Manned exploration of our solar system

[Skroe]

Considering the deadly accidents with the space shuttles as well as them going out of service, it's pretty clear improvements can be made. Lucky for you, Canada is here to help.

The retirement of the space shuttle was a testiment to two things.

(1) The costs of the system ($600 million per flight in nominal costs, $1.2 billion if you include lifetime support costs) and the US's need to free up that segment of the NASA budget (which has also grown) to pay for its replacement. A budget is a list of priorities, not a wish list. If the country prioritized space higher, it could be flying the shuttle to this very day. It just had to make the decision to pay for it.

(2) NASA and the US's reduced capacity for taking risks. The saftey requirements for the Shuttle post-Columbia were way overboard and unreasonable, and reflect political ass covering more than practical, sensible safety procedures.


The Shuttles themselves were in pristine shape. Over 30 years of flights have shaved off about 30% of the oldest Shuttle's life expectancy, and about 20% of the youngest. They could have flown for another 30 years, easily, provided certain parts were remanufactured and modernized.

But the Shuttle is ultimately, not the right tool for the job if the plan is EITHER routine low earth orbit access or deep space exploration. It's too big to be used as a "space taxi" and wrong in every way for deep space missions. As a space construction vehicle, it's second to none.

Canada is part of the Orion program and will be playing a role. But the key players are NASA which is building Orion + the SLS, and the ESA which has modified its ATV into the SLS service module (which is ironic because the ATV was designed with being a service module to a European capsule, years ago).

[Tennis]

Yeah, better play whack-a-mole all life long rather than going out and learn and see something new.

I'm all for technological advancement. Let's work on safer vehicles, cleaner transportation, renewable energy, increased agricultural production etc etc

[purebalance]

no, just ignore the source they use to make their arguments, doesn't make you sound the least bit disingenuous at all!

- - - Updated - - -



also this.

Welcome to arguing with @Tennisace who I am fairly sure has me blocked because when you make it known by using support and facts that he/she is wrong and incredibly stupid for saying some of the things that are said, they block you so they don't have to hear the truth.

[GreenJesus]

If we are able to create mini atmospheres and completely renewable communities on a inhospitable planet why not use that on our own planet? With that level of technology we have no reason to leave Earth.

[Kokolums]

I think we will see underwater human habitats first before an attempt is made to colonize space. its massively less expensive and massively less risky to do that. Then again, there are vast areas of land that is effectively uninhabited in Alaska, Canada, Russia, the Great Plains, etc. We don't even need to colonize space or underwater. There's plenty of room on good old fashioned land.

I could go out and buy acres and acres in Montana and never see a soul.

[Halyon]

Waste of resources. We need to fix the issues that our beautiful planet faces not spend billions sending a couple privileged people for a grand tour.

Actually, we need to do both. The way the human race expands, we need to be able to either introduce eugenics and enforced population control, severely change the way we spend resources, or we need to ship people into space to colonize other planets.

[Shaqthefat]

Considering the deadly accidents with the space shuttles as well as them going out of service, it's pretty clear improvements can be made. Lucky for you, Canada is here to help.

Canada hasn't even in the moon and in 2013 they were talking about getting their first people on the moon in the next two decades

[Tennis]

Actually, we need to do both. The way the human race expands, we need to be able to either introduce eugenics and enforced population control, severely change the way we spend resources, or we need to ship people into space to colonize other planets.

We can't afford to colonize other planets. Have you not looked at current technology and considered the vast distances.

- - - Updated - - -

Canada hasn't even in the moon and in 2013 they were talking about getting their first people on the moon in the next two decades

What's the point of landing on the moon exactly?

[Shaqthefat]

Oh please. Go crunch some numbers. It will be ridiculously expensive to source resources from other planets.

The potential profit that we could make off harvesting other planets for resources would be worth the risk. You can't progress mankind without taking risks. Columbus took a risk when he sailed into the Atlantic and look where that got mankind.

- - - Updated - - -

We can't afford to colonize other planets. Have you not looked at current technology and considered the vast distances.

- - - Updated - - -



What's the point of landing on the moon exactly?

Just saying that if you want to help with space shuttles maybe you should get caught up with the other countries

[Halyon]

We can't afford to colonize other planets. Have you not looked at current technology and considered the vast distances.

We're running out of choices in the grand scale of things. Harsh population control and lots of changes to resource spendage, which won't happen with loons like Trump in office, and other like-minded fucktards who can't see beyond their bellybutton fluff-picking.

I'd like to die a natural death...like unknowingly in my sleep...not on a planet that's dying because we're racing to destroy it.

[Deleted]

Waste of resources. We need to fix the issues that our beautiful planet faces not spend billions sending a couple privileged people for a grand tour.

We can combine it. First we explore the solar system, then we start some other colonies and lastly we drop big rocks on earth. That way we solve several issues at once.

Now where can I sign up? The sooner I can get away from some people the better.

If we are able to create mini atmospheres and completely renewable communities on a inhospitable planet why not use that on our own planet? With that level of technology we have no reason to leave Earth.

Because that way we wouldn't be able to get away from certain people?

[Osmeric]

You typed that on a device that was partly a result of the space race. Well done.

The idea that ICs are the result of the space race is grossly exaggerated. The IC revolution would have happened just fine even without space programs.

[theredviola]

Resources aside, there are very hefty moral implications for sending manned explorations outside of our orbit. For the time being, we just need to keep with unmanned probes and drones. We can continue to collect information with unmanned probes and satellites until such a time where the human race can be a tad more unified than it is now.

[Osmeric]

Why do you think bringing in more resources to earth wouldn't make it better for all of us to live here?

If the cost of bringing them to earth is greater than their value, then bringing them to earth is a net loss and increases rather than reduces poverty.

The sad truth is that it's very difficult to imagine space activities like mining that earn more than they cost. Costs of getting into and operating in space will have to be decreased dramatically (by orders of magnitude) for such dreams to pan out.

- - - Updated - - -

We need to spread out into space. Given our current consumption rates of damn near everything on our current planet we need to be able to get out there and mine what we can and eventually have settlements where you can grow food etc.

The only mineral resource near any sort of limit here on Earth is fossil fuels, and you're not going to import those from space.

[GreenJesus]

We can combine it. First we explore the solar system, then we start some other colonies and lastly we drop big rocks on earth. That way we solve several issues at once.

Now where can I sign up? The sooner I can get away from some people the better.

Because that way we wouldn't be able to get away from certain people?

You need to see someone about your problems. Can't just go to another planet to avoid them.

[Zmaniac17]

Waste of resources. We need to fix the issues that our beautiful planet faces not spend billions sending a couple privileged people for a grand tour.

Which resources specifically are you worried about wasting? Please don't say money. Money is not a resource.

Large public and private works that require a healthy well educated population increase the political power of the citizens and decrease the ability of governments and corporations to exploit them. Space travel is one thing that can unite mankind and create a better planet for everyone. If you want to avoid ruining this beautiful planet and discourage the continuing subjugation of its citizens by empowering them then you too will encourage large collective projects like this.

The worst thing that can happen is that we make a world in which we don't do anything complicated enough to require a healthy well educated population.

We choose to go to the Moon! ... We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win ... -JFK

- - - Updated - - -

Been thinking about this subject for awhile , as I've spent most of the last two days dealing with a family issue and not had much computer time.

Obligatory @Skroe

I think it's a given that over the next 50 years, there will be numerous permanent moonbases established, mostly scientific in nature with maybe beginning to exploit the moon's mineral resources by the last quarter of the century (2075 or thereabouts). I expect US, Chinese, and Indian space programs to be quite robust, with maybe Japan hitching a ride with the US. What happens to the ESA is kind of tied to the future of the EU in many ways, so I'll make no predictions there.

Mars will likely see numerous manned expeditions almost totally scientific/exploratory in nature. I'd say several US missions, a few Chinese, and maybe an Indian mission or two. I wouldn't expect the first permanent science bases on Mars until the beginning of the 22nd century, the same way I don't expect either manned exploration of the asteroid belt or the outer planets until the 22nd century.

Wild cards I think are Venus and Mercury. I could see a manned flyby of Venus that inserts a spacecraft into orbit for a few weeks, drops numerous satellites into orbit, and takes lots of cloud-penetrating radar pictures of the surface. Landing is out of the question for humans I think until we have Hulkbuster armor. Venus is a hellhole on the surface, but it does at times come closer to the Earth than Mars.

I have no idea about missions to Mercury. I imagine there are significant technological hurdles to shielding a spacecraft that close to the sun.

Thoughts?

I think if you consider the huge advances coming in artificial intelligence, robotics and batteries it could look different. The first missions might be manned but I think they will quickly become unmanned especially as robotics improves. It is several orders of magnitude more difficult and expensive to send people compared to robots. And there's really no good place to live outside of Earth just yet. I expect a lot of unmanned exploration and construction in space. When the robots are done building we will go assuming they don't just decide to leave us here .

[cubby]

I think we will see underwater human habitats first before an attempt is made to colonize space. its massively less expensive and massively less risky to do that. Then again, there are vast areas of land that is effectively uninhabited in Alaska, Canada, Russia, the Great Plains, etc. We don't even need to colonize space or underwater. There's plenty of room on good old fashioned land.

I could go out and buy acres and acres in Montana and never see a soul.

We wouldn't be colonizing space because we ran out of room on Earth.

- - - Updated - - -

We can't afford to colonize other planets. Have you not looked at current technology and considered the vast distances.

If you're not going to read what people smarter than you post (Skoe), why bother saying anything at all? Both of these questions are answered, above, in some outline detail.

What's the point of landing on the moon exactly?

If you don't know the answer to something, why are you arguing against it?

[Berengil]

I think if you consider the huge advances coming in artificial intelligence, robotics and batteries it could look different. The first missions might be manned but I think they will quickly become unmanned especially as robotics improves. It is several orders of magnitude more difficult and expensive to send people compared to robots. And there's really no good place to live outside of Earth just yet. I expect a lot of unmanned exploration and construction in space. When the robots are done building we will go assuming they don't just decide to leave us here .

Perhaps you are, to some degree, correct. But, I think, not entirely. There's something visceral about a human being putting their feet on solid ground that isn't on Earth.

Accomplishments like the New Horizons probe, the dozens of different probes that have been sent to Mars, as well as things like Voyager are all very well. And of course, they are technological feats that would boggle the minds of our great-grandparents. I mean, I literally just looked at still photos of a sunset on Mars. That seems so banal to say. It is precisely because such a marvel is now nothing to speak of that demonstrates the wonder of our unmanned probes.

But, do you recall a recent commercial (I think it was for some smartphone or something like that) showing people in the near future coming to a complete halt and utter silence in a crowded and busy train station while watching video of the first person to step onto Mars? That is my point.

[Ravenblade]

I'm all for technological advancement. Let's work on safer vehicles, cleaner transportation, renewable energy, increased agricultural production etc etc

I don't see how that's a contradiction to that. People didn't say: "Let's not discover the remaining world until we have peace in Europe" but went to do it right away. It changed people's perspectives on things and made them overcome several prejudices and preconceptions. That's what is coming down to really. It is unlikely we are going to create a shiny new world without new perspectives. From a technical standpoint we are more likely to achieve progress the more we branch out into different fields and areas, most of the new stuff is going to be a by-product - as usual.

[Osmeric]

I don't see how that's a contradiction to that. People didn't say: "Let's not discover the remaining world until we have peace in Europe" but went to do it right away. It changed people's perspectives on things and made them overcome several prejudices and preconceptions.

What's missing from such analogies is an understanding of what actually motivated things.

The colonization/conquest of the new world returned a profit in a time short compared how long the "Space Age" has already existed. It helped tremendously that huge quanties of precious metals were available for exploitation/theft.

Colonization programs that failed to be profitable struggled, or were unmitigated disasters.