Should we scrap manned spaceflight? - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Non-SMAC related
  Should we scrap manned spaceflight?

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Should we scrap manned spaceflight?

Ser_Olmy posted 05-22-99 12:03 PM ET
Should we scrap manned spaceflight and just send probes into space?. NASA are planning a manned mission to Mars in about 2020, this could be done much easier and cheaper with robotic probes. What is the point of sending people into space anyway, apart from a sense of achivement?. Do you think the future of space exploration is with probes or humans, I would bet on robotic probes myself. Also with the development of better AI probes could cope with situations much faster, than "mission control" having to wait hours to find out their probe has hit an asteroid! Please share your views on this topic!
Kyle posted 05-22-99 02:22 PM ET
Nope. I'll leave you with the single best explaination that I've seen to continue.
<><><><><>
"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?"
"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-Tzu and Einstein and Morobuto and Buddy Holly and Aristophenes .. and all of this .. all of this was for nothing unless we go to the stars."
-- Mary Ann Cramer interviews Cmdr. Sinclair in Babylon 5:"Infection"
<><><>
umbra1 posted 05-22-99 05:23 PM ET
Should we scrap manned spaceflight?
No. I wanna go into space someday !
Frodo83 posted 05-22-99 06:48 PM ET
Well, sending probes into space instead of humans may simply be more sensible if the probes are going to do jobs and collect data that humans won't be able to do as efficiently. The same goes for the opposite. I doubt we'll stop sending people up altogether, though.
Valtyr posted 05-22-99 06:56 PM ET
"It'll take Marilyn Monroe...and Buddy Holly...and all of this..all of this was for nothing..."
LOL! What a great loss!
JB posted 05-22-99 07:02 PM ET
The obvious reason for space travel is that the Earch can't support humans forever - we'll eventually need to be living elsewhere.
Wraith posted 05-22-99 07:03 PM ET
--"Also with the development of better AI probes could cope with situations much faster"
I think you're overestimating the ability of current AI systems. We're not really close at all to developing something that's as tenth as flexible as a human. Deep Space 1 is the only current test I know of of any NASA automated systems, and the AutoNav system has had some troubles. If it can just barely deal with taking star shots to plot its location, how do you think it'll handle something unexpected?
This is the biggest argument for sending people to Mars. We've sent probes, and we can't really get much more info by remote. We need to send people there, people with the appropriate experience, to eyeball things if we really want to find out about Mars' history.
--"What is the point of sending people into space anyway, apart from a sense of achivement?"
"Earth is the cradle of the mind. But one can not stay in the cradle forever."
-- Konstantin Tsiolkovsky
You're perfectly welcome to stay, but some of us would like to see if there's anyone else out there.
What was that comment about climbing Everest? Because it's there...
Wraith
"Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity. It eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation."
-- Johnny Hart
Ser_Olmy posted 05-23-99 03:56 AM ET
I agree with JB, we will need living space somewhere else somtime in the future, but I can't really see the point of spend billions on sending PEOPLE to Mars when a series of probes would do it just as well. The money saved could be put towards other things............
Plasmoid posted 05-23-99 11:29 AM ET
I would love to see people on Mars tomorrow. But right now it is TOO expensive to send people to mars. We need faster rockets, better life-support systems, cheaper Earth to Earth orbit space flight first.
Singularity posted 05-23-99 11:45 AM ET
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
Ser_Olmy posted 05-23-99 12:33 PM ET
What are you saying no to Singularity?
GaryD posted 05-24-99 09:05 AM ET
Probes are bound to lead the way, because they are more robust than humans, and more expendable. But ..."apart from a sense of achievement" ??? FCOL, what better reason do you need ?
BTW how do you define "too expensive" anyway ? Now if we all put a dollar into the pot...
DanS posted 05-24-99 11:23 AM ET
Plasmoid's got it right. We should be talking about the prohibitive price to put a pound on orbit, rather than getting humans to Mars. First things first.
Tolls posted 05-24-99 11:53 AM ET
Don't worry about that...a large number of companies are working on cutting the cost-per-pound for launches. Won't be long for that to fall, at least for the smaller payloads. I think it'll still be costly for people, for the time being.
DanS posted 05-24-99 11:57 AM ET
"Don't worry about that...a large number of companies are working on cutting the cost-per-pound for launches."
Well, I do worry, mainly because the big swinging dicks in US spaceflight (Lockheed, Boeing) have no interest in innovating. What do they care? Uncle Sam is footing the bill, over $10,000/pound for the Space Shuttle.
I am heartened to see people like Kistler Aerospace work on reusables. They have to innovate or they die.
JohnIII posted 05-24-99 02:54 PM ET
3001's "Space Elevator" is probably the optimum solution, if it ever comes to pass...
John III
Tolls posted 05-25-99 04:54 AM ET
Yep...and over the next 10-15 years there are a fair number of small-payload launch systems being tested by companies other than Lockheed and Boeing...other companies are taking a great interest in it.
I wish I could remember the bloody things but I chucked the New Scientist (or was it Sci American?) out that covered this topic...
As I said, though, these are all small-payload...people (and all their necessities) are a different matter all together.
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Should we scrap manned spaceflight?
Ser_Olmy	posted 05-22-99 12:03 PM ET Should we scrap manned spaceflight and just send probes into space?. NASA are planning a manned mission to Mars in about 2020, this could be done much easier and cheaper with robotic probes. What is the point of sending people into space anyway, apart from a sense of achivement?. Do you think the future of space exploration is with probes or humans, I would bet on robotic probes myself. Also with the development of better AI probes could cope with situations much faster, than "mission control" having to wait hours to find out their probe has hit an asteroid! Please share your views on this topic!
Kyle	posted 05-22-99 02:22 PM ET Nope. I'll leave you with the single best explaination that I've seen to continue. <><><><><> "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?" "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-Tzu and Einstein and Morobuto and Buddy Holly and Aristophenes .. and all of this .. all of this was for nothing unless we go to the stars." -- Mary Ann Cramer interviews Cmdr. Sinclair in Babylon 5:"Infection" <><><>
umbra1	posted 05-22-99 05:23 PM ET Should we scrap manned spaceflight? No. I wanna go into space someday !
Frodo83	posted 05-22-99 06:48 PM ET Well, sending probes into space instead of humans may simply be more sensible if the probes are going to do jobs and collect data that humans won't be able to do as efficiently. The same goes for the opposite. I doubt we'll stop sending people up altogether, though.
Valtyr	posted 05-22-99 06:56 PM ET "It'll take Marilyn Monroe...and Buddy Holly...and all of this..all of this was for nothing..." LOL! What a great loss!
JB	posted 05-22-99 07:02 PM ET The obvious reason for space travel is that the Earch can't support humans forever - we'll eventually need to be living elsewhere.
Wraith	posted 05-22-99 07:03 PM ET --"Also with the development of better AI probes could cope with situations much faster" I think you're overestimating the ability of current AI systems. We're not really close at all to developing something that's as tenth as flexible as a human. Deep Space 1 is the only current test I know of of any NASA automated systems, and the AutoNav system has had some troubles. If it can just barely deal with taking star shots to plot its location, how do you think it'll handle something unexpected? This is the biggest argument for sending people to Mars. We've sent probes, and we can't really get much more info by remote. We need to send people there, people with the appropriate experience, to eyeball things if we really want to find out about Mars' history. --"What is the point of sending people into space anyway, apart from a sense of achivement?" "Earth is the cradle of the mind. But one can not stay in the cradle forever." -- Konstantin Tsiolkovsky You're perfectly welcome to stay, but some of us would like to see if there's anyone else out there. What was that comment about climbing Everest? Because it's there... Wraith "Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity. It eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation." -- Johnny Hart
Ser_Olmy	posted 05-23-99 03:56 AM ET I agree with JB, we will need living space somewhere else somtime in the future, but I can't really see the point of spend billions on sending PEOPLE to Mars when a series of probes would do it just as well. The money saved could be put towards other things............
Plasmoid	posted 05-23-99 11:29 AM ET I would love to see people on Mars tomorrow. But right now it is TOO expensive to send people to mars. We need faster rockets, better life-support systems, cheaper Earth to Earth orbit space flight first.
Singularity	posted 05-23-99 11:45 AM ET NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
Ser_Olmy	posted 05-23-99 12:33 PM ET What are you saying no to Singularity?
GaryD	posted 05-24-99 09:05 AM ET Probes are bound to lead the way, because they are more robust than humans, and more expendable. But ..."apart from a sense of achievement" ??? FCOL, what better reason do you need ? BTW how do you define "too expensive" anyway ? Now if we all put a dollar into the pot...
DanS	posted 05-24-99 11:23 AM ET Plasmoid's got it right. We should be talking about the prohibitive price to put a pound on orbit, rather than getting humans to Mars. First things first.
Tolls	posted 05-24-99 11:53 AM ET Don't worry about that...a large number of companies are working on cutting the cost-per-pound for launches. Won't be long for that to fall, at least for the smaller payloads. I think it'll still be costly for people, for the time being.
DanS	posted 05-24-99 11:57 AM ET "Don't worry about that...a large number of companies are working on cutting the cost-per-pound for launches." Well, I do worry, mainly because the big swinging dicks in US spaceflight (Lockheed, Boeing) have no interest in innovating. What do they care? Uncle Sam is footing the bill, over $10,000/pound for the Space Shuttle. I am heartened to see people like Kistler Aerospace work on reusables. They have to innovate or they die.
JohnIII	posted 05-24-99 02:54 PM ET 3001's "Space Elevator" is probably the optimum solution, if it ever comes to pass... John III
Tolls	posted 05-25-99 04:54 AM ET Yep...and over the next 10-15 years there are a fair number of small-payload launch systems being tested by companies other than Lockheed and Boeing...other companies are taking a great interest in it. I wish I could remember the bloody things but I chucked the New Scientist (or was it Sci American?) out that covered this topic... As I said, though, these are all small-payload...people (and all their necessities) are a different matter all together.