Science getting an orbital boost

S.B. Stein E.B. NJ — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:43:28 GMT

I wonder if the materials are discovered/invented there (or on Earth), could this be the place to start a space elevator? Have something start going down as well as having something come up from the Earth to meet in the middle. It does sound unlikely, doesn't it?

Science getting an orbital boost

Richard A. Morholt Sr.,Matamoras,PA — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:10:35 GMT

I enjoyed reading your article and share in the exciting premise added lab space on the Space Station has to offer. I am drawn to the the fact that gravity sensitive experiments are possible to conduct under controlled conditions. The one area I find with the most promise if at all possible is: FUSION research. Especially with H3 as fuel.
H3 as you probably know, is only found on the moon.H3
is a by-product of the sun's activity and is found only on the Moon (so far discovered) in abundance.The Earth's atmosphere prevents the same effect to occur.
The promising yield from H3 could possibly provide electrical power for the entire planet for 5 years or more using less than a pound of H3.
I believe this is the reason that China is so interested in going to the Moon. Although we are still
in early stages of this field of research, we do have a working research facility at Princeton University.There is great promise in this area and the
idea that this could be a reality is very exciting.
With this development we could not only provide cheap power for the entire planet, but open the door,finally
to anti-matter power systems (renewable power),and inter-stellar travel (who knows).

Science getting an orbital boost

a p garcia — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:13:10 GMT

I didn't see any study or even hint of studying "artifical gravity" to combat the problems that "prolong Zero G" brings. I though that would be a problem especially when going to the planets.

Science getting an orbital boost

WillrSF — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 20:54:51 GMT

How mustard seeds grow in space? 50 years after Sputnik and that's what we're studying? How about a new flavor of Tang? There's might be a market for that, at least....

Science getting an orbital boost

CM, Modesto CA — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 22:22:48 GMT

It is amazing to see the extraordinary excuses devised to justify spending even more on this overpriced space station. Apparently, basic scientific research isn't enough.

Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that any research done up there on the station will benefit us down here. The environment is different, what works in space may not work here. If you want benefits for people on earth, do the research here on earth and save a bundle.

Science getting an orbital boost

Don — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:51:03 GMT

I'm interested in space research, but I agree with Nobel Lauriate Steven Weinberg -- the ISS is a flying turkey. There is not reason to be spending almost all of our space budget on keeping people in low Earth orbit.

Important LEO experiments like Earth monitoring are better done by unmanned missions. For one thing, people moving around in a space station makes it dfficult to even stabilize a telescopic camera there. As for long-term effects of zero-g on people, the Russians know more about that than we will ever learn from ISS. They had people who stayed in space for almost two years, on the Salyut and MIR space stations.

NASA is going to spend about $100 billion on ISS, and for what? This seems mostly to be political, a big favor to Europe, who doesn't have a manned space program.

This money could have been spent on all kinds of exciting robotic missions to fly by, orbit, land rovers, return samples from planets and asteroids and comets.

Science getting an orbital boost

Tim — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 01:05:01 GMT

To be blunt, every dollar spent in space creates at least ten fold that much in new innovation and technology, somewhat like earthbound science. It's foolish to gripe about the pittance the government spends on research and space when the reward to the average American is so very high. Sure, the Congreess and the last set of Republican Presidents have done their best to make sure that the ISS looks bad - go figure. We need the military machine to spend the NASA'a last decade's work of funding on a new spy plane that will never (and actually was never intended to be) built. If you wish to complain about stupid spending, look at bomb production or military projects that never go anywhere. On a yearly basis, the science and space budgets combinied are a drop in the gallon of the military budget.

Science getting an orbital boost

StopWhining, NC — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 03:25:09 GMT

It's sad that so many people criticize our inevitable future. Our planet will one day perish and I'd like as much time working in our new environment.

Science getting an orbital boost

Ferris Valyn, Ann Arbor, MI — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 09:43:51 GMT

CM - your assuming that they'll discover something, and then try and figure out how to make it on the ground. In actual fact, what we have been, and are doing, is how to make something in space, and then mass produce it in space, and bring it back to earth.

Its not about basic research - its about space colonization

Don - Despite the claims, the mainline purpose of the ISS isn't about space research - its about being the first space colony. Space is not there just for scientists to study and take pretty pictures. There are increadible resources that we must tap into if we want to help to save this planet. Things like Space Based Solar Power, zero-g manufacturing, and even mineral resources.

Manned spaceflight is about colonization and settlement, not science.

Science getting an orbital boost

Stephen, Severn MD — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:21:32 GMT

How much more research do we need in the effects of weightlessness on humans and plants or the effects of space radiation on them? There has been over 45 years of data on this. When are we going to get some real research done like figuring out how to control gravity or a new propulsion method??

Science getting an orbital boost

steve smyth — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 03:11:51 GMT

Ferris...kindly give me one valid reason for space based solar power...I can see no advantage to gathering solar power in space...except to fuel space vehicles...are there more powerful free electrons, or what?
What's better for Earth Solar than doing exactly what we have been doing?...collecting it right here...there are enuf bogus ideas floating around...adding to the mix is foolishness, eh?

Science getting an orbital boost

M.C. Tustin, California — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 17:02:28 GMT

This the same arguement that has been going on since the westward settler days. People say why go there there's nothing there and then there's people who say I'm going, why not. As for me I fall into the why not type. I can't wait for lunar colonization as well as Mars exploration. Personally, It is my feeling that starting in a few years, SpaceX's Dragon vehicle will take up the majority of transport duties to the ISS along with Soyuz and the European Jules Verne transport vehicles. Nasa can then concentrate on Constellation and deep space probes.

Science getting an orbital boost

Peter, San Rafael, CA — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:36:35 GMT

I have to agree with WillrSF. Haven't we sent up dozens of these "how do plants grow in space" experiments by now? This, like the "effects of zero gravity on the human body" experiments, seem to go on and on and on. How much more data do we need to officially prove what seems (forgive my layman's ignorance) patently obvious conclusions? Do plants grow in space? Yep. Do bodies atrophy in space? Yep. If someone can explain to me why these questions need more basic study, please, I'm all ears. This is why the public gets fed up with NASA.

Science getting an orbital boost

Frank Glover Rochester, NY — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 20:13:22 GMT

"It does sound unlikely, doesn't it?"

Not merely unlikely, but unworkable. No matter what it's made of or how that material is manufactured, a space elevator MUST start construction in geostationary orbit, and build both outward and downward simultaneously.

It would essentially be a 44 thousand mile long object whose center of mass is in geostationary orbit and happens, if you will, to be long enough to touch the ground...

"I am drawn to the the fact that gravity sensitive experiments are possible to conduct under controlled conditions. The one area I find with the most promise if at all possible is: FUSION research."

Controlled fusion would be very bemificial on Earth or in space, but there's nothing espically 'gravity sensitive' about it. Any of the approaches involving high-temprature plasmas (no matter how they're confined) have particles at tempratures (which translates to particle velocities) far greater than any planetary escape velocity, anyway. (which is why there's a great potential as a rocket exhaust)

Some reactor designs would be simplified with the easy access to unlimited, hard vacuum, but that's about all.

Science getting an orbital boost

Tim Ford, Tacoma, WA — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:46:41 GMT

I love this approach. Creating self sustaining habitats is the primary goal. I do wish it could of been a lot more a lot sooner. I'm glad they're finally heading in the right direction.

Science getting an orbital boost

Vergil, Bridge City, Texas — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:21:43 GMT

From the comments it is comforting to know that research is funded by a government elected by people who have not a clue.

Science getting an orbital boost

Mark Wakely — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:57:59 GMT

Until the ISS is fully staffed and operational, I'm reserving judgment as to its true scientific value. The real problem has been all the delays in its construction, and now we can add faulty fuel sensors on Atlantis to the list of things that have gone wrong. With the retirement of the shuttles in the not-so-distant future, NASA is under the gun to get the construction done, without compromising either safety or the overall mission, a tall task. Add to that the ballooning budget for the ISS (thanks in part to all the delays) and the perceived value goes down as the price tag goes up.

Still, it would be wonderful if ISS scientists prove the naysayers wrong by making significant contribution to our scientific knowledge. Columbus and the other labs waiting patiently for their chance to reach orbit- not to mention the future, larger crews- at least deserve a chance to try. We’ve come this far, we might as well see some returns on our investment. The question is, will those returns be princely or poor? The success of all the planned ISS experiments will be the real litmus test, and in fairness to NASA and our international partners, those experiments have hardly begun.

Science getting an orbital boost

Generalist, Spokane, WA — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:46:50 GMT

There are some claims that we have some 45 years of data on the effects of weightlessness and space radiation on plants and humans. But does that data answer ALL the questions we need to know?

When you think about it, we have several hundred years of data on how plants and humans function on Earth, but we are still making discoveries as our knowledge base increases and instrumentation is refined. A mere 45 years of research, even with the technological head start provided by parallel Earthside research, would barely scratch the surface of bio-space research.

Remember, a well designed experiment often spawns a multitude of questions that the experiment was not meant to answer.

Science getting an orbital boost

CM, Modesto, CA — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 06:44:20 GMT

Ferris said: "Manned spaceflight is about colonization and settlement, not science."

That is dismaying, considering the potential benefits from scientific research is the only economically rational justification left for that space station boondoggle. Unless there is a dramatic drop in the cost of getting up to orbit, there will be no colonization or settlements in space. There is currently no way to make an actual living up there, the environment is too hostile and the travel far too expensive.

Manned space travel is all about national pride and egotistical chest thumping, and any minor economic returns (entertaining video of floating astronauts, anyone?) is far outweighed by the high costs. Without huge government subsidies, it wouldn't take place. Only unmanned communication and imaging satellites manage to make a good economic return in space, and manned flights are not required.

While sunlight is more abundant in space, the loss of energy in transmission and the extravagant cost of construction makes "solar power satellites" uncompetitive compared to earth based solar power. Space mining makes no sense, even if we found massive diamonds or lumps of pure platinum on the moon (unlikely), the cost of transport would far exceed the value of those resources. "Zero-G" manufacturing makes even less sense, there is nothing that can be made up there that couldn't be made for a fraction of the price here on earth.

Science getting an orbital boost

Ferris Valyn, Ann Arbor, MI — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:31:30 GMT

steve, I stand by my statment. Terrestrial solar cannot provide the baseload needed, because of the atmosphere and the earth's rotation, and the weather. Space based solar, by contrast, can provide un-interrupted power to everyone who needs it, by use of transmission beams.

As for bogus ideas, well, one could argue the claims you've made about your proposed launch system are bogus, but that would probably seem in bad taste, wouldn't it?

Science getting an orbital boost

sunblok, FeetOnTheGround, TerraFirma — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 09:20:27 GMT

Just wonderful kids !!

Hey class the following get gold stars by their name:
WillrSF
CM, Modesto CA
Don
steve smyth
Peter, San Rafael, CA
Vergil, Bridge City, Texas
Generalist, Spokane, WA

Half gold star for Mark Wakely.
Way to go Mark.

The rest of you get black stars and you know who you are.

Here are some brain teaser URLS to get those brain cobwebs cleared.

For solace and comfort go to your den, open your Bibles to page 247 entry 2857
Merck Index - Eleventh Edition Hard Copy.

On line:
http://www.cambridgesoft.com/databases/login/?serviceid=9
Register for Free !!!
http://www.cambridgesoft.com/register/
Check out reference Windaus, A., Schenck, F. & Werder, F. V.

Our "Father of CHOLESTEROL' Adolf Windhaus.
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/134/6/1299

The three page paper of his, lays it down and shows the vulnerability of mankind
to exist on Planet Earth.
Windaus, A., Schenck, F. & Werder, F. V. (1936) ber das antirachitisch wirksame
Bestrahlungsprodukt aus 7-Dehydrocholesterol.
Hoppe-Seyler's Zeitschrift fur Physiologische Chemie 241:100-103
Do a hard copy search of the paper. If you understand the Chemical Structures
of Sterols, there is a graphical representation erratum on this original paper.
No Peer review. No corrections in later Volumes. You would want to question
typography and printing technology of that time period, 1930's.
'Our Father Who Art In Heaven' has placed a great burden on the decendants of
Adam and Eve.

Chemical Abstracts, Beilstein and Biosis - again, hard copy searching will give you
full understanding of the Sterol Chemistry of Plant, Animal, and Fungi-Yeast species,
you would need 9-Lives of a cat to read through the volumous (voluminous-exstensive)
amount of papers. All the important STUFF precedes Data Base Informatics, so if you
are lazy, so what !!

If there is lurker out there with a solid understanding of chemical nomenclature,
would you be able to change some rules so you could identify VITAMIN D3 as a VINYL
substance ? Kurt Alder where are you when we need you ?
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1950/alder-bio.html

Before the establishment of Chemical Nomenclature by Chemical Abstracts
Vinyl Aldehyde was a hard copy term used in degradation chemistry of CHOLESTEROL.

Mankind has a formidable task to confront Space exploration.
The only fly in the ointment is this 7_DEHYDROCHOLESTEROL,
http://www.expasy.ch/cgi-bin/show_image?G10&right
http://www.expasy.ch/cgi-bin/search-biochem-index
in that it just keeps on giving, giving, and giving...
Just like a steam engine with a broken governor there are no feedback mechanisms that
stop CHOLESTEROL METABOLISM.

Place the above references under the topic Radiolytic Chemistry :: Cold War.
"How space radiation affects humans, plants and tiny living things, down to the cellular
level".

regards,
sunblok

mailto:astronautfarmers_daughter

Science getting an orbital boost

steve smyth — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 23:09:43 GMT

uninterrupted power to anyone who needs it...via transmission beam...I want in...
Ferris...c'mon...there must be something in your Tang...there is no way to capture solar energy in space, transmit said energy via 'transmission beam' back to Earth, and provide a positive gain in the power gain/loss loop...it's just electrons...they aren't better in space...
RE position on the Earth being a problem for terra based solar...if we can devise a beam from space which magnifies solar energy along the way...making a cord long enough to dispense the Earth gathered stuff could be possible...don'tcha think?
RE Gaia Two...prove me wrong...

Science getting an orbital boost

a p garcia — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 03:20:13 GMT

I am amazed how "this money pit" manages to put a new spin on things that have already been studied in Skylab and Mir. People will eventually go to the planets and they are busy to try to find a "Special Pill" that will allow these astronauts to function in zero g for years at a time without health problems. The naked truth is that nature developed man to function in a weighted environment. It seems logical to create a weighted environment in long space voyages and it isn't being studied on the ISS, skylab, or Mir.

Science getting an orbital boost

a p garcia — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 03:50:57 GMT

The ISS has become a huge "Money Pit". Not much science has been done on it. The news media likes us to believe that good science is being done when in fact the ISS manages to put on a new spin on what has already been studied on "Skylab & Mir". Nasa hopes to find a "Magic Pill" that will prevent health problem that astronauts experience on long "Zero G" missions to the planets. Nasa has failed to noticed that man developed in a weighted environment over millions of years and it would seem logical to create gravity for the benefit of man's health when going to the planets.

Science getting an orbital boost

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 20:55:19 GMT

"Ferris said: "Manned spaceflight is about colonization and settlement, not science."

That is dismaying, considering the potential benefits from scientific research is the only economically rational justification left for that space station boondoggle."

No one said science would not or could not come along for the ride, however. Whatever you judge the cost/benefit ratio to be, Apollo, for example, *did* do good Lunar science. Ask any researcher whose experimet was left behind there, or had an actual piece of the Moon to analyse in Earth labs, after return

"Unless there is a dramatic drop in the cost of getting up to orbit, there will be no colonization or settlements in space."

Correct. That's a given, and people are working on it. It's a shame that NASA isn't among them...

"There is currently no way to make an actual living up there, the environment is too hostile and the travel far too expensive."

Expensive, correct. See above.

No way to make an actual living...largely dependent on the above. The Russians can tell you that there's a tiny orbital tourism market, even at today's launch prices. What do you think will happen when those prices decrease? More people will turn their imaginations loose, once past the problem of cost and reliability to orbit. (and existing satellite operators, for whom it's practical even now, will like it all the more)

Hostile...depends on who you ask. Arguably, vacuum, without weathering and oxidation, is a very benign environment. And we deal with greater temprature extremes with existing technologies. If you refer to human life-support, I'm in a room at this moment that would be quite uninhabitable in a few hours (it's about 17F outside, with a major snowstorm forecast for this evening) without electricity, plumbing, central heating, natural gas utilites, etc. 'Hostile' is a relative concept, depending on technologies that you may be taking for granted.

Science getting an orbital boost

Dennis Lokken, West Fargo, ND — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 18:33:41 GMT

But, why not use the station to create enough materials "exotic" to build a real starship and then leave the starship in "or beyond" earths orbit. Building a large vessel may allow for the creation of a limited artificial gravity and for testing out of new propulsion technologies.

Science getting an orbital boost

Don — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 18:48:32 GMT

Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg was right when he said the ISS is a flying turkey. This is mostly a political mission so the EU can have a manned space program, and the USA has spent $100 billion on it.

There is very little of interest to be learned by keeping people in low earth orbit. Cameras for monitoring the Earth or the Sun are best placed on unmanned satellites, which are cheaper and have more motion stability (no people moving around).

The effects of zero G on human beings is well studied after decades of spaceflight and Soviet MIR space station studies.

I am in favor of spending money on space, but we can learn more science by sending rovers and sample-return missions to planets, moons and asteroids.

Science getting an orbital boost

Texaslowlife Arlington, Texas — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 22:05:48 GMT

My vote is for Nasa to spend more money. Helium 3 fusion powered energy is a reality when 2 astronauts have all ready formed a corporation. Its clean, and there is an abundance, its just off planet.
I am perpetually disillusioned by the ignorance of our society. Over population, pollution, wars, blatant nonsence. The energy solution is in space. Starting with the moon and the space station is the crucial stepping stone, warehouse, whatever term you want to use.

Science getting an orbital boost

Alex — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 23:36:51 GMT

The ISS is as important for practicing long space missions and multi-national space cooperation. Much needed practice before we build a permanent international presence on the Moon and later Mars.

However, I do agree, we need to start experiments in creating artificial gravity. The most basic would appear to be a spinning donut, just like in 2001 a space odyssey.

Science getting an orbital boost

Albert ,Alaska — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 00:53:06 GMT

People, you have no clue what technologies have come from the space station. Advanced crystals, LEDs, advanced polymers and a great deal of other commercial products now being used. The space station although expensive is the ideal laboratory for creating and testing new new technologies.

Science getting an orbital boost

Vin Johnson, Oxford, Ma. — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 06:19:00 GMT

In my opinion money,s spent on reserch including the space station. Are well spent in comparason to money spent on war and all the other foolish moneypits were involved in. Keep up the good work. Mankinds future and very existance is in space and the space program.

Science getting an orbital boost

Frank, Dallas, TX — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:01:00 GMT

"there is no way to capture solar energy in space, transmit said energy via 'transmission beam' back to Earth, and provide a positive gain in the power gain/loss loop...it's just electrons...they aren't better in space..."

Try reading up on microwave power transmission before totally dismissing the idea. There are practical problems with the approach, but there no theoretical reasons why it won't work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_power_transmission

Science getting an orbital boost

Tom , Champaign ,IL — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:05:39 GMT

In the fitty years or so we have been spending ungodly fundz on spaice, of all thaings, has there been one PENNY'S worth of benafid from all this werk, that really benafided anyone but a scieuntist??? What has this yeelded, just more pullewshun from those damn-gnabid rockit engines. We need da spend more money doun hear, like spredding it out all amungst us poor fokes. I fer one, could rilly use a milliun doller, couldn yew? and with what we spend on space, EACH AN EVER ONE OF USS could have a milliun doller in our pockets, ever yeer. Now THAT would be benufisshul! A yatt in every garage!

Science getting an orbital boost

Bruce, Pensacola, FL — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 00:18:35 GMT

Much talk has been done discussing the need for artificial gravity. This is simple to do in space and the ISS would be an excellent platform to use to build a FUTURE larger space station which could have it.

The ISS is only the beginning. The new one could be built like a bicycle wheel with spokes and a hub. When spinning the entire outside of the wheel (via centrifugal force) would provide an artificial gravity. When I say outside, obviously I mean what would be the inside of the tire but along the outer rim. The entire station could be powered as any other space vessel. Either short or long trips could be done without concern for gravity.

A simple change to the above concept would be a cylinder - like a can. It would provide a much larger outter surface than the bicycle wheel concept(hence artificial gravity in a much larger area).

Taking this another step. Put a can inside a can inside a can. The center of the center can would have zero gravity. The inside surface of each can moving from the center would have higher centrifugal force hence increased artificial gravity. Take the cans to the size needed for the rate of spin.

Each of these "cans inside a can" could spin at different speeds thus allowing the "gravity" to be specifically adjusted for each can.

The only problem I readily see with the above is a need to maintain the cans balanced. This could be done by maintaining water (or any liquid) storage in containers on the outside of the "cans". Water could be pumped from container to other containers as occupants or equipment are moved around.

This stuff is not "rocket science". It is simple logic.

Science getting an orbital boost

Phil, Newark, California — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 08:09:07 GMT

"In the fitty years or so we have been spending ungodly fundz on spaice, of all thaings, has there been one PENNY'S worth of benafid from all this werk, that really benafided anyone but a scieuntist??? What has this yeelded, just more pullewshun from those damn-gnabid rockit engines. We need da spend more money doun hear, like spredding it out all amungst us poor fokes. I fer one, could rilly use a milliun doller, couldn yew? and with what we spend on space, EACH AN EVER ONE OF USS could have a milliun doller in our pockets, ever yeer."

I don't know whether this misspelling is intentional or not, so let's skip over it and address what Tom is saying.

First of all, NASA gets barely a thirtieth as much money as the Pentagon. According to Wikipedia, the Department of Defense got $548.8 billion for fiscal year 2009 plus $120 billion earmarked for the War On Terror. Meanwhile, NASA got 16.25 billion. NASA's budget comes out to roughly fifty dollars per US citizen per year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget%2C_2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_budget

Science getting an orbital boost

Roy Fritz, Butte, Mt — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:26:13 GMT

All of the things planned for testing will probably expand the space station. Will they be able to develope a garden that grows food for the station? How eaily can the station be expanded? How much larger can it become or would it we wiser to make another one. The more we develope the more benefit we will recieve. Should we spend the earths resources going to another planet? Or will we destroy the next one one we colonize? We have a great space station to jump off to other planets but some time in the far future it will have a major accident just a hit from a meterite and it will all come down.

Science getting an orbital boost

Keith, Cleveland OH — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:22:09 GMT

I strongly value the science that has been afforded to us by our space program. Money spent on science is an investment that can mature over time. But that being said, the ISS is a waste of money. The science completed on it so far has been unremarkable to put it mildly, and the experiments scheduled show a marked lack of creativity to put it mildly. With half the amount of money spent on the ISS just think of the amount of science that could have been done with unmanned rovers, satelites, or even orbital vehicles smaller than the shuttle. Most anyone with significant knowledge of the space program knows that the potential of space based research and research intended for space based technology is amazing but we've wasted so much money with this peice of junk that we could've used much more wisely.

Science getting an orbital boost

James, Manassas, VA — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:53:19 GMT

I wonder how far humanity would have advanced if the early explorers such as Magellan and Columbus net set out and leave the confined space of their shores. Would there be a country today called United States of America? As human, we are intelligence beings with curious minds and the needs to explore. Space is the final frontier. Yes, we can send robots into space to do the exploration for us, but it is not the same as having a human step foot on another world vastly different from ours, whether that be on the moon, mars or an asteroid. We have no connection when a piece of machine set foot on another world, but we do when a human being does it. For those of you who are old enough to remember when Neil Armstrong first set foot on the moon? I was only four years old when that happened. But I tell you, my feeling of excitement comes back each time I watch a video of that footage even after all of these years. We need to continue with space explorations and research and to travel beyond the boudary of our planet. It is perhaps the only way for us to find a way to continue humanity existence.