Space science comes first!

[qso1]

saurc:<br />I think the NASA manned programme has gone up a blind alley with the space shuttle.<br /><br />Me:<br />One reason the shuttle was developed was to prove reusable spacecraft are possible and economical. NASA has simply failed to prove shuttle economical. Reusability however, will be the shuttles greatest legacy in the long run...hardly a blind alley.<br /><br />saurc:<br />And its a shame that even 20 years later it hasn't been able to come up with anything else.<br /><br />Me:<br />NASA has come up with several shuttle replacement plans in the two decades since shuttle became operational. NASP, Shuttle II, NLS, Delta Clipper, Venture Star...the fact is, no bucks, no Buck Rogers and NASA was never able to get the funding required to develop fully reusable systems.<br /><br />The reusability legacy of the shuttle will become apparent once private enterprise develops orbital tourism and the reusable vehicles necessary to sustain that industry cost effectively. If private industry cannot pull this off...cost will be the reason. So how would NASA have been able to in the last two decades since they have been up against the cost barrier since the early 1970s. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> First: finding life outside the solar system will be one of greatest scientific discoveries of history, specialy if it is an intelligent one. But not only that. Earth observation: climate change, weather, pollution, effects of the sun on earth, desertification, water reserves, resources. They are absolutly crucial. </i><br /><br />Those are two separate issues. For government-funded space, NOAA and the Interior Department should have a place in your calculation. Earth-observation, especially of the routine kind, should not be shouldered exclusively NASA's line item (and it isn't these days). Only the ideologues would say they shouldn' t be involved in Earth-obs, but there is no reason it should hold back other exploration.<br /><br />Searching for aliens is the domain of private organizations like the SETI Institute. SIM, TPF, etc are interesting, but what you are saying is that these things come first, above expanding the human economic sphere beyond Earth orbit.<br /><br /><i>> Second: you keep talking about human development of the moon and mars. That development will certainly bring benefits, but it wont be worthy hundreds of bilions of dolares. Almost all of it can be done without human presence, at a fraction of the cost, with automated systems...or dont you think that automated systems (science, drilling, constrution, manufacturing) will only get more ADVANCED with time?</i><br /> <br />You're right, it won't be hundreds of billions of dollars, space development will create trillions and trillions of dollars in ways we can't even imagine. <br /><br />Assertions that mining and other industrial activity can be done 100% remotely flies in the face of experience and logic. Can you read? Did you see mention of maintenance issues above? That doesn't go away no matter how advanced the robot. From actual experience, the more advanced the system (robot or otherwise) the more critical maintenance becomes. Robots are getting more advanced, but that does not mean the <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[wubblie]

Azorean5000<br />I thought you might be interested in reading this article:<br />http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/25jun_l2.htm<br />The manned mission drives the capabilities of the space mission. As hubble amply demonstrates, without the manned mission, the space science mission would be limited to lofting small, simple (read "highly unlikely to need repair") devices. If the shuttle had not been there to repair the Hubble, do you think the public would have allowed NASA to go forward on the next generation on space telescopes? They would certainly not be attempting something as complex as the JWST (which is being built to be serviced by the next crew capsule). Would the public have supported the Mars science mission after multiple failures if the end goal had not been a manned mission? Without a manned mission, what you would have would be a de-orbited flawed Hubble and no further large space telescopes, probably no rovers on Mars, and nothing new to look forward to like Aries V launched super telescopes and 50 m liquid telescopes on the moon, which will be products of the manned mission.

 

[johns805]

No, it isn't. Time's up, move along. Bacon, eggs, robots and spam..... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />!

 

[jimfromnsf]

"JWST (which is being built to be serviced by the next crew capsule)."<br /><br />Incorrect. It will only have a docking adapter. It will not have handrail, tether attach points or even ORU's<br /><br />There is no manned mars missions planned.

 

[wubblie]

Post deleted by wubblie

 

[jimfromnsf]

It is not planned to be serviced by the CEV. It will only have the capability mate to a spacecraft with LIDS docking system.

 

[frodo1008]

With the experience of the Hubble in mind, this is indeed just a bit on the scary side! I personally don't think that multi billion dollar astronomical robotic missions should get ahead of the ability to have human beings (by far the most affective way of repairing errors) to actually be there to get things back on track if they go wrong. And according to experience (and a Mr. Murphy) they WILL go wrong!<br /><br />So, as far as I am concerned going back to the moon, including the exploration of the dark side (not actually dark or darker, just not visable from the Earth) is first essential to eventually using these newer (liquid metal types) of building truly large telescopes fully capable of seeing planets even the size of the Earth at hundreds of light years away!<br /><br />And this is just one of the many reasons for going back to the moon!<br /><br />Robotic exploration and other work is indeed very important, but NOT as a replacement for human beings, rather as a multiplyer of human abilities in space!

 

[chyten]

<b>The average tax payer could care less about science (well, perhaps except for some of the pretty pictures from robotic probes). However, the children of the average tax payer do know about (and many want to be) astronauts! </b><br /><br />Do you have any statistics to back that up? Because in my experience, having dealt as an educator with some really bright students, I found far more of them interested in pictures from robotic probes than in ISS and Shuttle. I know a lot of teenagers who can name every probe that ever flew by Jupiter; I do not know a single one who can name ANY current members of Astronaut Corps. The only ones who contemplate at all flying in space (again, in my experience) are those set to become USAF or Navy fliers -- and for them, spaceflight is more of a remote abstract possibility, not the goal to aim for. <br /><br />I strongly suspect that truism "no bucks, no buck rogers" is no longer true, and am CERTAIN that for smart and imaginative children today cyberspace holds more attraction than outer space.

 

[frodo1008]

If that is the case (knowing what goes on in cyberspace) then the human race is in real trouble!<br /><br />I will admit that I haven't been actively working in the aerospace field for some time now (I retired in 2000), but while I worked at Rocketdyne we had an extensive program in rocket science for upper grammar school levels (5th and 6th grades mainly). Some of the people that taught these classes were my fellow workers. I was told that many of the students both admired and wished to be astronauts. Now this is admittedly in a heavy aerospace area (at least at that time), which is the San Fernando Valley in California. Perhaps it is different in your area.<br /><br />Please note, I do NOT say that robotic exploration and even future robotic exploitation of the solar system is NOT very important, it is!! As a matter of fact there are some very interesting places in the solar system alone (such as Io and Europa) that do to VERY high radiation levels it is quite possible that human beings may never be able to visit, and it will indeed be up to our robotic proxies to explore.<br /><br />But without humanity eventually going out into space, what would be the point in just using cyberspace for such an adventure?? To me at least cyberspace is a VERY poor substitute for the real thing!! <br /><br />I can sit here and look at very pretty pictures of Yosemite Valley all I want, and it would not even come close to actually going there!<br /><br />Of course, as another example of how much the interest lies in actually going into space, Virgin Galactic seems to have very little problem in getting wealthy people to pay $200,000 for a seat in a 30 minute sub orbital flight! To say nothing of the $20 million that some truly wealthy people are willing to pay for a stay on the much reviled ISS!!!!<br /><br />NASA IS doing the best it can with the resources that it is being given with a relatively small budget. <br /><br />The War in Iraq is spending more in one month than NASA spends

 

[chyten]

First, I made a typo in previous post -- I meant to say <font color="yellow">truism "no buck rogers, no bucks" is no longer true</font><br /><br />Second, you may be right that children's attitudes may vary depending on the local culture. San Fernando Valley very likely has more emphasis on aerospace, while Massachusetts has more on computers.<br /><br />Third, I did think about Virgin Galactic and ISS tourists when writing that last post. There is certainly no shortage of people who want to have space <i>experience</i>. But that's not same thing as space <i>career</i>. My daughter wants to have an experience of scuba diving in a cave -- considerably cheaper (although far from cheap), but at least as dangerous as a suborbital flight. But her interest in caves is strictly touristy -- she just wants someone who knows what they are doing to hold her hand so that she could go "Wow!" in relative safety and without worrying about logistics. Even if she has to pass scuba cave certification first.<br /><br />I think vast majority of people lining up for Virgin Galactic tickets are the same way -- they want to pay for the experience, but not to be deeply involved in the details. Of course, SOMEONE has to worry about the details, and they are the ones making careers out of space tourism. If there is a market for a service, someone will provide that service. But this is outside NASA operations, and has little to do with original post. I think OP would be perfectly happy if customers who want to see Earth from space paid providers (American, or Russian, or whoever) to fly them there, and government got out of manned spaceflight business entirely. And I more than 50% agree.

 

[azorean5000]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> SIM, TPF, etc are interesting, but what you are saying is that these things come first, above expanding the human economic sphere beyond Earth orbit. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />uh...no im not saying that.<br /><br />What im saying is that space science comes first before manned space explorations white elephants like the space shuttle, ISS and mars footprint (except ares V, which could have great potencial).<br /><br />The human economic sphere can be created without large manned spaceflight. the only reason otherwise would be for space colonization (mars?) but has already pointed out, how many millenia before that, if ever?<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> Assertions that mining and other industrial activity can be done 100% remotely flies in the face of experience and logic. Can you read? Did you see mention of maintenance issues above? That doesn't go away no matter how advanced the robot. From actual experience, the more advanced the system (robot or otherwise) the more critical maintenance becomes. Robots are getting more advanced, but that does not mean they are capable of developing the Solar System while we play in the cradle <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />In the future, robots will be able to maintain and repair each other. Besides new tech advance can be made towards simplicity and cost-reduction (the rs-68 vs SSME)<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> space development will create trillions and trillions of dollars in ways we can't even imagine. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />yes largely unmanned space development. Even so the question is when?...<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> "New tech" is always used as an argument to hold us back from the future- it isn't required. What is needed is payloads to go places and do stuff. We could have gone to Jupiter in 60s, we have the 'tech' down. It's the econo</p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<i>Its just that i (and many others) dont want that wasteful programs like a "astronaut footprint in mars" hinder space science.</i><br /><br />And how will astronuats on Mars hinder space science? In one EVA an astronaut will do more science than a robotic rover can do in year.<br /><br />Or are you opposed to detailed field scientific research on the Moon, Mars and elsewhere? Because if you opposed crewed missions, that is what you are opposing. <br /><br />Jon<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[vishniac2]

Not to mention that, for you, "In the future, robots will be able to maintain and repair each other" but "the only reason otherwise would be for space colonization (mars?) but has already pointed out, how many millenia before that, if ever?"<br /><br />To colonize Mars could begin today if we decide so. <br />Robots maintaining and repairing each other will be sci-fi for years.

 

[chyten]

<b>To colonize Mars could begin today if we decide so. </b><br /><br />Really? As of now, self-enclosed ecosystems are as much sci-fi as self-repairing robots.

 

[vishniac2]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>As of now, self-enclosed ecosystems are as much sci-fi as self-repairing robots. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />But greenhouses, hydroponics and pisciculture are not.

 

[mithridates]

Me too - when I was in elementary I subscribed to a space magazine that I can't remember the name of now, and I loved Voyager news, loved the work on the Hubble, loved the upcoming Galileo probe...hated Shuttle news and anything manned. Something about the pictures of the people involved turned me off as none of the kids in those programs looked like anybody I'd ever want to be friends with. Shallow I know, but for some reason I imagined that people involved in space would have a kind of weird mystical gleam in their eye and I didn't see it.<br /><br />And yes, I know the Hubble was put up by the Shuttle, the very news of which I never enjoyed reading, but I'm just describing the way I felt in elementary, not necessarily anything based on reason. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

That is OK with me. We that put men on the moon also didn't always just have reason in mind also. NASA even made an actual effort to bring artists into the programs to give their artistic impressions of the program (NASA rightfully thinking that as good as the photographs of the programs were, they were sometimes sort of cold). One of my most prized items about those truly fantastic times is a coffee table type of book of over one hundred of these incredible works of art! I am only sorry that everybody on these boards does not have such a book also. NASA (unlike almost all other government functions) has a SOUL!!!<br /><br />As good as robots are they do not make such art, and until far in the future (if ever) they do not have souls either. That will be the almost exclusive province of human beings for a long time into the future. So without a manned program NASA also will have no soul, and ordinary non-technical human beings (such as artists) will never truly feel any kind of investment in just only pure robotic efforts.<br /><br />And that would be all our loss!!!!<br /><br />There should be funding and effort put into ALL of these worthwhile efforts (at least as much to my way of thinking as making war).

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">And how will astronuats on Mars hinder space science? In one EVA an astronaut will do more science than a robotic rover can do in year.</font>/i><br /><br />I see at least two issues. First, some see the manned space program taking money away from science programs (that is debatable, but it is an issue). If roughly $5 billion per year for 15 years was diverted into an efficient Moon/Mars robotic exploration program, an <i><b>awful</b></i> lot of science could be accomplished well before serious planning for the first human mission to Mars even starts.<br /><br />Second, humans will contaminate Mars. Just as it will be impossible to keep all the Mars dust outside a Mars outpost, it will be impossible to keep all the Earth-based microbes inside a Mars outpost. This should be of great concern to scientists.</i>

 

[frodo1008]

The book is titled "Eyewitness to Space" published by Abrams Inc. Publisher New York.<br /><br />There are two numbers associated with it.<br /><br />One is the Standard Book Number: 8109-0112-9<br /><br />And the other is: Library of Congress Catalog Number: 76-141761<br /><br />I can't find a copy write date, but as I have had the book since 1974, I doubt if it is still in print.<br /><br />Hope the information will allow others to find a copy however, as it is truly a magnificent book!!

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Really? As of now, self-enclosed ecosystems are as much sci-fi as self-repairing robots.</font>/i><br /><br />There are several issues here.<br /><br />(1) So far there hasn't been a great need for a fully self-enclosed environment. Right now it is "relatively" inexpensive to fly up consumables to ISS. To say we don't have one right now isn't the same as saying that we couldn't build one.<br /><br />(2) Depending on your requirements, a Mars colony wouldn't need a fully self-enclosed environment. Humans can extract many important resources from the environment. This is one of Zubrin's main arguments for Mars.<br /><br />(3) Self-repairing robots (within limits) are technically possible too, but once again, there is no technical need to justify the costs. Note: the "limits" are the availability of spare parts (e.g., chips, arms, sensors, etc.). To fully repair from scratch using local resources (e.g., building computer chips from sand) would be a huge undertaking -- essentially you would have to replicate much of our industrial-technological complex.</i>

 

[frodo1008]

As I fully support both the manned and space science efforts of NASA, I would have absolutely no problem with seeing an extra $10 billion per year go into NASA's budget. This could be then split between Space Science and the manned programs, allowing for some $5 billion for each!<br /><br />This would boost NASA's share of the federal budget from less then 0.6% to about 1.0 %, which is still only half as much as the Apollo era!!!<br /><br />Neither of these excellent areas should have to fight each other for funding!!

 

[thereiwas]

Easier than every robot being able to repair itself is to have specialized "doctor bots". These would be the "indoor" bots that do not go out into hazardous (sand, grit, dust, UV light) areas but do the inside tasks, running experiments, and so on. The reason to keep them indoors is so they are less likely to themselves break down. And have two of them.

 

[cuddlyrocket]

"Because in my experience, having dealt as an educator with some really bright students, I found far more of them interested in pictures from robotic probes than in ISS and Shuttle. I know a lot of teenagers who can name every probe that ever flew by Jupiter; I do not know a single one who can name ANY current members of Astronaut Corps."<br /><br />Well, yes, but that's because they're <i>boring</i>! All the pictures are the same. How many pictures can you see of the Shuttle taking off or landing? Or of an astronaut on the ISS?<br /><br />The number of people following the two Mars rovers has declined drastically, because the photographs look the same. You get an uptick if something new happens, but then it drops again.<br /><br />Interest derives from novelty and uniqueness. Astronauts going round and round in LEO is not going to excite anyone. Wait until astronauts go back to the Moon (yes, it's been done, but not in these kids' experience)!

 

[halman]

Azorean5000,<br /><br />What use is space science if we are not going to go into space? What is the point of looking for terrestrial planets if no one is ever going to go to them? All the knowledge of other worlds will help us not if we cannot get off of this one. And if we cannot get off of this one, then we are likely to make it uninhabitable if we continue to live like we are. Very few people seem to think of space as anything more than new worlds to conquer, but space itself is the environment which makes up the majority of the Cosmos. Learning to live and work there, where we can create any environment we want, is key to our continued existence, I believe.<br /><br />Why? Because we cannot utilize energy within the Earth's ecosystem without some of it leaking out of the process as pollution. The more energy we utilize, the more waste energy gets into the environment. At some point, we will disrupt the ecosystem by dumping so much waste energy into it that it cannot recover. If we make any attempt to raise the standards of living of a substantial portion of the human race, we run the risk of destroying the ecosystem.<br /><br />Does this mean that most people are doomed to live in poverty, without running water, electricity, telephones, transportation, health care, and education? No, we can still raise the standards of living of the world's population, but we will have to learn to perform our industrial, energy-intensive processes off planet. We will have to learn to use resources from somewhere else, (probably the Moon,) and energy directly from the Sun, to create the products that we will use here on Earth.<br /><br />This is the true space science, the learning how to exploit the resources of the Solar System so that we can protect the only place in all that we can see where we can survive without a space suit. Once we have established our lunar mines, and orbital factories, there will be more than enough money to investigate anything anyone wants. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>