Human Space Flight

[Sea of red]

Are those 2016 dollars?

Yup.

[One Bad Pig]

Here I am.

Our space program is not just human missions - that's a small part of it actually. We do commercial, military, and scientific missions that are unmanned all the time.

To sum it up: it's too damn expensive and doesn't accomplish much. The Air Force learned long ago that you can do much more without man.

Robotics can accomplish more exploration with less money. Robotics cannot establish human presence off of Earth. The Space Shuttle was 1960's technology (being generous) used in the 21st century. Cancelling it before developing a replacement, however, was beyond stupid, particularly since we're still sending people to space.

[Sea of red]

Robotics can accomplish more exploration with less money. Robotics cannot establish human presence off of Earth. The Space Shuttle was 1960's technology (being generous) used in the 21st century. Cancelling it before developing a replacement, however, was beyond stupid, particularly since we're still sending people to space.

I don't see the Shuttle having used older technology as being a strike against it. On the contrary, most rockets use cores from previous generations technology, primarily because if something proves itself reliable it's a good idea to fund it. The Delta II rockets and core of the Atlas V are older technologies, and they are a favorite of NASA and the Air Force. The reason the Shuttle failed was due to it's turn around time being FAR longer than estimated. A branch of the AF called the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) were one the reasons the Shuttle ever existed. Their spy satellites - systems that rival NASA in optics - needed large payload bays, which called for a redesign of the Space Shuttle. When it became clear to the AF that Shuttle missions could not meet expected timelines, they started buying Titan rockets, cancelled the polar missions for Vandenberg, and others soon followed in their footsteps.

Now, the Ariane 5 is king of the commercial landscape, and with hope the Falcon will give the French some hell.

[oxmixmudd]

Here I am.

Our space program is not just human missions - that's a small part of it actually. We do commercial, military, and scientific missions that are unmanned all the time.

To sum it up: it's too damn expensive and doesn't accomplish much. The Air Force learned long ago that you can do much more without man.

Depends. There are significant delays associated with robotics (sans a humanlike AI on the probe) so responding in realtime and making spur of the moment changes is impossible. Scientific discovery still would like a human touch I think on the surface of a world. I also tend to think we are explorers and one day we will colonize many of the nearby worlds - the moon and mars for sure - and certainly an larger presence in various earth orbits could be useful. There are many products that can only be produced in zero G, a human presence 'at the factory' may well be needed (but there we could probably use Virtual Reality/Robotics effectively). But perhaps also Venus (think floating habitat un the upper atmosphere) or maybe Jupiter or Saturn's moons (the radiation envirionment around Jupiter is formidable though).

And then there may well be some major changes in the way we travel in space (think EMDrive) which could put a whole new spin on things.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

I don't think it should be something to be pouring billions of dollars into when there are still kids going hungry

I know Elon Musk's big idea is finding alternative places for humanity to live if Earth becomes uninhabitable but I can't see this being a feasible solution if that were to actually happen, certainly not on a large scale.

"The poor will be with you always". It's a balance. The space program has ALWAYS spun off beneficial technology that can be used to help with things like hunger. It pushes us to go way beyond what is comfortable and as a result often shows us where some really good things are we would not have found otherwise. It also helps us watch our own planet - imagine how much easier it is today to understand what is going on. A human snapping pictures from the space station is able to pick and chose what's needed in ways that can be hard to program or drive remotely from the Earth. And as I said, there are many products, even some potential medicines, that need zero-G. But a lot can be done robotically - nevertheless the human presence in space - I believe - is a big part of that being successful.

Hey - if nothing else we could make a penal colony on the moon and let them mine for us ...

(for those not getting the reference - Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress")

JIm

[oxmixmudd]

Robotics can accomplish more exploration with less money. Robotics cannot establish human presence off of Earth. The Space Shuttle was 1960's technology (being generous) used in the 21st century. Cancelling it before developing a replacement, however, was beyond stupid, particularly since we're still sending people to space.

Indeed. Sometimes I wonder who is running things. Getting space done by private firms with commercial targets should help reduce the number of brain-dead decisions motivated by politics (though it also might introduce other decision making factors that are just as brain-dead).

Jim

[Carrikature]

I don't think it should be something to be pouring billions of dollars into when there are still kids going hungry

I know Elon Musk's big idea is finding alternative places for humanity to live if Earth becomes uninhabitable but I can't see this being a feasible solution if that were to actually happen, certainly not on a large scale.

AFAICT, the goal is not finding an alternative place but an additional place. The intent isn't to move us all somewhere else, but to seed populations that can develop independently (thereby making the entire species that much more extinction resistant).

[Sparko]

To me I think the primary purpose of space exploration is because WE want to go into space. Not just send out robots to take pictures. WE want to go there, to be there. It is part of our human nature to not only want to know more but to be more, and do more. Personally.

So yeah robots can pave the way, but eventually the goal is to go there and live and work in space.

[Cow Poke]

To me I think the primary purpose of space exploration is because WE want to go into space. Not just send out robots to take pictures. WE want to go there, to be there. It is part of our human nature to not only want to know more but to be more, and do more. Personally.

So yeah robots can pave the way, but eventually the goal is to go there and live and work in space.

To boldly go where no man has gone before?

[Sparko]

To boldly go where no man has gone before?

yep. Adventure. Spreading out. Survival. Economics. Freedom. Same reasons we explored the earth and expanded into new territories and lands. I think it is a basic human drive.

Besides, robots can only do so much. Everything has to be anticipated. They can't really react in real time to new situations. Humans can. Being there is a lot different than watching and trying to control things from millions of miles away. Is it more dangerous? sure. But that is part of the excitement too. And we do use robots to explore first. To get the lay of the land. Then we send people next. To just send robots and never send people, that is the doom of the space program. People get bored with hearing about mars rovers. They want men to go there. If we were to announce that we would never send men to mars, do you think NASA would be able to get funding for more robots? heck no. It would die in a minute. Look what happened with the moon after we decided to not send men back there. Do we still send robots to the moon? nope. It is a dead end until we send men back there and set up a base.

[TheLurch]

Look what happened with the moon after we decided to not send men back there. Do we still send robots to the moon? nope. It is a dead end until we send men back there and set up a base.

It's a little more complicated than that. We've sent two missions to the moon recently, but both were orbital (though they smashed part of one into the moon while the other part scanned the debris it kicked up, so not entirely orbital). It's really a matter of the questions we want to answer. Is it something about the particular geology of the moon? Well, in that case, you call up NASA and arrange to have a look at the rocks we brought back, which were gathered in a way to sample a wide variety of lunar terrain. Do you want to understand the moon's structure and history more generally? Well, in that case, it's best to do it from orbit.

I don't disagree with your overall point (excepting getting bored by Mars robots - i'm not). And it's clearly NASA's philosophy - unmanned surveys followed by unmanned landers followed by people. But what we've* been doing on the Moon is largely the product of the sorts of scientific questions we want to ask.

* By "we", i mean the US. China landed a rover a couple of years back.

[Sparko]

It's a little more complicated than that. We've sent two missions to the moon recently, but both were orbital (though they smashed part of one into the moon while the other part scanned the debris it kicked up, so not entirely orbital). It's really a matter of the questions we want to answer. Is it something about the particular geology of the moon? Well, in that case, you call up NASA and arrange to have a look at the rocks we brought back, which were gathered in a way to sample a wide variety of lunar terrain. Do you want to understand the moon's structure and history more generally? Well, in that case, it's best to do it from orbit.

I don't disagree with your overall point (excepting getting bored by Mars robots - i'm not). And it's clearly NASA's philosophy - unmanned surveys followed by unmanned landers followed by people. But what we've* been doing on the Moon is largely the product of the sorts of scientific questions we want to ask.

* By "we", i mean the US. China landed a rover a couple of years back.

except the reason they are interested in the moon again is because they want to put up a manned base there.

[TheLurch]

except the reason they are interested in the moon again is because they want to put up a manned base there.

Official policy is to skip the Moon and go straight to Mars. It's far from uniformly popular within NASA, however, so it may change with the new administration.

[Sparko]

Official policy is to skip the Moon and go straight to Mars. It's far from uniformly popular within NASA, however, so it may change with the new administration.

yeah part of NASA's problem is indecision and politics. But even if they skip the moon and go to Mars, again, it's manned space flight and publicity. They would skip the moon for Mars because Mars would gain more interest from the people. And you know NASA really wants to to to Mars with people, because going to another planet is just so much better than just going back to the moon.

[One Bad Pig]

I don't see the Shuttle having used older technology as being a strike against it. On the contrary, most rockets use cores from previous generations technology, primarily because if something proves itself reliable it's a good idea to fund it. The Delta II rockets and core of the Atlas V are older technologies, and they are a favorite of NASA and the Air Force.

The problem with older technology isn't the launch system, but pretty much everything else. Weight distribution is pretty important for spacecraft, so it's far from easy to just replace systems with more compact technology as it develops.

The reason the Shuttle failed was due to it's turn around time being FAR longer than estimated.

It didn't help that people insisted on switching to things like "environmentally friendly" foam which didn't work nearly as well as the original. And again, here is where the older technology didn't help.

A branch of the AF called the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) were one the reasons the Shuttle ever existed. Their spy satellites - systems that rival NASA in optics - needed large payload bays, which called for a redesign of the Space Shuttle. When it became clear to the AF that Shuttle missions could not meet expected timelines, they started buying Titan rockets, cancelled the polar missions for Vandenberg, and others soon followed in their footsteps.

The shuttle was also the only vehicle capable of satellite repair - which again isn't feasible with robotics.