Jackalope

Oh geez. Let's hope they don't send it up on an Ariane V. The Ariane team hasn't had too much luck getting things into orbit lately.

MattR

I like Park, he does a good job on pseudoscience (cold fusion, etc.) but he seems almost manic in opposition to manned space travel.

Secular Pinoy

Bob Park has a correction on this topic:

Secular Pinoy

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030307.html

shifterknob

"...1) Because the space program provides technological spin-offs valuable for terrestrial applications..."

We have seen a great many advancements that have percolated down from the aerospace industry, from new, lightweight alloys to sturdier ceramic materials. New innovations are spurred by the need to do it better, faster, lighter... and cheaper.

"...(2) Because manned space flight advances scientific knowledge..."

This can hardly be contested. Even though the Shuttle missions and International Space Station project are extremely expensive, everything we learn goes into our database of knowledge for the future. We learn as much by our mistakes as by our successes. Our robot probes have opened up the Solar System in ways we used to only dream about, and the Hubble Space telescope has expanded our vision to the edge of the visible Universe, and almost back to the dawn of the Big Bang. Hardly a trivial pursuit...

"...(3) Because it will help us colonize the stars..."

Well, that may be a long way off. But everything we learn now adds to our knowledge, and will enable us to reach for the stars someday.

"...(4) Because it's cool..."

Yeah... actually, it is!

Valentine Pontifex

Other than the Apollo trips to the Moon, the science involved with manned spaceflight has been rather small.

Hubble could have been done better, faster, and cheaper without men. The robot probes are irrelevent as a justification for manned spaceflight since they are...well...unmanned.

For the amount of money that goes on a single shuttle mission one can do a great deal of science: far more and far better quality on either here down on Earth or via a unmanned missions than what can be accomplished with the shuttle/ISS. You do realize that we could send out a fleet of unmanned interplanetary probes for for the cost of a single shuttle flight? And how many researchers can be do some top rate research with a billion or two of funds? Unless NASA comes up with a long range plan with clearly defined goals that require people (which I do believe can be done), the manned space program as it is being currently practiced is a waste.

Autonemesis

The writer forgot:

(5) We need things. Things to make us go.

shifterknob

I think you underestimate by a wide margin how much of our current technology has come from the Space Race. From the NASA website...

Well, maybe. But then again, learning to work in zero-gee is neccesary if we are to continue to expand our presence in near-Earth space. Robots, as has been proven by the recent Mars probes, are not always as dependable as human spaceflight. But I think that robot probes certainly have their place...

Too true. But we can do human spaceflight cheaper than what we have been doing, in my humble opinion. I think there is room for both types of exploration in our future. We may need to expand the role of private or corporate spaceflight, to spread the costs out further...

I'm in agreement with you, here. Just remember, if we don't maintain and expand our presence in space... someone else will. China, Russia, Europe... do we really want to give up the high ground at this point?

Valentine Pontifex

Ignoring that NASA is not exactly a credible source of information on this, that list has some problems. 1) NASA has a history of grossly inflating the spin-offs. 2) That list appears that is for all spaceflight and thus is not exactly relevant to this discussion. If one wants to justify manned spaceflight or any particular program like the shuttle, the ISS, or anything else on their spin-offs then one cannot look at spin-offs of all things from space. 3) One must actually show that we would not actually have some of these if the program did not exist. 4) One must consider the spin-offs that could have been developed from spending the money elsewhere. I am sure that funding a few thousand post-docs can generate a whole lot of spin-offs. In addition a great deal off spin-offs come from the unmanned part of the program. More spin-offs are only going to come from developing new things. The shuttle is two decades old. We are not going much spin-offs for it. And since NASA has declared it has no intention of developing new manned vehicles for twenty more years we cannot expect much more on spin-offs.

Actually robots are vastly MORE dependable than human spaceflight. There is no ifs, thens, or buts about it. The losses of spacecraft near Mars of a few years back were due to NASA not spending the effort on quality control. This effects manned space flight as well. Pre-Challenger NASA was grossly complacent on safety. It is now come out that that NASA was suffered the same fault this time as well. It appears that NASA, when it goes a few years without an accident will start to forget about the need for quality control and/or safety. But lets get back to the main issue. Can one justify sending men on Mars merely on the basis that they could have easily fixed the problem which caused the loss of those probes? The answer is no. The reasons are several and straightforward. 1) For the cost of adding humans one can send many probes. Multiple independent missions are far more likely to be sucessful than a single mission. 2) For everything that a human could fix on any mission their mere presence generates many more things that can go wrong. Human means that things must be FAR larger (humans take room), FAR more complicated (with obvious implications for things going wrong), etc. Humans must be shielded against radiation to a far greater extent then robots need to be. (NASA got extremely luck on this on the Apollo missions. If there was a solar storm Neil Armstrong would still be on the Moon. )
Yes we can do human spaceflight cheaper than what we are doing. But NASA has no interest in doing so. NASA like all government agencies has no interest in cutting expenses since it fears that it would result in loss of funding. That is how the U.S. government works.


The term "high ground" has unfortunate military implications which are quite irrelevant. (Men in space are sitting or rather orbiting ducks and unmanned spacecraft are more relevent for the military.) But I am really going to assume that is not what you meant. But Russia is not going to do it. Europe has little interest. About the only one that would seem to have any interest is China. But in many ways we are behind today because we have, because of a misguided overdependence on the Shuttle, thrown away three decades which to develop additional ability to get things into space. If you want to put something into space one does not go to NASA anymore or any one in the United States of America. That is a national scandal. Not to mention the loss of money to re-invest into space that NASA (or whoever) could have gotten from launch fees.

shifterknob

Okay, who is a fair and credible source?

Can you give me an example, or is this just opinion?

Point noted. So, how then do you break out the manned versus the unmanned mission data to come up with the technology spin-offs? And can you seperate out shared components, or those that were developed in tandem? See my point? It's hard to determine where the technology falls, and who gets to take credit for it...

See above...

Yes, one shudders to think of the thousands of post-doctoral graduates, clutching their Liberal Arts or Art Philosophy degrees as they walk blinking out into the sunshine of the real world. Gives me goosebumps!:notworthy

No disagreement here...

Well, I disagree. Where has it been proven that human astronauts have been undependable? And if NASA is to blame for the undependable robot probes and recent rocket failures, then how can you say robots are vastly more dependable? The robots are dependant on the agency or company which builds them. We've had some pretty spectacular and noteworthy failures over the last couple of decades. The failures with the manned flights were a result of quality issues and lack of sufficent safety oversight within NASA, but can hardly be laid at the feet of those manning the flights. The only difference between a failed manned mission and an umanned mission is the loss of human life. Tragic, but part of the price of exploring new territory...

But we also found that the only way to send a cost-effective robot probe is by following the K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle, with only a handful of instruments or experiments per spacecraft. Our probes cannot react quickly to adverse situations, nor engage in 'sideways' thinking if something goes wrong. And there is something to be said for the aspect of the human psyche that demands to "be there". Romantic tripe? Maybe... but it's partly what has kept us at the top of the evolutionary ladder this long...

Well, I've never felt that NASA or any other government agency ever had the tools for the job, in the long haul, anyhow. Leave it to private enterprise... they'll have McDonald's on Ganymede and Jiffy Lubes orbiting Venus in no time...

Well, high gound comes from military terminology, but it has other meanings, economic and otherwise. And men in space are not neccesarily sitting ducks. I've seen scenarios that make me think this is something we have explored already, and that it is not just sci-fi...

I think you are mis-informed about the interest both Russia and Europe have in exploiting space, but I can assure you that China most definitely is interested in space. They are planning a manned mission to the moon in 2010, and they are interested in establishing a permanent base to exploit lunar mineral resources...

Unfortunate, but true. I want manned spaceflight, but I want to see private industry do it. They usually can do it cheaper, faster, and more efficiently than unwieldy government agencies tied to uncertain funding sources and uneducated political leadership...