|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Is the ISS a giant waste of money?
What do you guys think? Wouldn't it be better to focus our efforts on unmanned expeditions, which could bring us more results with less money?
http://wysinnwyg.com/blog/cost-of-in...-space-station |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Is the ISS a giant waste of money?
Only looking back from the future will answer the question. However it
depends what you want. Arguably, building it was a huge help to what may come next. The problem is that you will notice that humans always want to be there, not just their machines, so unless you can stop that tendency, it will always be seen as a good idea to send men eventually. Brian -- Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________ wrote in message news:22186507.2835.1335995850679.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbep19... What do you guys think? Wouldn't it be better to focus our efforts on unmanned expeditions, which could bring us more results with less money? http://wysinnwyg.com/blog/cost-of-in...-space-station |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Is the ISS a giant waste of money?
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Is the ISS a giant waste of money?
After serious thinking wrote :
What do you guys think? Wouldn't it be better to focus our efforts on unmanned expeditions, which could bring us more results with less money? http://wysinnwyg.com/blog/cost-of-in...-space-station Considering how mature the designs are for deep space manned spacecraft, we should definitely be starting our exploration of Jupiter's moons right now. JUICE is just a delaying tactic. /dps -- Who, me? And what lacuna? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Is the ISS a giant waste of money?
On Thursday, May 3, 2012 4:38:36 AM UTC+2, Brian Gaff wrote:
The problem is that you will notice that humans always want to be there, not just their machines, so unless you can stop that tendency, it will always be seen as a good idea to send men eventually. Why can't we just do this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6lkmK3kEEE |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Is the ISS a giant waste of money?
On Thursday, May 3, 2012 1:21:51 PM UTC+2, Alan Erskine wrote:
On 3/05/2012 7:57 AM, wrote: What do you guys think? Wouldn't it be better to focus our efforts on unmanned expeditions, which could bring us more results with less money? http://wysinnwyg.com/blog/cost-of-in...-space-station More results in what area(s)? You can't compare results in two different areas, but still, it seems to me that space exploration and learning about the rest of our Universe should be two of the major focuses of NASA. If the ISS is a research center for medicine, growing nanocrystals microgravity environments and so on (which might have a little to do with space exploration, but not THAT much), shouldn't it be a financially self-sufficient research station, instead of taking away resources from developing probes that could be sent to other parts of the solar system? The public wants to see men in space, but it also wants to see us landing probes and pushing the limits of exploration. Just my 2c. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Is the ISS a giant waste of money?
On 4/05/2012 8:51 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, May 3, 2012 1:21:51 PM UTC+2, Alan Erskine wrote: On 3/05/2012 7:57 AM, wrote: What do you guys think? Wouldn't it be better to focus our efforts on unmanned expeditions, which could bring us more results with less money? http://wysinnwyg.com/blog/cost-of-in...-space-station More results in what area(s)? You can't compare results in two different areas, but still, it seems to me that space exploration and learning about the rest of our Universe should be two of the major focuses of NASA. If the ISS is a research center for medicine, growing nanocrystals microgravity environments and so on (which might have a little to do with space exploration, but not THAT much), shouldn't it be a financially self-sufficient research station, instead of taking away resources from developing probes that could be sent to other parts of the solar system? The public wants to see men in space, but it also wants to see us landing probes and pushing the limits of exploration. Just my 2c. Countries are landing probes on other worlds. A new vehicle is on its way to Mars right now. People are going to continue to explore space; both by automated/remote-controlled vehicles and in person. We've pretty much explored this planet, and we just won't sit still. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Is the ISS a giant waste of money?
On Friday, May 4, 2012 3:14:02 PM UTC+2, Alan Erskine wrote:
People are going to continue to explore space; both by automated/remote-controlled vehicles and in person. We've pretty much explored this planet, and we just won't sit still. But how much money is spent on manned space missions vs unmanned missions? It would be interesting to know, and I believe the data would be strongly skewed in one direction. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Is the ISS a giant waste of money?
On 5/05/2012 12:36 AM, wrote:
On Friday, May 4, 2012 3:14:02 PM UTC+2, Alan Erskine wrote: People are going to continue to explore space; both by automated/remote-controlled vehicles and in person. We've pretty much explored this planet, and we just won't sit still. But how much money is spent on manned space missions vs unmanned missions? It would be interesting to know, and I believe the data would be strongly skewed in one direction. It would be less expensive if we didn't ask questions or seek answers, but that's not in our species' nature. Some questions cost more to answer. Automated spacecraft don't answer questions. When something simple goes wrong with them, they are useless. Imagine the Apollo Lunar Rover being automated, carrying scientific equipment instead of astronauts. Imagine the fender (dust guard) on one of the four tyres fell off and sprayed lunar soil all over the scientific equipment and that equipment overheated and failed. Now, imagine there are astronauts who could repair that damage, ensuring the success of the mission. That did happen to Apollo 17. On the subject of cost, there is no simple answer, but consider the cost of an automated Lunar sample return mission - in the 1960's/70's, such a mission would cost, say, one fifth of an Apollo Mission, but you'd only get one fifth of the samples and science returned. That means less science and fewer samples. It was worked out some time ago (in order to justify returning to the Moon) that on a sample weight-for-weight basis, it would have cost several times more than Apollo. Sometimes, big rocks are needed for full scientific investigation. If you want financial justification, think of what was discovered by both Surveyor and Lunik landers as well as the Luna automated vehicles on the Moon. Then realise the discoveries made by just one crew were several times what could have been done with automated equipment. You can also go he http://spinoff.nasa.gov/index.html for more in-depth answers. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
the CRS program is an INCREDIBLE WASTE of NASA's money! | gaetanomarano | Policy | 0 | January 2nd 09 04:53 PM |
How Relativists Waste a Shitload of Other People's Money onNothing | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 5 | August 2nd 08 05:05 PM |
paddy thought the moon trip a waste of money | Chris | SETI | 0 | September 23rd 07 09:01 PM |
UFOs cannot be extrarerrestrial - SET is a waste of money | Ian Parker | Policy | 32 | May 27th 07 11:37 AM |
UFOs cannot be extrarerrestrial - SET is a waste of money | Ian Parker | Astronomy Misc | 33 | May 27th 07 11:37 AM |