National Geographic on travel to another star

[Extollager]

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/space-exploration/folger-text

 

[Victoria Silverwolf]

Fascinating article.

I can recall when the kind of thriving Lunar colony seen in 2001: A Space Odyssey seemed plausible. Forty-five years later, it almost seems as if the era of space exploration is over. I suppose the pendulum will swing the other way, with time, but I can't help feeling disappointed that no human being has set foot on Mars by now.

I read an interesting article in the newspaper recently. Here in the USA, a majority of those polled agreed that government spending needed to be cut. However, when asked if a particular program should be cut, a majority said it should be not. There were only two exceptions: foreign aid and NASA.

 

[Galacticdefender]

Fascinating article.

I can recall when the kind of thriving Lunar colony seen in 2001: A Space Odyssey seemed plausible. Forty-five years later, it almost seems as if the era of space exploration is over. I suppose the pendulum will swing the other way, with time, but I can't help feeling disappointed that no human being has set foot on Mars by now.

I read an interesting article in the newspaper recently. Here in the USA, a majority of those polled agreed that government spending needed to be cut. However, when asked if a particular program should be cut, a majority said it should be not. There were only two exceptions: foreign aid and NASA.

SpaceX will overtake NASA I think. I believe the first man on Mars wll be put there by Spacex, and I think the first lunar colony will be a private venture. And I don't think your "age of space exploration" is too far off. In the next 20 years or so, things are going to dramatically pick up speed within the private sector. Our government missed their chance (Though I still support NASA and the Space Launch System), and private companies like Spacex are going to take over. I wouldn't be too surprised if there is a small Mars colony within the next 30 years.

I'm studying to be an Aerospace engineer with the intention of working in the private space industry. Private companies can move much faster than NASA, and they will actually get things done at a much lower cost. The future is bright I tell you

Though I wish we still had a strong(er) government space program. Curiosity and the Space Launch System are awesome and steps in the right direction, but with the development of NASA's new human exploration rocket, they have very little funding left for robotic missions.

 

[mosaix]

SpaceX will overtake NASA I think.

I think you're probably right GD. However I do wonder what would happen to such private companies if faced with tragedies similar to the loss of the two shuttles.

I think such accidents are inevitable in the future and I wonder if public opinion would be any different if a private company is involved as opposed to a public body like NASA.

Also, there was considerable redesign cost and much delay after each shuttle loss and I'm not sure a private company could survive such an event.

 

[Alex The G and T]

Zero tolerance for risk is a quite recent development in the history of human exploration.

I suspect that private explorers will have somewhat more freedom to fail, spectacularly; rather than be subjected to the weeping, wailing and gnashing melodrama which Nasa has been subjected to by the neurotic mass media.

Explorers die. 'twas ever so. Get over it.

I don't think that a private company would allow itself to be setback 10 years over an accident that kills fewer people than last weekend's toll on a single, local highway.

 

[Vertigo]

I agree with you Alex, though I'm not sure the sensationalist press would and sadly they largely drive popular opinion, so I would expect popular outrage at any loss of life. Which as you say is really pretty damn silly.

However I think the bigger problem for private companies would not be the loss of life but rather the loss of a lot of very very expensive kit. Kit that I doubt anyone would insure for them. In fact I would say that any company in that line of work would almost have to put aside the replacement cost of a spaceship, to effectively insure themselves.

 

[Grunkins]

There's no economic incentive for SpaceX to put a person on Mars as of yet. They would have to develop the technology from scratch, I don't think investors have that kind of patience or bottomless wallets. I think Nasa will continue to develop the technology that further expands our reach into space, and then private companies will make it more efficient and profitable.

 

[Vertigo]

Personally I doubt very much whether there will ever be a commercial, profitable motivation to colonise Mars. It would be just as hard as colonising, say, the moon. The atmosphere is too thin which would require breathing apparatus and combined with the lack of magnetoshpere the radiation levels on the ground are sufficiently high that the colonists would have to wear what would effectively be spacesuits whenever they go outside. It would be easier to colonise the moon that has a 'little' less atmosphere but is much closer and is not so much of a gravity well, making it less expensive to get anything of value transported back to Earth. After all that ultimately is the only way a colony is going to pay for itself.

Personally I think it is more likely that commercial operations will start mining the asteroids. No gravity well to deal with, only a little further out than Mars, and all the stuff you are planning to mine has already been conveniently broken up into small pieces for you. Also I suspect that setting up a habitat in, for example, a hollowed/mined out asteroid would, for all the same reasons be considerably easier and cheaper than doing so on any of the planetary bodies in our solar system (except Earth, of course ).

Another thing you could do on the Moon or an asteroid would be to use mirrors to concentrate the sun for your mining. Something that even Mars' thin atmosphere would make very difficult, if only because it would have to be so much farther away than would be necessary in the asteroid belt.

 

[Gordian Knot]

The irony of SpaceX is that aren't they funded primarily by the government???? We take the money from NASA and give it to a private corporation and pretend the government is saving money. Its other primary customer is the U.S. military. Again funded by American taxpayers. It is a shell game.

Not that I have a problem with SpaceX. They are a breath of fresh air in the industry, and are looking for ways to make this work as a commercial venture some day. I'm just saying that for now it is government spending taken from government groups to a private corporation.

 

[Galacticdefender]

Personally I doubt very much whether there will ever be a commercial, profitable motivation to colonise Mars.

Elon Musk of SpaceX disagrees. Though I think the man has more than an economic interest in space. He seems like someone who actually has a vision for humanity and wants to pursue it, seeing the commercialization of space as a means to do so. Thankfully he has the cash Maybe it's someone like this who will finally get our civilization into space, and not a profit mongering Oligarch. Would be nice, anyway.

And there is already a corporation with plans to launch a "prospecting" telescope next year to identify an asteroid suitable for mining. Some things are going to start happenining here in a few years that I think will change how the public views space. There's money out there, it just requires long term investment.

Oh, and I'd like to add that I'm studying to be an aerospace engineer with hopes of working for SpaceX or a similar company. Possibly NASA if things look better somewhere down the line.


And being contracted by the government is quite different from being funded by the government. Spacex has contracts with civillian compainies as well, just check out their launch manifest: http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php

 

[Mangara]

Its sad because if humankind could just put aside bad blood, history and disputes, and agree to get on we could be in the stars right this minute. All the money spent on military defense, bigger nuclear subs, bigger bombs, faster planes, all for the purpose of killing each other.

 

[steve12553]

Its sad because if humankind could just put aside bad blood, history and disputes, and agree to get on we could be in the stars right this minute. All the money spent on military defense, bigger nuclear subs, bigger bombs, faster planes, all for the purpose of killing each other.

I grew up with Gene Roddenberry's original Star Trek which showed a universe where people developed a just planetary government and eventually cured all the problem on Earth which allowed them to explore space on a united front with little waste of resources.
Unfortunately Gene was a dreamy idealist and people have far too much self interest to see the benefits of space travel. We are far too cynical these days to just jump behind a Government program do what eventually needs to be done. That leaves us with really only the commercial approach. Rather than a bunch of government employees looking to make a decent living with as little effort as possible we ned a corporation or six that are looking to make the big score. Invest big money with an even bigger return. Take some risks but accomplish the goals. Government officials have too many people to answer to. They have to play it safe and that means they will take the slow safe route. They will never "boldly go where no man has gone before". Not only does it need to be privately run but there needs to be competition. The US program lost its competative edge when the Societ Union collapsed.

 

[Galacticdefender]

I still support NASA in all it's endeavors. I don't think the people at NASA are "government employees trying to make a buck with as little effort as possible". NASA still does valuable science all the time. (Curiosity, anyone?) They are also launching another Mars orbiter later this year. NASA will still be here, and I think they will eventually get more funding, but I think the private companies will really be the "shining stars" of our early days as a spacefaring species. Who knows, when the government realizes that there is economic benefit from space travel, maybe NASA will get significantly more resources. If they want to get us out of the economic crisis, invest in mining the moon for Helium 3 or an asteroid for metals such as platinum. The people in our government are just so short sighted that they cannot see that there is much benefit to be gained from exploring space. They will learn the truth, but by then the private companies will be in the lead and it may be too late for the government.

Coming from a hardcore liberal here by the way, I dearly hope both parties can get over their petty squabbling and get NASA some more cash.

 

[zaltys13]

Its sad because if humankind could just put aside bad blood, history and disputes, and agree to get on we could be in the stars right this minute. All the money spent on military defense, bigger nuclear subs, bigger bombs, faster planes, all for the purpose of killing each other.

I'm sorry but that's just about the funniest thing I've read in a long long time.

 

[Galacticdefender]

No, it is a nice thought and may be a possibility one day. But the quest for personal gain has long been a driving factor for exploration, so soon it might actually help us become a spacefaring civilization.

And by spacefaring civilization, for a start, I mean some mining and a possible permanent "colony" (Mining station, research base, etc.) on the moon, and having at least been to Mars. All of which I believe will happen within the next 30 years or so.

 

[Mangara]

I'm sorry but that's just about the funniest thing I've read in a long long time.

Glad you find being kind to your fellow human funny. I know its never going to happen. I'm also a realist. But if you look at humanity throughout history, the desire to explore has been present. I hope we don't get comfortable and sit here on this overpopulated rock, when there is a whole universe out there to explore.

 

[Vertigo]

Sadly Mangara the brutal fact is that we have always historically made our greatest progess in science and engineering in times of war, even cold war. Take away that life or death competition and our progress always slows down. The start of the slow decline of NASA can probably be dated to the end of the cold war.

If we stopped spending money on weapons and war it seems unlikely that we would redirect that money, and more importantly the effort, towards the advancement of science. It offers us no short term gains, long term gains certainly, but, without that driving need to always get one step ahead of your enemies, the short term costs always seem to be too high.

This is where private enterprise comes in, but for them to operate they must find relatively short term gains (or get sponsored by government). All credit to those enterprises that believe they have found the opportunity for such short term gains and I truly hope they are successful with it.

 

[steve12553]

...The start of the slow decline of NASA can probably be dated to the end of the cold war.

If we stopped spending money on weapons and war it seems unlikely that we would redirect that money, and more importantly the effort, towards the advancement of science...

Precisely. If there is no eminent threat or competition very little progress will occur. On the other hand, heaven forbid that the government get smaller or less expensive.
The great cry was always "Spend the money taking care of the problems on Earth first, then worry about Space."
Typically, the more money thrown at earthly problems, the bigger they get. No one ever gives up a government job and everyone has a friend who needs one.

 

[Grunkins]

So it's imperative we spread the rumor that China is planning on militarizing Mars and the asteroid belt.

 

[Vertigo]

Yay, that should do it!