NASA makes space travel boring

[Melusine]

It's like climbing Everest nowadays: for $50K or $60K you can get up there--one lady even brought her fax.

And get married.

Good find there, ToSeek. Hmm, maybe I could be the first person to get married in space, but I don't know what would come first: our ability to get the common man into orbit or that I would even get married in the first place. :-k

Ilya, unfortunately we can't choose the non-scientists who would be able to do these things--even Krakauer in his book, "Into Thin Air," discussed the litter of air bottles up on Everest, or the tons of spikes left in all mountains by climbers. I suspect that everything will be debased by humans, space included, but we go on....I won't litter in space, I promise. Let the rich buy the technology, and I'll hope I win Lotto (even though I don't play).

[publiusr]

More on the X-37:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=823

[Albert the Skeptic]

NASA is boring because it thinks it has to pander to science-ignorant people. True, the people who elect the politicians who pander to everything are ignorant. But part of NASA's job should have been to make them less ignorant. Only a person who wasn't doing anything for the next ten years would go on a mission to Jupiter. On a mission to Uranus, with present propulsion systems, you'd better take your life with you.

So the problem to solve, if human space flight is a good idea, is the propulsion technology. Or even if it's a lousy idea, because it would be nice to send a probe to the next big comet and have it come back.

The pioneers of human muscle-powered flight failed for decades, then the advance of plastics chemistry gave us Mylar. Paul McCready recognized it, and succeeded.

NASA has succeeded brilliantly in showing the possibility of robot technology in space. Now that national governments have paid for the underlying research, there's a thriving industry making use of it.

The Moon landing was pure humbug, and I have my suspicions about whether it wouldn't really be safer and less expensive to send up unmanned replacements, or robot repair ships, where we now have headline-grabbing bombastically-named "space walks" to fix those satellites that are genuinely scientific in purpose.

[KaiYeves]

I don't think they make it boring. Just the fact that they make it is interesting to me.

[01101001]

(By the way, this topic was revived from a 2-1/2-year slumber.)

The Moon landing was pure humbug[...]

How so? Fraud? Or, just before its time, not integrated to an overall plan, too political?

How pure was that humbug, and what was its nature?

(If you're in the never-happened-fraud camp, you might wish to carry your advocacy to the Conspiracy Theories sub-forum, where such actions are safely permitted.)

[joema]

....I have my suspicions about whether it wouldn't really be safer and less expensive to send up unmanned replacements, or robot repair ships, where we now have headline-grabbing bombastically-named "space walks" to fix those satellites that are genuinely scientific in purpose.

There are NO space walks to fix satellites being performed, nor have there been for years. The sole exception is a single planned mission to Hubble Space Telescope, planned for 2008.

The alternative of robotic servicing was closely examined, but Hubble isn't optimally designed for that (access panels, required dexterity, etc), so the cost and risk of a robotic mission was very high.

If you're talking about repairing or replacing other satellites, again -- there is no repair of these being performed, so there's no decision to make of repair vs replace.

Re just launching an unmanned replacement for Hubble, there is no replacement available for Hubble, so there's nothing to launch. The nearest in capability is the JWST, which has a totally different mission and focuses on the infrared spectrum.

[01101001]

There are NO space walks to fix satellites being performed, nor have there been for years. The sole exception is a single planned mission to Hubble Space Telescope, planned for 2008.

Well... it probably wasn't meant, but another class of exceptions is when they are fixing the satellite known as the International Space Station. Or, a space shuttle.

But there are spacewalks where they aren't fixing a satellite. Maybe.

Does construction of a satellite count as fixing? Inspection? Reconfiguration?

[Noclevername]

Boring? What do you want 'em to do, sing and dance? They shoot rockets! They send robots to other planets! They crash things into comets! They let us see stuff a zillion* miles away!



*For the Europeans among us, that's a thousand jillion.

[KaiYeves]

NASA ? Ha ha !

Well, while they give me fun, I wouldn't say they're funny.

[NEOWatcher]

Boring? What do you want 'em to do, sing and dance? They shoot rockets! They send robots to other planets! They crash things into comets! They let us see stuff a zillion miles away!

Exactly.
NASA is there to do research, advance science, and increase our knowledge.
Learning is rarely fun. You can try, but it takes effort and money to do it. As long as the people involved are interested and eager, then no extra effort will change the results that they are getting.

Sure, it changes opinions on funding, but that is an artifical need. (IMO)

And; to many people, anything that is not spine tingling, edge of your seat, suspense is boring. That implies risk. Something we want to avoid.

If that person has any knowledge of what it takes in the first place, they will see the inherent suspense.

[KaiYeves]

NASA is there to do research, advance science, and increase our knowledge.

Don't forget lifting our minds beyond our dreary, ordinary lives. I love 'em for that!

[kucharek]

All your points Mopc have been very good, and I agree with you, especially on the point of expense. It's like climbing Everest nowadays: for $50K or $60K you can get up there--one lady even brought her fax. I think these private companies bring some fresh air and competitive "burrs under the saddle" so to speak. I want to go to space! And it won't happen anytime soon with NASA, though NASA should hardly go away.

The kill rate of companies who tell people they can bring you up to the summit of Everest is pretty impressive. It is the usual problem: Risk is seen very different by people if it happens in a governmental organization or somewhere else.