Tod R. Lauer, an astronomer at the National Optical Astronomy Observatory in Tucson, echoed his view. “This would be an unmitigated disaster for cosmology,” he said. “After two decades of pushing the Hubble to its limits, which has revolutionized astronomy, the next step would be to pack up and give up. The Hubble is just good enough to see what we’re missing at the start of time.”

The Webb telescope, he said, “would bring it home in full living color.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/science/07webb.html?_r=4

Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy can finally replace the baulk of this Useless Technology Preservation Society and maybe, just maybe free up some of the bloody money for basic spaceflight research again. A $1/4B per year woudl do it.

That would be enough to build 4 DC-Xs/year, and build a DX-X2 or launch either into orbit twice a year. Keep doing that and you’ll eventually answer all the questions NASA has been hand wringing over for three bloody decades.

It’s clear to me that relying on Congress for funding will always have the same result. Relying on businesses to get people into orbit seems like the only responsible choice.

Personally, I can think of at least one good reason to try and go into space and colonize the Moon or Mars – so that people would have a place to go in case governments decide to nuke each other out of existence.

this is a reason for you and me. But consider
- the people who think that our civilization is evil and has to go. Or even think that humans are vermin and deserve nothing but extinction.
- the people who think that apocalypse will happen within our lifetimes.

None of them has any motive to support our expansion into space. One could even say that they find any possible escape route highly undesirable.

Then there are people so myopic, that they consider anything that does not offer instant gratification, or a fat ROI within six months to be a waste of money.

That together is the majority of mankind, included almost all world leaders.

We might as well admit that the USA has lost its will to thrive. The country has chosen to share the wealth while producing nothing new.

A good part of the uncertainty about how to proceed next, and just what ‘next’ will be, stems from the lack of a clear mission statement for NASA. In the space arena (NASA has other arenas), NASA would do well to have a formal mission statement that says basically ‘To move Mankind to the Stars.”

That sort of statement would give a rock-solid long term clarity of mission, something to anchor all lesser explorations and supporting technologies upon. But what we have is a situation where our government lacks vision beyond the next election cycle; therefore their short-term political interests and NASAs are all too often in conflict.

There’s hope, though. Recently DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) announced it’s looking for proposals about how to build a 100-year starship. So there is vision somewhere; is it comforting to know that it is coming from the Department of Defense?

1) Space elevators(still waiting on carbon nanotube tethers)

2) Ground powered launch systems.
a) like Leik Myrabos micro wave powered launch vehicles
b) Balloon supported mag lev launchers(from physicist Mike Combs)

3) nuclear powered launch vehicles(like the nuclear light bulb) with 7 to 10 times the payload per lb of chemically fueled launch vehicles.

All of these are currently undergoing research. None are under development because there’s not a lot of money available and the technology is still lacking(ie, tethers).

Any or all of these technologies have the potential to make access to LEO available for a few hundred dollars per lb. They could make access to space cost effective for thousands of companies(and their employees).

As far as humans(meat) surviving hard radiation in space for extended periods, magnetic shielding has been proposed and in some studies appears feasible. A rotating ring(for gravity effects) with a super conductor magnetic core could be quite build-able. It has been stated many times by space enthusiasts that we would likely build underground on the moon or asteroids and remote operated robots are obviously the logical way to construct anything in space. Humans in space suits are just passe. Humans in well protected environments operating those ‘bots will be the norm.

We’ve already shown we can grow tomatoes in space. Next will come grains, tubers, other veggies and probably fish(they’re clean and won’t stink up the place, like chickens).

Gary 7

@18 FoxtrotCharlie: To quote Bob Novella ‘[W]hoever builds [space elevator] first…owns space…Game over’

Many thanks! I also thought there was more than just what the link showed!

On those lines, I have to disagree about ending the shuttle program.
After the ISS completion, we could’ve flown it at a minimum rate, maybe two flights a year by two shuttles, for continued ISS support. After all, that’s what the shuttle was meant to do; support a space station.

I agree with Philly Jimi here; that NASA shouldn’t rockets.
There are plenty of good choices out there that they can use that are cheaper than an SDLV.
My personal vote goes toward Atlas 5.

http://www.economist.com/node/18897425?Story_ID=18897425&CFID=166851515&CFTOKEN=73757859

The Economist says Space Is History!

I believe the public and the entire human race loves and would support the idea of a bold expanded space exploration. I am 45 years old and I still remember how excited I was about the moon landings. Taking baby steps is very boring. Mars has to be the next big bold step forward. If Columbus only sailed forward a little bit at a time then running back to his safe harbor he would of never found America. You don’t go to Mars via the Moon, you go Mars by going to Mars. We’ll never ever get to Mars with wasteful Cost Plus contracts if the politicians can use to help themselves get reelected by creating NASA jobs programs in their state. NASA shouldn’t build rockets they need to define missions and get fixed price contracts from companies that will get the job done or they don’t get paid.

The shuttle was a great visionary project that didn’t workout because of the practicalities.

Just look at the thousands of tiles on the underside of the shuttle that need to be serviced and checked to perfection after every flight. Compare that to the much smaller, one use, heat shield on the normal re-entry capsules.

For the future of the space program think
http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/4068/justin-the-remote-controlled-space-android
Land a dozen plus of these on the moon with assortment of robotic digging and construction machines.
Build a large underground habitat then send humans.

For long term , life time, survivability humans have to live deep under the ground or face radiation sicknesses and malformed offspring.

Once we have that done and down pat. Repeat with Phobos and then Mars and then push outwards.