Is America's aviation/exploration spirit dying ?

[txflyer]

We have no manned space program to speak of, and now I read in AOPA's recent magazine that airshow's could be in trouble.

2013 was the worst year for airshow's in recent history because of the sequester, and the kicker that the FAA wants to charge big dollars for ATC services.

The space program and Thunderbird's were huge influences on me as a boy. I idolized the astronauts, and marveled at the Thunderbirds. I watched them and told myself that's what I want to do someday. Now, kids want to be like Kim and Kanye. It's very sad the role models we serve up nowadays.

 

[DavidWhite]

You can thank the most high, savior of my generation President Barrack-a-do-nothing Obama for all of this.

 

[dukeblue219]

Oh it's not that black and white, David. Lets remember that Bush ended (justly) the shuttle program but neither party wishes to fund development of a replacement. As far as airshows, well, that's simply a question of priorities. I think it's worth the money but when defense budgets are being slashed its hard to justify an airshow staying in the budget.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[frfly172]

Not enough aerospace contributions to the party. When he cut the air shows he should of grounded airforce 1 for vacations.

 

[DavidWhite]

Oh it's not that black and white, David. Lets remember that Bush ended (justly) the shuttle program but neither party wishes to fund development of a replacement. As far as airshows, well, that's simply a question of priorities. I think it's worth the money but when defense budgets are being slashed its hard to justify an airshow staying in the budget.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

We had a program with money dedicated towards it to return to the moon by 2025, and go to mars by 2040. Guess who cancelled it?

 

[ClimbnSink]

It is older then the current prez, two maybe three decades. One of the things feminism has brought along is the disdain and outright outlawing of risk. That is the keystone. No worries we'll put all those dangerous old things we don't allow anyone to use anymore in museums, course we won't send school trips there as we don't want to encourage that sort of behavior.

 

[dukeblue219]

We had a program with money dedicated towards it to return to the moon by 2025, and go to mars by 2040. Guess who cancelled it?

It was a step in the right direction, yes, but it was not funded properly. Cancelling Constellation was the right move under the circumstances. Additionally, there were serious questions about the vehicles being designed then (the Ares-line) as there still are about the current development of the SLS heavy-lifter. Namely, they were designed by committee and heavily politicized rather than simply handing money to the best engineers in the business to build a rocket however they saw fit.

Don't get me wrong -- I WISH we could commit to a program like that, but at the moment our space program is simply being pulled in too many directions with congress and the president continually changing the goal. Sometimes it's mars, sometimes it's the moon then mars, sometimes it's getting an asteroid, sometimes it's supporting commercial exploration. Right now the President is pushing us towards an asteroid retrieval program which is probably doable with current funding, but Congress absolutely hates it to the point of trying to prohibit NASA spending any money on it. It's such a mess, and it's the fault of an overly bureaucratic agency and insufficient funding for something like a mission to mars, not to mention new administrations that change plans every few years.

What I'm getting at is that we as a nation need to come together to urge the government to support manned space exploration and to do it right. Using the tired old refrain of "oh, it's Obama's fault" takes away from the real issue and just makes everybody get defensive and polarized, which is exactly why nothing gets done either way. I'm with you that it's a damn shame we can't get to the moon, but not that it's as simple as Obama's fault.

 

[ChrisK]

Hear hear. Wonderful analysis of a nuanced issue.

 

[Henning]

Not enough aerospace contributions to the party. When he cut the air shows he should of grounded airforce 1 for vacations.

Exactly, who profits from all the hoopla that air shows provide? Why aren't Northrup Grumman, Bell-Boeing, Lockheed-Martin footing the bills for all this stuff? They're the ones getting multiple billion $$s worth of contracts off the the furtherance of of keeping things going when it comes to keeping everything flying and everyone all hyped on military power and having all the latest and greatest crap which can't beat our Oil Industries' stone aged opposition. The Military Industrial Complex is the only industry until now that has the tax payer doing their marketing and advertising. Now the Insurance Industry gets the same.

 

[FormerHangie]

I'm not a huge fan of manned spaceflight. When you look at the distances involved and the utter hostility of the environment where most space missions should go, unmanned is the way to go.

As far as the funding issue goes, we have one party screaming for budget cuts, but that same party wants lots of military spending. Spaceflight is an obvious target since it has no immediate return on investment.

 

[Henning]

I'm not a huge fan of manned spaceflight. When you look at the distances involved and the utter hostility of the environment where most space missions should go, unmanned is the way to go.

As far as the funding issue goes, we have one party screaming for budget cuts, but that same party wants lots of military spending. Spaceflight is an obvious target since it has no immediate return on investment.

Manned is ok so long as you don't expect them to come back. I'd go on a one way that took me around Saturn and Jupiter, the problem is the cost and complexity of a ship that could sustain life for a few decades.

 

[kgruber]

The only reason to go to an airshow is to see Bob Hoover fly.

Not much chance of that today.

 

[RV10flyer]

We can be great role models to our kids and others kids. You don't have to be rich or popular. My 10 yr old son is using his metal detector(last years Christmas gift)around the hangars. This Christmas he was interested in two astronomy books, hs physics book, 8" dobsonian telescope. He enjoys doing more with Dad all the time including flying. I will definitely learn something new too about our universe and possibly how to stay warm on those cold clear nights coming up.

 

[Henning]

We can be great role models to our kids and others kids. You don't have to be rich or popular. My 10 yr old son is using his metal detector(last years Christmas gift)around the hangars. This Christmas he was interested in two astronomy books, hs physics book, 8" dobsonian telescope. He enjoys doing more with Dad all the time including flying. I will definitely learn something new too about our universe and possibly how to stay warm on those cold clear nights coming up.

Electric socks and long johns...

 

[txflyer]

I'm not a huge fan of manned spaceflight. When you look at the distances involved and the utter hostility of the environment where most space missions should go, unmanned is the way to go.

As far as the funding issue goes, we have one party screaming for budget cuts, but that same party wants lots of military spending. Spaceflight is an obvious target since it has no immediate return on investment.

Your point is correct from a practical standpoint, but not a psychological one.

How proud would we have been if only a rover touched down on the moon instead of Armstrong?

How proud are we now that we're roving Mars as opposed to an American standing there waving back? There is no inspiration in this to fuel young minds to push the limits, to actually go there and subdue the heavens and make it man's dominion. To reach out, and go where no man has gone before. :wink2:

 

[Henning]

Your point is correct from a practical standpoint, but not a psychological one.

How proud would we have been if only a rover touched down on the moon instead of Armstrong?

How proud are we now that we're roving Mars as opposed to an American standing there waving back? There is no inspiration in this to fuel young minds to push the limits, to actually go there and subdue the heavens and make it man's dominion. To reach out, and go where no man has gone before. :wink2:

Well, if we could quit waging war on everyone and get industry to tote the load rather than extract every dollar from the economy and send them to China, we could once again do great things. As it stands, we have to let China do great things.

 

[txflyer]

Well, if we could quit waging war on everyone and get industry to tote the load rather than extract every dollar from the economy and send them to China, we could once again do great things. As it stands, we have to let China do great things.

Yeah, I forget sometimes we're broke on our ass, and everyone is just waiting for the next X-box.

 

[bullwinkle]

Yes. We have become so scared of any risk and so short-sighted on the benefits of real exploration, that we just sit around navel gazing and looking for the next cheap thrill. The same thing happens to all empires if they live long enough to vanquish all their enemies, the last this happened to was the British Empire.

 

[txflyer]

We were supposed to have flying cars by now, and 2001 space odyssey space stations orbiting with passenger service. Trans-continental sub-space commercial flight and mono-rails connecting everything.

What happened to our childhood visions of the future?

 

[DaytonaLynn]

Oh it's not that black and white, David. Lets remember that Bush ended (justly) the shuttle program but neither party wishes to fund development of a replacement. As far as airshows, well, that's simply a question of priorities. I think it's worth the money but when defense budgets are being slashed its hard to justify an airshow staying in the budget.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

George Bush did not stop the shuttle that was done by the current administration.
I think the original Op post is spot on, what do young people have to dream about, no thing is garnering aviation headlines save the ga crashes.

When I was growing up and even still, the Thunderbirds and Blue Angels were awesome and captured the young imagination. Space flight was just breath taking, being a kid in Daytona and watching all the early flights and then as an adult the shuttle program. My how wonderful to watch everyday people from teachers to senators go up, just made you proud.

I agree with OP, what is generating that excitement today?

 

[jonnyjetprop]

I'll be the contrarian in the group. There's nothing wrong with the spirit of America. The problem is us.

First, the middle class is squeezed and they're going after the upper middle class now. It takes free cash and many are limited.

There are other activities that are far easier to get into. Plenty of boats, cars, RV's are running around.

Aviation isn't special anymore. We have turned commercial aviation into Grayhound and the rich view their jets as a sky limo.

The greatest generation has driven this country into the ground. Debt is killing us as a nation and neither political party is interested in changing a thing. Excess greed and envy has pitted us against each other. Few seem to care about the others out there.

General aviation is lazy. We haven't marketed ourselves effectively for many years.

The zero to hero pilot programs shifted many dollars from the local airport to few, big schools.

 

[FormerHangie]

Your point is correct from a practical standpoint, but not a psychological one.

How proud would we have been if only a rover touched down on the moon instead of Armstrong?

How proud are we now that we're roving Mars as opposed to an American standing there waving back? There is no inspiration in this to fuel young minds to push the limits, to actually go there and subdue the heavens and make it man's dominion. To reach out, and go where no man has gone before. :wink2:

Moon exploration is practical. Mars exploration is also practical, but is hideously expensive, and with the current state of technology, is quite a slow process. After, that, what? Maybe go to one of the moons of one of the gas giant planets? There's a very limited amount of exploration we can do with manned spacecraft, and some significant physiological problems that would need to be solved before sending someone into zero gravity for years on end. Unmanned spacecraft don't have those issues.

Maybe sometime in the future it will be worth doing, but at the current state of technology and human affairs, I vote for unmanned space exploration.

 

[Henning]

We were supposed to have flying cars by now, and 2001 space odyssey space stations orbiting with passenger service. Trans-continental sub-space commercial flight and mono-rails connecting everything.

What happened to our childhood visions of the future?

We spent all the money building weapons and waging wars. We only have limited resources, and visionary industrialists like Howard Hughes who would actually spend the fortunes they gained on stuff like this are few and far between. Branson backs a lot of stuff, but he doesn't have the resources that a nation does. Gates is spending his money on Malaria and other humanitarian causes. As a nation though, we are more preoccupied with wars, Cold War, Mid East War, War on Drugs... and imprisoning people for what we regard as sin.

 

[FormerHangie]

We were supposed to have flying cars by now, and 2001 space odyssey space stations orbiting with passenger service. Trans-continental sub-space commercial flight and mono-rails connecting everything.

What happened to our childhood visions of the future?

Many of them are impractical. The amount of separation required by any form of aviation makes commuting by air impractical, there's only enough airspace for a small number of vehicles.

 

[Seanaldinho]

The only reason to go to an airshow is to see Bob Hoover fly.

Not much chance of that today.

I enjoy a lot of airshow acts.

Skip Stewart, Rob Holland, and their is a guy who does a jet glider routine just to name a few.



Felix Baumgartner kinda reignited the spark for exploration for about two days but then it wore off. The problem is it doesnt seem like there are very many firsts left to do. Everything is just redoing something we did in the past, with much worse tech, but to a greater extent.

 

[wanttaja]

The only reason to go to an airshow is to see Bob Hoover fly.

Not much chance of that today.

You forgot to mention that it was Obama's fault.

The lack of interest in manned space exploration boils down to one fundamental issue: The lack of a financial incentive.

All the great terrestrial voyages of exploration had, at their core, the backers' desire to get rich...usually in the form of better ways to get to known markets or resources, or to access resources opened by previous voyages. Columbus' voyages weren't driven to expand man's knowledge of the planet, he was out to forge shorter, easier routes to the Indies (e.g., India and China). DeGama was the same, as was Magellan.

This is true in a lower scale, as well. Lewis and Clarks' main task was to document the riches of the Louisiana Purchase. Settlers didn't head west because of man's destiny to explore, but because of free land offered to those who WOULD make the journey.

There is, as yet, no such incentive for space. Makes it hard to justify under capitalism, especially in a situation where representatives have to explain their actions to the voters.

Manned travel costs so much it's hard to imagine what WOULD trigger a "gold rush" in space. Conventional "riches" would be self-correcting...find an asteroid made of solid gold, and the price of gold plummets to the point where it's no longer economically feasible to make the trip to mine it. Wildcatters/smugglers might scrounge together the equipment to try, but space travel is very hard to hide. And, with the economic impacts of tons of gold coming onto the market, governments would be incentivized to stop the traffic.

Frankly, the only thing that WOULD trigger a rush is the discovery of alien technology. Spot a dead spaceship orbiting Jupiter, and you'd get a huge flood of folks heading that way (both governments and industry, though you'd expect governments would ruthlessly quash or draft any private enterprise that looked like it'd beat their own team). Nobody would like [insert least-favored nation here] to have sole access to alien weapon technology.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Henning]

You forgot to mention that it was Obama's fault.

The lack of interest in manned space exploration boils down to one fundamental issue: The lack of a financial incentive.

All the great terrestrial voyages of exploration had, at their core, the backers' desire to get rich...usually in the form of better ways to get to known markets or resources, or to access resources opened by previous voyages. Columbus' voyages weren't driven to expand man's knowledge of the planet, he was out to forge shorter, easier routes to the Indies (e.g., India and China). DeGama was the same, as was Magellan.

This is true in a lower scale, as well. Lewis and Clarks' main task was to document the riches of the Louisiana Purchase. Settlers didn't head west because of man's destiny to explore, but because of free land offered to those who WOULD make the journey.

There is, as yet, no such incentive for space. Makes it hard to justify under capitalism, especially in a situation where representatives have to explain their actions to the voters.

Manned travel costs so much it's hard to imagine what WOULD trigger a "gold rush" in space. Conventional "riches" would be self-correcting...find an asteroid made of solid gold, and the price of gold plummets to the point where it's no longer economically feasible to make the trip to mine it. Wildcatters/smugglers might scrounge together the equipment to try, but space travel is very hard to hide. And, with the economic impacts of tons of gold coming onto the market, governments would be incentivized to stop the traffic.

Frankly, the only thing that WOULD trigger a rush is the discovery of alien technology. Spot a dead spaceship orbiting Jupiter, and you'd get a huge flood of folks heading that way (both governments and industry, though you'd expect governments would ruthlessly quash or draft any private enterprise that looked like it'd beat their own team). Nobody would like [insert least-favored nation here] to have sole access to alien weapon technology.

Ron Wanttaja

That's not necessarily true. Take diamonds for example, diamonds are plentiful, not rare in the slightest. They are assigned the value they are because the market is a tightly controlled near monopoly, and the rest of the players have no desire to reduce the market value so they play right along in the price fixing and closed market system DeBeers started way back when. When there are too many diamonds, they burn some.

 

[wanttaja]

Felix Baumgartner kinda reignited the spark for exploration for about two days but then it wore off.

Felix' drop "Exploration"? No, not really. He didn't travel "where no man had gone before," but where hundreds have passed, previously, in Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Vostok, Soyuz, and Shuttles.

Felix's stunt was cool, but it was just that: a stunt. He had guts, no question, but so do guys who tightrope walk. So the next guy along will jump from a little higher. Yay.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[wanttaja]

That's not necessarily true. Take diamonds for example, diamonds are plentiful, not rare in the slightest. They are assigned the value they are because the market is a tightly controlled near monopoly, and the rest of the players have no desire to reduce the market value so they play right along in the price fixing and closed market system DeBeers started way back when. When there are too many diamonds, they burn some.

Actually, I was thinking of the DeBeers situation when I make my original post, but gold made an easier example.

How would the DeBeers cartel respond if a space explorer brings home a 55-gallon drum home filled with 100-carat diamonds? Like you said, DeBeers would probably make him a rich man, but the diamonds would reach the market very slowly.

How would DeBeers react if two dozen private companies announced they were going follow the route of the first explorer, and bring back shipping containers full of diamonds? They don't have an infinite amount of money to buy them and keep them off the market.

We might see a preview of this. The news today said that they found the kind of rock that bears diamonds in the Antarctic. They expect diamonds to be found, as well.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Seanaldinho]

Felix' drop "Exploration"? No, not really. He didn't travel "where no man had gone before," but where hundreds have passed, previously, in Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Vostok, Soyuz, and Shuttles.

Felix's stunt was cool, but it was just that: a stunt. He had guts, no question, but so do guys who tightrope walk. So the next guy along will jump from a little higher. Yay.

Ron Wanttaja

Explortation may not have been the best word, granted. But he did something most people, at least of my generation, had never seen. He did break the sound barrier, which was new. Even what he did just built on what someone else did (Kittinger).

 

[Henning]

Actually, I was thinking of the DeBeers situation when I make my original post, but gold made an easier example.

How would the DeBeers cartel respond if a space explorer brings home a 55-gallon drum home filled with 100-carat diamonds? Like you said, DeBeers would probably make him a rich man, but the diamonds would reach the market very slowly.

How would DeBeers react if two dozen private companies announced they were going follow the route of the first explorer, and bring back shipping containers full of diamonds? They don't have an infinite amount of money to buy them and keep them off the market.

We might see a preview of this. The news today said that they found the kind of rock that bears diamonds in the Antarctic. They expect diamonds to be found, as well.

Ron Wanttaja

Where you have dead volcanos there will be Kimberlite within which you will have diamonds. There are plenty of diamonds coming out of Canada and Russia as well. Heck, I'm surprised nobody has made a real effort in Arkansas or several other locations in the US.

DeBeers doesn't really even have to buy them out, it's in the new guys best interest to play along. If they get into trouble and need liquidity, DeBeers will make sure they stay their financial needs are taken care of.

 

[dukeblue219]

George Bush did not stop the shuttle that was done by the current administration.

Sorry, but that's incorrect. In 2004 George Bush announced that the shuttle program would be retired in 2010. Funding was eliminated for shuttle flights after that date. In 2009 the Democratic Congress voted to extend the program through 2011. Look it up if you don't believe.

I wish that the successor could have been in place before it was retired, but NASA didn't have the funding to spend a billion dollars on each "reusable" shuttle launch while also developing a new system. Franky, the shuttles were old, dangerous, and far too large and complex simply for ferry runs to the space station. It was time for them to go.

We need a replacement but first we need to answer the question of "why?". Are we going to space just to say we can, or do we have a realistic goal with funding? Commercial companies can handle the taxi services while NASA handles exploration and development, which is exactly why they're developing SLS and the Orion capsule instead of flying the shuttle. Hopefully they'll be able to get those flying at some point....

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[wanttaja]

Explortation may not have been the best word, granted. But he did something most people, at least of my generation, had never seen. He did break the sound barrier, which was new. Even what he did just built on what someone else did (Kittinger).

I don't argue that what he did wasn't new, didn't take extreme bravery, and didn't require an extensive technical team to help. It's cool that he broke the sound barrier, but he WAS in, essentially, a spaceship at the time.

But what are the ramifications of Felix's stunt, in regards to space exploration or air travel?

There's a guy who's developing a space suit/recovery capsule that would permit astronauts to "bail out" of spacecraft in orbit and land safely on Earth. Waiting to see *that* jump....

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Henning]

I don't argue that what he did wasn't new, didn't take extreme bravery, and didn't require an extensive technical team to help. It's cool that he broke the sound barrier, but he WAS in, essentially, a spaceship at the time.

But what are the ramifications of Felix's stunt, in regards to space exploration or air travel?

There's a guy who's developing a space suit/recovery capsule that would permit astronauts to "bail out" of spacecraft in orbit and land safely on Earth. Waiting to see *that* jump....

Ron Wanttaja

That brings up an interesting question, if one jumped out of a spaceship in orbit, would one have to jump towards earth, away from earth, forwards from the station or aft; and would the reaction of the jump have any effect on the station itself?

 

[dukeblue219]

That brings up an interesting question, if one jumped out of a spaceship in orbit, would one have to jump towards earth, away from earth, forwards from the station or aft; and would the reaction of the jump have any effect on the station itself?

The simplest answer is "aft." If you jumped with enough force to change your velocity by several hundred mph relative to the spaceship you'd reenter Earth's atmosphere, but not until you were about halfway around on another orbit.

Yes, it would affect the station in an opposite fashion, but negligibly so given the difference in masses.

 

[txflyer]

Somewhere, on some planet or asteroid, is the cure to cancer or Alzheimer's etc. Or a new element to play with that could ignite cold fusion for sustainable energy. Or a plant that would grow 50 feet tall in the desert and feed a hundred people.

We give up more than money when we stop exploring. We give up our future along with our spirit.

One day, we may need to leave this rock en-mass. I sure hope when that day comes, we haven't frittered our chance away because we went complacent, and fiscally paralyzed.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Somewhere, on some planet or asteroid, is the cure to cancer or Alzheimer's etc. Or a new element to play with that could ignite cold fusion for sustainable energy. Or a plant that would grow 50 feet tall in the desert and feed a hundred people.

We give up more than money when we stop exploring. We give up our future along with our spirit.

One day, we may need to leave this rock en-mass. I sure hope when that day comes, we haven't frittered our chance away because we went complacent, and fiscally paralyzed.

All that stuff is on a plant in the rain forest or at the bottom of the ocean. We are all screwed if there is a way off this rock cause they ain't taking all of us. The ones that get to ride are the ones currently driving the train. Imagine the concern for this planet if they had a spare one?

 

[FormerHangie]

The simplest answer is "aft." If you jumped with enough force to change your velocity by several hundred mph relative to the spaceship you'd reenter Earth's atmosphere, but not until you were about halfway around on another orbit.

Yes, it would affect the station in an opposite fashion, but negligibly so given the difference in masses.

 

[wanttaja]

That brings up an interesting question, if one jumped out of a spaceship in orbit, would one have to jump towards earth, away from earth, forwards from the station or aft; and would the reaction of the jump have any effect on the station itself?

Ted posted the right answer, but of course, you couldn't jump hard enough to let you deorbit in any reasonable time.

A little back o' the envelope figuring seems to indicate that you'd need on the order of 150 feet per second of delta-v. It depends on your starting altitude and what perigee would give you a reasonable chance to get sucked in (I used a 150 nm circular, assuming that you'd need to burn to a perigee around 70 nm).

150 FPS is roughly 100 MPH, if you can jump that hard, you're good. The rest of us would need some oooompf. Some sort of nav system, too, to orient the push.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Jimmy cooper]

Exactly, who profits from all the hoopla that air shows provide? Why aren't Northrup Grumman, Bell-Boeing, Lockheed-Martin footing the bills for all this stuff? They're the ones getting multiple billion $$s worth of contracts off the the furtherance of of keeping things going when it comes to keeping everything flying and everyone all hyped on military power and having all the latest and greatest crap which can't beat our Oil Industries' stone aged opposition. The Military Industrial Complex is the only industry until now that has the tax payer doing their marketing and advertising. Now the Insurance Industry gets the same.

Very precise and very true.