The Cellar - View Single Post

bluesdave · 12-06-2006, 07:01 PM

tw, you are quite correct regarding robotics, and satellite based technology. Many scientists at NASA and associated organisations believe that sending manned missions into space is a waste of money, and that "man" can do nothing that a robot cannot, and usually robotic laboratories (aka Mars Rover), are far more cost effective than a "manned" equivalent mission.

Having said that, we have to accept that there is a strong emotional aspect to the argument. We all cheered when JFK announced the mission to land men on the moon, in that famous speech in 1961. I remember watching Neil Armstrong taking his first steps live on TV in 1969.

It is a trade off between cost - both financial and in people's lives, and benefits - technological and emotional.

If Nixon had not killed the Apollo mission, we would have had a base on the Moon by 1975 (that was the plan), and the whole of the space programme probably would have taken a different direction. Who knows which branch of possible futures would have been better for mankind (I'm getting a little Sci-Fi here, I know).

One argument in favour of the Moon base is that it will be much easier, and cheaper, to launch craft to Mars (and beyond). Maybe something useful will be salvaged from the political decisions.

There used to be a web site that listed all the day to day technology that we take for granted, that originally was developed by NASA specifically for the manned space flights (we have also benefited from the non-manned programmes). Unfortunately, I do not recall the site.

12-06-2006, 07:01 PM	#15
bluesdave Getting older every day Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Australia Posts: 308	tw, you are quite correct regarding robotics, and satellite based technology. Many scientists at NASA and associated organisations believe that sending manned missions into space is a waste of money, and that "man" can do nothing that a robot cannot, and usually robotic laboratories (aka Mars Rover), are far more cost effective than a "manned" equivalent mission. Having said that, we have to accept that there is a strong emotional aspect to the argument. We all cheered when JFK announced the mission to land men on the moon, in that famous speech in 1961. I remember watching Neil Armstrong taking his first steps live on TV in 1969. It is a trade off between cost - both financial and in people's lives, and benefits - technological and emotional. If Nixon had not killed the Apollo mission, we would have had a base on the Moon by 1975 (that was the plan), and the whole of the space programme probably would have taken a different direction. Who knows which branch of possible futures would have been better for mankind (I'm getting a little Sci-Fi here, I know). One argument in favour of the Moon base is that it will be much easier, and cheaper, to launch craft to Mars (and beyond). Maybe something useful will be salvaged from the political decisions. There used to be a web site that listed all the day to day technology that we take for granted, that originally was developed by NASA specifically for the manned space flights (we have also benefited from the non-manned programmes). Unfortunately, I do not recall the site. __________________ History is a great teacher; it is a shame that people never learn from it.