With the shuttle program coming to an end.

Read SpaceX's business plan (what they've made public). They're aiming to have a rocket (which seats 6) carry people to LEO for $500/lb. The first stage of that rocket is going to be recovered by ships owned by SpaceX. Now, run those numbers.

If you assume that the rocket is a commercial flight (as opposed to a NASA purchased flight), then you'll have, at most, 4 paying passengers on that flight. If they weigh 200 lbs apiece, that's a total of $400K for the cost of the flight. That $400K has to cover the cost of the fuel, salaries for the pilot, copilot, ground crew, the disposable second stage, the recovery ship (and the salaries of the crews for that), food, water, etc., for the trip up, and turn a profit for the company.

There's also the pre- and post-flight inspections of the recovered first stage and the capsule, and any repairs that might be needed. Does that seem like it'll be profitable at just a couple of launches a year? Most airlines (which operate vehicles equally as complicated) have hundreds, if not thousands, of flights and can't manage to turn a profit most of the time.

The point is if there is no profit in it, no company is going to build it. IMO there is a viable industry in LEO with satellite launch, specific placement and repair. Servicing space station(s) is another area of potential profit.

No company is going to build a ship to launch every two years.

If all those things that someone declared "pointless" had never been done, we wouldn't have gotten very far.

"I told Orville and Wilbur and I'm telling you: That thing will nevery fly!"

Such an attitude is not what drives the human adventure. Fortunately, it does not hold the human adventure back, either. It merely means that those who hold it exclude themselves from that part of the adventure.

What practical use is there to sending people to any other part of our solar system, to sit in a tin can for a few days and then fly back? All that it does is waste money that could be used for scientific research with robotic missions.
Oh, and vanity.

When you put in it those terms, none.

By defining the question in a way that presumes the answer you want, of course you will never get any answer other than the one you want.

But that is not how the human adventure advances, either. One man doesn't climb the mountain because "There is no use in going to all that trouble to get up there, just to have to climb back down" and another one does it "Because it's there." The way you frame your question shows your mindset. You have every right to that mindset, and I will not try to persuade you to change it. But I will maintain that by that attitude, you leave the adventure to minds that work differently. They are the ones who "climb the mountan" and, sometimes, discover things that no one knew about ahead of time because they were too busy formulating the whole thing in terms that made it "obvious" that the whole thing was useless in the first place.

I think both you and Rick are right. An Apollo style manned mission to Mars would certainly have more public interest, and would allow the answering of questions that robotic probes could not be anticipated to face. At the same time, for that sort of cost robotic probes could visit most major bodies in the solar system. Ultimately both approaches are best when they exist in compliment to each other.

Robots and unmanned probes certainly have their place in exploration, but ultimately, a human must experience these places and see them with human eyes. It was human eyes that spotted the Genesis Rock on the Moon.

Climbing a mountain doesn't divert tens of billions in funds away from better ways to understand and analyse the mountain.
"The human adventure" is better served by robotic missions which allow much more science to be done per dollar spent than vainly hoping that if people are sent instead, some unknown benefit will suddenly emerge to justify it.

^ Like I said, you have the right to your opinion. And I am not at all opposed to robotic missions. Like Bailey said, they have their place, too.

But someone will do the human exploration, sooner or later. "Because it's there."

Clearly, the Celts and Gaels should have sent unmanned probes to Ireland.

What value could ever be derived from developing flame retardant clothing? Of what use is equipment which can remotely monitor the health of a person? Who needs cordless tools?

Every single one of those things were developed as part of the manned space program, and are so damned ubiquitous today that people have no idea where or why the concept originated. Flame retardant clothing was created in response to the Apollo 1 fire which killed three astronauts.

The remote medical monitoring equipment, which allows people to walk around while their doctor monitors their health, was developed so that doctors on the ground could spot potential problems before they started.

Cordless tools were developed so astronauts could bring back samples of lunar material from a variety of different locations on the Moon. Deep core samples which would reveal more information than that which could be scraped off the surface.

NASA's got a whole section on technological spinoffs developed thanks to the space program.

NASA's manned spaceflight replacement for the shuttle, the Dragon spacecraft by SpaceX, is due to perform its first docking with the ISS before the end of this year.

What's happening is NASA is breaking away from the shuttle model of launching crew and a large cargo in one big vehicle. Instead, when only crew need to go, a small vehicle will be used to take them up, and large cargoes will go up seperately.

The main downside to the shuttle retirement is the loss of the ability to return large cargoes to earth. A re-entry capable version of ESA's ATV is in the pipeline, (and that thing is big enough to carry a city bus inside it) so that will somewhat alleviate the problem, as far as return of stuff from the ISS goes - but for return of large bulky space hardware (satellites) well that's another story.

Rick Deckard would rather "waste that money" on his leftist socialist crap.

Do the economic benefits provided of those technologies come anywhere close to matching the hundreds of billions (or more) spent on manned spaceflight? And isn't it possible that if required, they could have been directly researched at a fraction of the cost, rather than pouring money into NASA in the hope that some useful spin-offs emerge?

Although, this illustrates one principle very well - much of the space program, as well as much of the military-industrial system is simply a method with which to subsidise hi-tech industry.

Robotic missions are socialist now?

Yes.

Unless you plan on telling me that every single dollar "wasted on live missions" would be put into the robotic missions.

Pretty much. Maybe even more.

Funny, that's exactly what many shortsighted people (like you) said about two brothers who flew a powered glider 125 feet. Most people felt it was a worthless stunt with no potential value. We see how wrong they were, just like you are now.

Sending men into space has never been about science or research Rick.

Both are important, but there are things more important.

National pride and a sense of national purpose and accomplishment all matter a great deal.

FTFY

It's also what was said about cold fusion claims. And flying cars. And Harold Camping. Very often these things are worthless stunts.

Although I'd like evidence that "most people" thought as you claim about the Wright Brothers. Theirs wasn't even the first powered flight, it was just the one that got publicity.

You fools.

[wyt=Watch this]j2oXFWKpJiA[/wyt]

The graphic at 3:35 is worth taking note of too.

The Wright Brothers was the first "powered, manned, controlled, heavier than air flight" if you want to get technical.

That Russian guys "flight" was not considered to meet those criteria as it wasn't actually "flight" given it has been determined he did not actually "fly" but basically "glided" from the height of the ramp.

His device had insufficient power to be considered "powered flight" as his craft did not generate enough lift on its own to keep it aloft.

Technically Rick is right about the Wrights though.

While they had their share of detractors, a whole bunch of people around the world were working on powered, manned, controlled, heavier than air flight.

It was hardly an "out there" concept.

A better example would be how derisively many American scientists treated Robert Goddard (father of modern rocketry).

When Goddard began his work on rockets, it was an absolute article of faith in the scientific and technical community that

"a rocket could not operate in a vacuum"


That was a belief, "Settled science"' as strong as the belief that no spacecraft can ever exceed the speed of light has been for the last few decades.

I'm not sure what "Russian guy" you're talking about. There are several other claims (at least) to have done what the Wright Brothers did.

I could not remember his name.

His work was in the 1880s IIRC.

Did lots of pioneering work on aerodynamics.

Hans Andreas Navrestad, Norway — 1825
Allegedly flew manned glider.

John Stringfellow, England — 1848
First heavier than air powered flight, accomplished by an unmanned free flight steam powered monoplane of 10-foot (3.0 m) wingspan. In 1868, he flew a powered monoplane model a few dozen feet at an exhibition at the Crystal Palace in London.

George Cayley, England — 1853
First well-documented Western human glide. Cayley also made the first scientific studies into the aerodynamic forces on a winged flying machine and produced designs incorporating a fuselage, wings, stabilizing tail and control surfaces. He discovered and identified the four aerodynamic forces of flight - weight, lift, drag, and thrust. Modern airplane design is based on those discoveries including cambered wings. He is sometimes called the "Father of aviation".[6][7]

Matias Perez, Havana, flight in 1856
Matias Perez was a Portuguese pilot, canopy maker and Cuban resident who, carried away with the ever increasing popularity of aerostatic aircraft, disappeared while attempting an aerostatic flight from Havana's "Plaza de Marte" (currently Parque de la Fraternidad) on June, 1856.

Jean-Marie Le Bris, France, flight in 1856
Jean-Marie Le Bris was the first to fly higher than his point of departure, by having his glider pulled by a horse on a beach, against the wind.

Jan Wnek, Poland — controlled flights 1866 - 1869.
Jan Wnek controlled his glider by twisting the wing's trailing edge via strings attached to stirrups at his feet.[8] Church records only—Kraków Museum unwilling to allow verification.

Goodman Household, South Africa, 1871
Goodman built and flew his own glider over one hundred meters. The story is that he crashed breaking both glider and a leg. The event took place in the Kwazulu Natal Midlands near Curry's Post in 1871 and is recorded variously in legend and local literature.[9]

Félix du Temple de la Croix, France, 1874. First take-off of a manned and powered aircraft, from a downsloped ramp, resulting in a brief hop a few feet above the ground.

Victor Tatin, France, 1874. First airplane to lift itself under its own power, the Aeroplane was an unmanned plane powered by a compressed-air engine.

John Joseph Montgomery, United States of America 1883
First controlled glider flight in the United States, from a hillside near Otay, California.

Alexander Feodorovich Mozhaiski, Russian Empire — 1884
First powered hop by a manned multi-engine (steam) fixed-wing aircraft, 60–100 feet (20–30 meters), from a downsloped ramp.

Clément Ader, France — October 9, 1890
He reportedly made the first manned, powered, heavier-than-air flight of a significant distance (50 m) but insignificant altitude from level ground in his bat-winged monoplane, the Ader Éole . Seven years later, the Avion III (a different machine) was said[by whom?] to be flown upon 300 metres (in fact just lifted off the ground, and lost control). The event was not publicized until many years later, as it had been a military secret. The events were poorly documented, the aeroplane not suited to have been controlled; there was no further development. Later in life Ader claimed to have flown the Avion II in 1891 for over 200 meters.

Otto Lilienthal, Germany — 1891
The German "Glider King" was a pioneer of human aviation—the first person to make controlled untethered glides repeatedly and the first to be photographed flying a heavier-than-air machine. He made about 2,000 glides until his death August 10, 1896 from injuries in a glider crash the day before.

Lawrence Hargrave, Australia—November 12, 1894,
The Australian inventor of the box kite, linked four of his kites together, added a sling seat, and flew 16 feet. By demonstrating to a sceptical public that it was possible to build a safe and stable flying machine, Hargrave opened the door to other inventors and pioneers. Hargrave devoted most of his life to constructing a machine that would fly. He believed passionately in open communication within the scientific community and would not patent his inventions. Instead, he scrupulously published the results of his experiments in order that a mutual interchange of ideas may take place with other inventors working in the same field, so as to expedite joint progress. [1]

Hiram Stevens Maxim, United Kingdom — 1894
The American inventor of the machine gun built a very large 3.5 ton flying machine that ran on a track and was propelled by powerful twin naphtha fueled steam engines. He made several tests in the huge biplane that were well recorded and reported. On July 31, 1894 he made a record breaking speed run at 42 miles per hour (68 km/h). The machine lifted from the 1,800-foot (550 m) track and broke a restraining mechanism, crashing after a short uncontrolled flight just above the ground.

Shivkar Bapuji Talpade, India; 1895
The Sanskrit scholar Shivkar Bapuji Talpade designed an unmanned aircraft called Marutsakthi (meaning Power of Air), supposedly based on Vedic technology. It is claimed that it took off before a large audience in the Chowpathy beach of Bombay and flew to a height of 1,500 feet.[10]

Samuel Pierpont Langley, United States — May 6, 1896
First sustained flight by a heavier-than-air powered, unmanned aircraft: the Number 5 model, driven by a miniature steam engine, flew half a mile in 90 seconds over the Potomac River near Washington, D.C. In November the Number 6 flew more than five thousand feet. Langley's full-size manned powered Aerodrome failed twice in October and December 1903.

Octave Chanute, United States — Summer 1896
Designer of first rectangular wing strut-braced biplane (originally tri-plane) hang glider, a configuration that strongly influenced the Wright brothers. Flown successfully at the Indiana shore of Lake Michigan, U.S. by his proteges, including Augustus Herring, for distances exceeding 100 feet (30 m).

Carl Rickard Nyberg, Sweden — 1897
Managed a few short jumps in his Flugan, a steam powered, manned aircraft

Gustave Whitehead, United States — 1899
Reportedly flew a steam-powered monoplane almost a mile and crashed into a three-story building in Pittsburgh in April or May 1899.[11]

Percy Pilcher, England — 1899
Pioneer British glider/plane builder and pilot; protege of Lilienthal; killed in 1899 when his fourth glider crashed shortly before the intended public test of his powered triplane. Cranfield University built a replica of the triplane in 2003 from drawings in Philip Jarrett's book "Another Icarus". Test pilot Bill Brooks successfully flew it several times, staying airborne up to 1 minute and 25 seconds.

Augustus Moore Herring, United States — 1899
Claimed a flight of 70 feet (21 m) by attaching a compressed air motor to a biplane hang glider. However, he was unable to repeat said flight with anyone present.

[edit] 20th centuryDr Wilhelm Kress, Austria — 1901
Tested Drachenflieger, tandem monoplane seaplane similar to Samuel Langley, which made brief airborne hops from a lake in Austria but could not sustain itself.

Gustave Whitehead, United States — August 14, 1901
On August 14, 1901, in Fairfield, Connecticut, Gustave Whitehead reportedly flew his engine-powered No.21 for 800 metres (2,600 ft) at 15 metres (49 ft) height.[11] Aviation experts disagree about the claim; a few decided for Whitehead, while the great majority, such as Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith, said the flights could not have occurred.[12]

Lyman Gilmore, United States — May 15, 1902
Gilmore claimed to be the first person to fly a powered aircraft (a steam-powered glider). No witnesses. But he was an able inventor, rotary snow plow, 8-cylinder rotary motor, etc.

Gustave Whitehead, United States — January 17, 1902
Whitehead claimed two flights on January 17, 1902 in his improved Number 22, with a 40 Horsepower (30 kilowatt) motor and aluminium structural members. He said the flights took place over Long Island Sound and covered distances of about two miles (3 km) and seven miles (11 km) at heights up to 200 ft (61 m), ending with safe landings in the water by the boat-like fuselage.[11] Experts disagree whether the flights occurred.[12]


These are among the more notable claims for flight BEFORE the Wright brothers.

As one can see, there are a number of notable

"heavier than air but not powered" flights- i.e. gliders

"powered but not controlled" flights

"powered, unmanned" flights- i.e. drones

As I said, the Wright brothers win the "invented the airplane" prize because theirs was the first "powered, controlled, manned, heavier than air flight".

Not to mention, the Wright brothers had proof. Having photographed their flights and having them witnessed.

It should be noted on the day of the first flight, the Wrights actually flew FOUR separate flights. All in front of witnesses.

They are modest increases. NASA's budget still makes up an extremely small percentage of the budget.

Why does there need to be a "practical" use for sending human's into space? And again, why in the fuck do you care PRick? is it your money? It isn't your money, nor will it ever be your money. Is it your country that is spending the money? Last I checked, no, it isn't. So why in the fuck do you care how the US spends it's citizen's money? It really is none of your fucking business.

When you stop throwing around your useless opinion in threads about Europe, maybe Europeans might stop commenting about the United States' policies.

Or, or, just maybe, we're all in it together, and we're all interconnected, and the actions of one country have effects on others, and the people of those countries have just as much of a right to comment on them as we do.

In any case, this thread makes me laugh, because the same people who bitch about the constitutionality of health care don't give a damn about the constitutionality of the space program. When pressed, their response is, "well at least it's better than spending money on socialist policies," but at that point you're just making value judgments, which vary from person to person.