So what you’re saying, Sam, is that private enterprise is only 50 years behind the government? I mean, it’s great if they get all this stuff working (and I’m not being sarcastic, there: I really would love to see private space flight), but still, 50 years after government space launches isn’t really a resounding credit to private industry in general. And even that is probably built on a lot of R&D for government-sponsored rocketry, even if the hardware is new.
Magnetic fields do not provide any shielding from radiation. It can protect against particles, but that’s a whole different ball game.
The atmosophere can protect against radiation, but they were above the bulk of the atmosphere. In other words, that 471 days is highly relevant to the claim.
Interplanetary radiation is largely due to cosmic rays and solar radiation, both of which contain charged particles (or secondary radioactive sources created by collisions with those particles). They are deflected by the Earths magnetic field.
This is one of those things that we can’t know, because we can’t see the path not taken. Where would we be today, with all the demand there has been for commercial satellite launch, if NASA had never been in the picture? Would we have a better space program? Or worse?
I’ve always said that NASA was a good thing because a lot of the stuff it was doing was not commercial - advanced probes to other planets, space telescopes, WMAP probing the background radiation of the universe, etc.
Where NASA took a wrong turn was that it put way too much of its budget and emphasis into commercial LEO space launch, and it invested in a technological dead-end with the Shuttle. I was all for manned missions to the moon and Mars and beyond, but once NASA scuttled that and let the shuttle die, I see no need for them to now try to get into the heavy-lift rocket business - not when the military and private industry are already doing it.
NASA screwed up Constellation, and they’ve been leapfrogged by companies like SpaceX and Bigelow. Time to let them take the ball and run with it. From now on, NASA should take the Shuttle money and use it to buy its launch capability from private companies - helping to grow private space launch.
I believe that is actually the policy of the Obama administration. The Congress is pushing back because NASA stands to lose thousands of jobs if it has to start shutting down the old shuttle facilities and booster manufacturing. Oh well.
We ought to have robots exploring and prospecting on the Lunar surface.
Wouldn’t some people even pay to control a robot on the Moon for a little while? I think it would be good PR for NASA. Maybe our TV science fiction has gotten too good and the kids expect too much and then are not actually interested in science.
All Day September, by Roger Kuykendall
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/24161/24161-h/24161-h.htm
That is really funny. A story about finding water on the Moon in 1959. NASA did it in October of 2009. The story was published 10 years and 1 month before the Moon landing.
psik
Do you thinks its possible that in the far, long-term future, humanity can establish a Galactic Empire?
Further that that** Sam**, I believe it’s not so much that NASA itself stands to lose the jobs (Though Houston and specially the Cape are going to feel pain) as it is that the contractors located in the Congresspeople’s home states stand to lose their government lifeline if the business goes truly market-driven. After all, why should Burt Rutan buy no less than a quarter and no more than half his of his inside hatch latch handles from some particular contractor in the 2nd District of Louisiana when he can just as well buy the whole assemblies all from some shop in Toronto? But yes, in Constellation they almost had it handed to them and blew it.
Let’s face it, once the original political-prestige driven “race” was done all parties were left with a huge “what now”. The political powers that be led the US’s MSF program in the Shuttle direction under a pretext of an “all things to all people” solution. The pretension of making spaceflight a mundane “routine” task was a major overreach.
MSF is still and will for a long time remain an experimental/high-risk activity. Doesn’t mean it should not happen or that it should not be within the scope of the agencies in charge of spaceflight and space science, but it need not be the be-all and end-all.
Qin: Only if there were some way of getting around the limitations placed by human lifespans, distances & times at regular velocities, and relativity at high velocities (e.g. time dilation); IOW, damn unlikely.
That objection is already implicitly addressed earlier:
Proper shields make a ship ridiculously heavy and slow given our current propulsion/lift capabilities. But unlike FTL, it is not beyond the pale of physical possibility to some day have propulsion and materials tech reach a point where it is viable to do an efficient interplanetary spacecraft.
We could colonize the galaxy eventually, but an empire could never remain intact. Eventually you’d have civilizations living tens of thousands of years apart.
We’re clearly disagreeing on terminology.
Fair enough. I’ve never seen “radiation” used to exclude charged particles though. The primary classification scheme they teach people in school uses the varying charges of the radiation (alpha rays, beta rays, gamma rays).
Will that data make life better for humanity? Will it unlock new technological advancements? If not, the government shouldn’t be spending tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to get it.
Yeah, I think so…I think that going to the moon and getting the limited data we got from it had a non-zero positive impact on humanity…and going to Mars will be even more so.
It has the potential too, since there will be a lot of things we’ll have to create to make it happen. I think that just the research that has been done to explore the possibility of going to Mars, coupled with the robotic missions we’ve sent there has already had a non-zero positive value towards technological advancement.
I disagree, but can see why you might think that way. Hell, I can see why even if it does make humanity better or advance technology some folks don’t want the government to spend the money on it.
I think it’s something that the US SHOULD do…but I’d be fine if those companies Sam Stone pointed out did it instead. Heck, I’d be good if the Chinese or Europeans took the lead and got it done.
-XT
I disagree. There are some projects only governments can pull off, and going to other planets is one of them. There shouldn’t always be a profit motive behind everything the government does. Leave that to business.
Spend a couple trillion on Iraq & Afganistan, or spend a trillion building a somewhat self-sustaining Mars base and the means to reliably get back and forth? I know which I’d prefer they spend my tax dollars on and would lead to some genuinely deserved American prestige, as well as a new generation of kids who decide if they keep up with their studies, they just might have a shot at a space career.
I’m waiting for the next Tang!
Such as?
I really do hate this argument. If this research is worth doing, then do it. But just because you spent $50 billion developing a cool new piece of technology doesn’t mean you have to spend another $10 billion using it to visit some barren hellhole.
I’m of the opposite opinion. If you want to run your business into the ground doing something stupid that’s your prerogative, as long as you clear your debts first. But the government’s use of coercion to gather its revenue means they has a moral responsibility to use that money to the benefit of their constituents or of humanity as a whole, not just to satisfy their own curiosity or egos.
So you visited an exceptionally distant cold, arid wasteland. Whoop-de-freaking-do. Now, if you eradicated measles, that would be genuinely deserved American prestige.
Well, leaving aside all the stuff that we don’t know we’ll find (that’s why we want to go after all), we’ll learn one way or the other whether or not Mars had life on it at some time in the past…or has life on it today. That will be a rather important piece of information to humanity. We’ll also learn a hell of a lot about sending people off planet for extended periods of time.
You could make the same argument against just about every exploration or development of new technology since man first started banging two rocks together to get some chips to shave with. Why develop ANY ‘cool new piece of technology’, unless it’s ‘worth doing’…but then, how do you know what will be worth doing or not worth doing? Most of the technology you use every day came about because people did seemingly stupid things that didn’t seem to have much worth and turned out to be fairly useful.
-XT
I think confirmation of past or present microbial life would be worth it. It would be cool to discover microbial life on Mars is distantly related to earth life, but it would be even cooler if we find life that wasn’t related to earth life at all. Proof that we’re not alone in the universe could have a significant, and hopefully positive, impact on humanity’s motivations.
Nothing was said about New Jersey.
Well said. In 1000 years we’ll all be history, but making the moon will always be to the US’s credit. Mars would be even more-so - another war in Afghanistan, not so much.
You mean, something famously used by (if not necessarily invented for) astronauts, which is (therefore) also marketable to the general public?
Hmmm . . .
Depends? 