Come on why!?

[Rob52240]

Good riddance I say.

I'm sick and tired of gazillions of tax dollars being spent just so we can have a reusable vehicle and it's crew do laps around the Earth. 

I'd rather spend money on actually going places and more space telescopes.

[Flipperk]

Good riddance I say.

I'm sick and tired of gazillions of tax dollars being spent just so we can have a reusable vehicle and it's crew do laps around the Earth. 

I'd rather spend money on actually going places and more space telescopes.

You better be joking, or that is the most ignorant quote ever...

[Rob52240]

Not joking.

It was a groundbreaking project but I'd rather not continue to support the shuttle program.  I don't see enough continuing benefits to justify the massive cost.

[Silat]

I don't know you, but I'd bet the future Astronauts are not spending as much time on a video game message board.

Shhhhhnap............

[saggs]

You better be joking, or that is the most ignorant quote ever...

+1

Yea all we've achieved from those "laps around earth"  is libraries full of scientific research.  The greatest telescope ever constructed -Hubble- from which we have learned more about the origins of the universe in the last 15 years then all of human history up to that point.  An international space station that will continue to do groundbreaking research for decades to come.  And much, much greater understanding of human physiology in zero G, that will help us in all future manned space missions to the moon, Mars and wherever.

"Laps around earth" indeed.   

[Anodizer]

Sorry I figured the price wouldn't be as high if none of the boosters were reused. but dang I had no idea! and I see how that works, but the parts blast away and burn up right? So none of it would be reusable or am I wrong?
To get to the closest star would take billions of years, the moon a few days. Not very likely.

Not exactly..  With today's technology, we could send a spacecraft/probe to Proxima Centauri using nuclear propulsion to travel the 4 lightyears in around 80 years..
However, conventional rockets would take about 80,000 years..  Not quite billions.. 


I don't doubt that we'll have astronauts on Mars, back on the Moon and maybe a few asteroids by the time this guy grows up.. 
Keep those dreams up!  Excel in Math, Science, Physics and Chemistry!  Do the best you possibly can in school..  There's entire path you need to set up to become a pilot/astronaut..  Don't be bothered by those that ridicule you.. 

[Rob52240]

Positive news about NASA:


Voyager 1 is now so far out that could break free of our solar system by the end of next year.

here's the article:  http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2011/0615/Voyager-1-encounters-the-unexpected-at-edge-of-the-solar-system

[Tyrannis]

Not exactly..  With today's technology, we could send a spacecraft/probe to Proxima Centauri using nuclear propulsion to travel the 4 lightyears in around 80 years..
However, conventional rockets would take about 80,000 years..  Not quite billions.. 


I don't doubt that we'll have astronauts on Mars, back on the Moon and maybe a few asteroids by the time this guy grows up.. 
Keep those dreams up!  Excel in Math, Science, Physics and Chemistry!  Do the best you possibly can in school..  There's entire path you need to set up to become a pilot/astronaut..  Don't be bothered by those that ridicule you.. 

the NASA is claiming they plan on having a man on Mars by 2030. 

[Rob52240]

the NASA is claiming they plan on having a man on Mars by 2030. 

We shall see.....

[dedalos]

the NASA is claiming they plan on having a man on Mars by 2030. 

Did they say anything about bringing him back? 

[Penguin]

Did they say anything about bringing him back? 

It may be snide, but dedalos has a point.  Given the way the planets rotate, we have three options:

• Option 1: Send a team to Mars for six days, and then send them back quickly so as not to miss the return opportunity.  This is the cheapest and safest option, since a minimum of time will be spent on the Martian suface.  However, its opportunities for scientific research are the most limited.
• Option 2: Send a team to Mars for a long, but not indefinite time, after which the planets will have reset and a return trip will be possible.  This option will allow for a mix of safety and research, as it will allow the astronauts enough time to perform larger-scale experiments, while still allowing them to return home.
• Option 3: Colonize Mars.  This is by far the most expensive, dangerous and time-consuming option, because over 500 people (250 men and 250 women) would have to go in rapid succession in order to prevent inbreeding.  However, its opportunities for both scientific research and economic benefit are practically unlimited.

None of these is perfect, but if we are to make a cosmic omlet, we're going to have to crack a few eggs.

-Penguin

[RTHolmes]

Option 3: Colonize Mars.  This is by far the most expensive, dangerous and time-consuming option, because over 500 people (250 men and 250 women) would have to go in rapid succession in order to prevent inbreeding.  However, its opportunities for both scientific research and economic benefit are practically unlimited.

since we dont have any problem freezing embryos, inbreeding would not be a problem, as we could just take a large and diverse genetic stock with us. by the time we have the technology to economically colonise ET planets, we should be able to raise proper test-tube babies, so we could even do without the small army of surrogate mums needed to propagate the embryos.

however, my guess is there would be problems with embryo development on ET planets because we havent evolved under their conditions, so for our local planets just sending at least adolescent age colonists would be the best solution. gravity would be the major problem for Mars, different radiation spectra might also have unexpected effects.

Also remember that someone who has grown up on Mars will never be able to visit earth, and for long term colonists it would also be a one-way trip.

[Penguin]

since we dont have any problem freezing embryos, inbreeding would not be a problem, as we could just take a large and diverse genetic stock with us. by the time we have the technology to economically colonise ET planets, we should be able to raise proper test-tube babies, so we could even do without the small army of surrogate mums needed to propagate the embryos.

however, my guess is there would be problems with embryo development on ET planets because we havent evolved under their conditions, so for our local planets just sending at least adolescent age colonists would be the best solution. gravity would be the major problem for Mars, different radiation spectra might also have unexpected effects.

Also remember that someone who has grown up on Mars will never be able to visit earth, and for long term colonists it would also be a one-way trip.

We can freeze embryos?  I learn something new every day.

However, wouldn't a year in space take its toll on them?

-Penguin

[Tyrannis]

well the question is: is there any resources on mars to warrent colonization?

i would rather not have my taxdollars going to some colony on another planet that doesnt produce anything useful for our own.

[Penguin]

On the contrary, Mars has abundant mineral resources, and mining there also wouldn't upset greenies like myself, since there isn't any ecosystem to disrupt.  Furthermore, with or without terraforming it would create another 'Wild Wild West' for us expand into.

-Penguin