|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Good news for space policy
plumbing deep ocean vents is just for now too expensive
But still vastly cheaper than probing to Europa. We have robots that can do it (the ocean vents) and most of all, they can bring stuff back. Even if a probe could collect specimens from Europa, such would not survive the Jovian Van Allens, nor 2 years in space. compared to just going to a random reef and getting a net full of sponges, corals fish... But the pont would be to find critters that are as different as possible from ones known. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Good news for space policy
Joann Evans wrote in message ...
"Christopher M. Jones" wrote: "Joann Evans" wrote: Define 'useful.' Sadly, not a lot of people are that excited about the data from unmanned probes (unless perhaps they involve cool pictures) either. Dead wrong there. The thing is that those "cool pictures" crop up quite often, and a lot of people *are* interested in that geeky space science stuff as long as it's on a level that they can understand. And the reason a picture from the surface of Mars is "cool" is not necessarily because it's intrinsically interesting but because it's *Mars*. The Marsness is what makes the difference between a picture of a boring, desolate landscape not dissimilar from the southwest (but perhaps with fewer interesting features and a "cool picture" that lots of "ordinary" people buy posters of and hang on their wall. The same thing applies for different folks and different data, the IR spectrum of a rock on Earth vs. a rock on Mars for a geologist, for example. I remember when one probe was in the news (Voyager passing Saturn? Giotto at Halleys?), and the scinetists were really excited and enthusing on the news about the great pictures. Meanwhile the public was really disappointed, because the pictures were false colour - more useful for the scientists, but boring for Jo Public. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Good news for space policy
Joann Evans wrote in message ...
"Christopher M. Jones" wrote: "Joann Evans" wrote: Define 'useful.' Sadly, not a lot of people are that excited about the data from unmanned probes (unless perhaps they involve cool pictures) either. Dead wrong there. The thing is that those "cool pictures" crop up quite often, and a lot of people *are* interested in that geeky space science stuff as long as it's on a level that they can understand. And the reason a picture from the surface of Mars is "cool" is not necessarily because it's intrinsically interesting but because it's *Mars*. The Marsness is what makes the difference between a picture of a boring, desolate landscape not dissimilar from the southwest (but perhaps with fewer interesting features and a "cool picture" that lots of "ordinary" people buy posters of and hang on their wall. The same thing applies for different folks and different data, the IR spectrum of a rock on Earth vs. a rock on Mars for a geologist, for example. I remember when one probe was in the news (Voyager passing Saturn? Giotto at Halleys?), and the scinetists were really excited and enthusing on the news about the great pictures. Meanwhile the public was really disappointed, because the pictures were false colour - more useful for the scientists, but boring for Jo Public. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Good news for space policy
In article ,
G EddieA95 wrote: If totally alien life-forms were that useful to medicine, we'd be plumbing the deep-ocean vents for possible drugs. Much nearer than Europa and about as separate from human biology. The deep-ocean vent bacteria are moderately closely related to those found in more accessible Earthly environments, so sampling the vents for them is not considered worthwhile. There *is* pharmaceutical-industry interest in bacteria(*) from places like Yellowstone. (* Arguably I shouldn't be calling them bacteria. Many "extremophile" organisms belong to the Archaea, now recognized as a separate -- and extremely ancient -- category of life.) -- MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! | |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Good news for space policy
G EddieA95 wrote:
plumbing deep ocean vents is just for now too expensive But still vastly cheaper than probing to Europa. We have robots that can do it (the ocean vents) and most of all, they can bring stuff back. Even if a probe could collect specimens from Europa, such would not survive the Jovian Van Allens, nor 2 years in space. you flash-freeze them into a cube of ice. Its not as if they have many chances of survival in the grade 4 biolab they'll be studied in, esp as you won't really know what they would need. They probably have better chances inside the ice at any rate. compared to just going to a random reef and getting a net full of sponges, corals fish... But the pont would be to find critters that are as different as possible from ones known. As different as possible - no. Not studied before - yes. Different appearance doesn't need to translate into different physiology or containment of new chemicals. Just getting teh chmmicals that allows the organism to survive in evirnoment x is not that interesting -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Good news for space policy
(Stephen Souter) wrote in
: In article , (Greg Kuperberg) wrote: In article , Christopher M. Jones wrote: See, that's where you're wrong. In principle and under the right circumstances manned and unmanned spaceflight would be completely different. But as practiced now, especially by NASA, they are not all that terribly different, except perhaps in cost. No they are completely different, and not only in cost. Manned spaceflight is much more expensive and unmanned spaceflight is much more useful. And that's what the public doesn't realize. Most people think that they are about equivalent. Sending people out to do things is undoubtedly more expensive, but to claim that unmanned spaceflight is "much more useful" is just plain flawed reasoning. For a start, by that same strain of logic you could argue that geologists should not go on field trips here in Earth. Instead they should stay in their offices and send little robots out instead--on the ground what those little robots could do more useful things than a human geologist sent out in person to the same site. Good point, and I see that Greg is still ignoring Henry Spencer's post on the same subject. To paraphrase: The one data point we do have for comparing manned and unmanned science return is the lunar program of the 1960s. The unmanned spacecraft (Ranger, Surveyor, Lunar Orbiter) cost about 10% of the manned spacecraft (Apollo), but accounted for far less than 10% of the results. Indeed, one scientist stated something like (please help with the attribution, Henry), "The geology of the moon *is* the geology of Apollo - all else combined is a mere footnote." I have little doubt the same will hold true for Mars - launch windows alone dictate that the first landing will probably stay on Mars over a year. Though the unmanned spacecraft have taught us much, the return from the first manned landing will overwhelm them. Manned missions do have a certain minimum "cost of entry", and below that threshold, unmanned missions are the only option. That cost of entry also makes small manned missions less cost-effective than large ones. So perhaps the real problem with our manned space program is that we don't think big enough. Von Braun's original Mars expedition had a crew of 70, after all. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Good news for space policy
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
The unmanned spacecraft (Ranger, Surveyor, Lunar Orbiter) cost about 10% of the manned spacecraft (Apollo), but accounted for far less than 10% of the results. It's not clear to me how you measure 'results'. Also, if unmanned sample return had been all we had there would have been many papers on those samples instead of on the Apollo samples. Apollo certainly returned more mass than the unmanned sample return would, but it's not at all clear this translates into proportionally more science. After all, most of the lunar material returned has not been intensively examined. The unmanned non-sample spacecraft did solve some of the big problems before man ever reached the moon (for example, determining that the moon is evolved, not primitive, that the maria are covered with basalt, and that the highlands are anorthositic). Unmanned sample return would have provided the evidence necessary to reach the giant impact theory (oxygen isotopes, depletion of volatiles). Paul |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Good news for space policy
On 27 Jul 2003 16:35:20 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Jorge R.
Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Manned missions do have a certain minimum "cost of entry", and below that threshold, unmanned missions are the only option. That cost of entry also makes small manned missions less cost-effective than large ones. So perhaps the real problem with our manned space program is that we don't think big enough. That is indeed the fundamental problem. What people don't understand is that big wouldn't cost that much more than small, and the unit cost would be vastly less. -- simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. Here's my email address for autospammers: |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Good news for space policy
Henry Spencer wrote:
Also, if unmanned sample return had been all we had there would have been many papers on those samples instead of on the Apollo samples. Within their limits. Those samples were very small, and not very diverse, and many of the papers that were written on the Apollo samples could never have appeared that way. I doubt, for example, that there would have been any hope of dating the Imbrian Event that way. (The Apollo 14 samples did not resolve that date quite as definitively as one would have liked, but they did give us a fair idea.) However, even a small regolith sample gives you quite a bit of information, since the regolith has been repeatedly mixed by impacts. As I said, unmanned sample returns, even small ones, would have given us enough data to get to the giant impact theory. Paul |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | Space Shuttle | 150 | July 28th 04 07:30 AM |
No U.S. Hab Module may be good news | Peter Altschuler | Space Station | 5 | July 27th 04 12:59 AM |
Good news for DirecTV subscribers | Patty Winter | Space Shuttle | 7 | June 17th 04 07:35 PM |
NEWS: Efforts continue to isolate stubborn air leak | Kent Betts | Space Station | 2 | January 10th 04 09:29 PM |
Requirements / process to become a shuttle astronaut? | Dan Huizenga | Space Shuttle | 11 | November 14th 03 07:33 AM |