When will NASA do the next major milestone and who or what will be the political force that drives it?

[Free-Stater 101]

Let's face it NASA is a shadow of its former self these days, shuttles retired, few missions planned at this point only public outcry seems to be the reason that politicians haven't just pulled the plug on the shindig and pronounced human endeavor in space a relic of a bygone era of the Cold War and dead for all it does.

Trump and his predecessors both Democrat and Republican for better or worse didn't do anything to seriously bolster the organization any further than what they have been, and the question then presents itself.

"When will NASA again be enabled to advance it's causes further than the moon? Who and what party will be the driving force of this renewed interest? What would it take to get this type of commitment going again?"

All questions to debate here.

 

[Cherico]

Nasa had its place but its time is over.

Space travel needs to be handed over to the private sector, we need more private companies who launch rockets and get into space. There is a lot of money to be made in space, all the resources we could ever want are right up there, mineral wealth beyond our wildest dreams. Huge amount of places where we can create new communities and build a real future for the human race.

But its not going to be done by the us government, other people have to step in and turn this into a reality.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Imma be honest, it's a conspiracy theory but I really think one of the reasons NASA, and everybody else, somehow decided to abandon all manned space travel and quit even going as far as the moon was because the powers-that-be realized that any colony was likely to eventually want independence and would become future rivals for their global hegemony.

 

[Christi]

Imma be honest, it's a conspiracy theory but I really think one of the reasons NASA, and everybody else, somehow decided to abandon all manned space travel and quit even going as far as the moon was because the powers-that-be realized that any colony was likely to eventually want independence and would become future rivals for their global hegemony.

Nah. I don’t doubt they would want independence but they have to get a majority of food and air from Earth for generations to come. Which they can pay for with all those resources in space.
I think the Government wants to use that money for other things depending on the administration. While relaying on the private sector to do the heavy lifting.

 

[Rocinante]

I think the future of NASA is going to be partnerships/support roles/bank rolling private entities.

It makes sense, Really. The private sector is way more efficient. They can be useful by providing assistance. Running labs/models, providing manpower, logistics, traffic control, organization.

They can be an underlying support structure that keeps the private industry flourishing.

 

[LordsFire]

Imma be honest, it's a conspiracy theory but I really think one of the reasons NASA, and everybody else, somehow decided to abandon all manned space travel and quit even going as far as the moon was because the powers-that-be realized that any colony was likely to eventually want independence and would become future rivals for their global hegemony.

I want to say this is a position utterly ignorant of how difficult it is to maintain and/or expand a space colony, so of course that wouldn't be why...

...But ignorance and politicians.

 

[Captain X]

NASA is basically just serving the globalists these days by pushing climate alarmism. Or, as I like to say, Not About Space Anymore.

 

[Sobek]

Yeah pretty much. NASA is dead in the water and has been sacrificed to the cult of Sciencism to talk about how we need equity and diversity on the Mars Colony that they are never gonna build.

 

[Carrot of Truth]

I think that until space can be made into a profitable venture that its going to require state funding, Once it does become profitable it can be taken over by the private sector, Lets just hope we don't get the east india trading company in space.

 

[LordsFire]

Space has already passed that point; satellites are very high-utility/profitability.

 

[Carrot of Truth]

I meant more along the lines of actually exploiting the resources and potential living space... in space. Anyways satellites in orbit can be profitable but I don't really count that as truly exploiting things more like skimming the surface so to speak.

 

[LordsFire]

I meant more along the lines of actually exploiting the resources and potential living space... in space. Anyways satellites in orbit can be profitable but I don't really count that as truly exploiting things more like skimming the surface so to speak.

Satellites only need to be put up into a stable orbit to do their thing.

What you are talking about is orders of magnitude more difficult, expensive, and risky to human life. Those of us who are under 40 may see it in our lifetimes, but people tend to constantly underestimate just how high the costs of these things are, and over-estimate the relative utility of what you can get/harvest from space.

There is very little up in the black that we can't already get down here, and much more cheaply and safely. This is the fundamental reason that resource extraction from space hasn't been a thing. Now there are a few valid points about missed opportunities, but at this point what might have happened if the Orion Drive had been pursued is still nothing more or less than a 'what if.'

In the hard reality of current technology, until we can get around the tyranny of the rocket equation, mining the moon or harvesting asteroids isn't likely to be profitable. At most, I think we might see pilot programs for seeing how viable asteroid mining is at all.

I'm semi-optimistic that we could see a space elevator or mass-driver technology in a couple of decades, but it'll take something like that, or sci-fi tier anti-grav shenanigans, to really make commercial resource harvesting from space feasible. I suppose super-cheap rocket fuel might do it too.

 

[Carrot of Truth]

Satellites only need to be put up into a stable orbit to do their thing.

What you are talking about is orders of magnitude more difficult, expensive, and risky to human life. Those of us who are under 40 may see it in our lifetimes, but people tend to constantly underestimate just how high the costs of these things are, and over-estimate the relative utility of what you can get/harvest from space.

There is very little up in the black that we can't already get down here, and much more cheaply and safely. This is the fundamental reason that resource extraction from space hasn't been a thing. Now there are a few valid points about missed opportunities, but at this point what might have happened if the Orion Drive had been pursued is still nothing more or less than a 'what if.'

In the hard reality of current technology, until we can get around the tyranny of the rocket equation, mining the moon or harvesting asteroids isn't likely to be profitable. At most, I think we might see pilot programs for seeing how viable asteroid mining is at all.

I'm semi-optimistic that we could see a space elevator or mass-driver technology in a couple of decades, but it'll take something like that, or sci-fi tier anti-grav shenanigans, to really make commercial resource harvesting from space feasible. I suppose super-cheap rocket fuel might do it too.

Well my original point was that to exploit space in that manner its almost certainly going to have to be a state funded endeavor rather than a private one, So organizations like NASA still have an important place for now at least. Although NASA could be a lot better but government spending tends to always make things far more expensive than it needs to be for whatever reason.