All throughout mankind's existance, we have been explorers. We've always pushed further and further to learn as much as possible about the world around us. Many lives have been lost due to this nature of ours, the nature to increase our knowledge.

Sure, Columbia was basically a routine space mission. But at the same time, we know so little about outer space, surely not enough to name a trip to it "routine". This is much like when Lewis and Clark set forth on there adventure through America, or when Columbus sailed across the Atlantic. Lives were lost, and although it is a tragedy to lose 1 single life in my book, the knowledge gained from the losses in our past has led us to progress to the "Final Frontier" so to speak.

Each time a mistake is made, a tragedy committed, the only thing good that comes from it is the lesson that is learned. For example, look at Challenger. It was horrific, yet you may notice that the particular failure of the Challenger has not presented itself since. We learned what went wrong, and corrected it. I also assert that while the Columbia tragedy suprised everyone, the lessons to be learned from it will ensure that another shuttle will not fall victim to the same tragedy.

Sure, there will be more Space related tragedys, just as there have been countless tragedys exploring the oceans, jungles, caves, etc. To think otherwise would be naive. We can only hope that as these mistakes are made, it does not deter the nature of men to explore the world (universe) around them.

I said earlier we do not know alot about space. I know that we have extensive knowledge, but just as they tell you when your fresh out of college, "Knowledge is no competition for expieriance." Alot of people have told me the only way to gain expieriance is make mistakes and learn from them, so as to not make the same mistakes twice.

I hope I don't offend anyone with this. Perhaps this belongs in a different thread, but I was wondering if others felt that this is much the way "Exploration works".

Now I didn't pay alot of attention to what went on while they were up there, maybe they did look at the damage to the shuttle that ocurred on launch. If they did look at it, obviously it wasn't enough. If they didn't, well that is ridiculous. We have a space program that is being geared towards working and living in space. If they can't repair the shuttle in orbit maybe we ought to be thinking about that instead of bringing up the next piece to the space station. You don't cross the ocean without having the necessary tools along to do repairs and the same should hold true in space. We haven't been in space for very long considering the history of man but haven't we been there long enough and have enough experience to have figured this out? Especially knowing the weak points of a craft we have 20 plus years experience flying? In my opinion the Challenger was different. There was no second chance there. The seal didn't hold, oops, too late. With the tile it was a different story. People wonder why NASA can't get money. Why sink money into something that gets bungled? As far as I am concerned the Columbia incident was a bungle. The sad thing is that this subject gets discussed this way and somewhere out there, or even on this forum, someone has a dear friend or loved one who perished in the incident.

quote:

---

The sad thing is that this subject gets discussed this way and somewhere out there, or even on this forum, someone has a dear friend or loved one who perished in the incident.

---

How do you think I feel making this topic.

It is indeed sad. We cannot forget the ones who lost there lives to further mankinds knowledge.

But it would be injust to these people if we just quit. Even the familys of the crew urge that Nasa continue. I'm not to familar with there goals for space, but what you said seems to sum it up.

Until we have the knowledge to safely live in orbit or on nearby planets/moons, we certainly shouldn't be trying to travel deep into the universe. This, I imagine is why Nasa is taking the route it is, to gain understanding of things to expect.

I for one would like to see more research into unmanned or even remote controlled space ships. Surely we have the technology to make unmanned ships that perform in 0 g capable of traveling further and faster then a manned craft. Sure it would be expensive, but it would be much better to lose a 20 billion dollar machine then 1 more person.

Maybe a lil twist to the topic since this thread seems to be dead:

What methods can be devised to allow for safer exploration. How can Nasa gain the expieriance needed, without losing more astronauts? Is it possible?

I think most people feel this way. NASA needs some serious PR help. They also need some clear direction. I have felt for a while that NASA has been spread too thin. Their stated primary goal is "...to further mankind's knowledge of our universe." This is pretty broad! They spend an aweful amount of time a) making sure they appear to be performing research that is important to us and b) justifying their existance by emphisizing spin-offs.

In response to "a" I feel some of these experiments, while providing valuable insights, are spreading NASA too thin right now.

In response to "b" I think that the public, with the right PR can fall in line behind the idea of "Exploration of Space to see what's out there." Their will always be decenting voices no matter what you are doing, but in history we admire the pioneers. I know, I'm being a bit naive here. I wasn't around for the landing on the moon (missed it by *that much*), but my understanding was it was a time when NASA had a VERY clear goal. It was a goal that captured people's imaginations. Why isn't it possible to set a clear goal today?

I can't go so far as to say they have lost sight of the goal, but I can't say they have a clear goal either. And that is the problem.

Imagine a NASA, seriously backed by the people, president, AND congress that says, "We are going to Mars, and here is how..." Then imagine all the resources of NASA focused on this goal. Lift vehicles to ferry people and supplies to orbit. An orbiting construction platform to build the interplanetary vehicle (what ISS is kinda supposed to eventually be, but like a bill through congress, it has extra baggage).

Imagine the big brains of NASA seriously taking on the real costs of moving people and supplies and coming up with the most cost effective ways to do this. Perhaps we would see a very different space program. One which uses one vehicle type to move people to orbit, and an entirely different vehicle that performs our heavy lifting. The space shuttle is an incredible step in our very long journey into space. I feel that we can do better now.

It might still be the case that the *total cost* of lifting materials into space is still less with traditional rockets. It might simply be the case that a reusable vehicle capable of serious heavy lifting is too expensive in the long run taking into account all the the upkeep between flights.

While at the same time, we may find that a reusable craft has a lower total cost for light loads (people). A vehicle much, much smaller than the current shuttle. A vehicle that takes the lessons learned from the shuttle, incorporates and expands on the good ideas, while introducing wholy new technologies for the not-so-good ideas (e.g. escape sub-vehicle for the crew capable of atmospheric re-entry).

Imagine, a NASA with one clear goal where all of their sub-goals fall into line. A NASA with solid PR. A NASA seriously backed by the president and congress.

My response has gone a ways off topic and for that I apologize. Exploration is something that truly inspires me. The costs can often be very high. But imagine a world where it was decided that the cost of carving a circular object and placing items on it was considered too high for any potential benefit.

I feel NASA has done, and is doing, incredible things for us. I'm not so sure my feeling is broadly shared and this concerns me.