Robotic spacecraft will always be better than humans at scientific data gathering, mostly because of the multiplicative effect. If you send a human, only that human gets to gather that information. Whereas with complex imagery and complex sensors you can spread the information over a wealth of scientists.
Asteroid sample return has been demonstrated on a very small scale by Habayusa. Making that work better and on a larger scale and applying it to many NEAs is certainly going to be much cheaper and faster than than sending humans to a similar number of NEAs.
Quote from: Proponent on 03/25/2013 01:41 pmAsteroid sample return has been demonstrated on a very small scale by Habayusa. Making that work better and on a larger scale and applying it to many NEAs is certainly going to be much cheaper and faster than than sending humans to a similar number of NEAs... and?You're making a tradeoff that isn't on the table. I don't know why people insist on having the humans vs robots argument.. there's never going to be a magical feat of logic that causes human spaceflight funding to shift to robotic exploration.
I expect no such shift. I'm just pointing out that if learning enough about asteroids to be able to defend against a hazardous one were to become a high priority, then the rational thing to do would be to build many robotic probes. Build lots of OSIRIS-RExes, because the robotic technology is closer at hand and much cheaper.If, contrary to my expectations, asteroid defense becomes a high priority, I think a substantial boost in funding of robotic asteroid probes is much more likely than the enormous boost in funding of human missions that would be required to provide an equivalent level of knowledge about asteroid deflection.
You're still making either-or statements!
The budgets are mostly unrelated.. yes, there's a theory that robotic exploration wouldn't get as much funding if human spaceflight were cut, and there's occasional raiding of budgets, but ultimately robotic exploration is not in competition with human spaceflight.
The only question worth asking is if human spaceflight could deliver any data about asteroid/comet threats that is worth having. The answer is obviously yes, and that focusing human spaceflight on that goal is better than the alternatives. (at least it's obvious to me, as defending the planet is more worthwhile than boring holes into LEO and it gives an intermediate goal before colonization begins, others may disagree).
Don't bring up robotic exploration when someone starts a conversation about the value of sending humans to explore asteroids. The two are completely unrelated.
Sure, a human NEA mission could deliver useful data. As Blackstar pointed out several posts up, however, what's really needed are visits to many NEAs, and that's really implausible with human missions.
And it would be massively ironic if the people who decide these things decided that for safety a human mission had to be preceded by a robotic mission, as many have argued in this forum.
It's funny, but I could have sworn the topic was something like efforts to track and mitigate asteroids and meteors....
I hate to admit it but QuantumG hits the nail smack-center on the head.
Quote from: woods170 on 03/26/2013 07:05 amI hate to admit it but QuantumG hits the nail smack-center on the head.I agree, but don't encourage him!
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/01/2013 03:50 pmQuote from: woods170 on 03/26/2013 07:05 amI hate to admit it but QuantumG hits the nail smack-center on the head.I agree, but don't encourage him! No, he's confused the whole issue. We're not talking about "space exploration" in general here, where the humans vs. robots angle is tired and over-simplified. We're talking about searching for, studying, and mitigating the threat of asteroids. And in that case the humans make no sense. What is needed for that is:-good search data (humans not needed) -good characteristics/ground truth on a lot of asteroids (humans not needed here either)Sending a human mission to a single asteroid, or even a couple of them, isn't going to help at all, because the data gathered is not going to be applicable to the much broader sample size. It's not the reason to do it, and it's not a good reason to do it.Go read the NRC study. They looked at the issue and came down pretty clearly on it.
Quote from: Proponent on 03/29/2013 04:59 pmSure, a human NEA mission could deliver useful data. As Blackstar pointed out several posts up, however, what's really needed are visits to many NEAs, and that's really implausible with human missions.I don't disagree with any individual statement here.I'll ask again: what's one got to do with the other?The only reason to bring it up is if you think the money that would be spent on a human mission could be shifted to what's "really needed". You just agreed that this isn't historically possible.
Why does it always have to be an either/or question when it comes to humans vs robotic?You get different data from each. I wasn't claiming you could do without the robotic probes, but mlindner was claiming you could do without sending humans. No-one can sensibly claim that any number of today's probes will return the kind of data we'd get from sending humans. When discussing Mars, the answer is often given: build better robots, or wait until AI is available (yeah right). The implication being that there's no rush. When talking about planetary defense, that logic simply doesn't work. We need all the available data, and as quickly as practical.
QuoteAnd it would be massively ironic if the people who decide these things decided that for safety a human mission had to be preceded by a robotic mission, as many have argued in this forum... and? Are you trying to say that sending a robotic mission to explore a particular asteroid means that later sending humans to explore the same asteroid would not deliver any more useful data? If not, what are you saying here?
Where humans might come in handy would be if we are going to capture or divert a NEA, the additional flexibility and dynamic response might help.
1-I think it's clear we don't need humans for gathering data... lots and lots of relatively cheap robotic missions are needed. Not just one, but tens or dozens.2-Where humans might come in handy would be if we are going to capture or divert a NEA, the additional flexibility and dynamic response might help.
If it comes down to blowing something up (which seemed to be the most popular approach among congressmen at the recent House hearing), I doubt there would be any need to physically implant a bomb on the surface, and you wouldn't want astronauts anywhere near it when it went off. If there is any scenario in which you want to do this, it's probably a last-minute one, when there's no time for deflection. In that case, the lesser advance time and greater acceptable risk for a robotic mission would be big advantages.
1-I agree that many robotic probes is preferable to sending humans.. but it's not an either-or choice. Both should be sent. It's that important.2-As for the NRC report, I haven't read it but if they're saying what you say they are saying then I think they're wrong. Is that okay? Can I disagree with a report? Or is it one of the gospels?
1-Cite any relevant data that supports the claim that humans would add anything to that task. For good measure, cite any relevant data that indicates that this is a cost effective use of funds.