Current Events > Why did space exploration grind to a halt the last few decades?

(+) Yeah! (+)

We went to the moon several times, which was very cool, then...stopped. I'm still not clear on what's preventing us from going to Mars, which seems like the next logical step. Is it money, technology, the length of the mission, or what? Do you remember that episode of Simpsons, where a shuttle launch comes on TV, and Bart and Home desperately try to change the channel (without success, I think)? That summarises my attitude to space exploration pretty well.
---

People started focusing on politics rather than discovery.

From my super limited understanding, it's just too expensive and relatively pointless. Drones and satellites let us investigate places like Mars and the moon without the problem of a return trip.
---

focus on military/politics/business/fucking the average citizen rather than progress
---

Rika_Furude posted...

focus on military/politics/business/fucking the average citizen rather than progress

in other words:

mostly dumb as fuck republicans
---

Because we didnt need to spend any more money or effort to fake moon landings again.
---

No Soviet Union to beat in a dick-measuring contest over space capabilities once they fell behind too much, both in space tech itself and other fields to support it.

No competition, get complacent.
---

Distant_Rainbow posted...

No Soviet Union to beat in a dick-measuring contest over space capabilities once they fell behind too much, both in space tech itself and other fields to support it.

No competition, get complacent.

you are caught up on the times right. china's taking the lead
---

Serious answer: Aliens threatened us to stop space exploration
---

anth0ny posted...

Distant_Rainbow posted...

No Soviet Union to beat in a dick-measuring contest over space capabilities once they fell behind too much, both in space tech itself and other fields to support it.

No competition, get complacent.

you are caught up on the times right. china's taking the lead

We forgot how to fake it again, so hush
---

funding cuts
---

anth0ny posted...

Distant_Rainbow posted...

No Soviet Union to beat in a dick-measuring contest over space capabilities once they fell behind too much, both in space tech itself and other fields to support it.

No competition, get complacent.

you are caught up on the times right. china's taking the lead

Doesn't matter if America's bigwigs who decide on that don't care about China. They don't think China is willing/capable of nuking America to the Stone Age if given a chance(unlike the Soviets), so China is completely irrelevant. Also factoring in the little thing that China is more known for its cheap knockoff garbage products than its science/technology to the masses.

They literally won't give a damn about China regarding space tech until a Chinese astronaut plants a flag on Martian soil.
---

Because in reality flying to mars takes years
---

Distant_Rainbow posted...

anth0ny posted...

Distant_Rainbow posted...

No Soviet Union to beat in a dick-measuring contest over space capabilities once they fell behind too much, both in space tech itself and other fields to support it.

No competition, get complacent.

you are caught up on the times right. china's taking the lead

Doesn't matter if America's bigwigs who decide on that don't care about China. They don't think China is willing/capable of nuking America to the Stone Age if given a chance(unlike the Soviets), so China is completely irrelevant. Also factoring in the little thing that China is more known for its cheap knockoff garbage products than its science/technology to the masses.

They literally won't give a damn about China regarding space tech until a Chinese astronaut plants a flag on Martian soil.

this isn't about feelings, rn bro. this is about facts rn.
---

https://qz.com/1292014/heres-what-we-know-about-chinas-future-space-station/
---

Sunhawk posted...

We went to the moon several times

No didn't. The moon landing was a hoax. THe whole thing was filmed in the back of a Hollywood lot.
---

Reasons:

1) Human mission to mars is an order of magnitude harder than the moon

A. Fuel requirements are dramatically greater
A.1. Mars is 100 times farther from the earth than the moon
A.2. Mars is 10 times more massive than the moon, yielding a 10x greater escape velocity requirement (10x more fuel required to get off)
B. Life Support requirements are dramatically greater
B.1. That 100x distance means 100x more exposure to cosmic radiation, requiring shielding on par with the ISS. Or vastly more powerful and efficient engines, both at the same time.
B.2. It also means that water/oxygen/food carried for the astronaut will weigh much more, meaning more payload, meaning more thrust required for the same acceleration.
B.3. We haven't made meaningful advances in large-scale propulsion technology in 30 years, because basically we've reached the limit of what chemical propulsion can do, and non-chemical propulsion (nuclear, for example) is either very risky if it fails in the atmosphere, or poses major risks to astronaut life support itself, or is simply not functional on large scales, or all three at once.

2. Political will is gone.

A. The USSR is dead. The space race was a dick-swinging contest first and foremost, and secondarily about espionage. Men in space were never the real value return, the technologies developed for putting them there and the satellites put up were the return. A man on the moon was a meaningless achievement; the tech that got him there was what mattered. And we have that, and NASA is still developing that.

B. China isn't a comparable rival. We have disputes, but we have a very close trade relationship with them, and their patriotism isn't about international influence on a global scale, so their government doesn't really mess with our role as 'global hegemon'. They want to be a regional power.
---

If man steps foot on Mars in our lifetimes, it's fairly likely they'll be planting a Chinese flag on it. But realistically I don't think it's something we will see, maybe our grandchildren will!

Sunhawk posted...

I'm still not clear on what's preventing us from going to Mars

We don't want it to be a one-way trip for humans
---

Distant_Rainbow posted...

No Soviet Union to beat in a dick-measuring contest over space capabilities once they fell behind too much, both in space tech itself and other fields to support it.

No competition, get complacent.

And now the Red Bull guy and Elon Musk are winning the space race.
---

Darkman124 posted...

1) Human mission to mars is an order of magnitude harder than the moon

A. Fuel requirements are dramatically greater
A.1. Mars is 100 times farther from the earth than the moon
A.2. Mars is 10 times more massive than the moon, yielding a 10x greater escape velocity requirement (10x more fuel required to get off)
B. Life Support requirements are dramatically greater
B.1. That 100x distance means 100x more exposure to cosmic radiation, requiring shielding on par with the ISS. Or vastly more powerful and efficient engines, both at the same time.
B.2. It also means that water/oxygen/food carried for the astronaut will weigh much more, meaning more payload, meaning more thrust required for the same acceleration.
B.3. We haven't made meaningful advances in large-scale propulsion technology in 30 years, because basically we've reached the limit of what chemical propulsion can do, and non-chemical propulsion (nuclear, for example) is either very risky if it fails in the atmosphere, or poses major risks to astronaut life support itself, or is simply not functional on large scales, or all three at once.

What a great post. Thank you.
---

minor asterisk: escape velocity difference is more like 2.2x greater as Ve=sqrt(G* [mass/radius]) and so the ratio is basically sqrt(10)/sqrt(2) ~ 2.2

still, fuel requirement increase for a greater dV is nonlinear.

the really simple way to explain it to a layperson is "the amount of payload required is staggering." i think we often fail to realize how tiny the ratio of payload to propellant was in the original apollo mission series.
---

We're doing plenty of space exploration these days. It's just with satellites instead of people.
---

Darkman124 posted...

Reasons:

1) Human mission to mars is an order of magnitude harder than the moon

A. Fuel requirements are dramatically greater
A.1. Mars is 100 times farther from the earth than the moon
A.2. Mars is 10 times more massive than the moon, yielding a 10x greater escape velocity requirement (10x more fuel required to get off)
B. Life Support requirements are dramatically greater
B.1. That 100x distance means 100x more exposure to cosmic radiation, requiring shielding on par with the ISS. Or vastly more powerful and efficient engines, both at the same time.
B.2. It also means that water/oxygen/food carried for the astronaut will weigh much more, meaning more payload, meaning more thrust required for the same acceleration.
B.3. We haven't made meaningful advances in large-scale propulsion technology in 30 years, because basically we've reached the limit of what chemical propulsion can do, and non-chemical propulsion (nuclear, for example) is either very risky if it fails in the atmosphere, or poses major risks to astronaut life support itself, or is simply not functional on large scales, or all three at once.

2. Political will is gone.

A. The USSR is dead. The space race was a dick-swinging contest first and foremost, and secondarily about espionage. Men in space were never the real value return, the technologies developed for putting them there and the satellites put up were the return. A man on the moon was a meaningless achievement; the tech that got him there was what mattered. And we have that, and NASA is still developing that.

B. China isn't a comparable rival. We have disputes, but we have a very close trade relationship with them, and their patriotism isn't about international influence on a global scale, so their government doesn't really mess with our role as 'global hegemon'. They want to be a regional power.

I love your posts.

To add on to that, there is very little that an actual human can do on another planet that a rover or satellite cannot. The things we can do are just not worth the risk to a human life, especially without a "space race" pressuring us to push the limits of safety and technological capability. I mean, NASA almost liquefied Neil Armstrong during the Gemini missions.

I'd prefer they took their time and did things right, rather than risk a catastrophe that would sway public opinion against NASA and space exploration as a whole.
---

Kavatar posted...

We're doing plenty of space exploration these days. It's just with satellites instead of people.

Yeah but public interest in it isn't huge like it was.

Great post @Darkman124
---

One man pissing contest

anyone else now thinking we can send China's space stations between earth and mars to get there
---

anth0ny posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

focus on military/politics/business/fucking the average citizen rather than progress

in other words:

mostly dumb as fuck republicans

lmao at blaming republicans for everything, how butthurt can you get
---

Grind to a halt? Space exploration is stronger than ever with modern technology. We recently got high def pics of fucking Pluto. Just because we're not sending humans out there doesn't mean we're not exploring.
---

Because what's the point? Space isn't really special and expensive to traverse. All our planets are unlivable and we have no hope of getting to an Earth-like planet anytime soon.
---

Rick-C137 posted...

Because what's the point? Space isn't really special and expensive to traverse. All our planets are unlivable and we have no hope of getting to an Earth-like planet anytime soon.

---

Two people saying space isn't special.

I figure you both also think "Forget about caring about something if it can't be accomplished in my lifetime." too. There's never any telling what breakthroughs and discoveries can flip everything upside down and make seemingly impossible stuff more likely to accomplish.

anth0ny posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

focus on military/politics/business/fucking the average citizen rather than progress

in other words:

mostly dumb as fuck republicans

---

Its just not special enough to put lives on the line for that amount of money. We know pretty much everything about our planets so it wouldn't provide any breakthroughs. So until we have better spaceships its best to leave the exploring to probes and telescopes.
---

We know pretty much everything about our planet? LOL!

SaithSayer posted...

Two people saying space isn't special.

I figure you both also think "Forget about caring about something if it can't be accomplished in my lifetime." too. There's never any telling what breakthroughs and discoveries can flip everything upside down and make seemingly impossible stuff more likely to accomplish.

Unless we start running low on metals or other resources, the price to go on these fantasy Star Trek expeditions just doesn't justify the payoff.
---

I'm not saying to put people in a spaceship and go around looking at shit when it isn't feasible. I'm saying people need to be a lot more interested in developing the areas we have to develop so it isn't a lost cause. There are certain to be a shitload of other uses for the discoveries made in that search so the benefits will reach everyone.

When we eventually do, it won't be about actually seeing any sort of return...of the ship or monetarily. We would make the most amazing thing we ever had and then send it off to never be seen again, but humanity would expand beyond inhabiting just this planet.

Obama.
---

SaithSayer posted...

I'm not saying to put people in a spaceship and go around looking at shit when it isn't feasible. I'm saying people need to be a lot more interested in developing the areas we have to develop so it isn't a lost cause. There are certain to be a shitload of other uses for the discoveries made in that search so the benefits will reach everyone.

When we eventually do, it won't be about actually seeing any sort of return...of the ship or monetarily. We would make the most amazing thing we ever had and then send it off to never be seen again, but humanity would expand beyond inhabiting just this planet.

The point is we aren't close to being able to explore space.

Probes and telescopes are more than capable.

This is why we aren't sending people anymore.
---

Because, in the past 50 years or so, taxes have been slashed, military spending has increased precipitously, and faith in science has cratered. Also, the Shuttle Program was both kind of a dead-end and suffered two high-profile disasters, which hurt the prestige of the space program immensely.
Without sufficient funding or political will, space exploration is mostly a matter for telescopes(Earth and space-based) and for the amusement of billionaires.
Capitalism as an economic system is also not really good at "thinking" long-term. Space exploration isn't going to be profitable anytime soon.

Voyager is still going after 40 years

the major focus on the shuttle program which isn't really capable of going to other planets. on the plus side we've had a stupid amount of innovation coming out of nasa from it.
---

Despite the idea that it was all about the betterment of man, it was largely fueled by the Cold War arms race. Most of the projects had some sort of military application, like Star Wars. Nowadays, the popular weapons are propaganda, economic warfare, the internet, and smart weapons.

Republicans want progress. There may be new sources of power or other valuable resources in space that can advance our species. Democrats want to put that money towards social programs which, while good-intentioned, will just be a never-ending money sink.
---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

Because we didnt need to spend any more money or effort to fake moon landings again.

What an awful troll.
---