Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Hill
Like I said, I understand the romance of sending humans past LEO. I just disagree with NDT. The times now are radically different than in the 1960s. We were at odds with Russia and felt we needed to assert our dominance over them. The difference now is that nobody else is even trying to go. The competition fueled the public support NASA had in the 1960s and that just simply doesn't exist today. And unfortunately, even if there was a competitor out there looking to go to Mars, we might have some support. However, given the current state of sentiments in Washington DC, the priorities simply aren't in line with sending humans on deep space missions. I would absolutely love to see humans on Mars, but I don't see it happening for a very, very long time. Who knows? Perhaps one day we as a people will set aside our differences and partner with other nations to achieve the goal. But for the time being, it's not happening. Not because we don't have the technology or know-how, but because we don't have the ambition.
|
I agree with just about everything that you are saying, but I am coming to a different conclusion. I agree that beating Russia was the motivation for almost everything we did with space exploration in the 60's and 70's but I think that the positive impacts, like those that NDT frequently discusses, of that effort occurred independently of the motivation for the US government to spend all of the money that it did on NASA, meaning that we would reap the same benefits today. I also completely agree that the only reason that our progress in space exploration dropped off is not that we lack the technology to keep progressing, but is rather that, in the absence of the Russian threat, we as a nation lack the ambition to continue. Where I disagree with you, regardless of the likelihood of getting more funding for NASA in the current political climate, is how you said that we wouldn't gain anything substantial by sending people rather than robots beyond LEO to places like Mars.