FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » What should NASA do?

   
Author Topic: What should NASA do?
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
With the end of the space shuttle, there is a lot of discussion over nasa funding and their mission. There was the recent controversy over the "make Muslims" feel good aspect to the mission and of course a lot of discussion over where to go next and if it should be about manned flight or should we go unmanned.

In my opinion, NASA should have a mission that only they can fulfill. In other words, it is a mission no company would take a risk on. I think the going to the moon plan in the early days fit this goal. Unfortunately, I think technology has changed so that low earth orbit (LEO) is a feasible goal for companies. The stuff I have heard looks like some good business plans and the tech is in place to fulfill them- for cheaper than what nasa can do. So, I actually agree with the change in focus (not something I say too loud in real life considering the company I keep).

I also think that diplomacy is a major part of nasa and always has been. I don't think it should necessarily be a stated part, but it is still there. People learning to work together to keep the space station going help in learning to keep from nuking each other as well.

I also like the additional tech that has come out of past nasa missions. However, you can't just say build us some cool inventions. Those inventions came from people solving problems and then realizing the inventions could be used in other aspects. Without the spur of a mission and a goal, you wouldn't see the same innovation.

This is where I think Obama has failed- not in cutting Constellation, but in giving a vision and a mission. It is somewhat ironic considering Obama's big strength was hope and all that, but I think he failed massively at redefining NASA for a new age.

So, what should the new mission/ vision for nasa be? I like the idea of going to a nearby asteroid. It is new, requires new technology since we couldn't do it with what we have, it seems feasible and I could see some exciting possibilities from that research.

going to the moon seems boring- been there/ done that. Let space X do it in a few years.

Going to mars seems like a big goal and the asteroid a stepping stone to that. So, maybe as a later mission it would be pretty cool, but I think the asteroid would be the better first step.

so, if you were deciding nasa's future, what would you have all those scientists/engineers do?

Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
advice for robots
Member
Member # 2544

 - posted      Profile for advice for robots           Edit/Delete Post 
Manned mission to Mars.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
I think it is vital that Nasa continues to research space and space travel as its primary mission.

I don't know how to put it very well, but you never know when our species will be at risk of extinction. A global war, a virus, or an asteroid might wipe us all out. Formics might appear. Being able to ensure the survival of our race is important.

While I respect the green movement in the short term, part of me wishes a lot of the federal money would be directed towards space travel research. Terraforming technology would be useful not only on other planets but on earth as well.

I think working with other countries does not mean the scientists and engineers will be bored. The more people you have working to advance technology under something such as a space program, the more quickly we will advance. A program that may be too much for one country to handle can become a lot easier when the burden is resting on the shoulders of dozens of them. The space station is an good example.

This is why I don't understand why some groups (mostly conservatives) have a problem with Nasa reaching out to the Muslim community.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
Unfortunately, I think technology has changed so that low earth orbit (LEO) is a feasible goal for companies.

Do you really mean that?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Asteroids first. From a point of pure self-defense, having the ability to meet an asteroid in the vastness of space and perhaps enact some sort of defense measure against one on a collision course with us makes the most sense. Plus, the gravity is low enough to make fuel demands relatively small, and it requires new technology that we could work on and implement in the future.

Mars will come in the future, hopefully within my lifetime, but there are a lot of things we need to learn how to do before we go to Mars. Low-earth orbit is lame, and I have zero problem with letting Space X and others do it, especially since it appears they'll be able to do it far more cheaply per mission. Going back to the moon seems a little lame, but, we haven't been there in a long time, and it would be a great place to set up long-term bases to give us an idea as to what living in space would like, but not living in a zero-g environment like the space station. So go to the moon, but not just for a vacation.

Frankly I don't think going to Mars is even worth attempting without some big leaps in propulsion technology. The journey is just too long. I think scrapping Constellation and putting that money to better use in R&D was a great move. I agree that defining a long-term goal was lacking from Obama's plan, and I'd like to see that. Bush gave us a goal but nowhere near the means of achieving it. Obama seems to be far more concerned about the means, but not about where those means will take us.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
Well, as someone whose household income comes from the NASA space shuttle contract, Freud would say I meant it that way. [Smile]
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
Unfortunately, I think technology has changed so that low earth orbit (LEO) is a feasible goal for companies.

Do you really mean that?
It's a great way to get our orbit choked with debris!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
Well, as someone whose household income comes from the NASA space shuttle contract, Freud would say I meant it that way. [Smile]

While understand that feeling, I would say that the more people you have working in a particular field, the quicker we will have breakthroughs. A private company may be able to reach low orbit, but the ship design or propulsion system may be superior to one that already exists.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
I think that private companies could be very good for techs and breakthroughs (in the if they didn't affect me way). However, I haven't really thought through exactly how the private companies will affect the environment and the implications of those developments yet. Right now, it is still pretty hypothetical, so hard to say. If one of those companies is doing a LEO shuttle flight from LA to Tokyo, how much fuel will that use? How much noise? Those factors are pretty hard to guess at with the tech still undeveloped.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
Unfortunately, I think technology has changed so that low earth orbit (LEO) is a feasible goal for companies.

Do you really mean that?
It's a great way to get our orbit choked with debris!
So, are you against private companies attempting space travel? Or are you just snarking?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
I am against private companies attempting space travel at this juncture. So far, the world agrees. Realistically, we have to be very careful about what permissions the world governing bodies grant for the privatization of earth orbit, because even a single slip-up by any operation could force the abandonment of space habitats like the ISS and without extreme caution, we could render entire levels of earth orbit indefinitely unoccupiable. Until we have better measures in place to clear our own orbit of intermediate sized objects, privatized space race on hold plOx
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
I wouldn't agree to unrestricted access to space from private companies. There needs to be serious and heavily restrictive, precautionary regulation of LEO for corporations. But isn't there already? Can private companies launch satellites willy nilly with no oversight from a government body? I'd be shocked if that was the case.

I have no problem with government bodies contracting out specific services to a company like Space X, but I don't think, at the moment, that they should be able to do whatever they want. The risk is just too great.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
Basically, if it goes into low earth orbit, government is putting that there, and it comes only with their strict approval. Libertarians can put their outrage on hold to belay the tragedy of the space-junk commons. It's gonna be this way indefinitely.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
I am ok with private companies funding their own research. Atmospheric waste can be a problem. I wouldn't mind some regulation as to what can STAY up there, but not what goes up there. At what distance from the does the government lose authority?

Who owns the moon? Who owns Mars? If a base is built there, who will regulate it? Who has the authority?

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
But no! Everyone knows that companies are perfectly capable of regulating themselves via profit incentive! It's worked so well for centuries!
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
We do regulate what goes into the air (with the whole FAA). The need for the FAA convinces me that we would still need to monitor and restrict who is visiting, not just what stays up there.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucous
Member
Member # 12331

 - posted      Profile for Mucous           Edit/Delete Post 
2020: British Propulsion's refuelling station has exploded scattering debris all over Earth lower orbit. A spokesperson for the White House says, "We have to rely on British Propulsion to clean up this mess. Not only do they have the expertise, but NASA doesn't have the equipment to deal with this." Astronomers have been informed that taking pictures of the sky is now strictly prohibited for their own safety.
Posts: 58 | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, we do regulate our airpace. But that is just it. It is the sky directly above our land. If the space station is above Iran one day, does that violate Iranian airspace?

I'm not saying it shouldn't be regulated, but you run into trouble on who has the authority to regulate it. How far into deep space do you have to go before The U.S.A / Earth has no authority? Or does Earth own the entire galaxy?

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
I am ok with private companies funding their own research. Atmospheric waste can be a problem. I wouldn't mind some regulation as to what can STAY up there, but not what goes up there. At what distance from the does the government lose authority?

Who owns the moon? Who owns Mars? If a base is built there, who will regulate it? Who has the authority?

Both outer space and the moon are covered by international treaties that have been signed, last I checked, by almost ever major country in the world. For some reason I want to say either China or India hasn't signed, but I can't remember. The treaty defines what national space programs are and aren't allowed to do. One of the no-nos is claiming land on the moon for a nation.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucous:
2020: British Propulsion's refuelling station has exploded scattering debris all over Earth lower orbit. A spokesperson for the White House says, "We have to rely on British Propulsion to clean up this mess. Not only do they have the expertise, but NASA doesn't have the equipment to deal with this." Astronomers have been informed that taking pictures of the sky is now strictly prohibited for their own safety.

I'd laugh, if it weren't so close to the truth.....
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2