Van Allen Questions Human Spaceflight - Not another one...

Kenshin · 2004-07-26 13:39:00

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/v … 40726.html

*sigh*

Another short sighted, complacent, "we don't need to go into space" commentary... this time by a big-shot scientist. Where is people's sense of adventure? Of exploration? Of doing things with our own two hands? Of being there?

Van Allen comments that “the only surviving motivation for continuing human spaceflight is the ideology of adventure.”

:angry: Isn't that the POINT?

Thoughts?

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-26 13:46:31

Sounds like Jeffy Bell... wants his superscope (or in this case superprobes) more than footprints off-planet... and since manned flight consumes 3/5ths or 4/5ths of NASA's budget, thats where the money ought to come out of.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-26 13:50:35

Once someone looks at space as something to study rather than someplace to live, then human spaceflight doesn't make sense.

Of course, neither does going to the beach, walking through the woods, building anything, or generally leaving your home for any reason other than compelled work. It's a sad, broken way to look at the world, and those who espouse it never accomplish anything of note.

Take heart, for such people can only tear down what we allow them to. Refute their arguments whenever they arise and move on. They inspire no support.

Still, it's annoying. :angry:

Rxke · 2004-07-26 14:16:02

They really are happy to explore everything by proxy?
Never get out of their labs, staring at what the computer tells them...

They are the kind of astronomers that never look up at the sky, because they don't leave home after dark.

I'm kinda of a labrat, too...
But it's the real, raw reality out there that makes us what we are. Humans.

If we lose that childlike 'i wanna touch it with my grubby hands, put it in my mouth, smell it, rub it in my face,'

then we lost it.

Palomar · 2004-07-26 15:40:46

*Yes, it is disappointing. Robotic exploration, IMO, serves to trailblaze -- NOT to replace eventual human exploration. Robots and probes can sniff out the terrain ahead of us; and also they can go where we cannot and may never be able to go because of vast amounts of radiation and etc. (the Galilean moons of Jupiter for example). Robots and probes can (and do) return priceless data; they have their place definitely. But to entirely replace humans indefinitely? I hope not!

I don't want to see "just" robots and probes on Mars indefinitely; I want to see a human landing party and a permanent settlement soon thereafter. Hopefully colonization after that.

How much "political correctness" is coming to play in opinions like his, I wonder? The concept of space exploration opens various "cans of worms" issues we've discussed (and debated) many times here before. The West, and especially America, is being made to "feel bad" for being successful. Maybe that's not where van Allen is coming from, but I wonder. It'd be sad to allow an achievable dream to die or to outright kill it because of guilt induction.

I agree with Cobra Commander regarding his space as something versus someplace comment. We can study it AND we can venture out.

It's amazing to me that people of van Allen's stature are willing to give up and squash space exploration when we've barely gotten our feet wet.

Robots and probes as our servants...NOT our replacements.

--Cindy

Commodore · 2004-07-26 15:45:18

All that wonderful data means squat unless were willing to go there and experince it first hand.

Palomar · 2004-07-26 15:46:37

Whoops -- disregard. Sorry.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2004-07-26 15:50:49

All that wonderful data means squat unless were willing to go there and experince it first hand.

*Okay -- new keyboard. The other one was jamming up. :-\

Commodore: The data still is beneficial to astronomers, cosmologists, etc.

But yes -- on with manned exploration!

--Cindy

MarsDog · 2004-07-26 18:36:18

Van Allen is safe, comfortable, and contented where he is.
But his relatives want to move on, as the Garden of Eden will not last forever.
Not having moved on, the monkeys are disappearing with the forest.

Michael Bloxham · 2004-07-26 19:29:27

Y'know what? I agree with the guy. We have been sending men to LEO for nearly half of a century, and for what purpose? Okay, now that sounds pretty shocking coming from me, but let's look at this thing logically. I'm too lazy to go into exact figures, but haven't we spent something like upwards of 90% of space funds on human flights? What if we could have spent that money on robotic missions instead? Think about what we could have done with NASA's full budget from 1970 to today, if it hadn't been wasted on the Space Shuttle and ISS. Perhaps 20 rovers to Mars by now, a few sample returns included. Marsian balloons that could have mapped the entire planet to the centimeter; artificially intelligent UAV's buzzing around near the surface, sending incredible snapshots from deep in the mariner valley, etc. etc. Robotic explorers on Titan, Callisto, Io... High resolution maps of Pluto, Sedna...
Imagine what might have been if Van Allen had his way...
Okay, if that's my view, what am I doing here at Newmars.com? Well, I'm an explorer too, and I'm all for the 'human experience', but giving hundreds of billions of dollars to NASA so they can send a few characterless astronauts up to the International Space Station, having only time to look out of their window as they float between endless maintenance chores, is not my idea of adventure. We need astronauts on Mars to do the science, but we don't need them in leo fulfilling Arthur C. Clarks 1950's vision of vacuum tube replacement men! :down:

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-26 19:37:22

Okay, now that sounds pretty shocking coming from me, but let's look at this thing logically

Well, theres' your first mistake... it is NOT logical to invest in manned space exploration with our current level of technology. Our desire to explore is fueled by illogical instincts and illogical asthetics and so on.

If NASA requested $15Bn a year for robots from Congress... do you think they would get even a third of that? Doubtful.

I agree that what we're doing now isn't exploration, and its draining the life out of NASA and the explorers' spirit, but exploration by proxy through cameras and robot arms is a cheap, poor substitute which cannot fulfill our apetite for being out there.

Gennaro · 2004-07-26 19:58:00

Van Allen is old.

He's modern by 1982 standards.

Euler · 2004-07-26 22:14:20

I'm too lazy to go into exact figures, but haven't we spent something like upwards of 90% of space funds on human flights?

I think only around 60% of NASA's budget is related to human flights.

Okay, now that sounds pretty shocking coming from me, but let's look at this thing logically.

Indeed, lets look at this logically.

The first question we have to ask ourselves is the meaning of life. Why are we here? What is the goal of humanity? One answer would be that humans should strive to achieve the maximum total amount of happiness in the human population (I have my doubts that this really is an good goal, but most other rational goals should lead to the same conclusion). If this is your goal, it is clearly better to have a lot of happy people than it is to have only a few. Lets also assume the happiness of the people is determined by the amount of resources they have.

The Earth has sufficient resources to comfortably support around 10 billion people. The solar system as a whole has much more resources, and could probably support at least 100 billion people comfortably. Clearly, it is preferable to colonize the whole solar system, rather than just the Earth. However, you should also consider that there are about 300,000,000,000 different stars in the Galaxy, and there are billions of galaxies. If all of the main sequence stars in those galaxies can also be colonized eventually, it will allow you to support a population at least 10^20 times larger than Earth can support.

The time factor should also be considered. A civilization on only one planet can become extinct from many different sorts of disasters. Asteroid impacts, nuclear or biological weapons, reckless destruction of the environment, alien invasion etc. can all lead to extinction in a relatively short timeframe. Even in the best case, a civilization confined to Earth could not hope to live more than 5 billion years, after which the Sun would go nova and destroy the Earth. An extraterrestrial civilization, on the other hand, is much more difficult to destroy, and could hope to survive 100 billion years or more.

Having more people and resources also means that you have more scientists, inventers, and engineers. This means that there will be more technological advancement, and the everyone's quality of life would improve.

It seems clear that, logically, becoming a spacefairing species is the most important thing we can possibly do, other than not anihilating ourselves. The only real question is if we should do it now or later.

I might seem reasonable to delay becoming a spacefairing species until we have better technology. However, that would also delay the benefits of becoming a spacefaiting species, and we could end up delaying indefinitely. More importantly, while we wait there is a small but non-zero chance that we will suffer an extinction ending event. When you weigh the risks that delaying brings against the future that we could achieve by colonizing space, delaying longer than necessary is clearly unacceptable. In the short term, investing in space also provides technological spinoffs to improve our lives, problems to challenge us, and knowledge to stimulate us.

When you consider the long term good of humanity, it is only logical for us to greatly increase our funding for manned spaceflight.

Michael Bloxham · 2004-07-26 23:16:59

Yes. But make it sensible. Bang for buck, please. :;):

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-27 05:08:43

Yes. But make it sensible. Bang for buck, please.

Exactly!

It's early in the morning so I'll probably ramble a bit, repeat myself, and generally seem like a crazed madman, but this point is essential not only on a quantifiable progress level but perhaps more importantly on an emotional level. It has to look like we're getting bang for the buck, even if we're not.

The idea of 'space exploration as an alternative to war' has come up here on occasion before, but always seemed to miss the real point. How do you get people to sign up for a war? Explaining the logical reasons for it is only part of the pitch, you have to make it glorious and elevate it to the height of virtue. Make it more than it is, romanticize it. This is what we are going to have to do for manned space exploration if settlement is to be our goal. Cold reasoning will only go so far, we have to make the people feel the need to settle other worlds.

Rxke · 2004-07-27 06:45:02

It's early in the morning so I'll probably ramble a bit, repeat myself, and generally seem like a crazed madman

So you stopped being yourself 24/24?

Seriously. Good point. How do we do that?

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/192/1]The space Review argues we should clone Carl Sagan... They have a point. He knew how to make it grandiose.

(Link from a discussion on Everything Science)

Rxke · 2004-07-27 12:24:01

Caynt believe muh eyes...

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl? … id=160]Van Allen gets seriously bashed on Slashdot

Heartwarming to read all the replies. Most of the time, people there are 50/50 re: manned flights, but now it looks like more than 90/10 positive...

And that from a community, mainly made of geeks: sitting behind a computer all day, not into adventure etc. (well, that's the stereotype, anyhow...)

Rxke · 2004-07-27 12:28:10

What about this gem: (by: k98sven (324383) )

"He's forgetting the huge symbolic value. We're humans. It's a human thing to like great symbols, monuments, achivements.

What if a Pharao of Egypt had said: "Screw this pyramid stuff, I'm spending the money on defense instead. And you can bury me in a wooden casket".

What if Charles Lindbergh had said: "What's the point? I can take the boat."

What if Columbus had said: "You can't sail to India. Everyone knows that."

It'd have been a much less interesting world to live in, I'll tell you that. I don't believe every single thing we chose to do should follow from the utilitarian principle of the "greatest good" in strict scientific or material terms.

Or to paraphrase Kennedy: We choose not to do these things because they are useful. We choose to do them becase they are a human thing to do."

SpaceNut · 2004-07-27 12:49:07

Who cares about Van Allen. In just a few years or less his voice will not matter. For he will be no more, most likely.

Onto the serious debate of robotic versus manned flight funding and at what level of each. It is more important to not waste funds on what is not needed. Unless there is a question that Man can only answer robotic is the way to go. But if settlement is the ultimate goal then the sooner that man takes risk the better informed he will be.

clark · 2004-07-27 13:05:30

The real difference in my mind is rather straightforward- I don't want the distant places in space to be nothing more than postcards.

Robots send postcards. That's no way to travel.

SpaceNut · 2004-07-27 13:08:40

Those that do not understand the significant of those from Hubble would say the same. But I still would go to any of them just to feel or smell the reality of having been there.

sergiuignat · 2004-07-30 03:42:53

I think the problem is the misunderstanding of the astronauts role in space. Without human spaceflight Hubble Space Telescope would be a piece of junk with a faulty mirror. Astronauts from HST servicing missions did not make science, but without them, astronomers would have not been able to do it also.

Deployment and service of complex scientific instruments in space require humans. Complex tasks can't be done by robots. Imagine how much information about the universe and other Earth-like planets would give us an array of optical and radio telescopes placed on the opposite side of the Moon. This megastructures can't be kept running without human intervention. Robots are just not smart enough.

Drilling Marsian surface kilometers deep in search for life can't be done by robots only. There are a lot of things in space that only humans can do.

Scientists need humans in space.

SpaceNut · 2004-07-30 09:55:08

I think there are more problems than the misunderstanding of the astronauts role in space and of colonist in general.

The desire to explore to venture into the unknown has little to do with science but is the way though which science can be explored.

We want to go because it is there.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-07-30 16:36:03

:bars2: :bars2: :bars2:

-BANGS HEAD REPEATEDLY INTO DESK-

Great, just what we need, a big-shot, credential-laden scientist badmouthing manned spaceflight. Some time ago I posted about how, if you run the numbers, manned space exploration is actually cheaper than unmanned probing. That is, provided you don't run into more of these grand-visions-turned-quagmyres like the ISS.

Let's look at the numbers for a second. Mars direct could be done for $20 billion according to NASA's accounting firm. Let's be extra conservative, however, and say that would cost double that, $40 billion. Are all agreed that we could send four humans, four ambassadors from Earth, to the red planet for $10 billion apiece? Now compare that to the two MERs. $820 million for two rovers that, the way it's looking now, will do at least a year of good science each before biting the Martain dust. Sound like a good deal? It took Spirit over a week just to get off its landing point, and seven months to reach the Columbia hills a bit over a mile away. Sure, Opportunity found nice, juicy evidence of an Earth-like Mars in the past (veddy, veddy good! ), but all in all, one geologist could do everything that it took seven months to do in about half an hour (embarrasment! ).

So, the choice here is four humans on Mars for a year and a half or 50 Mars rovers for the same price. People would give a much, much greater bang for the buck. Think about how much learned about the Moon with Apollo. How much would that have cost with unmanned probes? Would it have even possible without the "flags and footprints?" Probably not. You could send as many MERs as you want into the dino-grounds in the badlands of Montana and you wouldn't uncover a single fossil in the next ten millennia. Perhaps a question even more important than "is it cost-effective?" is "will it get us somewhere?" Where would we be if the Europeans had explored the Americas with robots?

I liked what the guy on slashdot said with the line "yes, with age also comes (hopefully) wisdom. But with age we can also have ossification. The best results usually arrive when we have a balance of maturity, wisdom and caution with adventuresomeness, exhuberance and boldness." This is certainly true. Some people, like Paul MacCready (Designer of Helios, Gossamer Albatross, et al) never seem to run out of steam. Others, like Arthur C. Clarke, reach that pinnacle of wisdom, enthusiasm, and knowledge, and just head downhill from there. It's an unfortunate fact of life, I just hope I peak as far away from now as possible.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-03 11:09:32

I agree with you Mad grad student, Why are we waiting and sending so many probes to explore Mars between now and the year 2040 ' ish before Man can go.

I think Fear of the unknown of bacteria, microscopic organisms, of radiation sickness due to poor rocket shielding techniques, length of journey physical and emotional strain are just some of the over concerns that some would have.

Next would be cost to not only develop the rockets but the needed equipment to stay.

Then finally when enough of Mars has been populated is a fear of self governing movement by those there.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-07-26 13:39:00

Re: Van Allen Questions Human Spaceflight - Not another one...

#2 2004-07-26 13:46:31

Re: Van Allen Questions Human Spaceflight - Not another one...

#3 2004-07-26 13:50:35

Re: Van Allen Questions Human Spaceflight - Not another one...

#4 2004-07-26 14:16:02

Re: Van Allen Questions Human Spaceflight - Not another one...

#5 2004-07-26 15:40:46

Re: Van Allen Questions Human Spaceflight - Not another one...

#6 2004-07-26 15:45:18

Re: Van Allen Questions Human Spaceflight - Not another one...

#7 2004-07-26 15:46:37

Re: Van Allen Questions Human Spaceflight - Not another one...

#8 2004-07-26 15:50:49

Re: Van Allen Questions Human Spaceflight - Not another one...

#9 2004-07-26 18:36:18

Re: Van Allen Questions Human Spaceflight - Not another one...

#10 2004-07-26 19:29:27

Re: Van Allen Questions Human Spaceflight - Not another one...

#11 2004-07-26 19:37:22

Re: Van Allen Questions Human Spaceflight - Not another one...

#12 2004-07-26 19:58:00

Re: Van Allen Questions Human Spaceflight - Not another one...

#13 2004-07-26 22:14:20

Re: Van Allen Questions Human Spaceflight - Not another one...

#14 2004-07-26 23:16:59

Re: Van Allen Questions Human Spaceflight - Not another one...

#15 2004-07-27 05:08:43

Re: Van Allen Questions Human Spaceflight - Not another one...

#16 2004-07-27 06:45:02

Re: Van Allen Questions Human Spaceflight - Not another one...

#17 2004-07-27 12:24:01

Re: Van Allen Questions Human Spaceflight - Not another one...

#18 2004-07-27 12:28:10

Re: Van Allen Questions Human Spaceflight - Not another one...

#19 2004-07-27 12:49:07

Re: Van Allen Questions Human Spaceflight - Not another one...

#20 2004-07-27 13:05:30

Re: Van Allen Questions Human Spaceflight - Not another one...

#21 2004-07-27 13:08:40

Re: Van Allen Questions Human Spaceflight - Not another one...

#22 2004-07-30 03:42:53

Re: Van Allen Questions Human Spaceflight - Not another one...

#23 2004-07-30 09:55:08

Re: Van Allen Questions Human Spaceflight - Not another one...

#24 2004-07-30 16:36:03

Re: Van Allen Questions Human Spaceflight - Not another one...

#25 2004-08-03 11:09:32

Re: Van Allen Questions Human Spaceflight - Not another one...

Board footer