Happy Birthday, Manned Spaceflight!

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
April the 12th marked a double remembrance for manned spaceflight. In 1961, Russian Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin climbed into his capsule and became the first man in space. Exactly 20 years later to the day, the US launched the space shuttle Columbia, the first of many flights of the reusable spacecraft.

At a little after 9am local time, Yuri Gagarin became the first person in history to leave our atmosphere, riding Vostok 1 into orbit.
Click to expand...
 
Hmmmm ... what do you get manned space flight for their birthday ... ooh, I know ... let's give them a budget for that manned mission to Mars or the Asteroid Belt :D
 
Sure thing, here's a budget....cut! Your welcome. - said POS polticians.
 
Here's to you 20th century. You never took no for an answer. And you never gave a damn about the cost. You were a true testament to mankind's ability, and I'm proud to say I was part of it.
 
Sad part is that since that inaugural shuttle flight we haven't gone further than LEO....And ofc, the Shuttle failed spectacularly in most of its design goals.

kbrickley said:
Hmmmm ... what do you get manned space flight for their birthday ... ooh, I know ... let's give them a budget for that manned mission to Mars or the Asteroid Belt :D
Click to expand...

MasonD said:
Sure thing, here's a budget....cut! Your welcome. - said POS polticians.
Click to expand...

You want a balanced budget and reduce the deficit...or do you want toys? You cannot have both IRL.
 
Skripka said:
You want a balanced budget and reduce the deficit...or do you want toys? You cannot have both IRL.
Click to expand...

Toys? Yeah...there toys:rolleyes: and do nothing for science. Also, IRL (like reality) we won't get either so lets not pretend we will. Last thing...http://costofwar.com/

If you want to cry about overspending, do it about wars, not science.
 
MasonD said:
Toys? Yeah...there toys:rolleyes: and do nothing for science. Also, IRL (like reality) we won't get either so lets not pretend we will. Last thing...http://costofwar.com/

If you want to cry about overspending, do it about wars, not science.
Click to expand...

Manned spaceflight is barely about science, it is about bragging rights and ego and any science gotten along the way is a side benefit....hitherto manned programs like the Space Shuttle have actually pulled funding away from actual science from probes like Hubble, James Webb, etc.

Don't get me wrong I'm all for science.

But we can either balance the books, or we can sink trillions into trying to go planet hopping. Those are the options, as raising taxes to pay for things is political suicide. And it would be trillions as lift costs are still outrageously expensive to LEO.
 
You want a balanced budget and reduce the deficit...or do you want toys? You cannot have both IRL.
Click to expand...

This is the fallacy of the false alternative. It implies that there are only two options when, in fact, there are many. I would argue that NASA is neither irrelevant, nor a drain on the economy. Funding NASA is an investment which spurs economic growth. The return on investment, in terms of economic stimulus, is extraordinarily high (estimates range from 3-1 to 14-1). This implies that cutting NASA's budget does only harm to the economy. In addition to this, we also gain technologies for common use. Examples can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies

I would hardly consider these "toys."

Further, we do not spend "trillions" of dollars on NASA. In 2010, the budget for NASA was $18.7 billion. Over its 50 year history, we have spent a total of $790 billion, when adjusted for inflation.
 
Skripka said:
Manned spaceflight is barely about science, it is about bragging rights and ego and any science gotten along the way is a side benefit....hitherto manned programs like the Space Shuttle have actually pulled funding away from actual science from probes like Hubble, James Webb, etc.
Click to expand...
Almost all of this is purely from an outsiders perspective. If they weren't so underfunded to begin with your argument would have no merit instead of little.

Don't get me wrong I'm all for science
Click to expand...
I'm all for stopping the production of bombs and killing machines and the blaming of NASA for well...doing too much underfunded science. Just because you can't see the benefit in something doesn't mean it's not there. People much smarter than you or I know we have to take baby steps (physically) into space.

But we can either balance the books, or we can sink trillions into trying to go planet hopping. Those are the options, as raising taxes to pay for things is political suicide. And it would be trillions as lift costs are still outrageously expensive to LEO
Click to expand...
That is a great way to remain status quo.
 
Also, as a poster above stated. Stop it with the trillions nonsense. Fear mongering.
 
Sifelwivel said:
Further, we do not spend "trillions" of dollars on NASA. In 2010, the budget for NASA was $18.7 billion. Over its 50 year history, we have spent a total of $790 billion, when adjusted for inflation.
Click to expand...

MasonD said:
Also, as a poster above stated. Stop it with the trillions nonsense. Fear mongering.
Click to expand...

I'm not fear mongering, you're being naive.

We do not spend trillions now...but if anyone is actually serious about humans going beyond LEO, that is the tab to expect to pay. The cost for one Space Shuttle to low earth orbit was $450 million per flight, or about $18,000 per kg. To put it another way, factoring inflation/design cost/maintenance etc into account the cost per shuttle launch over the course of the whole program was $1.5billion per flight.

To show how far the Shuttle failed wrt the original design goals....in 72 the goal was $1400 per kg in inflation adjusted 2011 currency.

You want to take humans anywhere beyond LEO and bring them back and it is going to be substantially more expensive. Expect hundreds of billions between development and flyaway cost....then with all the fuel etc costs hitting $1 trillion is fairly easy. Hell, the F-35 aircraft hasn't even flown yet and it has cost $400billion USD.
 
Skripka said:
Hell, the F-35 aircraft hasn't even flown yet and it has cost $400billion USD.
Click to expand...

Great! Let's cut ACTUAL wastfeful spending just like this and instead give NASA an addtional $**-$*** billion every year and see what becomes of it (beats murdering people over resources). Yes sir, I bet we'd be on mars, the moon, catching asteriods flying by, harnessing safer alternative energies, etc. In under 15 years too, at most! On top of that a dozen new technological advancements for all of humanity (instead of just the war profiteers).
 
Skripka said:
I'm not fear mongering, you're being naive.

We do not spend trillions now...but if anyone is actually serious about humans going beyond LEO, that is the tab to expect to pay. The cost for one Space Shuttle to low earth orbit was $450 million per flight, or about $18,000 per kg. To put it another way, factoring inflation/design cost/maintenance etc into account the cost per shuttle launch over the course of the whole program was $1.5billion per flight.

To show how far the Shuttle failed wrt the original design goals....in 72 the goal was $1400 per kg in inflation adjusted 2011 currency.

You want to take humans anywhere beyond LEO and bring them back and it is going to be substantially more expensive. Expect hundreds of billions between development and flyaway cost....then with all the fuel etc costs hitting $1 trillion is fairly easy. Hell, the F-35 aircraft hasn't even flown yet and it has cost $400billion USD.
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean we can't spend money smarter for the future ... bottom line is that as long as we stay on a single planet we will eventually die as a species ... whether it is due to disease or an asteroid or some other freak celestial event, something will eventually get us if we are all in one place

Man's greatest gift is the ability to look beyond the basic Darwinian needs of Food, Water, and Sex ... we can dream and make those dreams a reality ... I would rather we spend more time and resources building space stations in geosynchronous orbit and colonies on the moon and other planets ... it would be good for science, good for our species, and we waste money on far less fulfilling things ;)
 
For its limited budget of a now reduced $17 billion per year, NASA is doing quite well with the science portion of space exploration.

Space isn't cheap by any means.

The Curiosity program alone was $2.8 billion if I recall, and NASA wants to send a second one there now. They also want to capture an asteroid and pull it into lunar orbit for around the same price.

When adjusted for inflation, sending three men to the moon in Apollo 11 is $1.75 billion. To get a group to Mars, it's estimated to be in the $100 billion to $1 trillion range if NASA does it. In other words, it exceeds their annual budget.

So, it honestly amazes if the private companies and organizations like SpaceX, Mars One, and so on can do it on a fraction of that estimated cost.

Fuel isn't cheap. Supplies aren't cheap. Heck, the Space Shuttle is more expensive than Dragon at dollars per kilogram to get to LEO.

However, our military budget is not cheap either. And, depending on who you talk to on the internet or in real life, you'll eventually come up with a single conclusion from both sides of the argument-- it's a necessary evil to maintain our military. It not only plays a big role in keeping our economy up and contributes to research and development, but it's the only way to keep the rest of the world in check. We are the only country able to project our military strength anywhere on the planet with not just pure numbers of men, but because of our military strength and technology. We underfund our military budget and reduce our military, and we will do a good amount of damage not only to our economy but the world. There will be an arms race literally to fill in the power vacuum left behind by the US military if we disappear or get rid of our military budget.

So, it's become a necessary evil-- we can't get rid of it entirely, and we can't reduce it entirely so we can improve our education, infrastructure, health care, and fund more space endeavors; but for what we spend on our military budget each year, it's become a necessity to keep the world in check.

As for those that say there is little to no science that can be gotten from our space program, I honestly laugh at your ignorance and lack of understanding at their contributions. You're just as bad as the conspiracy theorists that say we never landed on the moon, and I rank you guys on the same level as the Creationists that want to get rid the study of evolution and sciences in our schools.

I'm sorry, that's how I see you.

I'm a lover of science and have always been since I was young. It isn't just about looking at the stars and asking where we came from, are we alone and if there are mysteries that we haven't solved yet. The space program has contributed so much to our daily lives and society in the last 50 to 60 years. All the technology that's researched and developed to send a man or a probe or satellite into space trickles down into our daily lives. It's why we should never underfund the space program or get rid of it.

I follow the happenings and news of the Curiosity rover as much as possible on /r/curiosityrover, and I follow the news for space on /r/space.

The space program in our country is a necessity and most likely our future necessity for our economy. It's as important as maintaining the budget for MediCare and Social Security, because we cannot neglect the less fortunate and the elderly in this country. And, it's as necessary as maintaining a decent (more or less) budget for our education and infrastructure, which needs to be honestly improved in future Presidential administrations post-Obama. I honestly laugh at people like Paul Ryan in Congress and Boehner who want to cut social programs, cut MediCare and cut other necessary programs to maintain the budget, and they need to go.

We have a future in space, and if we do not as a country keep pushing further into space exploration and research, we will miss a great opportunity for our economy and the contributions it'll provide for us. And, if we don't do it, countries like Russia or China will go ahead and do it before us.
 
MasonD said:
Great! Let's cut ACTUAL wastfeful spending just like this and instead give NASA an addtional $**-$*** billion every year and see what becomes of it (beats murdering people over resources). Yes sir, I bet we'd be on mars, the moon, catching asteriods flying by, harnessing safer alternative energies, etc. In under 15 years too, at most! On top of that a dozen new technological advancements for all of humanity (instead of just the war profiteers).
Click to expand...

Tell you what, why don't we just get the fuck out of the middle-east since we have no business being there and no, we aren't (or shouldn't be) world police.
You know, kind of like how Obama promised he would remove our troops right before he was elected, then right after he was elected, sent over 30,000 more troops to the middle-east. :rolleyes:

You know, these wars have cost us far more than any government-funded science project EVER has.
Had America's can-do attitude of the 80's poured into the 90's and 00's, yeah, we would be on mars right now.

Hell, Russia and China have been planning a trip to Mars and training for it for quite some time now.
btw, the war in the middle-east has NOTHING to do with resources, considering the US has more natural gas, coal, and oil than all of the middle-east has combined, so you can save that for your next mom/apple pie PR campaign. :rolleyes:
 

Red Falcon...little confused with your post. Quoted me and not sure if you're just adding to what I said (seems like it except for the attitude) or misinterpreting something I said and arguing another side. Which is why your post confuses me as I agree with most of what you said. Except this...

Red Falcon said:
btw, the war in the middle-east has NOTHING to do with resources, considering the US has more natural gas, coal, and oil than all of the middle-east has combined, so you can save that for your next mom/apple pie PR campaign. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It has everything (everything) to do with resources. You always (if you're very smart) want to control the resources of other lands no matter how much you have at home. It gives you more strategic power. Plus from what I gather Afghanistan has some resources in the mountains that'll be very useful in the future.

Other than that...I agreed. You still sounded like an ass though, I don't even like apple pie.
 
MasonD said:
It has everything (everything) to do with resources. You always (if you're very smart) want to control the resources of other lands no matter how much you have at home. It gives you more strategic power. Plus from what I gather Afghanistan has some resources in the mountains that'll be very useful in the future.
Click to expand...
If that were the case, the US would have total control over the oil fields (it doesn't) and a 55gal. barrel of oil would cost less than $10.

So if it has 'everything' to do with resources, then why the hell are we reaping zero benefits of it.
Oh that's right, it's Vietnam, part 2.

You know, the Soviet Union tried this back in the 80's; you'll notice how there is no more Soviet Union.
History repeats itself.

Other than that...I agreed. You still sounded like an ass though, I don't even like apple pie.
Click to expand...
Right back 'atcha! :p
 
MasonD said:
Red Falcon...little confused with your post. Quoted me and not sure if you're just adding to what I said (seems like it except for the attitude) or misinterpreting something I said and arguing another side. Which is why your post confuses me as I agree with most of what you said. Except this...
Click to expand...

Ok, now I do feel like an ass.
Meant to quote Skripta.

I was like, the hell is he talking about... then ohhhhhh.
Sorry, my bad. :(


You still sounded like an ass though
Click to expand...
Yes, yes I did. :p
 
Skripka said:
You want to take humans anywhere beyond LEO and bring them back and it is going to be substantially more expensive. Expect hundreds of billions between development and flyaway cost....then with all the fuel etc costs hitting $1 trillion is fairly easy. Hell, the F-35 aircraft hasn't even flown yet and it has cost $400billion USD.
Click to expand...

Coming to new world wasn't cheap either. Both in monetary and cost of life.

I uploaded this video just for you. I personally took this video of the F-35 taking off at the Fort Worth JRB/Lockheed plant. On April 25th 2010, 3 years ago. Even shows the escort F-16 that was required to fly with it on all it's early flights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alcqssD1o0U

Now maybe it hasn't flown any combat missions if that's what your thinking. But honestly WHY would it fly combat missions right now? Who are we fighting right now or in the last couple years that has aerial combat capability? We don't even require the B-2 stealth bomber to have its normally required F-22 escort because there simply is zero air to air threat to them.
 
I don't want to start an argument about your US education but I am wondering whether you guys were even told about Gagarin in schools. Is your general population aware of this man and his extremely odd death?

All I hear is about the moon. I wonder why :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top