In another thread, there is talk of Canada spending more on space exploration. While I'm not against space exploraiton per se, I do believe that its objectives would need to be clearly defined so as to ensure the bigest bang for the buck. Among some objectives that I could see as legitimate would be:
1. telecommunications-satelite research, along with parallel alternative research to find if there may be less expensive alternatives not requiring expensive space launches, such as:
1.1. the possibility of establishing telecommunications reception towers on mountain tops. Some spinoff tech from that could include highly advanced aircraft capable of maneuvering mountains in bad weather, vertical take off and landing, carrying heavy payloads and maintain stability even in bad weather. If such a method could be found to be cheaper and more efficient than sending satellites to space, then it could give a return on the investment by eliminating the need for more expensive space launches. For future space and interplanetary exploration, such tech could also be useful to develop aircraft for planets that might have much harsher weather conditions than earth, or which have too many natural satellites that could interfere with orbiting artificial satellites. This tech could also be easily transferable to search and rescue an police agencies.
1.2 The possibility of establishing towers via unmanned space launches to the moon without leaving space debris. Seeing that telecommunications satellites eventually fall into orbit, such a tower could last much longer and thus possibly save money. The ability to develop rocket boosters that could be sent back to earth could also be useful tech for a more advanced space-faring society in future, seeing that without solving space debris, such a society would quickly get booged down as incresed debris would eventually stall all space exploration for safety reasons.
My guess is that sending telecommunications satellites to space is probably the cheapest option right now, and so I'd likely prefer funding that over the otehr two options below it. But should it be found not to be the case, then definitely we ought to switch. We shouldn't be inveting i all three though, but only one of them, depending on which one research shows to be the most efficient option. Also, the spinoff benefits should never become the reason for these programs, since as mentioned previously, spinoff investments are just that, spinoofs and not the main investment, and so never efficient investments if viewed as an objective in its own right.
2. Landsat technology, such as weather satellites, etc. to study climate, fish stocks, which provide valuable data for agriculture, fisheries, etc.
So essentially, beyond telecommunications satellites and information gathering satellites turned towards earth, I'd say say any such agency's research budget ought to stop to that for now.
Sure research is needed on many fronts. But on the space-research front, that really is the only space research I see as being valuable right now. There is plenty of other research NASA is involved in that other departments could do instead. It it does not directly invovle space tech, then why not let the agriculture or other appropriate ministry deal with it to ensure it's not too theoretical but practical research instead.
1. telecommunications-satelite research, along with parallel alternative research to find if there may be less expensive alternatives not requiring expensive space launches, such as:
1.1. the possibility of establishing telecommunications reception towers on mountain tops. Some spinoff tech from that could include highly advanced aircraft capable of maneuvering mountains in bad weather, vertical take off and landing, carrying heavy payloads and maintain stability even in bad weather. If such a method could be found to be cheaper and more efficient than sending satellites to space, then it could give a return on the investment by eliminating the need for more expensive space launches. For future space and interplanetary exploration, such tech could also be useful to develop aircraft for planets that might have much harsher weather conditions than earth, or which have too many natural satellites that could interfere with orbiting artificial satellites. This tech could also be easily transferable to search and rescue an police agencies.
1.2 The possibility of establishing towers via unmanned space launches to the moon without leaving space debris. Seeing that telecommunications satellites eventually fall into orbit, such a tower could last much longer and thus possibly save money. The ability to develop rocket boosters that could be sent back to earth could also be useful tech for a more advanced space-faring society in future, seeing that without solving space debris, such a society would quickly get booged down as incresed debris would eventually stall all space exploration for safety reasons.
My guess is that sending telecommunications satellites to space is probably the cheapest option right now, and so I'd likely prefer funding that over the otehr two options below it. But should it be found not to be the case, then definitely we ought to switch. We shouldn't be inveting i all three though, but only one of them, depending on which one research shows to be the most efficient option. Also, the spinoff benefits should never become the reason for these programs, since as mentioned previously, spinoff investments are just that, spinoofs and not the main investment, and so never efficient investments if viewed as an objective in its own right.
2. Landsat technology, such as weather satellites, etc. to study climate, fish stocks, which provide valuable data for agriculture, fisheries, etc.
So essentially, beyond telecommunications satellites and information gathering satellites turned towards earth, I'd say say any such agency's research budget ought to stop to that for now.
Sure research is needed on many fronts. But on the space-research front, that really is the only space research I see as being valuable right now. There is plenty of other research NASA is involved in that other departments could do instead. It it does not directly invovle space tech, then why not let the agriculture or other appropriate ministry deal with it to ensure it's not too theoretical but practical research instead.
