More on NASA and the manned space program...

[Tez]

Over the 18 months or so I've been posting on this forum, I've had several arguments about NASA and the manned space program.

My thesis has been that NASA deceives the public into thinking that the program is necessary for pushing the frontiers of science. Yet they do not compete for funding the way other science labs do. Essentially they manipulate and abuse "science" for their own gain, and I find it disgusting.

I've said many times - if you think that a manned space program is necessary because it is "what separates us from the chimps" - our desire to explore the unknown etc etc, then be honest about it. The billions of dollars spent should be evaluated by how well they are allowing us to fulfill this dream.

Here is an article from someone who has actually built experiments for the shuttles. He is not as anti-NASA as I am, so perhaps he's more believable:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/29/o...00&en=bc4ae8784246c6f2&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

[SNIP] In-orbit experiments like mine have been used to justify manned space projects like the shuttle for decades.

The truth is that the vast majority of scientific experiments conducted in orbit — including my own — do not require astronauts. The main reason for in-orbit experimentation is to observe how a scientific process works without gravity-driven influences. But almost all of these tests, save those that must be done on humans, can be controlled from the ground via computer or by robots in space. In fact, some of the best work is done this way when the crew is asleep, not moving about and causing vibrations.

[SNIP]


Remote-controlled experiments may seem to contradict images we have grown accustomed to — of happy, busy astronauts manipulating scientific equipment or talking about the science on board, or occasionally reporting on the objectives of experiments. But this public image of astronauts as laboratory scientists working on their own experiments is a bit misleading. Since the Mercury 7 pioneers, the astronaut corps has served one overriding political and public relations purpose — to sell the space program.

The idea of using the space shuttle as a scientific laboratory actually came about after the shuttle's design was already in place. The shuttle program was conceived in the waning days of the Apollo program as the best option to continue a manned space program at the lowest cost. However, without a place to shuttle to, and not nearly enough satellites that needed a shuttle to launch or repair them, the shuttle program succeeded in doing little beyond creating a human presence in space. The idea of the shuttle as an in-orbit lab was used as a justification for investment in its future.

Similarly, the International Space Station has been aggressively marketed as a science lab. In fact, the station is seriously flawed in that too much crew time needs to be committed to station maintenance, and 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.

Because of cost overruns and budget problems, the station's crew was cut back to three from the planned seven. Originally, 120 astronaut-hours per week were to have been devoted to science; this has been cut back to 20 hours per week. With the shuttle program grounded once again, it has become even more difficult to exchange crews, replace experiments or repair and refurbish equipment.

[SNIP]

If NASA is not able to convince the public of the importance of science in orbit without astronaut involvement, then so be it. At least America's refusal to support science would be honest, would not needlessly endanger human lives or compromise the integrity of science and scientists.

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.

 

[rwguinn]

you would be hard-pressed to convince the public that the space program was worth doing without men/women involved.
Most of the experiments you are thinking of could indeed be done remotely. no problem, there. As I recall, Sagan was of similar mind on much of this.
Yet-without the men flying these things, where is the urgency for a superlightweight color video camera to make better pictures from the moon? This was accomplished in a very short time-like between Apollo 11 and 12... and spawned one devil of an industry. Who doesn't have a hand-held video camera now? Back in the 60 and 70's, they were huge!
where is the need for all the wonderful monitors and such which routinely save lives today? Where is the impetus for folks to wear various monitors, perform seemingly endless tasks, and offer bodily samples on a continuous basis? I doubt that there is anyone out there who doesn't know someone who is alive today as a direct result of the original research on the human body in space or preparing for space. A Doctor in Roswell has developed tools for gall bladder and liver surgery based on fiber optics and remote manipulators used in the manned space program. I was home by noon and back at work in 2 days after have a gall bladder removed. I'll take that!
The jump from the vacuum tube to transistor to IC all had roots in the manned space program. Graphit-epoxy fishing rods and model airplane spars. Titanium knee joints... One can go on for hours, without even mentioning computers and the internet.
The other, and more important, at least to me, reason: Because we can.

 

[RichardR]

I've been thinking this for some time. Here is a similar article.

The shuttle exists to service the space station. The space station exists as a destination for the shuttle. Experiments performed on either take up a small proportion of the time and even then are worth very little. It is much cheaper to launch satellites via conventional rockets.

The shuttle is needed to service the Hubble, and maybe a few similar projects, but otherwise I can’t see any benefit in either it of the ISS.

 

[BillyJoe]

My understanding is that, If spaceflights were unmanned, the number of flights could be increased by a factor of ten with the availabe funding. It seems that this is not done because they would lose public support - people are sexier than machines.

 

[Diamond]

Whilst I agree with sentiments about the shuttle and the ISS and would like to see both scrapped, I do see a need for humans to go to Mars (possibly via the Robert Zubrin "Mars Direct" process).

Psychologically, to step away from manned exploration is to step away from the real exporation of space. Nobody remembers the Russians actually landed on the moon, explored using crude robots and returned samples of moon rock, all unmanned.

We also have to remember that NASA does the will mostly of the military. It does not necessarily choose the best projects for scientific reasons.