This sadens me, not because of the lives lost, they knew the risk, but because of the stagnation of space traval that is going to haappen for at least the next year. The public will have an adverse reaction, asking the question "Is space worth the risk?" While my answer to this question has been not only is it worth th risk, but we should take more risks. These people know what they are doing. All recent NASA mistakes aside, we have had very few lives lost and much money spent.
I fear for the public reaction agenst NASA and space traval from this day forward.
Manned space flight (both shuttle trips, and the International Space Station) are today worth neither the risk nor the money. I like what John Pike [globalsecurity.org] said about the ISS: "The value of the science that can be done on the Space Station is trivial compared to the cost of the Space Station. Piloted spaceflight is about politics."
Let's look specifically at the ISS, which is the destination for most of the recent shuttle flights. Keeping humans supplied in space takes many extra trips up and down: all the air, water, food, living space, and exercise equipement takes up valuable cubic meters. And all of the provisions for safety and gentle re-entry further reduce the fuel efficiency of the rockets.
The ISS program, and the supply flights to build & support it, will have a total price tag of at around $100,000,000,000.
Scientific-notation kinds of fundage ($1e11)!! You'd have to be a NASA researcher just to count it all.
Virtually all of the science and maintenannce done on Shuttles and the ISS could be accomplished by semi-autonomous robots. Sure, today maybe our robotics and AI technology isn't good enough to substitute for some of the tricky things where a dynamic, flexible human is needed. Well, try investing a fraction of the $1e11 budget into researching those systems, and then tell me how well they work!
Developing better robots to operate space equipment won't only make extra-planetary research safer and cheaper- it'll also produce technological advances that will benefit civilians around the world!
(Rocket-boosters are only needed by astronauts and admirals. But reliable robot manipulators could be useful to anyone)
I fear for the public reaction agenst NASA and space traval from this day forward.
I hope the public wises up that manned space flight is an expensive and dangerous form of esteem-boosting entertainment.
Go build a plexiglass dome in Antartica and live there for a few years, to see how moon life would feel. Remember to keep it sealed, so you can't have any additional air, water, or food. Only sunlight gets in. If you survive, then we can talk about extraterrestrial colonies.
"Getting off this rock" is a good goal- for a 100+ year timeframe! This discussion is science-fiction terrirtory.
There's no need to start moving off-planet yet. Sure, it's arguably overpopulated already, and it'll get more crowded as the century goes on- but the most barren, desolate wasteland on earth is a paradise compared to what you'd find on the surface of Mars or Luna!
To live in space soonest, we should fork the research into 2 branches:
The space element: developing rocket boosters, atomic engines, and robot-drones to perfect interplanetary travel techology. Once the robots have managed to erect a powerplant and radio array on the moon's surface, then we can start to build habitats.
The human element: learn how to keep people alive in a self-contained environment for a decade at a time. Essentially, keep repeating the BioSphere [bio2.edu] experiment until it finally works.
Once those 2 research branches have been followed through to independent success, true space colonization research can begin. But trying to develop both the spaceflight technology and the human sustainment skills at the same time- as the ISS program is doing- is an expensive, dangerous folly.
It's not unreasonable to quibble over exactly how we go into space, but it's absolutely imperative that we continue going there. If we were to stop entirely just because the current direction isn't optimal, it would be that much harder to get going again once we were able to agree what "optimal" might be.
I agree. Best case I figure humans have maybe 100-300 years before we have to start emigrating off the planet if we are to survive as a species long term. It will only become increasingly easier for an individual or small group to cause mass destruction through nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. We can't (nor should) stop the technology. It is inevitable. And I'm not even mentioning asteroids, solar instability, black holes passing to close, etc. The point is that we need to get off the planet.
I tend to agree we put too much emphasis on putting people in space for political reasons but I do think we need to be there.
Don't forget one of the other hazzards we face, a repeat of prior mass-extinctions.
There are any number of large Earth-orbit crossing asteroids any one of which we could colide with some day. We also face danger from comets, new ones show up all the time and they tend to come in fast. Remember the Shoemaker-Levy comet that smacked into Jupiter back in 1994? Imagine that thing smacking into Earth.
I agree, more knowledge of how to survive outside of the earths biosphere gives the human race something all of our ancestors never had.. The ability to outlast the current climate on earth right now.
Extinction is only one medium sized asteroid away given our current knowledge.
Best case I figure humans have maybe 100-300 years before we have to start emigrating off the planet if we are to survive as a species long term.
Actually, we've got more like 10 to 40 years to get our act together, since evolution (now extended by technology) is naturally (double) exponential. If you only linearly extrapolate at the current rate of progress you might be right, but historically that's not the case.
I don't see how evolution would be superlinear- the more individuals there are, the greater chance for evolution- but each person is experiencing about the same environmental pressures, and evolving towards the same goal. Repeating the same process in parrelell gives the same results. Only if both the number of individuals and the different environments they're in are both large, would it seem exponential (divergent) evolution would take place.
And anyway, evolution (what little there can be, in the next few centuries) can work in our favor, and slightly stave off self-inflicted doom.
The first few million years of human evolution took place in a sparsely populated world, where aggression and boldly conquering new terrain were the ways to succeed.
Today, the world is densely populated. Cooperation and resource conservation are the new ways to succeed. Maybe, evolution will begin to prefer those more peaceful traits from here on out.
We should fork the research into 2 branches: The space element: developing rocket boosters, atomic engines, and robot-drones to perfect interplanetary travel techology. Once the robots have managed to erect a powerplant and radio array on the moon's surface, then we can start to build habitats
By the same logic, the search for the new world should have taken place with ships populated by Moors (north africans, IIRC) and slaves; because obviously it was too dangerous for any civilized European to roam about in the seas that border the edge of the world; better use expendable labour, eh?
Today, seven brave people died. I mourn for them, but I also know all went willingly, knowing what the risks were. They knew they were pioneers, and that not all pioneers return home safe. They are heroes not because they died, but because of the choices they made.
While I'm not saying we throw caution to winds, I do say that sitting pretty on Earth waiting for robots to solve our problems* is not the solution. Brave men who took chances shaped the American west, and they will do so in space once again!
* eerie: reminds me of Asimov's "The Robots of Dawn". In the book, there were two waves of human forays into space: one robot-aided, and one purely human powered. Since robots are nowhere as smart as we'd like 'em to be (read Penrose's "the emperor's new mind" for why AI may never make it), I guess it's up to us humans!
By the same logic, the search for the new world should have taken place with ships populated by Moors
Completely bizarre! No comparison like that makes sense at all. (Ignoring, of course, the archaic idea that some races' lives are less valued, because that's not what you meant)
A more correct analogy should be this: "the search for the new world should have taken place with ships populated by tough, sailing men, because obviously it was too dangerous for civilized thinkers and women to roam the seas". And they were absolutely correct. That's why Columbus went, and not Queen Isabella. The best man for the job. Or best robot, as the case may be.
They knew they were pioneers, and that not all pioneers return home safe. The first shuttle crew were pioneers. Maybe even the 12th crew. But there have been hundreds of flights since then. Those guys? Truckdrivers.
They are heroes not because they died Heroes are defined subjectively. You're a hero if the public thinks you are. Only Ilan Ramon was popular enough to be called "heroic" until yesterday. The rest of them were anonymous to the public, until death cast a limelight on them.
sitting pretty on Earth waiting for robots to solve our problems* is not the solution Not just sitting around! We've got to build and maintain [snpp.com] those robots. Tinkering in a lab or pondering at a computer isn't as glamorous as blasting into orbit, but it's where the real results will come from. The benefit:cost ratio for advancements in robots and computation simply dwarfs anything astronauts can give us.
read Penrose's "the emperor's new mind" That book includes much interesting discussion, but by no means proves its thesis without granting some unsupportable leaps. (At least you didn't invoke his like-minded colleague Searle [berkeley.edu], whose argument is simply laughable)
By the same logic, the search for the new world should have taken place with ships populated by Moors
Completely bizarre! No comparison like that makes sense at all. (Ignoring, of course, the archaic idea that some races' lives are less valued, because that's not what you meant)
The comparison does make sense -- you consider a robot to be expendable today, and the aristocracy considered Moors expendable in the middle ages.
Some races' lives were less valued in that period (and wrongly so! -- from that perspective, we are in a better time now), and moors and slaves were among them. Not recognizing this fact would be carrying political correctness too far.
What does this have to do with robots? Well, if robots are intelligent enough to explore new worlds, I'd say denying them the same rights that we once denied moors would be plain wrong. And if you say the robots we'll send up will fancier versions of the Mars Pathfinder (i.e., machines that have no real intelligence), then I don't think they can effectively do much beyond take measurements.
"the search for the new world should have taken place with ships populated by tough, sailing men, because obviously it was too dangerous for civilized thinkers and women to roam the seas"
Yes, and the quest for space should also take place with ships populated with tough, educated men and women who know what risks they are taking. Which is exactly what happens today.
The first shuttle crew were pioneers. Maybe even the 12th crew. But there have been hundreds of flights since then. Those guys? Truckdrivers
Not sure if you're equating the STS-107 crew with truckdrivers, but if you are -- crap. I'd like to see the a UPS delivery guy qualify for an STS mission (i.e. if anything remains of STS after this). It's true that that the media made shuttle launches look routine, but your assertion that astronauts on the first n launches were pioneers and the rest were not is way off the mark.
The benefit:cost ratio for advancements in robots and computation simply dwarfs anything astronauts can give us
Sending a guy into space is an engineering problem: solvable. Creating intelligent robots is something we don't even know is possible: it's a hard problem. Because, of course, we do not understand the nature of intelligence itself. Are you proposing that we ossify on Earth until AI researchers can pull a miracle out of their hats? (If you do, you must be an AI researcher;-))
The one thing we could do here on earth (as another poster mentioned) is Biosphere-style experiments. Biosphere1 didn't work well enough, IIRC. We'll need to show it works flawlessly before settlements on the moon and mars are practical.
The comparison does make sense -- you consider a robot to be expendable today, and the aristocracy considered Moors expendable in the middle ages.
No. But robots truely are expendable. Unlike humans (as most gentle people would say). But expendability is a lesser point (we can get willing volunteers for a risky mission, as long as it's glamorous)- robots are cheaper and better. No air, no sleep, no re-entry. They can't smile for the cameras or sign autographs as well as a human astronaut, though. And public-relations is the real goal of the space program, right?
then I don't think they can effectively do much beyond take measurements.
Today's astronauts only take measurements too. They don't explore new worlds, and don't go anyplace that 100s of people haven't gone before. If you're talking about hypothetical self-aware AIs, then you've departed from any kind of reality we'll see for a century.
Whereas I'm talking about a currently true fact: today, manned space flight doesn't contribute to research, and only wastes money that could better be used elsewhere (other space research, or completely separate government programs, or even a tax-cut)
Sending a guy into space is an engineering problem: solvable.
Not just solvable. Solved. We're not learning anything new by repeating it again and again. Computer research would break new ground, and improve millions of lives.
Creating intelligent robots is something we don't even know is possible:
Therefore it is risky, and challenging it is an act of bravery.
you must be an AI researcher
Yes.
The one thing we could do here on earth (as another poster mentioned)
No. As I mentioned [slashdot.org]. In the very post you first replied to.
So this entire thread is something of a small "fund me!!!" rant delivered even before Columbia's embers have cooled?
> And public-relations is the real goal of the space program, right?
It may well be, but it's money well spent, and I think the vast majority of Americans would agree.
Anyway, to play the devil's advocate for a while, let me hope that the US dumps its manned spaceflight program, and focuses on other things. Sooner or later, it'll find the Red Chinese flag waving on the moon, because that's a nation that still willing to take risks, that feels it has a lot to prove, and (this troubles me, though with 1e9+ people maybe their way of looking at it varies) considers a death or two in advancing their nation worth the price.
Ultimately, advancement comes to those willing to take risks. I don't think we should _not_ spend on computer research; I also think it would be great if we could spend some more money on research to find a safer, cheaper way to get to low earth orbit. The 'big picture' here is that computer research, advanced launch techniques, etc are means to an end: the end is to put men in space, and do so reliably.
So this entire thread is something of a small "fund me!!!" rant delivered even before Columbia's embers have cooled?
Actually, the DoD has lined me up with more work than I can handle for years. Have had no luck hiring... you'd have expected the soft economy to shake loose some affordable programmers, but no...
the vast majority of Americans would agree.
That's the mark of a successful public-releations campaign, yes.
find the Red Chinese flag waving on the moon
Well bully for them. Duplicating a well documented experiment 50 years later is a simple matter of money. Hope their second opinion will shut up some kooks [moonmovie.com].
considers a death or two in advancing their nation worth the price.
Oh, like the USA? [nobloodforoil.org] There's no nation that doesn't acknowledge it's citizen's lives are an expendable resource.
Oh come on. It HAS to be your insane job requirements that are keeping the unemployed brains away. Maybe it's the "20 years Java experience required" combined with the hassle of getting security clearance.:-)
(AI interests me greatly [singinst.org], but, ick... government work makes you feel dirty.)
But manned flight is essential if we want to live in space long term.
I for one want to see a Moon colony, Mars colony, etc.
Feh... Given the state of the space shuttle program, even before today's tragic events, do you actually think we're anywhere close to long term human presence on another planet? The best we can do, at the cost of billions of dollars is to keep a few people in low earth orbit. The idea of seeing a colony on the moon, or mars, in the next 50-100 years is a pipe dream.
The idea of seeing a colony on the moon, or mars, in the next 50-100 years is a pipe dream.
You are assuming the US space program is the only hope. The Russians still have a manned program. The Chinese have stated they will return to the Moon, build a Moonbase, and eventually colonize Mars. The ESA, Japan, and India have all stated intrest in a manned program as well.
Which brings us the crucial point: money. From my knowledge, the technology for settling on the moon is more or less invented. The point is that it would cost an awesome lot to actually realise such a project and lift it into space.
The problem is not inventing the technology itself, but making it affordable. A single shuttle-mission costs about 400 million US-$. So the twenty or so shuttles sent to ISS cost NASA about 8 billion dollars. Now, if the technology could be refined so that it only cost about 40 million to launch a shuttle (still a lot), and then think about how many more missions could be sent with the saved money.
Even after an asteroid impact, Earth would be more habitable than anyplace else in the solar system.
The idea that we're going to set up colonies elsewhere in the solar system that are capable of completely independent existence and growth is not feasible now and probably not anytime soon. It's not a lack of will, it's that the problem is orders of magnitude beyond what we can do with existing technology.
Then go to the Moon, go to the Mars, etc. It's already established.
Don't know on how to get there?
Have you already try to apply for a Visa to your destination? I think that they will provide you with a free trip there along with a Visa. Though hopefully it's a round trip. LOL!
Idunno. I think you were clicking the wrong link [nasa.gov].
I think it's totally worth the risk. The problem with science/research is that no one sees the value of it until it's been done, only after the seemingly pointless work. I'm not surprised everyone thinks it's not worth the risk. But I'll bet if you resurrected the crew of the Columbia, they'd tell you it was worth it.
Great achievements are never born of safety and cautious steps. The argument about whether or not our research is worth something is a valid one. We're definitely politicking NASA's cash away on some of the shuttles' payloads. But we shouldn't stop just for the fear of death. I'd risk death to help the cause of human progress. I'm not sure i can agree with anyone who values their life more than that.
Yes, I naturally picked the dumbest looking experiment to showcase.
But reading through the page [nasa.gov] you mention, it seems that just about every experiment description contains the line "control via the remote Payload Operations Control Center (POCC)".
Meaning that it could've been accomplished just as well on an unmanned rocket. The people are there as figureheads- to give the public of Israel and the US something to feel proud of.
(That they can also serve to unpack a few experimental rigs is of no importance- the experiment designers could've added in a little automation if they hadn't known there would be astronauts on hand for the busywork)
I hope the public wises up that manned space flight is an expensive and dangerous form of esteem-boosting entertainment.
AFAICT life expectancy of rap musicians is far shorter than astronaughts. A famous racing driver was asked, after a widely publicised death at 200MPH, whether Formula 1 racing wasn't too scary - he replied "Most accidents happen in the home, but your not afraid to go home, are you?"
Statistically, more deaths occur in fishing (with rod and line) than any other sport in the UK. (Probably because of the incredibly long time it takes to catch nothing.) Few people regard fishing as dangerous (of course going out in the north sea in a Trawler is in the same league as mining).
Astronauts are also much safer than soldiers - but that wont stop Dubbyah sending a bunch of kids to their doom, so I guess space flight will continue.
Very few people can understand statistics, and while "fear of death concentrates the mind wonderfully" it appears not to be sufficient incentive for people to learn statistics.Yes folks: learn statistics or die!
the costs are insignificant... more is spent advertising candy. Manned space flight from now until forever. Manned mars mission, manned jupiter missions, man in space.
"No, it's not. More precisely, manned space travel isn't worth the risk. (Unmanned missions are risk-free by comparison)"
Only in the forseeable short-term. If something large comes on a collision course with this planet and we have been unwilling (not "unable") to put people on other planets on a permanent basis, our footnote in history will neither have nor deserve any more notoriety than the dinosaurs. Buildings, cars, computers, language... nothing will matter woth a damn. We may as well be dinosaurs.
If given the opportunity, most everyone I know with any interest at all in technology would definitely go on a space mission.
Certainly, losing scientists and pilots and engineers and productive citizens is terrible and more than unfortunate, but these people know the risks and have weighed them personally and socially, against the consequences of not going into space.
Most of your arguement lies with the ridiculous price tag on the ISS. The ISS is a boondoggle to end all boondoggles and should not have progressed to such a horrible cost.
Shuttle launches are comparatively cheaper.
It is my opinion that NASA should get their act together in the PR department. A media rich All NASA All The Time cable channel would be a great start.
Imagine a NASA version of the History Channel combined with live mission footage and engineering / design stories. I'd watch it.
Something like this is necessary to educate the public as to the progress being made, as well as the dangers being risked. Perhaps news and broadcasting like that would result in the next big innovation in space travel due to capturing the minds of the next generation of engineers and astronauts.
Manned Space Travel is worth every risk! Sure the science they are doing might seem trivial, but just having people in space is absolutely necessary for our survival. As Konstantin Tsiolkovsky said:
We cannot remain in the cradle forever
We must continue to explore space, to push the envelop. Sure space travel is still dangerous, but every astronaut tooks those risks gladly and with with dignity and honor. Don't let them die in vain. If they were alive today they would urge us to continue this nobelest of pursuits - the inexorable drive of live to expand.
Manned space travel is the greatest adventure we can possibly make and it is worth every risk. In the scheme of things, the current survival rate and safety ratings of space travel is light years ahead of where it was a short 30 years ago.
And with nanotech materials on their way, space travel is only going to get cheaper, safer and more profound in everyway.
My hear goes out to the families, and with them I say we keep moving forward.
Who are you to decide that these manned missions aren't worth the risk? This isn't your life we are talking about here. It is the lives of the astronauts that are at risk and if they consciously decide to take that risk, that is all that matters. Your opinion, in this particular circumstance, matters little.
The ISS program, and the supply flights to build & support it, will have a total price tag of at around $100,000,000,000.
Scientific-notation kinds of fundage ($1e11)!! You'd have to be a NASA researcher just to count it all.
To put that in perspective, while the total cost of the ISS program may be around 100 billion USD after 15 years of design and construction, the US Military has a budget of 420 billion USD for a single year.
Doesn't make it seem like quite as much any more, does it?
Doesn't make it seem like quite as much any more, does it?
No, it still seems like a huge amount. The US Military, like it or not, is accomplishing things with it's money. They are supporting an army of 1 million and dominating the planet. Just a little of that is R&D- most is fuel, maint, mass produced equipment, and payroll. With this spending, they can cause any object on earth to explode within 24 hour notice.
That's what they're supposed to do. I, and many others, would argue that military spending can be safely cut back, but we can't dispute that their mission is succeeding.
NASA's mission, on the other hand, is supposedly to perform research in outer space. Historically, of course, they've mainly been a showcase for US economic primacy.
It doesn't have to stay that way. NASA could finally put science first- and the way to start is foregoing expensive manned flights in favor of less expensive rocket launches.
You can't separate the military and NASA. One of the reasons the Shuttle is so expensive is that it has a giant payload, which was put there in the design because it is a military as well as civillian vehicle. The reason Shuttle flights are wasteful are for the same resaon it's a waste of gas to drive a bus with only 2 passengers. The vehicle was designed to be able to carry a lot more than it typically actually does. But just because you don't want to drive a bus to the grocery store and back doesn't mean you should never have any busses. For the occassions where you do fill them with a lot of people, they are worth it. And when we *do* want to send up something large, the shuttle is the only way we currently have. I do agree that it's stupid to be using it just to ferry a small number of people to the space station, but I don't agree that manned flight is a waste. I think your faith in the power of artificial intelligence is too optomistic. It does not take millions of dollars to teach a human being how to turn a wrench.
No, it's not. More precisely, manned space travel isn't worth the risk. (Unmanned missions are risk-free by comparison)
Umm, not exactly. Ask the people of Texas -- they're having to dodge the remains of Columbia which have been scattered over a large proportion of their back yard. And spacecraft wreckage can contain some deeply hostile stuff.
And deorbiting Mir wasn't exactly risk-free, either.
Developing better robots to operate space equipment won't only make extra-planetary research safer and cheaper- it'll also produce technological advances that will benefit civilians around the world!
The robotic, computational, avionics and practical advances that _have_ been made developing the systems required to take people into orbit -- and back again haven't only gone into the space program, they've gone into improvements in many other walks of life; from the non-stick surface on the inside of your frying pan to the hull designs of modern aircraft the engines which push them into the sky.
There is one, compelling reason why venturing out into space is a _really_ good idea:
Reporter: "After all that you've just gone through, I have to ask you the same question a lot of people back home are asking about space these days. Is it worth it? Should we just pull back, forget the whole thing as a bad idea, and take care of our own problems, at home?"
Commander: "No. We have to stay here, and there's a simple reason why. Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics - and you'll get ten different answers. But there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on: whether it happens in a hundred years, or a thousand years, or a million years, eventually our sun will grow cold, and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us, it'll take Marilyn Monroe, and Lao-tsu, Einstein, Maruputo, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes - all of this. All of this was for nothing, unless we go to the stars."
-- Commander Jeffrey Sinclair, Babylon 5
(Penned by J. Michael Straczynski)
Umm, not exactly. Ask the people of Texas -- they're having to dodge the remains of Columbia which have been scattered over a large proportion of their back yard.
relatively risk-free, of course. But these people you mention aren't really "dodging". Nobody was hurt. I haven't heard of any real property damage yet.
Can you name any examples of a person killed by an unmanned spacecraft accident? I can't think of any. (If they exist, then they'll be prosaic non-events. Workplace accidents like "fell off a ladder tightening fuel hose")
Unmanned flight is fundamentally safer for many reasons: The vehicle is slimmer and sturdier, because there's no crew compartment. You don't need to land the craft on return. The launch (and recovery, if any) can be further from civilization. If anything goes wrong in flight, the ground team can detonate the rocket in a controlled manner, rather than having to pray that the plummeting ship will meet a miracle. And above all else, it's safer because there's no potential victims strapped atop 50 tons of TNT.
There is one, compelling reason why venturing out into space is a _really_ good idea:
Yes, that's true. Science-fiction has so much to teach us! (The Sun expiring is not the real threat. Astronomers have evidence that within 500 years or so, humanity on earth will be wiped out by nuculear or biological warfare. This evidence is necessarily indirect, but many find it compelling.)
But it won't be relevant for 75 years at least. Today's astronauts don't go to space to live there- they go to operate some buttons and levers, unpack a few sensor arrays, wave to the cameras, struggle with vacum-toilets, and then fly home.
Each of those tasks is either unimportant, or better handled by a machine.
Astronomers have evidence that within 500 years or so, humanity on earth will be wiped out by nuculear or biological warfare. This evidence is necessarily indirect, but many find it compelling.
If you don't want to look like a looney, you're going to have to back that claim up with something. Hint: a prediction is not evidence.
Looniness is quite natural for me, I don't mind at all. But the explanation is entertaining, so I'll share with you. (Hint: negative evidence is still evidence)
Carl Sagan said it better than I ever could. The Drake Equation [setileague.org] posits that by now, at least 100 (or anywhere from 5 to 50000, depending on your assumptions) electronics-capable intelligent species have existed in our area of the galaxy so far.
So where are their radio signals? Their space probes? Why does SETI [seti.org] strain fruitless to discover any kind of extraterrestrial signal?
The possible explanations are that there either never was any other intelligent life, or that it lost its ability to send radio signals and space probes shortly after acquiring it. (The Dyson Sphere [d.kth.se] is another possiblity. So is the Prime Directive [startrek.com], and plain xenophobic paranoia.)
Look at the technology level on earth today. We can already send probes [nasa.gov] out of the solar system. Given this ability, within 100-300 years at most, we'll be flinging a capsule laden with data storage and solar-powered radio transmitters towards every star we can see.
If we ever manage to colonize other worlds, then over a few millenia there will be an exponential population growth, and nary a corner of the galaxy will be free of us.
But evidently, this hasn't happened yet. Where are all the alien visitors?
Again, using ourselves as an example, the most likely possibility is that whenever technology increases to the point where a species can venture into space, it also allows the species to destroy the viability of it's entire ecosystem. Looking around at the relative popularity of military activities vice space exploration, which one do you think will happen first?
Darwinian evolution dooms us- it creates a locally optimal species, which struggles violently against its peers for resources, always knowing there is a frontier to explore where more open land can be found. But when the frontiers are gone, and the planet is full, it leaves us with a competitive psychology that will be unlikely to abide cooperation long enough for us to "get off the rock".
Look at the science-fiction worlds of something like Clarke's 2001. Flight to Jupiter in 1997? It seemed reasonable then- because it was on the assumption that petty nationalist squabbles wouldn't divert our attention and resources in the meantime. Sadly, that is exactly what's been happening.
Even if I accepted the premises that your argument is built on, that still doesn't prove the point you think it does. It is not necessary to wipe out the entire population of a species in order for it to stop sending radio signals. All it takes is enough of a step backward in technology that it is no longer possible. (In other words, a fall of civilization rather than a total wipeout of the species.)
Destroying life on earth is not as easy as we make it out to be. Life has survived meteor impacts and ice ages. Although it was definately transformed by these hardships, it didn't go away. I doubt we could do it even if we actively tried, and set off every nuclear weapon in existence. Destroying humanity, on the other hand (but leaving single-celled critters, some hardy plants, rats, cockroaches and the like around to evolve into new things) is possible but difficult. It would require all-out nuclear war. Resource mismanagement has the potential to destroy cultures and nations, but not all of humanity. Our ancestors lived through ice ages.
Which is plenty close-enough to "doom" for all long-range planning purposes (up to and including extraterrestrial colonization)
Today there are 500 times as many humans as when we last weathered an ice age. Losing 499/500ths of something doesn't count as total destruction, especially if it's something that can regrow, but it's still unspeakably bad. (And there'd only have to be one more tiny push- like a few more degrees of cold- to finish off the 1/500th remaining)
Technologically, we aren't that far past the radio transmission age. That was still less than 100 years ago. It would not take a drastic catastrophe of the human race to drop technology that far. It wouldn't even need a total collapse of civilization.
Your point rests on too many assumptions. 1 - it assumes that aliens would *want* to try to contact us and therefore the abscense of such contact is evidence against them having good enough technology. That's projecting human motivation onto an abviously nonhuman species. 2 - It assumes that alien sentience exists (I'm pretty sure there's life on other worlds, but I'm not so sure it developed any sentience. After all, here on earth with all our varied animal species, only one ever developed signifigant levels of sentience.) 3 - It assumes that alien technology developed along the same track ours did and therefore MUST be using radio waves as a means of communication, as opposed to something totaly alien we've never thought of so far and haven't thought to look for. 4 - It assumes the alien sentient life would have existed somewhere within our observable zone of space (limited as it is by the speed of light and our relatively short history so far of looking for said intelligence with radio waves.) 5 - It assumes that we can't possibly be the first race to have reached this point in technology, since it assumes that if it was possible to survive this level of technology, somoene else would have already done so before us.
Science fiction often explores the notion that we meet aliens who are vastly advanced compared to us, and paints a scary picture of how humbling and dangerous that would be. I'm far more afraid of the other possiblity - that we *are* the most advanced race in our galaxy. The amount of responsibility that would dump on our shoulders would be more than we could handle, I think.
They're referring to Fermi's paradox [ndtilda.co.uk] (no, I'm not a transhumanist, but it's a good essay).
The conclusion "technological civilizations only last a short time" is predicated on a number of assumptions, but if you agree with those assumptions it's a plausible conclusion.
> More precisely, manned space travel isn't worth the risk
There is no reward without risk. You want the benefits of colonization of space, with none of the risks. (Very European statist attitude imho) What if Colombus had been told to 'simulate' his voyage on the shores of Lake Geneva?
Space is a unique environment, you don't know what can go wrong unless you actually go there.
Saying "manned space travel isn't worth the risk" and then backing it up by talking about the ISS is not a valid argument. ISS is a waste of money with very little value.
Manned space travel, on the other hand, is extremely useful. You can send up a satellite without people, but you can't fix one without people. The crew of STS-61 are heroes amongst all astronomers in the world after the first Hubble Space Telescope servicing mission fixed the spherical aberration in the primary mirror.
Just because the ISS is a bad idea doesn't mean that all manned space travel is.
The ISS is merely the strongly argument against manned spaceflight.
However, a big motivator for the design of the shuttle was that it should be usable to ferry space-station building materials back & forth into orbit. Most of the shuttle's bulk isn't needed for each mission (NASA solicits "hitchhiker" experiments to use up some of the extra space).
The fates of the ISS and space shuttle programs are intertwined- each is used to justify the continuance of the other. Acknowledging that ISS is worthless weakens the value of the shuttle program too.
but you can't fix one without people.
A space shuttle mission costs around $500 million, versus less than $200 million to get into orbit ontop of an Arriane rocket. It's a rare satellite that is expensive enough by itself to be worthy of repair, instead of replacement.
A space shuttle mission costs around $500 million, versus less than $200 million to get into orbit ontop of an Arriane rocket. It's a rare satellite that is expensive enough by itself to be worthy of repair, instead of replacement.
And thanks to one of those satellites that's too expensive not to repair, we understand an unbelievable amount more about the universe than we did 9 years ago.
Could a cheaper shuttle be developed that doesn't need to be completely rebuilt between missions? Definitely. Does that mean we shouldn't? Of course not.
We already had a vehicle which didn't need to be rebuilt between missions [nasa.gov]. You'd just throw it out and buy a new one. Still cheaper and safer than a shuttle- the crew didn't even need to know how to fly a plane! (But he couldn't strech his legs). An enhanced Gemini would've been better than the Shuttle for all missions- it just doesn't give you the Buck Rogers [scifi2k.com] feeling of piloting the same craft back and forth into space.
Hubble seems to be the only example I can find of an important satellite being repaired. Maybe there were others, less newsworthy. If only the Hubble and a few other satellites were repaired, then they hardly justify even a fraction of the shuttle program's $20,000+ million startup cost. The entire brand new Hubble cost $1,500 million- just 3 times the price of a shuttle launch. (Most satelittes cost less than $50 million, much of that recoverable design costs. Hubble's lenses made it's replacement cost uniquely higher)
The major other use of the Shuttle's "space-truck" [floridatoday.com] abilities is to assemble space stations, and the same astronomers who love the Hubble widely agree that ISS is a boondoggle (they keep quiet to stay friendly with NASA).
NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:2)
I fear for the public reaction agenst NASA and space traval from this day forward.
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's not. More precisely, manned space travel isn't worth the risk. (Unmanned missions are risk-free by comparison)
Just look at the kinds of leading edge science this crew died to perform:
http://www.wff.nasa.gov/~sspp/sem/about.html [nasa.gov]
Manned space flight (both shuttle trips, and the International Space Station) are today worth neither the risk nor the money. I like what John Pike [globalsecurity.org] said about the ISS: "The value of the science that can be done on the Space Station is trivial compared to the cost of the Space Station. Piloted spaceflight is about politics."
Let's look specifically at the ISS, which is the destination for most of the recent shuttle flights. Keeping humans supplied in space takes many extra trips up and down: all the air, water, food, living space, and exercise equipement takes up valuable cubic meters. And all of the provisions for safety and gentle re-entry further reduce the fuel efficiency of the rockets.
The ISS program, and the supply flights to build & support it, will have a total price tag of at around $100,000,000,000.
Scientific-notation kinds of fundage ($1e11)!! You'd have to be a NASA researcher just to count it all.
Virtually all of the science and maintenannce done on Shuttles and the ISS could be accomplished by semi-autonomous robots. Sure, today maybe our robotics and AI technology isn't good enough to substitute for some of the tricky things where a dynamic, flexible human is needed. Well, try investing a fraction of the $1e11 budget into researching those systems, and then tell me how well they work!
Developing better robots to operate space equipment won't only make extra-planetary research safer and cheaper- it'll also produce technological advances that will benefit civilians around the world!
(Rocket-boosters are only needed by astronauts and admirals. But reliable robot manipulators could be useful to anyone)
I fear for the public reaction agenst NASA and space traval from this day forward.
I hope the public wises up that manned space flight is an expensive and dangerous form of esteem-boosting entertainment.
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:4, Insightful)
I for one want to see a Moon colony, Mars colony, etc.
We aren't going to get off this rock if we only send robots into space.
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:3, Insightful)
Go build a plexiglass dome in Antartica and live there for a few years, to see how moon life would feel. Remember to keep it sealed, so you can't have any additional air, water, or food. Only sunlight gets in. If you survive, then we can talk about extraterrestrial colonies.
"Getting off this rock" is a good goal- for a 100+ year timeframe! This discussion is science-fiction terrirtory.
There's no need to start moving off-planet yet. Sure, it's arguably overpopulated already, and it'll get more crowded as the century goes on- but the most barren, desolate wasteland on earth is a paradise compared to what you'd find on the surface of Mars or Luna!
To live in space soonest, we should fork the research into 2 branches:
Once those 2 research branches have been followed through to independent success, true space colonization research can begin. But trying to develop both the spaceflight technology and the human sustainment skills at the same time- as the ISS program is doing- is an expensive, dangerous folly.
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:1)
I tend to agree we put too much emphasis on putting people in space for political reasons but I do think we need to be there.
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:2)
There are any number of large Earth-orbit crossing asteroids any one of which we could colide with some day. We also face danger from comets, new ones show up all the time and they tend to come in fast. Remember the Shoemaker-Levy comet that smacked into Jupiter back in 1994? Imagine that thing smacking into Earth.
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:1)
Extinction is only one medium sized asteroid away given our current knowledge.
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:2)
Actually, we've got more like 10 to 40 years to get our act together, since evolution (now extended by technology) is naturally (double) exponential. If you only linearly extrapolate at the current rate of progress you might be right, but historically that's not the case.
--
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:2)
And anyway, evolution (what little there can be, in the next few centuries) can work in our favor, and slightly stave off self-inflicted doom.
The first few million years of human evolution took place in a sparsely populated world, where aggression and boldly conquering new terrain were the ways to succeed.
Today, the world is densely populated. Cooperation and resource conservation are the new ways to succeed. Maybe, evolution will begin to prefer those more peaceful traits from here on out.
Why? (Score:1)
Because the politicians may render this planet unfit for life?
Because we are curious beings?
Because we can and want?
Eggs, basket, meteorite, dinosaurs?
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:1)
By the same logic, the search for the new world should have taken place with ships populated by Moors (north africans, IIRC) and slaves; because obviously it was too dangerous for any civilized European to roam about in the seas that border the edge of the world; better use expendable labour, eh?
Today, seven brave people died. I mourn for them, but I also know all went willingly, knowing what the risks were. They knew they were pioneers, and that not all pioneers return home safe. They are heroes not because they died, but because of the choices they made.
While I'm not saying we throw caution to winds, I do say that sitting pretty on Earth waiting for robots to solve our problems* is not the solution. Brave men who took chances shaped the American west, and they will do so in space once again!
* eerie: reminds me of Asimov's "The Robots of Dawn". In the book, there were two waves of human forays into space: one robot-aided, and one purely human powered. Since robots are nowhere as smart as we'd like 'em to be (read Penrose's "the emperor's new mind" for why AI may never make it), I guess it's up to us humans!
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:2)
Completely bizarre! No comparison like that makes sense at all. (Ignoring, of course, the archaic idea that some races' lives are less valued, because that's not what you meant)
A more correct analogy should be this: "the search for the new world should have taken place with ships populated by tough, sailing men, because obviously it was too dangerous for civilized thinkers and women to roam the seas". And they were absolutely correct. That's why Columbus went, and not Queen Isabella. The best man for the job. Or best robot, as the case may be.
They knew they were pioneers, and that not all pioneers return home safe.
The first shuttle crew were pioneers. Maybe even the 12th crew. But there have been hundreds of flights since then. Those guys? Truckdrivers.
They are heroes not because they died
Heroes are defined subjectively. You're a hero if the public thinks you are. Only Ilan Ramon was popular enough to be called "heroic" until yesterday. The rest of them were anonymous to the public, until death cast a limelight on them.
sitting pretty on Earth waiting for robots to solve our problems* is not the solution
Not just sitting around! We've got to build and maintain [snpp.com] those robots. Tinkering in a lab or pondering at a computer isn't as glamorous as blasting into orbit, but it's where the real results will come from. The benefit:cost ratio for advancements in robots and computation simply dwarfs anything astronauts can give us.
read Penrose's "the emperor's new mind"
That book includes much interesting discussion, but by no means proves its thesis without granting some unsupportable leaps. (At least you didn't invoke his like-minded colleague Searle [berkeley.edu], whose argument is simply laughable)
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:1)
The comparison does make sense -- you consider a robot to be expendable today, and the aristocracy considered Moors expendable in the middle ages.
Some races' lives were less valued in that period (and wrongly so! -- from that perspective, we are in a better time now), and moors and slaves were among them. Not recognizing this fact would be carrying political correctness too far.
What does this have to do with robots? Well, if robots are intelligent enough to explore new worlds, I'd say denying them the same rights that we once denied moors would be plain wrong. And if you say the robots we'll send up will fancier versions of the Mars Pathfinder (i.e., machines that have no real intelligence), then I don't think they can effectively do much beyond take measurements.
Yes, and the quest for space should also take place with ships populated with tough, educated men and women who know what risks they are taking. Which is exactly what happens today.
Not sure if you're equating the STS-107 crew with truckdrivers, but if you are -- crap. I'd like to see the a UPS delivery guy qualify for an STS mission (i.e. if anything remains of STS after this). It's true that that the media made shuttle launches look routine, but your assertion that astronauts on the first n launches were pioneers and the rest were not is way off the mark.
Sending a guy into space is an engineering problem: solvable. Creating intelligent robots is something we don't even know is possible: it's a hard problem. Because, of course, we do not understand the nature of intelligence itself. Are you proposing that we ossify on Earth until AI researchers can pull a miracle out of their hats? (If you do, you must be an AI researcher
The one thing we could do here on earth (as another poster mentioned) is Biosphere-style experiments. Biosphere1 didn't work well enough, IIRC. We'll need to show it works flawlessly before settlements on the moon and mars are practical.
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:2)
No. But robots truely are expendable. Unlike humans (as most gentle people would say). But expendability is a lesser point (we can get willing volunteers for a risky mission, as long as it's glamorous)- robots are cheaper and better. No air, no sleep, no re-entry. They can't smile for the cameras or sign autographs as well as a human astronaut, though. And public-relations is the real goal of the space program, right?
then I don't think they can effectively do much beyond take measurements.
Today's astronauts only take measurements too. They don't explore new worlds, and don't go anyplace that 100s of people haven't gone before. If you're talking about hypothetical self-aware AIs, then you've departed from any kind of reality we'll see for a century.
Whereas I'm talking about a currently true fact: today, manned space flight doesn't contribute to research, and only wastes money that could better be used elsewhere (other space research, or completely separate government programs, or even a tax-cut)
Sending a guy into space is an engineering problem: solvable.
Not just solvable. Solved. We're not learning anything new by repeating it again and again. Computer research would break new ground, and improve millions of lives.
Creating intelligent robots is something we don't even know is possible:
Therefore it is risky, and challenging it is an act of bravery.
you must be an AI researcher
Yes.
The one thing we could do here on earth (as another poster mentioned)
No. As I mentioned [slashdot.org]. In the very post you first replied to.
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:1)
> Yes.
So this entire thread is something of a small "fund me!!!" rant delivered even before Columbia's embers have cooled?
> And public-relations is the real goal of the space program, right?
It may well be, but it's money well spent, and I think the vast majority of Americans would agree.
Anyway, to play the devil's advocate for a while, let me hope that the US dumps its manned spaceflight program, and focuses on other things. Sooner or later, it'll find the Red Chinese flag waving on the moon, because that's a nation that still willing to take risks, that feels it has a lot to prove, and (this troubles me, though with 1e9+ people maybe their way of looking at it varies) considers a death or two in advancing their nation worth the price.
Ultimately, advancement comes to those willing to take risks. I don't think we should _not_ spend on computer research; I also think it would be great if we could spend some more money on research to find a safer, cheaper way to get to low earth orbit. The 'big picture' here is that computer research, advanced launch techniques, etc are means to an end: the end is to put men in space, and do so reliably.
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:2)
Actually, the DoD has lined me up with more work than I can handle for years. Have had no luck hiring... you'd have expected the soft economy to shake loose some affordable programmers, but no...
the vast majority of Americans would agree.
That's the mark of a successful public-releations campaign, yes.
find the Red Chinese flag waving on the moon
Well bully for them. Duplicating a well documented experiment 50 years later is a simple matter of money. Hope their second opinion will shut up some kooks [moonmovie.com].
considers a death or two in advancing their nation worth the price.
Oh, like the USA? [nobloodforoil.org]
There's no nation that doesn't acknowledge it's citizen's lives are an expendable resource.
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:1)
Oh come on. It HAS to be your insane job requirements that are keeping the unemployed brains away. Maybe it's the "20 years Java experience required" combined with the hassle of getting security clearance. :-)
(AI interests me greatly [singinst.org], but, ick... government work makes you feel dirty.)
--
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:2)
Because we can?
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:1)
But manned flight is essential if we want to live in space long term. I for one want to see a Moon colony, Mars colony, etc.
Feh... Given the state of the space shuttle program, even before today's tragic events, do you actually think we're anywhere close to long term human presence on another planet? The best we can do, at the cost of billions of dollars is to keep a few people in low earth orbit. The idea of seeing a colony on the moon, or mars, in the next 50-100 years is a pipe dream.
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:2)
You are assuming the US space program is the only hope. The Russians still have a manned program. The Chinese have stated they will return to the Moon, build a Moonbase, and eventually colonize Mars. The ESA, Japan, and India have all stated intrest in a manned program as well.
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:1)
The problem is not inventing the technology itself, but making it affordable. A single shuttle-mission costs about 400 million US-$. So the twenty or so shuttles sent to ISS cost NASA about 8 billion dollars. Now, if the technology could be refined so that it only cost about 40 million to launch a shuttle (still a lot), and then think about how many more missions could be sent with the saved money.
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:2)
But these robots will be valuable artifacts to extraterrestrial archaeologists who study humankind after the asteroid turns the Earth inside-out.
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:2)
The idea that we're going to set up colonies elsewhere in the solar system that are capable of completely independent existence and growth is not feasible now and probably not anytime soon. It's not a lack of will, it's that the problem is orders of magnitude beyond what we can do with existing technology.
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:2)
Yes, but I think that the Earth will be quite inhospitable during and immediately after the impact.
Moon colony, Mars colony, etc. (Score:1)
Don't know on how to get there?
Have you already try to apply for a Visa to your destination? I think that they will provide you with a free trip there along with a Visa. Though hopefully it's a round trip. LOL!
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:2)
I think it's totally worth the risk. The problem with science/research is that no one sees the value of it until it's been done, only after the seemingly pointless work. I'm not surprised everyone thinks it's not worth the risk. But I'll bet if you resurrected the crew of the Columbia, they'd tell you it was worth it.
Great achievements are never born of safety and cautious steps. The argument about whether or not our research is worth something is a valid one. We're definitely politicking NASA's cash away on some of the shuttles' payloads. But we shouldn't stop just for the fear of death. I'd risk death to help the cause of human progress. I'm not sure i can agree with anyone who values their life more than that.
Just my
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:2)
Yes, I naturally picked the dumbest looking experiment to showcase.
But reading through the page [nasa.gov] you mention, it seems that just about every experiment description contains the line "control via the remote Payload Operations Control Center (POCC)".
Meaning that it could've been accomplished just as well on an unmanned rocket. The people are there as figureheads- to give the public of Israel and the US something to feel proud of.
(That they can also serve to unpack a few experimental rigs is of no importance- the experiment designers could've added in a little automation if they hadn't known there would be astronauts on hand for the busywork)
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:2)
AFAICT life expectancy of rap musicians is far shorter than astronaughts. A famous racing driver was asked, after a widely publicised death at 200MPH, whether Formula 1 racing wasn't too scary - he replied "Most accidents happen in the home, but your not afraid to go home, are you?"
Statistically, more deaths occur in fishing (with rod and line) than any other sport in the UK. (Probably because of the incredibly long time it takes to catch nothing.) Few people regard fishing as dangerous (of course going out in the north sea in a Trawler is in the same league as mining).
Astronauts are also much safer than soldiers - but that wont stop Dubbyah sending a bunch of kids to their doom, so I guess space flight will continue.
Very few people can understand statistics, and while "fear of death concentrates the mind wonderfully" it appears not to be sufficient incentive for people to learn statistics.Yes folks: learn statistics or die!
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:1)
To the stars.
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:2)
Only in the forseeable short-term. If something large comes on a collision course with this planet and we have been unwilling (not "unable") to put people on other planets on a permanent basis, our footnote in history will neither have nor deserve any more notoriety than the dinosaurs. Buildings, cars, computers, language... nothing will matter woth a damn. We may as well be dinosaurs.
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:1)
Certainly, losing scientists and pilots and engineers and productive citizens is terrible and more than unfortunate, but these people know the risks and have weighed them personally and socially, against the consequences of not going into space.
Most of your arguement lies with the ridiculous price tag on the ISS. The ISS is a boondoggle to end all boondoggles and should not have progressed to such a horrible cost.
Shuttle launches are comparatively cheaper.
It is my opinion that NASA should get their act together in the PR department. A media rich All NASA All The Time cable channel would be a great start.
Imagine a NASA version of the History Channel combined with live mission footage and engineering / design stories. I'd watch it.
Something like this is necessary to educate the public as to the progress being made, as well as the dangers being risked. Perhaps news and broadcasting like that would result in the next big innovation in space travel due to capturing the minds of the next generation of engineers and astronauts.
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:2)
We cannot remain in the cradle forever
We must continue to explore space, to push the envelop. Sure space travel is still dangerous, but every astronaut tooks those risks gladly and with with dignity and honor. Don't let them die in vain. If they were alive today they would urge us to continue this nobelest of pursuits - the inexorable drive of live to expand.
Manned space travel is the greatest adventure we can possibly make and it is worth every risk. In the scheme of things, the current survival rate and safety ratings of space travel is light years ahead of where it was a short 30 years ago.
And with nanotech materials on their way, space travel is only going to get cheaper, safer and more profound in everyway.
My hear goes out to the families, and with them I say we keep moving forward.
Planet P Blog [planetp.cc]
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:1)
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:1)
To put that in perspective, while the total cost of the ISS program may be around 100 billion USD after 15 years of design and construction, the US Military has a budget of 420 billion USD for a single year.
Doesn't make it seem like quite as much any more, does it?
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:2)
No, it still seems like a huge amount. The US Military, like it or not, is accomplishing things with it's money. They are supporting an army of 1 million and dominating the planet. Just a little of that is R&D- most is fuel, maint, mass produced equipment, and payroll. With this spending, they can cause any object on earth to explode within 24 hour notice.
That's what they're supposed to do. I, and many others, would argue that military spending can be safely cut back, but we can't dispute that their mission is succeeding.
NASA's mission, on the other hand, is supposedly to perform research in outer space. Historically, of course, they've mainly been a showcase for US economic primacy.
It doesn't have to stay that way. NASA could finally put science first- and the way to start is foregoing expensive manned flights in favor of less expensive rocket launches.
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:2)
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:1)
Umm, not exactly. Ask the people of Texas -- they're having to dodge the remains of Columbia which have been scattered over a large proportion of their back yard. And spacecraft wreckage can contain some deeply hostile stuff.
And deorbiting Mir wasn't exactly risk-free, either.
The robotic, computational, avionics and practical advances that _have_ been made developing the systems required to take people into orbit -- and back again haven't only gone into the space program, they've gone into improvements in many other walks of life; from the non-stick surface on the inside of your frying pan to the hull designs of modern aircraft the engines which push them into the sky.
There is one, compelling reason why venturing out into space is a _really_ good idea:
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:2)
relatively risk-free, of course. But these people you mention aren't really "dodging". Nobody was hurt. I haven't heard of any real property damage yet.
Can you name any examples of a person killed by an unmanned spacecraft accident? I can't think of any. (If they exist, then they'll be prosaic non-events. Workplace accidents like "fell off a ladder tightening fuel hose")
Unmanned flight is fundamentally safer for many reasons:
The vehicle is slimmer and sturdier, because there's no crew compartment. You don't need to land the craft on return. The launch (and recovery, if any) can be further from civilization. If anything goes wrong in flight, the ground team can detonate the rocket in a controlled manner, rather than having to pray that the plummeting ship will meet a miracle.
And above all else, it's safer because there's no potential victims strapped atop 50 tons of TNT.
There is one, compelling reason why venturing out into space is a _really_ good idea:
Yes, that's true. Science-fiction has so much to teach us! (The Sun expiring is not the real threat. Astronomers have evidence that within 500 years or so, humanity on earth will be wiped out by nuculear or biological warfare. This evidence is necessarily indirect, but many find it compelling.)
But it won't be relevant for 75 years at least. Today's astronauts don't go to space to live there- they go to operate some buttons and levers, unpack a few sensor arrays, wave to the cameras, struggle with vacum-toilets, and then fly home.
Each of those tasks is either unimportant, or better handled by a machine.
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:2)
If you don't want to look like a looney, you're going to have to back that claim up with something.
Hint: a prediction is not evidence.
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:2)
Carl Sagan said it better than I ever could. The Drake Equation [setileague.org] posits that by now, at least 100 (or anywhere from 5 to 50000, depending on your assumptions) electronics-capable intelligent species have existed in our area of the galaxy so far.
So where are their radio signals? Their space probes? Why does SETI [seti.org] strain fruitless to discover any kind of extraterrestrial signal?
The possible explanations are that there either never was any other intelligent life, or that it lost its ability to send radio signals and space probes shortly after acquiring it. (The Dyson Sphere [d.kth.se] is another possiblity. So is the Prime Directive [startrek.com], and plain xenophobic paranoia.)
Look at the technology level on earth today. We can already send probes [nasa.gov] out of the solar system. Given this ability, within 100-300 years at most, we'll be flinging a capsule laden with data storage and solar-powered radio transmitters towards every star we can see.
If we ever manage to colonize other worlds, then over a few millenia there will be an exponential population growth, and nary a corner of the galaxy will be free of us.
But evidently, this hasn't happened yet. Where are all the alien visitors?
Again, using ourselves as an example, the most likely possibility is that whenever technology increases to the point where a species can venture into space, it also allows the species to destroy the viability of it's entire ecosystem. Looking around at the relative popularity of military activities vice space exploration, which one do you think will happen first?
Darwinian evolution dooms us- it creates a locally optimal species, which struggles violently against its peers for resources, always knowing there is a frontier to explore where more open land can be found. But when the frontiers are gone, and the planet is full, it leaves us with a competitive psychology that will be unlikely to abide cooperation long enough for us to "get off the rock".
Look at the science-fiction worlds of something like Clarke's 2001. Flight to Jupiter in 1997? It seemed reasonable then- because it was on the assumption that petty nationalist squabbles wouldn't divert our attention and resources in the meantime. Sadly, that is exactly what's been happening.
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:2)
Destroying life on earth is not as easy as we make it out to be. Life has survived meteor impacts and ice ages. Although it was definately transformed by these hardships, it didn't go away. I doubt we could do it even if we actively tried, and set off every nuclear weapon in existence.
Destroying humanity, on the other hand (but leaving single-celled critters, some hardy plants, rats, cockroaches and the like around to evolve into new things) is possible but difficult. It would require all-out nuclear war. Resource mismanagement has the potential to destroy cultures and nations, but not all of humanity. Our ancestors lived through ice ages.
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:2)
Which is plenty close-enough to "doom" for all long-range planning purposes (up to and including extraterrestrial colonization)
Today there are 500 times as many humans as when we last weathered an ice age. Losing 499/500ths of something doesn't count as total destruction, especially if it's something that can regrow, but it's still unspeakably bad. (And there'd only have to be one more tiny push- like a few more degrees of cold- to finish off the 1/500th remaining)
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:2)
Your point rests on too many assumptions. 1 - it assumes that aliens would *want* to try to contact us and therefore the abscense of such contact is evidence against them having good enough technology. That's projecting human motivation onto an abviously nonhuman species. 2 - It assumes that alien sentience exists (I'm pretty sure there's life on other worlds, but I'm not so sure it developed any sentience. After all, here on earth with all our varied animal species, only one ever developed signifigant levels of sentience.) 3 - It assumes that alien technology developed along the same track ours did and therefore MUST be using radio waves as a means of communication, as opposed to something totaly alien we've never thought of so far and haven't thought to look for. 4 - It assumes the alien sentient life would have existed somewhere within our observable zone of space (limited as it is by the speed of light and our relatively short history so far of looking for said intelligence with radio waves.) 5 - It assumes that we can't possibly be the first race to have reached this point in technology, since it assumes that if it was possible to survive this level of technology, somoene else would have already done so before us.
Science fiction often explores the notion that we meet aliens who are vastly advanced compared to us, and paints a scary picture of how humbling and dangerous that would be. I'm far more afraid of the other possiblity - that we *are* the most advanced race in our galaxy. The amount of responsibility that would dump on our shoulders would be more than we could handle, I think.
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:2)
They're referring to Fermi's paradox [ndtilda.co.uk] (no, I'm not a transhumanist, but it's a good essay).
The conclusion "technological civilizations only last a short time" is predicated on a number of assumptions, but if you agree with those assumptions it's a plausible conclusion.
[TMB]
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:1)
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:1)
There is no reward without risk. You want the benefits of colonization of space, with none of the risks. (Very European statist attitude imho) What if Colombus had been told to 'simulate' his voyage on the shores of Lake Geneva?
Space is a unique environment, you don't know what can go wrong unless you actually go there.
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:2)
Manned space travel, on the other hand, is extremely useful. You can send up a satellite without people, but you can't fix one without people. The crew of STS-61 are heroes amongst all astronomers in the world after the first Hubble Space Telescope servicing mission fixed the spherical aberration in the primary mirror.
Just because the ISS is a bad idea doesn't mean that all manned space travel is.
[TMB]
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:2)
However, a big motivator for the design of the shuttle was that it should be usable to ferry space-station building materials back & forth into orbit.
Most of the shuttle's bulk isn't needed for each mission (NASA solicits "hitchhiker" experiments to use up some of the extra space).
The fates of the ISS and space shuttle programs are intertwined- each is used to justify the continuance of the other. Acknowledging that ISS is worthless weakens the value of the shuttle program too.
but you can't fix one without people.
A space shuttle mission costs around $500 million, versus less than $200 million to get into orbit ontop of an Arriane rocket. It's a rare satellite that is expensive enough by itself to be worthy of repair, instead of replacement.
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:2)
And thanks to one of those satellites that's too expensive not to repair, we understand an unbelievable amount more about the universe than we did 9 years ago.
Could a cheaper shuttle be developed that doesn't need to be completely rebuilt between missions? Definitely. Does that mean we shouldn't? Of course not.
[TMB]
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:2)
Hubble seems to be the only example I can find of an important satellite being repaired. Maybe there were others, less newsworthy. If only the Hubble and a few other satellites were repaired, then they hardly justify even a fraction of the shuttle program's $20,000+ million startup cost. The entire brand new Hubble cost $1,500 million- just 3 times the price of a shuttle launch. (Most satelittes cost less than $50 million, much of that recoverable design costs. Hubble's lenses made it's replacement cost uniquely higher)
The major other use of the Shuttle's "space-truck" [floridatoday.com] abilities is to assemble space stations, and the same astronomers who love the Hubble widely agree that ISS is a boondoggle (they keep quiet to stay friendly with NASA).
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:2)
Your lament about it presently not being worth the risk nor money doesn't cut, there'll always be a learnig curve that includes failures.
And about the cost, do you realise the entire US space budget is about equivalent to only 2 weeks of the Pentagons budget?
Pray explain what pays off more...
Re:NASA site mission STS-107 (Score:2)
So anything that costs less than the Pentagon budget cannot be a waste? Marvelously ridiculous reasoning.