Manned space travel

[tballou]

I would be interested to learn what the general consensus is here regarding manned space flight, especially long-term projects such as the ISS and a manned trip back to the moon or to Mars. Much, if not all, the rationale for the ISS seems to be about learning how to live in space in preparation for a trip to Mars, and every new discovery of water on the moon or Mars inevitably leads to some comment about how this water could be used by future space explores.

IMHO, I think this all a collosal waste of resources. I have yet to see a single useful reason for having the ISS, and the idea of a manned trip to Mars is just absurd in the extreme. Aside from manned repair trips to Hubble, I fail to see any good reason to send humans into space. Let the robots do it!

[apodman]

a man’s reach should exceed his grasp

To my way of thinking, this applies a couple of ways to space travel. The first way, it simply tells us to keep reaching. The second way, it applies to using machines to reach what is still beyond the grasp of manned space exploration. So in that sense it favors unmanned probes. But getting out there ourselves is a big deal. Going to the moon was the coolest thing humans have ever done. Going further will continue to be cool. And don't worry about practical benefits. They will be there. You can't advance technology to support a project without coming up with useful information, techniques, and devices along the way, regardless of the practical merits of the original project. It might even employ a few people. Before I die, I want this entire solar system to be buzzing with manned and unmanned activities on and around every major planet, minor planet, and worthy moon we have, and I expect not to be disappointed. It's in the works now, but it can always go faster. More countries, more private enterprise, more reaching upwards. I think there is a link between reaching upwards mentally and reaching upwards into space, and I'm in favor of both.

So that's one vote for manned space travel.

---

More lyrics from my musical past:

Will you spend your life on this one tiny grain
Your sense buried deep in the tangible plain
While you close your eyes to your rightful domain
Shut up in a cell in your own tiny brain

Crawl back in your hole if you're soft in the spine
You haven't a soul when you spurn the sublime
The only two choices: advance or decay
Bog down or reach up, only you pick the way

[Doum]

You may need a good reason to send human into space but each one of us have is own reason wich are as good as yours. Personaly i think humankind should prevail because we can. Dinosaur could'nt. So lets put all the money we can into it to get human out to the moon then mars then the galaxy. Just let get the hell out of here before a close supernova or a meteorite(Big one) or anything else whipe out humankind. We must go on and move out as fast as we can. Lets push the space engineering to maximum. Do you see how different from you or me an opinion can be. You say send bots and i say send humans as much as we can. Where you dont see any reason i see many. A forum as already talk about that somewhere. I just dont remember where. So what else is there to say. You are against it and i am for it. What else? Both are right on his reason to think that way. May be thats why the budget for space exploration are in between. Not all on space but not zero neither. I'm disapoint to see the money put into it cause it aint enough and you are also cause its too much. We are all equal i guess.

[Chris Peterson]

IMHO, I think this all a collosal waste of resources. I have yet to see a single useful reason for having the ISS, and the idea of a manned trip to Mars is just absurd in the extreme. Aside from manned repair trips to Hubble, I fail to see any good reason to send humans into space. Let the robots do it!

I think the ISS/shuttle is basically a waste- an awful lot of money for very little return. I have no objection in principle to manned space exploration, but for the foreseeable future this is going to be a resource limited enterprise. Just a little manned exploration can be replaced by a huge amount of robotic exploration. The bang/buck ratio is so much higher for the latter that I'd vote for scaling back the former- significantly.

If I controlled the budget, I'd throw a LOT more money at space exploration, and then there would be the resources to do both. But the political will to do that isn't there, and isn't likely to be any time soon.

[apodman]

The bang/buck ratio is so much higher for [robotic exploration] that I'd vote for scaling back [manned space exploration] - significantly. ... If I controlled the budget, I'd throw a LOT more money at space exploration, and then there would be the resources to do both.

What is the ratio now of money for robots in space to money for humans in space?

I'd be happy with the ever-popular ratio of 95%-to-5% (that's 95% for the robots and 5% for the humans).

---

Back at Monte Carlo, from where I have (not actually) recently returned ...

At the craps table, the most sensible bet is to play pass/don't pass or come/don't come and take double odds. The payoffs are best in the long run but dull. But for excitement, make a long-odds bet - you'll spend more than you make in the long run, but the payoffs are fun. So if you want your money to last the longest and you want some excitement along the way too, put 95% of your money on the sensible bets and 5% on the fun bets. What else are you doing in a casino? (End of metaphor.)

[Orca]

NASA's Budget for 2009

This is a limited summary; if you'd like to see the full budget, NASA has a PDF version on their site.

The way I look at it, robotic missions are not only more "bang for the buck" in terms of scientific research, they are an important step in our preparation for extended human missions down the road.

A successful trip from Earth to Mars and back is far more complex than "rocket science." We still have very little understanding of the many dangerous effects extended space travel (solar radiation, cosmic rays, and long-term zero-g environment to name a few) will have on beings such as ourselves. Robotic missions can help collect data we'll need to create new technologies needed to protect our crews.

The problem with a budget ratio of "95% robotic, 5% manned" is that manned missions, even the relatively simple ones we conduct today (simple compared to missions outside the Earth-Moon system) are so expensive that they just can't happen without the lion's share of the budget. You can't use "cheap parts" to save money when human lives are at risk.

At the same time, robotic missions are often reduced in scope, cut, or worse...under-funded...because in general manned missions tend to have budgeting priority. My thought is that other countries ought to start sharing more of the burden the ISS and that manned space flight in the future should move toward cooperative international efforts instead of the politically-driven "space races" of the past.

[BMAONE23]

Perhaps the 95% 5% ratio should not have been stated as a factor of budget expences but rather as a factor of planned missions. 95% robotic missions vs 5% manned missions.
On that subject. I would like to see a probe deployment vehicle produced with 95 rover style landing probes (or so) and an equal ammount of orbital platforms. The outer moons would need to have long term indipendant (nuclear) power sources for the rovers and large solar arrays for the geostationary orbital relay stations. It might not be cheap and would likely require piecing together in orbit for an orbital launch but we would have much mure useful information on just about every rocky world (moon) in the system.

[orin stepanek]

I think the biggest payback is in the technology that is learned in creating ways to go there; and than using that technology in manufacturing and electronics. I don't; as yet; see much payback in harvesting riches of the solar system as the cost is too great. However; budgeting is important because there is a lot of need here at home. I hope space exploration is always an ongoing project; and someday I expect man to explore other stellar systems with some type of probe. Not in my lifetime; but I expect man will eventually settle some of the worlds around other stars.

Orin

[Doum]

" by orin stepanek on Tue Nov 25, 2008 5:13 pm

I think the biggest payback is in the technology that is learned in creating ways to go there"

I fully agree. New technology like the chemical detonation pulse engine wich may double what a normal chemical rocket engine can do is a good start. So it might be possible to reduce by 2 the weigh of a spaceship at launch and also enhence the fiability. Let see what "Pratt and Whitney" or "Lockeed Skunk work" do with the development of that new engine. With it, we might see the first " Ford model T " of space become a reality or not? Low cost will launch private company into space and colonisation. The start is hard to make then it will go on and on by itself because material will be produce on asteroid and other planet as needed. Just human to carry. Hmmm dream...