Manned space ....

Manned space ....

I mean this sincerely, I'd like researchers to give serious thought to dumping chemical rockets and start an intense search for alternative, futuristic propulsion systems. Warp Drive, Anti Gravity all the stuff which physicists now say is feasible given the current views of the universe and its most basic laws. I'm sure that some of this is now going on, but it would be nice to come up with a method for getting us to the stars without having to rely on time dilation and its myriad issues. In the book The Hunt For Zero Point by Nick Cook, he postulates some of this research is and has been going on. Unfortunately, it is in the Black Programs and is not out in the open with collaboration of ideas and results. If you aren't familiar with Nick Cook, he writes for Jane's, and is a well respected researcher. Chemical rockets are not going to get us where we really want to go, the stars and beyond. You might find it surprising that I voted for reducing funding for manned flight, but it's not because I want to see us stuck here on earth. I'd like for us to really have a chance to go somewhere interesting and to get there money is needed. Using chemical rockets to get us off the earth is like using a bicycle to get to the North Pole. It can be done, but unless you're doing it for the fun and exciting experience, it's not the most efficient way to travel.

Well said.

I will throw my two cent's in before it gets all messed up...

I think manned space is extremely important. Getting us off this rock is the only hope we have to survive. One comet strike and we are all gone. It would be a shame to have to go extinct because people are too cheap to support it.

George Blahun said:

I mean this sincerely, I'd like researchers to give serious thought to dumping chemical rockets and start an intense search for alternative, futuristic propulsion systems. Warp Drive, Anti Gravity all the stuff which physicists now say is feasible given the current views of the universe and its most basic laws. I'm sure that some of this is now going on, but it would be nice to come up with a method for getting us to the stars without having to rely on time dilation and its myriad issues. In the book The Hunt For Zero Point by Nick Cook, he postulates some of this research is and has been going on. Unfortunately, it is in the Black Programs and is not out in the open with collaboration of ideas and results. If you aren't familiar with Nick Cook, he writes for Jane's, and is a well respected researcher. Chemical rockets are not going to get us where we really want to go, the stars and beyond. You might find it surprising that I voted for reducing funding for manned flight, but it's not because I want to see us stuck here on earth. I'd like for us to really have a chance to go somewhere interesting and to get there money is needed. Using chemical rockets to get us off the earth is like using a bicycle to get to the North Pole. It can be done, but unless you're doing it for the fun and exciting experience, it's not the most efficient way to travel.

Absolutely. See the February 2009 issue of Scientific American for a very good article on "electric (ion) propulsion." The Brits used it to send a probe to the moon a couple of years ago. It's closer to a bicycle than a rocket in that it is slooooow, but relentless and cheap.

I wholeheartedly agree we need advanced research, but we need to be careful of some of the crackpot projects. Zero point energy is a good example. We aren't going to be able to violate conservation of energy. And propulsion isn't really the key issue it is presented as, and neither us launch cost. The key we are lacking is reasons for launches. Satisfying curiousity is nice. The benefits of trade is why fleets of ships got built. Right now, there is a telecom glut thanks to massive ammounts of optical cable, which has killed off a lot of space business. The market capitalization of the entire US aerospace sector combined is less than Google. We expect the aerospace sector to build machines able to leap off the ground and get to 22 times the speed of sound in 8 minutes reliably, but invest very little in it, leaving that sector in an environment of increased aspirations, but very little market for the products. In comparison, Google has been lavished with funds for showing usnpaid advertisements when we try to find something on the web. It will therefore be Google which can invest in basic reasearch and expanded technologies.

I still keep working in the Aerospace sector, anyway. It was the reason I became an engineer.

-Rich

George Blahun said:

I mean this sincerely, I'd like researchers to give serious thought to dumping chemical rockets and start an intense search for alternative, futuristic propulsion systems. Warp Drive, Anti Gravity all the stuff which physicists now say is feasible given the current views of the universe and its most basic laws. I'm sure that some of this is now going on, but it would be nice to come up with a method for getting us to the stars without having to rely on time dilation and its myriad issues. In the book The Hunt For Zero Point by Nick Cook, he postulates some of this research is and has been going on. Unfortunately, it is in the Black Programs and is not out in the open with collaboration of ideas and results. If you aren't familiar with Nick Cook, he writes for Jane's, and is a well respected researcher. Chemical rockets are not going to get us where we really want to go, the stars and beyond. You might find it surprising that I voted for reducing funding for manned flight, but it's not because I want to see us stuck here on earth. I'd like for us to really have a chance to go somewhere interesting and to get there money is needed. Using chemical rockets to get us off the earth is like using a bicycle to get to the North Pole. It can be done, but unless you're doing it for the fun and exciting experience, it's not the most efficient way to travel.

Sorry, but there is no winner. No one in the political game has your best interest in heart.

I agree, this is a very great poll. I want to know what other people think on space exploration too.
An yes , in IMHO , manned space exploration is why we are on this planet.

Heh. I'd like to see the arguments that would start!

I hate to disagree, but isn't manned space exploration actually why we aren't on this planet?

:-D

-Rich

Luca Grella said:

I agree, this is a very great poll. I want to know what other people think on space exploration too.
An yes , in IMHO , manned space exploration is why we are on this planet.