Was bringt uns die Raumfahrt überhaupt ? - 500 Beiträge pro Seite

[Sasila]

Wäre es nicht viel besser, die mit der Raumfahrt verbundenen
Kosten in die Forschung zugunsten des Umweltschutzes und gegen Krankheiten wie Krebs zu stecken ?

Was bringen diese vielen Experimente da oben überhaupt ?

Und jetzt gibt es wieder eine maßlos übertriebene
Trauershow. Dabei haben die Astronauten gewußt, auf was sie sich einlassen.

Was ist mit den vielen genbedingt Kranken, die über kurz oder lang im Krankenbett dahinsiechen oder ein Leben lang
unter unerträglichen Bedingungen leben müssen ?

[tompilz]

Sasila,

Raumfahrt hat schon ihren Sinn. Viele technische Errungenschaften haben wir der Raumfahrt zu verdanken, oder hast Du noch nie mit `ner Teflonpfanne gebraten.

[nocherts]

früher oder später muss die menschheit diesen planeten verlassen, weil er ihn zerstört hat oder das universum.
vielleicht zerglüht unser ganzes sonnensystem.

deswegen brauchen wir die raumfahrt.

[Sasila]

Alles keine zufriedenstellenden Argumente ....

[Kaptah]

@tompilz

Teflon wurde lange vor der Raumfahrt schon 1938 erfunden.http://www.g-o.de/geo-bin/frameset.pl?id=00001&frame1=titelg…

[TonyWonderful]

Is aber doch schon eher erwiesen, daß wir nie woanders hinkommen werden! Auf Bayern3 ist oft diese Kapazität Harald Lesch und philosophiert über das alles. Echt interessant!

[towlander]

Die Raumfahrt bringt uns fortschrittlichere, effizientere und komfortable neue Art von Kriegsspielgeräten.

[Karl]

kleine richtigstellung:

die raumfahrt dient bereits heute schon der Forschung zugunsten des Umweltschutzes und gegen Krankheiten wie Krebs. sogar die mehrzahl der missionen werden ausschliesslich zu forschungszwecken durchgeführt, aber es gibt natürlich auch militärische flüge. gerade im bereich umwelt wurden einige wichtige missionen geflogen.

aber mal was zum nachdenken:
"If we die, we want people to accept it. We`re in a risky business, and we hope that if anything happens to us it will not delay the program. The conquest of space is worth the risk of life."
- Gus Grissom

wer nicht weiss, wer das war: astronaut im amerikanischen mercury-, gemini- und apollo-programm, starb im januar 1967 beim ersten grossen unglück der bemannten raumfahrt zusammen mit ed white und roger chaffee, als die kapsel von apollo 1 am boden bei einem test unter reiner sauerstoffatmosphäre ausbrannte.

[Gatsby2]

Die Raumfahrt bringt uns ganz enorme Vorteile, die alle Risiken wert sind, die dafür eingegangen werden. Neben den schon erwähnten Experimenten, die oft nur in der Schwerelosigkeit durchgeführt werden können, seien etwa Klimaforschung nebst genauerer Wettervorhersagen, Kommunikation, geologische Forschungen aller Art u.v.m. erwähnt.

Weiterführend:

http://www.nasa.gov

[BBBio]

#1, schon mal zB. was von dem Umweltschutz dienenden Satelliten gehört?

[stierprinz]

wir müssen hier weg !

das überleben der menschheit kann nur gelingen,wenn wir in spätesten 10 hoch 36 jahren die erde verlassen haben...und selbstverständlich einen passenden ersatz-planeten gefunden haben.
weil dann der stern "sonne" zu einem roten riesen anschwillt,ungefähr 2000 mal so groß wie jetzt.
die durchschnittstemperatur auf der erde wird dann so grob geschätzt bei 500 grad liegen...
allerdings nur kurz,denn nach 2-3 millionen jahren explodiert die sonne.(eine sogenannte supernova.)

also ist der beginn der raumfahrt in unserer zeit das wichtigste projekt das die gesammte menschheit überhaupt je hatte !


allerdings,zur erklärung für nicht-mathematiker: 10 hoch 36 is die zahl 10 mit 36 nullen hintendran...
also kannst die koffer wieder auspacken !

[long rider]

Es ist durchaus möglich, dass ein Komet innerhalb der nächsten 500 Jahre hier einschlägt und die Menschheit vernichtet. Die Astronomen sagen zwar, dies sei nicht sehr wahrscheinlich, aber das sagen sie nur, um Verunsicherung oder gar Panik zu vermeiden.

Deswegen brauchen wir ein zweites Standbein ( Mars ).

Wenn die Menschheit ihr Raumfahrtprogramm einstellt, werden wir so enden wie die Dino`s.

[stierprinz]

@ 12

naja... mars is vielleicht etwas daneben gedacht...
aber für kometen etc. können sie ein abwehrsystem im weltall bauen...
und nur mal ein anderes beispiel:
als nächstes werden riesige spiegel im weltall so positioniert,dass sie nachts durch umlenken des sonnenlichtes ganze städte beleuchten...

überleg mal was das allein an energie spart !

[tompilz]

@Kaptah,

aber erst durch den Einsatz bei der Raumfahrt konnte Teflon billig genug produziert werden, um Pfannen ect. zu beschichten. Es kommt nicht nur auf die Stoffe an, sondern auch auf die Herstellungstechnologie.

[Gatsby2]

Um nochmal eine Bemerkung zu diesem interessanten Thema fallen zu lassen, hier ein Artikel aus Forbes. Pics und weitere Artikel gibt`s hier:

http://www.forbes.com/2003/02/06/cx_ah_0206space.html

Space
Space: The For-Profit Frontier
Arik Hesseldahl, 02.06.03, 12:00 PM ET

NEW YORK - When the Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated Feb. 1 over Texas, it took with it not only the lives of seven astronauts but also a spacecraft that would probably cost $3 billion to replace.

Once the investigation into the accident is complete and the cause found and corrected, there will be more shuttle flights. But there won`t be any more shuttles built. Instead, the debate will begin within government sectors concerning what NASA`s next step in manned space flight will be, and how much it will cost.

But outside government circles, the debate about the next logical step in space travel centers more on private enterprise. It`s only a matter of time to Gene Myers, chief executive of the Space Island Group, a West Covina, Calif.-based startup. Myers` plans sound like a NASA bureaucrat`s fantasy: Build a fleet of 50 space shuttles that could fly to a constellation of permanent manned space stations, supporting commercial research and development projects, manufacturing operations and tourism operations in orbit, with each flight making a profit.

NASA`s current fleet has three shuttles, which are conceptually sound, Myers insists. But they`re merely prototypes upon which a private venture could improve.

So that`s where Myers would start. Instead of designing a radical new space plane, which NASA has tried to do with various multibillion-dollar programs, such as the abandoned X-33 spacecraft that NASA worked on with Lockheed Martin (nyse: LMT - news - people ), Myers would build a shuttle that looks much like existing orbiters.

"All prototypes are expensive to build and difficult to operate," he says.

Myers` company would comb through the blueprints of the original shuttles component by component and where it makes sense replace them with commercially available alternatives. Take the auxiliary power units. Each shuttle has three APUs powering the hydraulic systems. It`s also a component that is known to fail regularly and is often replaced between shuttle flights.

It`s a big job, Myers says, requiring three weeks to disassemble the components around the APU just so workers can get to it, eight hours to remove and replace it and another three weeks to put everything around it back into place.

"There are actually better APUs on the market," Myers says.

The APU is just one of "literally thousands" of examples where commercially available technology has surpassed what`s used on the shuttles, Myers says. "We`re not seeking to go higher or faster than the shuttles. We want to do what they do, but less expensively."

While it would take $1 billion to $2 billion to design and build the first shuttle, Myers thinks subsequent shuttles could be built for $300 million each once the procedures are set.

So why fly a privately owned space shuttle? To build and support a constellation of privately owned space stations, of course. And each one would be built for a song compared with the International Space Station, for which total costs range between $60 billion and $90 billion, depending on who is doing the estimating.

Here Myers would use what is arguably the most expensive piece of disposable hardware in the world--the shuttle`s $50 million external fuel tank. The rust-colored fuel tanks, made by Lockheed Martin, are typically jettisoned by the shuttle as it enters orbit. They fall to Earth--in what has been described by those who`ve seen it as a spectacular fireworks display--over a remote area of the South Pacific rarely traveled by ships.

Instead of throwing them away, Myers would use them in orbit. At 154 feet in length and 28.6 feet in diameter, they contain a space about the size of an airliner and could be used as building blocks for a space station. Once the fuel--liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen--is used up, the tanks could be cleaned out and strung together. Think prefab housing in space.

Once built, the station could become a factory in space, a tourist destination or a for-hire scientific research facility.

Astronaut Buzz Aldrin, another big proponent of private space ventures, has talked about using the shuttle`s tanks to build other type of spacecraft. Even NASA itself is often said to have toyed with the idea of using the tanks for building something bigger in orbit, as part of some of the original shuttle proposals in the 1970s. And NASA actually built the Skylab space station, launched in 1973, into the upper-stage fuel tank of a Saturn moon rocket.

So while much of what Myers wants to accomplish is technically feasible, his vision comes crashing to Earth when it come to funding and market opportunity. So far, his vision exists only in slick computer animations available on the company`s Web site. Myers says he`s gone through about $2 million obtained mainly from "angel investors" he declined to name.

And therein lies the problem. A space-age version of the chicken-egg syndrome. Which comes first--the spaceship or the market that demands it?

As yet, there is no realistic gauge of the market potential for manned space flight in the private sector. So far there have been only two individuals who have flown on private missions: American millionaire Dennis Tito and South African Internet entrepreneur Mark Shuttleworth. Both ponied up $20 million to take spare seats on Russian spacecraft headed to the ISS.

Tourism is often thought of as a good start for private space ventures. But it would have to come down in price.


Space Island`s vision calls for building several stations using shuttle fuel tanks and servicing them with regular flights from its own fleet of shuttles.

"At $20 million a flight, you`ll get maybe a handful of people," says Edward Hudgins, director of the Objectivist Center in Washington, D.C., and editor of Space: The Free Market Frontier, a book on the commercialization of space travel published by the Cato Institute. "At $10 million a flight you`ll get a few more. At $1 million a flight you`ll start to get a serious line of people waiting."

Beyond tourism, there isn`t much demand for space travel services that would require manned flights. There`s already a healthy, if not saturated, market for commercial satellites and launch services to put them orbit. And imaging satellites owned by private outfits such as Space Imaging of Thornton, Colo., are doing a brisk business selling pictures of Earth from space to, among other customers, the U.S. military.

Manned flights paid for with private dollars are likely two decades or more away, says professor William Martel, who holds the Alan Shepard Chair of Space Technology and policy at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. "No one is averse to the thought of tourism or other commercial activity in space," he says. "But people often push some ideas with pretty heroic assumptions about feasibility. Sure, they`re great ideas, but how do you operationalize them?"

Space Island is by no means alone in its quest. The most high-profile effort to fly manned space missions with reusable spacecraft is that of the X Prize Foundation of St. Louis, which is offering a $10 million prize to the first team that can fly two manned flight missions, no longer than two weeks apart, to a minimum altitude of 62 miles. So far 24 teams have registered for the competition, but as we observed last July, the nonprofit foundation running the contest doesn`t have anywhere near the $10 million needed to pay the winner.

For his part, Myers hopes to build up a cash flow by selling companies with big marketing budgets on the idea of promoting their products in space. He thinks that since space movies still generate excitement, and because many TV ads use space travel themes, some companies with big advertising budgets, like DaimlerChrysler (nyse: DCX - news - people ) or Pepsi-Cola (nyse: PEP - news - people ), would jump at the chance to have their brands associated with a real-world space program.

If only he had a spacecraft. In 1996 Pepsi floating a giant inflatable Pepsi can outside the Russian Mir space station, and last year it was rumored to be behind the aborted attempt to send singer Lance Bass to the ISS.

Meanwhile, Myers has retained Magnum Financial LLC, a Los Angeles public relations firm, for the purpose of "further developing and refining its business plan and strategy." Last year the Securities and Exchange Commission obtained a judgment against Magnum and its president, Michael Manahan, for sending out a false and misleading press release about another of its clients, San Diego-based New Energy. Both Magnum and Manahan consented to the judgment without admitting or denying the SEC`s allegations.

Buck Rogers never had to worry about bucks.

[Dschingis_Khan]

Sasila

Das ist schon eine sehr beschränkte Ansicht, wenn man die Raumfahrt in Frage stellt. Genausogut kannst Du die Entwicklung der ersten Werkzeuge von Menschen in Frage stellen. Das ist genau dasselbe.

Die Agumente liegen klar auf der Hand, ich glaube sie wurden teils hier schon erwähnt.

Wem das nicht einleuchtet, gehört in die Steinzeit.

Nur meine Meinung.