Where should your country's space agency focus on exploring?

[Guest_Jim_*]

I voted Mars because its our best bet for colonization. I think more thorough exploration of other planets and deep space is more alluring, but we just don't have the technology to do so to any worthwhile extent, and it's rather costly to do so. Even if we found life and/or a planet with the same atmosphere as the Earth, what would be the point if we lacked the technology to transport humans to it?

You don't need a car until you have a place to go.

[Fragsman]

I dont really care. I think my country is not economically stable to waste money on it, even though there is certain level on investment on "the space thingy" (i dont know how to call it). Our space agency is the CONAE. I think we need to invest on education and health instead. Tho it might be important to rich countries such as USA and European Comunity.

 

Bye!

[InCrYsIs]

I voted deep space. That's the best bet to find life. I would like to know if its out there before I die.

 

To all those who think colonization is possible....its not. I work for a research institute that plays a role in space missions. I had a lengthy conversation with a researcher who rec'd a bunch of awards for research in this area. In his words: "we aren't going anywhere, we were born here and we're going to go extinct here".

[Crazy_Nate]

I'm trying to figure out what you mean by "get our technology up to par." I thought we were the leaders in this technology?

Regardless, I think we can't give up on the physical exploration, because while you can say you can figure out all this stuff on paper, you never get the experience nor the awareness of other things you need. For example, the space pen. Normal pens need gravity to work, so they don't work in micro-gravity. This wasn't realized until we were up there. Then we spent how much money on R&D, for what is now a great souvenir (probably have made back the original costs ten times over). True, we could have gone the Russian route of using pencils, but that's not as much fun. We could design the Death Star on paper, but and everything we'd need to build it, but I would bet that weeks into the project we'd hit a snag somewhere.

Considering how much technology that was developed and improved upon specifically because of the space race, I am personally in favor of exploration. The space elevator right now is something that people can get behind, think about, and throw money at, but I doubt it will ever be made, or if it is, with how NASA is currently viewed (or not viewed), it would lose American funding.

If I remember what one of my friends at NASA said, their budget is under either 2 or 3 billion (a few years ago), and the government is spending almost a trillion dollars, at a time, on the stimulus bills. I want NASA to get out there, somehow, to go far, but at times it seems like I'm in the minority.

If I had to lay out a plan I would want NASA to take it would be, keep the shuttles while working on space elevator. Once the elevator works, get rid of the shuttles and work on something more powerful. Go back to the Moon first, unmanned first to build something for men to inhabit. After that, hit the asteroid belt, followed by Mars. That's as far as would be worth it, I think, without having developed something that doesn't exist now, because Jupiter and Saturn are too far away to reasonably send men now, and expect to get them back. Venus isn't worth it, because of how uninhabitable it is, and Mercury wouldn't give us much in the way of resources. Great for observing the Sun, but that's what probes are for (Ulysses for example). That's my thinking from right now. Ask me again tomorrow, maybe it'll be different.

 

Maybe you misunderstood my post. I'm not saying give up exploration...I'm just saying that we lack feasible means to do any sort of human deep space exploration. The propulsion technology (storage, high efficiency propulsion, acceleration) works now for smaller deep space probes, but may not easily translate into larger and heavier platforms.

 

I agree that a space elevator would a nice stepping point, but the trouble is, we need a long term plan on how to use it. Long term plans seem to change drastically based on politics...so...

 

Personally, I think the general public only thinks about NASA in terms of exploration. The side that really interests me is the science and research side of NASA. Setting a long term basis for our understanding of our planet will ultimately help us understand larger, more dynamic systems whether they be planets that we wish to terraform / alter the atmosphere or climate. On top of future outward benefits, they also have a plus of telling us what we're recklessly doing to our own planet. God help us if we have to colonize another planet because ours becomes inhabitable.

 

The trouble I see with NASA is both internal and external politics, which usually stems from individual selfishness. Then again, I'm very much a "just do it" person when it comes to work. Arguing scientists and engineers seem to be common (lots of ego involved). There also seem to be a bit of apathy in government work (but, it completely depends on the individual).

 

NASA needs to become more state-of-the-art than it currently is, both technologically, academically, and in facilities and personel... Believe me...they could really use it.

[suchuwato]

NASA never developed a 'Space Pen' - it was done independently. In fact NASA used regular pencils, whereas Russian cosmonauts used Grease pencils (or Chinagraphs for us Brits). NASA astronauts also used felt-tip marker pens before and after they approved the 'Space Pen' for use.

[ClayMeow]

I voted deep space. That's the best bet to find life. I would like to know if its out there before I die.

 

To all those who think colonization is possible....its not. I work for a research institute that plays a role in space missions. I had a lengthy conversation with a researcher who rec'd a bunch of awards for research in this area. In his words: "we aren't going anywhere, we were born here and we're going to go extinct here".

 

Saying something isn't possible in the realms of science and technology is like saying processors will not get any faster.

[wevsspot]

Give up the low orbit stuff (like space elevators and colonization/exploration of the moon) to free enterprise. That way NASA could focus more on state of the art/bleeding edge technology pursuits (like mars).

[That_Canadian]

Besides my own reasonings based on credible sources of reading on Space exploration, Id like to back up my vote for "asteroids" using this article.

 

 

Using existing technology, along with intercept models where we might be able to "wrangle" a passing asteroid for our consumption, I think this makes a good case for mining and exploration.

It could relieve the need for earth based mining and the massive amounts of pollutants involved and resulting damage to the eco-system (for a rather small amount of product).

Exploration in this manor also may open up availability of new materials, not able to be formed (in dense amounts) in our solar system, or finding minerals in abundant and easily attainable environments...barring the issues of its location in space) Imagine finding rocks with a 90% make up of pure metals ( gold=$, or something more technologically useful like lithium or its equivalents)

 

The trials and knowledge gained would also facilitate a working model for deep space exploration through the creation of temporary shelters or landing platforms allong with field trials and testing of mining gear which would lend itself to future use as heavy machinery able to work in considerably hostile environments (say Mars)

*Testing arguably made "easy" due to a lack of hostile environmental forces such as winds driving debris.

And for those who may ask no, I dont carebear in Eve.

Edited July 19, 2010 by That_Canadian

[Guest_Jim_*]

Maybe you misunderstood my post....

Yes, I did misunderstand your first post and thank you for clarifying. In fact, it appears we think in similar ways on this issue.

 

NASA never developed a 'Space Pen' - it was done independently. In fact NASA used regular pencils, whereas Russian cosmonauts used Grease pencils (or Chinagraphs for us Brits). NASA astronauts also used felt-tip marker pens before and after they approved the 'Space Pen' for use.

I'm sorry I didn't look it up before I wrote that. I really did think NASA had a hand in developing that. Like Wikipedia says, there is a common myth about it, and I fell prey to it. Thank you for correcting me.

[suchuwato]

I'm sorry I didn't look it up before I wrote that. I really did think NASA had a hand in developing that. Like Wikipedia says, there is a common myth about it, and I fell prey to it. Thank you for correcting me.

 

I only found that out recently, while reading a book about the Apollo program. I thought they developed the space pen too!

[xly15]

My vote us for the moon. Before we can do anything further away from us we would need a staging spot. IT would be cool to have someone step foot on Mars but after that it would really be nothing.

[CowKing]

Saying something isn't possible in the realms of science and technology is like saying processors will not get any faster.

well....they haven't gotten extremely faster in the these past years; just more cores really is the only thing progressing the relative speed until quantum computing starts up