Space Shuttle Flies Today

[JJM]

And so what do you think astronauts are doing up there?

Killing time, trying to come home healthy. The Royal Astronomer in Britain finds their work "underwhelming" and Physicist Bob Park thinks they are an inordinately expensive grade school science show. Researchers who have gotten good data from the space-shuttle/science station concede they could have gotten the same data robotically.

What do you think they are doing up there?

Do you think we should never go up there?

We don't have any reason to do so now, or in planning. Perhaps I am not clever-enough to think of a good reason; but I can't.

 

[uruk]

You are imagining an ideal that does not exist.

A person on Mars cannot stray far from a shelter from a Solar storm (from which our magnetosphere protects us). Moreover, when doing exploratory research, one cannot know what supplies one needs from day-to-day. The cost of launching anything into space limits the supplies they will have. In your scenario, imagine a chemist on Mars who needs a sample of iridium that is not at hand.

Nobody said it would be easy. Solar storms don't happen all the time. A biologist in the field has to find shelter from a storm or monsoon here on Earth also.

Supplies are always at a compromise with any exploratory research. Imagine a chemist in antartica who needs a sample of iridium that is not at hand.

I know we are talking of difficulties on a greater magnitude. But so were problems in the past when technology was not yet mature. But technology matures by the necessity.

Remember economies of scale. Cost of things get cheaper as the infrastructor developes.
Launching things in space is expensive because there are only a few organizations doing it.

The "humans can solve problems on the spot" is a fantasy belied by scientific experience.

You can't send a signal faster that the speed of light. The probes are autonomous but only barely. Any commands have to be designed around and abilities are limited by the time it takes for a signal to reach the probe and a return response recieved.
And call me back when we have anything approaching A.I.

Remember the galileo probe? Shame about the main communication dish. Severly hampered the mission. Yea we got back great stuff, but no where near what we could have.
And the Mars rover that is having to travel backwards at an even slower rate because of a busted motor.

The only thing we have learned from manned-flight is how to exist in space, and we don't really need to know to do that.

And who are you to make such an assesment.

Manned space program only tells us how to man space hmm?
What do we get from the nice pictures of Saturn?
What do we get from blasting a crater on a comet?
What do we get from drilling rocks on Mars?

The manned space program has given us more of a practical return than pure science deep space or planetary research.

 

[Jimbo07]

we don't really need to know how to do that.

We don't really need to know how the universe began, so nix to funding for JWST...

Assuming there's any need that can be derived from geology at all, we can probably get most of our data on earth, so probably don't really need to count rocks on a Martian hillside, so nix to funding on the next generation of robotic landers...

Closer to home, we don't really need to know if the Higgs Boson exists at predicted energies, so nix to funding for LHC. Knowledge of Higgs doesn't really provide grain for the world, after all...

We don't really need to have sailors die on your hopeless voyage to find a shorter route to India. Moreover, you're an idiot for calculating that the Earth is as small-round as you think. It's dangerous and stupid, so nix to funding for your trans-oceanic voyage...

etc.

 

[uruk]

Killing time, trying to come home healthy. The Royal Astronomer in Britain finds their work "underwhelming" and Physicist Bob Park thinks they are an inordinately expensive grade school science show. Researchers who have gotten good data from the space-shuttle/science station concede they could have gotten the same data robotically.

What do you think they are doing up there?

http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/gcrc/space/
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/science/index.html
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4213/preface.htm
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/0008.Viskanta.space.html

That's not to say that NASA does not have a problem with it's direction. I think NASA suffers from being a government agency and all the problems politics entails.

One is that scientists get very few oppurtunities to perform the experiments themselves in a space environment. NASA uses people with military backgrounds rather than science on flights.

With robotics you are limited by the design of the device. How many times you can run the experiment, dealing with unknowns, etc.

We don't have any reason to do so now, or in planning. Perhaps I am not clever-enough to think of a good reason; but I can't.

Why does sending a probe to Staurn tell us anything more important about oursleves than putting people in orbit to explore that environment? Solving the problems gives us returns.

Apollo gave us many beneficial spinoffs. Mini-computers is just one of those things.

I think NASA needs to get things in better order but it would be our loss to let the manned space program go.

 

[JJM]

Nobody said it would be easy. Solar storms don't happen all the time. A biologist in the field has to find shelter from a storm or monsoon here on Earth also.

That is a stretch. Monsoons are not invariably lethal.

Supplies are always at a compromise with any exploratory research. Imagine a chemist in antartica who needs a sample of iridium that is not at hand.

But they can get it in six months. You are grasping at straws.

Remember economies of scale. Cost of things get cheaper as the infrastructor developes.

The history of manned space flight is exactly the opposite.

{snip} The manned space program has given us more of a practical return than pure science deep space or planetary research.

Examples? And don't include things that could have been done without people's tiny involvement; things that could have been done robotically.

You are out of your league.

 

[JJM]

{snip}

Let me explain about "return on investment." The unmanned rovers on Mars, the Hubble telescope- they provide data every day. The space station is notable whenever somebody attaches a new solar panel or sets a record for time on a space walk. If discovery means anything, finding out what black matter is (Hubble) trumps learning how much bone-loss an astronaut experiences in ten months.

 

[BenBurch]

LOL!

Comparing a solar storm to a storm you might encounter while exploring, say, Antarctica is not useful at all!

Given the frequency of solar storms, in fact, there is a huge chance of a manned mission to Mars using a minimum energy orbit encountering a solar storm even if launched at the bottom of the solar cycle.

And there is simply no way to adequately shield humans in space outside of the earth's magnetic field!

 

[rocketdodger]

We don't have any reason to do so now, or in planning. Perhaps I am not clever-enough to think of a good reason; but I can't.

I will give you two good reasons (for eventually going) JJM:

1) Lots and lots and lots of resources.

2) A chance to get away from the more stupid members of our species (if killing them is morally distasteful).

That being said, I wholeheartedly agree that there is no reason to go now, nor in the near future. In fact I would say that until we have engines that only exist in sci-fi (fusion or anti-grav or what have you) it will be economically pointless to go -- we are better off funneling resources into things with positive results.

 

[Jimbo07]

You said:

The astronaut program is an astonishingly expensive and pointless stunt that should be canceled.

You did not say:

There is a limited pot of money for space research and all other things being equal, we might enjoy greater benefit in the short term from a next gen. telescope like JWST than from the ISS.

I could be charitable and assume that this is what you meant. I could be uncharitable and assume you meant

Human beings should not explore further than 100 km from earth (a definition of 'outer space'). Ever.

In which case, I refer you back to the post you snipped. A statement of absolutes has nothing to do with ROI. Personally, I advocate politically for the entire pot to be expanded. That way, those whose interests lie in exploration/space engineering and those whose lie purely in science can both be met. We can even continue the investigation of black matter (you probably meant dark matter, since you saw fit to 'educate' me )

 

[BenBurch]

I'm all for exploring anything! But I am not for public funds for this.

Public funds should be for the best science return, which is robotic missions.

Let National Geographic take up a collection if people really want to go to Mars!

 

[uruk]

That is a stretch. Monsoons are not invariably lethal.

Here's a report from 2001 on how many people died world wide due to storms
http://www.worldmapper.org/posters/worldmapper_map251_ver5.pdf

But they can get it in six months. You are grasping at straws.

New rocket technology can get a supply craft to Mars in three months
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/news/releases/1999_2001/h00-91.html
There are many different routs to Mars. Some take longer some shorter. depend on the route and how much fuel you use.

The history of manned space flight is exactly the opposite.

Which is why I said NASA needs a new approach to the manned spaceflight program.

Examples? And don't include things that could have been done without people's tiny involvement; things that could have been done robotically.

Here is a place you can start looking.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/news/releases/1999_2001/h00-91.html

You are out of your league.

And you lack foresight and imagination.

 

[uruk]

Let me explain about "return on investment." The unmanned rovers on Mars, the Hubble telescope- they provide data every day. The space station is notable whenever somebody attaches a new solar panel or sets a record for time on a space walk. If discovery means anything, finding out what black matter is (Hubble) trumps learning how much bone-loss an astronaut experiences in ten months.

What benefit do you get from discovering black matter (or rather dark matter)?
Pure scientific discovery. Nothing wrong about that.
Is that any more important than discovering some insight to our physiology.
How do you weigh the importance of one against the other?

Personal opinion?

 

[uruk]

LOL!

Comparing a solar storm to a storm you might encounter while exploring, say, Antarctica is not useful at all!

Given the frequency of solar storms, in fact, there is a huge chance of a manned mission to Mars using a minimum energy orbit encountering a solar storm even if launched at the bottom of the solar cycle.

And there is simply no way to adequately shield humans in space outside of the earth's magnetic field!

It's all problem for technology to solve. And don't we gain insight and innovation from the attempt to solve that problem. Apollo gave us quite abit technology wise.

If the Earth's magnetic field protects us from solar radiation, then would not a magnetic field generated by some yet to be invented device do the same for a cabin? Nothing in physics says it can't be done.

 

[uruk]

I'm all for exploring anything! But I am not for public funds for this.

Public funds should be for the best science return, which is robotic missions.

Let National Geographic take up a collection if people really want to go to Mars!

Hey no worries, Other countries are trying for the manned mission thing. Let's see what happens.

What do you say we leave it to them.

Funny you mentioned National Geographic. It's an awesome way of learning about other countries right? Pictures, text. Just like being there yourself.

 

[BrianSI]

I'm all for exploring anything! But I am not for public funds for this.

Public funds should be for the best science return, which is robotic missions.

Let National Geographic take up a collection if people really want to go to Mars!

Just don't at the same time limit the right for private enterprise to give it a shot.

I'm with you otherwise.

 

[uruk]

Just don't at the same time limit the right for private enterprise to give it a shot.

I'm with you otherwise.

I'm all for private enterprise involvement. I think the government should encourage it.

I believe you wont have serious movement into space untill coprporations get involved.

There is a huge tourist potential, not to mention mining concerns. The moon has a crap load of tritium and helium-3

 

[JJM]

{snip} I believe you wont have serious movement into space untill coprporations get involved.

How long will it take before you realize that they don't get involved because there is no value in it?

There is a huge tourist potential, not to mention mining concerns. The moon has a crap load of tritium and helium-3

Tourists, perhaps- in low-level flight, not fly me to the Moon. Tritium and helium- nonsense, the cost of space flight way exceeds their value.

 

[Tearout]

Let me explain about "return on investment." The unmanned rovers on Mars, the Hubble telescope- they provide data every day.... etc.

But....... The Hubble project was botched.

Without shuttle and crew to fix it, it would be space junk.

 

[JJM]

But....... The Hubble project was botched.

Without shuttle and crew to fix it, it would be space junk.

I know. It was unprecedented. Today, probes can be made with better quality control, and designed for robotic repair. If the Hubble were repaired by a crew that burned-up on re-entry, would you consider that a good thing? I would not.

 

[uruk]

How long will it take before you realize that they don't get involved because there is no value in it?

Then you might want to call up these guys and tell them they are wasting thier time and money.:

Virgin Galactic (owned by Richard Branson of Virgin airlines)
Scaled Composits (Burt Rutan's company, winner of the Ansari X-prise)
EADS Astrium
Bigelow Aerospace (who recently tested an inflatable habitat in orbit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5173388.stm )
Constellation Services International
Space Adventures Ltd
Hilton International (Yes THAT Hilton they are looking into a project called Space Islands: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/293366.stm )
Google (who is offering a new X-prize for a private organization to land a probe or rover on the moon
wirefly(who is also offering a prize)
Northrope Grumman (is also offering a lunar landing prize)
Here is a link listing companies that are investing or involved in space privitization:
http://www.spaceprojects.com/companies/

And this not mentioning all the contractors that are currently involved with NASA.
Such as Boeing, Northrope Grumman, Lockeed Martin, General Dynamics, and others that provide other services. These guys are making money hand over fist

Tourists, perhaps- in low-level flight, not fly me to the Moon. Tritium and helium- nonsense, the cost of space flight way exceeds their value.

There are companies listed above that are looking at tourist flights to the moon.

Here's a link to a paper talking about Nuclear Fusion.
http://cosmos.ucdavis.edu/2005/Cluster 2/Energy Crisis - Peter Kim.pdf

Tritium and Helium-3 are seen as the best possible answer to the fusion problem. There are huge quantities of deuterium on Earth but tritium and helium3 are very rare, but they are abundant on the Moon. And it is very expensive to manufacture helium-3. So much so that mining the moon may be a viable option.