0
Now the rocket booster smoke is clearing, it's becoming clear that NASA's direction for manned space exploration has been re-routed. The much feared "5-year gap" between the Shuttle getting retired and the Constellation Program taking flight could soon be re-named the "10-year plus chasm." In short, forget US astronauts on the Moon and put your dreams on hold for any NASA manned exploration beyond Earth orbit.
For better or worse, the Ares I-X text vehicle launch in October 2009 looks like it was the only Constellation launch. Bummer. Although this certainly isn't the end of the road for human spaceflight -- the private sector will see fresh investment and space tourism could mature beyond low-Earth orbit -- it does pose an interesting question.
When is a good time to push the human race into space?
The Risk of Not Risking It
Having just read a thought-provoking article by British CERN physicist Professor Jon Butterworth entitled "Safety First?" I started to wonder how the various scenarios outlined in Jon's text apply to our reluctance to commit to space investment.
INTERVIEW: Find out what Prof. Butterworth had to say about micro-black holes and extra-dimensions when I interviewed him the day before the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) went online in November.
In Jon's article, he confronts the recent flak the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has attracted concerning the perceived "risk" of colliding protons in the worlds largest particle accelerator.
Sure, it sounds scary when physicists discuss (with glee) that this monstrous experiment could turn into a micro-black hole birthing machine, but that doesn't mean those physicists have transformed from lab coat-wearing geeks into reckless megalomaniacs hell-bent on destroying the world.
The planet-killing potential of the LHC is minuscule (and even if tiny black holes could be generated, they would be harmless), but there is a misconception about the word "risk". It is far riskier for mankind not to be carrying out experiments like the LHC.
Source
