Been there, done that, see no need to go again.
I, too, see no need to rocket off to the moon:
President Barack Obama is essentially grounding efforts to return astronauts to the moon and instead is sending NASA in new directions with roughly $6 billion more, according to officials familiar with the plans.
Naturally he does something I don’t agree with in the same sentence. I wouldn’t give NASA more money. I’d cut their budget and focus them mostly on propulsion. Until we figure out a way to break earth’s gravitational clutch easier, space isn’t going to happen like scifi buffs and other futurists want.
I think it much more likely that commercial interests will figure out space faster, cheaper and better than NASA. NASA’s goal is more budget next year. That is hardly conducive to technical innovation and speed. Also, NASA’s scientists, like James Hansen, have become too politicized.
January 29th, 2010 at 10:52 am
I am so-so on cutting their budget. But one thing I am absolutely convinced of is that humanity must extend into space.
And currently Propulsion isn’t the real problem keeping us from, say, a Mars run. Its annoying and expensive, but still possible with current technology (see the many go-karts with cameras we have put on the surface).
The real problem here is radiation and this unfortunate American concept that our Astronauts should come back alive. Once you leave Earth’s “shadow” of an EM field, you are instantly bathed in ungodly, deadly amounts of solar and cosmic radiation.
So, if we don’t want our people looking like glow-in-the-dark cancerous bean bags, there is more to deal with than propulsion. There was some talk a few years ago predicting a nanotech cure for cancer by 2020, I think, with the specific intention of applications in space travel.
January 29th, 2010 at 11:11 am
Shielding = weight = propulsion
January 29th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Permanent magnet material?
January 29th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Or better shielding/medicine = less weight = less propulsion