You feel the ISS good for something. But what do you know it’s good for? If you can’t even think of something specific to do with it, then what makes you think it’s good for anything?

At least it’s only $3 billion extra. Not much, when one considers how much is spend on other, not so lucrative ventures by the govt.

I say NASA ought to combine a couple of ideas; use the side-mount launcher first, then develope a Direct 3.0 launcher along the way.
And also tell them to get over the Ares rockets. IMO, and in hindsight, they weren’t the way we should’ve gone. Ares 1 itself is just too darn expensive for what it’s supposed to accomplish and for the time it’ll take to make it.

It would be nice to get some more mileage out of the ISS. I still feel SOMETHING can be done with it, aside from being another artificial meteor.
The right minds just need to get a hold of it. Heck, why not redecorate the interior to make it a hotel in space? Then let the private sector have at it.

As for the shuttle, why not let it fly a mission or two per year after the 2010 date until the new ship is ready to fly? I’m sure it’ll make it with that pace.

“Astronomers – anyone who even likes astronomy – owes NASA an unpayable debt for the HST alone.”

That’s right. And we could have a dozen Hubbles up there (a few of which would have problems) if it weren’t for the manned space program. The astronaut repairs were make-work for the shuttle program, which cost more than sending up new Hubbles!

Really? I think your maths and calculations may be a bit – even a whole lot – out there.

Besides how would we launch them in the first place without the shuttle? It was actually launched by the Shuttle I think you’ll find & I’m not sure it *could* be launched using any other rocket – except maybe a Saturn V!

Once more, NASA sacrificed a crown jewel for its meaningless manned space program.

“Meaningless” you say? Well NOT to me – or most other people.

I think manned spaceflight means a huge amount to a huge number of people & if you’re going to deny this you’re going to need to back your assertion up with something more than merely your own opinion.

We remember Neil Armstrong’s Lunar landing, (even if, like me, we are too young to have seen it live.) there are people that strongly care about that – & the moonrocks and information it brought back.

(Some loony nutters even care oddly by saying it didn’t happen and wasting their lives trying madly to disprove that it did. Why? I don’t know myself but it clearly matters to them.)

Aussie astronaut Andy Thomas is a household name in my home city of Adelaide. Many people are inspired by science and dream of becoming astronauts.

When it comes to robots outside of a few science buffs you just don’t get that same level of interest or inspiration or dreaming or yearning.

Who remembers the name of the first robot on the Moon or where they were when it landed? Who really cares?

Robots are good and all and they have their place but spaceflight is a human endeavour and human space exploration is a vital aspect and meaningful dream and can achieve a lot more than robots.

I think we need both human and robotic space exploration.

I just wish the USA would fund and direct both properly.

@Sean
The manned space program is the only hope humanity has for the future. Global Warming aside, we can’t live stuck on this planet forever, We’ve got to spread out to ensure survival, with disasters that could wipe out a single planet lurking in just about every interstellar corner, the faster we get off this rock the better.

That’s right. And we could have a dozen Hubbles up there (a few of which would have problems) if it weren’t for the manned space program. The astronaut repairs were make-work for the shuttle program, which cost more than sending up new Hubbles! Once more, NASA sacrificed a crown jewel for its meaningless manned space program.

I don’t understand why this info isn’t being talked about: SpaceX isn’t the only one contracted under COTS to supply the ISS …

http://www.orbital.com/HumanSpaceExplorationSystems/COTS/

I think we can have – should have – both.

The same also applies for the govt. /private debate.

Mind you, it must be said that the private space agencies are still a very lo-oong way behind – they’ve yet to get humans into orbit let alone be in a position to lead us to the Moon or beyond.

Plus I really hate the thought that the first (wo?)man’s word’s on Mars may be something like :

“I claim this planet for Fizzy Soda, I come to boost sales for only my soft-drinking kind! This mission brought to y’all by fast food joint A, shoe company B & Tampon manufacturer C. Land on Sunday, sell on Monday ..”

Sigh. I suppose if that’s what it takes to get us there .. but .. yeck.

Far better to have a national organisation doing space exploration for the whole nation in a non-(monetary)profit fashion and for science in a way that includes everybody.

As for all the criticism directed at NASA by some folks here – well, talk about ingratitude & overlooking the many superb things NASA has done for everyone! Astronomers – anyone who even likes astronomy – owes NASA an unpayable debt for the HST alone. Not to mention the Voyagers, the Mars rovers, the Apollo program, the previous robots that also landed on the Moon (who recalls their names? ) Magellan, MESSENGER, Stardust, Genesis, the International Space Station, the Mariners, the Vikings, et cetera, etc ..

Really people, before you start tearing NASA down and abusing them you might want to stop and think about all they’ve actually done – most of which is far beyond what any other group – nation or company could or has ever manage(d). If any group will get us “to boldly go where no one has gone before” NASA will. They’ve already demonstrated that.

I think President Obama (who I understand is a bit of a ‘Star Trek’ fan) needs to set out a clear vision for NASA, tell ‘em what we’re going to do – eg. a person on Mars by 2019 – then put someone who shares that vision & has a good plan how to accomplish it in absolute charge & insist that we pull out all the stops, esp. funding~wise, to make it so!

coolstar, I can agree with a lot of that; but I don’t think it’s true that there’s nothing left on the Moon worth discovering. Apollo only returned samples from six locales, with none of them on the Far Side or near the poles. Reports of the Moon’s demise have been greatly exaggerated.

&
67. coolstar Says:

Yes, there’s fodder for some geologists on the moon, but is it worth $100 billion for a manned mission?

Yes.

I think it is worth every cent for us to go to the Moon again – & beyond with real live humans because, just for starters, we have :

1. Helium three which could be a fuel of the future.

2. Possibly water ice, possibly minerals - we may find that extracting ores from the Moon works cheaply and easily and, of course, won’t have the environmental or social issues we get on Earth. Uranium mining on the Moon, for instance, could help stop the worries about radioactive elements being launched from Earth, avoiding the sort of protests that for instance, the Cassini spaceprobe suffered with its RTG component. Maybe we could actually build such spacecraft and launch them from the Moon itself?

3. The Moon also offers a low gee, hard vacuum environment which is could have its advantages for some industrial processes – and a wide range of temperatures. Ditto. The Moon would also be an ideal place for using solar power : long days, no clouds (or air) in the way, huge tracts of land available and some locations with permanent sunshine – polar craters. Plus the Lunar Farside offers a great location for a giant radiotelescope.

4. The opportunity to practice colonisation and artificial ecological sustainability techniques and learn how to create artificial biomes (think the “Biosphere II” experiment but better) more rigourously than on Earth and perhaps more accurately – for planetary environments than space stations but in a way that may be more ethically responsible than on Mars – *if* Mars has some life forms of its own.

5. Dare I suggest tourism? No seriously, if places like Antartica and Mt Everest are becoming tourist sites of sorts (& they are) then why not the Moon too? Apart from other factors there’s the fact that apparently, in the low lunar gravity with sufficent space to fly in and a pair of strapped on wings, Humans can run, jump, flap their arms and actually fly like birds. I’d love to see – & do – that.

Now all we need is to get the fungineers designing the Lunar theme park…

… Or better still a Farside radiotelescope & nearside Lunar colony which can combine and make best use of all those factors mentioned.
—–
We’re whalers on the Moon,
We carry our harpoons
But there ain’t no whales
So we sing tall tales
And (? act like drunk baboons?)
- ‘Futurama’ Lunar episode (Ok, I forget the last line there .. )

You really caught the very essence of the problem.
Jeeez..

Joe Six Pack knows that Hubble takes pretty pictures, but can he name a single astronaut from the last five years? I can’t.

Joe Sixpack : “Uh, yeah I can! There was that one that wore diapers when she went to kidnap her astronaut lover’s new girlfriend, what was her name again, Lisa …something? (Novak -spelling?)

When an astronaut steps out of the Mars lander and surveys the horizon, one person sees the view. When a robot lands on mars, all of mankind sees the view.

Bzztt! Dead wrong there.

A heck of a lot more people will notice and see the view when a human being is on Mars than will when its just another rover (or the old rovers still) or Viking or an orbiter.

If astronauts were going to return something (knowledge, samples, etc.) which robots could not provide, then I would see a reason to send people.

Then you see a reason to send people because humans *do* indeed provide stuff that a robot can’t. The Human dimension. Human’s can do things that robots can’t – they think instantly and on the spot, they are far more flexible, adapt and innovate and go beyond their programming and more. They can laugh, love and inspire, write poetry and songs, paint and see things exactly how we want to seem them – through human eyes not artifical ones. They can give talks and give hope, be interviewed and write memoirs, deck deniers like Sibrel and get kids interested in science in ways that robots just can’t.

I don’t want to pay another 3 billion per year on trips for individual humans.

You have a spare $ 3 billion? Wow! Lucky you. I don’t think anyone’s asking you personally – & certainly not to pay the whole cost. Its a taxpayer funded thing – a tiny, tiny percentage of a whole lot of money you pay in taxes most of which is wasted on far worse things like wars we should never have got mixed up in.

I want to go to Mars myself, and the best way for me to do that is through the eyes of a robot.

Either you are a very small person or that robot you are planning to send is truly humungously BIG! Most people wouldn’t fit in your average robots eye.

To me, the best track forward is simply to de-orbit ISS now,

Er, you wanna let the astronauts get out and the shuttle undock first!?

(Pictures “John” in charge of NASA instantly ordering the ISS into a fiery reentry end with the astronauts onboard still screaming at him not to do it and then the remains of the whole blazing ISS coming crashing down onto … “John’s” house. All because he wouldn’t wait & check things out a bit more carefully first. )

UAL will present at AIAA next week. COTS is alive.

This Doom and Gloom based on the Augustine Summary Report is way premature. Just ask Phil at comment #23:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/09/01/spectacular-new-iss-picture-from-the-ground/

Many folks inside NASA have questioned the wisdom of the Ares I/V approach. Recently I looked at the numbers, and it’s like this: $35B (at least) to develop Ares I, plus another $15B to develop the Orion crew exploration vehicle… all to replace a reusable Shuttle that cost $34B (in 2009 dollars) to develop. Seems like we aren’t getting any better at this.

One thing the Augustine Commission has also suggested is commercializing manned launches to LEO, and letting NASA focus on the cutting edge (beyond LEO) of manned space flight.