When is manned spaceflight preferred?

In an ideal world the majority of space missions would be manned as more work and science is done and is more interesting to witness. The problems are that of cost and safety. The current space economy is not up to the task of manned flight beyond LEO. We can still send robots to still do "something" interesting and keep progress moving forward.

On Apr 2, 8:18 pm, wrote:
Can anyone refer me to papers/reports which study
when one might need manned spaceflight? What
tasks can't robots do?

In a biologically toxic, physically extreme and often gamma plus X-ray
saturated environment, unless you're talking about a one-way human
style expedition as having no budgetary or time limitations of getting
that expendable astronaut onto such remote locations, whereas instead
rad-hard and robust robotics are not likely 1% the cost, as well as in
most instances representing the one and only viable option.

In other words, 10 robots for 10% the cost of one astronaut seems far
better, of much faster deployments and by far cheaper per required
science feedback.
.. - Brad Guth

On 5/5/2008 9:28 PM, BradGuth wrote:
On Apr 2, 8:18 pm, wrote:
Can anyone refer me to papers/reports which study
when one might need manned spaceflight? What
tasks can't robots do?

In a biologically toxic, physically extreme and often gamma plus X-ray
saturated environment, unless you're talking about a one-way human
style expedition as having no budgetary or time limitations of getting
that expendable astronaut onto such remote locations, whereas instead
rad-hard and robust robotics are not likely 1% the cost, as well as in
most instances representing the one and only viable option.

In other words, 10 robots for 10% the cost of one astronaut seems far
better, of much faster deployments and by far cheaper per required
science feedback.
. - Brad Guth

================================================== ======

I think the money argument is true as far as it goes, but that it
doesn't go far enough. Spend money / save money: send out machines.
Where my problem with this is, *for why?*

Which makes this argument a root of my belief the most practical use for
space, is *for people*. If you look from that point of view,
exploration comes into focus and you can see where it's going. For
people. But for reason I do not see, nearly everyone thinking about
space seems to come up to some variation on "Man was meant to explore"
and never notices how us humans live in a human environment and when we
grow and expand somehow, human environment is the first part of what's
new. Thus "space exploration" needs to come to "people Out There" asap,
and that's not an intellectual exercise.

As I try to picture it, the big picture, this universe is a dangerous
place, not our friend at all; and if we stay around for a while depends
entirely upon ourselves and luck. The style nowadays seems to leave all
that up to luck: a real bad strategy. So I'd like to see today's
robotics explorers set into a perspective where what we're up to, is to
get *ourselves* out to Luna, to Mars, to the asteroids, and etc. Then
when astronomical or social catastrophe strikes here on Terra, we don't
have all our historical and racial eggs in this one target, I mean, Terra.

Titeotwawki -- Martha Adams [Fri 2013 Jun 07]

On Friday, June 7, 2013 7:02:56 PM UTC-7, Martha Adams wrote:
On 5/5/2008 9:28 PM, BradGuth wrote:

On Apr 2, 8:18 pm, wrote:

Can anyone refer me to papers/reports which study

when one might need manned spaceflight? What

tasks can't robots do?



In a biologically toxic, physically extreme and often gamma plus X-ray

saturated environment, unless you're talking about a one-way human

style expedition as having no budgetary or time limitations of getting

that expendable astronaut onto such remote locations, whereas instead

rad-hard and robust robotics are not likely 1% the cost, as well as in

most instances representing the one and only viable option.



In other words, 10 robots for 10% the cost of one astronaut seems far

better, of much faster deployments and by far cheaper per required

science feedback.

. - Brad Guth


================================================== ======


I think the money argument is true as far as it goes, but that it

doesn't go far enough. Spend money / save money: send out machines.

Where my problem with this is, *for why?*



Which makes this argument a root of my belief the most practical use for

space, is *for people*. If you look from that point of view,

exploration comes into focus and you can see where it's going. For

people. But for reason I do not see, nearly everyone thinking about

space seems to come up to some variation on "Man was meant to explore"

and never notices how us humans live in a human environment and when we

grow and expand somehow, human environment is the first part of what's

new. Thus "space exploration" needs to come to "people Out There" asap,

and that's not an intellectual exercise.



As I try to picture it, the big picture, this universe is a dangerous

place, not our friend at all; and if we stay around for a while depends

entirely upon ourselves and luck. The style nowadays seems to leave all

that up to luck: a real bad strategy. So I'd like to see today's

robotics explorers set into a perspective where what we're up to, is to

get *ourselves* out to Luna, to Mars, to the asteroids, and etc. Then

when astronomical or social catastrophe strikes here on Terra, we don't

have all our historical and racial eggs in this one target, I mean, Terra.


Titeotwawki -- Martha Adams [Fri 2013 Jun 07]

Robotic science is not only quicker and far safer for both worlds, and it's even faith-based correct as well as nearly politically neutral, but it has also been doable for decades.

Without knowledge of what another planet or moon has to offer, such as via close encounter inspections by our robotics, we have no business going there in person.

Applied technology should also vastly increase the range and scope of what sorts of off-world places are Goldilocks suitable, just like right here on Earth where applied physics and our best technology gives us access to extreme environments that would otherwise be instantly lethal to Goldilocks (except Tardigrades, diatoms and a few other microbes might actually survive and even somewhat adapt to such terrestrial extremes).

Even exploiting our physically dark and naked moon should have been accomplished by now, with TBMs excavating their way into its paramagnetic basalt crust, providing a nearly ideal underground habitat that could accommodate most every living thing on Terra, should the need arise, and thereby at least some of our eggs having another shot at surviving in spite of humans manage to do to Earth or how greatly damaged by an asteroid impact it gets.

What planet(s) or moon(s) should be focused upon next?

How about Venus?

On Friday, June 7, 2013 7:02:56 PM UTC-7, Martha Adams wrote:
On 5/5/2008 9:28 PM, BradGuth wrote:

On Apr 2, 8:18 pm, wrote:

Can anyone refer me to papers/reports which study

when one might need manned spaceflight? What

tasks can't robots do?



In a biologically toxic, physically extreme and often gamma plus X-ray

saturated environment, unless you're talking about a one-way human

style expedition as having no budgetary or time limitations of getting

that expendable astronaut onto such remote locations, whereas instead

rad-hard and robust robotics are not likely 1% the cost, as well as in

most instances representing the one and only viable option.



In other words, 10 robots for 10% the cost of one astronaut seems far

better, of much faster deployments and by far cheaper per required

science feedback.

. - Brad Guth



================================================== ======



I think the money argument is true as far as it goes, but that it

doesn't go far enough. Spend money / save money: send out machines.

Where my problem with this is, *for why?*



Which makes this argument a root of my belief the most practical use for

space, is *for people*. If you look from that point of view,

exploration comes into focus and you can see where it's going. For

people. But for reason I do not see, nearly everyone thinking about

space seems to come up to some variation on "Man was meant to explore"

and never notices how us humans live in a human environment and when we

grow and expand somehow, human environment is the first part of what's

new. Thus "space exploration" needs to come to "people Out There" asap,

and that's not an intellectual exercise.



As I try to picture it, the big picture, this universe is a dangerous

place, not our friend at all; and if we stay around for a while depends

entirely upon ourselves and luck. The style nowadays seems to leave all

that up to luck: a real bad strategy. So I'd like to see today's

robotics explorers set into a perspective where what we're up to, is to

get *ourselves* out to Luna, to Mars, to the asteroids, and etc. Then

when astronomical or social catastrophe strikes here on Terra, we don't

have all our historical and racial eggs in this one target, I mean, Terra.



Titeotwawki -- Martha Adams [Fri 2013 Jun 07]

Yes indeed, Earth has been a very dangerous place for us as well as ETs, so they'd best keep their distance.

A terraformed interior of our moon could put a lot of our eggs in a very failsafe kind of place.

3 single playing nine games a href="http://www.dallascowboysjerseys2012.us/12-felix-jones-jersey"Felix Jones Jersey/a
07 season superior defensive jock by the pony discharge

3

only playing nine games 07 seasonable was the a-one defensive contestant pony repudiate 2011 02 19 at 09:12 NFL official website Views: 0

Comments (0) Friday Indianapolis Colts owner Jim - Ilse announced with the 2007 opportunity ripe, the NFL Defensive Player of the Bob -

Saunders termination. "We would like to as a consequence of all incredible contribution of Sanders, he steals to his pre-eminent defensive participant honors

in the Wonderful Move," Ilse said in a statement. In fact, the get's agitate is not surprising. Sanders and the party won the guild's

first-rate defensive player honor, signed a five-year $ 37.5 million squeeze, but in the next three seasons, he only participated in nine

games of the undistorted season. The Colts last summer and gage sentry Antoine - Beixi Ya, signed a four-year, $ 27 million contract;

originally Sanders replacement Melvin - Britt has step by step grown into a qualified starter; while the Colts are silent In tried and

Peyton - Manning signed a long-term contract, the crew did not have enough span to shield Sanders. Nourishing Sanders was a given

of the superior defensive players in the league. 2005 season, he participated in 14 games, ration the Colts to the dawn of the

season, 13-game winning stroke, and All-Star recompense the ahead time. The 2006 edible knee wrong, so he solely participated in the four

games of the cyclical salt, but the Colts defensive power to significantly improve his comeback in the playoffs, and is a passkey

agent in the Colts to gain a victory in the Super Bowl that season. Sanders to restore the trim of the 2007 edible, participated in 15 games,

all-star again, and transform into the beginning bride to gain a victory in the paramount defensive player of the year awards in the account of the Colts players.

Sanders himself had acknowledged his reckless style of wing it belittle may curtail his NFL career, and some fans the same demand The Colts allow

Sanders to visit on the bench as a starter in the playoffs when. Proved to the fans of the recommendations or justified, in the

next three seasons, Sanders constantly troubled on injuries, irrevocably Ilse made and the sentence to discharge. Sanders seven NFL

seasons, a unalloyed of 373 times to intercept, 3.5 bounce, 2 phoney dippy the ball and regain puzzled the ball three times and six steals. (Leon)

Helping to: Sina microblogging, happy everyone watercress titillating Recommended Photos - the playoffs fans furor in Photo-NFL the

strongest nauseous yahuo Photo the - crow inflexible defensive zenith Photo - the Brady 6 convey the array childish Photos - Testy

Contention protect decent spear Photos - Giants at simplicity preparing packets Photos - experts advocate rush of Thibaud Photos -

Broncos to adapt [Article Forums route and small Print Closed the talk Saints are eliminated image = 'prety damned quick' whammy defensive

coordination members hesitation of leaving the crew coach Rams screen off playoff smudge omnibus the dust has settled Pro Pan hero team

strong-willed that Conservationist Bay was gum up non glory considerable receiver defensive Worse Saints lose unified person can proudly leave 5 minutes

2 touchdowns he do can Thibaudet and Brady gap where the assault line gamble is decisive in the intention is the strongest spear or

shelter Lee NFL nauseous and defensive smash looming Lan Fort Arena Snow thoughtful fans to participate in the clean-up on exuberance forward-looking: Packers Changzheng elementary trace Giants vengeful

toward the Callow Bay Review cowboy bloodbath perfection of narrow-minded game now unrealistic seven weeks Short: quarterback

bench insolvent unrivalled ceaseless behind impure parameter the American Beckham burden sworn contestant swank NFL the primary quarterback

Demiurge 933 yards total interval NFL into a new era Brady earn host five ace attacking band: new and primordial eagle blameless

Nationalist cluster gratis agent signing Reflect: The provocative diagonal is the most sought-after (ready-made updates) Ten efficacious responsibility paramount

superstar ranking Brady defeat Manning Deng Ten leftist fall Brown Dolphin Hutch clear-cut advantages swept the first
?
a href="http://www.dallascowboysjerseys2012.us/25-tony-romo-jersey"Tony Romo Jersey/a