Next Shuttle Launch: May 2005.

[Admiral Valdemar]

These are the same people that thought Jupiter would explode because a probe carrying a nuclear power cell was going to crash into it.

[Gustav32Vasa]

These are the same people that thought Jupiter would explode because a probe carrying a nuclear power cell was going to crash into it.

When the comet hit Jupter with several gigatons and didnt destroy it I doubt a small probe would make Jupiter blink.

Who said that anyway?

[Aaron]

These are the same people that thought Jupiter would explode because a probe carrying a nuclear power cell was going to crash into it.

When the comet hit Jupter with several gigatons and didnt destroy it I doubt a small probe would make Jupiter blink.

Who said that anyway?

Undoubtably Greenpeace or a another right-wing enviromentalist nutcase group.

[Aaron]

Out of curiosity. If Jupiter had exploded what would be the effect on Earth? Would our orbit be affected enough to destroy life on a global scale? Or would there just be a bright light in sky and that's it.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Out of curiosity. If Jupiter had exploded what would be the effect on Earth? Would our orbit be affected enough to destroy life on a global scale? Or would there just be a bright light in sky and that's it.

It'd likely become a new star. The fear was fuelled by the fact that Jupiter very nearly was a star. If it had enough mass, it would self-ignite. Thing is, a spaceprobe is nothing to a 1/3 more mass than Jupiter already has to initiate the reaction. But nasty nuclear power can do anything in the name of evil.

[Aaron]

It'd likely become a new star. The fear was fuelled by the fact that Jupiter very nearly was a star. If it had enough mass, it would self-ignite. Thing is, a spaceprobe is nothing to a 1/3 more mass than Jupiter already has to initiate the reaction. But nasty nuclear power can do anything in the name of evil.

So the morons of the enviromentalist movement would have us all believe anyways.

A new star? Sounds like 2010: The Year We Make Contact

[Gustav32Vasa]

Out of curiosity. If Jupiter had exploded what would be the effect on Earth? Would our orbit be affected enough to destroy life on a global scale? Or would there just be a bright light in sky and that's it.

We would lose the asteroid/comet shield.

[Aaron]

We would lose the asteroid/comet shield.

So that would increase the likelyhood of comet impact with Earth?

[Petrosjko]

Hey Corp, getting a bit back to your questions about the value of space travel...

Survival of the species, long-term. Simple as that. Right now, one good-sized rock and it's bye bye. Even if interstellar travel is unfeasible, we've got a lot of room to move out into in this system, and frankly I'd like to think that even if Mama Terra gets mussed up and becomes inhospitable at some point in the future, the species will continue.

For all that the human race annoys me, I still think it's the best show going.

Short-term, the space program spins off a ton of technology when actively pursued. First example that springs to mind is dye tests for arterial blockage, and others have been provided. How many lives have those tests saved?

[Petrosjko]

We would lose the asteroid/comet shield.

So that would increase the likelyhood of comet impact with Earth?

Think he was joking, but the main problem with comets is the fact that their mass and motion dynamics change with every pass by the sun, unlike asteroids that move in fixed orbits. They can be unpredictable buggers, as a result.

[Aaron]

Think he was joking, but the main problem with comets is the fact that their mass and motion dynamics change with every pass by the sun, unlike asteroids that move in fixed orbits. They can be unpredictable buggers, as a result.

So I guess there really is no info on how much protection the asteroid belt provides us. Comets must pass through it as they pass through the system so it must provide some protection.

I like your ideas regarding colonization of the other planets. It would be nice if the human race could survive a natural disaster due to colonies in space. I just don't think it'll happen anytime soon. NASA, which is bacsically the only game in town, seems to be very conservative with it's plans at the moment.

[Sea Skimmer]

It'd likely become a new star. The fear was fuelled by the fact that Jupiter very nearly was a star. If it had enough mass, it would self-ignite. Thing is, a spaceprobe is nothing to a 1/3 more mass than Jupiter already has to initiate the reaction. But nasty nuclear power can do anything in the name of evil.

And thus the invincibility of HAB. But anyway, what's worse is most of the nuclear power sources people object too aren't even reactors, its just RTG's working off of heat from natural decay rates. Though of course our good Red Communist Comrades in the Union did loft quite a large number of reactors into orbit and too other planets.

[Mayabird]

Think he was joking, but the main problem with comets is the fact that their mass and motion dynamics change with every pass by the sun, unlike asteroids that move in fixed orbits. They can be unpredictable buggers, as a result.

So I guess there really is no info on how much protection the asteroid belt provides us. Comets must pass through it as they pass through the system so it must provide some protection.

It's not freakin' much. Although the popular view is that the asteroid belt is a huge band of rocks, the total mass isn't even equal to the mass of Earth, IIRC. If not for Jupiter nearby, the asteroid belt would have been one smallish planet. The Voyager probes passed through without detecting a single asteroid nearby.

Jupiter, ONOH, does deflect many comets back out into the Oort Cloud. I've read that as much as 999 out of every 1000 wandering objects from the Kupiter Belt and Oort Cloud are sent back out of the solar system because of Jupiter's influence. Some astronomers even believe that without a large gas giant in the outer solar system, life cannot evolve on a planet, because the world would be constantly bombarded by comets never allowing life time to develop.

[Mayabird]

Dang, that was supposed to be OTOH, not ONOH.

Well while I'm here, NASA needs two things: money, and a shakeup. It doesn't have enough money to do the things its supposed to do, and what it does get is tied up with so much red tape that it can't be used effectively. If it's going to do anything, both have to be fixed, not just one. It's a giant bureaucracy, and my friends who work there have had their idealistic illusions shattered. They have a hard time doing anything.

[MKSheppard]

It's a giant bureaucracy, and my friends who work there have had their idealistic illusions shattered. They have a hard time doing anything.

Hence why it needs to be replaced with Space Administration Command

[Mayabird]

It's a giant bureaucracy, and my friends who work there have had their idealistic illusions shattered. They have a hard time doing anything.

Hence why it needs to be replaced with Space Administration Command

That would be really cool.

Alright, throwing in another comment. They say "Necessity is the mother of invention." We don't really know what would come out of long term colonization of space, but undoubtably something will, just because people will have to invent things and create new ideas to survive, and we do have this way of surviving. Don't ask me what it will be. That'd be like asking a 16th century explorer what his travels in America would lead to.

[Petrosjko]

So I guess there really is no info on how much protection the asteroid belt provides us. Comets must pass through it as they pass through the system so it must provide some protection.

I like your ideas regarding colonization of the other planets. It would be nice if the human race could survive a natural disaster due to colonies in space. I just don't think it'll happen anytime soon. NASA, which is bacsically the only game in town, seems to be very conservative with it's plans at the moment.

Mayabird handled the pitch on the asteroid belt's protection... the distances are so immense between asteroids that there's no way it could sponge comets for us.

We face a number of impediments to colonization. Lack of overwhelming immediate need is one, at least a need that the public in nations with the resources do anything serious in that area can pick up on and rally around. Sheer expense in terms of R&D, and the beastly expense of boosting out of our gravity well, it all conspires against us.

Also, we're crippled by the current 'No sparrow shall fall mentality' inasumuch as every time there's a disaster, the media hypes it, the politicians make somber statements, and we shut the program down AGAIN.

Journeying into space will be hard. People will die, in a variety of unpretty ways. But if the option was there, I'd sign up tomorrow. It won't come easy, but I honestly believe that long-term it's an absolute necessity.

Besides... Freedom, Immortality, and the Stars. It's healthy to have a frontier to chase.

[Coyote]

Dunno about the feasability or facts about it, but a Popular Science article recently theorized that there is a lot of Helium-3 on the moon, which can be harnessed to give clean fusion power with no emissions...

And of course if we can start mining asteroids or other planets/moons we don't have to take more of Earth's resources.

There's plenty of water and useful elements in space waiting to be plucked... space is amazingly useful. Just that right now it isn't cost-effective enough to go get it: you'd spend a million dollars and make maybe a million and one back... not worth the effort.

THat's why government space exploration is so important. The government doesn't care about profit margins. They are willing to "waste" money. But they learn new ways to make engines, new lightweight composites, now electronics, new this and that...

...eventually all that becomes so effecient that business realizes that the gov't has done all the costly research for them, and it becomes profitable for them to start sending profitable mining colonies out there.

More busineses follow, trying to sell things to fatr-away miners who want the comforts of home, their families with them, and have alot of money earned and no where to spend it. Next thing you know we have viable colonies with interactive economies and burgeoning populations.

All we need then is Star Destroyers and life is complete.

Overly-simplified explanation, but... it's the thought that counts.

[Broomstick]

So this retirement of the Shuttle that's mentioned, is there a replacement in the works or is the Shuttles life going to be extended indefinatly ala the CF's Sea Kings?

It just seems that the replacement of the Shuttle doesn't seem to be getting much of a priority.

No, no shuttle replacement in the works. The research towards that was cancelled years ago due to budget cuts.

Alright, let's assume they get the ISS built.... then retire the shuttle fleet for good. Um... maintenance, guys? I'm assuming at some point you're going to need to do some heavy hauling of replacement bits

Bunch of fucking idiots....

[Broomstick]

Space exploration, is very much real and achievable.

It is. But what are we getting out of it? Other than an increased understanding of how the universe was formed and operates.

Aside from the fact some of us do value the "increased understanding..." etc, etc....

Satellites.

Satellites have made a huge difference in comunication, navigation, and meterology.

TV and radio signals are rountinely beamed via satellites, allowing long-distance communications without extensive systems of wires and towers. While putting a satellite in orbit isn't cheap, neither is building networks of infrastructure on the ground, which is machinery that requires extensive maintenance due to things like weather, which means as time goes by the costs start to equalize. Over the long haul, satellite communications ARE competitive with ground-based systems. It's an area of space use where private companies can and do make a profit.

Navigation - wow, GPS has really changed things. Aside from allowing more accurate positioning and plotting of more efficient routes (again, not being tied to land-based infrastructure) it allows for more efficent transport of goods and people. It increases safety - the more accurate your navigation the less likely a ship is to run into trouble near a shore with various hazards like reefs or sandbars. More accurate navigation of airplanes helps them avoid things like mountains in the dark or bad weather. In terms of rescue, an emergency beacon putting out GPS coordinates has saved many lives - searchers can get to within a few hundred feet of a person in distress without first needing to fly extensive search patterns, thereby saving time and money as well as lives.

Weather - wow, what a difference the view from above makes! In the bad old days, information about hurricaines before landfall was spotty at best, isolated reports from a boat or two at sea. Lack of warning is partly to blame for why Galveston, Texas had 6,000 dead from the 1900 hurricaine. Now... we see 'em form, we see where they go and how fast, and we can get people out of the way or under cover. The storms still roll ashore and cause massive damage, but the damage is measured mostly in dollars and not lives.

And, again, you can route boats and planes around the worst of the weather because you can see where it is and where it's going. A town can brace for a blizzard, or rain, or what have you. You can save both money and lives with that information.

Militarially, GPS allows for more accurate targeting of weapons. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing depends in part on which side of the missle you're on, of course. Plus all the other stuff about communication, navigation, and so forth.

Hmm... methinks the above is good enough justification for spending some money above the atmosphere. Somebody is making money off supplying that information or using it.

Then there are other things space travel has given us. There are a bunch of things that weren't invented for space, but that space travel gave incentive to refine. Every gram you send up costs kilograms (or more in fuel) so there is a definite incentive to minaturize and lighten the mass of anything you're putting up there.

Computers weren't invented for space travel - but space needed small computers, not vacuum-tubed monstronsities occupying entire rooms, so NASA went with the integrated circuit chip - at the time a very high-price curiousity - and helped indirectly launch mass production of the IC chip, which lead to the PC revolution and the proliferation of computerized gizmos in society. Also drove the invention and development of better power storage, giving us things like lithium-polymer batteries which are finding uses in all sorts of places were you need stored power, light weight, and a decent output.

Use of things such as teflon and tyvek in the construction of space suits lead to their uses other places, from packaging (for tyvek) to cooking (teflon) to medicine (all sorts of uses, from catheters to artificial joints). Better and lighterweight construction of space suits have lead to better biohazard suits used in research, and some of the isolation suits used in certain types of surgery that require extremely sterile environments.

So yeah, the space program has given us a few useful items, and help spur the improvement of other useful items. Would we have achieved these ends with out space travel? Eventually... yeah, some of 'em. But not as quickly and - shocking as it may sound - not as cheaply. I mean, you might come up with a surface-based navigation system to equal GPS, at least on land, but the cost would be prohibitive, not to mention the maintenace. In fact, the land-based radio navigation aids are being allowed to slowly atrophy because GPS is more efficent, cheaper (despite the huge costs of building and launching satellites), and extends everywhere including over the open ocean. It's not blocked by mountains, unlike line-of-sight systems - my backup portable navigation radio doesn't work very well on the ground, if I can get it to receive a beacon at all... but GPS can be used to navigate the ramp and taxiway of a fogged in airport just as easily as the sky at 20,000 feet. It's just plain better.

How about more domestic stuff? Microwave ovens, for instance... they existed prior to the 1960's but were either laboratory items or used in commerical food production situations. Microwave ovens were chosen for Skylab because of the problems of open flames in the enclosed enviroment (fire would be Very Bad in a space station... as folks on Mir demonstrated at one point) and non-convection in micro-gravity. But, they needed something small, lightweight, and reliable... and after they got done designing that it occured to somebody that this would make a good household appliance. Again, they weren't invented by the space program, they were refined by it.

Some of the remote sensor equipment used to monitor the astronauts physical condition? They use those in medicine, too. Again, it was more a refinement of things already in the works, but it certainly did accelerate the process, and that's nothing to sneeze at. Look at something like chochlear implants to restore hearing -- they require miniaturized electronics and small but powerful and reliable microphones and power systems to work. Yes, it's an indirect use of spin-off tech, but nothing to sneeze at. The devices used on planetary probes to analyze substances away from human hands, that is, through robotic manipulation and electronic analysis, also are used for automatic laboratory screening in medicine... which filters down to things like hand-held blood glucose monitors that require less blood and are more accurate than previous methods of monitoring diabetes. 50 years ago you couldn't buy, at any price, the speed and accuracy found in the typical hand-held glucose meter today, for what, $100 or so? A medical laboratory would have been as accurate... but not as fast, not nearly so. These hand-held meters have allowed many diabetics better control over their disease, which means they have fewer complications and fewer medical expenses. Wow, saving time and money again - AND keeping people healthy.

Granted, some of these things are indirect... but so what? It's a ripple effect but ripples travel a long way.

You probably use space-tech spin-offs every single day... you just don't realize it. The spin-offs have become that ubiquitous. Like I said, we probably would have come up with some of these things anyway, but not all of them, and not as quickly.

[Broomstick]

What NASA lacks is a good PR campaign.

No kidding.

Most people aren't even aware that NASA does more than just space.

It's also involved in aviation. One of the recent on-going projects is the study of how ice forms on aircraft, and how best to deal with it. That's a real safety issue for anyone who ever gets on an airplane, whether you realize it or not. Research and progress in that area has helped reduce the accident-due-to-icing rate world-wide. It has benefited everyone who gets on an airplane or lives/works near an airport.

NASA is also testing some new terrain-avoidance technologies that, once out in the real world, will also prevent accident, injury, and death.

In the past, they've done work on aircraft stability issues. Aircraft designers used NASA windtunnels and testing facilities. NASA has contributed significantly to modern aviation, but almost know one knows about it.

The also run the ASRS database which allows pilots to report incidents and hazards easily, quickly, and without fear of the FAA penalizing them... which has also lead to safety improvements. One recent notable item involved the issue of runway incursions. That's essentially the equivalent of blowing through a stop sign or red light - you enter the area of a runway when you shouldn't. Like running a stop sign, most of the time nothing bad happens... but every once in awhile it results in catastrophe. Like the Tenerife accident which, outside of Sept 11, 2001, is STILL the worst aviation fuck-up we've had. Well, the incidence of these "incursions" spiked a few years back and folks were all in a tizzy over it, even though no big accident had (yet) occured (There had been accidents, even some deaths, but not a huge loss of life. Yet). NASA went to its database of pilot reports and found that in 1/3 of the cases pilots reported bad signage - the traffic markings were worn off the pavement, a sign was missing or damaged, whatever. So airports sent out guys with buckets of paint (so to speak) to freshen up the markings and fix signs. The incursion rate dropped the very next month, and it's still dropping. Meanwhile, they've identified airports with repeated incursions where signage was not a factor and have moved to analyse that problem. But if we didn't have the NASA database we wouldn't have that information, would we? We'd still be in the study-and-analyse-and-re-study phase, the risk would still be at the same level. And that's just one example. That database has identified other problem trends before we had to have an accident to bring them to official attention.

Why is air travel so popular these days? It isn't just the speed -- it's also the low accident rate. When you step onto a 747 to go on vacation you are directly benefitting from NASA research that has resulted in a much safer flight than you would have otherwise had - even if you're not in the United States, because a lot of the knowledge is shared with folks around the world.

Which is not to say NASA is somehow unique among civil aviation entities - the Canadians have also done a lot of good work in these areas, particularly in regards to spatial disorientation and navigation/aviation in artic climates and "bush" operatons. The Soviet Union also contributed quite a bit to cold-weather operations. The nations of the South Pacific have become masters at over-ocean transport of people and goods, and that knowledge has benefitted folks around the world.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's easy to lose sight of the benefits we've gotten from a government agency such as NASA. Maybe it's because the knowledge isn't licensed like software - NASA doesn't receive a royalty for every plane that doesn'tcrash because of improved de-icing systems, better stability, better navigation, better communications at airports. Maybe if it did, it wouldn't need government funding.

[Broomstick]

When winning the prize recouped half their construction cost?

And how rich did a couple of bicycle mechanics from Dayton, Ohio get from making their flying machines? They certainly didn't profit off the first few, not even close... do you think they shouldn't have bothered?

Igor Sikorsky spent decades and a lot of money on rotorcraft. Broke a lot of stuff, too, including some bones. His first helicoptor flew every direction BUT forward... what a joke, right? Maybe he shouldn't have bothered, right?

The Bell X-1 might have exceeded Mach 1, but how impractical! It couldn't take-off by itself, it had to be ferried aloft. Clearly supersonic aircraft are totally impractical and will never be developed or mass produced or used --- oh, wait, aside from various military jets we did have the Concorde for what, 30 years? Nevermind...

SpaceShipOne, in a very real sense, was never intended to make a direct profit. It was built and launched to prove a point - that privately funded human space travel was possible. I didn't say profitable - that remains to be seen - just possible. NOW comes the job of trying to make it profitable, commercially viable, and practical. I think the final form of a commercial space travel vehicle for passengers is going to be different, just as a modern jet airliner is significantly different than the Wright Flyer of 1903. But if you didn't build (and crash) the Wright Flyers, Belirots, Fokkers, and Sopwith Camels you would never have gotten to the big Boeings and Airbuses we have today.

Still - at $25 million or so three sub-orbital flights were a bargain. A new airliner like a B-767 or A-320 is somewhere around five times that cost yet there are thousands out there and some are even making a profit. How much would the US government charge to put a man sub-orbital? How much did the Mercury launches of the early 1960's cost in inflation-adjusted dollars? How much did the recent Chinese efforts cost?

By the way, in addition to the X-prize money, Branson supposedly paid Rutan $14 million to paint "Virgin" on the side of that thing, in view of the cameras. That's a cool $24 million right there, which means that crazy airplane designer of Mojave has nearly (if not totally) recouped his development costs already (I'm sure there have been some other items sold, like DVD's of the Discovery channel documentary and so forth). Don't worry about Burt going hungry - he's got a long track record of being able to raise enough money to keep the lights on and the machine tools powered.

[SirNitram]

When winning the prize recouped half their construction cost?

And how rich did a couple of bicycle mechanics from Dayton, Ohio get from making their flying machines? They certainly didn't profit off the first few, not even close... do you think they shouldn't have bothered?

*Shoots Broomstick with a tranq dart*

Down girl!

As I specifically said in this thread, the first iterations are never profitable; that's why we need men of vision, folks who are so fscking out of their heads they'll toss cash into unprofitable ventures, just to prove it can be done. Calm down, I support this shit, but I realize that there's no Commercialization Magic Wand.

[Petrosjko]

that's why we need men of vision, folks who are so fscking out of their heads they'll toss cash into unprofitable ventures, just to prove it can be done.

I've got the 'fscking out of my head' part down, it's the cash part I'm working on.