The problems we have with getting off this rock are pretty much this...
1. What's the profit motive? Exploring for exploration39;s sake is a late 19th early-20th century concept. When people in previous centuries went out and put their butt's on the line or invested large sums of gold to send people off the map, they expected to to get paid. da Gama wanted to find a true sea route to the spice rich portions of Asia, because having a sea route there meant you didn't have to deal with/bribe/get shot at by the natives as you went along the overland spice routes. Columbus hoped to find a shorter sea route to those same spice rich portions of Asia, and failing at that, found slaves and rumors of gold and other riches instead on some islands off the coast of two continents. Later Spainards would get rich exploring/exploiting those continents of course, which drew in others. The English showed up in North America looking for gold and ended up finding good soil and a pleasant enough climate that they could get rich (or at least wealthier) farming cash crops. The French came for furs, the Dutch for furs and other resources, and so on. Later James Cooke and other 18th and early 19th century explorers went searching for places to plant their nation flags and spread the "Empire", thus giving it more opportunities to make money and increase its power. Everyone had an angle. Everyone. There are no exceptions, save perhaps English Catholics who wanted to stop being harassed, the Puritans who were more interested in practicing their ultra conservative religious beliefs in peace, convicts who decided that the New World sounded a whole lot better than jail, people who didn't like starving to death in Ireland, Germans who didn't like being shot, and of course slaves who didn't really get a say so on where they went. Going into space is expensive. Really, really expensive and when you try to cheap out too much or decide that time is money once too often space shuttles blow up on TV. As of 2015 there is also no money in it. It will ultimately be the private sector that figures out if some day there will be money in it, and when that happens, we'll have a new space race, with most all the good, the bad, and the ugly you'd expect to come from it.
2. We had a nice technology bump going into and continuing through World War I and World War II (with a brief pause during the early days of the Great Depression of course). That led to further rapid technological innovations and that is what got us to the Moon. While some areas of technology have continued to advance since 1970, space technology isn't advancing at the same rate. It just isn't. The fact that the Saturn V is still "king of rockets" and we have trouble building a space station that has areas with artificially created gravity (yes a spinning section counts) should be a clue. Look at our science-fiction movies that happen "in the near future" for more clues. We aren't even trying to keep up with what our imaginations tell us *is* possible if we try anymore. Perhaps another world war would solve that, war does bring burst of tech development after all, whether they run cold or hot, but the problem with a global hot war is that we've reached a certain age where are toys would likely cause more tech damage than they create tech. So a new cold war is in order perhaps. It would generate a space race that would result in a faster pace of innovation, but of course it wouldn't be without serious risk.
3. Have I mentioned that going into space is expensive, really, really expensive? To the extend that you have Walter Mondales (politicians who are convinced that space spending is a waste of money) in places where they can influence government spending, and politicians who squash attempts to let private enterprise take the lead instead, we will always be handicapped in our efforts to get "out there" (points toward the stars). We should be asking "what39;s your position on manned space flight?" of politicians more often, and holding them accountable when they talk about going into space but then refuse to loosen government control of space launches or spend the money to make them happen.
1. What's the profit motive? Exploring for exploration39;s sake is a late 19th early-20th century concept. When people in previous centuries went out and put their butt's on the line or invested large sums of gold to send people off the map, they expected to to get paid. da Gama wanted to find a true sea route to the spice rich portions of Asia, because having a sea route there meant you didn't have to deal with/bribe/get shot at by the natives as you went along the overland spice routes. Columbus hoped to find a shorter sea route to those same spice rich portions of Asia, and failing at that, found slaves and rumors of gold and other riches instead on some islands off the coast of two continents. Later Spainards would get rich exploring/exploiting those continents of course, which drew in others. The English showed up in North America looking for gold and ended up finding good soil and a pleasant enough climate that they could get rich (or at least wealthier) farming cash crops. The French came for furs, the Dutch for furs and other resources, and so on. Later James Cooke and other 18th and early 19th century explorers went searching for places to plant their nation flags and spread the "Empire", thus giving it more opportunities to make money and increase its power. Everyone had an angle. Everyone. There are no exceptions, save perhaps English Catholics who wanted to stop being harassed, the Puritans who were more interested in practicing their ultra conservative religious beliefs in peace, convicts who decided that the New World sounded a whole lot better than jail, people who didn't like starving to death in Ireland, Germans who didn't like being shot, and of course slaves who didn't really get a say so on where they went. Going into space is expensive. Really, really expensive and when you try to cheap out too much or decide that time is money once too often space shuttles blow up on TV. As of 2015 there is also no money in it. It will ultimately be the private sector that figures out if some day there will be money in it, and when that happens, we'll have a new space race, with most all the good, the bad, and the ugly you'd expect to come from it.
2. We had a nice technology bump going into and continuing through World War I and World War II (with a brief pause during the early days of the Great Depression of course). That led to further rapid technological innovations and that is what got us to the Moon. While some areas of technology have continued to advance since 1970, space technology isn't advancing at the same rate. It just isn't. The fact that the Saturn V is still "king of rockets" and we have trouble building a space station that has areas with artificially created gravity (yes a spinning section counts) should be a clue. Look at our science-fiction movies that happen "in the near future" for more clues. We aren't even trying to keep up with what our imaginations tell us *is* possible if we try anymore. Perhaps another world war would solve that, war does bring burst of tech development after all, whether they run cold or hot, but the problem with a global hot war is that we've reached a certain age where are toys would likely cause more tech damage than they create tech. So a new cold war is in order perhaps. It would generate a space race that would result in a faster pace of innovation, but of course it wouldn't be without serious risk.
3. Have I mentioned that going into space is expensive, really, really expensive? To the extend that you have Walter Mondales (politicians who are convinced that space spending is a waste of money) in places where they can influence government spending, and politicians who squash attempts to let private enterprise take the lead instead, we will always be handicapped in our efforts to get "out there" (points toward the stars). We should be asking "what39;s your position on manned space flight?" of politicians more often, and holding them accountable when they talk about going into space but then refuse to loosen government control of space launches or spend the money to make them happen.