About the manned vs unmanned space program debate

[Crossover_Maniac]

1). I'm in a thread arguing with some people on the merits of the manned space program and they all seem hellbent on killing it and having all of the money go into unmanned space exploration but it never occurs to them that they may not be getting the money and that many of the arguments they make for killing the manned space program can be turned back on them. I guess I'm pissed off at the cutthroat nature of their argument. "We'd get more done if you'd only do us the courtesy of dying".

2). Some of the people on the unmanned only side made the claim that it was a politically partisan issue and that it was mostly right-wingers supporting the manned space program. Do the rest of you, either side, feel the same way?

3). And really the debate seems one-sided in this regard: while the unmanned space exploration supporters want to kill manned spaceflight, few people in the manned spaceflight camp wants to kill unmanned space programs.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Once again, not about a specific Mission or Launch so moved to SB&T with the other threads discussing this issue.

 

[Polishguy]

What the Anti-Manned people don't realize is that most of their funding comes as an attachment to Manned funding. The Mariner Program and Surveyor Program were both produced with connections to the Apollo Program. The Viking program was a direct descendant of the Apollo Applications Program, and intended originally as a precursor for a manned mission to Mars. Voyager was an outgrowth of the Mariner program. Only our three latest "large" probes, Galileo, Cassini, and New Horizons, are stand-alone projects. The Anti-Manned crowd needs to remember that without the funding allocated for manned exploration (The Apollo Program), NASA wouldn't have had the support for the great unmanned missions.

 

[trailrider]

I have said this before, but it needs repeating. If America's manned space program is cancelled or exploration beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO) is drastically curtailed or delayed, within two to three Congressional election cycles, there will be no unmanned probes funded! The reason that will be expressed? "Why should we spend all that money on robotic probes when we are not going there ourselves?"

America used to be a frontier society. The only frontier we have left is straight up, out of the "gravity well"! We need new places to explore...to interest our youth, to expand our horizons, no matter our age or station in life! To quote from James Gunn's anthology, "Station in Space," where the heads of a failed manned Mars expedition are debating whether a robotic ship isn't a better choice than risking human lives, "As a research tool, it's fine. As a symbol, it just won't do. [Humans' representatives, meaningful representatives, must be living, breathing, fearful [humans] like themselves. They've got to be [humans] doing something the people who are left behind think they could have done, given the opportunity...[humans] whose doings give them glory." (Gunn used the word "man" where I've become politically correct.) Again quoting Gunn's characters, "The basic quality of life is movement. An immobile animal is a dead animal. Carnivore and prey know this instinctively. And Man is a dissatisfied animal. Satisfy him and he stops being alive."

America can become the Portugal of the Space Age. But other humans will, ultimately, go out to the Moon and Mars and beyond. Congress must be persuaded that Manned spaceflight not just to some nebulous locations, but to the Moon, Mars and beyond, is a necessary program!

Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!

 

[Gravity_Ray]

I didn’t know there was a manned vs. unmanned space program debate? I'm a bit confused here.

There are things better done as unmanned and things better done manned. How can there be one with out the other? If you have just one or the other, its like a one legged man in an ass kicking competition.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Let's leave the "Left Wing/Right Wing" garbage out of this or will wind up in Politics, and require a Hazmat suit to view, OK?

 

[ThereIWas2]

How would we know what places were interesting enough to visit, or what conditions we need to prepare for, with sending robot missions first? Also, there are reasons of pure research having nothing to do with subsequent manned missions.

 

[kelvinzero]

I think the terms 'manned' vs 'unmanned' are missleading. To me the issue is pure science vs learning how to live and profit there. To me the issue isnt so much whether you send people or send robots, but whether you are sending them with a one-off mission to learn some science facts, or specifically with a plan to build something, to exploit the resources.

For this criteria, the space-shuttle era has been very poor. This is demonstrated by the fact that after thirty years we still apparently do not know the basics of just keeping people alive for the duration of a trip to mars. Radiation mitigation? We dont even seem to know exactly how dangerous it is. We dont seem to know how to keep someone strong in zero gravity. Only recently have we sent up something to recycle our wee, though it keeps breaking down. That wee-recycler is probably the most profound and game-changing advance of the entire period.

I was initially enthusiastic about Constellation, because it promised more than apollo at much less cost, and had a mission that actually revolved about a permanent presence. I was not worried that (unlike apollo) it was not aiming to be a dramatically new achievement, technologically speaking, because what really interested me was the concept of a permanent base. Something that would keep growing with every launch, and most of all a strong incentive to learn how to live off the land in order to minimize the number of these fantastically expensive, dangerous and technologically uninteresting launches.

Then it became clear that (a) president bush had no will to actually fund it, and (b) It was going to cost way more than NASA had initially claimed. These were double death blows. Then instead of a permanent base, it became about manned sorties lasting only a week or two. It became sillier and sillier, culminating in the 'flexible path', which seemed to be entirely about setting distance records into deep space using just one vehicle.

Somehow our manned space program had been perverted entirely away from the eventual goal of colonization or commercialization into the goal of justifying the continual flights of expensive, technologically uninteresting rockets.

 

[High_Evolutionary]

1). I'm in a thread arguing with some people on the merits of the manned space program and they all seem hellbent on killing it and having all of the money go into unmanned space exploration but it never occurs to them that they may not be getting the money and that many of the arguments they make for killing the manned space program can be turned back on them. I guess I'm pissed off at the cutthroat nature of their argument. "We'd get more done if you'd only do us the courtesy of dying".

2). Some of the people on the unmanned only side made the claim that it was a politically partisan issue and that it was mostly right-wingers supporting the manned space program. Do the rest of you, either side, feel the same way?

3). And really the debate seems one-sided in this regard: while the unmanned space exploration supporters want to kill manned spaceflight, few people in the manned spaceflight camp wants to kill unmanned space programs.

I consider myself a no-winger and believe there may be certain interests who could lean more towards unmanned as apposed to manned space flight and vise-versa. I could be wrong but supporting manned space projects would require more resources, support, etc, as say probes which would need a smaller infrastructer. You do need both,

 

[vulture4]

Unmanned programs like the Mars Exploration Rovers are actually quite popular and the Hubble was to be abandoned before its many supporters protested. The personal reward many people feel is dependent on the program giving them a sense that they are "there". In the case of Hubble this may mean at the edge of the observable universe. When we have human spaceflight cheap enough for us to go there ourselves, the experience really will be different. But it isn't that thrilling to see a few astronauts in the picture when there isn't any chance we could go ourselves.

"This is demonstrated by the fact that after thirty years we still apparently do not know the basics of just keeping people alive for the duration of a trip to mars."

This is often claimed but is not accurate; the best estimate of the total radiation dose from such a trip is around 10 seiverts, which is perfectly survivable. I presented one of the first estimates of this radiation dose over twenty years ago and it hasn't changed much since. As for weightlessness, people have repeatedly tolerated it for the length of a trip to Mars.

However everyone who studies the hazards of spaceflight is desperate for funds, and the only way to get funds (i.e. keep your job) is to make the case that your particular problem is a showstopper. So you will probably never read that any problem has finally been solved.

The real reason we cannot send a human to Mars is that with Constellation technology the trip is far too expensive to be worthwhile. Anyone who doesn't consider cost is still living in an age when human spaceflight had a blank check. It doesn't now, and it never will again. The Space Shuttle was mankind's first attempt to confront this challenge and make human spaceflight affordable. It did not achieve its ambitious goals, but it came remarkably close. Human spaceflight with Shuttle today is actually less expensive then it would be with Constellation.

The proper next step to Mars would be a new, fully reusable shuttle to LEO based on the lessons learned from Shuttle; that reusability really works but we must try out each component first in reusable unmanned prototypes, to work out a design that is reliable and economical, before we use it in human spaceflight.

 

[EarthlingX]

This talk about manned-unmanned is silly.

What is an expert without his tools ? Can you live without your car ? mobile ? computer ? ....

There are things that tools can not do, like some more biological, and this is what everything should be about.

Colonization of space. Moving out. Creating infrastructure to enable it, now, while we still can.

 

[samkent]

This debate always circles around to the same few points. And there is the few very vocal ones who feel we have to colonize space. I don’t think there are many citizens who feel this is a bad idea. But there is a clear line drawn when it comes to who should pay for it.

Back in the 50’s and 60’s the federal gov started a program to build the interstate highway system. They spent billions building the infrastructure (roads) for the public good. The key words are “FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD”. No one can question that the money spent was indeed for the public good. They didn’t spend it creating special buildings and living quarters on exotic islands. They didn’t spend it on special ships to get to these islands all in hopes that some company would set up business mining operations. This is what some are asking us to do.

Fast forward to present day. We have spent billions on an aluminum can in orbit to indulge scientists and engineers so they can conduct mostly useless experiments. All under the umbrella of “for the public good”. How much good has been returned to the public? Would congress have spent the billions on the Shuttle and ISS if they had known what we know? We were promised a gateway to the universe and what did we get? Basically all we got was a welfare station in orbit.

And now you say the real gateway is on the Moon. All we have to do is build the roads to get there. Well fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. If we spent the untold billions to set up house on the Moon we would end up with just another welfare station to indulge more engineers and scientists.

If you and the idealists want to fund the whole thing out of your own pockets, go for it. But don’t try to tell us it’s for our own good.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

Wow samkent, if you don’t believe that the space program has been as you put it “FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD” then you need to look a bit closer at miniaturized electronics and what they have done for our health and wealth. That came from the space program, and indulging the various scientists and engineers so that they could conduct their mostly useless experiments.

By the way the whole US space program is .5% of GDP (this includes not just manned space program but all the science, aeronautics, and weather etc… ) where as the military budget is 23%, and the Social Security/Medicare/Medical is 39%.

Don’t you think you are angry at the wrong crowd?

 

[EarthlingX]

And now you say the real gateway is on the Moon. All we have to do is build the roads to get there. Well fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. If we spent the untold billions to set up house on the Moon we would end up with just another welfare station to indulge more engineers and scientists.

No, not just the Moon. Point is, that above gravity wells, like planets and moons have, for example Moon, Mars, Earth, there's a very flat space, gravity wise, with a lot of very big things, some of them rather near, and very likely have what makes spaceflight so expensive - fuel.

We don't need a lander to get to a whole bunch of places, what we do need, is radiation protection, closed circuit environments, if possible self sustainable, ISRU, such things.

We need that anywhere we go. You think this has been done ? No. Canceled. You probably know why..

Anyone can do rockets these days, even Iranians, but the real trick is how to breathe space ..

If solid rockets were such a very good business, why there is no commercial heavy carrier in 20t class with solid rocket motor, or at least i don't know of any .. ? ATK has one, it's a free market, or not ?

This should have not be discussed in this thread anyway ..

 

[vulture4]

Wow samkent, if you don’t believe that the space program has been as you put it “FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD” then you need to look a bit closer at miniaturized electronics and what they have done for our health and wealth. That came from the space program, and indulging the various scientists and engineers so that they could conduct their mostly useless experiments.[/qutoe]

Sorry, another myth. The transistor was patented by Julius Edgar Lilienfeld in 1934 and developed to practicality in the fifties at Bell Labs. The integrated circuit was invented by Jack Kilby of Texas Instruments, who won a Nobel for it. It isn't that I want to put down space, it's that in claiming that so many things are "spin-off", the real people behind these developments are being overlooked.

By the way the whole US space program is .5% of GDP (this includes not just manned space program but all the science, aeronautics, and weather etc… ) where as the military budget is 23%, and the Social Security/Medicare/Medical is 39%.
Don’t you think you are angry at the wrong crowd?

Medicare provides care people need to survive. Without it they would have to spend much more for private health insurance, so it is a net savings. There are legitimate benefits of space; satelites for weather, communications, and navigation for example, but they do not involve human spaceflight.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

I didnt say transistor.

 

[Mobiusfiftyseven]

Probes. Lets send more probes.

 

[Valcan]

I've never understood why people are obsessed with just unmanned flight. In my mind both have there place and both can be improved with the other.

You always need probs we just need to make them cheap and mass producable.

 

[samkent]

then you need to look a bit closer at miniaturized electronics and what they have done for our health and wealth. That came from the space program,

Wrong, the space program just made use of what the electronics industry was able to produce.
Nasa is not paying Intel to design smaller micros.
Nasa is not paying Nokia to design smaller communication devices.
These are consumer driven companies. Even if the space program had paid for the push to miniaturization, unmanned has a greater need for smaller electronics. Please check the history of computers and see how prominent Nasa figures into the equation.

The list of Nasa spinoffs does not include very many things you use in your daily life. One of the more common ones is cordless drills. But who’s to say the rechargeable battery and a drill would not have been combined a year later anyway?

I figure there will be 33 shuttle launches for the ISS in total. If you round the launch cost and hardware cost to 1 billion per, that’s 33 billion for the US. How much has the Soviets spent? That’s an awful lot of Mer’s and Cassini’s. Ask yourself ‘What impact has the ISS had on your life?’.

 

[EarthlingX]

‘What impact has the ISS had on your life?’.

It transformed mine. It means, people are in the space since it started. I can hope, while it is up.

 

[MeteorWayne]

I figure there will be 33 shuttle launches for the ISS in total. If you round the launch cost and hardware cost to 1 billion per, that’s 33 billion for the US. How much has the Soviets spent? That’s an awful lot of Mer’s and Cassini’s. Ask yourself ‘What impact has the ISS had on your life?’.

Actually, by program end, there will be 36. STS-130 is the 32nd.

 

[samkent]

It transformed mine.

You mean you chose a different career path because of manned space flight? Or it touched a warm spot inside because you are a space enthusiast like most of us here?

I’ll bet a rover on Titan would do the same.


36 missions to the ISS, that's even more unmanned probes.

 

[EarthlingX]

It transformed mine.

You mean you chose a different career path because of manned space flight? Or it touched a warm spot inside because you are a space enthusiast like most of us here?

It would be a bit more than that, if you can imagine, but i will not discuss it.

 

[Valcan]

It transformed mine.

You mean you chose a different career path because of manned space flight? Or it touched a warm spot inside because you are a space enthusiast like most of us here?

I’ll bet a rover on Titan would do the same.


36 missions to the ISS, that's even more unmanned probes.

Why does it bug you so much? Do you really think it would go to you? LOL The money spent on the manned program would go to more social programs. It one of those things that always happens. Cold war ended where did the money spent on the military go we used to spend almost 10% of our GDP on defense now its around 5%.

Do i think we need to send more probs to the outer planets? Heck yea i wana see whats on titan. I want to see if there is maybe a ocean on Europa. I want to send probs to all the planets. But it wont happen. To me there is no reason for people who advicate more robotic space exploration and those who advicate manned to argue over the merits of the other. What we need to focus on is Space Exploration, industrialization, and colonization. Robotics is KEY to all of those.

I dont think people should do most of the work on the ISS outside. We need a repair robot. We eventully need to unmanned craft that can assemble, refuel, and move spacecraft/cargo around in orbit. And there are always going to be places people just cant go. Thats why we will always need unmanned. But there are always going to be things people can just do better. And even though i love science, if we arent doing this with the idea of colonization in mind....why are we doing it?