Lisa Nowak Example for Human Spaceflight End?

Think about it. Astro-Robots don't have "love triangles". They don't
get arrested. They don't end up being the subject of mug shots that
make them talk show fodder. They don't end up charged with crimes,
requiring the services of high-paid attorneys.

They don't spread gossip. They don't become jealous. They don't
cheat. They have no worries or cares or needs or feelings of any
kind.

They don't die.

They don't require years of training. They can use smaller, cheaper
rockets and spacecraft than their flawed human counterparts because
they don't breath, or eat, or drink, or think, and they don't need, or
want, to return.

They just explore.

- Ed Kyle

On 6 Feb 2007 13:43:05 -0800, "Ed Kyle" wrote:

Think about it.

If Nowak had gone nuts and tried to toss, say, Wilson out the airlock
on 121, then maybe.

They just explore.

....and accidentally get turned off, execute suicidal commands, get
stuck in sand pits for weeks, refuse to open balky antennae, fly
themselves into atmospheres their not supposed to get so close to...

Brian

On Feb 6, 5:32 pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On 6 Feb 2007 13:43:05 -0800, "Ed Kyle" wrote:

Think about it.

If Nowak had gone nuts and tried to toss, say, Wilson out the airlock
on 121, then maybe.

They just explore.

...and accidentally get turned off, execute suicidal commands, get
stuck in sand pits for weeks, refuse to open balky antennae, fly
themselves into atmospheres their not supposed to get so close to...

Brian

They also dutifully perform their duties almost nonstop for years and
sometimes decades, orbiting through intense radiation belts, landing
in methane oceans, crawling for miles across airless landscapes,
patiently waiting out long ferociously cold nights, and so on.

Imagine how much more Lunar/Martian exploration the U.S. could
do during the Constellation program if it decided to fire all of its
astronauts. It wouldn't need an Ares V, or even an Ares I or an
Orion, or a shuttle or a space station. It wouldn't need to develop
any new launch vehicles at all, as a matter of fact, to get the job
done. It could get the job done sooner, and for massively less
money.

- Ed Kyle

On 6 Feb 2007 18:34:48 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

They just explore.

...and accidentally get turned off, execute suicidal commands, get
stuck in sand pits for weeks, refuse to open balky antennae, fly
themselves into atmospheres their not supposed to get so close to...

Brian

They also dutifully perform their duties almost nonstop for years and
sometimes decades, orbiting through intense radiation belts, landing
in methane oceans, crawling for miles across airless landscapes,
patiently waiting out long ferociously cold nights, and so on.

Imagine how much more Lunar/Martian exploration the U.S. could
do during the Constellation program if it decided to fire all of its
astronauts. It wouldn't need an Ares V, or even an Ares I or an
Orion, or a shuttle or a space station. It wouldn't need to develop
any new launch vehicles at all, as a matter of fact, to get the job
done. It could get the job done sooner, and for massively less
money.

Why do you assume that the sole purpose of the space program is
"exploration"?

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 6 Feb 2007 18:34:48 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

They just explore.

...and accidentally get turned off, execute suicidal commands, get
stuck in sand pits for weeks, refuse to open balky antennae, fly
themselves into atmospheres their not supposed to get so close to...

Brian

They also dutifully perform their duties almost nonstop for years and
sometimes decades, orbiting through intense radiation belts, landing
in methane oceans, crawling for miles across airless landscapes,
patiently waiting out long ferociously cold nights, and so on.

Imagine how much more Lunar/Martian exploration the U.S. could
do during the Constellation program if it decided to fire all of its
astronauts. It wouldn't need an Ares V, or even an Ares I or an
Orion, or a shuttle or a space station. It wouldn't need to develop
any new launch vehicles at all, as a matter of fact, to get the job
done. It could get the job done sooner, and for massively less
money.

Why do you assume that the sole purpose of the space program is
"exploration"?


Okay, let's not. What are the purposes of the space program? Please
don't take this question wrong. You countered with a good question,
IMO, and I am requesting you expound on it.

Other than than exploration, what are the purposes of the space
program? (I ask sincerely now).

Eric

"Eric Chomko" writes:
Why do you assume that the sole purpose of the space program is
"exploration"?


Okay, let's not. What are the purposes of the space program? Please
don't take this question wrong. You countered with a good question,
IMO, and I am requesting you expound on it.

Other than than exploration, what are the purposes of the space
program? (I ask sincerely now).

Escape!

--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/

HEALTH WARNING: Care should be taken when lifting this product,
since its mass, and thus its weight, is dependent on its velocity
relative to the user.

Eric Chomko wrote:
Rand Simberg wrote:
On 6 Feb 2007 18:34:48 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

They just explore.
...and accidentally get turned off, execute suicidal commands, get
stuck in sand pits for weeks, refuse to open balky antennae, fly
themselves into atmospheres their not supposed to get so close to...

Brian
They also dutifully perform their duties almost nonstop for years and
sometimes decades, orbiting through intense radiation belts, landing
in methane oceans, crawling for miles across airless landscapes,
patiently waiting out long ferociously cold nights, and so on.

Imagine how much more Lunar/Martian exploration the U.S. could
do during the Constellation program if it decided to fire all of its
astronauts. It wouldn't need an Ares V, or even an Ares I or an
Orion, or a shuttle or a space station. It wouldn't need to develop
any new launch vehicles at all, as a matter of fact, to get the job
done. It could get the job done sooner, and for massively less
money.
Why do you assume that the sole purpose of the space program is
"exploration"?


Okay, let's not. What are the purposes of the space program? Please
don't take this question wrong. You countered with a good question,
IMO, and I am requesting you expound on it.

Other than than exploration, what are the purposes of the space
program? (I ask sincerely now).

As Stephen Hawking pointed out, it's to prevent us putting all our eggs
in the one basket of planet Earth. We now know we live in an unsafe
neighborhood--comets and meteorites can fall on us. The dinosaurs got
wiped out that way, which is something nobody knew when Yuri Gagarin
first flew into space. If humans colonize the Moon and Mars, then even
an asteroid impact that wipes out humanity on Earth won't completely
destroy our species.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Eric Chomko wrote:
Okay, let's not. What are the purposes of the space program? Please
don't take this question wrong. You countered with a good question,
IMO, and I am requesting you expound on it.

Other than than exploration, what are the purposes of the space
program? (I ask sincerely now).

Two replies to your post have already mentioned "escape" from the risk
of disaster on the Earth, natural or man-made.

This is a purpose of a space program that requires human spaceflight.
Escape isn't perhaps the right word - for most of us, the only escape
is solving the problems we face here on Earth. But to ensure that even
if the problems are unmanageable - which is always a possibility -
humanity will survive has value.

To ensure freedom will survive even if a dictator establishes global
dominion in a world that grows smaller every day also has value.

Others have noted that robotic systems can fail. And they have
limitations. So it does make sense to send people to Mars for truly in-
depth study.

But there are other items not mentioned.

As has become increasingly acknowledged of late, the purpose of the
Apollo program which led to its being funded was to impress people. To
show that the future lay with the United States - not the Soviet
Union, which could boast that its schools didn't mess around with
Intelligent Design.

Who knows, maybe Apollo did prevent India from going Communist. (I
don't think it had a chance of being decisive in too many other
cases.)

Sending people to other bodies in our Solar System facilitates
colonization as opposed to exploration. Colonization, in contrast to
exploration, implies _economic productivity_. A community of humans,
supporting themselves from asteroidal and cometary materials, growing
larger, has the ability to provide resources to Earth.

Could it get to the point where all heavy industrial activity pollutes
only outer space, and Earth becomes one big national park?

Human beings, like rats, and unlike many other animal species, are
present in all corners of the Earth. They didn't avoid crossing the
Sinai peninsula to leave Africa and colonize Eurasia. They didn't
avoid crossing the Bering isthmus (when it was an isthmus) and
colonizing the Americas. It is not in their nature to turn their backs
on space when the opportunity exists to add it to human habitat.

Not just Cold War politics, but a profound emotional response,
motivates sending the first human to set foot on another planet. Not
just asteroidal iridium, or sending a few lucky colonists to survive
global warming, but an ancient biological pattern motivates us to set
sail on "this new ocean" to find new islands on which to live.

None of this is, in itself, an argument for not going more slowly. For
exploring the Solar System primarily with robots, and sending humans
much later, when it becomes cheaper with the advance of technology.

But America doesn't exist in a vacuum. If it doesn't send people to
Mars, or to an L5 colony about the Moon, it isn't necessarily France,
or Britain, or Canada, or Australia that will do it instead. These
countries, after all, are just as solicitous about taxpaying voters as
the much larger United States of America.

Do we really want the Solar System to belong to mainland China - or
North Korea? Or even Iran? It's countries like *those* that are now
old-fashioned enough to seek the prestige that manned spaceflight is
felt to provide.

In the final analysis, manned spaceflight is a way to say that what we
are is important. That we believe ourselves to represent what is best
in humanity, what is most important to survive into the future. It's
an expression of faith in ourselves, faith in freedom, liberty, and
democracy.

That is not an argument against a more balanced level of space
funding, since automated missions can produce greater scientific
return less expensively - and the new scientific knowledge is going to
be very valuable in *facilitating* other endeavours which pursue our
other goals. But it explains why manned spaceflight is important in
ways that automated missions are not.

John Savard

On 6 Feb 2007 18:56:22 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Imagine how much more Lunar/Martian exploration the U.S. could
do during the Constellation program if it decided to fire all of its
astronauts. It wouldn't need an Ares V, or even an Ares I or an
Orion, or a shuttle or a space station. It wouldn't need to develop
any new launch vehicles at all, as a matter of fact, to get the job
done. It could get the job done sooner, and for massively less
money.

Why do you assume that the sole purpose of the space program is
"exploration"?


Okay, let's not. What are the purposes of the space program? Please
don't take this question wrong. You countered with a good question,
IMO, and I am requesting you expound on it.

Other than than exploration, what are the purposes of the space
program? (I ask sincerely now).

How would I know? That's a policy question, of which my opinion would
only be one small input.

All I know is that, since we never ask the question, but simply assume
that it's only about exploration, we never address the real issues.
If you don't know where you're going, any road will do. That's the
approach we've taken to space for fifty years.

On Feb 6, 8:39 pm, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On 6 Feb 2007 18:34:48 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:



They just explore.

...and accidentally get turned off, execute suicidal commands, get
stuck in sand pits for weeks, refuse to open balky antennae, fly
themselves into atmospheres their not supposed to get so close to...

Brian

They also dutifully perform their duties almost nonstop for years and
sometimes decades, orbiting through intense radiation belts, landing
in methane oceans, crawling for miles across airless landscapes,
patiently waiting out long ferociously cold nights, and so on.

Imagine how much more Lunar/Martian exploration the U.S. could
do during the Constellation program if it decided to fire all of its
astronauts. It wouldn't need an Ares V, or even an Ares I or an
Orion, or a shuttle or a space station. It wouldn't need to develop
any new launch vehicles at all, as a matter of fact, to get the job
done. It could get the job done sooner, and for massively less
money.

Why do you assume that the sole purpose of the space program is
"exploration"?

I don't, but that is NASA's announced main purpose for its *human*
exploration program. Mike Griffin wrote about "a new focus for the
manned space program: to go out beyond Earth orbit for purposes
of human exploration and scientific discovery."

I believe that national prestige is the main reason for government
human space programs, but I'm beginning to wonder, quite frankly,
if NASA's human astronauts are adding, or detracting, from our
national prestige.

- Ed Kyle