Seeking a rationale for human space exploration

The Space Review ^ | 2/9/04 | Jeff Foust

[Brett66]

Link didn't work, page 2 continued......

Part 2

[Brett66]

Ping.

[KevinDavis]

Space Ping! This is the space ping list! Let me know if you want on or off this list!

[RightWhale]

The argument over robotics is over. The new space race is robotics rather than rocketry. One plus to robotics in space is that anyone can build and launch his own robot to go anywhere and do anything he can conceive and execute into his own robots. There is the launch cost, about $100 million, which makes this a little beyond hobby level for the average electronics tinkerer, but if one has a good robot, it should not be too hard to find sponsorship for the launch.

[Diogenesis]

Park is an inaccurate hater of President Bush, space exploration, American security, and Yankee ingenuity.

All over America, citizens shake their heads that the American Physical Society
is so stupid, stupid, stupid, to have Park as their speaker of hate.

[My2Cents]

Because it's there.

[My2Cents]

"Americans would rather look to the heavens and explore, than hear excuses why we shouldn't." -- Ronald Reagan.

[narby]

“The spinoff is the biggest pile of crap that you can possibly imagine.”

The biggest spinoff of Apollo was the technology infrastructure it created. Both the trained people, and the companies that hired them.

These people didn't go off and become Wal-Mart greeters when Apollo ended. They built other high tech systems, like GPS, and many others.

Systems like GPS COULD have been built without Apollo. But they probably wouldn't have been.

One of the young men who worked at the Houston control center in the computer navigation team was named "Garmin". I haven't found out yet if he is "the" Garmin, but I'll bet money he was.

[narby]

If humans aren't going to Mars and other places, then what good is science done at those locations?

A quotation from Ronald Reagan is good on the subject of space travel: "If not us, who? If not now, when?"

[roadcat]

“There is not a robot on this planet that you can send to the grocery store and pick up a bag of unbruised apples,” he said.

My sentiments exactly. A robot exploring for life would roll right over crap and keep on going. While a human would "feel" something squishy while walking and say "oh sh*t!" and an exciting discovery would be announced to Earth. Robots are good clerks, as long as you give them a precise list to follow. But they can't deviate from the list, and the communications time-delay for receiving new instructions sucks.

Sure, scientists are making great strides with fuzzy-logic. But robots are still not much better than toys at this time. Humans still excel at thinking outside the box .

[KevinDavis]

Amen Brother.....

[JoeFromSidney]

Somehow this debate misses the point. Even if it's true we could do as good science cheaper with robots, science isn't the only thing that matters. Ultimately we send people because people are what matter. From the time I could read the Buck Rogers comics back in the '30s, I've wanted to go to Mars. I'm probably too old now, but I know a lot of younger people who have the same dream. They want to go because it's there to be explored and settled. Robots may be able to do science, but they're not US.

However, I'll return to an issue I've raised before. It's my dream, and the dream of many other people. However, most people don't share our dream. I see no reason why they should have to pay for our dream. Let's find a way to do it on our own dime.

My best guess is that there are about 2 million real space buffs in this country, out of a total population of nearly 300 million. The cost of the sub-orbital project being carried out by Scaled Composites is reportedly around $27 million, most paid for by Paul Allen, formerly of Microsoft. Two million of us, at $10 each, could pay for that project. My point is that some of these things are within the reach of those of us who care, if we can get ourselves organized and put up the money.

[Brett66]

Yes, private enterprise is a worthwile investment, however NASA's budget is less than 1% of the total budget. We spend more on pizza than we do on NASA every year. It's really not that much, I think a lot of people think NASA's budget is about 30-40% of the budget.

The implications of America not having a leading role in space are worth that small expenditure.

[ApplegateRanch]

anywhere and do anything he can conceive and execute into his own robots

And the one (BIG) downer to robots is that they can only perform their "conceived mission" as programmed & equipped. They are incapable of noticing, let alone being curious about, anything outside their preconceived observational scope.

[RightWhale]

they can only perform their "conceived mission" as programmed & equipped.

That's okay, it depends what you want to do. If you want to build a moon base and a Mars base and when they are done then send men, robotics ought to work just fine. If you want to mine asteroids, robots ought to work: you wouldn't be operating a pick and sluice box yourself anyway even if you were on the scene.

[LibWhacker]

IMO, we should be thinking about national security here as much as we seem to be thinking about exploration and science. The day we can turn over the Army, Navy or Air Force to robots is the day we should turn over space to them.

Given that we could very likely launch a spacecraft the size of an aircraft carrier, complete with a crew of thousands, in a matter of a few decades from now, directly from the surface of the earth, and cruise it to Mars in a few weeks, waiting a century or two for fully capable robots to come along seems like a very bad idea to me. The only reason to use robots on Mars is to prep a base site for human habitation. Bring back Orion!

[ApplegateRanch]

Your argument is correct, but only if men are to follow the robots. The subject, as I understood it, was "robots only; men need not apply"; that robots could do as good or even a better job, than men in space, so men should not bother going at all.

[BenLurkin]

[W]e could very likely launch a spacecraft the size of an aircraft carrier, complete with a crew of thousands, in a matter of a few decades from now, directly from the surface of the earth . . . Bring back Orion!"

Cool image! BUT the Orion I've heard of was to be powered by sequential nuclear explosions. I think we may want to tow that sucker out past the moon before we fire it up. 8^)

[RightWhale]

That discussion is over, has been over since Bush issued the new mission statement to NASA. The line item is Manned Exploration and Robotics. The robots, vastly augmented in capability, will precede men to the moon and to Mars. No longer either/or, it's both.