Independant review to be held of NASA's manned space flight plans

[Keatah]

We need someone to make decisions for nasa? Can't they do it themselves? Are they *that* stoopit?

 

[Hielor]

We need someone to make decisions for nasa? Can't they do it themselves? Are they *that* stoopit?

Independent reviews are a common thing.

 

[francisdrake]

I share Moonwalkers view. A lot of problems need to be solved down here. Difficult to justify more than a tiny fraction of budget money to space exploration.

Not so easy to find a good goal for manned spaceflight nowadays:
- The ISS is planned to be used until 2015, with an extension possible.
In case it is really shut down in 2015, Orion will be too late.
- Going to the moon, to do the same 'flag and footprint' missions as in the 1960s lacks the driving force of the cold war.
- A permanent settlement on the moon may be justified by the same reason as the ISS is justified now: To show that we can do it.

To me it looks like the best reason for spaceflight is to educate and employ highly qualified personnell and acquire sophisticated skills. Maybe this alone justifies the expenditures to improve our knowledge of the universe

 

[dougkeenan]

To me it looks like the best reason for spaceflight is to educate and employ highly qualified personnell and acquire sophisticated skills. Maybe this alone justifies the expenditures to improve our knowledge of the universe

Our knowledge of technology improves as well.

 

[Moonwalker]

Having all of your eggs in one basket is a bad idea.

Heinlein, like many others, does not seem to be aware of or either seems to strongly ignore that the universe on the whole is a rather dangerous basket for eggs. There is just a tiny place in it which had become suitable for a short period of time.

The irony is that we already have colonized a fraction of the universe, which was only possible because circumstances, more than rare circumstances, allowed to do so. By looking into the solar system and universe and not ignoring the facts, it turns out how rare the circumstances are really. There is not a single, not even a fraction of a comparable tiny place even within the, compared to the universe, totally insignificant range of our probes.

Nothing lasts forever very likely, obviously not even the universe as it is. Humans can not escape death less than ever. As amazing and as beautiful everything around us in space "looks", so destroying and hostile it is even more. Manned space flight has enabled us to realize how lonely we are and how fragile and important our blue planet is for us. Many humans are looking for something that does simply not exist: certainty. Nothing is certain except death, destruction and steady change of things. The Earth one day won't exist anymore, just as the solar system and with all that humans will disapear as well very probably. To colonize fractions of our solar system, which is simply not more than dreampipes, does not at all assure further human existence (we don't even coloinze lots of parts of our Earth, which already consists of more than 70%, for humans, inhabitable water surface). At best, it might just be a rather short life-extending measure. Many people can't deal with that stone cold reality just like many ignore that they're going to die and become old, wrinkled and frail. That's the disadvantage of the capability of our brains of realizing things, if not ignore them.

 

[dougkeenan]

Nothing is certain except death, destruction and steady change of things.

Are you certain?

 

[Hielor]

Heinlein, like many others, does not seem to be aware of or either seems to strongly ignore that the universe on the whole is a rather dangerous basket for eggs. There is just a tiny place in it which had become suitable for a short period of time.

The irony is that we already have colonized a fraction of the universe, which was only possible because circumstances, more than rare circumstances, allowed to do so. By looking into the solar system and universe and not ignoring the facts, it turns out how rare the circumstances are really. There is not a single, not even a fraction of a comparable tiny place even within the, compared to the universe, totally insignificant range of our probes.

Nothing lasts forever very likely, obviously not even the universe as it is. Humans can not escape death less than ever. As amazing and as beautiful everything around us in space "looks", so destroying and hostile it is even more. Manned space flight has enabled us to realize how lonely we are and how fragile and important our blue planet is for us. Many humans are looking for something that does simply not exist: certainty. Nothing is certain except death, destruction and steady change of things. The Earth one day won't exist anymore, just as the solar system and with all that humans will disapear as well very probably. To colonize fractions of our solar system, which is simply not more than dreampipes, does not at all assure further human existence (we don't even coloinze lots of parts of our Earth, which already consists of more than 70%, for humans, inhabitable water surface). At best, it might just be a rather short life-extending measure. Many people can't deal with that stone cold reality just like many ignore that they're going to die and become old, wrinkled and frail. That's the disadvantage of the capability of our brains of realizing things, if not ignore them.

I know to a reasonable degree of certainty that I am going to die at some point.

That does not mean that I should stop eating food now, even though it will only result in something that would have happened anyway.

 

[RocketMan_Len]

All lunar-science work (taking samples, fly them back to earth) can be done by robots at a fraction of the price.

Really...? If memory serves, the only 100% robotic sample-return mission to the Moon - one done by the Russians - returned with a few grams of lunar soil. Compared to Apollo, which brought back close to a half-ton of samples... including the Apollo 15 'Genesis Rock'.

Robots are nowhere NEAR that capable yet.

 

[SiberianTiger]

Really...? If memory serves, the only 100% robotic sample-return mission to the Moon - one done by the Russians - returned with a few grams of lunar soil. Compared to Apollo, which brought back close to a half-ton of samples... including the Apollo 15 'Genesis Rock'.

Robots are nowhere NEAR that capable yet.

Actually, they were three robotic missions totalling 326 grams of Lunar regolite. It does not really affect your point, but it's still dubiuos. It looks like a rover capable of moving from a site to a site and doing research where it sits is actually superior in its research capability compared to a team of astronauts who are tied to their base by the invisible string of life support limitations. All that, of course, AFTER some initial research is done on the Lunar soil brought back by the first missions.

For different tasks, one should have rovers with different sets of instruments, but still it gets a 10-ton capable rocket to deliver a modern style rover to the Moon compared to a 100-ton capable vehicle which is necessary to deliver people (and the rover requires no additional ones hauled up to provide for prolonged period of staying on the Moon and working).

 

[tl8]

My point of view is that Yes send rovers, send lots of rovers and use the information those rovers got to send lots of humans, which will be supported by more rovers. Heck, send 10 rovers on the Ares V put then in various locations and have then shut-down during the night

 

[Hielor]

Actually, they were three robotic missions totalling 326 grams of Lunar regolite. It does not really affect your point, but it's still dubiuos. It looks like a rover capable of moving from a site to a site and doing research where it sits is actually superior in its research capability compared to a team of astronauts who are tied to their base by the invisible string of life support limitations. All that, of course, AFTER some initial research is done on the Lunar soil brought back by the first missions.

Nice in theory, but not true.

In more than five years, Spirit and Opportunity combined have travelled "tens of kilometers" (haven't found an exact number, would love to have one though In four hours and a half hours on Apollo 17, the lunar rover travelled a total of 35.9km.

Nice try, though.

 

[tl8]

Nice in theory, but not true.

In more than five years, Spirit and Opportunity combined have travelled "tens of kilometers" (haven't found an exact number, would love to have one though In four hours and a half hours on Apollo 17, the lunar rover travelled a total of 35.9km.

Nice try, though.

Moon is hell of a lot closer than Mars, you could almost drive real time couldn't you. (Even with a lag of 3 seconds)

The number you are looking for is 11km for Op and 10 for Sprit

Also remember they have do ALOT of science in between

 

[Hielor]

Moon is hell of a lot closer than Mars, you could almost drive real time couldn't you. (Even with a lag of 3 seconds)

The number you are looking for is 11km for Op and 10 for Sprit

Also remember they have do ALOT of science in between

Well yeah, but they've also been there for more than 5 years.

A human crew could have done probably an order of magnitude more in that same time.

 

[SiberianTiger]

Well yeah, but they've also been there for more than 5 years.

A human crew could have done probably an order of magnitude more in that same time.

I am trying, really hard trying to imagine what kind of activity on the Lunar surface is best done by humans rather than by automated vehicles of kinds. For me it looks like a construction of the facility for humans to live in. Remember that humans have bodily needs like sleeping, eating, washing, defecating & urinating, resting, exercising to avoid misadaptation to Earth's gravity, entertaining to keep one's mind in order. How much time does it leave for a scientific activity, especially once we count away the time required for the surface station's upkeep and organization? I think, 3 hours a day at most.

Meanwhile, a rover's control team can work in shifts 24x7.

Please, please very much, convince me to the opposite.

 

[Hielor]

I am trying, really hard trying to imagine what kind of activity on the Lunar surface is best done by humans rather than by automated vehicles of kinds. For me it looks like a construction of the facility for humans to live in. Remember that humans have bodily needs like sleeping, eating, washing, defecating & urinating, resting, exercising to avoid misadaptation to Earth's gravity, entertaining to keep one's mind in order. How much time does it leave for a scientific activity, especially once we count away the time required for the surface station's upkeep and organization? I think, 3 hours a day at most.

Meanwhile, a rover's control team can work in shifts 24x7.

Please, please very much, convince me to the opposite.

You're absolutely right. Humans are not necessary for scientific endeavors.

This is why all laboratories have replaced humans with robots.

Oh, wait.

And if you are set in your thinking that humans should never leave our homeworld, then I cannot convince you otherwise.

 

[SiberianTiger]

You're absolutely right. Humans are not necessary for scientific endeavors.

This is why all laboratories have replaced humans with robots.

Tell me how many laboratories do you know that cost $1,000,000,000 per a scientist just to get to and back.

 

[Urwumpe]

Meanwhile, a rover's control team can work in shifts 24x7.

Robots are always limited to repetitive tasks. A mars rover does always do the same tasks...drive, sample, drive, sample. And leaves the real work to scientists on the ground. Which don't work 24/7. The many limitations of the rover sensors are also the reason why rovers work so slow. It has nothing to do with the communication delay, the robots drive for themselves. It has to do with the time needed for analyzing the sensors data, select the next target and send the new commands to the robot.

Human astronauts, especially when training in geology, can decide independent, which rock is especially useful as target for further investigation. They don't need to wait for scientists on the ground to command them.

That is why humans can work much faster, gather more data and also gather a better quality of the samples. Sending training astronauts is like sending the scientists themselves there.

Also, humans are more flexible. When you discovered that a special kind of rock is around that your rover sensors can not investigate better, you have to wait years for building the new sensor and the rover around it. If you have an astronaut on the scene, he can decide to gather more of the rocks. Humans can also use more complex labs. On a rover, you can only have those kind of equipment, which robots can use, and which is also light enough to be transported. Compared to the mass of a life-support system for human astronauts to use a normal well-equipped lab, a robotic lab is very ineffective in mass and capability.

Just for showing what flexibility is, lets look at the situation, that there is a rock sample, which can not be well analyzed by the lab, because a required acid is missing.

In a human lab in a lunar station, you need in the usual case to put a 50 ml bottle of the special chemical into the next resupply craft.

On the robotic lab, you need to launch a complete new robot. Usually, you can't even send astronauts there to modify the robot.

---------- Post added at 09:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 AM ----------

Tell me how many laboratories do you know that cost $1,000,000,000 per a scientist just to get to and back.

Tell me how many you know with these costs. How much would it have cost to replicate the Apollo program with robots? Even with modern technology, it would be impossible to do just the Apollo 17 mission in a single launch. You would need many launches to do that and you would likely lack the accuracy in seismometer placement.

Honestly, I am no economist and I won't go too deep into speculation, but I doubt it will be less expensive than 80% of the mission costs of Apollo 17.

The whole costs of the Apollo program can be found here:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-16_Apollo_Program_Budget_Appropriations.htm

But don't forget including a run-away inflation compared to today...

 

[Hielor]

Tell me how many laboratories do you know that cost $1,000,000,000 per a scientist just to get to and back.

Er what? I can make up numbers too, want me to start?

 

[SiberianTiger]

Ok.
The year 2025: a US lunar rock research outpost is built on the rim of the Shackleton Crater.
The year 2028: all the rocks within the 30 km radius of the outpost are researched to death.
What's supposed to happen next? Opening of a Lunar Hilton?

---------- Post added at 12:02 ---------- Previous post was at 11:57 ----------

Er what? I can make up numbers too, want me to start?

A Soyuz lunar fly-by ticket was like $100 million two years ago (per a passenger). Just multiplied that by reality coefficient and added an extra charge for landing. 10 times larger may not even be large enough.

 

[Hielor]

Ok.
The year 2025: a US lunar rock research outpost is built on the rim of the Shackleton Crater.
The year 2028: all the rocks within the 30 km radius of the outpost are researched to death.
What's supposed to happen next? Opening of a Lunar Hilton?

The year 2028.5: Parts from the first outpost are used in the construction of another, rather far away from the first.

Next?

---------- Post added at 01:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:06 AM ----------

A Soyuz lunar fly-by ticket was like $100 million two years ago (per a passenger). Just multiplied that by reality coefficient and added an extra charge for landing. 10 times larger may not even be large enough.

Right, because they actually ever sold any of those tickets, or even sent a Soyuz to the moon.