Should America's space program design a spacecraft for safety or to push the limits of technological discovery

Question

With the new design of the CEV going back to "Safe and Proven" applo designs of capsule launch and landing, what technological benefit does this have? The shuttle pushed the boundaries of aircraft design and computer arcitecture and had many trickle down effects on devices we use in every day society. The new CEV will have none of these benefits but will launch more often. Where should the balance be, with the design and implementation of the craft or with the discoveries it could make in space?

Answer 1

push the limits of technological
damn the torpedo's full speed ahead!
That's why we are a great nation, always on the cutting edge, we Americans are Risk Takers!

Answer 2

Look at it this way: What can we afford? We're going to the "tried and true" design for the CEV because, with Katrina and Iraq, Congress won't pay for anything more innovative to replace the Shuttle. People in the know are talking about shutting down the Shuttle by 2010. One more major accident and it will be shut down the next day. The only thing that the space industry can have up and running by then is something that is already half-way done. And in my opinion, there's no way that can happen in just 4 years. So to keep the Space Station alive with a new vehicle that can take men there, we got to go with something already designed and partially tested.

Should America go with Apollo designs for the CEV. Yes, if you want to keep the Space Station. Is it in Americas long term interest to play it safe? No, but there's a way to play it safe with people and get the technology.

If my company had it's way, we'd ditch the Shuttle and the Space Station and do planetary exploration with unmanned robotic missions. Huge technology spin-off payback and much less risk to people. After about a century of sending robots to the Moon and Mars, then we'd could have all the infrastruture there ready for living and have time to put together a sweet ride to get there too.

But America doesn't think that way. We want heroes for our "this is a true story" movies. My prediction is we'll keep on the track we are on and take a long time to get anywhere while risking lives with our "lowest bidder" philosophy.

The guys who are innovating are in the private sector - space tourism. That is going to be big over the next decade while the goverment keeps sending some guy to hang around at the Space Station taking data on space algae or whatever they do.

Answer 3

I consider most spacecraft to be experimental aircraft, even designs like the current Space Shuttle.

It would be good to find a balance between new designs and proven technologies with the ultimate goal of meeting the mission parameters.

However, even with the new CEV, we will still have plenty of trickle-downs from the space program.

Answer 4

This is a very good question. I think that the use of advanced technology and design would be better than the "tried and true" versions. Safety is important, but I think we should push the limits of aircraft design, while keeping in place the ways we maintain safety, like the mid-flight check-ups for shuttles. Surely the balance between safety and innovation will never make everyone happy, but I would like to see as much exploration as we can muster - not just outside our atmosphere, but in every process that makes up our space program.

Answer 5

Hopefully you read through this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Exploration_Vehicle
Designing rockets is a lot different than designing aircraft. For space exploration, wings are useless. They are added weight that contribute nothing to the mission. Landing can be accomplished much more efficiently with capsules and parachutes, and all that matters is maximizing the mission. Putting wings on the space shuttle was a bastardized design; I liked it because I design aircraft, but really it wasn't appropriate. Losing the wings is not a retreat in technology; it is simply a purer form of space travel.

Answer 6

I could see how this could weigh one way or another. I see it as advance the technology on the spacecraft, or the other will not happen. We need a proven advancement on the craft so long distance travel could be reached with little or no problems. As each journey brings its problems, it also brings up a need to resolve those problems as we go. It is too bad though that some of these space shots are shot because of reasons other than improvement or advacement.

Answer 7

America has become too risk averse; if we want to continue space exploration we must do so with safety first in mind; we can ill-afford a risky technology that may take years to develop only to go dormant for 7 or more years after the first incident, as in after Challenger. In my opinion this is also why countries such as China and India will overtake us in space - they are not risk averse and will not stall their space programs after accidents.

Answer 8

I think taking a balls out approach is the way to go. That adventurous attitude may even be something the country can all get behind rather than focusing on warfare. Could lead to our liberating alternative fuel source as well.

Answer 9

* My brain pushes me to the limit all the time. It is relenting and overwhelming most of the time. The racing thoughts it unleashes and the images past, present, not real, and real my minds eye in my brain lets me see are some of how my brain pushes me to my limits. Sprinkle in that I have a steel trap for a memory and brain. Friends tell me I have a steel trap in my head. So yes my brain pushes me to the limit(s).

Answer 10

in past exploration humans have always pushed the limits. the way from Europe to the orient is a prim example