Slashdot Mirror
Panel Recommends Space Science, Not Stunts
wisebabo writes "A panel reporting to President Obama is recommending that we skip landing on the Moon and Mars and instead consider progressively deeper space voyages (first to the L1 Earth-Moon point, then perhaps the L2 Earth-Sun point, then a Mars flyby/orbit or asteroid visits). While in Mars orbit, the astronauts could send robotic probes to land on the surface, which could be much more effective than current rovers without the 10-minute time lag to Earth. I, for one, whole-heartedly agree that this approach would lead to 'the most steady cadence of steady improvement,' and keep us from inconsistent achievements in space (like not leaving Earth orbit for 40 years). Some would say that this approach would be lacking in the photo-ops necessary to maintain interest in the space program (no footprints on Martian soil) but I think there would be plenty of cool vistas — perhaps a rendezvous with a comet, or even orbiting one of the moons of Jupiter, assuming they figure out radiation shielding — to keep the taxpayer dollars flowing. The science return would be much greater because it would hopefully utilize both man and machine at their best; robots on one-way trips down into a gravity well while the humans provide the intuition and flexibility from orbit."
You've got to burn engines to enter and leave it.
I can see an argument of humans vs space probes, but the idea of putting the humans in orbit to release the space probes seems to be the worst of both worlds.
If we are going to send humans out there, they should be landing on something, otherwise send probes.
We've been to the moon. Let the Chinese try it again. I think landing on an asteroid, or a moon of Mars, or buzzing a comet - they are all much more exciting. The moon is a dead end - tackling deep space is the real future!
The only way to sustain any interest in space exploration is what you call "stunts".
We have, for the past 30 years, embroiled ourselves in space exploration which has led us to the current state of apathy. NASA is at the ends of its life if we continue to follow a step-by-step progression towards the future. There is no hope in a slow progression towards the stars.
We need to take bold actions to ignite interest, because in America only bold actions and strong interest drive anything forward. Lukewarm actions toward a goal are not in our nature, so stop trying to sell us on it, man.
Science does not operate in a vacuum. It needs both public and political support and for that, you definitely need those photo ops... and while a Mars flyby might provide that, a trip to the L1 point won't look especially different from the average space station trip aside from the vehicle used. Just lots of space. Without the pretty pictures, congresspeople who usually don't know any better start asking what the point of NASA is and fight to de-fund it even more.
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
The problem with probes on Mars and the like, is just what the article said. A good space program that would advance science would take a huge ammount of money. The public is a very easily bored creature, just look what happened after Apollo 11. "Well, we made it to the moon! Wait, why are we going back? we DID that already."
The public is very cold on science for science's sake, you have to have photo ops. A trip to the moon would get interest going, get money flowing so they can DO the important stuff. You have to get the public on your side, and, sadly, there's no big Russian menace for the public to cry out, "We must beat them!" Quite a few people thought that once we beat the Russians to the Moon, well, that was fun, no need to go back. Hopefully people will realize how important the space program is, but something tells me that it won't be soon, and it won't be until we get something inspiring. Deep space voyages, while important, won't inspire anyone. Landing on the Moon or Mars? That will.
Why go all that way and not send a few men down to the surface of Mars in a lander? Sure, it might be dangerous, but the whole mission of getting there would be dangerous too.
yes its more logical, and cheaper, to send machines into space. its also logical, and cheaper to video conference than to work next to someone, but those things aren't the same. using immense quantities of energy and huge machines to propel humans across large distances is what half of the engineering sector is about (auto, mech, aero, lots of civil). Machines would do an admirable job, but humans EXPERIENCE it and, well, experience is half the fun. Without the fun engineering and science are just work. Space exploration is supposed to be exciting and inspiring, and robots on Mars are nowhere near as exciting as humans on Mars.
That so called "plan" would have human crews travel all the way to Mars and then sit in orbit around it - in order to save 10 minutes that it takes to contact rowers.
A flyby of the moon might be followed by more distant trips to so-called Lagrange points, first to the location where the gravity of the Moon and the Earth gravity cancel each other out, then to where the gravity of the Earth and Sun cancel out. There could also be visits to asteroids or flybys of Mars leading to landings on one or both of the low-gravity moons of Deimos and Phobos.
To what use are ANY of these trips?
Lagrange points are only useful if you are actually going to position a permanent lab there.
Flybys and visits... What for? You can do that just as fine with robotic probes.
The whole point of space travel is to permanently get humans to other places in the Solar System, Galaxy and Universe other than Earth.
It is not a test to see how far we can throw a rock - it is a test to see how close we are to the colonization of our solar system.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Sending robotic probes down from a manned orbiter is not the way to explore Mars, or anyplace else that we can send people. All a probe like that can do is things we planned for before the mission set out. If the designers didn't think of an experiment, there's little if any chance that the probe can be adapted on the spot to do it. Even if there's a way to load different instrument/manipulation packages into a robot before sending it down, you're still limited to what whoever it's loaded with. The whole point of exploration is that you don't (and can't) know in advance what you're going to encounter or what you might need to examine it and robots can't improvise. Yes, the team running the Mars Rovers has done wonders, but only within the narrow limits of what was built into the rovers in the first place. Robots can't react to the unexpected; you need a human for that, and sooner or later, it's going to happen.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Space travel creates new tech. New tech creates new jobs and new product to trade overseas. New tech is INCREDIBLY valuable. Why isn't this a point of interest in the space program? While I'd like to see people walk on Mars I will of course concede the point to those who comprised this panel as they are obviously more in-the-know than I am. We are capable of so much if we just learn to get over ourselves.
is nice and many scientists seem to enjoy it.
But IMO, Buzz Aldrin (iirc) has the right point of view: from Kittyhawk to Apollo 11 was 66 years. It is an embarassment that we may not be able to put boots on Mars by 2035 --- which would be 66 years after Apollo 11. Human Flight -> Man on Moon shouldn't take less time than Moon->Mars.
If you want to argue that science doesn't concern itself with putting boots on Mars, fine, lots stop funding space science and get back to funding space engineering.
Any human being can understand these words: "the human race has set foot on a different planet". I look forward to the changes that will take longer to understand: what it will mean to the world pscyhe to know that we have demonstrated the possibility of escape, to know that there is a new world to explore, a new adventure to be had, etc. The re-colonization of the Americas by europeans co-incided with the beginning of the greatest leaps forward in technology, prosperity, and freedom (as long as you weren't brown at the time...) in world history. I am looking forward to seeing what shape the "discovery" of Mars will have on all of us.
Short of discovering God or alien life, no unmanned mission will ever get every single human being around the world simultaneously watching their TVs. That's the power of putting boots on Mars. There will be plenty of hard science and engineering to get us there. But having a single goal that any idiot can understand in just 1 statement: that's powerful, and it's worth working towards.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
It's just fine for the government to aim at scientific achievements. Nothing wrong with that. But, the PURPOSE of exploration is to find homes, resources, and work for PEOPLE.
They want to stick permanent research stations (manned or otherwise) at the lagrange points? Cool. Put them up there, put beacons on them, so that real people who are pursuing real life don't run them over. Real life is much much more than just looking at stuff, and figuring out how it works. Real life means USING stuff. If NASA discovers a new crystal on Mars, something that man has never seen before, neither Joe Sixpack nor Aviator Alex is going to give a damn that science has learned something new. Both want to know how they can USE IT! Does it make a super cutting tool? Does it make the greatest lens ever imagined? Maybe it's a superconductor at room temperature, and it can be used in electronics? The best insulating material man has ever seen? If so, then someone is going to pay for transportation to go GET some of the stuff, so he can sell it to people!!
There is nothing wrong with science, but science isn't a goal, in and of itself. Science is a means to an end - the end being, to improve human life.
Sitting around on the earth, and speculating about if and when a moon sized comet might strike the earth certainly doesn't improve human life, or the chances of humanity's survival.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I think one of the reasons that the general public lost interest is because the Apollo Astronauts made it look easy, it was only when peoples lives were at stake did people take interest. Perhaps with the exception of Landing on the moon and Yuri Gagarin it's so vapid that for the general public to appreciate something so amazing and risky they have to do it through a sense of television drama which causes, or nearly causes, a fatality.
People think space travel is routine, mundane, they are indifferent to it because they are suspended in their ignorance into thinking LEO is the same as moon or anywhere else in the solar system. They don't understand the difficulty.
As long as we do *something* it's great but I think this is worthwhile because it hasn't been done and also a bit easier than actually traveling into a gravity well. We go to Mars but we don't land would be worth it for the sheer prick tease value it would garner. I can just see Joe Sixpack sayin it now 'You mean we flew all the way there and we didn't land. - why don't we land that puppy.' There is a lot to be said for going to smaller gravity wells and building capability. Considering we haven't mastered the ability to construct long strand Carbon nanotube and build a terrestrial (or martian) space elevator why not utilise the technology we do have and construct a Moonstalk. Surely by doing this it would be possible to gather resources and build further capability to utilise materials and construct infrastructure outside of our gravity well, allowing more ambitious achievements.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Beyond the earth is wealth beyond the dreams of avarice. Fields strewn with diamonds, entire moons made of hydrocarbon, lands to take dominion of to make Alexander the Great appear an insignificant tribal chief. But the people who take ownership of the realms beyond the sky will send men, not robots.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
But the deal is, we humans are explorers, we want to GO places. Hard coded DNA. Sure send robots to wherever, but we are going to be sending humans as well, no sense living in denial. I know I can't be the only one who is annoyed as all get out that here it is 2009 and we don't have a full time Mars colony yet. WTH?? Trillions for those parasite casino bankers and lameass stoopid wars, chump change relatively speaking for space exploration. The priorities are rather skewed there.
I remember sputnik, can tell you what happened all over the dang planet. Anyone and everytone who was aware of it, even villagers over in whoknow'swhereistan from listening to far away shortwave news broadcasts, everyone who was physically able to walk or get carried outside just went outside and just stared at the sky. Just stared. Billions of people all went outside and contemplated the universe and their place in it and other sorts of things like that, all of the above, it was scary and alse awe inspiring at the same time.
Not to many years later, we all did it again, a HUMAN was up there now!
Not too many years later, we did it AGAIN, a human was on the moon! Outside staring looking up.
Now what, what happened, what happened to the drive, the wonder, the excitement the longing? Strangled by lame politicians and pork and the "necessity" of wasting huge sums on total crap and Cxx "profits", that's what happened. And they even want to deorbit the biggest space station ever built, and also the only one we have. More WTF??
Humans need adventure, robots are OK, but it ISN'T adventure or exploring, not the stuff that gets people to all go outside and stare at the sky, or what they did in the olden days, stare at the horizon down at the beach after some little wooden sailboats set sail. That's what humans NEED and you just can't slap a price on that "need for exploration" with some bean counters cost/benefit spreadsheet.
Human spirit is priceless, destroy that, you've destroyed what really makes us human.
For a long time, there have been too many pigs gorging themselves at the NASA feeding trough. We need to get rid of the Boeings, Lockheed-Martins, and other contractors. A NASA engineer primarily oversees a horde of contractors who oversee sub-contractors who oversee sub-sub-contractors. By the time all of the time/cost billing is added up, NASA is being billed $800,000 for a $120,000 engineer. NASA does things like award a $175,000 contract to Lockheed with the cutsy sounding name of "determining an alternative zero gravity point device" when the ball in the old mice didn't work. A company which was flying a project on the KC-135 (vomit comet) ran into the same problem of the mouse not working, ran to the computer store, grabbed a $50.00 trackball, and the problem was solved. Solve these problems with cost-plus contractors, and NASA's budget will practically fix itself.
Wherever you go, there you are.
Who cares if it is hard? It is that difficulty that should be making us want to do it!
What has happened to people! Is there no sense of adventure? Must everything have a cost benefit analysis done? The USA wouldn't have landed a man on the moon with you people in charge. Not everything we do must have an immediate and direct benefit to society. Not everything must make a buck. Some things should be done, just because we can, and it would a great thing to accomplish. Look, the USA spends more in a year making war than going to Mars would cost. Why is it ok to spend all that money killing, but not ok to do something noble, adventurous, and just plain cool.
Colonize Mars!
Anarchists never rule
Even though Apollo was designed for a moon landing, 8 went to to lunar orbit but had no LM. 10 flew the LM in lunar orbit but did not attempt to land. (9 was an earth orbit test of the LM and docking).
It makes sense to start with an orbital mission just to learn what problems we didn't know we needed to solve. As long they're going that far, they might as well take some expendable robotic probes with them.
Once we have that worked out, we can think about landing.
I fully agree that Mars missions would be a much better use of our tax money than blowing up brown people.