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.
"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?
That's all true, but is it worth endangering a human life when the experiment isn't crucial? Unmanned scientific flights, where experiments are done, is great. But that doesn't mean make all flights unmanned. The Space Station will almost always need to have people, and some things are too important to trust to a machine.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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
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"
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?
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
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.
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?
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...
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
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.