Panel Recommends Space Science, Not Stunts 304
wisebabo writes "A panel reporting to President Obama is recommending that we skip landing on the Moon and Mars and instead consider progressively deeper space voyages (first to the L1 Earth-Moon point, then perhaps the L2 Earth-Sun point, then a Mars flyby/orbit or asteroid visits). While in Mars orbit, the astronauts could send robotic probes to land on the surface, which could be much more effective than current rovers without the 10-minute time lag to Earth. I, for one, whole-heartedly agree that this approach would lead to 'the most steady cadence of steady improvement,' and keep us from inconsistent achievements in space (like not leaving Earth orbit for 40 years). Some would say that this approach would be lacking in the photo-ops necessary to maintain interest in the space program (no footprints on Martian soil) but I think there would be plenty of cool vistas — perhaps a rendezvous with a comet, or even orbiting one of the moons of Jupiter, assuming they figure out radiation shielding — to keep the taxpayer dollars flowing. The science return would be much greater because it would hopefully utilize both man and machine at their best; robots on one-way trips down into a gravity well while the humans provide the intuition and flexibility from orbit."
Orbit is a gravity well (Score:4, Insightful)
You've got to burn engines to enter and leave it.
I can see an argument of humans vs space probes, but the idea of putting the humans in orbit to release the space probes seems to be the worst of both worlds.
If we are going to send humans out there, they should be landing on something, otherwise send probes.
Thank God - moving forward with common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
"We go to the moon in this decade..." (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way to sustain any interest in space exploration is what you call "stunts".
We have, for the past 30 years, embroiled ourselves in space exploration which has led us to the current state of apathy. NASA is at the ends of its life if we continue to follow a step-by-step progression towards the future. There is no hope in a slow progression towards the stars.
We need to take bold actions to ignite interest, because in America only bold actions and strong interest drive anything forward. Lukewarm actions toward a goal are not in our nature, so stop trying to sell us on it, man.
Nice idea, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Public Attention (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with probes on Mars and the like, is just what the article said. A good space program that would advance science would take a huge ammount of money. The public is a very easily bored creature, just look what happened after Apollo 11. "Well, we made it to the moon! Wait, why are we going back? we DID that already."
The public is very cold on science for science's sake, you have to have photo ops. A trip to the moon would get interest going, get money flowing so they can DO the important stuff. You have to get the public on your side, and, sadly, there's no big Russian menace for the public to cry out, "We must beat them!" Quite a few people thought that once we beat the Russians to the Moon, well, that was fun, no need to go back. Hopefully people will realize how important the space program is, but something tells me that it won't be soon, and it won't be until we get something inspiring. Deep space voyages, while important, won't inspire anyone. Landing on the Moon or Mars? That will.
Why go all that way.. (Score:3, Insightful)
logic is dull! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why go all that way.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"We go to the moon in this decade..." (Score:3, Insightful)
The other reason is the one you already mentioned. While you may get more science for your buck with robots, you get more bucks for your science if you manage to capture public attention. If you tell the public "we're going to put someone in mars orbit and land a robotic probe" they're going to say "why aren't we landing a *person*? We were able to do that half a century ago! What are we paying you for again...?". If you say "we need another billion dollars to accomplish our goal of PUTTING AN AMERICAN ON MARS" they'll say "Cool! Do you take personal checks?" Well, to a certain extent, obviously.
Re:Thank God - moving forward with common sense (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought the point of going to the moon was to build a base their to launch other missions. It takes much less fuel to leave the moon's gravity than it does the Earth's.
Re:Thank God - moving forward with common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense. Yeah... I think that is the word. (Score:5, Insightful)
That so called "plan" would have human crews travel all the way to Mars and then sit in orbit around it - in order to save 10 minutes that it takes to contact rowers.
A flyby of the moon might be followed by more distant trips to so-called Lagrange points, first to the location where the gravity of the Moon and the Earth gravity cancel each other out, then to where the gravity of the Earth and Sun cancel out. There could also be visits to asteroids or flybys of Mars leading to landings on one or both of the low-gravity moons of Deimos and Phobos.
To what use are ANY of these trips?
Lagrange points are only useful if you are actually going to position a permanent lab there.
Flybys and visits... What for? You can do that just as fine with robotic probes.
The whole point of space travel is to permanently get humans to other places in the Solar System, Galaxy and Universe other than Earth.
It is not a test to see how far we can throw a rock - it is a test to see how close we are to the colonization of our solar system.
Re:Thank God - moving forward with common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that the Moon will be really good for one thing - as a place for scientific telescopes. While orbit is dynamically "quiet", every orbiter is basically like a free-floating bunch of springs linked together - all spacecraft have lots of resonances that get excited and free flying spacecraft tend to vibrate. That is especially true if there are people on it. The Moon is this nice heavy thing that doesn't vibrate (much). There are a number of things, such as optical interferometers, that would be much easier from the Moon than in free space. Now, I wouldn't go to the Moon just to put telescopes there, but, if you are going there, it is a good place to put telescopes.
Robotic probes are not the answer (Score:3, Insightful)
Wouldn't jobs keep the public interested? (Score:2, Insightful)
Science for Science's sake (Score:5, Insightful)
is nice and many scientists seem to enjoy it.
But IMO, Buzz Aldrin (iirc) has the right point of view: from Kittyhawk to Apollo 11 was 66 years. It is an embarassment that we may not be able to put boots on Mars by 2035 --- which would be 66 years after Apollo 11. Human Flight -> Man on Moon shouldn't take less time than Moon->Mars.
If you want to argue that science doesn't concern itself with putting boots on Mars, fine, lots stop funding space science and get back to funding space engineering.
Any human being can understand these words: "the human race has set foot on a different planet". I look forward to the changes that will take longer to understand: what it will mean to the world pscyhe to know that we have demonstrated the possibility of escape, to know that there is a new world to explore, a new adventure to be had, etc. The re-colonization of the Americas by europeans co-incided with the beginning of the greatest leaps forward in technology, prosperity, and freedom (as long as you weren't brown at the time...) in world history. I am looking forward to seeing what shape the "discovery" of Mars will have on all of us.
Short of discovering God or alien life, no unmanned mission will ever get every single human being around the world simultaneously watching their TVs. That's the power of putting boots on Mars. There will be plenty of hard science and engineering to get us there. But having a single goal that any idiot can understand in just 1 statement: that's powerful, and it's worth working towards.
Re:Nonsense. Yeah... I think that is the word. (Score:5, Insightful)
in order to save 10 minutes that it takes to contact rowers.
I don't think the issue is "saving 10 minutes", the issue is lag.
Think computer games - a bad lag doesn't mean "You have to wait a few seconds longer to play the game", it makes the game unplayable.
From TFA:
"Instructions from controllers on Earth now take several minutes to reach craft on Mars. But astronauts on a Martian moon could operate robots on the planet in real time."
It's not 10 minutes, it's 10 minutes for every single instruction and response, as opposed to operating in real time. Not only would this speed things up by a massive factor, it allows the possibility of human intervention or control to prevent things going wrong (e.g., a human controlled landing).
The whole point of space travel is to permanently get humans to other places in the Solar System, Galaxy and Universe other than Earth.
It is not a test to see how far we can throw a rock - it is a test to see how close we are to the colonization of our solar system.
Why does this stop that? You can colonise space as well as other planets. And building the infrastructure to send men to orbit other planets will still provide a step towards one day colonising those planets.
All well and good (Score:4, Insightful)
It's just fine for the government to aim at scientific achievements. Nothing wrong with that. But, the PURPOSE of exploration is to find homes, resources, and work for PEOPLE.
They want to stick permanent research stations (manned or otherwise) at the lagrange points? Cool. Put them up there, put beacons on them, so that real people who are pursuing real life don't run them over. Real life is much much more than just looking at stuff, and figuring out how it works. Real life means USING stuff. If NASA discovers a new crystal on Mars, something that man has never seen before, neither Joe Sixpack nor Aviator Alex is going to give a damn that science has learned something new. Both want to know how they can USE IT! Does it make a super cutting tool? Does it make the greatest lens ever imagined? Maybe it's a superconductor at room temperature, and it can be used in electronics? The best insulating material man has ever seen? If so, then someone is going to pay for transportation to go GET some of the stuff, so he can sell it to people!!
There is nothing wrong with science, but science isn't a goal, in and of itself. Science is a means to an end - the end being, to improve human life.
Sitting around on the earth, and speculating about if and when a moon sized comet might strike the earth certainly doesn't improve human life, or the chances of humanity's survival.
All steps are timid until someone dies (Score:5, Insightful)
I think one of the reasons that the general public lost interest is because the Apollo Astronauts made it look easy, it was only when peoples lives were at stake did people take interest. Perhaps with the exception of Landing on the moon and Yuri Gagarin it's so vapid that for the general public to appreciate something so amazing and risky they have to do it through a sense of television drama which causes, or nearly causes, a fatality.
People think space travel is routine, mundane, they are indifferent to it because they are suspended in their ignorance into thinking LEO is the same as moon or anywhere else in the solar system. They don't understand the difficulty.
As long as we do *something* it's great but I think this is worthwhile because it hasn't been done and also a bit easier than actually traveling into a gravity well. We go to Mars but we don't land would be worth it for the sheer prick tease value it would garner. I can just see Joe Sixpack sayin it now 'You mean we flew all the way there and we didn't land. - why don't we land that puppy.' There is a lot to be said for going to smaller gravity wells and building capability. Considering we haven't mastered the ability to construct long strand Carbon nanotube and build a terrestrial (or martian) space elevator why not utilise the technology we do have and construct a Moonstalk [wikipedia.org]. Surely by doing this it would be possible to gather resources and build further capability to utilise materials and construct infrastructure outside of our gravity well, allowing more ambitious achievements.
Re:Orbit is a gravity well (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference between surface and orbit is rather dramatic. It takes more rocket performance to get from Mars surface to Mars orbit as it does to get from Mars orbit to Earth. Not landing cuts the required performance dramatically — the delta-v budget for Mars orbit and back is similar to that for Lunar surface and back.
To me, the biggest reason to send humans to Mars orbit and not land is to do systems tests — the first Lunar missions with people on them didn't land either. So, start by sending humans on orbital-only missions. While you're there, you might as well drop a few probes — there's plenty of useful science they can do, and having humans nearby is definitely helpful. Then, after a couple flights like that, you decide you have things checked out well enough for a landing.
If you want a serious space program, you do incremental test and development. Test one system first, then once it's confirmed working, test another. If all you want is a stunt and some photos, sure, start with the landing. Personally, I want a real space program with long term goals.
Re:Public Attention (Score:1, Insightful)
Or oil, then exxon will spend it to get there...
Re:"We go to the moon in this decade..." (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't take ownership with a probe. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nonsense. Yeah... I think that is the word. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not 10 minutes, it's 10 minutes for every single instruction and response, as opposed to operating in real time. Not only would this speed things up by a massive factor, it allows the possibility of human intervention or control to prevent things going wrong (e.g., a human controlled landing).
Like when the rover sees a shadow, the human controller could quickly swing the camera around to see the Martians...
Those probes cost many millions of dollars to get there (and with a human in orbit it would cost billions more), no one on Earth is going to allow any astronaut to be making split second decisions about rolling over into a ditch or checking out a particularly interesting rock. What we need is better robotics and AI for these missions and more of them not a very expensive human fly by.
To me the only interesting planet in our solar system is our own, so I'd be all for ditching manned exploration altogether and throwing money at solving the issues of getting a probe or even a manned mission to another solar system where there might be habitable worlds and new life. These are completely different problems to solve.
Re:Public Attention (Score:2, Insightful)
> The public is a very easily bored creature, just look what happened after Apollo 11.
> "Well, we made it to the moon! Wait, why are we going back? we DID that already."
[...]
> A trip to the moon would get interest going, get money flowing so they can DO the important stuff.
This seems contradictory. If we went to the moon and then quickly lost interest (and financing) before, why wouldn't the same happen again?
>Deep space voyages, while important, won't inspire anyone. Landing on the Moon or Mars? That will.
Not that I proclaim to know what would truly be best either scientifically or in terms of inspiring humankind, but to ME regular progress seems far more useful scientifically AND far more inspiring than big steps separated by many decades. High up on my personal "inspiration" meter would be an increasing collection of permanent space stations (some small, some larger) that humans visit regularly, spreading through the galaxy, some in open space, some near other planets/moons, providing support for widening scientific exploration and evidence of regular accomplishment.
Re:Nonsense. Yeah... I think that is the word. (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because you don't see the usefulness of space colonization today doesn't mean that it would be NEVER a useful thing. It is conceivable that one day it may become very useful, at which time it may be too late to experiment with space exploration.
When Columbus proposed trying to find the far east by sailing WEST, I'm sure there were people who wondered why bother since there was a perfectly acceptable land route for getting there. (That may be part of the reason why he couldn't find financing with any of the city states in Italy and had to go to the kingdom of Spain.) Granted, someone would've eventually found and permanently colonized the New World, but even so, my point is that it took an enormous and imaginative leap into the unknown to have done so. I should add that this point is not invalidated by consideration of the earlier Viking settlements in Newfoundland, which equally required an enormous leap into the unknown and for equally uncertain results. Furthermore, it could also be said that both expeditions (Ericson's and Columbus's) were built on the backs of previous explorations, both successful and unsuccessful ones.
I say whether with probes or with boots on the ground, let's just boldly go forward.
It's all stunts, all of it (Score:2, Insightful)
But the deal is, we humans are explorers, we want to GO places. Hard coded DNA. Sure send robots to wherever, but we are going to be sending humans as well, no sense living in denial. I know I can't be the only one who is annoyed as all get out that here it is 2009 and we don't have a full time Mars colony yet. WTH?? Trillions for those parasite casino bankers and lameass stoopid wars, chump change relatively speaking for space exploration. The priorities are rather skewed there.
I remember sputnik, can tell you what happened all over the dang planet. Anyone and everytone who was aware of it, even villagers over in whoknow'swhereistan from listening to far away shortwave news broadcasts, everyone who was physically able to walk or get carried outside just went outside and just stared at the sky. Just stared. Billions of people all went outside and contemplated the universe and their place in it and other sorts of things like that, all of the above, it was scary and alse awe inspiring at the same time.
Not to many years later, we all did it again, a HUMAN was up there now!
Not too many years later, we did it AGAIN, a human was on the moon! Outside staring looking up.
Now what, what happened, what happened to the drive, the wonder, the excitement the longing? Strangled by lame politicians and pork and the "necessity" of wasting huge sums on total crap and Cxx "profits", that's what happened. And they even want to deorbit the biggest space station ever built, and also the only one we have. More WTF??
Humans need adventure, robots are OK, but it ISN'T adventure or exploring, not the stuff that gets people to all go outside and stare at the sky, or what they did in the olden days, stare at the horizon down at the beach after some little wooden sailboats set sail. That's what humans NEED and you just can't slap a price on that "need for exploration" with some bean counters cost/benefit spreadsheet.
Human spirit is priceless, destroy that, you've destroyed what really makes us human.
Re:All well and good (Score:4, Insightful)
> Real life means USING stuff. If NASA discovers a new crystal on Mars, something that man has never seen before, neither Joe Sixpack nor Aviator Alex is going to give a damn that science has learned something new. Both want to know how they can USE IT! Does it make a super cutting tool? Does it make the greatest lens ever imagined? Maybe it's a superconductor at room temperature, and it can be used in electronics? The best insulating material man has ever seen? If so, then someone is going to pay for transportation to go GET some of the stuff, so he can sell it to people!!
Most likely, if we find a new crystal on another planet it will be none of those things. Researching such a crystal (or any other rock we find) may or may not yield new insights that may or may not lead to new and interesting things being invented.
> There is nothing wrong with science, but science isn't a goal, in and of itself. Science is a means to an end - the end being, to improve human life.
Maybe, but it would be nice if more people understood that science is more complex than
1) Research.
2) ???
3) PROFIT!
There has been much research where the researchers didn't have a specific application in mind that nevertheless led to awesome stuff (eventually). Science for science's sake may not improve human life directly, but it would be foolish to deny that it has indirectly benefitted us greatly.
> Sitting around on the earth, and speculating about if and when a moon sized comet might strike the earth certainly doesn't improve human life, or the chances of humanity's survival.
If all this speculation leads to the invention of ways to detect and destroy or change the course of such comets, then it most certainly did lead to an improvement of human life (I for one feel much more comfortable when I'm not being hit by huge comets) AND the chances of humanity's survival.
I think limiting science to only research things where a clear 'human-life-improving' (who gets to decide what that means?) goal is present is rather shortsighted and that by ignoring areas where such a goal is not yet obvious we would be doing ourselves a great disservice.
First, remove the fat. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Teleoperation from orbit makes sense (Score:3, Insightful)
Who cares if it is hard? It is that difficulty that should be making us want to do it!
What has happened to people! Is there no sense of adventure? Must everything have a cost benefit analysis done? The USA wouldn't have landed a man on the moon with you people in charge. Not everything we do must have an immediate and direct benefit to society. Not everything must make a buck. Some things should be done, just because we can, and it would a great thing to accomplish. Look, the USA spends more in a year making war than going to Mars would cost. Why is it ok to spend all that money killing, but not ok to do something noble, adventurous, and just plain cool.
Colonize Mars!
Re:All well and good (Score:3, Insightful)
"Most likely, if we find a new crystal on another planet it will be none of those things."
Until we discover it, we can't even speculate what it is, or what it isn't. Let's get off our asses and discover it!
"Maybe, but it would be nice if more people understood that science is more complex than
1) Research.
2) ???
3) PROFIT!"
I, for one, haven't made that mistake. However, I have profit in mind. People should have the opportunity to profit from discoveries. Whatever might be discovered on Mars will profit no one, if it can't be picked up and used, unless we just assume that those discoveries can be duplicated on earth.
"If all this speculation leads to the invention of ways to detect and destroy or change the course of such comets,"
How do we improve the chances of detecting those comets? By putting people and sensors closer to the potential threat, of course. The most sensitive sensor on earth can't hold a candle to people and sensors scattered around the solar system.
"I think limiting science"
Nowhere do I propose that we limit scientific research. Instead, I state that research stations are alright - but they are not enough. The government can invest billions in research, and refuse to risk a single human life in the pursuit of that research. But, far more people are likely to invest voluntarily into something like SpaceX. They seem to be interested in MAKING USE OF space, and whatever might be discovered up there.
I've said this elsewhere, I'll repeat it here. If Mary Kay cosmetics announced to the world that moon dust was a major component of a new age defying lotion, and offered convincing propaganda to the women of the world, then within a couple of years, we would see ships going to the moon to collect dust. And, it doesn't even matter whether the stuff works or not, all that is required is that women THINK it works!
Me? I just want to drive the damned truck up there to get the dust. I want to sit looking out over the moonscape while I eat lunch. If I make enough trips, catering to women's vanity, maybe I can afford to buy a crater to settle down in. This is life outside the laboratory.
Re:Nonsense. Yeah... I think that is the word. (Score:2, Insightful)
Because Kirk always got the girl in the end.
Re:Nonsense. Yeah... I think that is the word. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Orbit is a gravity well (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Teleoperation from orbit makes sense (Score:3, Insightful)
Even though Apollo was designed for a moon landing, 8 went to to lunar orbit but had no LM. 10 flew the LM in lunar orbit but did not attempt to land. (9 was an earth orbit test of the LM and docking).
It makes sense to start with an orbital mission just to learn what problems we didn't know we needed to solve. As long they're going that far, they might as well take some expendable robotic probes with them.
Once we have that worked out, we can think about landing.
I fully agree that Mars missions would be a much better use of our tax money than blowing up brown people.