About Space Exploration

Greetings "California"! It is nice to see you reviving this Thread!  ... FYI: Mr. Cassandro does not Post so much of late, and I myself am somewhat restricted at times... but it is nice to see this Thread again anyway!

Myself, I too have indeed noticed a lot in the News lately about 'So-and-So, launching a Rocket/Drone, to So-and-So'... it is all quite interesting, nYes...

...Most of us here are still more interested in Astronomy/Stargazing. But, I post to support this Ol' Thread again, and I DO wonder why the sudden renewed curiosity about the Moon/Mars/Asteroids Landings, after something like a Forty-Year break before, Hmmmm?

Good Fortune to Yourself always, in any case. (Sorry if I am wrong or if I confused you.)

Disambiguating Cynosure said:

I DO wonder why the sudden renewed curiosity about the Moon/Mars/Asteroids Landings, after something like a Forty-Year break before, Hmmmm?

Because the technology that only governments could afford all those years ago is now cheap and available off the shelf.  You've probably got more processing power in your washing machine than a Saturn V.

Governments are also too risk-averse to get involved with these risky projects now - it's all about the publicity.  Even Richard Branson's project has killed someone and he's only making a toy plane.

Also Governments/politicians are mostly motivated by the election cycle, what they can do to make themselves look good, get themselves their next cushy well-paying board membership or get something for their constituency so that they can continue to be re-elected.

The early "space-race" was motivated by the need to develop nuclear missiles etc. for defence/offence.  The "civilian" space programmes were all about sending the message "if our 'civilian programme' can put a manned space-vehicle here, then you better be damned sure I can put a megaton+ plus ICBM wherever I like on the planet as well.

This sort of defence is no longer the vote winner that it was.  Even the cost of renewing the UK "independent" Trident nuclear deterrent is no longer the cut-and-dried shoe-in that it used to be - even with proposed cost-savings such as reducing the SSBN fleet from 4 to 3 and we've already been slowly cutting the number of launch vehicles per boat and re-entry vehicles per launch vehicle since the end of the cold war.

Exactly.  The arms reduction is fairly sensible - there are less and less targets around the world where you can justfiy turning them to glass.   It seems that most future 'wars' are going to be small-scale conventional terrorist-squashing activities around the world or economic wars where countries are starved out of their position. 

I don't really understand the whole Mars-mission hype - I think it's currently beyond human endurance to sit in a tin can for months on a probable suicide mission waiting to be splattered all over a distant rock with no real chance of success.  They seem to be deliberately dragging their heels on it like they know they can't really do it yet.

Exactly.  The arms reduction is fairly sensible - there are less and less targets around the world where you can justfiy turning them to glass.   It seems that most future 'wars' are going to be small-scale conventional terrorist-squashing activities around the world or economic wars where countries are starved out of their position. 

I don't really understand the whole Mars-mission hype - I think it's currently beyond human endurance to sit in a tin can for months on a probable suicide mission waiting to be splattered all over a distant rock with no real chance of success.  They seem to be deliberately dragging their heels on it like they know they can't really do it yet.