The Wrong Stuff: Let robots, not men explore space

New York Review of Books ^ | April 8, 2004 | Steve Weinberg

[edger]

Everything we have learned,we learned from unmanned space flights.

[Brett66]

If future presidents are not willing to fund this initiative then it is they who will have to bear the stigma of limited vision. So, looking on the bright side, instead of spending nearly a trillion dollars on manned missions to the moon and Mars we may wind up spending only a fraction of that on nothing at all.

The trillion dollar estimate is not based on any serious figures released by NASA or the administaration, it's from rehashed quotes from other clueless reporters.

Also, if you don't have a human element of spaceflight, public interest and public $$ wanes. History has shown this.

So what's his gripe? He wants humans banned from spaceflight? If he truly wants government space exploration, then he should want more funding from the government for space exploration so both objectives can be achieved. Instead, he wants to choose for robots only to explore. This is a false choice, does he really think if NASA tells congress that they just want to send robotic probes to explore that congress would maintain the current level of funding. Wrong, congress would gut NASA and disperse it to hundreds of pet pork/social programs.

[BlazingArizona]

Forty years ago, similar arguments were made against space applications of any kind. Today, we couldn't survive without GPS and communications satellites, so the "against" position has fallen back to "but we don't need MANNED space exploration..."

He's right about one thing: we need to get governments out of manned programs, so that people who are truly dedicated to this effort are free to explore without being nannied by Luddites. This year, someone will claim the X Prize. It's starting, folks!

[buccaneer81]

But there are many other dangers to astronauts that are the same whether the shuttle is going to the space station or the Hubble Space Telescope. Among these is an explosion during launch, like the one that destroyed the Challenger shuttle in 1986.

Can't argue with that. But we need a human presence in space. It's our exploratory nature, and the PR is priceless.

[Viking2002]

Christopher Columbus would've thrown this pantywaist overboard before he left port. So would've Ponce deLeon, Hernando deSoto, Ferdinand Magellan, Vasco da Gama, et al. In many ways, Western society has become WAY too soft in the ass.

[RightWhale]

All space business will be robotics. Humans in space will be a rarity for a long time to come.

[RightWhale]

the PR is priceless

Sure, but you wouldn't need a lot of people in space. A few on the moon and a few more on Mars would do it. The rest of outer space would be the domain of robotics.

[marron]

One condition is that there will have to be something for people to do on Mars which cannot be done by robots.

"Core samples and seismic surveys."

There are two kinds of knowledge to be gained by space exploration. There is the knowledge of the design and workings of the solar system, which can be gained to a fair extent robotically, by placing instruments on or near the planets we want to study. In the case of some planets, that is probably the best we can do.

The other kind of knowledge is the technology of manned space travel. That can only be gained by doing it. There isn't any other way. And the present century will be owned by the first country to master it. If its us, its us. If its not us, we can take our place on the shelf of nations-that-used-to-matter and figure out new ways to slice our shrinking pie into ever smaller slices.

Someone is going to do it. The question is who.

[buccaneer81]

Sure, but you wouldn't need a lot of people in space. A few on the moon and a few more on Mars would do it. The rest of outer space would be the domain of robotics.

True. Once things become big and mainstream, the public loses interest. Think of Charles Lindbergh and then think of the WW2 ferry flights to Britain.

[Doc On The Bay]

MOST of what the "Robots" take Days-Weeks-Months--even Years to uncover, a "Manned Mission" can Understand in a few Hours or Days.

The Robots are "Relatively Cheap,"--& WOEFULLY INADEQUATE to explore.

Despite the extra "Up-Front Costs," Human Exploration is STILL "Better Bang for the Buck!"

ONE HUMAN "Mark-ONE-Eyeball" is STILL FAR BETTER THAN the BEST "Robot" we have YET developed!

It will be DECADES--MAYBE CENTURIES--until our "Robotic Technology" matches the capacity of Human Explorers.

Doc

[JoeFromSidney]

Robots explore. Humans colonize.

[billorites]

"Robots explore. Humans colonize."

I tried to explain that to my girlfriend, but I think the time was wrong.

[Mamzelle]

re: Also, if you don't have a human element of spaceflight, public interest and public $$ wanes.)))

In case you didn't notice, interest waned with the human element, too.

But a little anthropomorphized robot on Mars sure did stir up a lot of interest.

It's all in how you handle it.

Robotics have leaped ahead these past 5-10 years--it could be the next extraordinary commercial breakthrough on a par with the microchip. I'd like to see an emphasis on robotics in space just for the boost it would give robotics on earth.

[Mamzelle]

BTW--just this week, an American super-millionaire contracted to fly on a Russian spacecraft to the tune of $20M for the ride. His name is Greg Olsen, he made his fortune in optics to the military, and from newsmeat.com I found out that he's a GOP donor.

I also noticed that, after a couple of searches, this news has not made FR. Maybe it isn't always the human that makes things interesting.

[r9etb]

He's right about one thing: we need to get governments out of manned programs, so that people who are truly dedicated to this effort are free to explore without being nannied by Luddites. This year, someone will claim the X Prize. It's starting, folks!

No, it's not "starting." The X-prize folks are all creating glorified fireworks, and they're not going "into space" except by arbitrary definition of an altitude. If some X-prize or similar group ever does make it to orbit, I'll be damned surprised.

That said, we know how to get people into space, and have been doing so for 40 years!!!!!

The "Luddites" who will kill commercial manned flights are the folks with the deep pockets. They're going to ask difficult questions like, "there's at best a 20% chance I'll make a profit on my investment sometime in the next 50 years, and you want me to give you bucketloads of money?"

That's the dirty, very open, secret of space: it's damned expensive to get there with enough mass to matter. Unless you can make piles of money on it, and quickly, there's no commercial interest in manned space flight.

The author does raise the key question, and it's not a comfortable one for us to answer. For the record, I'm in favor of manned flight, but I don't think it'll be anything but government-owned for the foreseeable future. The problem is: because government has to pay for it, they have to have a good reason to shell out billions of dollars. Vague assertions about "destiny" aren't gonna cut it.

[r9etb]

The other kind of knowledge is the technology of manned space travel. That can only be gained by doing it. There isn't any other way. And the present century will be owned by the first country to master it. If its us, its us. If its not us, we can take our place on the shelf of nations-that-used-to-matter and figure out new ways to slice our shrinking pie into ever smaller slices.

That's circular, though. If the only reason to do manned spaceflight is to learn about manned spaceflight, why do it?

That brings you back to the real issue: why should we send people into space?

[July 4th]

Everything we have learned,we learned from unmanned space flights.

Okay, dude. Then learning how to send a living human being 250,000 miles from earth, landing him on a foreign surface, and returning him safely really was nothing then.

[marron]

The countries that learned and excelled at shipbuilding and sea-faring were the countries that mattered for several centuries. Eventually things change and humanity moves on. But such technologies do matter, and the people who master them "first" and learn to make effective use of them first are the ones who matter in their day.

The others get shuffled to the side for a few generations until they find some other way to excel. But only if they become the kind of people who are driven to excel, first. But most people wait to see someone else do it first.

My point is that if we aren't the kind of people to launch out into the blue anymore, then we aren't going to lead this wave, we aren't going to lead the next one either. We will just slice and reslice the same pie finer and finer.

Someone is going to go. If its not us, its not us.

[gorush]

"Can't argue with that. But we need a human presence in space. It's our exploratory nature, and the PR is priceless."

The human presence only aids in marketing to the buyers(taxpayers)...and our robots still fullfill our exploratory nature. That said, I'm in favor of a human trip to Mars for the very reasons you mentioned, beyond that I'm not willing to contribute (unfortunately, my willingness to contribute has precious little affect when the government is involved)