Need More Robots in human space flight

[DarkenedOne]

There seems to be rift between the human space flight department of NASA and the robotic departments of NASA. It is very unproductive because the programs can and should complement each other.

Robots are the best ways to conduct the initial stages of space exploration and development. Orbiters like the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter should do initial surface recon. Small, expendable, and inexpensive robots can be used to scout areas of interest for a human mission. Robots can evaluate potential sites for useful materials. They can even set up a landing pad and test in-situ tech.

For example, a robotic mission can be sent to mars to test the sabatier reaction for local production of rocket fuel. A robotic mission can be sent to the lunar surface to evaluate the amount and consistency of water there.

We can advance future manned exploration by testing these new technologies and evaluating local resources.

The question why are we not doing it.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

Well NASA does some of the things you mentioned.

However a simple reason why we have not done more is the fact that the shuttle program is/was incredibly expensive and was gobbling up the majority of NASA's budget. We were going to go from the frying pan into the fire with the Constellation program which was going to be another incredibly expensive program but that has now been scrapped (well supposedly scrapped its not for sure yet what will happen).

But hopefully all that money from the shuttle program and the constellation program can now be channeled into a more balanced program of science and robotics, with human missions coming where ever they are needed.

Another problem now is how hard it is to make a balanced program and explain it to a very stupid Congress that needs a “destination”. As if the future of human civilization in space is not a “destination”.

 

[DarkenedOne]

Well NASA does some of the things you mentioned.

However a simple reason why we have not done more is the fact that the shuttle program is/was incredibly expensive and was gobbling up the majority of NASA's budget. We were going to go from the frying pan into the fire with the Constellation program which was going to be another incredibly expensive program but that has now been scrapped (well supposedly scrapped its not for sure yet what will happen).

But hopefully all that money from the shuttle program and the constellation program can now be channeled into a more balanced program of science and robotics, with human missions coming where ever they are needed.

Another problem now is how hard it is to make a balanced program and explain it to a very stupid Congress that needs a “destination”. As if the future of human civilization in space is not a “destination”.

Well I understand that the shuttle has taken a great deal out of the budget for these types of things, but I do not think that is the cause. The great thing about robotics missions like the ones that I have proposed is that they are relatively cheap. A Mars mission to test the Sabatier reaction on Mars would probably cost even less than the Mars Exploration Rover, but it would substantially advance a technology that would make a Mars mission possible. Same thing with a moon rover to go looking for water. Nasa should have no problem with such missions.

Personally I think is a resistance to new technology and strategies in space exploration. This resistance to advancement became apparent to me with Constellation was proposed. It was like Mike said "Apollo on steroids." They decided to conduct it Apollo style. Apollo did it in an extremely expensive way and that is why it was cancelled, so I knew from the moment it was proposed that it would not be viable.

 

[kelvinzero]

This may seem nit-picky, but I think part of the problem is embodied in the term "Human space flight" itself.

Flying humans through space, by itself, achieves about as much as shooting clowns from cannons.

The fundamental division should not be between robots and humans, but between pure space science and space colonization/industrialisation. Both of these are valuable. Unfortunately, HSF is so difficult that the organisation in charge of it becomes concerned mainly with rationalising continual missions for HSF in order not to throw all that infrastructure away.

The result, it seems to me, is that very little comparative effort is actually spent on technology such as ISRU or robotic precursor missions that actually bring space colonization/industrialisation closer to plausibility.

There are some promising items in the new budget however.

 

[Couerl]

The result, it seems to me, is that very little comparative effort is actually spent on technology such as ISRU or robotic precursor missions that actually bring space colonization/industrialisation closer to plausibility..

Bingo!

 

[edkyle99]

This may seem nit-picky, but I think part of the problem is embodied in the term "Human space flight" itself.
Flying humans through space, by itself, achieves about as much as shooting clowns from cannons.

What astronauts achieve has little to do with what they actually "achieve" in orbit, IMO.
For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXUecnbcApo
and this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRSpntQ-VtY
and this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWxnvepl ... re=related
and this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGMNDqk1iao
and this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8unbOjYWTc
Etc.

- Ed Kyle