Is "space Exploration" A Pipe-Dream?

[Khandro]

The NASA and Florida State University study revealed its findings on Thursday. They state that so far three Apollo astronauts, including Neil Armstrong, the first person to walk on the moon, have died from cardiovascular disease, apparently as a result of the extreme cosmic radiation they were exposed to during their missions.
It appears that not only is leaving the Earth's magnetic shield highly dangerous, there is also the massive problem of finding sufficient energy to launch rockets without the Earth's dwindling fossil fuel.

[Old_Geezer]

Of course not.

How they got the disease is purely speculative as it is not unknown in folk who have not been to space. But even if it increases risk, that is simply one more issue to deal with.

There will be ways to create fuel, and outside of the gravitational fields the ion drives will be efficient anyway. Solar sails, that sort of thing.

But we do need to continue advancing rather than losing interest. Progress in human exploration seems to have stalled for decades.

[naomi24]

You say Neil Armstrong died of cardiovascular disease - but he was 82! How long would you expect him to live?

No, space exploration isn't a pipe dream. Any potential problems will eventually be overcome.

[Gromit]

Whilst mostly agreeing with Old Geezer, exploration has not stalled. Putting people into space is not good science. It has been done many times and repeating the experiment does not gain new knowledge, only more data. The unmanned and robotic probes to our near neighbours, and the edges of the solar system have yeilded vast amounts of new knowledge.

[jim360]

Not all problems will necessarily be overcome, as some probably require simply more resources than we have at the moment, even given enough time and money It's not clear to me that this is one such insoluble problem, though. I mean, if nothing else, Neil Armstrong was in space nearly 50 years ago -- so that he has died so long after suggests that cosmic radiation, while certainly very dangerous, isn't a barrier to further manned space travel.

But as Gromit points out, the medium-term future is in unmanned projects anyway, and these are reaching further and further with much greater sophistication than even a decade or so ago. Only last year we parked a probe in orbit around a comet, and managed to send a satellite all the way to Pluto. Nope, the future for space travel looks pretty bright.

[naomi24]

Jim, Lack of resource ‘at the moment’ isn't the issue and doesn’t mean that problems won’t be overcome in the future. Unmanned projects are certainly the immediate future, but as I read this question we are not expected to limit our expectations to the immediate future.

[jim360]

It's more a case of acknowledging that while we have certainly not reached the limits of space exploration yet, and surely aren't anywhere near them, such limits do still exist. For the time being, lack of resources is far less of a limiting factor than other things, but it will certainly matter some day.

Still, there's plenty of time to go yet. I don't think this problem is permanently fatal for space travel -- even in the worst case and we never develop total protection against cosmic rays, I wouldn't be surprised if astronauts simply didn't care and were happy to risk their lives to push the boundaries further back.

[naomi24]

Jim, //I wouldn't be surprised if astronauts simply didn't care and were happy to risk their lives to push the boundaries further back. //

I wouldn't be surprised either, but I get the impression that Khando rather hopes we'll give it all up completely - and I think that's the gist of his question. No doubt he'll correct me if I'm wrong.

[jim360]

You might be right there. Certainly I know what Khandro thinks about my own particular field...

Anyway, the answer to the original question is self-evidently "no".

[Khandro]

OK, old astronauts like us all have to die of something, but I think NASA will have considered that aspect.
But OG, //There will be ways to create fuel, and outside of the gravitational fields the ion drives will be efficient anyway//
Ther will never be a problem outside of the Earth's gravitational field it is getting there that is the problem, manned or unmanned; 'the space shuttle's two rocket boosters use 5000,000 kg. of 11-star perforated solid propellant (PSPC) in 124 seconds'.
How do you envisage how so much energy can be produced outside of fossil fuel?
jim; //Certainly I know what Khandro thinks about my own particular field...//

As I believe your particular field, if not entirely, but largly, encompasses pure mathematics, I have nothing but admiration for you.
I am though, opposed to seeing the waste of our planet's finite and rapidly dwindling resourses on questionable objectives

[Old_Geezer]

Unmanned stuff should continue in parallel, a separate budget if though advantageous.

But aside from a single space station, I see no moonbase. I see no Mars landing. I see insufficient enthusiasm from the public to progress further as many seem to think we can and should solve all our problems on this planet first and when we have paradise here, start to expand our presence elsewhere.

I think if you don't attempt the smaller steps you will never get around to anything more.

[Old_Geezer]

I expect one can make fossil fuel, and if the incentive is there to find a quick cheap way it'll be worked on. There's biotech work going on making bacteria and other small lifeforms spew out stuff already. And technology advances means there will be other methods. Nuclear maybe ? Whatever works.

[Khandro]

OG; //many seem to think we can and should solve all our problems on this planet first and when we have paradise here, start to expand our presence elsewhere. //

I think you are onto something there. Also to substitute the PSPC is gonna require an awful lot of bacteria.
I think these schemes, (including by other [i] bête-noir [i] the Hadron collider) continue squandering public money, because so many self-interested careers are at stake.

[jim360]

Yes, that's what I meant about "my own particular field..."

[Old_Geezer]

Luckily the self-interested careers doesn't squander public money, because it is the forefront of knowledge gathering and expanding our reach, which is as good a primary aim and reason to be as anyone can come up with.

[naomi24]

Khandro, //How do you envisage how so much energy can be produced outside of fossil fuel? //

That's one of the questions that will be answered. Why are you so opposed to space exploration? It's surely not just the money?

[atalanta]

There are two insoluble problems where space travel is concerned. Radiation cannot be kept to a safe level. That is, not unless you give the spacecraft a surface cladding of gold, which makes the thing too heavy to lift off the ground. Not to mention expensive. The second problem is loss of bone-density because of lack of gravity. Do you remember what a state our Tim was in after only a few months in the space-station ?

[Khandro]

naomi; // It's surely not just the money? //
Of course it's the money!!
Have you any idea how much NASA costs the US taxpayers ? the proposal for next year is 18 Billion $ which is about what it has cost each year - for what?
Have you ever travelled about in the USA? There is enormous poverty and inequality, If I thought that this programme could help alleviate even some of that I would accept it, but it won't.

OG: "knowledge gathering" is fine, but at any cost?

[naomi24]

Khandro, ah, right. Personally, I think this sort of exploration is worth the money - and yes, I have travelled in the USA.

[Old_Geezer]

What "any cost" did you have in mind ?
Surely not the embarrassing and vanishingly low costs we presently pay for it ?
How much is a reason to be, a meaning for existence, worth ?

[Old_Geezer]

Recall that the GDP of the USofA is $18.558 trillion. That makes the proposed budget about 0.0000001%. I reckon they could fit in a social welfare programme into the funding as well, well unless the Republicans get in.