Obama eliminates NASA's funds for manned lunar missions

[manasecret]

I'm not sure how you think space tourism and shortened international flights equate to what NASA does.

And like I said, I'm all for private space industry, but I hardly think a private industry based only on doing things that make money can replace the service NASA does. There has been nothing stopping private industry from doing what NASA has done since NASA's inception over half a century ago, and they're only now developing space vehicles? And you think NASA has done squat for the past thirty years??? I hardly want to rely solely on the private industry to replace NASA's manned flights at this point. Maybe after it develops further, but not now.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by manasecret

I'm not sure how you think space tourism and shortened international flights equate to what NASA does.

And like I said, I'm all for private space industry, but I hardly think a private industry based only on doing things that make money can replace the service NASA does. There has been nothing stopping private industry from doing what NASA has done since NASA's inception over half a century ago, and they're only now developing space vehicles? And you think NASA has done squat for the past thirty years??? I hardly want to rely solely on the private industry to replace NASA's manned flights at this point. Maybe after it develops further, but not now.

As promised: 1972.

Also, I think you're overstating the importance of manned spaceflight in the wide array of study NASA does. In economic terms, it seems to me that it is an enormous cost and risk for minimal return on investment. Most of the major discoveries I can think of in the recent past have been from unmanned exploration, which have less cost and risk, and I think NASA does very well. But I am no scientist. If you could list the discoveries that depended on manned spaceflight I could very easily be swayed. Data collection doesn't count as a compuetr could easily accomplish it.

[Jason1]

This is a tough one for me, I mean on one hand sending man to Mars would be something amazing that nobody would ever forget in their lifetimes.

On the other hand, they will go up there and not find anything worthwhile or of any practical gain to the rest of the world. It will just be more or less for the "cool" factor.

Overall, I guess I agree with Obama in that the money is probably best spent elsewhere.

[Teuthida]

We really should start trying to colonize Mars. Earth's population is growing at an alarming rate. Better to spend money on getting folks to Mars than having more people live on this marble. Ooh, or underwater bases! Artificial city satellites would also be cool. Or develop a shrink ray and have bottle cities a la Kandor of Krypton.

[KillerGremlin]

....we really should try colonizing Mars because it will prove that long distance space travel is possible (as in possibly sending astronauts who don't come back) as well as surviving on a planet with no magnetic field to bombard unwanted radiation.

People are really shortsighted. You need to make your boat float before you can sail across the sea. Mars is a step on a long journey that will mark huge progress for humanity.

Prof S has made some good points in this thread, most of which I agree with.

I will say that at some point we are going to have to try making babies in space. It will be interesting to see how a human develops in a weightless environment.