Fare thee well, you beautiful bird

[Arneb]

Whatever can be said about the failures of the Shuttle program, this was an emotional moment for me.

[Enzo]

Unfortunately, their luggage wound up on the way to Saturn.

[Enzo]

You know, in listening to the news coverage of this I had some thoughts. The shuttle was an engineering marvel, no doubt. But I heard spokespeople claiming it flew flawlessly for 30 years. Well I am not sure flawless is the term I'd chose. And I supose I can forgive them the overblown radio communication, it is a big moment. But I can't help but think everyone was hoping for their memorable quote. I kinda miss the old days when the astronaut commented on the view. Seemed more authentic.

But every story I heard quickly turned into a report on all the lost jobs that result from the end of this program.

[KLA2]

Well. I state the obvious.

The STS was a marvelous piece of technology. Much essential work needs to be done in low earth orbit, and that will always be the case. (The ISS? Hmmm.)

The last manned space flight that went further was 1972.

I stand in awe of the space shuttle technology. I was moved by every takeoff and landing I viewed. I was awed by the science involved, and gained. I was humbled by the courage and dedication of the crews.

Still, to me, it is as if we sailed six times from Europe to the new world, congratulated ourselves, and settled for sailing around the local bay thereafter.

Should we send humans, rather than robots, to the moon, mars, beyond?

Caveats, caveats, but … yes.

[Мастер]

But I heard spokespeople claiming it flew flawlessly for 30 years.

Over budget, often late, the most expensive launch vehicle ever built, killed its crew about 1.5% of the time - I don't know that I'd say it was flawless either. This one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_%28spacecraft%29

might have been a better piece of technology, but it didn't get enough of a flight record for us really to be sure.

But every story I heard quickly turned into a report on all the lost jobs that result from the end of this program.

Well, if you hung around BAUT, you'd know that mankind lived in a primitive, paleolithic state until the 1950s, when the space programme created the wheel, fire, writing, electricity, and probably the steam engine too. Now that the programme has ended, all technological progress will stop, and possibly revert.

Well. I state the obvious.

The STS was a marvelous piece of technology. Much essential work needs to be done in low earth orbit, and that will always be the case. (The ISS? Hmmm.)

There's someone at BAUT who said (in effect) good riddance to STS (and maybe to the ISS), as they consumed massive resources that could have been spent on something good.

The last manned space flight that went further was 1972.

Yep!

I was humbled by the courage and dedication of the crews.

They can't have lacked courage if they climbed into that thing!

Still, to me, it is as if we sailed six times from Europe to the new world, congratulated ourselves, and settled for sailing around the local bay thereafter.

I think you will probably not find encouraging the time scale on which exploration of the new world took place :P

Should we send humans, rather than robots, to the moon, mars, beyond?

Caveats, caveats, but … yes.

The issue with these (as I'm sure you know) is that they are incredibly expensive, and need a compelling motive. They tend to produce quite little in terms of practical application, so the main motive has to be the one Llance always brings up when I mention this - you have to go, because you find going of value, in and of itself.

The BAUTite arguments are usually (a) all technological progress is a direct result of the space programme, and without it, we would be living in caves hunting mammoths for meat, and (b) it creates jobs! (So would hiring lots of people to stand around scratching each other's noses.) These things will take place if people value exploration as a good in and of itself. And while a lot of people seem to place some value on it, most of them don't seem like they're really willing to pay a whole lot of money for it. A lot of people who do think it's a good idea congregate at space-related websites where they talk about how the space programme creates jobs and produced the steam engine. Some of them talk about the compelling need to begin space colonisation to reduce overpopulation of earth, which I suppose they will begin right after they launch the rock of Gibraltar into orbit by pissing on it.

So I'm not particularly optimistic on this point; I think it will probably take a dramatic drop in the cost of getting stuff up out of this deep, deep well we all live in before we start to see things like Mars missions, and that cost has remained quite stubbornly high for decades.

But let me perform an act of liberation here: those of you living in the rest of the world, you don't need the Americans! The GDP of the EU is larger than the GDP of the US; Russia has a smaller GDP than Italy, and yet it has more manned space flight capability than the entire European Union (the latter quantity being, none). Brasil, India, China, Canada, Australia, Japan, Korea - I set you free. I liberate you. You don't need the Americans - you can stand on your own.

I now expect a national holiday named in my honour in all of the above countries. The Day of Мастер, the Great Liberator

[Arneb]

Liberator? Now wait a minute...

I mostly share Mactep's view, although I find the portraitof the BAUT community a bit hyperbolic. But since it's Mactep who went into the fights at the Space Exploration forum, and not me, I'll keep quiet about that point.

My emotion towards the Shuttle program is really just that: Emotion. The points brought forward for or against discontinuing the program should be discussed on an altogether more intellectual level.

Also, I am of the opinion that going to Space for the sake of going is worth it - it's a bit like today's cathedral or pyramid building (the resemblance to the Shuttle is obvious:)). If that's, say 20€ for me a month and proportionally less for people earnng less, I am in. I also know that space flight will die off if no independent and self-sustaining economic rationale for keeping it up develops later.

H3? Well, mybe. That is, IF a commercially viable method of fusion is ever found. Oh, well...

[MM_Dandy]

It's a bit like alternative fuels isn't it? When the price of gas rises, development of alternative fuels becomes more profitable. As far as I can tell, space-venturing is currently not profitable. Perhaps, as Mactep indicates, that may change, but it's not likely to happen soon.

A rather significant difference between exploring the moon or Mars and the exploration of the new world is that nearly all of those early new world endeavors were for profit or the potential for profit. If the Moon were more like the New World, with obvious and plentiful resources which were relatively easy to obtain and which could, if the endeavor is successful, easily outweigh the costs, we'd have regular 'trade routes' established by now.

Perhaps a better analogy for the exploration of the Moon would be the exploration of Antarctica, only without any sealing and whaling potential.

[Мастер]

This from the Los Angeles Times.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-0 ... 0513.story

Arneb, your figure of 20 Euros a month would substantially exceed NASA's per-capita expenditure, and therefore would allow some scope for reduced amounts for those of lower income. I guess it would depend on how much less.

But, NASA's budget is less (adjusted for inflation) than in the Apollo days. And what did Apollo do? Six times, it landed two guys on the moon, who didn't stay long. So first order approximation, you want to do more, it should cost more. Maybe improvements in technology have brought some costs down over time, but the space shuttle was a big step backward in that regard.

If the US were to increase its space budget by a lot - if it went up ten times, it would be between one and two percent of GDP. Certainly affordable, but the will to do so just doesn't seem to be there. When queueing up for funds alongside all the other programmes, there just doesn't seem to be the public will to say, let's fund this, instead of more defence spending, more highways, more public transit, more aid for poor people, more aid for rich people, more subsidies for alternative energies to be mined by those who are very skilled at mining subsidies, or just lower taxes. The US federal budget is big, but I great deal of the spending is on autopilot - entitlement programmes that have promised benefits, and are essentially off limits for cuts. So the discretionary part is quite a bit smaller, and competition for those funds is fierce. Such budget as was available has largely been spent on things like the ISS, which was supposed to do all this wonderful "science", but more much of its existence was so minimally staffed that the crew spent most of its time just keeping the thing operating, without doing much "science".

A combined US/EU programme would roughly double the economic power backing the whole thing, and allow them to do twice as much, assuming they didn't spend all their time/effort/money fighting with each other. Bringing China on board would also add economic clout, but might cause a lot of conflict.

So a future of large-scale human space exploration - I just don't see it without a dramatic breakthrough on the cost front. Maybe there will be additional Apollo-style endeavors, relatively infrequent missions, maybe even to Mars. Colonisation seems awfully far off to me, though.

But, forecasting the future has made fools of some very clever people, maybe it will make a fool of a much less clever person like myself :P

[Arneb]

I think that is a very fair assessment.

As I said, a bit like building cathedrals or pyramids.

[Arneb]

As I said, a bit like building cathedrals or pyramids.

...Speaking of which

[KLA2]

I agree with Arneb. My enthusiasm for the space program is more based in emotion than logic.

I grew up in the 50’s and 60’s reading, reading, reading. All types of books, but my favorites were science fiction. E.R Burroughs, Heinlein, Asimov, Bradbury, hundreds more. Not to mention, watching Star Trek. This created for me a fascination with space and space travel.

My heroes were men in space helmets, not football helmets. I get the same thrill watching the shuttle (or, long ago, the Saturn) take off or land that sports fans get watching their team play, and win.

The space program was accelerated in the late 50’s as a war based, not profit or science based, program. “Beat the Soviets, at all costs.” It was wrapped in the flag of science and exploration to make it more marketable to some taxpayers.

Still, spin-offs included satellites that provide hundreds of channels (none worth watching), cell phones, GPS (telling you to drive the wrong way on a one way street – personal experience) and … Tang. And so much more. (OK, I joke a bit, but I am also serious here.)

Cathedrals and pyramids? No. More like building sturdy, complicated ships that could cross oceans. Compasses. Astrolabes. Created for commercial purposes, or war, they (over time) allowed the development of a new world. Who will say that was worthless? (OK, a nod to the indigenous peoples already there.)

Heavier than air machines? Of what possible practical use?

I read an article in National Geographic Magazine about a race of humans that thousands of years ago inhabited an island, at the time not far off the coast of Africa. Cut off from the mainland by rising waters (global warming?), they exploited their dwindling resources until they died off.

The odd thing was, they could actually see the mainland across the waters. The island had trees, which could provide materials for rafts, or boats. Yet they remained, and died off. (Amazing how scientists could figure all this out, but well. Still an illustrative story.)

ETA: I recall reading that, in the early 80's, IBM did not incur the expense of creating it's own operating system for PC's because they believed the worldwide market would never exceed 250,000 units. Enter Microsoft.

It is the nature of man to reach out, to explore. Usually at great risk, and loss of life. Yet from a small band of evolving apes in Africa, we have overwhelmed a planet.

Should we try to overwhelm the universe, polluting and destroying as we go? Does any other creature look at the sky, see the stars, and understand what they are, or have the ability to record thousands of years of learning and technology in detail, and pass that on? Make a Snocone with raspberry topping? If we are it, maybe we should consider building those ships and crossing those waters. At the time, the relative cost of building those sailing ships was astronomical. (Nice little tie in there, eh?)

I do not foolishly expect human colonies to flourish on Mars, or the Moon. Unless FTL transport can become reality, all mankind is stuck in this little lifeboat. So we better damn well learn to get along, share resources, and bail like hell.

Still, if our dwindling resources can be augmented in a cost effective manner by exploiting the local solar system, good. Better. Best!

Without a space program, we can never do so. We can project what it will cost, but never learn the benefits.

As a man of numbers, of profit and loss, I have to agree with Mactep. Even more depressing, as an economist (background), he takes a much longer term view than I do.

An accountant, an economist, a mathematician, would never recommend you throw the dice, buy a lottery ticket, draw to an inside straight. Buy into a dream.Send three valuable ships west across the ocean blue in 1492 on a fool’s errand to reach the riches of China. (Being far more likely to fall off the flat edge.)

But, that is what our arrogant, foolish, optimistic species does. So far, overall, it has worked out.

I would rather see a few trillion dollars “wasted” on a space program, than another pointless war for dwindling resources.

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

As always, I blame Nixon.

The Space Shuttle should never have been commissioned in the first place.

Some of them talk about the compelling need to begin space colonisation to reduce overpopulation of earth, which I suppose they will begin right after they launch the rock of Gibraltar into orbit by pissing on it.

They'll need to be able to do that every single day just to keep up with population growth.

So I'm not particularly optimistic on this point; I think it will probably take a dramatic drop in the cost of getting stuff up out of this deep, deep well we all live in before we start to see things like Mars missions,

Concur.

and that cost has remained quite stubbornly high for decades.

A complacency I haven't quite figured out the reason for it.
Nobody spend large amount of money on alternate propulsion programmes, although success could have saved them a fortune in the long run.

But let me perform an act of liberation here: those of you living in the rest of the world, you don't need the Americans! The GDP of the EU is larger than the GDP of the US; Russia has a smaller GDP than Italy, and yet it has more manned space flight capability than the entire European Union (the latter quantity being, none).

There is always talk about man-rating the Ariane and developing an manned version of the ATV, but nothing ever happens.
The main reason is cost, buying tickets from NASA or Roskosmos is cheaper.
We are not (yet) a nation so the motivations that come with that just don't apply.

I would rather see a few trillion dollars “wasted” on a space program, than another pointless war for dwindling resources.

Hear, hear!

[hippietrekx]

Well, it's over, but I'm super super glad that I got the chance to see a shuttle launch before it was all over.

Saweeeeet.

And I'm pumped for the new Orion flight capsules. :D We'll be back in business in about 10-15 years again.

--Dom

[Мастер]

As always, I blame Nixon.

That's what he's for :P