Space Missions? I think not.

[Whirligig Girl]

Almost all recent space missions are actually Earth missions. If a Moon-Mapping Satellite is a Moon Mission, the GPS Sats and plenty of other satellites revolve around Earth, literally and figuratively.

Perhaps one exception to this is the Moon-Mapper LRO and the ISS which mostly is devoted to experiments revolving around zero-weight and long-distance space travel.

...And of course there is Curiosity rover, which is a recent mission to Mars, and all of the satellites and landers deployed there in the past 15 years. (there aren't that many truthfully)

Even some missions that don't literally revolve around the Earth still do figuratively. The B612 Foundation's Sentinel Spacecraft may be in a heliocentric orbit looking for asteroids, but this is done to protect life on Earth.

Then there's stuff WAY out there, like Cassini-Huygens, Voyager I and Voyager II, and the most recent New Horizons. (Well, Voyagers are not really recent)

One could argue that even the Moon Missions are Earth missions because the Moon Orbits around the Earth, is made of the Earth, and the missions were done for politics on Earth more so than for science on the Moon (well, aside from Apollo 15-17).

Then there's the fact that the LEO is barely even space, it's certainly not deep-space, that would be out past the Moon. (Even so I hear it is utterly amazing to EVA using a jetpack around Earth because when you let go there is nothing at all between you and the Earth, and you just don't get that feeling in Kerbal Space Program. Maybe you would if the skybox were black, I'll have to try that with UniverseReplacer mod.)

What do you think of that?

He might be talking about how the space programs of the world seem (in the eyes of the public) to be doing nothing to address the problems we have on Earth, when the majority of missions launched into space are for the best interests of us and our planet. Earth orbiting satellites are useful for telecommunications and navigation, but are crucial in a deeper sense. Meteorology and climatology has benefitted immensely from having a view of the weather, natural disasters like hurricanes, and the effects of climate change from orbit.

Calling these "space missions" implies that they only do things "up there", which is completely false. Someone could hear about a rocket launch and think it's a waste of money, not knowing that it is carrying the satellite that will one day give advance warning of the storm that would otherwise kill them.

Yes, this is my point. (this also includes earth technologies built for space, not just Earth-based "space" missions)

Edited August 20, 2013 by GregroxMun

[Nibb31]

What is your point?

[Pugspaceprogram]

I too share Nibb's thoughts.

[Drunkrobot]

What is your point?

He might be talking about how the space programs of the world seem (in the eyes of the public) to be doing nothing to address the problems we have on Earth, when the majority of missions launched into space are for the best interests of us and our planet. Earth orbiting satellites are useful for telecommunications and navigation, but are crucial in a deeper sense. Meteorology and climatology has benefitted immensely from having a view of the weather, natural disasters like hurricanes, and the effects of climate change from orbit.

Calling these "space missions" implies that they only do things "up there", which is completely false. Someone could hear about a rocket launch and think it's a waste of money, not knowing that it is carrying the satellite that will one day give advance warning of the storm that would otherwise kill them.

[1of6Billion]

SO, what about the Voyagers, Pioneers, Cassinni/Huygens, New Horizons?

[Nikolai]

What do you think of that?

Earth is in space.

[Whirligig Girl]

Uhm, yes. But it is not considered space by the general public, or pretty much anyone who's not an astrophysicist, and really, is anyone ever that literal? Well? I guess so, but seriously.

[SargeRho]

But low earth orbit is considered space by everyone.

Also, Juno, New Horizons, Phoenis, Curiosity, LRO, MRO, Mars Express, Cassini-Huygens, Voyager, Pioneer, MESSENGER, Deep Impact, Kepler, LADEE, the number of missions not orbitting Earth is TOO DAMN HIGH.

[tom1499]

But low earth orbit is considered space by everyone.

Also, Juno, New Horizons, Phoenis, Curiosity, LRO, MRO, Mars Express, Cassini-Huygens, Voyager, Pioneer, MESSENGER, Deep Impact, Kepler, LADEE, the number of missions not orbitting Earth is TOO DAMN HIGH.

Yes but consider this compared to the amount of Earth orbiting satellites.

[Nikolai]

Uhm, yes. But it is not considered space by the general public

(1) Irrelevant. The general public also probably thinks that heavier objects fall faster, or that you have to point your rocket at the ground to get back down from orbit.

(2) If you showed this "general public" a picture of Earth taken from space, would they associate that first with space or with something not-space?

[Morrigi]

What the "general public" thinks is the worst possible basis for just about everything.

[Kerbface]

Yes but consider this compared to the amount of Earth orbiting satellites.

By that logic you could say also that there are essentially no missions orbiting Earth, when you compare it to the number of missions on the ground. There are plenty of "space missions" even excluding Earth-orbiting ones. If we put more stuff into orbit would that make there fewer space missions?