The Real Reason for Sending Astronauts into Space

Puneet writes "An article on New York Times discussing the need for astronauts for carrying out experiments in space. Too many of the planned experiments depend on crew operations when they could more effectively be done without them. In many cases, the crew is needed only to deploy an autonomous experiment."

But

I was reading through this article, just waiting to respond. Then I got to the last two paragraphs and he laid it out perfectly.

We will always need astronauts to assume certain risks to develop the technology that allows for human exploration of space. The space shuttles and space stations may be necessary to fulfill that mission. However, we need to separate the goal of scientific experimentation from the desire for space exploration. I hope that the unfortunate death of the Columbia astronauts will forever sever the false link that has been created between the two.
Astronauts do not risk their lives to perform scientific experiments in space. They fly to fulfill a much more basic and human desire -- to experience the vastness of space.

We need to seriously rethink our goals. The Shuttle has been around for 1/2 the entire history of man in space. It was being desinged when the Altair was a hit. With modern computer and automation systems, surely the vast majority of research can be performed autonomously. We need a vehicle for this and a seperate vehicle to safely bring people back and forth.

Re:But

Of course, its important that the second vehicle doesn't get lost because autonomous systems are more efficient. Sure, they are, but its still important for humans to go to space. Why? Because we want to go. We don't need any other reason. We want to explore and colonize space, even if its inefficient. We need that second vehicle as much as, if not more than, we need the first.

Re:But

Why? Because we want to go.

I think the whole point of the article is that if the justification for sending people into space is some romantic notion of exploration, then that is fine, but don't pretend that it is about scientific research when it isn't.

I felt a great sense of excitment back when pathfinder first started to transmit its pictures back from Mars, I didn't need an anthropomorphic prop like a couple of good-looking astronauts to make me appreciate the moment.

Remember that every penny spent using astronauts as expensive PR tools is a penny that we aren't spending on learning more about space, and is probably pushing the day that people might venture into space for good reasons further into the future.

Re:But^H^H^HYou undervalue the brain

A picture is worth a thousand words. How much is a perception worth?

Don't even begin to tell me that robotic sensors can transmit higher quality information than what is capable of human perception.

Re:But^H^H^HYou undervalue the brain

Depends on your definition of perception. For the physical details, oh yes.

And are the non-tactile, "feelings" (for want of a better word,sorry) really worth it at this point in time?

eg - an expedition to Mars:

(Man on Mars)... "Well, I feel kinda lighter, place sure looks cold and desolate The sun's a lot dimmer. There's a lot of small to medium red boulders around the place... lets go for a drive! Oh , and I'll switch the probe on, too."

(Probe on Mars)... "Gravity 0.4G , air pressure 15 millbar, temperature -14 deg C, solar radiation 22.5W/m2... (scans a rock) that rock over there.. it's a form of basalt, size 45x40x15cm, composition 45%Si 23%Al 14%Fe 5%Ca, and here's a picture for posterity."

(Probe moves on to next sample site)

So, the expedition to Mars costs 3 billion, Half of which is for life support design and construction. Oh , but you get a person who can tell you what it's like to be on Mars, I suppose.

He'd better be a hell of a lot more descriptive than "Cold. Red. Dusty"

Re:But^H^H^HYou undervalue the brain

When you are spending $billions$ in developing something, do you sign the check before either you, or someone you trust, checks out your investment?

Would you rather trust scientific equipment that, by its nature, was designed for finding that which was being sought? Or, would you rather trust the perception and judgement of a human being that was able to see something that was unfathomed?

Short vs. Long term Re:undervalue the brain

Short term: yes, probes are better, faster, cheaper.

Long term: our great grandchildren will be living on mars. Probes don't live, they're just expensive remote controls. The dinosaurs never got around to going anywhere... what is our excuse? Or are we just going to wait for the next big thing (meteor, or whatever)?

"Sorry, but the long term survival of our species costs too much."

"Oh, bummer. Then I guess I'll just go watch reality tv."

We've been napping in cradle Earth long enough; we can't quit now that we're learning how to crawl.

Re:But^H^H^HYou undervalue the brain

The research is getting the humans to Mars & back intact. That would be the payoff in a manned expedition to Mars. If the data on Mars is the only item of importance, then obviously probes could accomplish all that and much cheaper.

Also, probes can only do what it was designed to do. There is no flexibility with a robot. If while collecting data, there needs to be some form of followup experiment, you will need to design a new mission and send a new probe designed to do what the previous one wasn't designed to accomplish. A human, on the other hand, might be able to improvise while they're still on Mars.

I don't have a problem with spending money to send a manned expedition to Mars. I have a problem with the space delivery system we currently use. Its designed to maximize human employment and costs, and can only go half the distance it needs to go to put satellites in GEO. The dollars that get pissed away into that is money that is not being put into productive space research.

Re:But^H^H^HYou undervalue the brain

Have you ever read Darwin's Voyage of the Beagle [gutenberg.org], how about ? How about any of the good [amazon.co.uk] weblogs [blogger.com]? Or KSR Mars trilogy, Jules Verne [gutenberg.org]

People don't care about science, they don't understand science for the most part. People understand people, they like to read stories about normal people in extraordinary circumstances, that's why `reality tv' is so popular.

The first (hu)man on Mars landing on Mars would be hugely important for human curiosity, the journey to Mars would be even more important, imagine doing a part `reality tv' show and part science/education show from the Mars-bound shuttle. Do it right and everybody would watch.

The probes would still do the science, people haven't done any scientific measurements for a while now, since the invention of computers, people don't measure accuratly enough for our level of understanding anymore.

When your probe says gravity 0.4G, pressure 15mbar, T=259K, F=22.5W/m2, your scientists could tell you the probe was broken, very few places on mars would get those conditions anyway

...but you'd likely get images of astronauts jumps about with suits weighing twice their body weight with silvered visors and planting flags, that's the money shot, as long as it's not a Nike flag (unless they pay for the whole damn thing) nobody would really care which flag it was, it was manmade

One of the most important things to come out of the Moon landings didn't involve landing on the moon, it was Frank Borman's photograph of earthrise [abc.net.au]. The probe wouldn't think of doing that.

For the scientists, who do care about the science. The people who land on Mars would do so in the knowledge that they are there for about a year until the planets align again, keeping 6 people alive without any external help for 24 months isn't easy (or possible yet). The biosphere project wasn't completely succesful because of the leaky window seals and the double glazing which blocked too much sunlight.

On Mars, we won't have the luxury of pumping more oxygen in, it'll will likely need to be extracted from the ferrous soil or grown in inflatible greenhouses. The technology to maintain this human habitat in an environmentall neutral way would have huge impact on the way we live on Earth...sustainable farming and production, recycling waste products, space ice cream (well I like it :)

BB

Re:But

Uh huh. And most of Europe didn't care about the New World either. What's your point?

Exploration and discovery are their own rewards. They've also been absurdly lucrative over the course of history.

Re:But

Human exploration of space can happen naturally in a few centuries, when the technology has caught up with human desires.

Yes, but technology doesn't grow in a vacuum. It grows to address a problem only when exerted a problem. To use an imperfect but still appropriate analogy, you can't say, "I'm too weak to lift weights. I'll wait until I'm stronger, and then do it."

Re:But

I see you are against space travel, but if you could travel the stars right now, would you? Who wouldn't? Why do we have to wait? Why can't we take risks, like the explorers of the past centuries? Sure a few centuries may not matter on the grand scale of things, but it matters to the people who live in that time. Attitudes like yours get NOTHING accomplished. If everyone waited for technology to advance, technology would never advance, because no one would be improving anything. Robots can't teach us everything about space. Robots never need lightweight radiation shields, unlike humans. The first step to long term stays in space is making a material as effective at shielding as lead, but much lighter.

Have you seen the videos of people landing on the moon? Doesn't that inspire you? Wouldn't you enjoy being able to stand on the surface of the moon and hold out your thumb at arms length, covering up the earth? I know it sounds naive, and it is, but at least there is a chance if we try now. There is no doubt that our ancestors will travel the galaxy, and I want to take a step in that direction.

I know humans weren't meant for space travel. We weren't meant to fly either. We weren't meant to modify our own genes, but we are. The only way we can travel in space is to hop in a tin can and throw crap out of the rear end. That will never change. Physical laws aren't going to let us survive in a vacuum, exposed to gamma rays. The only way to solve the problems encountered when humans go into space is to go into space. Sending robots won't help us develop radiation sheilding. Looking with our telescopes won't aid in the development of more efficient life support systems.

Since humanity began, we have slowly but surely moved in one direction: up. It took us 66 years to go from the first powered flight to landing on the moon. If we had maintained that progress, we would inhabit the entire solar system.

Re:But

I don't mean to contradict you; I agree that the space shuttle is old, and that technology has marched an awful long distance since then. But my Real-time computing prof was one of the people who helped design the computer systems on the modern space shuttle. They're old 386s (5 of them), but they really are the best tool for the job.
1.) Since their circuits were larger, they were less vulnerable to space radiation.
2.) They were plenty fast enough for what was needed.
3.) Their faults and strengths and weaknesses are COMPLETELY known. NASA won't send up anything that they think they don't know everything about.

Whenever one of the computers makes a decision about something, two others also make the same decision. A fourth computer treats each of the three as a vote, and the majority rules. A fifth acts as a backup for the fourth. How's that for a stable system?

Yes, the space shuttle is old. But it's VERY well designed, and its flaws are poor fuel economy and it's weak material structure. Modern computers and all our other whiz-bang gadgetry aren't likely to be near as useful as a stronger or lighter construction material, or a better launch mechanism.

Re:But

Aircraft that cannot fly in inclement weather are not well-designed aircraft.

Even if you suppose Columbia was due to poor weather (which I do not believe to be a substantial contributor), Shuttle's obscene costs and worst-of-both-worlds design makes me very eager for the day that it is decomissioned.

It was neat to have a 'reusable' spacecraft, but I'd rather have one that is cheap and reliable.

The real reason

It's the same as it was during the Space Race:

Because we can.

Worst argument ever

Because we can.

That people can seriously use this as a reason continues to astound me. It's just a feel-good excuse for a real argument. There are lots of things involving science and technology that we can do, but we don't.

We can dig canals with nuclear bombs. We can kill people who are diagnosed with terminal illnesses. We can create a society where every human movement is tracked by the government. We can release terraforming gasses into our atmosphere to raise the temperature. We can breed deadly diseases.

Less harmfully, we can grow enough food to feed everyone in the world (at least for now). We can move quantities of earth to fight erosion. We can produce flying cars. We can build cities under the sea. We can cheaply produce enough drugs to bring the HIV epidemic under control in China and Africa.

But do we go about trying to do these things? No. So the fact that we can do something doesn't mean that we should or we will.

simple.

The need for a constant human space presence is simple:

So that we have a constant human space presence. The idea is similar for the logic behind keeping Los Alamos labs functioning. We don't need more nuclear weapons, but the fear is that should we decommission the lab, we may lose the talent and knowledge (most of which is intangible/experiential knowledge) of the staff.

We're losing the skills anyway

Even before Columbia was destroyed, NASA was losing the skilled workforce through attrition. The problem extends further than just NASA. Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine has had a series of well-considered articles on "The Crisis in Aerospace" over the years.

But NASA seems to be in a particularly tough spot on this issue. The combination of decades-old technology, endless paperwork, and job insecurity makes it very difficult to attract and retain top engineers to work on Shuttle and other manned space projects.

It's sad that none of my NASA and contractor friends will support the Intl Space Station as anything but a means of retaining capability. In other words, we're marching in place until something better comes along.

Why send astronauts?

Monkeys aren't intelligent enough.

The old mountain climber motto...

"Because it's there.".

Sure we could send robots to do all the space exploration, but where's the fun in that? I doubt that, if given the technology, sailors in the age of exploration would have preferred going themselves instead of sending these tin men.

we do it because we can

I don't mean that in a cynical way. Humans by their very nature need to explore. "We don't need to go there" isn't part of the human psyche. Yeah it's expensive. Yeah, it's very dangerous, too. But don't feel too bad for the astronauts--they knew the risk they were taking. And they were more than happy to take that risk to get the chance to go into space. I'm sure there are plenty of us here who would do the same thing. We go to far away places because we can. I realize they're not going to uncharted territory each time the shuttle goes into orbit, but each time we learn something about how the human body functions in space, for example, we have done something worthwhile. It would be a horrible shame if manned spaceflight came to an end because it became politically incorrect.

Re:we do it because we can

And they were more than happy to take that risk to get the chance to go into space.

Yes, but I am less than happy to pay for it.

I don't mean that in a cynical way. Humans by their very nature need to explore.

Well, astronauts are free to pay for their own "need to explore". My "need to explore" is better satisfied with unmanned probes.

It would be a horrible shame if manned spaceflight came to an end because it became politically incorrect.

It's ironic that you use right-wing rhetoric to defend what amounts to a useless, bloated government program, a waste of tax payer money. Where is that "private enterprise" spirit people like you keep talking about? If manned space exploration is worth doing, private enterprise will rise to the challenge, right?

Re:It's called...

We need to do more with less, and risking crews for no reason is just plain stupid.

Quite right. We should be sending crews up for one simple reason: to figure out how to live in space.

Why? Because we'll want to be there someday. There could be any number of reasons:

• Running out of resources here on earth (not likely, of course, but at some point it may be more economically feasible to acquire those resources from space, especially if all the hard work like figuring out how to keep humans there has already been figured out).
• To escape the clutches of a stagnant culture and civilization. Think global stagnation can't happen? The pieces are being put into place even as we speak. It's the inevitable result of globalization. And remember: an evil police state won't fall if it doesn't have any outside competition.
• To maximize humankind's long-term chances of survival. Nasty things have happened in the earth's history, and it's only a matter of time before something nasty happens on our watch. Hell, we might even be the cause.
• If you think things can get interesting and weird here, you ain't seen shit. We haven't even begun to discover what interesting things are to be found out there.
• Because exploring and expanding is in our nature. It's why we're here, why we've survived when countless other species have fallen by the wayside. Nature doesn't look kindly upon the meek.

We should be putting lots of people up into space, and shouldn't be screwing around with crap that doesn't teach us how to stay there.

Astronauts as a contingency

Sure, you don't need astronauts if everything will deploy just like it's supposed to, but what happens if something breaks, or if it turns out one of the components is non-functional?

A little logic needed here

Uh, how can we "experience the vastness of space" as the article puts it, when we currently cannot even reliably send astronauts into low earth orbit for menial tasks such as scientific experiments. Progress comes with a price. Abandoning our current manned space programs is not going to get us to a more far reaching goal anytime sooner.

Maybe don't need

Okay, maybe we don't need astronauts in space. At least not for the purpose of scientific experiemntation. Yay autonomous scientific experimentation. Maybe it's safer and cheaper to keep humankind firmly rooted on terran soil instead of building craft capable of carrying them into orbit. It's much safer down here, after all.

But damn it, we want to send people into space. We want to send people into space so we can look up at night and imagine that one day we may leave this planet. We want people in space because they inspire our children to become scientists, researchers, and explorers. We want people in space because we need heroes who don't wear masks and compete in tag team cage matches. We want people in space because it forces us to push the technolological envelope, to achieve that which we've never achieved before. We want people in space to boldly go where. . .umm. . .I think I should probably shut up now.

Re:Maybe don't need

whats going to happen if there was an incident like Apollo 13 that relied on human ingenuity to fix the problem.

That example is circular reasoning. The only reason we cared about fixing Apollo 13's problem was because there were 3 people riding the thing. If it were an unmanned probe, we would have just written it off like dozens of other failed 1960s space probes and launched another one.

politics v/s market

Space program have been always be about politics. I'm not going to deny there is so interesting and neccesary scientifics needs about it, but mainly it's a politician's toy for the proud/imagination of american people. When people don't look at NASA, their budget start to shrink. That is a clear evidence that there is no great quest for scientific truth. That what i see... Anyways, i think the old days of goverment dependecy of the space exploration will come to an end, and private companys will take it from there. Space race will detached itself from burocracy and popularity rates. THAT will be interesting.

End NASA Monopoly, Free American Enterprise

He's right -- the best reason for himan space travel is the need for humans to travel in space -- but his most telling statement about the Shuttle is made in passing: the Shuttle has "no place to Shuttle to". Thanks to a wrongheaded space policy -- while you're pointing fingers at NASA, point the rest of your body at the White House -- the U.S. space monopoly (that's NASA) built spacecraft that had no place to go.

Let's stop pretending that a 50-year old govrnment agency like NASA can revive the energy and drive of the Apollo era. Let's have a space policy that ends NASA's constricting monopoly and allows American enterprise to go where it will in space

We need to send Atronauts into space because...

we very well may be living there someday. The more places we live, the longer our species life expectancy will be. More importantly, the more life will be in the universe, and the more likely we will be to discover other life intelligent or otherwise in the universe. How could these things not be goals of our species?

That said, I think that the article brings up a valid point that humans aren't necessarily needed for as many experiments as they are being used for. On the other hand, I don't think the current (US) space program is making sufficient progress toward the loftier goal of permanent life in space and on other planets. It was encouraging to see that the Chinese will try to establish a permanent base on the moon. It's things like that that will help colonize Mars eventually.

Space "exploration"

Hey, I'm all for manned space exploration. But endlessly sending humans into LEO is NOT space exploration. We've been there, done that. It's old hat.

I get irritated when I hear people complain about the public's lack of interest in shuttle launches. People aren't interested because we've been doing the same thing over and over again for 20 years now, and frankly it's pointless and boring. And most people have figured that out by now.

Let's build unmanned spacecraft to carry out microgravity research in LEO. And then lets take the rest of the money that we save on the bloated shuttle program and put it into manned space exploration. I'd love to see more missions to the moon. Missions to Mars. Hell, let's put humans down on Europa. I'd love to see these things happen before I die.

Funny, I thought humans were the point...

Seems to me that one of the primary reasons for having living, breathing people in space is to see how people can/will adapt to the rigors of outer space. We sent monkeys and dogs originally for safety reasons, but eventually we wanted to know what would happen to humans. Dogs and computers couldn't describe the heightened sense of awareness and euphoria that space travel seems to inspire in homo sapiens.

Basically, astronauts are the lab rats we keep sending into space to get the ball rolling.

The thing that amazes me is that in this day and age, we would still need to take 10-20 years to build a replacement system for the shuttles. Seems to me modern materials and high-end CAD/CAM would've cut the time to less than 5 years, tops.

On the other hand, its been pretty sad that especially in this country, commerical interests -- who stand to make untold billions off of space-based initatives -- haven't bothered to sink a dime into their own private efforts, but instead have milked at the public teat...just like every other time it seems. Personally, I'm hoping things like the X Project and other private space efforts start to pay off and show the way to letting some of us realize our personal desire to depart the cradle of life and move out into the backyard that is our universe.

Here's hoping...

"Because we want to explore?" What a crock.

Lots of posters here are saying "Because we can." "Because its there." "We want to explore".

But I just can't see it.

Sending the shuttle into low/near orbit, staying up there doing repairs, taking pictures, isn't exploring.

When was the last time we set foot on the Moon? Where are the plans to send people to Mars? Thats exploring, thats streaching the human experience. That is historically noteworthy.

There is just so much more to do in space than joyriding.

Space for the Masses: Space Elevator

This years budget for the U.S. Military is $400 Billion [clw.org]. Diverting only 2.5% of that budget (for just one year) would give us a workable space elevator [google.com].

The uneducated (on this topic) or pessimistic will tell you it can't be done. But we have the technology we need, and could have a working space elevator within 10 years (according to NASA's own study) for an estimated $10 billion (to as high as $40 billion, still insignifigant over 10 years).

This would lower the cost per pound to space (low earth orbit) from around $7,000 to as low as $5. For a fatty like me this means I could go to space on vacation for $1,100. Space would be accessible by all, even washed out boy-band members. Telecommunications costs would be a fraction of what they are now, because launching a satellite would be the cost of a car, instead of as much as the satellite itself. New technologies (similar to GPS, Iridium phones, internet anywhere cheaply) would come out of the woodwork.

The only thing we need for this to succeed, that we don't already have, is a government (or private funding) committed to it's success.

As a sidenote, this could eliminate our reliance on oil by making electricity next to free [google.com], with no pollution and without building more dams or nuclear reactors.

Just my $.02, but I really hope it happens. It's a common sense thing for the human race to commit to, and has a better chance of drastically improving life on earth for all than just about anything. Science would flourish, pollution would be almost eliminated, space travel may become possible, etc.

So if astronauts were honest...

Would this be a realistic dialogue?

- "So, what do you do for a living?"
- "I'm an astronaut"
- "Cool, so what do they do?"
- "Press the 'On' button in Space"

IP points way to profitable space colonies.

Detractors are quick to point out that it would be difficult to create a self sustaining colony on another planet because there is nothing that could be traded with it. Those arguments fail completely when one considers IP. Yes, IP, that evil Intellectual Property that we rail against, is also a product that a space based habitat could do to make it profitable.

IP advantages of a moon / mars base:

a) Completely safe against terrorism and domestic insurrection.

b) The ultimate DR site. If the Earth were to be hit by an Asteroid, rest assured, the IRS would still be able to collect taxes from cockroaches that lived through it.

c) Complete secrecy. These days, spies run everywhere and satellites get pictures of your stuff from LEO. If you are on Mars, a spy satellite is a taller order...

d) Powered by superior Windows software, the DR site will require humans to be present to reboot and monitor servers...

Send Expendable Robots, Not Irreplaceable Humans.

I love space exploration, but unfortunately, I can't currently love NASA, their political problems has caused them to lose touch with reality. I for one, would willingly support increasing their budget if I thought they were using it to efficiently generate new useful knowledge. Instead of outdated, political, men in space, goals. Wake up NASA! the world has changed, give us results, not Buck Rogers!

Its clear that travel in space is going to be dangerous for a long time. The good news is we dont need to do it much. The dumb problem is NASA believes it must to survive politically. I contend that is a big fat mistake. That mis-assessment is killing some of our best people. We should only ask those with "the right stuff" to go when we have a destination in mind worth the significant and real risk, of losing their lives. I don't include running soap bubble experiments and other PR related feeble excuses to send the first into space. Did we really want to kill the first teacher into space, or the first Israeli, for this nonsense. We all have to realize we are a long way from needing a space station, for anything other than feeding our space opera, sci-fi fantasies. Get real.

Robotics is here. Remote and semi autonomous control is here. NASA management, thinks in terms of the technology it designed the shuttle with thirty years ago. Cheaper, faster, better, off the shelf, works. Yes we will have a few dumb mistakes like Mars Climate Orbiter, so what, No One Died. I read the Mishap Investigation Board report, it was mostly management cost cutting snafu's. The JPL folks navigating the thing were set up to fail by dumb PHB's (yeah they goofed it up too, but overworked, underfunded, folks will make mistakes). Imagine if that same mistake had lost us the first crew en-route to Mars. Robotics produces good, cheap science in space. Robot probes will boldly go where... You get the idea. Sojourner proved this. Beagle2, Spirit and hopefully Opportunity, will probably settle the issue. The long duration surveyors orbiting Mars right now have produced data thats invaluable in assessing that planet, including discovering water, this for a cost, and risk level, unattainable if humans were involved.

I want to see NASA re-focus their budget on on designing and launching small, cheap probes for a host of long duration missions. Robots should be used to explore truly interesting locations. Finally, they should be used to prepare the target environment for any human visit or colonization attempt. No career astronaut should feel obliged to risk long duration space travel, for NASA's PR and politics.

We should boldly go..., when we know there's somwewhere really worth boldly going to..., where the target has been surveyed and prepared for us by our Robots. Then our Astronauts may consider it worth the risk, to go where none have gone before.

Go Opportunity!

Top Ten Reasons for Sending Humans into Space

Top Ten (unfunny) Reasons for Sending People into Space:

10. Robots aren't as dextrous [stanford.edu] or adaptable as humans yet.
9. Robots aren't smart enough (yet) to be autonomous when telepresence latency increases.
8. We can't upload [everything2.org] our minds into robotic shells yet. (GITS!)
7. The human condition is biological, and so we want to know the experience as such.
6. Robots don't get taxpayers excited.
5. Robots aren't "heroic" enough to inspire kids to grow up to be scientists, etc.
4. Robots just take more jobs away from real flesh-and-blood humans! (Armitage!)
3. We can convert the dead humans into valuable H20.
2. To ensure genetically diverse humans live on (via traditional sex in space) when Earth bites the dust.
1. Ego. ME. ME. ME. ME! ME!!!

--

The article tiptoes where it should stomp

Mr. Koss writes cautiously about the problem without really coming out and stating the conclusion. Here is my proposal. I assume that it is not politically possible to park the Space Station in the Pacific Ocean -- too many commitments have been made by incumbent Congressmen to walk away now.

Problem: Shuttle is expensive to fly and is about to become even more expensive. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board has already issued three proposed remedies and it is likely that there will be many more specific actions taken before the Shuttles can return to flight.

Problem: From 2006 until at least 2010, there is no plan on how to support a Crew Return Vehicle that remains attached to ISS in case of an emergency. This gap is due to a combination of diplomatic, financial and technical issues. In 2006, Russia will deliver the last planned Soyuz to ISS. After that time, the US cannot buy more Soyuz due to a law regarding non-proliferation of arms technology to Iran, which Russia has apparently violated. Congress may be able to get around this, but it would still leave the ISS with a maximum permanent crew of 3. No American Crew Return Vehicle is planned until at least 2010.

Problem: With a crew of 3, very little crew time is devoted to actual science: about 20 hours per week, total. The remainder of crew time is spent maintaining ISS and the crew itself (exercise, eating, sleeping, etc).

Problem: Even with a reduced crew size of 3, the Soyuz and Progress vehicles cannot supply enough water for crew needs. That is one reason that the current crew is only 2 men.

Problem: Developing a Shuttle replacement is very costly, and NASA has failed several times already. Each attempt failed for different reasons, but I believe that better funding (and better use of the funding) will be needed to make the next attempt a success.

Problem: NASA is unlikely to gain significant budget increases in the current funding environment (unless they claim to have found terrorist training camps or Iraqi WMD in space). Let's be serious about this.

Fact: NASA spends about $6 Billion per year on Manned Spaceflight (this includes the Space Shuttle Program, the Intl Space Station Program, and a few other items such as range support).

Fact: There is very little fat to cut from NASA without radical reforms that are mostly unrealistic. We can gripe about Fraud Waste and Abuse, but I really don't think anyone can find enough of it (and be able to eliminate it through some reforms) to make a significant difference. One of the biggest problems NASA faces is that it has squeezed the workforce too hard. We can't make them work harder, and it's very hard to make them work smarter (But read on for some ideas on this subject).

So where does that leave us?

If NASA were run just a little more like a business, I think the solution would be to stop focusing on satisfying arbitrary political objectives like "maintain a permanent manned presence in space" and start thinking in terms like "how can we best exploit the imperfect resources we currently have?" and "how can we get out of our current rut and into a sustainable future in space?"

These questions cannot be considered independently. To get out of our current rut, we need to break the cycle of failed NASA attempts to build a new launch system. My sense is that one reason these systems have failed is that they are repeatedly using the same failed approach in developing very risky technological systems.

How does Venture Capital develop risky technological systems? Not by betting on one implementation 10 years in advance, which is what NASA keeps doing. Instead of saying "The next launch system will be Single Stage to Orbit" (X-33), NASA should invest in many promising technologies, similar to the way VCs do. They don't know which of a dozen seed investments will succeed, but at least one should achieve some good results.

How much money can NASA afford to spend on a handful of projects? Not much, so that's where we mu

Because we *must*

Planet earth: closed system
Human race: growing exponentially
Inevitably: not for long!

This leaves us three options:

- We grow exponentially until there's a collapse, then do it all over again (if we survive). This option sucks.

- We make the transition to a stable, zero growth society. This transition seems politically impossible. Also, a stable, zero growth society sucks (e.g., prepare to give up basic freedoms, etc.). Admittedly it sucks less than a collapse, but it still sucks.

- We expand out of earth, and maintain a growing, open, free society. This is possible, but is expensive.

Some say the last option will never be practical, by doing a simple economical feasability study of mass migration out of earth. There are two answers to this:

- If someone did the same sort of study on the 15th century, it would be obvious mass migration to the Americas isn't economically feasible, either.

- If we don't try, we are certainly doomed to one of the first two options.

So yes, we don't need humans in space for pure scientific exploration. We merely need them for our long-range survival as an open, free society.

But what about those poor astronauts?

We really shouldn't be sending them up, it is just too risky ...
So what, that they spent virtually their entire life training to do it, Knowing, better than anyone, the risks involved ...

Bullshit.

These people are professionals, more knowledgeable of the risks than anyone else, and of the reasons for taking those risks.
Astronauts do not take any greater risk than, say, a soldier in wartime; and who would argue that the human race, in the long run, would benefit more from any given war than from space exploration/colonisation?

I see astonauts like I see soldiers: doing a job that is necessary, that they believe in to the degree that they are willing to risk their lives to do it I think that space exploration is essential; I am happy to fund it with my tax dollars, grateful to those who do it, and, if called upon, would be willing to take those risks myself.
Some pursuits are worth the loss of human life, for the benefit of the species.