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.
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.
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?
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"
Quite right. We should be sending crews up for one simple reason: to figure out how to live in space.
Why? Because we'll want to be there someday. There could be any number of reasons:
We should be putting lots of people up into space, and shouldn't be screwing around with crap that doesn't teach us how to stay there.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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