Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt We're way ahead of the Chinese and Indians when it comes to real space travel. <a href="http://www.virgingalactic.com/" target="_blank">http://www.virgingalactic.com/</a> Now why isn't this stuff in Tomorrowland?
Originally Posted By believe >>>>>I just read that the Orion project is being cancelled. I guess we can look forward to India and China landing astronauts on the moon, and then Mars. Meanwhile we won't even have a way to put our own astronauts into orbit once the shuttles are retired. <<<<< Although going to the moon again would be really really cool, the fact is, the goal is really going to Mars. Going to Mars requires a lot of supplies and a big ship. You would need to build that big ship in space since no single rocket can send something that big into space. It requires multiple trips. So, you can either build a ship and collect supplies in orbit close to earth, or build the ship far away on the moon. Building on the moon is much more expensive and much more dangerous. It is much more difficult to land and take off from the moon than it is to dock and take off from a space station. Besides, space station is hours away vs days away to the moon. So while China and India are spending all their money on the moon (they won't have much left over to go to Mars), we're spending our money to go to Mars. Moon is cool, but not practical.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros "...since no single rocket can send something that big into space." Why not build a bigger rocket? I'm sure that 100 years ago people would have said that there was no way to build a rocket big enough to get people to the moon, yet we somehow managed to do that. "Moon is cool, but not practical." In all fairness, just how practical is Mars? Yes, that's the final destination (at this point, at least), but why do we want to go there? Are we really expecting to discover something great once we get there? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for expanding NASA's presence, but I'm just not sure it makes sense from a practical and purely financial standpoint. I do want people to be insprired by the future and the plans that we have to explore beyond our current knowledge, but I also have to question just how 'practical' the whole things is.
Originally Posted By gadzuux As difficult as landing humans on Mars is, getting them back is even more difficult. Humans need food, water and oxygen - and lots of it. Unmanned missions don't. And the unmanned missions don't need to ever return to earth either. We've had several successful unmanned missions at a fraction of the costs associated with sending actual astronauts. I think that's the short term future for space exploration - more bang for our buck. And it IS 'our' buck. You don't see other nations chipping any significant funding for NASA - it's an american thing. If someone is worrying about China and/or India surpassing us in space exploration - not a problem. I'm fine with letting some other nations absorb some of the exhorbitant costs associated with space programs.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Yep, again, I say if it's going to be manned, privatization is the way to go. This is why I posted the link to Virgin Galactic. While there's still more to learn through space exploration, I think our government has more pressing issues to deal with both in the near and long term.
Originally Posted By believe True, Mars isn't all that practical either, but it would help spur technological advances and pride (like the Moon missions did). USA already proved that we can go to the moon already, no need to waste $ going back. Need to spend $ on something that's never been done before. Privatization is fine, as long as we don't outsource everything out to China and India... otherwise they'd get the technology on our dime - just like TVs, Cameras, Cars, furniture, toys, etc. Keep it in the US of A. Build it and keep it in the USA.
