I don't think scaling back this project is the answer. If anything, the mission to mars can be scrapped for another few decades. Right now that's just about epeen.

Helium-3.Briganna

Even on the parts of the moon predicted to contain the highest concentrations of He-3, it is still only estimated to exist in .05 ppm quantities. Meaning any operation designed to mine He-3 off the moon would require going through roughly 20 million tons of rock to get 1 ton of He-3. Now, it is true that He-3 is highly sought for fusion research and you wouldn't need tons of the stuff, but the logistics of getting mining equipment to the moon and then the He-3 back to Earth just for research aren't exactly favorable.

Afaik we never had warehouses full since there was a very limited weight capacity that the lunar lander could handle. Moon rocks are actually retardedly rare, most research is actually done on synthetic moon rocks which fail to mimic all properties of the original at any given time. The article I posted isn't a great one but I'm at work and didn't feel like finding a good one.Briganna

The warehouses full was a bit of hyperbole on my part but the Apollo missions did indeed bring back 841.5 lbs of moon rock. Having read the article you posted, to me it sounds like that is more of a collector's troubles finding moon rocks. Which makes sense. NASA keeps it's real moon rocks under tight security. Also, if it were true we really needed more rocks, humanity going back to the moon is still unnecessary (Constellation's main goal). Robotic missions could be done cheaper, and with no risk of human life, and still accomplish the same goal.

This is not true. Say what you want about NASA but they engineered the shit out of the old Saturn V rockets. According to this article,
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/1283056
and assuming it's estimates to be at least moderately on the money (lets face it, it's not popular economics) the old rocket design could be retrofitted for modern purposes with a promising rate of returns.Briganna

You'll note that in that article again, automated facilities are brought up by the author. Also he notes that digging up a three quarter square mile section of moon to a depth of nine feet would yield enough He-3 to power Dallas for a year. Sounds impressive, but that means to power even just the US for a year, you'd need a lot more ground processed. And those resources hardly count as "limitless". I was talking more of the resources say from mining the asteroid belt, or putting a giant vacuum on Venus to suck it's valuable gases up (joke there). When humanity reaches the technology level to do these things (still decades or centuries away as I said) then yes, we will have access to practically limitless resources for a while. Remember I'm not arguing the resources aren't needed or valuable, I'm saying having humans go get them is pointless (which was the goal of Constellation, the project that go cut).

Idk I guess what I'm getting at is that while I understand the economic climate and the current limited use of manned space flight, but I don't think scaling back this project is the answer. If anything, the mission to mars can be scrapped for another few decades. Right now that's just about epeen.Briganna

Constellation was mostly about epeen period. Whether it was putting people back on the moon or putting them on Mars, there wasn't a scientific "main goal". Lots of people are shouting that we'll have to rely on the Russians to put our astronauts in space when the Orbiters are retired. Possibly true if we continue sending astronauts, but robotics technology is advancing to the point where they could do anything we'd need them to do.

the logistics of getting mining equipment to the moon and then the He-3 back to Earth just for research aren't exactly favorable.Xionis

Favorable no, possible yes. Oil companies work at profit margin that most would consider to be ridiculous yet they still pull in billions every year. If it can be confirmed that there is profit to be had then there will be people willing to do the job.

Also, if it were true we really needed more rocks, humanity going back to the moon is still unnecessary (Constellation's main goal). Robotic missions could be done cheaper, and with no risk of human life, and still accomplish the same goal.Xionis

Ofc, was just pointing out that for research interests there isn't as much as you stated.

You'll note that in that article again, automated facilities are brought up by the author.Xionis

Automated facilities are nice, but if earth history so far is any indication boom towns or at least settlements will spring up around any natural resource. This infrastructure, even if it is decades since abandoned, would be pivotal in any future space exploration and could actually encourage it given that the groundwork has been laid out.

Lots of people are shouting that we'll have to rely on the Russians to put our astronauts in space when the Orbiters are retired.Xionis

NASA's current orbiters are 30 years old and absolutely need to be retired. Having to rely on Russians or the EU to get our astronauts into space is meeting resistance I'm guessing based purely on American pride and if that's the case I don't care in the slightest. However I haven't read a study yet comparing what such a partnership would cost us vs developing a new generation of shuttles. This would go doubly true for any private sector equivalent since it would be highly subsidized by the government anyway.

…robotics technology is advancing to the point where they could do anything we'd need them to doXionis

People will throw around Moore's law (which isn't actually a law) saying that robots will eventually be able to do anything humans can do, but it's simply not true. I'm reminded of one of the biggest hurdles of the mars rover missions was that communication was limited by the speed of light and a round trip communication (from the rover's sensors to earth and back to the rover's processor) took 20min. This is long enough for any number of catastrophes to occur and was overcome in some ingenious ways, but only for situations we could predict. Additionally the problems with the Apollo 11 lander and ofc Apollo 13 would have resulted in failed missions if real human astronauts weren't there, although I will concede that without organics some of the problems wouldn't have been an issue. Robots will always be extremely good and perhaps situationaly better than humans for situations we can forsee, but they aren't very good at adjusting to problems they weren't programed to handle.

No fair, this turned into a real discussion! I don't know if that's allowed…

So now I have to go completely off the wall: We have enough problems not even thinking about high-tech energy. US-specific: What's the unemployment rate right now? How large is the national deficit? How many homeless people do you see driving to work every day?

Would the government-funded space program help any of this in any way… that privately-funded space programs would not? If a private company can do it, and do it well (which has already been proven, no?), then why are we funding it with tax money too? Leave it to private industry, and let it sink or swim that way.

Plus, then we can get all sue-happy when IBM shoots someone into space in a faulty shuttle, and let the government charge all kinds of crazy court fees. Enforcing new safety restrictions would create lots of new jobs too, right?

"I'm sorry sir, but that registration sticker is not valid. Please step out of the vehicle while I make a call to the Department of Private Shuttles."