Vision for Space Exploration
- Thread starter sphenisc
- Start date
-
- Tags
- exploration space vision
Rob Lister
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,504
sphenisc said:
Bob Park is is a professor of physics at the University of Maryland. link
Smart guy. Smart 4ss guy. I used to read his column every week. Now I only catch-up once every couple of months. I don't think it is so much an appeal to authority as it is a reference to someone that maintains a postion central to in-the-know.
Of course, he was dumb enough to fall out of a tree a few years back. Messed him up pretty bad. I never did the scoop on what he was doing in the tree in the first place. Physics professors shouldn't be in trees. I think that's a rule or something.
IN A NUTSHELL.
Bob Park believes that space exploration should be carried out by robots. It is orders of magnitude cheaper (because you don't have spend squillions looking after the damn astronauts). And a whole lot more gets done (because you don't have to waste enormous amounts of time looking after the damn astronauts). And robots can travel a whole lot further into space (the damn astronauts want to come home to mummy every now and then).
It doesn't happen because it's not sexy.
So the very cheap Hubble gets dumped in the ocean and the enormously expensive Earth to Mars farce gets the nod by publicity conscious politicians.
BillyJoe
Bob Park believes that space exploration should be carried out by robots. It is orders of magnitude cheaper (because you don't have spend squillions looking after the damn astronauts). And a whole lot more gets done (because you don't have to waste enormous amounts of time looking after the damn astronauts). And robots can travel a whole lot further into space (the damn astronauts want to come home to mummy every now and then).
It doesn't happen because it's not sexy.
So the very cheap Hubble gets dumped in the ocean and the enormously expensive Earth to Mars farce gets the nod by publicity conscious politicians.
BillyJoe
Don't know who Bob Park is, but it's true that Hubble and Voyager are proven systems and are still capable of producing good data, while sending people to Mars, and back to the Moon are likely to result in a much smaller scientific bang for our buck.
◊◊◊◊ all of that, however. I still think it would be surpassing cool to have people on Mars.
◊◊◊◊ all of that, however. I still think it would be surpassing cool to have people on Mars.
I think Bob Park would agree, but it's a matter of assigning priorities with limited budgets and acknowledging that we are technologically too far away from that "cool" scenario to be spending seriously big money on it. And you must walk before you can run.LucyR said:
Rob Lister
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,504
LucyR said:
I agree with your closing paragraph but my gut feeling is that sending humans to Mars...and getting them back alive...is about three orders of magnitude more difficult than sending a man to the moon. I could be wrong. Still, I somewhat doubt we have even retained the knowhow to get them to the moon. Not because we're less advanced technologically, but because we're further advanced politically. Politics tends to dull our ability, not enhance it.
Send R2D2
Seems like an easy fix. Anthropomorphise 'em. Get an ad agency on it, or just lease the rights to
C3P0 or R2D2 from the Star Wars folks.
Seems like an easy fix. Anthropomorphise 'em. Get an ad agency on it, or just lease the rights to
C3P0 or R2D2 from the Star Wars folks.
Re: Send R2D2
Shera,
)
BillyJoe.
Shera,
I guess you are joking (Those robots look nothing like C3P0 or R2D2, and that ad agency would really have their work cut out for them trying to antropomorphise those nondescript machines euphemistically called robots.Shera said:
)BillyJoe.
sphenisc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 6,233
Thanks for the responses,
I'm not sure about the argument from difficulty, given we've been to the moon before,... no really... we have... honest to goodness ;-)
And as for scientific bang for a buck, well not everyone prioritises science as the only way of measuring the value of a project. Perhaps people will be more willing to spend money on 'space' if there is a more human face to it ( I was going to say 'down-to-earth' but that's just confusing.)
Still, none of this answers my original question which is why one is a 'faith-based chimera' and the others aren't?
Again, thanks for the information on Bob Park, and the thought- provoking comments
I'm not sure about the argument from difficulty, given we've been to the moon before,... no really... we have... honest to goodness ;-)
And as for scientific bang for a buck, well not everyone prioritises science as the only way of measuring the value of a project. Perhaps people will be more willing to spend money on 'space' if there is a more human face to it ( I was going to say 'down-to-earth' but that's just confusing.)
Still, none of this answers my original question which is why one is a 'faith-based chimera' and the others aren't?
Again, thanks for the information on Bob Park, and the thought- provoking comments
Loss of interest
Hmm...
I understand all of the arguments for and against astronauts to Mars... I've been fascinated by space exploration since I was old enough to understand that the stars aren't just tiny points of light.
Having said that, there are a number of factors to consider that haven't been mentioned here yet.
Some of us are probably too young to remember the "space race" of the 60's. Some of us aren't, though.
First, there has been a dramatic decline in interest of space exploration, and science in general. A manned mission to Mars might rekindle the kind of interest and excitement that once existed in the West, and which is apparently now enjoying a rebirth in the East.
When the "space race" was on, segments of entire generations were inspired to become scientists and explorers. Others could have cared less; and in fact, complained bitterly when favorite TV shows and baseball games were interrupted to provide live coverage of humanity's first steps on the Moon. These days, shuttle launches and other space endeavors hardly rate a 20-second spot on CNN. (Unless something goes wrong, of course.) Congress has repeatedly slashed NASA's budget; and it has become fashionable to bash space exploration as a boondoggle rather than view it as pushing back the frontiers of knowledge. These days, most people could care less about comet landings, space probes to Saturn, and so forth. The main reason that the Hubble enjoyed popularity with the masses were because of the "pretty pictures" it provided - the science was either ignored or a mere footnote for the average newspaper or website.
So, one possible value to having a manned mission to Mars is the rekindling of interest in the Sciences in general.
Another aspect that's often overlooked by people is how the "space race" in the 60's generated entire new technologies, and spawned entire new industries as well. Semiconductors got a major boost because of it; so did composite materials, computers, software and a number of other "enabling" technologies that were required to put a man on the Moon. Sending a manned mission to Mars will once again force the growth of industrys currently dormant, and will probably create entire new technologies as innovation is required to achieve the goal.
So while I agree that robotic exploration has many technical and scientific advantages, there may be other incentives to sending a manned missions other than scientific.
Hmm...
I understand all of the arguments for and against astronauts to Mars... I've been fascinated by space exploration since I was old enough to understand that the stars aren't just tiny points of light.
Having said that, there are a number of factors to consider that haven't been mentioned here yet.Some of us are probably too young to remember the "space race" of the 60's. Some of us aren't, though.
First, there has been a dramatic decline in interest of space exploration, and science in general. A manned mission to Mars might rekindle the kind of interest and excitement that once existed in the West, and which is apparently now enjoying a rebirth in the East.
When the "space race" was on, segments of entire generations were inspired to become scientists and explorers. Others could have cared less; and in fact, complained bitterly when favorite TV shows and baseball games were interrupted to provide live coverage of humanity's first steps on the Moon. These days, shuttle launches and other space endeavors hardly rate a 20-second spot on CNN. (Unless something goes wrong, of course.) Congress has repeatedly slashed NASA's budget; and it has become fashionable to bash space exploration as a boondoggle rather than view it as pushing back the frontiers of knowledge. These days, most people could care less about comet landings, space probes to Saturn, and so forth. The main reason that the Hubble enjoyed popularity with the masses were because of the "pretty pictures" it provided - the science was either ignored or a mere footnote for the average newspaper or website.
So, one possible value to having a manned mission to Mars is the rekindling of interest in the Sciences in general.
Another aspect that's often overlooked by people is how the "space race" in the 60's generated entire new technologies, and spawned entire new industries as well. Semiconductors got a major boost because of it; so did composite materials, computers, software and a number of other "enabling" technologies that were required to put a man on the Moon. Sending a manned mission to Mars will once again force the growth of industrys currently dormant, and will probably create entire new technologies as innovation is required to achieve the goal.
So while I agree that robotic exploration has many technical and scientific advantages, there may be other incentives to sending a manned missions other than scientific.
Re: Send R2D2
BillyJoe, I was joking -- mostly.
Seriously, I think it’s a very sad statement about our society that interest in space exploration is so low now. If it doesn't make economic sense to capture people's attention with manned missions -- than perhaps interest could be driven up with movie trailer type advertising and a cute 'droid or two (sent with the nondescript machines in the background). {Shrug}
BillyJoe, I was joking -- mostly.
Seriously, I think it’s a very sad statement about our society that interest in space exploration is so low now. If it doesn't make economic sense to capture people's attention with manned missions -- than perhaps interest could be driven up with movie trailer type advertising and a cute 'droid or two (sent with the nondescript machines in the background). {Shrug}
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Re: Re: Vision for Space Exploration
Come again...Rob Lister said:
Beady
Philosopher
Re: Loss of interest
If you find some, I and a lot of other folks would like to know.
I was one of the charter members of the usenet group sci.space.history. There were a lot of pretty high-powered folks there, initially: active and former mission control technicians (Randi's friend, Jim Oberg, is still probably the most prominent of this group), former and present NASA employees, and it was even rumored that a few astronauts lurked about under fake IDs. I was in the "knowledgable groupy" bunch. Many of us, myself included, had lived through the Cold War and the Moon Race, and there were several Mercury/Gemini/Apollo veterans.
Anyway, manned vs unmanned was one of the subjects we were always kicking around. It took a few years (the group was formed almost 10 years ago, now), but the consensus finally emerged that, much as we all would personaly love to find an objective reason to prefer manned missions, unmanned won hands down. I repeat, we all really wanted to find a good reason for manned missions, but with present technology the reason just isn't there.
jmercer said:So while I agree that robotic exploration has many technical and scientific advantages, there may be other incentives to sending a manned missions other than scientific.
If you find some, I and a lot of other folks would like to know.
I was one of the charter members of the usenet group sci.space.history. There were a lot of pretty high-powered folks there, initially: active and former mission control technicians (Randi's friend, Jim Oberg, is still probably the most prominent of this group), former and present NASA employees, and it was even rumored that a few astronauts lurked about under fake IDs. I was in the "knowledgable groupy" bunch. Many of us, myself included, had lived through the Cold War and the Moon Race, and there were several Mercury/Gemini/Apollo veterans.
Anyway, manned vs unmanned was one of the subjects we were always kicking around. It took a few years (the group was formed almost 10 years ago, now), but the consensus finally emerged that, much as we all would personaly love to find an objective reason to prefer manned missions, unmanned won hands down. I repeat, we all really wanted to find a good reason for manned missions, but with present technology the reason just isn't there.
Well, you know - I have to say that I'm a proponent of robotic exploration myself. It's my personal preference and I think it makes a helluva lot of sense for specific missions. And I'm very reluctant to expose humans to high risk unless it's absolutely necessary - even if we're better at doing generalized tasks than robots are. (Today.)
OTOH, if the public doesn't identify with robotic exploration, they won't support the programs, and if they don't support the programs, there will be no exploration. Politicians will see to that... unless a program is lining the pockets of the politico, they're going to kill any funding that comes under the heading of "Unpopular Program That Doesn't Provide Me With Any Advantage."
Cynical, but true. And yeah, that means that people will end up risking (and losing) their lives to keep the dream of exploration alive and well. Just like people have done over the centuries.
Would I risk my life to further space exploration? Yes. I'm that passionate about it. And while we didn't really need to put men on the Moon, a helluva lot of non-scientific good came out of that, didn't it?
OTOH, if the public doesn't identify with robotic exploration, they won't support the programs, and if they don't support the programs, there will be no exploration. Politicians will see to that... unless a program is lining the pockets of the politico, they're going to kill any funding that comes under the heading of "Unpopular Program That Doesn't Provide Me With Any Advantage."
Cynical, but true. And yeah, that means that people will end up risking (and losing) their lives to keep the dream of exploration alive and well. Just like people have done over the centuries.
Would I risk my life to further space exploration? Yes. I'm that passionate about it. And while we didn't really need to put men on the Moon, a helluva lot of non-scientific good came out of that, didn't it?
Beady
Philosopher
jmercer said:Would I risk my life to further space exploration? Yes. I'm that passionate about it. And while we didn't really need to put men on the Moon, a helluva lot of non-scientific good came out of that, didn't it?
First of all, I'm with you. If they offered me a chance to go on the first post-Columbia shuttle, I'd run all the way to the Cape (and I'm in Vermont!).
OTOH, your last phrase is debatable. It's quite possible to argue that virtually everything developed for the manned lunar program that later found its way into public hands (hand-held power tools, computers, Tang*, etc) would have been developed, anyway. I've seen it argued, with at least some justification, that virtually nothing of public good can be attributed solely to Apollo and its predecessors.
*
Radwaste
New Blood
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2005
- Messages
- 14
To recap, the Amazing's commentary contained this item:
"WHAT — IF ANYTHING — IS WASHINGTON THINKING
Bob Park brings to our attention that seven active — and successful — NASA science missions are being turned off to free up money for the President's "Vision for Space Exploration," which Bob refers to as simply, "goofy." Managers of the missions that are "past their prime" have been told there is no money for them to keep operating past next October. That includes two Voyager probes looking for the heliopause, where true interstellar space begins. Pioneer 10 started the search, but it was passed by the younger, faster, Voyagers 8 years ago. And, as we all know, the Hubble Space Telescope — which brought us previously unimagined, exciting, and very important new data about our universe — is being abandoned to an early end by the President so he can pursue this "faith-based" chimera.
What a shame, to throw money away on projects that are presently far from feasible, and to abandon the working, valuable, informative projects that already exist and have proven their value."
What? One guy says, "goofy" and somehow faith is involved? Whoa!
Bob Park: SHUT UP!!
I recommend a look at the excellent book,
"2003 Space Shuttle Columbia Tragedy: Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) Final Report, August 2003"
It's available at Amazon, and your local bookstore.
Part of the CAIB report requires a national vision for human space flight. This is not a religious hallucination, but a sort of "constitution" for how we will put Man in space.
Roger Tetrault, a member of that board, spoke at Savannah River Site (my employer), and he explained why a "national vision" was necessary. NASA was wasting three to five billion - with a "B", billion! - dollars a year funding projects which would never come to fruition. Typically, a scientist or a lab would get a "good idea", get funding to pursue it, then, after serious money was gone, the idea or project would get chopped.
While it is a good idea to continue experiments in the name of uncovering new knowledge, this is not what was happening at all; there was actually no management direction which mandated that any project would actually have to be put into production. Remember, this is a government agency, where if money allocated is not spent, it gets chopped from next year's budget. The point of much of the activity at NASA was apparently the consumption of tax dollars.
Thus, managers are already routinely told that there is no money to continue their projects. That will change, too, if NASA and Congress actually follow the Board's recommendation.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FAITH.
Or, for that matter, President Bush. Why does everybody say he's "stupid", then give him sole credit for any decision? Damn, you know that's not how Washington works!
Ask someone who has read the report; if they are at all inclined to engineering discipline, you'll get righteous indignation at the mistakes NASA allowed to propagate as they morphed into being just another fat government agency rather than a scientific gestalt and the prize of America.
For a long time, I have held astronauts to be heroes. I know that NASA has movie footage which puts Star Wars and other mere fiction to shame; I went to school with the sons and daughters of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo principals. When I see the errors which killed the Columbia, it hurts more than I can bear to realize that the crew was betrayed by the managers of the infrastructure building such amazing machines. (Did you know there was more than a good chance that Atlantis could have *rescued* Columbia's crew? It's in the CAIB report!)
Now, the CAIB is right about having a "national vision for human space flight", and if we do what they say, we can go anywhere in the Solar system with a flag on our sleeve and wonder, not fear, in our eyes!
"WHAT — IF ANYTHING — IS WASHINGTON THINKING
Bob Park brings to our attention that seven active — and successful — NASA science missions are being turned off to free up money for the President's "Vision for Space Exploration," which Bob refers to as simply, "goofy." Managers of the missions that are "past their prime" have been told there is no money for them to keep operating past next October. That includes two Voyager probes looking for the heliopause, where true interstellar space begins. Pioneer 10 started the search, but it was passed by the younger, faster, Voyagers 8 years ago. And, as we all know, the Hubble Space Telescope — which brought us previously unimagined, exciting, and very important new data about our universe — is being abandoned to an early end by the President so he can pursue this "faith-based" chimera.
What a shame, to throw money away on projects that are presently far from feasible, and to abandon the working, valuable, informative projects that already exist and have proven their value."
What? One guy says, "goofy" and somehow faith is involved? Whoa!
Bob Park: SHUT UP!!
I recommend a look at the excellent book,
"2003 Space Shuttle Columbia Tragedy: Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) Final Report, August 2003"
It's available at Amazon, and your local bookstore.
Part of the CAIB report requires a national vision for human space flight. This is not a religious hallucination, but a sort of "constitution" for how we will put Man in space.
Roger Tetrault, a member of that board, spoke at Savannah River Site (my employer), and he explained why a "national vision" was necessary. NASA was wasting three to five billion - with a "B", billion! - dollars a year funding projects which would never come to fruition. Typically, a scientist or a lab would get a "good idea", get funding to pursue it, then, after serious money was gone, the idea or project would get chopped.
While it is a good idea to continue experiments in the name of uncovering new knowledge, this is not what was happening at all; there was actually no management direction which mandated that any project would actually have to be put into production. Remember, this is a government agency, where if money allocated is not spent, it gets chopped from next year's budget. The point of much of the activity at NASA was apparently the consumption of tax dollars.
Thus, managers are already routinely told that there is no money to continue their projects. That will change, too, if NASA and Congress actually follow the Board's recommendation.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FAITH.
Or, for that matter, President Bush. Why does everybody say he's "stupid", then give him sole credit for any decision? Damn, you know that's not how Washington works!
Ask someone who has read the report; if they are at all inclined to engineering discipline, you'll get righteous indignation at the mistakes NASA allowed to propagate as they morphed into being just another fat government agency rather than a scientific gestalt and the prize of America.
For a long time, I have held astronauts to be heroes. I know that NASA has movie footage which puts Star Wars and other mere fiction to shame; I went to school with the sons and daughters of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo principals. When I see the errors which killed the Columbia, it hurts more than I can bear to realize that the crew was betrayed by the managers of the infrastructure building such amazing machines. (Did you know there was more than a good chance that Atlantis could have *rescued* Columbia's crew? It's in the CAIB report!)
Now, the CAIB is right about having a "national vision for human space flight", and if we do what they say, we can go anywhere in the Solar system with a flag on our sleeve and wonder, not fear, in our eyes!
Radwaste said:
The CAIB Report can be downloaded from here for those interested in reading it.
The reference to an Atlantis/Columbia rescue mission is in the first volume. And I didn't know about this, Radwaste - thank you for pointing it out, and yes - I AM very angry about this and the written-off programs.
Billions for war, but we can't keep our existing space programs running?
