   Space Exploration!
  So with the whole Hubble upgrade mission I've been wondering a little bit about space exploration. For this mission they have prepared a rescue mission in advance (which they always do) but this one is ready to go in only 3 days notice. In fact this mission was cancelled previously because of the Columbia incident. Anyway, my question is why is the loss of life in space exploration considered so damaging to the endeavour than in other areas. For example, 7 people died in that crash and they cancelled a lot of future shuttle missions because of it. Meanwhile we can hand glide, bungee jump, sky dive, etc as well as other activities that are more productive yet just as dangerous (working on an oil rig). Yet if someone dies at these jobs you don't hear about any oil rigs closing up or stop building them. Now the obvious answer is that its not the life that is actually being 'mourned' but rather the actual materials and money that was wasted. And this I am pretty sure is the reason, I just wanted to see what others opinions are on this. (But its odd to risk a whole other ship etc to save them if it is really just about money?)Also a little thing I was wondering. They are holding back Mars missions partly because they don't have secure enough technology to get the human back home. Would any of you be willing to sacrifice your life possibly (there is a chance you could make it back!! but it is about 50%) to go to Mars and perform all the tests they needed? I think I would do it, I mean I might die but I could also make the biggest discovery in human history.   
Quote:Now the obvious answer is that its not the life that is actually being 'mourned' but rather the actual materials and money that was wasted.Incorrect. The materials are relatively cheap. If they were not, it would be more expensive at this time (i.e. with current flight-rates and demand) to launch payloads on expendable rockets instead of reusable ones. That is not the case right now, expendable rockets are cheaper than shuttle ($200million vs ~$700million) at current flight rates. Cost is not the issue. Nobody cries bloody murder when a $1.5 billion DoD satellite falls into the Atlantic as a result of a booster failure.Quote:Anyway, my question is why is the loss of life in space exploration considered so damaging to the endeavour than in other areas. 1. Astronauts have families2. Astronauts are considered heroes by the rest of the populace3. As a result of 1 and 2, astronaut deaths are a PR fiasco - there is a huge outcry every time it happens. This is when the "we should shut down NASA and redirect the money to social programs" people come out. Not good for the agency or space in general   ;  Space exploration is something the United States uses extensively to show off its power to the rest of the world.  The other way to do this, obviously, is military strength, but space exploration serves as a good contrast to this, and a perception of safety definitely helps with this image.Space travel is also extremely dangerous (there have only been 126 shuttle flights in total), so the level of danger coupled with the extreme publicity probably gives a very good incentive indeed not to get more people killed than is absolutely necessary.  I'm sure money is a concern, too, but probably not as big of a concern (lots of unmanned things go wrong and cost lots of money, but people don't freak out)   ;  Training astronauts is also probably pretty expensive.   ;  Well the signs are pointing to the fact that it isn't really the money issue. So it is indeed the loss of life as the driving factor. (as per the materials costs, though its tough to call them 'cheap', and the unmanned missions that fail and get no publicity). And I agree that astros are national heroes, but so are soldiers and they die everyday? And like cows pointed out wars and space are two ways for us to flex some muscle. If you ask me going into space is A LOT safer than going to war! I guess I just feel that the 'hero' aspect is just a self enforced restriction. With so few astros of course they are considered heroes. But why have their been so few? I mean they have come from ALL sorts of backgrounds and simply received training to go into space. Now perhaps the training is more grueling than the Navy Seals training (bec there are more of them than astros) but I doubt that. And what would it take 5 years? Thats just a college degree away from going into space!Not to get all conspiracy theory but there seems to be some hidden agenda to keeping the number of people that go into space to a minimum. I understand the danger but I feel the risk/reward is way better than say working on an oil rig, etc.   ;  I disagree that it's not a money issue, sort of anyway.  It may well be that it's not a money issue in actuality but I think the perceived money issue is a big part of it.In my experience talking to people, anything that has anything to do with space is perceived as a complete waste of money by a middling huge portion of the population.  Couple this with the fact that the mass media is physically incapable of mentioning anything related to space without attaching a price tag to it (it's never just "the whatever", it's the "the $texas whatever"), and the fact that Joe Sixpack really can't conceive that what constitutes "$texas" is completely different when viewed from the budget of the federal government vs his own.  Then you immediately start getting the rallying cry of idiots everywhere - "we should fix the problems here on earth before going to space".Now toss in an accident and you not only has the gub'mint wastin' mah money but omgzers people are like totally dieing also.  Don't forget to toss in the odd loony who thinks that the shuttle returning with some space disease that will destroy all life on earth is a probable scenario.   ;Quote:I understand the danger but I feel the risk/reward is way better than say working on an oil rig, etc.What exactly is the reward from having lots of people go to space? :)   ;Quote:Original post by Anon MikeDon't forget to toss in the odd loony who thinks that the shuttle returning with some space disease that will destroy all life on earth is a probable scenario.c'mon space zombies.I often wonder why the international space program isn't bigger. I guess one reason might be that we don't have a propulsion system to take us anywhere further than say mars. At this point in time our technology doesn't make space things that important.I find the budget on the space program is good enough and it's doing well. It's kind of like trying to build an underwater base when you've just figured out how to compress air and you don't have the technology to do much of anything other than look around for a little bit before you have to stop.Sometimes I think the money might be better spent into a purely research based organization rather than implementation.;Quote:Original post by SirisianI often wonder why the international space program isn't bigger. I guess one reason might be that we don't have a propulsion system to take us anywhere further than say mars.The issue is one of mass and thrust, of course. Chemical rockets, on account of their low efficiency (assuming a typical liquid-hydrogen/liquid-oxygen rocket, specific impulse ~450 seconds), lead to massive spacecraft. There are a few non-chemical options. For instance, there's ion propulsion, which has pretty good efficiency (at least 7000 seconds of specific impulse) but really low thrust. The same is true of solar sails, which aren't even a mature technology yet (unlike ion drives).Then there's nuclear rockets, which get at least double the efficiency of chemical rockets (800s ISP), while having a great deal more thrust than ion rockets. Of course, environmental lobbyists keep this from happening anytime soon - they even protest when the rather safe radioisotope thermal generators go up, and those don't even use nuclear fission proper...   ;Quote:Original post by visitorQuote:I understand the danger but I feel the risk/reward is way better than say working on an oil rig, etc.What exactly is the reward from having lots of people go to space? :)The space program provides more for us than bragging rights.  It spurs high-tech innovation and industry.  A significant amount of modern technologies that we enjoy today, such as hand-held cameras and the precursor to the internet, are the result of NASA's involvement and cooperation with private industry.Unfortunately, a large portion of the American public isn't aware of this kind of benefit that the space program provides.  As a result, they see the space program as a giant money sink with little tangible benefit to society.  Seeing school teachers and astronauts die in horrible accidents reinforces this notion: people see this wasteful loss of life as evidence that NASA doesn't really know what it's doing.   