Manned missions into space -- a waste?

[hammegk]

The reason I want to go is that I am a human. ....

I don't know about you all, but I didn't evolve the biggest neocortex in the history of the planet so that I could do that.

Ditto. Or you could say: Space, the Final Frontier.

 

[ZeeGerman]

OK, so I'm a silly idioy. Thank you for confirming the most minor point in my post - that you are unnecessarily harsh and judgmental.

Let's move on to something of substance...



Please explain the shuttle to me. Is the cost of using the shuttle less because the world's productivity has expanded so greatly in the past thirty years or because using a reusable vessel is cheaper when there are a large number of launches to be made?

Correct me if I'm wrong but but hasn't the shuttle program in sum been much more expensive to get paiload into orbit than the russian, chinese or european rockets?

Zee

 

[juryjone]

Correct me if I'm wrong but but hasn't the shuttle program in sum been much more expensive to get paiload into orbit than the russian, chinese or european rockets?

Zee

Might very well be. I don't usually get into the comparative costs. I was just speaking off the top of my head. It was at least the intention that it should be cheaper.

After all, I'm a silly idioy. I can't even spell idiot right.

 

[Correa Neto]

Exactly. You haven't convinced me this can't be done with a combination of AI and remote data analysis. Transmission delays preclude remote control for time critical events like landing.

Where manned missions excell themselves. Remember what I wrote before? If the probes are remotely guided by someone orbiting Mars or any other distant celestial body? Landing is safer and more precise. You could land a ship on a very rough (an very interesting) terrain. You could actually have an armada of very adaptable vehicles exploring Mars, Io, Europa, etc.

Once positioned in front of an interesting feature, however, there is plenty of time to analyze data and send instructions.

It can if we are able to correctly position it, without getting it stuck on a rock, toppled down on some depression or just not out of range from radio contact due to the walls of a gorge. Astronaut sees gorge, realizes its promission, enter gorges, dodges obstacles, identify and measures layers, collect samples an take them to analisys, astronaut gets our of gorge. A lot of these problems could be avoided if the analysis is made by someone remotelly controlling a drone from orbit or from a nearby same place.

Your argument seems to be that you can't imagine a machine sophisticated enough, so it can only be done by men.

Yes, I can, but I just don't think we are nowhere close from building R2D2 so soon. But I may be wrong about this. Actually I hope I am wrong, but I don't think I am.

The fact is, most of the exploration will be done by machines, even on manned missions. The presence of men will be mostly window dressing...

I agree. Missions composed by humans and several types of machines, some AI-controlled, some remotely controlled by humans or even AI. For really important targets or very complex mission objectives, humans will be on controll, from orbiting ships or at safe locations on ground. Distant or long-term missions, these are the market for AI.

 

[Grommitt]

In truth, landing people on Mars would be amazingly expensive and quite dangerous - and very close to pointless, since there is no science that humans could perform that robot probes couldn't do at a tiny fraction of the cost. Having humans there serves only these needs: romance and adventure and public enthusiasm.

Interesting take on Mars mission by Bob Berman in the Woodstock Times.

Article

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Please explain the shuttle to me. Is the cost of using the shuttle less because the world's productivity has expanded so greatly in the past thirty years or because using a reusable vessel is cheaper when there are a large number of launches to be made?

I'm not at all sure what you are driving at. Are you saying that the space shuttle is cheaper than unmanned rockets or what?

The shuttle was highly pricey, spent a lot of time in the garage and was prone to disastrous failure. It's not the poster child for manned space ships.

Which is likelier to get a better return over a shorter period of time (ignoring the fact that world productivity will increase and large-scale interplanetary travel may not happen) - your increase in world productivity or my economies of scale?

Again, I'm not sure what you are trying to imply. Is it your argument that we should start manned expeditions now, because if we do it a lot it will become cheaper than it otherwise would be? If so that can be true without falsifying the claim that it's a hideously expensive waste of money.

By the by, "idiocy" is a perfectly usual English word that most school children would recognise.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=idiocy

Second language?

 

[Graham]

Just for fun . . .

. . . another ill-considered (or just short-sighted) opinon.

Ours has been the first, and doubtless will be the last, vist to this profitless location.

Lt. Joseph Ives, visiting the Grand Canyon in 1861

 

[Graham]

Just another link to demonstrate that sometimes there's profit to be made where you least expect it.

Caltech makes green off red planet

PASADENA, California (AP) -- The California Institute of Technology is making a little green off the red planet. Caltech, which runs the Jet Propulsion Laboratory for NASA, patented the twin rovers it sent to investigate the surface of Mars and is licensing their images for commercial use.

Graham