Robotic vs manned exploration
Robotic vs manned exploration
Last edited by Martin on Fri Dec 15, 2006 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
8)Ok Martin, here’s my response. I’ll run through each point.
My argument was that the goal of sustainability on Earth is a more pressing and more urgent need than human expansion into space. Along those lines, robotic probes can collect a good amount of data for the cost when compared to human exploration of other planets. My point was that the resources could be better used here to solve many of the problems you yourself fear…we just have a different approach to these problems.
From what I read, it seemed that the above “philosophy” if you will is, in your opinion, is in your opinion based on ignorance. That’s why I made the statement:
Of course, there might always be an asteroid that collides with the earth, or some other sudden catastrophic event. But in the mean time, many long term threats can be averted if we act now. This is where our focus should be.
That doesn’t mean we should ignore the possibility of leaving the planet; but again, I don’t see it as the most pressing issue, considering the number of problems that are right here, in our lap today…and can in fact be solved. I don’t hold the assumption that the earth is dead already.
In my opinion, the assumption that the earth is doomed as are we unless we find a way to leave the planet within the next few decades is…well, overreaction at best. After all, how long have we been here? A bat of an eye, cosmologically speaking.
The possibility that the earth will suddenly become uninhabitable exists. But at the same time, even if we do expand outward…if and when the earth is threatened, how many of us will be saved? If it requires vast resources to transport a few humans to another world safely, how hard would it be to send out a significant portion of the population?
Is it just a matter of knowing that some of humanity will continue?
It will be extremely difficult to transport a handful of people to a near by planet. What are the odds of a large number…to say nothing of a significant portion of the population. At any rate, many billions will be left to die. So…who goes, and who is doomed? Who decides? Will it simply be the richest citizens of the richest nations that become the New Martians while the rest of us perish?
Try making your argument, even without the snide, rude comments…to the average tax payer and see what sort of response you get. At any rate, it’s not how you are going to sell your goal.
Martin: in summary, I have taken the time to respond to some of your comments. But as I re-read them more carefully I detected a great amount sarcasm and superiority from you. You seem to be easily angered by those who don’t hold your opinion…perhaps an open forum is not the place for you.
Though I don’t agree with you on many issues, I don’t make assumptions about your knowledge on the subject, your political views, or your beliefs. I certainly don’t make jokes about your point of view. I would appreciate it if you would afford me the same tolerance. I would gladly continue this discourse, but whether I do depends on the manner in which you respond.
My argument was that the goal of sustainability on Earth is a more pressing and more urgent need than human expansion into space. Along those lines, robotic probes can collect a good amount of data for the cost when compared to human exploration of other planets. My point was that the resources could be better used here to solve many of the problems you yourself fear…we just have a different approach to these problems.
From what I read, it seemed that the above “philosophy” if you will is, in your opinion, is in your opinion based on ignorance. That’s why I made the statement:
My point was that the resources could be better used here to solve many of the problems you yourself fear…we just have a different approach to these problems.Orca wrote:Martin, if you think that trying to achieve sustainability on the only planet that isn't horribly destructive to life as we know it constitutes "ignorance," well, I am just not sure what to tell you.
Many threats to our future generations are due to our behavior and choices right now. For instance, human-induced climate change is a threat to future generations. I would argue that reducing our ecological footprint should be one of our first priorities. The point being, a relatively small amount of prevention now can make a big difference for future generations.Martin wrote: Are you under the impression that our government doesn't waste money on a myriad of things less important than the continuance of our species?
Do you have any children? If you do or if you are going to have children, hell even if you won't have children; are you capable of realizing that there exist a vast number of people on this planet that desire a life that our children can live?
Of course, there might always be an asteroid that collides with the earth, or some other sudden catastrophic event. But in the mean time, many long term threats can be averted if we act now. This is where our focus should be.
That doesn’t mean we should ignore the possibility of leaving the planet; but again, I don’t see it as the most pressing issue, considering the number of problems that are right here, in our lap today…and can in fact be solved. I don’t hold the assumption that the earth is dead already.
In my opinion, the assumption that the earth is doomed as are we unless we find a way to leave the planet within the next few decades is…well, overreaction at best. After all, how long have we been here? A bat of an eye, cosmologically speaking.
The possibility that the earth will suddenly become uninhabitable exists. But at the same time, even if we do expand outward…if and when the earth is threatened, how many of us will be saved? If it requires vast resources to transport a few humans to another world safely, how hard would it be to send out a significant portion of the population?
Is it just a matter of knowing that some of humanity will continue?
It will be extremely difficult to transport a handful of people to a near by planet. What are the odds of a large number…to say nothing of a significant portion of the population. At any rate, many billions will be left to die. So…who goes, and who is doomed? Who decides? Will it simply be the richest citizens of the richest nations that become the New Martians while the rest of us perish?
Hundreds of billions…perhaps trillions…of dollars spent on getting a couple of people to Mars…as opposed to using that money to develop alternative fuels, work on making healthcare more affordable, decreasing the cost of education and making it more readily available, ect. Yes, at this point in time, a manned mission would be a wasted expenditure of resources.Martin wrote: I don't know what kind of Disney dream trip your imagining for a crew going to Mars but I get the impression that you think it will be a wonderful and joyful trip full of cartoon characters and pictures of the crew sitting at the pool bar? A wasted expenditure of resources, eh? However, many would argue that currently entertainment is the #1 motivator. You may be on to something here Orca.
Try making your argument, even without the snide, rude comments…to the average tax payer and see what sort of response you get. At any rate, it’s not how you are going to sell your goal.
I don’t know what you mean by this statement. If it’s another rude joke, you have no need to explain further.Martin wrote: Don't worry Orca, I will still somehow respect you in the morning
Martin: in summary, I have taken the time to respond to some of your comments. But as I re-read them more carefully I detected a great amount sarcasm and superiority from you. You seem to be easily angered by those who don’t hold your opinion…perhaps an open forum is not the place for you.
Though I don’t agree with you on many issues, I don’t make assumptions about your knowledge on the subject, your political views, or your beliefs. I certainly don’t make jokes about your point of view. I would appreciate it if you would afford me the same tolerance. I would gladly continue this discourse, but whether I do depends on the manner in which you respond.
Orca,
I tend to agree with you that robotic missions make financial sence right now as Robots don't require food, water or air to survive and operate for years on foreign planet surfaces (only power). And that likewise the fuel required to send the robotic mass to its destination is far less than what would be needed to send manned missions with all the life sustaining necessities.
But I certainly wouldn't mind setting foot there myself.
We should instead look towards returning to the moon as a means to test, hone, and refine our methods of space travel. If we coulf build a ship to travel in that could operate independantly in both atmospheric and vaccuum conditions, and develope a constant 1g of thrust (electricly) then travel to other planets would become affordable. So Lets practice with the moon for a while, and save the expenditure for saving the planet (for now).
I tend to agree with you that robotic missions make financial sence right now as Robots don't require food, water or air to survive and operate for years on foreign planet surfaces (only power). And that likewise the fuel required to send the robotic mass to its destination is far less than what would be needed to send manned missions with all the life sustaining necessities.
But I certainly wouldn't mind setting foot there myself.
We should instead look towards returning to the moon as a means to test, hone, and refine our methods of space travel. If we coulf build a ship to travel in that could operate independantly in both atmospheric and vaccuum conditions, and develope a constant 1g of thrust (electricly) then travel to other planets would become affordable. So Lets practice with the moon for a while, and save the expenditure for saving the planet (for now).
BMAONE23 - agreed. I am particularly interested in more research and experiments on possible materials for radiation shielding. One of the largest barriers to becoming a space faring species is radiation such as cosmic rays. Once we leave the protective magnetic field of the earth, we'll have to find a way to prevent damage from such radiation.
This protection will have to be long-term...meaning, any structure or vessel we use...as Mars has no magnetosphere. Even the moon has little shelter from the earth's magnetic field.
This protection will have to be long-term...meaning, any structure or vessel we use...as Mars has no magnetosphere. Even the moon has little shelter from the earth's magnetic field.
Please do not be insulted by my sarcasm Orca. I try to mix in a little "light-hearted" humor with my posts. It's nothing personal I just enjoy a good debate. However, I do believe that ignorance is a contagion.
We could debate this for a week and I realize I would never be able to convince anyone that we don't have other pressing issues that need to be addressed. I'm thankful that is not my point here in this thread. It has been far too long since we tackled issues of extended space travel. This is more along the lines of my point.
If we sit on idle hands that only control robotic explorers -we will be contributing to our inability to overcome (as a species) a list of probable catastrophes that are likely to impact our planet eventually. If we are to continue down this path of robotics it will delay/stop what we as a species must accomplish. The question is when will the clock run out? Do you know? I don’t know either. The sooner we accomplish extended space travel and build bases on other bodies in space the closer we will be to losing our dependency on this 3rd rock from the sun.
Of course, I noticed that you are not able to argue the merits of this topic rather only the importance of it as it relates to present day threats and social problems. Remember that I am NOT suggesting that this can be accomplished overnight, next week, next year, in ten years, or even a hundred. I really don't know how long but that is quite irrelevant. My point is that we should not substitute manned missions for robotic. We should insist that we use robotics as a supplement -only to cut cost and time.
To others who say that it will not be in your lifetime that we will need to accomplish this and therefore think, I will be dead so why should I care!
I say to you -that it is highly presumptuous that you make this assumption!
We could debate this for a week and I realize I would never be able to convince anyone that we don't have other pressing issues that need to be addressed. I'm thankful that is not my point here in this thread. It has been far too long since we tackled issues of extended space travel. This is more along the lines of my point.
If we sit on idle hands that only control robotic explorers -we will be contributing to our inability to overcome (as a species) a list of probable catastrophes that are likely to impact our planet eventually. If we are to continue down this path of robotics it will delay/stop what we as a species must accomplish. The question is when will the clock run out? Do you know? I don’t know either. The sooner we accomplish extended space travel and build bases on other bodies in space the closer we will be to losing our dependency on this 3rd rock from the sun.
Of course, I noticed that you are not able to argue the merits of this topic rather only the importance of it as it relates to present day threats and social problems. Remember that I am NOT suggesting that this can be accomplished overnight, next week, next year, in ten years, or even a hundred. I really don't know how long but that is quite irrelevant. My point is that we should not substitute manned missions for robotic. We should insist that we use robotics as a supplement -only to cut cost and time.
To others who say that it will not be in your lifetime that we will need to accomplish this and therefore think, I will be dead so why should I care!
I say to you -that it is highly presumptuous that you make this assumption!
Martin,
I agree with you in that manned missions are a must. There is no easy way to overcome the light time issues with respect to transmitting commands to robotic probes on far away worlds, then waiting for the signal to arrive, crunch, and be executed by the robotic explorers, only to have to wait another span of time for any information to be relayed back to us. A man on the surface needs no light time delay in communications with respect to decisions, and finding best alternate routes of travel on surfaces.
However, I feel that we need to utilize robotic missions to refine travel methods between worlds and to test new ideas for propulsion and landing technology. We need to be able to provide some form of artificial gravity either in the form of kinetic energy (rotation) or in the form of constant 1g thrust. I would much rather accidentally slam a robot into a planet surface than place 4 or 5 astronauts on a potentially doomed mission. It is a long way to go for a rescue mission.
We will need to be able to travel without the use of chemical propellants to have any hope of potential colonization of other worlds. Traveling in constant ZERO G is detrimental.
I agree with you in that manned missions are a must. There is no easy way to overcome the light time issues with respect to transmitting commands to robotic probes on far away worlds, then waiting for the signal to arrive, crunch, and be executed by the robotic explorers, only to have to wait another span of time for any information to be relayed back to us. A man on the surface needs no light time delay in communications with respect to decisions, and finding best alternate routes of travel on surfaces.
However, I feel that we need to utilize robotic missions to refine travel methods between worlds and to test new ideas for propulsion and landing technology. We need to be able to provide some form of artificial gravity either in the form of kinetic energy (rotation) or in the form of constant 1g thrust. I would much rather accidentally slam a robot into a planet surface than place 4 or 5 astronauts on a potentially doomed mission. It is a long way to go for a rescue mission.
We will need to be able to travel without the use of chemical propellants to have any hope of potential colonization of other worlds. Traveling in constant ZERO G is detrimental.
Thank you for clarifying! 8)Martin wrote:Please do not be insulted by my sarcasm Orca. I try to mix in a little "light-hearted" humor with my posts. It's nothing personal I just enjoy a good debate.
I agree that in the long run, manned missions are the goal. But I think that every robotic mission prepares us for that eventual goal. As BMA0NE pointed out, Each mission gives us data with which we can overcome the...'astronomical'...heh...obstacles to human expansion into space.Martin wrote: If we are to continue down this path of robotics it will delay/stop what we as a species must accomplish.
But you are right, we shouldn't become completely dependent on them. I just think that at this point in the game, we can still gain much from using them.
Agreed. New types of propulsion, artificial gravity...as you said from acceleration or rotation, and shielding from radiation are among the many challenges that lie ahead. Using robotics we develop and test these new technologies before we risk a crew.BMAONE23 wrote:We will need to be able to travel without the use of chemical propellants to have any hope of potential colonization of other worlds. Traveling in constant ZERO G is detrimental.
Propulsion: solar sails? Large-scale ion drives? Nuclear rockets?
Artificial gravity: Rotating living quarters would be a lovely solution, but complex. Rotating the ship itself with maneuvering rockets would be a more simple alternative.
As for Acceleration of 1 g (or there abouts) would depend on the form of propulsion. You'd have to accelerate to the half way point, then turn round and decelerate at the same rate. This is certainly not possible with chemical rockets, and ion engines would never produce 1 g (they work by producing a small amount of thrust for a long period of time). So perhaps rotation is the way to go.
Shielding: When it comes to EM radiation, we naturally think of lead as a shield; but for cosmic rays (high-speed charged particles) heavy metals actually cause more damage because when cosmic rays hit them they dislodge more heavy particles and send them flying. Water would work, but the feasibility of surrounding the ship with several feet of water is pretty low. Apparently plastics such as polyethylene make good shields for high-energy particles. In this case collisions only result in light-weight particles like H being knocked off.
Of course, the ultimate shield against cosmic rays would be the creation of a magnetic field around the ship. But then, that would require a vast amount of energy. And if it failed, your crew would be wide open. Perhaps one day a combination of shielding and magnetic field generation will be the key.
Hi Guys and Gals,
I am new here but will try to contribute what I can.
While robotic entities are financially more viable in many instances, I don't think that they are yet to the point that they can see and feel what a human would. Granted from a merely scientific POV they would be fine, but what about those of us who like hearing and seeing some finer points which a robot just would not be able to discern?
I am new here but will try to contribute what I can.
While robotic entities are financially more viable in many instances, I don't think that they are yet to the point that they can see and feel what a human would. Granted from a merely scientific POV they would be fine, but what about those of us who like hearing and seeing some finer points which a robot just would not be able to discern?
APOD Rocks.
The 2 major benefits to manned exploration of other planets is the fact that:
1) If a problem arrises and you need to take path "A" or path "B" to reach the best resolution, the mind responsible for making the decision is there and doesn't need to wait the "light hours" travel time for the signal to reach earth, debate decisions and return responce to resolve the problem.
2) In order to truely make it anywhere other than the moon will most likely require a joint effort from multiple countries and the cooperation that is fostered from it will be a major benefit here.
1) If a problem arrises and you need to take path "A" or path "B" to reach the best resolution, the mind responsible for making the decision is there and doesn't need to wait the "light hours" travel time for the signal to reach earth, debate decisions and return responce to resolve the problem.
2) In order to truely make it anywhere other than the moon will most likely require a joint effort from multiple countries and the cooperation that is fostered from it will be a major benefit here.
Last edited by BMAONE23 on Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
hi I'm new, I just want to say that I feel that space exploration is just the futuristic form of expansionism and colonialism, and it's just a power trip. Oil prices are astronomical enough - funds should be invested into solving the Earth's problems.. then again, I understand why the power trip needs to be taken because of global competition. You don't want your country spied on from abov by the enemy who has a station on the moon, for example. -Fishfool @ The Reef Tank
hey i'd like to put in my two cents as well 
i definitely agree to make at least an outpost on the moon before trying to send a manned expedition to some other planet. at least on the moon you can do many more experiment than were possible here on earth. Also i completely agree with Bmaone23. To send people to another planet will require complete cooperation between industrial nations.
i definitely agree to make at least an outpost on the moon before trying to send a manned expedition to some other planet. at least on the moon you can do many more experiment than were possible here on earth. Also i completely agree with Bmaone23. To send people to another planet will require complete cooperation between industrial nations.
...to boldly go where no one has gone before.
I'm actually all for the new designs and agencies that are sprouting up like flies for the space industry. Took them decades to get off their butts, but we've got some good industries joining together already and forming alliances to make space expansion easier and more cost effective.
Virgin Galactic is awesome. And so is the XPrize and Google leading the Moon competition to see who can create low cost technology to launch and place a robot on the moon to do science missions. These alone are paving the way for future endeavors. And so are the rovers and lander on mars, with the surveyor and obitters above them (not to forget the other awesome man-made probes and satellites throughout our solar system beaming back tons and tons of data).
But man should only take its next step as just that, the next natural step, which would be the moon. Mars is more than a leap away for humans. Better to gain an understand of space life and travel by going back and forth from earth to the moon and to the ISS. (Who knows, radiation could lead the humans to evolve into something different if exposed long enough without proper shielding)
*40 years from now, sits in the backyard with a cup of tea watching the many lights within the space lanes in the night sky as crafts move along their designated paths to and from their locations on the Moon, the ISS and back to Earth*
"Hun, I'm going out to get supplies and some groceries at Moonbase-Charlie 5.. do you need anything?"
"Just more of this Darkside aroma blend tea you brought from last time, dear... tell old Charlie I said hi." =b
Slowly and slowly we get there. But we will get there. Even if it takes a few more presidential terms for our governments to wake up and stop wasting money on fighting wars and start rebuilding whats been left to ruin within our own homelands and start concentrating on newer technologies (science/medicine) and making them available for the public without having corporations holding back cures and inventions so they can continue to reap profits by our ignorance to what's been created NOW and could already be put to use throughout the world for the better of us all.
u.u
Virgin Galactic is awesome. And so is the XPrize and Google leading the Moon competition to see who can create low cost technology to launch and place a robot on the moon to do science missions. These alone are paving the way for future endeavors. And so are the rovers and lander on mars, with the surveyor and obitters above them (not to forget the other awesome man-made probes and satellites throughout our solar system beaming back tons and tons of data).
But man should only take its next step as just that, the next natural step, which would be the moon. Mars is more than a leap away for humans. Better to gain an understand of space life and travel by going back and forth from earth to the moon and to the ISS. (Who knows, radiation could lead the humans to evolve into something different if exposed long enough without proper shielding)
*40 years from now, sits in the backyard with a cup of tea watching the many lights within the space lanes in the night sky as crafts move along their designated paths to and from their locations on the Moon, the ISS and back to Earth*
"Hun, I'm going out to get supplies and some groceries at Moonbase-Charlie 5.. do you need anything?"
"Just more of this Darkside aroma blend tea you brought from last time, dear... tell old Charlie I said hi." =b
Slowly and slowly we get there. But we will get there. Even if it takes a few more presidential terms for our governments to wake up and stop wasting money on fighting wars and start rebuilding whats been left to ruin within our own homelands and start concentrating on newer technologies (science/medicine) and making them available for the public without having corporations holding back cures and inventions so they can continue to reap profits by our ignorance to what's been created NOW and could already be put to use throughout the world for the better of us all.
u.u