-
#120 by Robotbeat on 12 Jan, 2010 20:52
-
Is the interest in survival for the human species just science? Of course not.
-
#121 by robertross on 12 Jan, 2010 21:05
-
HSF cannot be justified on the basis of pure science. HSF can be justified, perhaps, on the basis of politics, or inspiration, or dreams, or eventual destiny, etc. But science-for-the-buck will be probes, robots, and telescopes every time.
Absolutely right. HSF can never be justified by science. So please stop refering to science when trying to justify HSF. If science is the goal, then we should immediately cease HSF and go all-robotic.
Fortunately, science isn't everything. There are other things that animate us than the desire to do science. Exploration is not equal to science. Not everything needs to be utilitarian, nor even cost-effective. Otherwise, how could you ever justify Formula One races, for example?
Anyway, science has lost much of its appeal to many, including myself. That's why I am now a proud former scientist. But that's another story and OT, I guess.
It's NOT right.
Look, I know this is not ALWAYS the case, but consider this:
We had no idea the composition of the moon, its fine abrasive dust, until we went there. Unless you do sample return, you wouldn't know.
We ARE going to be going to these locations: Ateroids, moon (again, but more locations), Mars, moons of Mars, perhaps Venus. We aren't going to land there first, even the Augustine Commmitte mentioned that, as have many others. Why? The high cost of landers & gravity wells.
As to the Formula 1 reference: how did come to use carbon fiber, or other lightweight materials? Science. The Science of materials, combustion, aerodynamics...they all play a role. We are not going anywhere without the science to solve the problems. Why do you think we have a space station up there?
The long term goal require the slow and steady progress of science to learn from our 'exploits'. From that learning, we apply that to engineering to make things cheaper, better more efficient.
When we go to an asteroid, what is the purpose? Are we going to habitate it? NO. We are going there to explore its mineral content for riches, and maybe gain insight into where it came from, how we can track NEO objects...this is all science.
HSF can help enable more science, we are just too stupid to use it properly to our advantage. That's what needs to change. -
#122 by ChrisSpaceCH on 13 Jan, 2010 05:10
-
It's NOT right.
Look, I know this is not ALWAYS the case, but consider this:
We had no idea the composition of the moon, its fine abrasive dust, until we went there. Unless you do sample return, you wouldn't know.
We ARE going to be going to these locations: Ateroids, moon (again, but more locations), Mars, moons of Mars, perhaps Venus. We aren't going to land there first, even the Augustine Commmitte mentioned that, as have many others. Why? The high cost of landers & gravity wells.
As to the Formula 1 reference: how did come to use carbon fiber, or other lightweight materials? Science. The Science of materials, combustion, aerodynamics...they all play a role. We are not going anywhere without the science to solve the problems. Why do you think we have a space station up there?
The long term goal require the slow and steady progress of science to learn from our 'exploits'. From that learning, we apply that to engineering to make things cheaper, better more efficient.
When we go to an asteroid, what is the purpose? Are we going to habitate it? NO. We are going there to explore its mineral content for riches, and maybe gain insight into where it came from, how we can track NEO objects...this is all science.
HSF can help enable more science, we are just too stupid to use it properly to our advantage. That's what needs to change.
I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you don't understand what I meant. Yes, of course you can (and should) do all of the above when you do manned exploration on other worlds. But to use this as a justification for HSF is wrong. All of this could be done with robots at a fraction of the cost and no risk to human lives. So the real reason to send humans is not science, it is something else. -
#123 by Lambda-4 on 13 Jan, 2010 08:15
-
Is the interest in survival for the human species just science? Of course not.
There are things here on Earth that should be done that counter (small) risks against the destruction of the human species, first, before thinking on how the human species survives many million years from now. The likelihood that humans will be around at a time when the Earth becomes uninhabitable due to extrinsic reasons (sun's lifecycle etc.) is more than slim anyway.
An HLV for HSF only can't be justified by the potential "survival of the human species in a billion years from now", nor can it be justified through scientific demand for an HLV. It can be justified by politics and politics only, which include politicians' interest in job preservation, image preservation and their goal of "inspiring a new generation" (if that is really possible with human space flight any more, which I very much doubt). -
#124 by Analyst on 13 Jan, 2010 09:53
-
Lambda-4, the more I read from you the more I agree. I have nothing to add.
Analyst -
#125 by madscientist197 on 13 Jan, 2010 10:00
-
All of this could be done with robots at a fraction of the cost and no risk to human lives.
I agree with virtually everything you said except this one statement. I strongly suspect that with some very complex missions it might be cheaper to use humans then to attempt to do everything with robotics. That being said, these missions are so far off/expensive that it doesn't make a very strong argument. -
#126 by Lambda-4 on 13 Jan, 2010 11:04
-
All of this could be done with robots at a fraction of the cost and no risk to human lives.
I agree with virtually everything you said except this one statement. I strongly suspect that with some very complex missions it might be cheaper to use humans then to attempt to do everything with robotics. That being said, these missions are so far off/expensive that it doesn't make a very strong argument.
At the end it is a question on how quickly and how far robotics advances. 30 years from now, semi-automatic robotics might just work like this: Input from Earth: "please get us a sample, spectroanalysis and rock soil composition analysis from 5 different areas in the rock formation specified by Package A to be sent with this order" and your robot does so (of course supervised, however with a time lag) until it runs into a bigger problem. We are at the stage of saying "please, move 45m to the North" already, while a Mars rover plots its own course around the landscape automatically and autonomously. -
#127 by Lambda-4 on 13 Jan, 2010 11:08
-
Lambda-4, the more I read from you the more I agree. I have nothing to add.
Analyst
It's good we agree. These points about HSF shouldn't really be controversial anyway. NASA employees, scientists, review committee members (of different committees) and even politicians have all acknowledged (very often in testimony before Congress) that HSF cannot be justified by just pointing to science or to "the survival of the human race" or any other practical reason. There are different (of course also valid reasons) why HSF and along with it an HLV gets funding, but people should be fair enough to say what these reasons are. -
#128 by robertross on 13 Jan, 2010 18:49
-
All of this could be done with robots at a fraction of the cost and no risk to human lives.
I agree with virtually everything you said except this one statement. I strongly suspect that with some very complex missions it might be cheaper to use humans then to attempt to do everything with robotics. That being said, these missions are so far off/expensive that it doesn't make a very strong argument.
At the end it is a question on how quickly and how far robotics advances. 30 years from now, semi-automatic robotics might just work like this: Input from Earth: "please get us a sample, spectroanalysis and rock soil composition analysis from 5 different areas in the rock formation specified by Package A to be sent with this order" and your robot does so (of course supervised, however with a time lag) until it runs into a bigger problem. We are at the stage of saying "please, move 45m to the North" already, while a Mars rover plots its own course around the landscape automatically and autonomously.
I'll respond to ChrisSpaceCH's post as well in this one, if I may.
This is part of the reason for 'tagging science along' with HSF. Robotics only takes us so far at the moment. I will say that there is a strong probability that in the 30 year timeframe you give, there will most likely be an advance in robotics & software to allow for almost complete autonomous, or 'more' semi-autonomous control than we have now. Sounds reasonable. Until then however, we 'have chosen' a HSF persuit of LEO and BEO for exploration, and we can use that to our advantage until we reach the stage where we don't need to venture out there.
Who knows, maybe be these small HSF steps we take, we are also aiding in the advance of these types of robotics missions. If we do ISRU activities utilizing these types of robotics, we may well need those capabilities.
The converse, we may end up 'enabling' not just NASA rockets, but through the ISS, commercial capabilities enough that if we do run out of money for HSF activities, they can expand to the robotics missions of that time (requiring greater mass & volume) that NASA can stand down. -
#129 by ChrisSpaceCH on 14 Jan, 2010 10:35
-
I disagree with those who bash "Flexible path" NEO-missions and want to see us return to the moon instead.
IMO, lunar landings would accomplish little, and be unlikely to rekindle public interest in manned space exploration ("been there, done that"). A moon base would be as "exciting" for Joe Sixpack as the ISS is...
Mars is currently beyond our technical capacity; a Mars landing wouldn't be possible before the mid-2030s, even with an unsustainable Apollo-type "sprint" profile, which I, for one, do not want to see. And a program that only produced results in 25 years will never get funded.
Flexible path is not only the best way to go forward, it is really the only way to go forward, IMO. Plus, I reiterate again: Moon is no longer interesting, Mars is too difficult and irrelevant, NEOs are relevant to us on Earth (threat) and are the one place where sending humans might actually be justified: These missions could be sold as "defence" missions instead of "scientific" missions, so the budget could be compared with military expenditures instead of scientific exploration. Just think what could be accomplished in space with the US' military budget... -
#130 by Analyst on 14 Jan, 2010 14:33
-
Quote
RObotics only takes us so far at the moment.
"So far" being far beyond than HSF does, both in distance and knowledge.
Analyst -
#131 by Marsbug on 14 Jan, 2010 15:08
-
The only comparison we have between manned and robotic exploration of another object is the moon, but that is forty odd years out of date.
If we could send robots with levels of decision making autonomy, and creative on-the-spot-thinking, comparable to a human I think that would settle the argument as far as pure scientific exploration is concerned. However space exploration fulfills many needs for many people, and scientific exploration is only one of them.
Perhaps the manned vs robotic exploration of an asteroid would provide both sides of the debate with a direct up to date comparison of effectiveness. I'm sure if asteroid visits do take place both machines and humans will be sent. We already know the machines will win on cost, but will the humans prove superior in exploration, public engagement, and political bragging rights? If robots can find a way to overtake humans in those areas perhaps humans will only go into space as tourists- or not at all! -
#132 by Lambda-4 on 14 Jan, 2010 16:04
-
The only comparison we have between manned and robotic exploration of another object is the moon, but that is forty odd years out of date.
That's an invalid comparison. Noone disputes that human exploration of the surface of the Moon was by far more useful to lunar geologists than robotic exploration of the surface of the moon (Russian rover program). The question at hand is whether HSF can be justified by the science done with manned missions. Given the fact that HSF in the US has received a lot more funds since the inception of space flight than robotic exploration mission, the bang for the buck for science with robotic missions is by far higher than for HSF missions. As a consequence HSF cannot be justified by pointing to the science done by humans ins space. There are many other valid reasons for HSF that we can talk about, but not that one - that one is clear, science cannot justify the costs (and risks to lives!) associated with HSF. -
#133 by Lee Jay on 14 Jan, 2010 16:05
-
That depends on whether or not you think the science done *on the humans* is useful science or not. Obviously, the robots contribute little to this area.
-
#134 by robertross on 14 Jan, 2010 16:16
-
The only comparison we have between manned and robotic exploration of another object is the moon, but that is forty odd years out of date.
That's an invalid comparison. Noone disputes that human exploration of the surface of the Moon was by far more useful to lunar geologists than robotic exploration of the surface of the moon (Russian rover program). The question at hand is whether HSF can be justified by the science done with manned missions. Given the fact that HSF in the US has received a lot more funds since the inception of space flight than robotic exploration mission, the bang for the buck for science with robotic missions is by far higher than for HSF missions. As a consequence HSF cannot be justified by pointing to the science done by humans ins space. There are many other valid reasons for HSF that we can talk about, but not that one - that one is clear, science cannot justify the costs (and risks to lives!) associated with HSF.
We love looking back, don't we?
Maybe that's both a blessing and a curse.
We need to take that knowledge of our actions & record of old, and use that to 'better ourselves' going forward. Let us learn from our mistakes (or misguided actions).
We need to do better. We need to use both to help us go forward in the frontiers of space. Yes, unmanned probes will always be necessary, especially as scouts, but if we want to TRULY look at the differences of what a manned mission will do for us, versus a robotic one, look at what will be accomplished with the MSL. If we need a separate thread, then maybe that's better.
Figure out the cost/benefit of a manned Asteroid 'visit' compared to the MSL. We already know we can't bring samples back, so we lose out there. If we look at a sample return mission, which costs could be scaled to the MSL development, we might get close to a parallel.That depends on whether or not you think the science done *on the humans* is useful science or not. Obviously, the robots contribute little to this area.
Yes, there is definitely that. For an asteroid mission, it would be duplicated by ANY long-term mission in space with similar use of AG (or not). -
#135 by Lambda-4 on 14 Jan, 2010 16:18
-
That depends on whether or not you think the science done *on the humans* is useful science or not. Obviously, the robots contribute little to this area.
I was thinking about science in general. Human spaceflight hasn't taught us much about the human body. We know now that humans don't die after a short while in a microgravity environment, we know that a microgravity environment leads to bone density loss, muscle and ligament atrophy and other permanent problems after a long time in that environment. I wouldn't characterize that as a big leap forward in science. The study of telomeres and enzyme telomerase in relationship with chromosomes (Nobel Prize in Medicine 2009) has probably pushed science in medicine forward more than all human spaceflight study of the human body.
There are biological, chemical and other experiments that can only be done in a microgravity environment, but for the most part there is no reason why those experiments need to be man-tendered. They can and are currently flown on unmanned missions (Russian Foton missions). -
#136 by TrueBlueWitt on 14 Jan, 2010 16:18
-
Quote
RObotics only takes us so far at the moment.
"So far" being far beyond than HSF does, both in distance and knowledge.
Analyst
It's been said many times that the major place where HSF would far outpace any robotic mission is geology. A Geologist's ability to rapidly identify and sample interesting targets and features(in real time) goes far beyond what robitics are capable of at this time.
Unfortunately, other than NEOs, that requires massive invsetment.. sending lots of mass down into large gravity wells. Something we don't seem to be willing to invest in in the near future. -
#137 by robertross on 14 Jan, 2010 16:20
-
Unfortunately, other than NEOs, that requires massive investment.. sending lots of mass down into large gravity wells. Something we don't seem to be willing to invest in in the near future.
I would clarify that statement as "...RETURNING lots of mass from large gravity wells. -
#138 by Lambda-4 on 14 Jan, 2010 16:23
-
It's been said many times that the major place where HSF would far outpace any robotic mission is geology. A Geologist's ability to rapidly identify and sample interesting targets and features(in real time) goes far beyond what robitics are capable of at this time.
True. Especially for Mars. A human Mars surface mission would be magnitudes more worthy than current robotic missions are. But we don't have the money.
Also, at some point in the future, advancements in robotics, AI and also band-stream may just result in robotic missions which combine a geologist's ability to identify interesting targets and features with the comparatively low costs of a robotic mission and its other positive features (longevity, no risk of a life etc.). Think about the possibility of a robot sending back a 3D image of its nearest environment in immense detail in which geologist can move around on Earth in VR and select further targets. -
#139 by khallow on 14 Jan, 2010 16:24
-
If we could send robots with levels of decision making autonomy, and creative on-the-spot-thinking, comparable to a human I think that would settle the argument as far as pure scientific exploration is concerned. However space exploration fulfills many needs for many people, and scientific exploration is only one of them.
Three things. First, we're a long ways from making that happen. Second, there are a lot of ethical issues surrounding the use of human level or greater AIs. What do you do with the AI after the mission is finished? Just terminating a human level intelligence appears to me to be crudely equivalent to terminating the existence of a human.
There's also the matter of restricting the capabilities of the robot so that you can't create a situation that quickly balloons out of control. If a robot has the physical and mental capability and opportunity to make a copy of itself in the time it exists, then you have the potential for a rapidly growing population of out of control Von Neumann machines constrained only by the limits of resources of the available environment (which could end up being the entire Solar System). Even if that happens, that might not be particularly dangerous to us, but it's something you don't have to worry about with a traditional breeding population of humans (over short time frames).
My view is that even for expeditions that use highly advanced AI comparable or better than human level intelligence, it'll be a good idea to have someone local in the loop to insure against things getting out of hand. Even if robots can do it all, someone will want a human middle manager in there to supervise.
