NASA needs to refocus its priorities

[faded glory]

I wanna see an american flag on Mars. Why are all these dumbass pundits saying manned flight doomed? Its just the freakin shuttle is doomed. Its 1960's technology, were so much better than that. I think we should get cracking on some replacements for the shuttles.



Anyway,
Just want to see what you all think. Robotic exploration or Manned flight? What do you think is the future?

[faded glory]

I think i will be dead by 2018 when were planning to go to mars. Cant they do it sooner?

[Jon Miller]

why are you going to be dead ?

Jon Millret

[Skanky Burns]

Abstained.

You make it seem like it's an either/or situation. They can do both at the same time.
Both are needed too.

[Urban Ranger]

Probably should do it with a robotic probe first.

[Ming]

Originally posted by faded glory
I think i will be dead by 2018 when were planning to go to mars. Cant they do it sooner?

I'm far older than you, and I expect to be alive in 2018...
YOU WIMP

[Nubclear]

QUOTE] Originally posted by Ming


I'm far older than you, and I expect to be alive in 2018...
YOU WIMP [/QUOTE]



I also expect to be alive in 2018. But you'll still be here....

[Proteus_MST]

Depends on the Situation.

Some tasks can be better undertaken by humans and for some situations robots are better suited for the job.

As for the exploration of Mars:
Yes, I believe at one point there should be a manned exploration, because humans alow more flexibility in exploration (and the search for life on mars) than you can get with remote controlled robots.

[Dis]

The engine technology must be developed and tested.

Check out ion engines. They are pretty cool. But we have never actually used one on a large scale ship.

I don't support a manned mission yet. Too dangerous. And there has been talk about psychological effects of such a long mission in cramped quarters. They may go stir crazy.

[patrickjb53]

Originally posted by Ming


I'm far older than you, and I expect to be alive in 2018...
YOU WIMP

Yea, me too and I'm older than both of you.

[pg]

i think it's pretty obvious robot probes seem like a waste atm. instead of spending money on them it'd all be better spent on manned flight imo(especially a new shuttle or something else). in the long run space is trivial if we can't do manned flight cheaply, safely, and often. once we can do manned space flight on a good level - then real important things will start happening. robots probes/etc are good but once you have a critical mass of men in space so many more things are possible!

[pg]

Originally posted by Dissident
I don't support a manned mission yet. Too dangerous. And there has been talk about psychological effects of such a long mission in cramped quarters. They may go stir crazy.

who cares if you think it's dangerous or are afraid of the psychological effects(which probably isn't that bad, consider old time exploration in ships for example!)? i'm sure nasa would have no shortage of volunteers willing to risk their lives to make space a conquered frontier. how many lives did it take to colonize north and south america? people know the risks, and the benefits outweight the risks many, many times over.

[Dis]

yes but remember we live in a democracy. The voters have to weigh in on that risk as well. Are they willing to spend billions of dollars on something that has a decent chance of failing?

Also the psychological risk is real. There was a recent Discover magazine article about it. A space capsule going to mars will be much smaller than a ship. Also they say stress played a role in the Mir collision not too long ago. It was something the cosmonaut can do without thinking most of the time. But he made a mistake.

[pg]

any new technology nasa devises for space couldn't possibly be any worse than the shuttle currently is. i've read it has failure rates as low as 1 in 100. how many flights total have all the shuttles made? 2 have failed so far. we've already spending billions on stuff that has a relatively high fail rate. so apparently the voters agree on willing to spent billions on something with a decent chance of failing(many want more spending!). other than the shuttles nasa has also lost other things. i don't remember off hand exactly what, but i'm sure it was very expensive.

i'm not going to even argue over the psychological risk.

[Dis]

I think they said it was about 130 missions.

I agree the shuttle design needs to be replaced.

As you can tell I read those magazines like Discover a lot. They also detailed new plans being developed for a replacement vehicle. But I haven't heard much recently about that. Not sure if any plan is moving along right now.

There are new techonologies such as scram jet that can have it's applications. But the technology isn't that tested yet. This is one design. I can't find the magazine article right now. But I just looked up scramjet.

http://travel.howstuffworks.com/hypersonic-plane.htm