The Moon - forty years later

[wfooshee]

Can't help but wonder whether the moon should be part of our immediate future again. Should we go back? Should we go to explore, or to live? What advantages would we have to being there? Should we go just to make sure somebody else doesn't?

Personally, If I was on a Mars mission I'd feel a lot better about my equipment if I knew that similar stuff had supported people for several months or years on the moon before it went into interplanetary space, where no backup, rescue, or repair parts are available.

 

[Danoff]

It's always a difficult subject - justifying exploration. The very nature of exploration suggests that you won't know why you did it until you do it.

That being said, I'm never a big fan of using tax dollars for projects that don't have a clear goal. And our manned space program strikes me as just that sort of exercise. What good will it do to have people walking around on the moon again? What good will it do to have people walking around on mars?

The biggest benefit I can see for going back to the moon is to try to develop some sort of fuel production there. If we could make rocket fuel on the moon (which some have suggested is possible), it would be a staging point for literally every mission the space program launches - and they'd launch an awful lot more exploration missions because each one would be cheaper.

Some have suggested that we terraform Mars, but I don't think we can responsibly even start that incredibly long process until we've combed the planet for life - and I think that's the real goal for putting people on mars, to expedite the search for life.

So yes, I think we should be going back to the moon. We should be developing the rocketry needed to get us there. But it shouldn't be a quick staging point for going to mars - it should be a long term presence that gives us a tangible leg up on exploring the solar system. Our lunar base should provide water or fuel for every mission afterward. That step is critical for getting to mars. I think without it we're waiting for a physics breakthrough.

 

[Duke]

I would agree with all that. Unfortunately we're waaaay down at the flat part of the progress graph. But somebody's got to do it or it will never get done.

We won't be the ones who explore past Mars and into the asteroid belt. All we can do is lay the groundwork for far-future generations to get off this planet in significant numbers, which is I think the ultimate goal. So while I agree we need a clear goal in mind before committing billions of dollars to the effort, I think we also need to realize that the goal is at least a hundred years in the future if not much farther.

The pace is going to crawl as long as everything has to be launched out of the Earth's gravity well. Until we can mine and refine in space, large-scale fabrication is going to be prohibitive. Luckily microgravity offers some unique manufacturing opportunities.

 

[mr_VOLCANO]

They never went to the moon!









No im not serious!

 

[Stevisiov]

Now here is a question regarding law, is possible for a group to own the moon. I would imagine its a great topic for debate.

 

[Omnis]

Did they ever discover whether moondust actually contained particles of cheese?

 

[Sureboss]

Where do you think grated Parmegiano Reggiano comes from?

 

[Omnis]

Where do you think grated Parmegiano Reggiano comes from?

From the moon? Really? If you queso...

 

[FoolKiller]

During some of the news coverage of the anniversary I heard them state that when NASA was looking for continued funding for exploration that they were told we just wanted to beat the Russians. And coincidentally I recently finished Arthur C. Clarke's 2001, which was written before the Apollo missions.

Looking at these two things it seems as if Clarke had a good idea of where the space program was headed at the time, based on its then current rate of progress. I have to wonder if he would have been much more accurate had it all not just been a political game. If not for the Cold War would we have even landed on the moon?

I just wonder because he envisioned the launch of space flights being from a large runway with what sounded like the Linear Induction Motor technology currently used in aircraft carriers and (just roll with it) rollercoasters. He described a jet-like craft launched down a long runway through an exterior force that once airborne then used an attached fixed-wing booster craft to push it to near orbit (which then flew itself back) and then the spacecraft itself used on-board boosters to finish the launch. He even went as far as to call it routine.

I know when I was in middle school and went to Space Camp (Huntsville, AL)proposed ideas describing similar concepts were shown to us, as well as discussion of having a manned mission to Mars by now. They told me that my generation would be the ones to go. I remember seeing parts of the ISS being built (Yes, I saw it with my eyes, or so they told me) in a tour when my older brother went to Space Camp and thinking to myself that it was all just around the corner. Little did I know that nearly 20 years later I would be reading about them having to fix the toilet on what has become little more than a space Winnebago.

I have to wonder, could any of these ideas using fairly realistic physics ever come to fruition? Have we lost that vision of space exploration?

I know many of the issues are funding based, but how much funding, private and public, would be available if people still held those fantastic visions that Kennedy presented to the country nearly 50 years ago?

It is hard to justify the cost with "I don't knows" and "maybes" but it was that very point that nearly stopped Columbus.


And Danoff is correct, it is hard to justify exploration, especially with public dollars, because the end result is just "I don't know." But to me, "I don't know" is the justification, because "I don't know" should immediately be followed by "but it will be amazing."

Of course, the public funding issue has become a huge problem, especially now. But I see no reason to have any form of limitations on private space exploration. Why are these guys out in the desert? Is there any reason why NASA cannot lease use of facilities, such as landing fields? I'm not sure what is done at the launch pads when no shuttles are standing by to launch, but those too. Or even have combined joint endeavors between private groups and NASA, along with other nation's space agencies.


I don't know. I just think of Clarke's concept of a sentinel sitting hidden away on the dark side of the moon, waiting to be discovered by us so that it can send its beacon to...something to say that we have reached that point, and I wonder what might actually be out there that we just need to reach to discover so much more. It doesn't have to be a beacon for another intelligence. Our own discovery could just be around the next corner, but we have to get there. I often wonder what the first people who discovered how relatively small the Bering Strait is thought at the time (let's resist Palin jokes). When you look at Karl Bushby it nearly seems like a facepalm moment.


In short, I agree with Danoff's final assessment. The moon is not the goal, but it should be part of a much larger picture.

 

[wfooshee]

I really don't believe we'd have been to the moon, even now, without the Cold War. The whole idea of rocketry at the time was to deliver bombs. Rockets were heavy very-long-range artillery. Kennedy's challenge to get to the moon was to get public sentiment behind bigger and better boosters, which meant better ICBMs. If we couldn't get men and machines into space, we were certain to lose our place as a superpower and be held at the mercy of those nations that did get out there. So the Saturn V was well beyond a suborbital booster needed for a weapon, but it was simply a multiple application of weapons-level rocketry.

While the space race gave us what at the time was inconceivably miniaturized electronics, it must be said that nowadays most of us carry phones that can run circles around Apollo's computer systems.

So to get back to the moon, another reasonable and acceptable public perception of "need" has to be created.

We need to have a base from which to get to Mars.
*Yawn*

We can find minerals and materials in abundance.
*Blink*

We should colonize as a beginning to getting humankind spread throughout space.
*Sound of crickets chirping in an empty field*

I don't disagree with any of those reasons, but The Public has no basis on which to accept them. The Public needs an ROI, and it (The Public) is too short-sighted to see anything beyond the moon. Saying, "Humanity will be wiped out if they don't get off this rock," comes across as somebody else's problem.

And just for grins, think about 40 years for a minute. How long is that? What can happen in that time?

The Pearl Harbor attack was less than 40 years after the Wright Brothers.
The moon landing was less than 30 years after simple liquid-fueled rockets became big enough that one man couldn't carry one.
The home VCR didn't exist 40 years ago, much less DVD players, Blu-Ray, etc.
From PONG arcade machine to Playstation-3 was less than 35 years.
The term "Internet" was first used to describe a TCP network 35 years ago, and that was conceptually, not actually working.

So 40 years is a long long time when it comes to a technological environment.

 

[DaddyVDUB]

Yeah thats what the US Government needs to do spend 100s of billions on a trip to the moon,I mean when you have as much money as the government why not. Jeeez

 

[TheCracker]

What did they actually do when they land on the moon? - They planted flags, hit golf balls and drove around in electric buggies (Probably what Neil Armstrong does with his time now - only in Florida) Apart from collecting a few rock samples, which a remote lander could have done just as well, what did they actually do? It's no wonder that the general public soon lost interest and therefore Govn spending on the programme was slashed - when you 'discover' a brand new world you need to make the most of it, do something productive, not fanny about like some sort of insurance sales person on a Friday afternoon.

 

[homeforsummer]

What did they actually do when they land on the moon? - They planted flags, hit golf balls and drove around in electric buggies (Probably what Neil Armstrong does with his time now - only in Florida) Apart from collecting a few rock samples, which a remote lander could have done just as well, what did they actually do? It's no wonder that the general public soon lost interest and therefore Govn spending on the programme was slashed - when you 'discover' a brand new world you need to make the most of it, do something productive, not fanny about like some sort of insurance sales person on a Friday afternoon.

So it's not impressive enough that man has set foot on another world? Not to mention they did it without forty years of hindsight...

 

[YSSMAN]

The feeling I kept getting the other night was mostly over how awesome it must have been to be alive when it happened for the first time. My parents talk about it occasionally, but growing up in a post-Columbia world... I often find it hard to totally comprehend the entire space program. After reading the big article in GQ Magazine about the new moon mission, I have to admit that I'm re-engaged, but also confused and frustrated. Why do we essentially have to re-invent the wheel to get back to the moon? What has happened with the talk of mag-lev, space elevators, and all that jazz?

The thing is, I'm still very much a believer of the Kennedy-esque message that pursuing space travel is something that we should be doing, not just as Americans, but as people of the earth. To colonize the moon, and mars, to create a multi-planet species would be a great achievement... But sacrifices will have to be made to fund things properly.

 

[Omnis]

I think the whole space race was just the next big thing at the time that the politically connected could make a buck off of. Now it's global warming and global terrorism. Perhaps there was so much gleeful hope and excitement back then because man pondered more space fiction than fact, and that the drive died off when everyone realized just how much of nothing there was to explore. Not to mention the fact that everything seems attractive in a boom-time period of assumed prosperity. Looks like Cold Stone isn't the king of Boom-Business after all.

Yssman, you talk about going to the moon and exploring space like the public ought to be doing/funding it. Why? We can't even get our act together down here on this rock. Let private firms do all that stuff. If it's worthwhile, that's the only way we'll know it is.

 

[Danoff]

An incredible amount of scientific knowledge comes from the space program. The layperson has no concept of just how much we learn by orbiting, scanning, and sampling other worlds.

The ultimate goals is some of the most fundamental knowledge man has ever sought to discover. Are we alone? How did we get here? What is the nature of our reality?

These are questions that need answers, and it's not something that the free market is going to pursue. Does that mean it's the government's job to do it? Not necessarily. If charity will play the role, that's better. But charity will not play that role. And so we're left with either acquiring this important knowledge with government dollars, or not acquiring it at all.

...and that's why we have to justify exploration. Because we're using tax dollars to do it with - so we have to show real tangible reasons why we need a space program to John Q. Public. Is the cell phone enough of a reason? GPS? Internet? Computers? These things stem from (or benefited greatly from) our exploration of space.

There are basically four things that space exploration offers that the public benefits from:
- Tangible goods and services like the ones listed above.
- Military technology (spy satellites, rocketry)
- Scientific understanding (planetary formation, solar system dynamics, solar weather, asteroid detection)
- Answers to our most fundamental questions: are we alone? how did we get here? why does our reality exist?

The Military aspect is easily justifiable. The tangible goods are less straight forward, but still a quantifiable benefit. The scientific understanding even less straight forward, and the search for life and understanding is perhaps the most difficult thing to consider.

Is the US space program perfect? Absolutely not. Does it need reprioritization and restructuring? Absolutely does. Should we get rid of it? Certainly not the military aspect. But we still get some very serious benefits from the rest.

In general I don't have a problem if the government wants to spend a tiny fraction of tax dollars on long term research that isn't ethically contested by the public - and so I support the space program. Especially certain aspects of the space program.

But regardless of how you feel about the space program, it is NOT the low hanging fruit in terms of government spending. There are literally hundreds of billions of dollars that need to be cut before the space program. Until we get rid real government waste I don't even want to talk about getting rid of a government program that actually has merits. I'm looking at you department of homeland security, IRS, OSHA, FDA, department of education, Administration for Children and Families,
Administration for Native Americans, Administration on Aging (AoA), Administration on Developmental Disabilities (now I'm just reading the ones that start with "A")...

 

[zed300]

It is hard to concieve, that the curious human being, did not want to continue the search on the moon for anything.

 

[Joel]

I don't think that Mars is a possibility in any of our lifetimes. I guess, looking at that 40 years thing, possibly by the time i'm around 60 that kind of exploration possible. With the moon landing, I just think it's incredible that we got to the moon. Honestly, it's just amazing.

 

[niky]

The goals of space exploration should not be viewed as what can it do for us in the next fifty years (although, as others have pointed out, many consumer-level technologies DID come out of the space program), but should be viewed in the long term.

How long? Think ahead a few thousand years. How long do we honestly think this planet can sustain us? And we're not talking eco-weenie concerns like global warming and peak oil... but how long will we skate the periphery of the next Ice Age? How long before the Ice Age becomes permanent? Our climate has been getting colder and colder over the past billion years... and it will get colder still as time goes by.

So we sink pipes. Start relying on geothermal power. Augment it with solar stations (maybe)... try to find a way to keep warm. Pump more greenhouse gases in the air to keep the heat in.

We need to spread humanity out. Move them into sustainable (ecologically and economically) habitats out in space. Terraform Mars (maybe)... Terraform Venus (incredibly difficult... but may be possible... all we have to do is give Venus an Earth-like moon to strip away the excess atmosphere... then hit it with another one to increase its rotation)...

Past that... there's the barrier of interstellar distances... moving humanity out to other stars. Not possible with our current technology... and not even remotely possible with the current amount of energy available to us... but after a few billion years, as the sun starts to swell in its Red Giant phase, it may become necessary.

The whole problem is... we've got to start planning now, while we still have the mineral resources to build interplanetary rockets without starving ourselves to death. Humanity wastes untold trillions in dollars on non-essential needs like toilet paper, congressional hearings and professional sports... should we begrudge the hundreds of billions that need to be spent on a proper space program? Money that may possibly bear fruit within a hundred or a few hundred years in terms of orbital power stations... zero-g manufacturing... asteroidal mineral wealth?

Think of your children, people... think of your children's children. Space is a worthwhile goal.

 

[T-Squared]

Past that... there's the barrier of interstellar distances... moving humanity out to other stars. Not possible with our current technology... and not even remotely possible with the current amount of energy available to us... but after a few billion years, as the sun starts to swell in its Red Giant phase, it may become necessary.

I don't think humans will last long enough to worry about that.

 

[wfooshee]

What did they actually do when they land on the moon? - They planted flags, hit golf balls and drove around in electric buggies (Probably what Neil Armstrong does with his time now - only in Florida) Apart from collecting a few rock samples, which a remote lander could have done just as well, what did they actually do? It's no wonder that the general public soon lost interest and therefore Govn spending on the programme was slashed - when you 'discover' a brand new world you need to make the most of it, do something productive, not fanny about like some sort of insurance sales person on a Friday afternoon.

A bit self-contradictory, I think. Critical of the "waste" of going there, pointing out that the public lost interest and failed to spend the money to stay (or even to finish the scheduled progam, actually) and then speak on what they should have done, i.e. something productive to keep it going. But the fact that your statement reflects the public perception is the whole problem. Your statement is completely and totally false, ignores 99% of the accomplishments and achievements, yet that's what people still think about the program. So while you use your data-connected cell phone to make critical posts about the space program, take a guess at where that technology came from.

Well, it was productive. Given the technology of the day they did make the most of it. And no lander could have collected the rocks the way those guys did. The rocks were selected by people trained in what to look for, not grabbed at random like a robot lander would have done.

There was no plan for anything to succeed Apollo, though. There was no vision of how to capitalize on the newfound science and technology. No designs on going to the moon to live, or even just to orbit to live.

(What about Skylab?) A joke, and a failure, cobbled together from Apollo parts that were already built and ready for moon missions, but cut for political reasons. I mean, if the stuff's already built, how much money do you save by cancelling the project? It was a public conception that it was "expensive" and "wasteful" to go to the moon, so it got dropped. Nobody would listen when they said, "Ya know, the stuff's already built and ready, all we gotta do is light it off." So those already built parts got used in Skylab, or Apollo-Soyuz, or got welded onto posts behind the visitor center.

Danoff is right, though, about NASA being an easy target for budgets. The total NASA budget doesn't even figure as significant digits in the national budget, yet it's "wasteful" and "excessive."

 

[TheCracker]

My post was meant to be a bit of a light-hearted jibe.

But in all seriousness, although it was a massive achievement, perhaps it was a victim of it's own success? In the eyes of the layperson, NASA hasn't even come close to doing anything in space that betters the Moon programme. Sending men to another 'planet' in spaceships is utterly fantastical. Having them spend weeks or months orbiting 'a few' miles above our own planet doing school boy science tests will always seem a huge letdown compared to that. The re-usable Shuttle is also extremely awe-inspiring in it's own right, but it hardly eclipses sending man to the moon.

I think one of the reasons it is a target for budget cuts is because although it does capture the public's imagination, to them it also seems to have no clear goal or objectives anymore.

 

[Omnis]

An incredible amount of scientific knowledge comes from the space program. The layperson has no concept of just how much we learn by orbiting, scanning, and sampling other worlds.

The ultimate goals is some of the most fundamental knowledge man has ever sought to discover. Are we alone? How did we get here? What is the nature of our reality?

These are questions that need answers, and it's not something that the free market is going to pursue. Does that mean it's the government's job to do it? Not necessarily. If charity will play the role, that's better. But charity will not play that role. And so we're left with either acquiring this important knowledge with government dollars, or not acquiring it at all.

...and that's why we have to justify exploration. Because we're using tax dollars to do it with - so we have to show real tangible reasons why we need a space program to John Q. Public. Is the cell phone enough of a reason? GPS? Internet? Computers? These things stem from (or benefited greatly from) our exploration of space.

There are basically four things that space exploration offers that the public benefits from:
- Tangible goods and services like the ones listed above.
- Military technology (spy satellites, rocketry)
- Scientific understanding (planetary formation, solar system dynamics, solar weather, asteroid detection)
- Answers to our most fundamental questions: are we alone? how did we get here? why does our reality exist?

The Military aspect is easily justifiable. The tangible goods are less straight forward, but still a quantifiable benefit. The scientific understanding even less straight forward, and the search for life and understanding is perhaps the most difficult thing to consider.

Is the US space program perfect? Absolutely not. Does it need reprioritization and restructuring? Absolutely does. Should we get rid of it? Certainly not the military aspect. But we still get some very serious benefits from the rest.

In general I don't have a problem if the government wants to spend a tiny fraction of tax dollars on long term research that isn't ethically contested by the public - and so I support the space program. Especially certain aspects of the space program.

But regardless of how you feel about the space program, it is NOT the low hanging fruit in terms of government spending. There are literally hundreds of billions of dollars that need to be cut before the space program. Until we get rid real government waste I don't even want to talk about getting rid of a government program that actually has merits. I'm looking at you department of homeland security, IRS, OSHA, FDA, department of education, Administration for Children and Families,
Administration for Native Americans, Administration on Aging (AoA), Administration on Developmental Disabilities (now I'm just reading the ones that start with "A")...

I highlighted what I think is a false dichotomy. Perhaps we don't see space non-profits and etc. because of the government's current position.

Otherwise, yes, I agree. It would be one of the last things on the cut list.

 

[Small_Fryz]

where does all the money go anyway?

Doesnt spending billions on space programs go into peoples wages? factories? and gets re invested back into the economy.. creating jobs... the knowledged gain by these programs can effect the entire world.

I personally think space programs should be in the spot light. Get rid of some of the pensions and doles (dole is money paid to unemployed) Or make it very hard to get the dole. I can only speak for my country but getting a job is easy. the only people who dont have one that i know of are just too lazy to work at a fast food - supermarket - wall mart type place.. Im sorry but id rather take your 300 bucks cause your lazy and give it to my children in the way of space exploration.

 

[Touring Mars]

It is a somewhat sad fact that even Neil Armstrong concedes that the race to the Moon was a product of the Cold War, but there's no doubt that the original "Space Race" also brought immense benefits far exceeding the political capital made by the victors. In other words, the investment paid off both politically (for America) and scientifically (for the whole world). But it was perhaps the cultural/emotional dimension that interested the people most - and by far the most interesting factor was the simple idea that "Man can walk on the Moon". Hence, all future Moon missions would forever fall short of this emotional watershed. Indeed, the novelty wore off fast (and some would say it wore off before Aldrin even set foot on the Moon).

Nowadays, motivation for space exploration is mostly scientific - for developed nations anyway - and just doesn't have the same appeal to the public as it had. Not only that, but space exploration has largely been decoupled from the political arena - the world of the 1960's doesn't exist any more, and the space race was as much a product of that as anything.

As for a manned mission to Mars, we now know that it could be done, and hence going "just to show that we can" isn't going to cut it... there needs to be a better reason to go. Mars has long been considered "the next step", but in reality it might turn out not to be the case. I reckon Buzz Aldrin is correct to say that the future of space exploration lies in the concept of the "one way ticket" - not just going because we can go, but staying and doing something much bigger. Mars is appealing because it fits (just) within the concept of the "return journey" - but if this concept were to be abandoned in favour of the "one-way ticket", then Mars would be robbed of its special status as "visitable", and other perhaps more interesting targets would take priority - Titan, Europa etc. Although sci-fi writers have long taken the "one-way ticket" concept for granted, in reality this would constitute a major advance for our species, and the next "giant leap for Mankind".

 

[FoolKiller]

There are a few problems with the manned "one-way ticket" approach. First, is that you have to find a way to have life sustaining resources available for a multi-year trip. And being one-way we would hope that the multi-year aspect could be decades. Whether you mean the crew settles or flies on forever (this includes orbiting something) you have to be able to provide food, water, and oxygen because there is no guarantee that they will find anything other than what they take with them.

Then there needs to be some way to prevent physical atrophy due to the lack of gravity. Perhaps a spinning section to simulate gravity that can be used for exercise and various activities?

And the final major issue is the psychological aspect. I do not doubt you would have volunteers for a one-way trip, but in three years or more what will their emotional and mental state be? It most likely can't be a one-man trip. Can you send married couples? Can you send a mixed group and hope they get along forever? Could reality TV through Real World: Space fund the space program? And then if you do have possible mating partners do you allow them to have children or do you sterilize them before they go? So much relies on the crew members remaining emotionally stable that you have to look deep into the optimal crew setup.


Of course, a lot of this could be less of a worry if we could figure out some form of hibernation.

 

[TheCracker]

Of course, a lot of this could be less of a worry if we could figure out some form of hibernation.

A cardboard box full of shredded newspaper, nice thick blanket on top, keep it under the stairs. Works for tortoises.

 

[Danoff]

I highlighted what I think is a false dichotomy. Perhaps we don't see space non-profits and etc. because of the government's current position.

I think I covered that. Space still takes an enormous amount of cash and usually offers little in the way of near-term returns. But you're right, if the government didn't do it we probably would have some sort of non-profit exploration group. I just don't think they'd have the resources to do much. Culturally we seem more interested in feeding children in Africa (this is despite the fact that the government is doing that too). Our federal foreign aid budget is ~twice NASA's budget. But that doesn't stop non-profits.

But in all seriousness, although it was a massive achievement, perhaps it was a victim of it's own success? In the eyes of the layperson, NASA hasn't even come close to doing anything in space that betters the Moon programme. Sending men to another 'planet' in spaceships is utterly fantastical. Having them spend weeks or months orbiting 'a few' miles above our own planet doing school boy science tests will always seem a huge letdown compared to that. The re-usable Shuttle is also extremely awe-inspiring in it's own right, but it hardly eclipses sending man to the moon.

^That's the problem with public perception. The public sees the manned program as the space program and so when the manned program is floundering around in low earth orbit, the space program is pathetic. But that's wrong, the manned program is pathetic. How do you think this picture was taken?

It was taken by a spacecraft orbiting Saturn (it's still orbiting saturn). The space program is still doing incredible science, landing on mars, landing on Titan, flying past comets, hell, even blowing up comets! (ok, that's a slight exaggeration, but we hit one - hard)

But people still see the manned program as being all there is. I don't understand it. The manned program is doing nothing compared to the rest of NASA.

 

[FoolKiller]

But people still see the manned program as being all there is. I don't understand it. The manned program is doing nothing compared to the rest of NASA.

Time frames. It is all in the perception.

We can watch one manned mission in a week or two. We can see the launch today, heat shield inspection tomorrow, putting something in orbit the next day or meeting up with the ISS the day after that. Then we see them fix a toilet for comedic relief and fix a battery the next day. And then within another day or two they land. News from a manned mission comes at you relatively fast.

Where as Cassini was launched in 1997, with very little news. Before it reached Saturn we had large time spans between each notable thing it did. When we got news we had to spend 25% of the time alloted to the report to refresh the public on what Cassini was. It flew by Venus in 1998 and 1999, then Earth in 1999 (and then they had to explain that bit of round about travel to the public), then it flew by Jupiter in 2000, and finally got to Saturn in 2004. From one non-Earth planet to the next was a year and then another four.

Now it is at Saturn finally, and we get some beautiful photos, but way too many people see three different shots of rings and do not notice the differences. The image you posted means little to someone who doesn't understand what they are looking at. When we saw plumes shooting off of Enceladus and what it meant the average Joe may have heard another picture of a moon was sent back, and he doesn't know why it is any different from what we see in our sky every night.

A guy twittering from orbit and answering You Tube questions has much more public appeal and attention. Cassini cannot directly talk to the public and give immediate responses to their questions. Heck, even if it could answer a specific question directed to it the time delay would be irritating. And that time delay, along with mission time, will likely be what kills manned missions after the first interplanetary mission. People won't be able to Twitter or You Tube questions with quick responses. What we will get is pre-selected questions transmitted and then the recorded responses edited together to create an illusion of no delay maybe once every few months. But from the time they get past the moon until they reach their destination, they will be forgotten by most people.

I honestly believe that Cassini isn't being ignored anymore than a guy taking snapshots from a Saturn orbit would be after five years.


Of course, public concern for space exploration, manned or unmanned, is way too low. Too many people are unable tell Jupiter from Saturn. Most don't know why Cassini is called Cassini, nor could they tell me what planet it is orbiting. Heck, most people don't even realize the Mars rovers are still operational, much less that one is stuck.

JPL needs better PR. Every semi-realistic sci-fi movie should have some sort of NASA/JPL advertisement in front of it in a theater. Grab those kids whose imaginations have been firmly directed toward space and make them think about doing it for real.

 

[Touring Mars]

There are a few problems with the manned "one-way ticket" approach. First, is that you have to find a way to have life sustaining resources available for a multi-year trip. And being one-way we would hope that the multi-year aspect could be decades. Whether you mean the crew settles or flies on forever (this includes orbiting something) you have to be able to provide food, water, and oxygen because there is no guarantee that they will find anything other than what they take with them.

Then there needs to be some way to prevent physical atrophy due to the lack of gravity. Perhaps a spinning section to simulate gravity that can be used for exercise and various activities?

And the final major issue is the psychological aspect. I do not doubt you would have volunteers for a one-way trip, but in three years or more what will their emotional and mental state be? It most likely can't be a one-man trip. Can you send married couples? Can you send a mixed group and hope they get along forever? Could reality TV through Real World: Space fund the space program? And then if you do have possible mating partners do you allow them to have children or do you sterilize them before they go? So much relies on the crew members remaining emotionally stable that you have to look deep into the optimal crew setup.


Of course, a lot of this could be less of a worry if we could figure out some form of hibernation.

Those are all problems for any long-term manned mission, return or otherwise. Atleast a one-way mission would mean that you could spend alot longer at the site of interest rather than spending most of the time in transit. The real question is whether there is any point in having manned missions at all, and increasingly the answer is no. As Dan alludes to, as technology advances, unmanned missions are as capable of providing data than manned missions. Still, IMO there will always be the need for manned missions, not least because Mankind might have to think about finding other abodes in future. But the options are stark - either consider a permanent culture in space, or consider changing human longevity itself.