Slashdot Mirror
The Real Reason for Sending Astronauts into Space
Puneet writes "An article on New York Times discussing the need for astronauts for carrying out experiments in space. Too many of the planned experiments depend on crew operations when they could more effectively be done without them. In many cases, the crew is needed only to deploy an autonomous experiment."
We will always need astronauts to assume certain risks to develop the technology that allows for human exploration of space. The space shuttles and space stations may be necessary to fulfill that mission. However, we need to separate the goal of scientific experimentation from the desire for space exploration. I hope that the unfortunate death of the Columbia astronauts will forever sever the false link that has been created between the two.
Astronauts do not risk their lives to perform scientific experiments in space. They fly to fulfill a much more basic and human desire -- to experience the vastness of space.
We need to seriously rethink our goals. The Shuttle has been around for 1/2 the entire history of man in space. It was being desinged when the Altair was a hit. With modern computer and automation systems, surely the vast majority of research can be performed autonomously. We need a vehicle for this and a seperate vehicle to safely bring people back and forth.
It's the same as it was during the Space Race:
Because we can.
The coolest voice ever.
The need for a constant human space presence is simple:
So that we have a constant human space presence. The idea is similar for the logic behind keeping Los Alamos labs functioning. We don't need more nuclear weapons, but the fear is that should we decommission the lab, we may lose the talent and knowledge (most of which is intangible/experiential knowledge) of the staff.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
"No Buck Rogers, no bucks"
Monkeys aren't intelligent enough.
While its true that robotics can perform a lot, they cannot think. They cannot perceive and they aren't intuitive. Many of the tweaks, changes, evaluation and such require a human touch. This is something that is totally omitted from this article.
Besides, those that venture into space do so because they want to. They know the risks but this is the path of live they have chosen.
The narrow minded people who write this way are the ones we don't need to hear from anyway. We need to hear from the explorers and those who experience life (and yes, tragedy). For it is these people who allow mankind to achieve greatness. Those who write articles like this are not the ones who lead mankind to greater achievement and purpose.
Bill Catz
"Because it's there.".
Sure we could send robots to do all the space exploration, but where's the fun in that? I doubt that, if given the technology, sailors in the age of exploration would have preferred going themselves instead of sending these tin men.
I am a filthy pirate.
I don't mean that in a cynical way. Humans by their very nature need to explore. "We don't need to go there" isn't part of the human psyche. Yeah it's expensive. Yeah, it's very dangerous, too. But don't feel too bad for the astronauts--they knew the risk they were taking. And they were more than happy to take that risk to get the chance to go into space. I'm sure there are plenty of us here who would do the same thing. We go to far away places because we can. I realize they're not going to uncharted territory each time the shuttle goes into orbit, but each time we learn something about how the human body functions in space, for example, we have done something worthwhile. It would be a horrible shame if manned spaceflight came to an end because it became politically incorrect.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
American astronaut syndrome... all these air force types are trying to get into space, anyway they can, even to play w/ bubbles or water or whatever NASA claims their "science" experiments are for. Maybe they should focus on more practical science at lower costs. We need to do more with less, and risking crews for no reason is just plain stupid.
The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
Sure, you don't need astronauts if everything will deploy just like it's supposed to, but what happens if something breaks, or if it turns out one of the components is non-functional?
Uh, how can we "experience the vastness of space" as the article puts it, when we currently cannot even reliably send astronauts into low earth orbit for menial tasks such as scientific experiments. Progress comes with a price. Abandoning our current manned space programs is not going to get us to a more far reaching goal anytime sooner.
-You may license this sig for only $6.99.
Okay, maybe we don't need astronauts in space. At least not for the purpose of scientific experiemntation. Yay autonomous scientific experimentation. Maybe it's safer and cheaper to keep humankind firmly rooted on terran soil instead of building craft capable of carrying them into orbit. It's much safer down here, after all.
.umm. . .I think I should probably shut up now.
But damn it, we want to send people into space. We want to send people into space so we can look up at night and imagine that one day we may leave this planet. We want people in space because they inspire our children to become scientists, researchers, and explorers. We want people in space because we need heroes who don't wear masks and compete in tag team cage matches. We want people in space because it forces us to push the technolological envelope, to achieve that which we've never achieved before. We want people in space to boldly go where. .
I want the fire back.
I won't eat much and I don't know right from wrong!
Space program have been always be about politics. I'm not going to deny there is so interesting and neccesary scientifics needs about it, but mainly it's a politician's toy for the proud/imagination of american people. When people don't look at NASA, their budget start to shrink. That is a clear evidence that there is no great quest for scientific truth. That what i see... Anyways, i think the old days of goverment dependecy of the space exploration will come to an end, and private companys will take it from there. Space race will detached itself from burocracy and popularity rates. THAT will be interesting.
is to protect us
they are here to protect us from the TERRIBLE SECRET OF SPACE!
He's right -- the best reason for himan space travel is the need for humans to travel in space -- but his most telling statement about the Shuttle is made in passing: the Shuttle has "no place to Shuttle to". Thanks to a wrongheaded space policy -- while you're pointing fingers at NASA, point the rest of your body at the White House -- the U.S. space monopoly (that's NASA) built spacecraft that had no place to go.
Let's stop pretending that a 50-year old govrnment agency like NASA can revive the energy and drive of the Apollo era. Let's have a space policy that ends NASA's constricting monopoly and allows American enterprise to go where it will in space
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
we very well may be living there someday. The more places we live, the longer our species life expectancy will be. More importantly, the more life will be in the universe, and the more likely we will be to discover other life intelligent or otherwise in the universe. How could these things not be goals of our species?
That said, I think that the article brings up a valid point that humans aren't necessarily needed for as many experiments as they are being used for. On the other hand, I don't think the current (US) space program is making sufficient progress toward the loftier goal of permanent life in space and on other planets. It was encouraging to see that the Chinese will try to establish a permanent base on the moon. It's things like that that will help colonize Mars eventually.
http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com
On the day of the Columbia diaster, there was a good thread on the scientific value of humans in orbit:
& cid=5204543
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=52510
People don't connect to robots. People don't usually connect to science. If NASA would realize this and push more stuff like http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/crew/exp7/lule tters/ maybe it could generate a little more excitement. After all, why do people race cars? Cuz remote controlled nascar would suck eggs.
Mix the failings of Usenet with the shortcomings of the World Wide Web and the result is slashdot.
why not replace humans with machines for all tasks in orbit and on earth.
that way we don't need humans for anything.
and since humans will be useless we can get rid of them.
Our space program has always been about multitasking. Each mission involves a number of scientific or practical objectives, like launching or fixing satellites and performing experiments. The other major goal is learning how humans can live and work in space. The first goal may seem more practical, but the second one is the reason we bother spending billions of dollars.
As long as we have these two objectives why not multitask each mission? It may not be more efficient to use astronauts to perform critical mission functions but we learn something about manned space flight each time. And the ultimate goal is to travel to the stars, not just observe them.
The first reason to be in space is to be in space.
The second reason is the one that was completely forgotten in the Challenger accident: to have the adaptability of the human mind and body available to react to any contingency.
Instead, we left those people in the dark, did nothing to try to save them, and reaped what we sowed.
So the bigger question is, why do we need the people who made those decisions in the positions they're in?
Astronauts deploy mechanical stuff which other mechanical stuff would deploy otherwise, thus astronauts are glorified-tourists.
Hey, I'm all for manned space exploration. But endlessly sending humans into LEO is NOT space exploration. We've been there, done that. It's old hat.
I get irritated when I hear people complain about the public's lack of interest in shuttle launches. People aren't interested because we've been doing the same thing over and over again for 20 years now, and frankly it's pointless and boring. And most people have figured that out by now.
Let's build unmanned spacecraft to carry out microgravity research in LEO. And then lets take the rest of the money that we save on the bloated shuttle program and put it into manned space exploration. I'd love to see more missions to the moon. Missions to Mars. Hell, let's put humans down on Europa. I'd love to see these things happen before I die.
Why send people? Because wheightless sex is the only kink left that hasn't been made into a porno.
They knew the risks. We know the risks now that two crews have died...still, heck, I'd give anything to take that risk, and so would countless others. It's human nature to accept risks in order to experience new things.
Do we need to try and minimize those risks? Sure...let's send some people out into space and try out new things that could potentially minimize that risk. I can give at least one example...how about some space walks in attempts to create and test procedures to fix the shuttle's exterior in an emergency? Risky? Yeah...but definitely better than not taking those risks. It was once risky to cross the Atlantic Ocean in an airplane, but that didn't stop Charles Lindbergh.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Seems to me that one of the primary reasons for having living, breathing people in space is to see how people can/will adapt to the rigors of outer space. We sent monkeys and dogs originally for safety reasons, but eventually we wanted to know what would happen to humans. Dogs and computers couldn't describe the heightened sense of awareness and euphoria that space travel seems to inspire in homo sapiens.
Basically, astronauts are the lab rats we keep sending into space to get the ball rolling.
The thing that amazes me is that in this day and age, we would still need to take 10-20 years to build a replacement system for the shuttles. Seems to me modern materials and high-end CAD/CAM would've cut the time to less than 5 years, tops.
On the other hand, its been pretty sad that especially in this country, commerical interests -- who stand to make untold billions off of space-based initatives -- haven't bothered to sink a dime into their own private efforts, but instead have milked at the public teat...just like every other time it seems. Personally, I'm hoping things like the X Project and other private space efforts start to pay off and show the way to letting some of us realize our personal desire to depart the cradle of life and move out into the backyard that is our universe.
Here's hoping...
I read this op-ed piece and thought much the same as others have stated here - the author is pretty much right-on, and I hope NASA gets the message. There has been far to much "science uber alles" at NASA the last couple of decades, when in reality the reason for humans in space in the small numbers we have done up to now is so we can prepare for humans in space in much larger numbers in the future.
Two recent statements I think are relevant to this discussion NASA must adopt an economic development mindset at SpaceDaily, and a new Space Transportation Policy from the Space Frontier Foundation. It's past time to shake some things up in the US space program...
Energy: time to change the picture.
I was once told, "if you really want a job, then say anything to get it. Once you get it, you'll figure it out."
The folks getting money from Congress say what they will, but what they really are looking for is experience in design, contruction, and operation of space systems. At some point others enter the process who want to have the joy of the doing (designers, astronaut pilots, experimenters, etc) and their laudable activities may become part of the "pitch" to Congress. But for the moment, there's not much of a business case for humans in space. That's OK. Skylab, the Mir series, and the ISS will make it clear how to work in orbit cheaply and safely. Someone will sooner or later also figure out things to do that are really worthwhile commercially.
Communications satelites have been a good business proposition for some time now. Sooner or later other things will emerge that use what we've learned about orbital access and maned operations in orbit.
My own belief is that the first "hit" will be the manufacture of a material in orbit that can't be made on the surface. If some novel and useful material can be made, like a near-perfect thermal insulator, or a tough and crack-resistant high temperature ceramic, then the real race will be on. Of course, the manufacture of that particular substance will be automated. But the race will be on to put experimenters in orbit.
MOD PARENT UP!
I really do NOT want to post anonymously, but there is a great fear around here of Michael.. If one speaks bad about him, you are likely to get modbombed into oblivion.
Michael has one of the biggest ego's I have ever seen. He got into a disagreement with the censorware.org people and hijacked their domain. Read all about it here.
Its time to get rid of Slashdot's lousiest editor!
So machines are more efficient, but we'd prefer to have real humans in space? How do we resolve this conflict?
Easy, we combine them: Uploads!
-- the only thing we have to fear is really scary things
"No buck naked, no bucks."
That people can seriously use this as a reason continues to astound me. It's just a feel-good excuse for a real argument. There are lots of things involving science and technology that we can do, but we don't.
We can dig canals with nuclear bombs. We can kill people who are diagnosed with terminal illnesses. We can create a society where every human movement is tracked by the government. We can release terraforming gasses into our atmosphere to raise the temperature. We can breed deadly diseases.
Less harmfully, we can grow enough food to feed everyone in the world (at least for now). We can move quantities of earth to fight erosion. We can produce flying cars. We can build cities under the sea. We can cheaply produce enough drugs to bring the HIV epidemic under control in China and Africa.
But do we go about trying to do these things? No. So the fact that we can do something doesn't mean that we should or we will.
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
See? Already moded down minutes after it was posted. Probably by Michael the tyrant himself.
Get rid of him now!!!
Rock on!
Lots of posters here are saying "Because we can." "Because its there." "We want to explore".
But I just can't see it.
Sending the shuttle into low/near orbit, staying up there doing repairs, taking pictures, isn't exploring.
When was the last time we set foot on the Moon? Where are the plans to send people to Mars? Thats exploring, thats streaching the human experience. That is historically noteworthy.
There is just so much more to do in space than joyriding.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
This years budget for the U.S. Military is $400 Billion. Diverting only 2.5% of that budget (for just one year) would give us a workable space elevator.
The uneducated (on this topic) or pessimistic will tell you it can't be done. But we have the technology we need, and could have a working space elevator within 10 years (according to NASA's own study) for an estimated $10 billion (to as high as $40 billion, still insignifigant over 10 years).
This would lower the cost per pound to space (low earth orbit) from around $7,000 to as low as $5. For a fatty like me this means I could go to space on vacation for $1,100. Space would be accessible by all, even washed out boy-band members. Telecommunications costs would be a fraction of what they are now, because launching a satellite would be the cost of a car, instead of as much as the satellite itself. New technologies (similar to GPS, Iridium phones, internet anywhere cheaply) would come out of the woodwork.
The only thing we need for this to succeed, that we don't already have, is a government (or private funding) committed to it's success.
As a sidenote, this could eliminate our reliance on oil by making electricity next to free, with no pollution and without building more dams or nuclear reactors.
Just my $.02, but I really hope it happens. It's a common sense thing for the human race to commit to, and has a better chance of drastically improving life on earth for all than just about anything. Science would flourish, pollution would be almost eliminated, space travel may become possible, etc.
..want to boldly go where no man^h^h^hone has gone before!
(sorry... someone had to say it)
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Um, hello? To fight off the aliens.
There really is no reason today to send humans into space. Everything can be launched via rockets these days. What I believe is that the government needs a discrete way to place spy satillites and other orbital platforms into orbit without the world's knowledge. "The space shuttle has launched today for a two week mission to deploy a state of the art communications satillite." Right. For all we know, there could be something like the Goldeneye system in place (note, I said "something like.") Anyway, just gives you something to think about... I think that the shuttle missions are very easily used as a ploy for government and military missions to be kept off the record.
I am an amature astronomer and attend lectures given by people involved in the space program. Machines are no where near being as capable as humans in many areas. This comes up in many of the lectures and discussions. Also remember, we are not privy to ALL of the research that is going on. NASA is under the same budget constraints as every one else. If they could save money and do the same job without humans, they would.
I can't believe others haven't been jumping all over this...
/.'ers wanted people to _live_ in space, not just visit occasionally. The current space program just doesn't have this in their sights. The space station is a step forward, but it does nothing to remedy the central problem of no gravity.
Instead of squandering untold fortunes to keep launching outdated technology, why don't we take a time-out, spend half that money on R&D for a new generation of space tech, and spend the other half to pay down our national debt/dole out benefits to the people...
I thought
Where are the rotating space stations which replace gravity with centrifugal force? Where is any innovation is overall space station design? Where are new shuttle designs? They're all waiting for money which is being spent on the old tech.
I feel like we're still running DOS 5 and implementing 64-bit math in software because it would just cost too much to redesign from scratch.
Engineers and programmers unite! Its (past) time to refactor the space program.
Really, WTF else are we supposed to do with them?
I agree that we need to maintain a "human presence". However, we can cut back on the number of people on missions and in space. Perfecting remote control technology is just as vital a goal. Why send seven up when 3 could do the job? Eventually another accident is going to happen again. I don't want to turn on the news to learn that another 7 people died on a space mission. I have seen it twice already I hope I never see it a 3rd. Lets reduce the risk by reducing the number of people.
Table-ized A.I.
would be great and would accomplish the goals set for most of our current science mission shuttle trips.
BUT designing experimenter robots is another story. You can either design and build specialized for each variation of each experiment, which would be ludicruously expensive. Or, you can build experiment-independent, programmable, complete-freedom-of-motion robots w/ an extensive system of sensors and experiment-specific AI...also very expensive. The second option, while probably the more reasonable of the two would require _each_ experiment to also have extensive data acquisition/analysis/AI software routines to be generated, making the cost of individual experiments skyrocket even more. It's not as simple as saying 'send up an auto-pipetter to do all the experiments'. The best option I can think of, aside from real people, would be develop the best damn robot w/ as much degrees of freedom imaginable, w/ good sensors and make it tele-operatable, then you have to deal w/ transmission delays and poor feedback
Would this be a realistic dialogue?
- "So, what do you do for a living?"
- "I'm an astronaut"
- "Cool, so what do they do?"
- "Press the 'On' button in Space"
Somebody has to turn the screwdriver.
Reporter: The lion's share of this flight will be devoted to the study of the effects of weight lessness on tiny screws _ unbelievable, and of course this could have literally millions of applications here on Earth - from watchmaking to watch repair.
Buzz Aldrin: You fool. Now we may never know if ants can be trained to sort tiny screws in space.
The need for a constant human space presence is simple: So that we have a constant human space presence.
"We" as in "the US"? Because the rest of the world generally doesn't seem to think so. And to the degree that other nations occasionally want to send people into space, using rockets and return capsules seems sufficient for them.
And what do "we" need it for? Why don't we worry about, oh, loss of the skill of blacksmithing? Log cabin building? If a skill has little or no demonstrable use, why spend billions each year to maintain it?
The idea is similar for the logic behind keeping Los Alamos labs functioning. We don't need more nuclear weapons,
Well, Bush apparently thinks we need them.
but the fear is that should we decommission the lab, we may lose the talent and knowledge (most of which is intangible/experiential knowledge) of the staff.
It would take at most a few years to re-build such a program. Japan and Germany, two nations without nuclear weapons, are expected to be able to produce nuclear weapons within less than a year from the point that they decide that they need them.
Nuclear weapons labs are there because the US continues to develop nuclear weapons actively and because nuclear weapons are a major part of US military planning.
Most of the science "experiments" are done by school kids and most of the rest don't get published in first rate peer review journals.
There isn't much justification for most of the expensive and trivial science experiments carried out by astronauts.
Nate
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS EXCEPT EUROPA.
ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE.
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Detractors are quick to point out that it would be difficult to create a self sustaining colony on another planet because there is nothing that could be traded with it. Those arguments fail completely when one considers IP. Yes, IP, that evil Intellectual Property that we rail against, is also a product that a space based habitat could do to make it profitable.
IP advantages of a moon / mars base:
a) Completely safe against terrorism and domestic insurrection.
b) The ultimate DR site. If the Earth were to be hit by an Asteroid, rest assured, the IRS would still be able to collect taxes from cockroaches that lived through it.
c) Complete secrecy. These days, spies run everywhere and satellites get pictures of your stuff from LEO. If you are on Mars, a spy satellite is a taller order...
d) Powered by superior Windows software, the DR site will require humans to be present to reboot and monitor servers...
This is my sig.
I love space exploration, but unfortunately, I can't currently love NASA, their political problems has caused them to lose touch with reality. I for one, would willingly support increasing their budget if I thought they were using it to efficiently generate new useful knowledge. Instead of outdated, political, men in space, goals. Wake up NASA! the world has changed, give us results, not Buck Rogers!
Its clear that travel in space is going to be dangerous for a long time. The good news is we dont need to do it much. The dumb problem is NASA believes it must to survive politically. I contend that is a big fat mistake. That mis-assessment is killing some of our best people. We should only ask those with "the right stuff" to go when we have a destination in mind worth the significant and real risk, of losing their lives. I don't include running soap bubble experiments and other PR related feeble excuses to send the first into space. Did we really want to kill the first teacher into space, or the first Israeli, for this nonsense. We all have to realize we are a long way from needing a space station, for anything other than feeding our space opera, sci-fi fantasies. Get real.
Robotics is here. Remote and semi autonomous control is here. NASA management, thinks in terms of the technology it designed the shuttle with thirty years ago. Cheaper, faster, better, off the shelf, works. Yes we will have a few dumb mistakes like Mars Climate Orbiter, so what, No One Died. I read the Mishap Investigation Board report, it was mostly management cost cutting snafu's. The JPL folks navigating the thing were set up to fail by dumb PHB's (yeah they goofed it up too, but overworked, underfunded, folks will make mistakes). Imagine if that same mistake had lost us the first crew en-route to Mars. Robotics produces good, cheap science in space. Robot probes will boldly go where... You get the idea. Sojourner proved this. Beagle2, Spirit and hopefully Opportunity, will probably settle the issue. The long duration surveyors orbiting Mars right now have produced data thats invaluable in assessing that planet, including discovering water, this for a cost, and risk level, unattainable if humans were involved.
I want to see NASA re-focus their budget on on designing and launching small, cheap probes for a host of long duration missions. Robots should be used to explore truly interesting locations. Finally, they should be used to prepare the target environment for any human visit or colonization attempt. No career astronaut should feel obliged to risk long duration space travel, for NASA's PR and politics.
We should boldly go..., when we know there's somwewhere really worth boldly going to..., where the target has been surveyed and prepared for us by our Robots. Then our Astronauts may consider it worth the risk, to go where none have gone before.
Go Opportunity!
There is no god; get over it already! Never exchange a walk on part in the war, for a lead role in a cage.
10. Robots aren't as dextrous or adaptable as humans yet.
9. Robots aren't smart enough (yet) to be autonomous when telepresence latency increases.
8. We can't upload our minds into robotic shells yet. (GITS!)
7. The human condition is biological, and so we want to know the experience as such.
6. Robots don't get taxpayers excited.
5. Robots aren't "heroic" enough to inspire kids to grow up to be scientists, etc.
4. Robots just take more jobs away from real flesh-and-blood humans! (Armitage!)
3. We can convert the dead humans into valuable H20.
2. To ensure genetically diverse humans live on (via traditional sex in space) when Earth bites the dust.
1. Ego. ME. ME. ME. ME! ME!!!
--
Power to the Peaceful
A picture is worth a thousand words. How much is a perception worth?
Don't even begin to tell me that robotic sensors can transmit higher quality information than what is capable of human perception.
I think space is great, but where are all those great technologies that were promised. IMHO velcro was a big letdown. What about the hungry people you could feed for one doller a day.
Has anyone remembered what the most advanced "robot" on this planet is... www.howstuffworks.com tells me that I can move 1200 miles on the energy within a gallon of gasoline. We've worked for years on a walking robot and can barely get one to walk across the room... Not to mention the incredible thinking skills that allow me to catch a ball in the air without even concentrating... Or give me the ability to figure out riddles or other such puzzles... Our bodies consume very little resources, while at the same time operating at the same temperature range that most electronics require to properly function... I just feel that these projects can be alright, but if our entire future in space is going to be some cargo containers with tomatoes we might as well just start WW3 and get it all over with now. It is a horrible fact that people will die exploring space... but we also will eventually get up there, evidence of physiological effects is important, as is training individuals in space travel, shuttle operations, repairs... Along with the required research that would back any future in space (for example: using the toilet, EVA equipment and suits) I also get the general impressiont that the money spent putting people into space physically (single missions) is small compared the money spent researching technologies that support manned missions (technologies that would help mankind forever) (Strictly Opinion) Overall, the money in the manned space program shouldn't be that important... the lives that are lost in the program have little to do with the exploration of space, and more to do with the debate over the shuttle program itself, we need people to okay the funding for new shuttles, new training facilities, ect.
Maybe they should tell us the truth, that all the chimps they sent into space came back superintelligent.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Even before Columbia was destroyed, NASA was losing the skilled workforce through attrition. The problem extends further than just NASA. Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine has had a series of well-considered articles on "The Crisis in Aerospace" over the years.
But NASA seems to be in a particularly tough spot on this issue. The combination of decades-old technology, endless paperwork, and job insecurity makes it very difficult to attract and retain top engineers to work on Shuttle and other manned space projects.
It's sad that none of my NASA and contractor friends will support the Intl Space Station as anything but a means of retaining capability. In other words, we're marching in place until something better comes along.
Designing probes and new ships just changes the vehicle in which experiments are carried. While that may help probe-based scanning/roving missions, it doesn't address the majority of scientific missions performed in the shuttle.
I agree with your position, but at the same time IF we are to shift from human-based missions we need to puts lots of money into jack-of-all-trade robots for performing experiments and collecting data _inside_ the vehicle.
Because eventually, we will need to get the fuck off this ugly rock!
www.trollse.cx
because we don't need to log cabins, because we have skyscrapers, and concrete, etc. so there are better alternatives, do you know a better way of getting people into space than by launching them out there? If the knowledge of how to build/maintain shuttles, etc. was forgotten, how would we get people up there if there WAS a good reason to? Teleport them?
wow, is it me or does Eric Raymond have boobs under that UNIX shirt?
Drones will outkill any fighter pilot. Same thing in space. The winner will be the one with the fewest people and the best technology. The loser will have a lot of dead people around.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
We're not just doing basic science research out there; we're also doing basic engineering research, too.
Don't forget that these continuing missions give us valuable field data for making better ships, suits, tools, procedures, etc. for future visits. These missions are worth it if only for the improvements we get for when we have something better for the astronauts to do. (Although right now I think the best research the engineering MANAGERS could do is to read Professor Feynman's addendum to the Challenger disaster report.)
Sending people out there on a regular basis also lets medical researchers get ongoing data on the human condition in space - I think that NASA's medical types would like even more data than they already have.
Adherence to the truth is a form of disloyalty.
Depends on your definition of perception. For the physical details, oh yes.
And are the non-tactile, "feelings" (for want of a better word,sorry) really worth it at this point in time?
eg - an expedition to Mars:
(Man on Mars)... "Well, I feel kinda lighter, place sure looks cold and desolate The sun's a lot dimmer. There's a lot of small to medium red boulders around the place... lets go for a drive! Oh , and I'll switch the probe on, too."
(Probe on Mars)... "Gravity 0.4G , air pressure 15 millbar, temperature -14 deg C, solar radiation 22.5W/m2... (scans a rock) that rock over there.. it's a form of basalt, size 45x40x15cm, composition 45%Si 23%Al 14%Fe 5%Ca, and here's a picture for posterity."
(Probe moves on to next sample site)
So, the expedition to Mars costs 3 billion, Half of which is for life support design and construction. Oh , but you get a person who can tell you what it's like to be on Mars, I suppose.
He'd better be a hell of a lot more descriptive than "Cold. Red. Dusty"
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
NASA dude1,"Sir! The autonomous rocket, its vering off course!"
NASA officer,"Hit some buttons!"
NASA dude2,"No good! The AI has manual override!"
NASA officer,"What payload did that rocket have?"
Evil NASA dude,"That was our mining and manufacturing base. We were going to setup an automatic base of operations to build robots. "
NASA dude1,"Sir, its vering of course from Mars... to Uranus?"
NASA officer,"How long until the robots plow Uranus, rape its resource, and fly out of it?"
etc etc etc
Robots + automated mining/manufacturing secluded on another planet is the most obvious way robots could become sentient.
God spoke to me
People would be better advised to look up at night and realize that they, or their children, are never going to leave this planet. They should come to realize that they either fix their problems on earth or that they will have to live with them.
If we had lived like that throughout history humanity would never have advanced to what it is today, I'm sorry to say.
Just about every major advance in human culture and science were created by people who thought out of the box in defiance of the established view. To squash that because we have to fix our immediate problems first is an invitation to creating a society that wants to regress to a Dark Age of culture. This is not a joke, either--I've actually read some literature from environmental extremists that want to drastically cull the human race and reduce them back to the state of Stone Age-level noble savages.
Mr. Koss writes cautiously about the problem without really coming out and stating the conclusion. Here is my proposal. I assume that it is not politically possible to park the Space Station in the Pacific Ocean -- too many commitments have been made by incumbent Congressmen to walk away now.
Problem: Shuttle is expensive to fly and is about to become even more expensive. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board has already issued three proposed remedies and it is likely that there will be many more specific actions taken before the Shuttles can return to flight.
Problem: From 2006 until at least 2010, there is no plan on how to support a Crew Return Vehicle that remains attached to ISS in case of an emergency. This gap is due to a combination of diplomatic, financial and technical issues. In 2006, Russia will deliver the last planned Soyuz to ISS. After that time, the US cannot buy more Soyuz due to a law regarding non-proliferation of arms technology to Iran, which Russia has apparently violated. Congress may be able to get around this, but it would still leave the ISS with a maximum permanent crew of 3. No American Crew Return Vehicle is planned until at least 2010.
Problem: With a crew of 3, very little crew time is devoted to actual science: about 20 hours per week, total. The remainder of crew time is spent maintaining ISS and the crew itself (exercise, eating, sleeping, etc).
Problem: Even with a reduced crew size of 3, the Soyuz and Progress vehicles cannot supply enough water for crew needs. That is one reason that the current crew is only 2 men.
Problem: Developing a Shuttle replacement is very costly, and NASA has failed several times already. Each attempt failed for different reasons, but I believe that better funding (and better use of the funding) will be needed to make the next attempt a success.
Problem: NASA is unlikely to gain significant budget increases in the current funding environment (unless they claim to have found terrorist training camps or Iraqi WMD in space). Let's be serious about this.
Fact: NASA spends about $6 Billion per year on Manned Spaceflight (this includes the Space Shuttle Program, the Intl Space Station Program, and a few other items such as range support).
Fact: There is very little fat to cut from NASA without radical reforms that are mostly unrealistic. We can gripe about Fraud Waste and Abuse, but I really don't think anyone can find enough of it (and be able to eliminate it through some reforms) to make a significant difference. One of the biggest problems NASA faces is that it has squeezed the workforce too hard. We can't make them work harder, and it's very hard to make them work smarter (But read on for some ideas on this subject).
So where does that leave us?
If NASA were run just a little more like a business, I think the solution would be to stop focusing on satisfying arbitrary political objectives like "maintain a permanent manned presence in space" and start thinking in terms like "how can we best exploit the imperfect resources we currently have?" and "how can we get out of our current rut and into a sustainable future in space?"
These questions cannot be considered independently. To get out of our current rut, we need to break the cycle of failed NASA attempts to build a new launch system. My sense is that one reason these systems have failed is that they are repeatedly using the same failed approach in developing very risky technological systems.
How does Venture Capital develop risky technological systems? Not by betting on one implementation 10 years in advance, which is what NASA keeps doing. Instead of saying "The next launch system will be Single Stage to Orbit" (X-33), NASA should invest in many promising technologies, similar to the way VCs do. They don't know which of a dozen seed investments will succeed, but at least one should achieve some good results.
How much money can NASA afford to spend on a handful of projects? Not much, so that's where we mu
"Command, we are on the surface of Mars. The robotic probes landed two hours ago and have reported nothing outside of the parameters for which they were designed. We are now descending to the pressure lock. We are opening the door... @#$%^^^$$@$#@GOD!! thousands of small aircraft}}}..}pictures of horror forced in my mind}}}...}}}..Aaarrrgh"
pfzzzzzt bzzzt kabloom!
}}NO CARRIER
I think your comment was nothing short of superb. =)
As I said in another message, humanity only advanced when people started thinking out of the box in advancing culture and science in defiance of established norms. If we were to have a society that wanted to solve immediate problems first it would be an invitation to cause a society to stagnate and regress. That was what happened in the Western Roman Empire when the Christian authorities created a limited range of knowledge for everyone to know, and when the Western Roman Empire fell, it regressed quickly to more or less a tribal society.
We can is like a sub-argument for "Because we Want to." People want to keep experiencing new things. We grow familiar and tired with what we have, so we risk our security and reach out for new experiences. Space is one of those. Killing all of us isn't. Greedy, petty, differing desires prevent us from feeding everyone in the world, from defending our natural habitat, from flying, and from curing the world, and also because of simple economics. Things need to be managed, as well as our desires. That's why we're taking so long to go into space. Conflicting desires and simple economics.
"Because We Can" is a qualification for "We Want to"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There is no sane reason to waste money on making heroes. Science should be popular, that's a given, but heroes in-of-them-selves are not worth making for their own sakes.
We should, of course, try to figure out how to get people to get out into space, and putting actual people in space could be useful for that. People are useful for doing experiments... on people. And they'll still stir the imagination, I guess.
(Actually, I think sending robots into space is pretty damned imagination-stirring right there, but that's just me.)
But if you're going to experiment whether ants can sort tiny screws in space, or things like that, you really really don't need to have a human up there for that, unless they're already there for other reasons. It's a waste of their time.
If you're going to do ant experiments, you don't need humans. But if you want to do experiments ON the effect of humans in space, they you do need them. And those experiments could be very very beneficial to humanity.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
I agree with the parent post - a space elevator sounds like it'd be worth at least serious consideration for a chunk of that money.
However, there's some pretty big companies that stand to get reamed if the price of electricity or satellite launches drops by e.g. 90%, as could happen a few years down the track. For example, how are the US oil companies going to feel if electric cars are suddenly MUCH cheaper to run? How are the mobile phone companies who've deployed repeaters all over the place going to react if you could suddenly compete with them by launching a bunch of satellites, Iridium-like, and offer the same service globally without the cost of maintaining all those base stations that are only a few km apart?
In a perfect world, they'd be told "adapt or die", but at the moment things don't work that way. Any disruptive technology isn't going to get US government support at the moment, since they seem to feel the best path forward is to try to maintain the technology status quo indefinitely. They would kill off any attempt to get this done, pretty much regardless of who tried to do it.
Having said all that, I'd love it if the Chinese or Indian governments expressed an interest in investigating it further...
The naive reader may read this as "NASA provides technology for the semiconductor industry". No. Your CPU was not made in zero G. Big single crystals are made routinely from a wide range of materials, from silicon to steel. Bell Labs first figured out how in the 1940s.
NASA likes to talk about materials processing, but if you're doing something very small, gravity doesn't trouble you all that much, and if you're doing something large, you can't afford to put it into space.
Oh come on - have you been reading too much Sci-Fi?
;-)
Hands up all those who honestly believe that in the near future we will encounter some place in our solar system that has some spooky mind-bending properties completely unknown and undetectable to current science.
No doubt there would be a *lot* of scientific curiosity if that ever happened. And you can count me out for the role of second man on mars , too
Back to the discussion - the brain , blessed as it is for the ability of perception, is inadequate if you need the hard numbers to decide whether you want to spend $billions$ in developing something. An astronauts... "yeah looks fine to me here" does not give good justification for that amount of cash spent.
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
Senator John Glenn has been one of the most intelligent and hardest-working members of either house of the US Congress. His good work more than makes up for Harrison Schmitt, Barfin' Jake Garn, and Edgar Mitchell.
Long term: our great grandchildren will be living on mars. Probes don't live, they're just expensive remote controls. The dinosaurs never got around to going anywhere... what is our excuse? Or are we just going to wait for the next big thing (meteor, or whatever)?
"Sorry, but the long term survival of our species costs too much."
"Oh, bummer. Then I guess I'll just go watch reality tv."
We've been napping in cradle Earth long enough; we can't quit now that we're learning how to crawl.
Would you rather trust scientific equipment that, by its nature, was designed for finding that which was being sought? Or, would you rather trust the perception and judgement of a human being that was able to see something that was unfathomed?
Yes, we should be investing in the technology necessary to make a space elevator work. But NASA's cost and schedule predictions are not exactly credible, so I don't think we should give this 100% of the research money in anticipation of a revolutionary capability in a decade.
However, the materials technology needed to make an elevator possible would be revolutionary even if we did not choose to build a space tether. Even if we never achieved the ultimate goal, society would be repaid for the investment.
I don't know how many slashdot readers have ever actually done any real lab science, but in my experience just about all of it is hands-on.
A-Bomb
and so you do not really need the agreement or interrest of the population. Think of it, look at the cost of ariane, and compare with the cost of ISS, Space shuttle. Now imagine an ariane like lauchner, sending experiement in the space, then they automatically fall back capsule like with a parachute or somehting.
This is certainly cheaper than theshuttle for the same result on the experiement side.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
After Columbia was destroyed, Charles Krauthammer wrote an opinion piece saying that we should keep sending humans into space, but that they should not brave the most risky parts of spaceflight (launch and entry) for such meager results.
I happen to think that he underestimates the risks of the "next million miles" beyond Low Earth Orbit, but I essentially agree with his point. We do need to send humans into space, but the results must be worth the risks.
For me, the results that would be worth the risks would be the creation of a spacefaring society. The early days of aviation were extremely dangerous, but 100 years after the first successful controlled flight, aviation is commonplace. The risks borne by the pioneers of aviation made a difference.
The problem is, I don't see that NASA is on a road to make human spaceflight commonplace. But if we ever do make human spaceflight commonplace, it will be a great achievement that will really change human history.
The astronauts of Apollo 8 took that famous photo of Earth rising above the surface of the Moon. They brought back a glimpse of what others may one day see for themselves.
No Above-average Simians Available
The research is getting the humans to Mars & back intact. That would be the payoff in a manned expedition to Mars. If the data on Mars is the only item of importance, then obviously probes could accomplish all that and much cheaper.
Also, probes can only do what it was designed to do. There is no flexibility with a robot. If while collecting data, there needs to be some form of followup experiment, you will need to design a new mission and send a new probe designed to do what the previous one wasn't designed to accomplish. A human, on the other hand, might be able to improvise while they're still on Mars.
I don't have a problem with spending money to send a manned expedition to Mars. I have a problem with the space delivery system we currently use. Its designed to maximize human employment and costs, and can only go half the distance it needs to go to put satellites in GEO. The dollars that get pissed away into that is money that is not being put into productive space research.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
The whole Mars thing? We're waiting to solve the biological and biomechanical issues of dealing w/ a year in space before and after Mars, and Mars itself. Low-G wasting, adaptation, violent vomiting, all those goodies.
Where was the research for that being done? Space Shuttle. Where were planned projects gonna be done? ISS. Oops.
We need to understand LEO before we can do deep space. As it is, we have no idea what to do about the radiation. LEO, fortunately, is relatively sheltered from that particular nastiness.
Planet earth: closed system
Human race: growing exponentially
Inevitably: not for long!
This leaves us three options:
- We grow exponentially until there's a collapse, then do it all over again (if we survive). This option sucks.
- We make the transition to a stable, zero growth society. This transition seems politically impossible. Also, a stable, zero growth society sucks (e.g., prepare to give up basic freedoms, etc.). Admittedly it sucks less than a collapse, but it still sucks.
- We expand out of earth, and maintain a growing, open, free society. This is possible, but is expensive.
Some say the last option will never be practical, by doing a simple economical feasability study of mass migration out of earth. There are two answers to this:
- If someone did the same sort of study on the 15th century, it would be obvious mass migration to the Americas isn't economically feasible, either.
- If we don't try, we are certainly doomed to one of the first two options.
So yes, we don't need humans in space for pure scientific exploration. We merely need them for our long-range survival as an open, free society.
did anyone else almost put on their tinfoil (not aluminum) hat after reading the headline?
Neither will leaving it in place. NASA is running in place right now. What can be learned from the Shuttle and the kind of work going on in it has been learned. What's needed is to replace it, and we need a new goal, space industrialization. Once a space industrial infrasrructure is in place, space exploration will be cheap, easy, and moderately safe.
We should look towards the past for the kind of government-based incentives that built modern aviation.
"Provide us with safe commercial flights to a space station for $1,000,000/passenger and we'll send 100 people per year."
"Provide us with freight delivery to orbit at $20/pound and we'll guarantee 1,000,000 pounds of payload.
The second is possible via railgun or if the nanotube materials can be manufactured in the real world, via Space Elevator.
Remember that commercial aviation got started with the USPS contracted for regular airmail delivery.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Look at how the first US commercial railroads were financed. (hint: the Feds played a large part in that, too.)
In a successful society, the national government funds or finds a way to assist the private sector with large high-risk projects that the private sector can't justify to ordinary investors.
Tech Public Policy stuff
You may not think of this as a disaster, but if we close the window we may never have another opportunity to explore space again. There will always be a slightly more pressing concern, some war to be fought or some local problem to be solved, after which we may start thinking about space again. Only that moment will never come, and reassembling the knowledge will become harder and harder.
Meanwhile, the upstart super powers will have no qualms about putting men in space (even if it is only to give you the finger while they pass overhead). They have something to prove, and rest assured they will do that. And I'm sure they will gracefully allow american astronauts to fly on their rockets, to give you a little toe in their space program (assuming that astronaut learns chinese or french or whatever the appropriate language will be). At that point the USA may still be a superpower, but like the ex-USSR today it will be considered a second-rate superpower.
Do you really want your best engineers to migrate to China and India and Europe because that's where their talents will be appreciated and used? Are you willing to give up on the notion of the USA being a superpower, and letting other countries take over?
Difference is, for a scenario like exploring Mars, humans are more efficient for the job. Robots are inefficient for the money and time spent - there is a very limited amount of science they can do. Humans can travel further, do more complex mechanical tasks, and exploit opportunities much better than a robot that requires 10 minutes to recieve a signal command to perform a simple action like "look over there."
Derek
Human presence in space is a very good thing if the task can only be accomplished by humans - like closely exploring a moons or planets surface (Apollo), or repairing an otherwise unmanned but very valuable vehicle (Hubble repair missions). But most kind of science done on shuttle or ISS missions could better and cheaper be done on unmanned platforms - and in other places it already is done on remotely controlled unmanned vessels.
Just imagine how the american space program could have developed without the shuttle, but continuing to use Apollo and Saturn for useful manned missions - heck, there could already be orbiters around all outer planets, and missions like the Interstellar Probe or Terrestrial Planet finder could be well on their way. In contrast to the dull shuttle, extended Apollo journeys could have even sent humans to some near-earth asteroids...
Ever heard the expression, "No Buck Rodgers, no bucks."? Well, that is the case here. Yes, lots of these experiments could be done without human deployment, but the problems is, NASA needs public support, and do you think unmanned space missions or daring, human space missions are going to excite the general public more. I would better the latter. Bottom line: NASA needs to maintain public interest, and if that means being less pragmatic, so be it.
Massive raidiation due to Jupiter's radiation belts.
;)
Europa exploration is something that can only be done using unmaned probes.
Titan however is interesting
And those handy dandy batteries that power portable power tools.
"The entire computer industry was driven to micro-miniaturization and 'chips' by the huge costs per pound of putting computers into space."
And the cost per pound comes from flinging people into space. (Astronauts were really freaking heavy in those days.)
Mmmmm... Tang."
Would you rather trust scientific equipment that, by its nature, was designed for finding that which was being sought? Or, would you rather trust the perception and judgement of a human being that was able to see something that was unfathomed?
... (There's not enough data to see if there's any worth in sending men out, but we can't get enough data because we need to send men out)
:-(
I'd prefer a good dose of *both* personally.
Sadly, no-one's leaving earth anytime soon unless there's a profit to be had and it'd have to be a damned big profit too for anyone to try. I'd rather not see the chicken-and-egg problem occur
Human beings still only have five senses. By the use of technology, they can be relatively easily be remote from you (unless you really want to go around tasting other worlds).Why send a man at great expense, when you've got a whole bunch of Really Smart Guys back at mission control to go over your data from your probes again , and again and again if necessary?
Maybe in the future when it costs $100 bucks to get someone to LEO we can start with the real human exploration, and I can go kick some rocks on Mars. Can't see it happening anytime soon though
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
10 to 40 Billion Dollars.
Damn, That's PEANUTS. When the Swiss government decides to bore a tunnel through their 'natural barrier', they whip out a checkbook and write a 50 to 100, with 9 zeros on the right. IN ADVANCE.
I can think of some computer companies that could dish out that kind of funding out of their do-good account. Not to mention out of their VC investments. Doesn't need to be in advance, just needs to be persistent, and spread out over a decade or two.
Where's all the tech-evangellists and hardcore visionaries when you need them? Dean Kamen? Mr. Gates? Anybody?
Besides, Why would an Energy-Tech-Solutions company like GE _NOT_ want to invest in something like this? That kind of investment would return itself hundredfold. And buy them a reputation for the next eon or two. Sorta like llyod's bought a name by paying up for the Titanic. 100 years since, and we still revere them.
I believe it's just a matter of time. The power companies are like the people in that flic from a few years back, 'Rat Race'. They're all standing in place, laughing at the idea. And yet, the realization is dawning. Sooner or later, one of them will employ a decision maker who'se mind will make an audible CLICK, and he'll bolt for it.
And then it gets happy and we all prosper.
-
Ive a satellite of 200 kilos with 5'000 boxes of experiments with a vertical plotter or rotational robot with camera and mirrors's arms.
I probe the satellite in home with the gravity.
If all works well then i will launch the satellite to the space.
5 humans x 70 Kilos/human = 350 Kilos !
open4free
This was also stated some years ago by Robert L. Park in his book "Voodoo Science".
And this is the second time I recommend this book in Slashdot in two days. Hell, go and buy it!
"An article on New York Times discussing the need for astronauts for carrying out experiments in space. Too many of the planned experiments depend on crew operations when they could more effectively be done without them. In many cases, the crew is needed only to deploy an autonomous experiment."
...and the monkeys wanted higher pay.
--
we will need people in space far as long as it takes to make machines able to deal with the unexpected in space.
were people aboard the mars polar lander, they would have caught the empirical/metric screw up.
apollo 13 showed the world that with enough minds and effort, humans can deal with and sometimes overcome any unexpected difficulty in space.
certainly there are areas where we need self reliant machines for exploration, but for the near future, there is no more reliable fail-safe system than a human being with the proper tools.
machines are not evolved enough to replace us, yet.
From now on there will always be human beings in space. For some missions, we're not needed, for some we are. Either way there will always be people going into space, living on other planets, exploring new worlds. I know there are great risks about going into space, but if I had the opportunity to go, either with the Soyuz or the Shuttle, I would not hesitate one second. If I die, then at least I've done something truly extraordinary before I go. People will be in space now and forever, simply because we want to. We can do it, and we want to. We want to see our Earth from above, to watch the sunset in the red athmosphere of Mars, to experience low gravity on our moon, and maybe one day look up from a planet in another solar system, to see its two suns in the sky...
Have you ever read Darwin's Voyage of the Beagle, how about ? How about any of the good weblogs? Or KSR Mars trilogy, Jules Verne
People don't care about science, they don't understand science for the most part. People understand people, they like to read stories about normal people in extraordinary circumstances, that's why `reality tv' is so popular.
The first (hu)man on Mars landing on Mars would be hugely important for human curiosity, the journey to Mars would be even more important, imagine doing a part `reality tv' show and part science/education show from the Mars-bound shuttle. Do it right and everybody would watch.
The probes would still do the science, people haven't done any scientific measurements for a while now, since the invention of computers, people don't measure accuratly enough for our level of understanding anymore.
When your probe says gravity 0.4G, pressure 15mbar, T=259K, F=22.5W/m2, your scientists could tell you the probe was broken, very few places on mars would get those conditions anyway
...but you'd likely get images of astronauts jumps about with suits weighing twice their body weight with silvered visors and planting flags, that's the money shot, as long as it's not a Nike flag (unless they pay for the whole damn thing) nobody would really care which flag it was, it was manmade
One of the most important things to come out of the Moon landings didn't involve landing on the moon, it was Frank Borman's photograph of earthrise. The probe wouldn't think of doing that.
For the scientists, who do care about the science. The people who land on Mars would do so in the knowledge that they are there for about a year until the planets align again, keeping 6 people alive without any external help for 24 months isn't easy (or possible yet). The biosphere project wasn't completely succesful because of the leaky window seals and the double glazing which blocked too much sunlight.
On Mars, we won't have the luxury of pumping more oxygen in, it'll will likely need to be extracted from the ferrous soil or grown in inflatible greenhouses. The technology to maintain this human habitat in an environmentall neutral way would have huge impact on the way we live on Earth...sustainable farming and production, recycling waste products, space ice cream (well I like it :)
BB
It of main importance for a civilization to share a common dream: something to focus on, something that pushes the envelope of feasability and resources. ... , Eiffel tower have great impact on the psyche of their people, ISS - if it would not be in such trouble and getting bad press - could be a symbol of what mankind can achieve with joint efforts. And a signal of what people can do if working together in peace.
:-) or just take the movie "independence day" minus exaggerated US patriotism)
Like the pyramids,
Even more so would a colony on the moon or a manned flight to mars!
Thats why!
(ever played civ3
imagine....
unsig
Humans are sentient, a quality machines cannot match.
A machine can be better than a human in a narrowly defined situations - like playing chess or performing a specific task (say measuring temperature).
Earth-orbit experiments still need humans - it is just they can participate via remote control.
On Mars, the delay from radio wave propagation is too large, so a live human would be very useful, assuming the mission is not "land, look around, go back".
Lastly, nothing humans created so far can match animals (and, in particular, humans) in power efficiency. Provided oxygen is taken care of (and vast quantities of it will likely be needed for takeoff anyway), humans can survey a larger area quicker and more thouroughly than a robot.
hey its cheaper and whats the value in actually being there?
A particular human may be irreplaceable, but humans are the most replaceable part of human society. Ie, if some plague killed 99% of humanity, the survivors could return to current levels in a few centuries - assuming that they could duplicate the food production and transportation infrastructure. It's not hard to understand why. Humans reproduce and both instincts and society are inherently geared towards this.
I think there's a lot of grounds for stating that manned space exploration has been stopped for several decades. Why does the destruction of one vehicle risk NASA's entire manned program? Because the program has failed. Look at the long term trends. NASA's budget is a fraction of what it used to be and I just don't see why it won't continue to decline. The key problem is that there's no compeling reason to put people in space if all you do up there is "science".
Instead, the US should focus on developing space industry especially launch cost reduction, infrastructure construction, space tourism, and creating a growing space-based economy.
Because when I was a child I dreamed of one day standing on Mars. That's why.
Without dreams and hope life is nothing.
I'd mod you up if I had any points...
The scientific benefits to space exploration are minimal. Maybe if the scientists make Earth uninhabitable, we'll need another planet pretty sharpish.
Apart from that, it's all about boyhood dreams of exploring space, fed by science fiction over the years.
Now maybe a human expedition to Mars would inspire a whole new generation of scientists. But this is social engineering and there are probably cheaper and more reliable ways to do this.
Why continue to send probes to Mars if we don't intend to send humans there, there is nothing interesting about mars except the thought of future ability to send humans there, perhaps to colonize it, and is there really a NEED to do that? Just human curiosity.
The whole point of going to Mars in the first place is Human curiosity. Tell me, if we never personally go to Mars, what good does sending probes there do to us here on Earth? If we never went to the moon, what point would be studying it from afar? Indeed, most, if not all scientific experiments that take place in space now are simply to satisfy human curiosity, indeed most scientific experiments that take place here on EARTH are just to satisfy human curiosity. If you remove the humans from the equation, there is no point in doing the experiment in the first place! So what if a machine can conduct the experiments in space? We are the reasons the experiments are being done, so shouldn't we monitor the results ourselves?
Good rebuttal.
The space shuttle should be overhauled and start doing moon missions
Probe: "Uh, Bob? We are getting failure telemetry from the robotic arm of the probe. It's stuck"
Manned: "Ok Houston, I've deployed the analysis equipment. You have an error reading? One moment... _clang_ ...has that fixed it? Cool - I'll set the next one up."
Value of this post: 2 cents.
Robotic mission to Mars: 500 M$
Manned mission to Mars: 3000 M$
Being there to fix expensive shit when it breaks: priceless
For carefully controlled, predictable environments there are robots. For everything else there's humans.
Help children born unable to swallow - www.tofs.org.uk
The Cold War. The Space Race was an international pissing contest, useful in it's time, but now an anachronism.
>
> (Probe on Mars)... "Gravity 0.4G , air pressure 15 millbar, temperature -14 deg C, solar radiation 22.5W/m2... (scans a rock) that rock over there.. it's a form of basalt, size 45x40x15cm, composition 45%Si 23%Al 14%Fe 5%Ca, and here's a picture for posterity."
Mission Control: "What's under that big rock over there? What's inside the rock with the cracks running through it? And what's up with those outflow-looking things Surveyor saw on crater rims?"
Man on Mars: [Picks up rock, smashes it against second rock, throws chunk into basket, walks a few feet down the edge of a crater, uses other chunk of rock to dig through the surface material near the crater wall outflow, jumps out of way as gush of water surges out and boils off en route to the crater floor.]
"Nothin' in the rocks but there's some weird green shit in the shadows underneath 'em, more weird green shit deep in the cracks of the rock, and I guess we know the outflows ain't CO2, 'cuz there's even more of the green shit in the water I just found!"
Probe on Mars: [Sits still.] "WTF d00d? Do what?! Do it where!?"
Do you want to see a PICTURE of the Grande Canyon or view it in person? Do you want to see Yellowstone via video clip or in person? Which is richer? Which touches you directly? Which one gives a fuller experience?
Though the science may be fine from robots, and in many cases it is just impractical (at THIS time) to send people, I just can't get jazzed about film and pics compared to someone, a real human, being there. Which is more adaptable, a human or a robot? Human. Which can go in directions not preprogrammed or deal with unforseen situations/data better, a human on the spot or a limited function robot?
My point is that there is a real need for humans in space, even though for specific scientific tasks AT THIS TIME they are not optimal. No one can get overly excited about pictures of the moon from a robot vs those of humans on the moon by humans on the moon. THAT captures the imagination more than tonka trucks roving here and there, missing lots because they are designed for a VERY specific and limited task.
Do most space exploration via robot, but if you really want to explore Mars completely, you will need humans on the spot. The robots can only do so much and only be reprogrammed to a certain extent. Humans get the global view, robots get the view they're programmed to get and limited by the design specs of the engineers.
If you take humans completely out of space you might as well fold it up and do it on a shoestring budget because only a few scientists (not the public) will get excited about it.
Humans ARE wasted with the ISS. It is a loser, and not even a proper space station. It doesn't push any boundaries, does nothing to push the envelope. A station with artificial gravity and some self-sustainability would be worthy. Robots would be better suited in this case to handle what is done on the ISS (and the science on humans in space is repetitious with what the Russkies already figured out in their many years with Mir). Aim higher, go bigger with humans.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
The problem is you can't run the station unmanned. Technically, you can, but it doesn't worth savings. The overhead of conserving it and reverting back to working mode, and the risk of the station becoming uncontrollable from Earth are too big.
They don't spend 2,5 persons fully occupied just maintaining the station for nothing.
You sir, are replaceable.
In the grand scheme of things, either you go now or someone else goes instead of you. And in the end if you get killed/maimed/lost, someone will probably be following behind you not long after.
That is unless this whole public perception of DANGEROUS = BAD AND SHOULD BE AVOIDED continues.
Not yet, but population experts expect the world population to start shrinking within my lifetime. Most "first world" countries already have a birth rate below the population replcement rate. (about 2.3 kids per family, which accounts for kids who die or don't breed)
China is already getting close, they have had a 1 kid per family policy for years, it won't be long before the first children of that policy start dieing old age, and then their population will start shrinking dramaticly. Most of Europe will see the same thing (not as dramatic) shortly. The US had a "baby boom" after WWII, so it will be longer, but current generations are not breeding at the population replacement rate.
a couple of astronaut's perception would actually be worth something once we develope mind-meld technology.
Maybe once they get back to earth, we can cut their heads of and eat their brains to transfer the magic of perception.
The premise that the human race is growing exponentially is flawed. This may once have been true, but is no longer. Many industrialized nations are actually experiencing low growth rates -- actually negative growth and shrinking populations in places like Italy. Developing countries still account for much of the growth, and even that is slowing down in many places like China. If anything, populations decline is a potential landmine in the future, and we may have to consider initiatives to encourage people to reproduce more.
There was a NYtimes article on the new status of population growth some time ago.
You put a robot there, and it can tell you the chem compositon of a rock.
You put a trained geologist there, carrying the same sensors, and he will tell you the the same info, plus how it correlates with the other rocks, how it fits into strata, what the erosion patterns suggest, what physical processes seem to have shaped this area, how it fits into the larger area context, and whether there were bugs underneath the rock which skittered away when he picked it up.
He'll also process ten times as many rocks, over a much larger distance, go back to the base station, refuel and to a limited extent self-repair, and go out and do it the next day and the next, by which time your robot is out of juice and rapidly becoming a small dust-dune.
And that's if all you care about is rocks.
People don't care about science, they don't understand science for the most part. People understand people, they like to read stories about normal people in extraordinary circumstances, that's why `reality tv' is so popular.
Could this be the way to get the funding to actually go to Mars?
Could we assemble a crew that has the technical knowledge to be successful, and the personalities to be stuck with just a small group for a very extended period while being watched by the whole TV-watching population of the world? Start with a good mix of sexually potent and liberal men and women and it could be some of the best reality entertainment. As least it would create the public interest to make it possible. It would also give the public insight into the wonders (and problems) of zero or low gravity sex, while giving the crew a method to avoid boredom. (Remember the background story of "Stranger in a Strange Land"?)
I live in the US, so it would need to be shown on a cable channel, and the media conglomerates would probably still turn it down. The show would probably be great for a startup, maybe SBC = Space Broadcasting Company. Are there any extremely rich people who would want to start a space exploration and entertainment company?
Nice dream.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
We really shouldn't be sending them up, it is just too risky ... ...
So what, that they spent virtually their entire life training to do it, Knowing, better than anyone, the risks involved
Bullshit.
These people are professionals, more knowledgeable of the risks than anyone else, and of the reasons for taking those risks.
Astronauts do not take any greater risk than, say, a soldier in wartime; and who would argue that the human race, in the long run, would benefit more from any given war than from space exploration/colonisation?
I see astonauts like I see soldiers: doing a job that is necessary, that they believe in to the degree that they are willing to risk their lives to do it I think that space exploration is essential; I am happy to fund it with my tax dollars, grateful to those who do it, and, if called upon, would be willing to take those risks myself.
Some pursuits are worth the loss of human life, for the benefit of the species.
I agree that Probes give better scientific, objective information - and it is very important. ...But a probe can't write poetry. The reason for sending Humans to explore is that human can convey the experience so that others can experience it, if only vicariouly.
I am reminded of the line in Contact when Jodi Foster says "They should've sent a poet..."
10. Robots aren't as dextrous or adaptable as humans yet.
9. Robots aren't smart enough (yet) to be autonomous when telepresence latency increases.
This, I think, is the biggest opportunity that's being missed. In the good old days, NASA invented velcro and tang, and we benefited from this spinoff technology. What new technology does NASA develop now? They should be leading the way in development of cutting edge robotics and AI technology, something that will have benefits to society far beyond space exploration.
The problem is there's no compelling reason to put people up there. Period. If 'exploration' were a good selling point NASA would have been using it.
NASA is playing a losing hand as best it can, but the sad truth is that its mission just doesn't make sense.
Professor Feynman's addendum to the Challenger disaster report.
And d'fim, if I had points, I would have given you a good mod for that post.. but lacking those, I'll just do a little busywork.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
Certainly I can understand the romantic, humanistic spirit of your attitude, but you are forgetting that technology can extend our grasp further into the scope of our reach, and that there is no lack of "human perception" in reading a spectrograph here on terra firma.
I know you don't want to be told that sensors are more usefull in space than people, but they are and you know it.
Oh come on, just because microscopes are designed to "see" small things only that doesn't mean a biologist will miss the big picture (pardon the pun).
Uhh, what makes you think there wouldn't be humans looking at our solar system through these instruments? You seem to think that being on site in one of Nature's frontiers is the only path to discovery. If this were true then sub-atomic physics is being held back because we can't shrink a guy to the size of an electron. If you want the world to know that you think putting people in space is neeto just say so. There's no need to hide it behind this wierd argument. Honestly now bud, exactly what has Neil Armstrong contributed to Astronomy?
Cool. I can't wait for better Velcro and Tang II.
If while collecting data, there needs to be some form of followup experiment, you will need to design a new mission and send a new probe designed to do what the previous one wasn't designed to accomplish.
Yeah. So what? Is Mars about to vaporize?
Could you explain this further? I fail to see how the case can be anything but the opposite.
So what? It takes months to get there as it is.
Everytime the Shuttle gets a story in Slashdot this "we need to explore space" thing comes up as if it were the natural opinion of the scientifically curious. I want Astronomy to continue its advance, but I don't give a shit about putting people out into the void. If an astronaut really wants to learn about the Universe he can get a degree and access to Hubble. The thought of colonizing the Moon or Mars seems, frankly, quite stupid. I wouldn't even go there for free.
Exploration can have significant long term consequences. For example, 20% or so of world GDP is concentrated in the US, a country that didn't exist 225 years ago, and virtually everyone in the US is descended in part from immigrants within the last few hundred years. Further, exploration and the resulting increase in trade was a significant driver for new technology over this period. Better ships, clocks, optics, and economical tools (like insurance and limited corporations) came about due to the demands of exploration and trade.
Consigning space programs to private industry will detach it from popularity issues? Space programs don't make a profit (to my knowledge), so the main reason private industry would want to take them over would be the publicity value and the possibilities of a tourist trade.
The only kinds of space exploration likely to attract corporate support would be stuff draws tourists or wows the public (which might have no scientific value at all). Or, stuff that makes money quickly (and therefore makes stockholders happy). And given the short-sightedness of most corporations, they won't be interested in investing in something that may not pay off for a generation or two.
"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too"
Obviously there were underlying political reasons for the moon landings, but these words are I think as inspiring now as when they were first said.
As an odd footnote, this speech was given on September 12, a date that didn't have the same kind of meaning in 1962 that it does today...
Figure in lasers, and these fighter pilots are looking mighty useless. Technology will always rule.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
So when the inefficiencies of sending ship after ship laden with good sailors out into the "abyss" off the edge of the earth to find "India.," we should have just hugged terra firma (the little speck of europe that was considered terra firma at the time) and never ventured forth to find new lands? Give me a break. Of course astronauts should go, the real question is should they be going first? Should we get proficient at ensuring vehicles gets to where they've got to go safely, before any life or limb is risked? That sounds more prudent than to say we shouldn't risk sending humans into space anymore.
This article discusses how astronauts get lots of useful pictures that we would not get from satellites.
And I've seen lots of articles like this one explaining how an astronaut discovered something unexpected and that would have been missed without the astronaut there.
I've also seen articles (sorry, no links handy) where on-the-ground scientists talk about how they can execute much richer experiments in space because there are people up there.
You might not think these are great examples, and it's true that given enough time, technology could do most of the things that astronauts are doing. Plus the claims that most experiments are autonomous seems true enough. But even with the autonomous experiments, there have been reports back about the people on board being able to see something unexpected, to make calibrations in ways that could not have been anticipated, to make unexpected (and otherwise impossible) repairs to important and pricey equipment.
The common thread here seems to be that having real people on the ISS has generated lots of ideas, with respect to both science and experimentation, that might not have been thought up for some time by ground-based researchers, and certainly not by robots. In other words, they seem to speed up the efficiency of our learning and research up there. And it's possible that having real people on board something like the ISS will help guide researchers in this way for a long time, no matter how far out that research and learning curve goes. What we might look for is the point of diminishing returns on that curve - the time when having astronauts on board, while still adding value, doesn't add enough value to justify their cost or the risk to their lives. From what I've read, we aren't very close to that situation yet.
HAL, open the laucnh bay doors HAL
Why not send the expendable humans instead?
Oh, wait, it turns out that Lance Bass can't actually afford the ticket. Nevermind
--
Right here.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
This is a repeat of the tired new world == space analogy. The differences in the situations are so great that the argument is not at all convincing.
Terrestrial technology is advancing so fast that investments promising distant payoffs (225 years?!) are just plain stupid. You'd be far better off investing in things that can cause nearer term payoffs, then using *that* to pay for space in the future.
"They shouldn't have sent a scientist; they should have sent a poet!"
- Somebody or other (Jodie Foster?) in the movie Contact
(And possibly one of the only things I liked about the movie.) (And I probably don't remember it very accurately; a real Contact fan could correct the quote, I'm sure.)
Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
The analogy may be tired and there are "differences". But the point remains. Ie, exploration started 500 years ago is responsible (in a single country) for increasing world GDP by a quarter now.
Remember that there is as much real estate present on Mars as there is on the Earth. That the entire population of Earth can be fit inside Ceres. That Eros, an Earth crossing asteroid has an estimated $20 trillion of mineral resources. That outside of the garbage situation in Earth orbit and some concerns about alien life on various planets and Moons, there isn't any environment or social concerns outside Earth's atmosphere. That people are willing to spend $20 million dollars just to spend a few days in Earth orbit. That metorites that are known to originate from the Moon sell for several thousand dollars a gram.
Terrestrial technology is advancing so fast that investments promising distant payoffs (225 years?!) are just plain stupid. You'd be far better off investing in things that can cause nearer term payoffs, then using *that* to pay for space in the future.
Ok, we can invest in technologies like the US Savings and Loan bailout of the 80's, the recent stock market bubble, or the looming pension disasters of the next few decades rather than a risky, irrelevant thing like space development. Pardon my sarcasm, but I just don't appreciate "terrestrial technology" like the upcoming bailouts of US residential real estate. Part of this is that money and resources (like people) are things to be consumed. Sure it sounds like a great idea to invest now, and build that space colony later, but what happens if later never happens? Ie, when someone or something found a way to drain that investment? What do we do then? A space colony in hand is worth two on the drawing board.
A robot costs tens of millions of dollars, and in its lifetime does the amount of science a human on-planet could do in an hour. That's inefficient. Humans would cost approximately 20 billion dollars to get to Mars, but in a 3 month stay could potentially do centuries worth of robot-work.
Derek