Yet another editorial against humans..

cDelta · 2004-07-06 08:16:13

(requires registration)
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opin … space.html

Text:

Unmanned flights more practical
Published on: 07/06/04

Scientists from NASA recently celebrated the arrival of ultra-sharp images from the planet Saturn. The jubilation came after a nearly seven-year journey to Saturn by the unmanned spacecraft Cassini.
This amazing accomplishment may revive a round of discussion, started by President Bush in January and then dropped, about the wisdom of trying to send humans beyond the normal boundaries of the international space station and the moon to Mars and more far-flung destinations.

Since when had the moon become a "normal boundary" in human spacee exploration? If I'm not mistaken, I don't believe any human has been beyond LEO for the past 30 years. And better yet, we don't even have the technical capability to do it again at the moment.

While that kind of mission has an undeniable romantic appeal, as a practical matter NASA ought to focus on improving and perfecting its unmanned spacecraft rather than wasting billions upon billions of tax dollars attempting to send astronauts to Mars and beyond.

Is the author aware of the $3 Billion pricetag of Cassini? (I'm not attacking Cassini at all, in fact, it's should yield amazing scientifc return). Granted, $3 billion is less than the new program would cost, but it's still a sizable chunk of funding that should be used elsewhere, according to the following statement.

The immense investment required to achieve such a goal would drain resources needed in the war on terrorism, the shoring up of Social Security and Medicare and a recommitment to education.

The same tired, old arguement, eh? [sarcasm]Because of course, funds can just be arbitrarily transferred between government programs on the fly...[/sarcasm]

It is also far less risky to send robots and machines into space than humans.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Of course, that risk, and the hundreds of billions of dollars it would take to send humans to another planet, might be worthwhile if the potential payoff were big enough. But that's simply not the case. As the Cassini mission demonstrates, unmanned flights are perfectly capable of exploring space on our behalf, safely and at a fraction of the cost.
For the most part, the only purpose served by humans in space is to serve as guinea pigs in experiments to determine how human beings are affected by low gravity. And even that limited line of research can be conducted perfectly well at the current space station.

He means the space station that currently is in shambles, houses two people who must work full-time to maintain it (forget about scientific research), and that is currently inaccessible by any American spacecraft...

When are these carbon copy editorials going to stop appearing? It's as if someone reads one, then decides to make the same arguement elsewhere just to see how similar they can make it.

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-07-07 03:25:32

While that kind of mission has an undeniable romantic appeal, as a practical matter NASA ought to focus on improving and perfecting its unmanned spacecraft rather than wasting billions upon billions of tax dollars attempting to send astronauts to Mars and beyond.

The problem is that any design can only really be improved if you use it a lot. In other words, for something other than launching a ten ton probe every five years. Say, building an SPS, or putting up a proper ISS, or suporting human exploration in space. Whoops...!

ANTIcarrot.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-07 08:32:52

The immense investment required to achieve such a goal would drain resources needed in the war on terrorism, the shoring up of Social Security and Medicare and a recommitment to education.

To what end, I always ask. These are the words of a people in decline and a dying civilization. If we can make sure such people are in the minority their blathering can do little harm.

cDelta · 2004-07-07 08:57:28

The only problem, Cobra, is that these people seem to get the most attention by the media. Editorials which praise the new plan and pledge their full support are never printed. They don't generate enough 'interest.'

It seems like it is going to be an uphill battle to get the initiative underway - starting with the members of Congress, who, oddly enough, call for a new vision for NASA and then once one exists, drag their feet and say 'well, this is nice. But, when I said 'vision' I didn't actually want something that would require money.' God forbid they take some money from our half trillion dollar defense budget. They need to understand that settling space is our best defense against annihilation. If America has assets off-world, then we're effectively invincible.

Okay. Enough of my pedantic diatribe.

BWhite · 2004-07-07 09:22:49

Unless permanent settlement is the goal, I agree with the editorial. It is only the prospect of growing the human race that makes crewed spaceflight worth the risk and expense, IMHO.

cDelta · 2004-07-07 09:41:11

Unless permanent settlement is the goal, I agree with the editorial. It is only the prospect of growing the human race that makes crewed spaceflight worth the risk and expense, IMHO.

Let's all cross our fingers and hope that it doesn't turn out to be "Apollo Part 2."

clark · 2004-07-07 09:54:35

This editorial, and every single one like it is right. There is no point in arguing against fact.

Humans in space detract from the science done in space by diverting resources to support them in space.

Name any price for a manned Mars Mission, and taking that same amount, we can do generations of robust robotic research. We would learn more, and probably end up improving the state of material sciences, computers, and robotics at the end of the day. All of this would have immediate applications for the billions on Earth, and we would learn a great deal of science... albeit, over generations.

Sendign humans though isn't about the science. It never was, and it never will be. It's about the romance. The thrill. The idea that where one has gone, another might go too.

Editorials like this, just shrug and give them their due. But remember, they miss the entire point.

The stars are more than just facts to memorize. :;):

BWhite · 2004-07-07 09:56:34

Unless permanent settlement is the goal, I agree with the editorial. It is only the prospect of growing the human race that makes crewed spaceflight worth the risk and expense, IMHO.
Let's all cross our fingers and hope that it doesn't turn out to be "Apollo Part 2."

Frankly, I believe a call to settle will resonate with the public far more than "do it for the science" or for "adventure" yet I believe George Whitesides of the National Space Society was maybe the only Aldridge Commission witness who called for settlement being the goal of the space vision.

So I ask again, how do we define "exploration" - - has Sean O'Keefe or the Aldridge Commission or anyone given us a concise unambiguous definition?

cDelta · 2004-07-07 10:03:07

The goal of Space Settlement is exactly what I found lacking when I first heard the president's speech. In fact, I wrote my own editorial for my University newspaper arguing that settlement should have been the goal, not just an 'increased human presence' (I paraphrase - I think Bush said that..maybe it was 'extended human presence. Ah well. It's the same idea.)

Here is my rant, if anyone's interested.
http://www.bw.lehigh.edu/story.asp?ID=1 … p?ID=17042

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-07 10:09:45

Sendign humans though isn't about the science. It never was, and it never will be. It's about the romance. The thrill. The idea that where one has gone, another might go too.
Editorials like this, just shrug and give them their due. But remember, they miss the entire point.

F**kin' a, Clark. Well said.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-07-27 09:13:10

I believe the first big rift between manned vs robot came during budget cuts but many now see both can work alongside each other

Others think the Robot might win the race.

Maybe it will be first the Robots that first colonize Mars, Titan and Europa?

Space Robots: Independent Thinking Robots Will Explore Deep Space And Hazardous Environments
http://capitaloutlook.com/site/space-ro … ironments/

NASA's cute space robots just hit another milestone
cube-shaped Astrobee robots can now work independently alongside astronauts
https://www.zdnet.com/article/nasas-cut … milestone/

Underwater robot connects humans' sight and touch to deep sea
https://techxplore.com/news/2022-07-und … -deep.html

Sophia With AGI Not Even Close to Human Intelligence
https://www.euroscientist.com/sophia-wi … elligence/
A robot that behaves or thinks like a human is called a humanoid

Artificial Intelligence in Space Exploration and Future Prospects
https://thinkml.ai/ai-robotics-in-space … -prospects

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-07-06 08:16:13

Re: Yet another editorial against humans..

#2 2004-07-07 03:25:32

Re: Yet another editorial against humans..

#3 2004-07-07 08:32:52

Re: Yet another editorial against humans..

#4 2004-07-07 08:57:28

Re: Yet another editorial against humans..

#5 2004-07-07 09:22:49

Re: Yet another editorial against humans..

#6 2004-07-07 09:41:11

Re: Yet another editorial against humans..

#7 2004-07-07 09:54:35

Re: Yet another editorial against humans..

#8 2004-07-07 09:56:34

Re: Yet another editorial against humans..

#9 2004-07-07 10:03:07

Re: Yet another editorial against humans..

#10 2004-07-07 10:09:45

Re: Yet another editorial against humans..

#11 2022-07-27 09:13:10

Re: Yet another editorial against humans..

Board footer