Manned Missions to Space

Manned Missions to Space

In my opinion, manned space exploration is a reasonable stretch goal to force us to develop new skills. Some argue the risks are not justifiable but I think they are manageable. There is a difference between a calculated risk and a "shot-in-the-dark".

-Guy

For the U.S. space program to be an effective tool of exploration and discovery, NASA must have a clear mandate that isn't going to change by the whims of each successive administration. NASA must also have adequate funding that isn't going to be affected by the transient successes and failures of each high-profile mission. Finally, NASA needs an overhaul to make it less bureaucratic, and more flexible, creative, and bold, without being reckless.

Walter

I believe space exploration would be better served at this time through unmanned probes intent upon raw science, like Gravity probe B and Huygens. They are MUCH less expensive than manned probes and would better serve our needs at this point in time. Manned probes should occur AFTER we get our act together on this planet. Our non-renewable petroleum based economy, is resting on shaky ground at best. Lets equally subsidize alternate energy and find a better way to keep our economy strong rather than fighting a war which we can't win.

We've outgrown Earth. This planet cannot accommodate us anymore.

In this century, our power output will grow well beyond the planet's capacity to absorb and dissipate it. Our resource needs are growing beyond the planet's capacity to supply them.

We reach into space, or the game is over.

I agree w/ you Jef. I don't care much about the "risks" as all who get strapped in know those like all explorers throughout time. I feel manned exploration yields way too little for the buck spent though. We're spread pretty thin these days and maybe, just maybe we might want to look at what we can do on Earth first to protect this miracle. Continue with unmanned missions for the pure science of it but leave the people on Earth.

Paul Kammueller said:
... In this century, our power output will grow well beyond the planet's capacity to absorb and dissipate it. ...

What data do you base this on?

Walter Locke said:

For the U.S. space program to be an effective tool of exploration and discovery, NASA must have a clear mandate that isn't going to change by the whims of each successive administration. NASA must also have adequate funding that isn't going to be affected by the transient successes and failures of each high-profile mission. Finally, NASA needs an overhaul to make it less bureaucratic, and more flexible, creative, and bold, without being reckless.

Walter

The same can be said of many government funded, and privately funded endeavors. NASA's bureaucracy is endemic to the short leash congress gives them with money and public opinion. They need oversight but not micromanagement... so do I

Sorry, those goals are not mutually exclusive. Besides, the most important wars are usually those that look hardest to win.

-Guy

Basically you have exponentially growing energy output occurring in a finite environment. Virtually every bit of energy used is eventually vented into that finite environment as waste heat. You can't cheat the laws of thermodynamics.

The rate at which Earth can dissipate thermal energy is limited by its parameters of size and surface area, and to some extent its atmospheric properties.

Say you have a finite-sized piggy bank. Throw a penny into it. Now double it. Double it again. And again, and again... etc. Before long the piggy bank breaks.