Where did it go wrong?
Discussion
Money for the most part I guess. We simply don't spend enough.
To put it into context (and i'm using America/NASA here - just because they probably have the most capable space program currently - and it was easy to find some figures for a comparison
):
To put it into context (and i'm using America/NASA here - just because they probably have the most capable space program currently - and it was easy to find some figures for a comparison
):- NASA's budget for 2015 was around $18 billion (a little over $1 dollar per week per head capita)
- That's about the same as the average American spends on chocolate or video games or credit card late fees.
- NASA could be funded to a similar level by the income generated from Coffee and Romance Novels or Bottled Water and Ringtones.
- America spends more than twice as much on lawn care than it does on NASA.
Edited by Moonhawk on Monday 14th March 19:35
te to each other.Are you talking about manned spaceflight ot space technology in general?
If the former, things are happening and will be picking up very soon.
If the latter, the dependence on space by the economies and people of the world is far more profound now than most science speculation of the 1950s could ever have imagined.
And as for that bint on the front cover, where's her helmet?
If the former, things are happening and will be picking up very soon.
If the latter, the dependence on space by the economies and people of the world is far more profound now than most science speculation of the 1950s could ever have imagined.
And as for that bint on the front cover, where's her helmet?
An Arthur Clark short story published for the first time possibly? How cool is that?
The Moon landings were more or less a propaganda and military exercise.
The amount of money put into scientific research in the USA, not to mention this country, is an indictment of politicians. There was an article which quoted the returns on investment in scientific research. Wish I could remember the figures but it was a considerable figure.
When I got married I had to dump a load of junk I'd accumulated and my science fiction mags were very bulky. I started to read some of them and was quite surprised that my memories as to their quality was a bit wide of the mark. In the end I gave them away. In one of them was an article by the editor, Hubbard, where he wrote about making money, and starting your own religion was his choice.
I enjoyed those days. I believed it all. I kept a scrapbook of all space exploration in papers and magazines from Sputnik. It was reach for the stars. But then politics came into it.
The Moon landings were more or less a propaganda and military exercise.
The amount of money put into scientific research in the USA, not to mention this country, is an indictment of politicians. There was an article which quoted the returns on investment in scientific research. Wish I could remember the figures but it was a considerable figure.
When I got married I had to dump a load of junk I'd accumulated and my science fiction mags were very bulky. I started to read some of them and was quite surprised that my memories as to their quality was a bit wide of the mark. In the end I gave them away. In one of them was an article by the editor, Hubbard, where he wrote about making money, and starting your own religion was his choice.
I enjoyed those days. I believed it all. I kept a scrapbook of all space exploration in papers and magazines from Sputnik. It was reach for the stars. But then politics came into it.
A lot of it was driven by politics anyway - so being disappointed that "politics" somehow caused it to stop isn't a true reflection of events. Politics caused it to START in the first place - and drove its fast paced momentum in that first 15 year period from 1955 to 1970.
After that, there was a reassessment in some political circles as to where government funding should be prioritised, so pure government funding of space science began to decline in certain sectors (not in all). But the fuse had been lit and the space industries were now well established - so a whole new area of industrial expertise and indeed a new economy had been created. That hasn't gone away and is indeed thriving in a way that could hardly have been imagined in the mid 1950s.
We are on the verge of a new era at the moment. In ten years time I think people who think we are in some sort of space faring decline will see that they were very wrong. We've hardly started yet.
After that, there was a reassessment in some political circles as to where government funding should be prioritised, so pure government funding of space science began to decline in certain sectors (not in all). But the fuse had been lit and the space industries were now well established - so a whole new area of industrial expertise and indeed a new economy had been created. That hasn't gone away and is indeed thriving in a way that could hardly have been imagined in the mid 1950s.
We are on the verge of a new era at the moment. In ten years time I think people who think we are in some sort of space faring decline will see that they were very wrong. We've hardly started yet.
Einion Yrth said:
Moonhawk said:
i'm using America/NASA here - just because they probably have the most capable space program currently
If they want to put a man into orbit they have to pay the Russians to do it.Just saying...
But even considering that - I still think they have the most capable space program overall.
http://www.virgingalactic.com/
Will take your money and put you into space.
www.spacex.com
Will send anything useful into space for you if you pay them, and are looking forward to a future of space travel. ( http://www.spacex.com/news/2013/03/31/reusability-... )
I don't think it has gone wrong. Pace has slowed due to a change in funding model. But we no longer looking at making tax pay for it. We're looking at making ringtones and lawn feed pay for it.
Will take your money and put you into space.
www.spacex.com
Will send anything useful into space for you if you pay them, and are looking forward to a future of space travel. ( http://www.spacex.com/news/2013/03/31/reusability-... )
I don't think it has gone wrong. Pace has slowed due to a change in funding model. But we no longer looking at making tax pay for it. We're looking at making ringtones and lawn feed pay for it.
Eric Mc said:
A lot of it was driven by politics anyway - so being disappointed that "politics" somehow caused it to stop isn't a true reflection of events. Politics caused it to START in the first place - and drove its fast paced momentum in that first 15 year period from 1955 to 1970.
After that, there was a reassessment in some political circles as to where government funding should be prioritised, so pure government funding of space science began to decline in certain sectors (not in all). But the fuse had been lit and the space industries were now well established - so a whole new area of industrial expertise and indeed a new economy had been created. That hasn't gone away and is indeed thriving in a way that could hardly have been imagined in the mid 1950s.
We are on the verge of a new era at the moment. In ten years time I think people who think we are in some sort of space faring decline will see that they were very wrong. We've hardly started yet.
Exactly, and we're certainly far better off not having a nuclear arms race/cold war as the driving force behind space tech. On the scientific front, a huge amount has been discovered/proven by probes and satellites.After that, there was a reassessment in some political circles as to where government funding should be prioritised, so pure government funding of space science began to decline in certain sectors (not in all). But the fuse had been lit and the space industries were now well established - so a whole new area of industrial expertise and indeed a new economy had been created. That hasn't gone away and is indeed thriving in a way that could hardly have been imagined in the mid 1950s.
We are on the verge of a new era at the moment. In ten years time I think people who think we are in some sort of space faring decline will see that they were very wrong. We've hardly started yet.
Moonhawk said:
Probably because 'lack of money'
But even considering that - I still think they have the most capable space program overall.
No lack of money at all. There is more money, in real terms, invested in space technology now than at any time in history. Not only that, many of these investors are making handsome profits doing it. Otherwise, they wouldn't be involved.But even considering that - I still think they have the most capable space program overall.
As far as MANNED spaceflight is concerned, proportionately, there is, of course, less GOVERNMENT money than in that "golden" period (1955-70) but others are stepping in to fill the gap.
And, of course, the US has a multiplicity of new manned systems which will be coming into operation in the very near future.
No - reality won out. I prefer reality to nonsense. Of course, the "nonsense" can serve as an inspiration, especially to youngsters. And that is great. However, real world factors always take over.
The important thing is to keep the vision intact and work towards it in the real world. Werner Von Braun was an expert at that - although he succeeded by parking his morals in a slot called "How I achieve my dream is not important - only the dream".
We are in a pretty good place regarding space technology at the moment. Indeed, we are further ahead in virtually every area than we could possibly have imagined in 1950. However, different aspects of this technology are advancing at different rates. And government enthusiasm for funding those different aspects depends tremndously on the political atmosphere and agendas that drive governmental decision making.
Luckily, we are not solely depending on governments for progress.
The important thing is to keep the vision intact and work towards it in the real world. Werner Von Braun was an expert at that - although he succeeded by parking his morals in a slot called "How I achieve my dream is not important - only the dream".
We are in a pretty good place regarding space technology at the moment. Indeed, we are further ahead in virtually every area than we could possibly have imagined in 1950. However, different aspects of this technology are advancing at different rates. And government enthusiasm for funding those different aspects depends tremndously on the political atmosphere and agendas that drive governmental decision making.
Luckily, we are not solely depending on governments for progress.
Having seen what the likes of Saarinen and Lautner produced at the time, I am just disappoint that today we don't all live in and work in buildings as cool as the Casa de Canoas, or the TWA Flight Center or the Elrod House. The Flight Center in particular is a work of art, especially the interior.
Maybe that's just a liking for a personal style. Do you not think that some modern buildings are beautiful?
Architecture is no different to any other form of art - some styles you will like, others you won't. And you will probably find that some of the styles you don't like also come from the era where your favourite styles emanate.
I like the "vision" of manned spaceflight as it was portrayed in the 1950s by artists such as Chesley Bonnestall and promoted by the likes of Colliers Magazine and Walt Disney. It was very influential and inspirational - even if matters didn't quite turn out the way being depicted at the time.
Architecture is no different to any other form of art - some styles you will like, others you won't. And you will probably find that some of the styles you don't like also come from the era where your favourite styles emanate.
I like the "vision" of manned spaceflight as it was portrayed in the 1950s by artists such as Chesley Bonnestall and promoted by the likes of Colliers Magazine and Walt Disney. It was very influential and inspirational - even if matters didn't quite turn out the way being depicted at the time.
Does anyone know what proportion of NASA's budget goes to support manned spaceflight?
It could be argued that by concentrating huge resources on putting high-maintenance humans in space, our overall knowledge is less than would be the case if we put all our efforts into the machines doing our exploration for us.
If we stopped chasing the vanity project of putting humans on Mars, we could have probes on every interesting planet and moon in the solar system and around all our nearby stars before the end of this century.
Just my 2p
It could be argued that by concentrating huge resources on putting high-maintenance humans in space, our overall knowledge is less than would be the case if we put all our efforts into the machines doing our exploration for us.
If we stopped chasing the vanity project of putting humans on Mars, we could have probes on every interesting planet and moon in the solar system and around all our nearby stars before the end of this century.
Just my 2p
NASA does an AWFUL lot of stuff on a fairly tiny share of the US Federal Budget (around 0.5%). Although they are most well known for their manned spaceflight activities, they are almost as well known for their unmanned space programmes which cover both interplanetary missions, solar observatories, missions to moons, comets and asteroids and earth resources satellites. They also are involved with multiple overseas space agencies on many of these projects.
Apart from that, the first letter "A" in the NASA abbreviation stands for "Air", so they have a brief to aid and assist the US aeropspace industry in working on designs and systems that improve our knowledge of aircraft and the way they are built and operated. Indeed, NASA was formed out of the original National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics (NACA) which had been doing precisely that in the years 1915 to 1958.
I would add that putting humans in space was SPECIFICALLY what NASA was set up in 1958 to do. It is part of their DNA to want to be involved in manned spaceflight and not only that, to be at the forefront of this as a national endeavour.
Apart from that, the first letter "A" in the NASA abbreviation stands for "Air", so they have a brief to aid and assist the US aeropspace industry in working on designs and systems that improve our knowledge of aircraft and the way they are built and operated. Indeed, NASA was formed out of the original National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics (NACA) which had been doing precisely that in the years 1915 to 1958.
I would add that putting humans in space was SPECIFICALLY what NASA was set up in 1958 to do. It is part of their DNA to want to be involved in manned spaceflight and not only that, to be at the forefront of this as a national endeavour.
Eric Mc said:
Moonhawk said:
Probably because 'lack of money'
But even considering that - I still think they have the most capable space program overall.
No lack of money at all. There is more money, in real terms, invested in space technology now than at any time in history. Not only that, many of these investors are making handsome profits doing it. Otherwise, they wouldn't be involved.But even considering that - I still think they have the most capable space program overall.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff