Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Astronauts As Alien Life Hunters?

Posted by Soulskill on from the risk-is-our-business dept.

astroengine writes "Ever since the last NASA space shuttle mission touched down in Florida on July 21, there has been a spirited debate in articles and blogs across the Internet over the future of humans in space. Everyone seems to be asking: What's the point of spending shedloads of cash getting mankind into space when robots can do it at a fraction of the cost? Well, pending any great (and unexpected) advance in robotics, our adaptability in space may be our biggest asset. Ultimately, the hunt for extraterrestrial life may need an astronaut to physically push deeper into space." Also, who wants to let the robots have all the fun?

19 of 172 comments (clear)

  1. True, but that's still going to be a tough sell by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, humans would certainly be a lot better at searching for and finding life in person than any remote robot. But without at least some hint that such life even EXISTS in our solar system outside of earth, that's a pretty bizarre justification for a very expensive and resource-intensive manned space program. And even if it were a reason, if wouldn't justify the last 40 years of the manned space program. If life is out there in this solar system, it's sure as hell not sitting in low earth orbit. You're going to have to go to other planets and moons if you want to find life. And that's going to require a huge investment. Good luck getting that kind of scratch out of a bunch of first-world governments *already* spending way beyond their means.

    This guy is actually proposing building research stations on the moon and Mars. And that's going to be an even bigger investment than just getting there. Is that doable? With enough motivation and money, sure. But that's the kind of motivation that's going to require sacrifice. Would you be willing to see your taxes double to pay for it? Would you be willing to give up one of the big government expenses/entitlements (Social Security, the military, Medicare) and funnel that money to NASA? If your answer is "no" to both of those questions, you can probably forget about your Mars bases. Exploration and colonization that far out isn't going to come cheap. That's going to be a pretty tough sell just to answer the philosophical question "Are we alone?" (especially when the answer may well turn out to be "Yes," at least in this solar system).

    And for anyone who might suggest going *beyond* our solar system, well that's even more crazy/expensive. With the kind of propulsion we have now, even in the best case scenario it would take tens of thousands of years to reach even the closest other solar system. So unless you have a warp engine on the drawing board, you can pretty much forget that.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:True, but that's still going to be a tough sell by genner · · Score: 3, Funny

      . So unless you have a warp engine on the drawing board, you can pretty much forget that.

      All we need to do is build a ship entirely out of neutrinos.

    2. Re:True, but that's still going to be a tough sell by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Funny

      All we need to do is build a ship entirely out of neutrinos.

      We will. It arrived there several years ago.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:True, but that's still going to be a tough sell by drakaan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Put me down on the list of people who would gladly give up his social security benefits and pay double his current tax rate if my government would build research stations on the moon and/or mars. I'd bump that up to 2.5x my current rate if they'd relax FAA restrictions on private spaceflight and pump cash into commercial spacecraft development.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    4. Re:True, but that's still going to be a tough sell by danlip · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Put me down as someone who would give up 90% of our military budget for just about any decent science investment (or even indecent ones, like a Mars colony)

    5. Re:True, but that's still going to be a tough sell by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, humans would certainly be a lot better at searching for and finding life in person than any remote robot.

      I'm not sure even that is true. Yes, Earth-bound humans are better than software at reasoning things out -- but that can largely be done remotely, as we have seen with the Mars rovers.

      Earth-bound Humans are currently better at many impomptu, lightweight manual tasks than Earth-bound robots -- but are they still better when encumbered in a 200-pound spacesuit, with gloves like oven mitts? I'd argue that a robot (either locally or remotely controlled) might be more agile than a human in that situation, if only because the robot doesn't need to be hermetically sealed into a life-support system that inhibits its movements.

      Which leads to the biggest problem with humans-in-space: humans aren't expendable. If a robot breaks down in space, you can just let it hobble along as best it can, and/or abandon it and send out an identical replacement. If a human being gets sick or dies in space, that is a potential mission-ender, from both a technical and political perspective. Look how long it took NASA to recover from the Challenger disaster -- years of reviews and finger-pointing. With robot missions, OTOH, even a catastrophic failure just means money down the drain, not flag-draped empty coffins and tearful "My Fellow Americans" speeches on the TV. (yes, I know, death is noble and part of the Grand Adventure and all, but it wouldn't take too many iterations of "watch a beloved astronaut die a slow, horrible death on live TV, with bugger all that anyone can do about it" to convince the American public that their dime is better spent elsewhere)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    6. Re:True, but that's still going to be a tough sell by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 2

      I'm not a US citizen, but I'd even donate money to the US government, if it meant they'd go public with the Cheyenne mountain complex...

      Joke aside, both you and grandparent make a good point. However, the legal framework for space exploration/exploitation must be laid down first. The one we ahve right now is not exactly conducive, nor enforceable. We need one that lets nations take ownership/stewardship of extraterrestrial territories, an empowered UN authority to oversee spaceflight and extraterrestrial resource extraction, and shares the fruits of the exploration in a just and justifiable manner to encourage participation.

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
    7. Re:True, but that's still going to be a tough sell by couchslug · · Score: 2

      "Yes, humans would certainly be a lot better at searching for and finding life in person than any remote robot."

      Bullshit. Your asserted conclusion doesn't apply to present tech because supporting humans is so expensive and resource-intensive that they can barely be sent off-earth.

      Your asserted conclusion won't apply to future tech because it will continue to improve very quickly since its life-cycle need not be prolonged like the Space Shuttle.

      Humans MUST interact with the totally hostile off-earth environment by using machines of varying complexity. The need for an onsite operator is diminishing, so that leaves "tourism" as a reason to send meat into space.

      Space "exploration" isn't any different from combat airpower in the respect that putting the operator up-front is an expensive liability entailing a massive logistic tail. It's dull and dangerous, ideal for remotely-operated and eventually autonomous systems.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    8. Re:True, but that's still going to be a tough sell by xstonedogx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Government is not the answer. NASA has neither the will nor the ability to build stations on the moon or even to reach Mars. Now if China were to land a man on the moon...

      Put your money where your mouth is and donate to or invest in a private organization that shares your goals. They are not only more likely to succeed, but more likely to spend that money wisely and in a way that reflects your interests. Bonus: you might see profits someday.

    9. Re:True, but that's still going to be a tough sell by the+gnat · · Score: 2

      Would you be willing to see your taxes double to pay for it? Would you be willing to give up one of the big government expenses/entitlements (Social Security, the military, Medicare) and funnel that money to NASA?

      Well, I wouldn't be willing to see my taxes double, and since I'll never get to go on any of these space missions, I'd prefer to keep at least some insurance against dying on the streets at age 70. Given the choice, I'd prefer to see most of the $1 trillion or so we're flushing away on our military used to pay of the national debt, and/or refunded to taxpayers. But if the money needs to be spent, I'd prefer to see it go to the space program, and I think you'll find a lot of people in agreement.

    10. Re:True, but that's still going to be a tough sell by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter....

      But I'm not giving you a dime until you come up with some sort of not-insane business plan. Too bad you can't. There IS NO economic justification for space exploration as of yet. The technology is nowhere near advanced enough. Now, go find some Unobtanium and maybe that will change things. But absent that, it will be governments doing it for government reasons - only a small bit of that will be the advancement of mankind.

      We need a credible enemy. Either the Chinese or aliens, take your pick. I personally prefer the latter since we can control them with decades old hardware.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    11. Re:True, but that's still going to be a tough sell by xstonedogx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      GP didn't say anything about the economics of it. He said research base. He said donate. Imagine what NASA could do with twice the funds and none of the Congressional oversight. Now imagine what NASA as we have it now would do with twice the funds (but not guaranteed) and the same amount of Congressional oversight.

      As for a 'not-insane business plan' it seems pretty obvious to me that if you think what is lacking is the technology than that is where you should put your money first.

    12. Re:True, but that's still going to be a tough sell by bobamu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Surely it's preferable for space transport projects not to go bang.

    13. Re:True, but that's still going to be a tough sell by holmstar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Would you be willing to see your taxes double to pay for it? Would you be willing to give up one of the big government expenses/entitlements (Social Security, the military, Medicare) and funnel that money to NASA? If your answer is "no" to both of those questions, you can probably forget about your Mars bases. Exploration and colonization that far out isn't going to come cheap.

      No it won't be cheap, but it's a different scale of expense than what your suggesting. We're talking about a cost of probably something around $100 billion. While that's many times the current NASA budget, it's still only a small fraction of the total Federal budget. It would be less than $1000 per tax payer per year. Not to downplay the value of $1000, but i'd certainly be willing to give that if it meant "boldly going" to places like Mars, Europa, etc.

    14. Re:True, but that's still going to be a tough sell by Jeremi · · Score: 2

      Then how is it that not even 2000 iterations of "watch your beloved GI Joe die a horrible death" did manage to convince your American public to expend their dimes anywhere but Iraq/Afghanistan?

      That's a good question... the difference is that the government can sell war to the American public by convincing them that it's necessary to keep them safe... the old "better over there than here" argument.

      NASA, OTOH, can't play the fear card. The public (rightly) views space exploration as a non-necessity.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  2. Humans are the most adaptable *on earth now* by buybuydandavis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But let's see them adapt to vacuum. To cosmic rays. To a year of hibernation.

    A human mission requires orders of magnitude more cost and complexity than a robotic mission. For the same lift requirements, you could set up a robotic science center good for years if not decades of experiments.

    And robots are getting better every year. Computers are getting better every year. It's really no contest at this point.

    1. Re:Humans are the most adaptable *on earth now* by internerdj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not to mention that a manned mission would be much easier with in situ resource utilization that would necessitate a lot of unmanned research and prep work.

    2. Re:Humans are the most adaptable *on earth now* by khallow · · Score: 2

      If you have to interface with the environment through a machine, does it make sense to do it on location versus remotely?

      How "remotely"? One of the big obstacles is the lag in communication between Earth and location. For the Moon, it's just three seconds round trip. You can run things almost real time with that short a time lag. For Mars, the communication delay is more like 15 minutes. Remote interfacing with a 15 minute round trip delay just doesn't make sense.

  3. lets stay where we are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    it worked for the dinosaurs

    oh...