A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Is the ISS a giant waste of money?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 5th 12, 08:16 PM posted to sci.space.station
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default Is the ISS a giant waste of money?

wrote in message
news:10511972.771.1336142211792.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbmi19...

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.



Yes, manned space is far more effective. But for certain missions, it's far
more effective. If you're trying to study the effects of micro-G on the
human body, you need a human.

If you want to explore the Moon, well we retrieved FAR more moon rocks via
Apollo than the Soviets did via their unmanned program. In addition, I
think one can easily argue the QUALITY is far better.

What the Mars rovers have done in years, could be done by a man in a day or
two.

Now, on the other hand, close in Jovian missions are probably always going
to be done far better via unmanned craft because of the radiation levels
involved.

Also note that historically spending on unmanned missions loosely tracks
manned missions. i.e. The more we spend on manned missions, the more we
spend on unmanned. Stopping manned missions is very unlikely to free up
tons of money for unmanned missions. It's more likely going to be spent
elsewhere in the Federal budget.




--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

  #12  
Old May 6th 12, 07:23 PM posted to sci.space.station
Dr J R Stockton[_159_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Is the ISS a giant waste of money?

In sci.space.station message
igpond.com, Sat, 5 May 2012 10:47:20, Alan Erskine
posted:


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.


Since (according to Wikipedia) it was an astronaut that broke it in the
first place, your argument is not as convincing as was presumably
intended.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
  #13  
Old May 7th 12, 01:49 AM posted to sci.space.station
Alan Erskine[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,026
Default Is the ISS a giant waste of money?

On 7/05/2012 4:23 AM, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
In sci.space.station
igpond.com, Sat, 5 May 2012 10:47:20, Alan Erskine
posted:


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.


Since (according to Wikipedia) it was an astronaut that broke it in the
first place, your argument is not as convincing as was presumably
intended.


I'll counter that by saying that, regardless of why the damage occured,
it was having people on-the-spot that fixed it. I also bring to your
attention this document:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LRV_Fender_Extensions.pdf about LRV fender
extension problems and point to the A-15 LRV. The crew didn't notice
any damage and probably didn't do it themselves. Also, the extensions
from the A-17 LRV were returned to Earth for tests, so they must have
been easily removeable.


  #14  
Old May 7th 12, 04:19 AM posted to sci.space.station
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default Is the ISS a giant waste of money?


"Dr J R Stockton" wrote in message
. invalid...

In sci.space.station message
igpond.com, Sat, 5 May 2012 10:47:20, Alan Erskine
posted:


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.


Since (according to Wikipedia) it was an astronaut that broke it in the
first place, your argument is not as convincing as was presumably
intended.


Not really.

Consider: w/o humans present, you can't fix problems only work around them
(generally).
With humans present, yes, you may break things you wouldn't break otherwise,
but now, you have the option of fixing them.
So while the failures modes increase, the success modes greatly increase.

Doesn't matter if in this case astronaut broke it or not. The point is,
regardless of how it broke, w/o an astronaut it could not have been fixed.




--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

  #15  
Old May 7th 12, 01:22 PM posted to sci.space.station
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default Is the ISS a giant waste of money?

On 5/5/2012 3:16 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
If you want to explore the Moon, well we retrieved FAR more moon rocks via Apollo than the Soviets did via their unmanned program.
In addition, I think one can easily argue the QUALITY is far better.


If you posit the technology available to use in 1960 yes no question.

However were 50 years further down the road. Not only that but only studies have been done to suggest what *could* be done with
Lunar robotics. A really intensive program to do tele-robotic study of the Moon is yet to be put forward. I think for a fraction of
60's dollars spent to do Apollo we could today get something really substantial off the ground.

AND we would not have a 50 year drought of NO surface missions in the aftermath of the program. Just my 2 cents...

Dave

  #16  
Old May 7th 12, 01:56 PM posted to sci.space.station
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default Is the ISS a giant waste of money?

In article , nospam@
127.0.0.1 says...

On 5/5/2012 3:16 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
If you want to explore the Moon, well we retrieved FAR more moon rocks via Apollo than the Soviets did via their unmanned program.
In addition, I think one can easily argue the QUALITY is far better.


If you posit the technology available to use in 1960 yes no question.

However were 50 years further down the road. Not only that but only studies have been done to suggest what *could* be done with
Lunar robotics. A really intensive program to do tele-robotic study of the Moon is yet to be put forward. I think for a fraction of
60's dollars spent to do Apollo we could today get something really substantial off the ground.

AND we would not have a 50 year drought of NO surface missions in the aftermath of the program. Just my 2 cents...


But there has been, and still is, *no* political will to fund such a
thing. No Buck Rogers, no bucks.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker
  #17  
Old May 7th 12, 09:56 PM posted to sci.space.station
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default Is the ISS a giant waste of money?

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article , nospam@
127.0.0.1 says...

On 5/5/2012 3:16 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
If you want to explore the Moon, well we retrieved FAR more moon rocks
via Apollo than the Soviets did via their unmanned program.
In addition, I think one can easily argue the QUALITY is far better.


If you posit the technology available to use in 1960 yes no question.

However were 50 years further down the road. Not only that but only
studies have been done to suggest what *could* be done with
Lunar robotics. A really intensive program to do tele-robotic study of
the Moon is yet to be put forward. I think for a fraction of
60's dollars spent to do Apollo we could today get something really
substantial off the ground.

AND we would not have a 50 year drought of NO surface missions in the
aftermath of the program. Just my 2 cents...


But there has been, and still is, *no* political will to fund such a
thing. No Buck Rogers, no bucks.

Jeff


Further, even in 50 years, we haven't solved problems like speed of light
delays. At the distance of the Moon it's marginally possible to operate a
rover in near real-time. And to get the quality of a Mark I eyeball on the
scene, you'd need a great deal of bandwidth. This takes mass and energy.
Granted, that part may be a bit easier today than then, but probably not by
much.

For Mars, you simply can't do real-time "driving"/etc. At best you can do
"look, move, wait, repeat". This greatly limits the speed at which a
traverse can be made. (in fact this is a huge reason the MER rovers have
gone only as far as they have.) The alternative is some sort of AI. the
problem, despite the belief of many, AI still isn't as good as the human
Mark I brain when it comes down to things like, "Oh that looks
'interesting'".

Keep in mind the Apollo program, especially the later missions spent a good
deal of time training the astronauts to be field geologists. They wanted
trained people there to get as much science as possible. To the point that
on the last mission, they swapped out the LM pilot with an actually trained
field geologist in order to better enhance the science return.

In reality, probably any future missions to Mars or other spots off-world
will be much in the Apollo model. General observations by unmanned craft
(with more advanced tech than we had in the 60s), think Orbiter and Ranger,
followed by landers where applicable (think Surveyor) followed by gradually
more advanced crewed missions.

In fact, you'll notice that this is much the model that NASA is following
when it comes to Mars. The DO hope for a sample return mission, but the
date keeps getting pushed back and the total mass isn't really all that
great.

And what Jeff says is true. So many people are caught up in the original
quote (I think Thomas Wolfe originated it in The Right Stuff, but he may
have been quoting earlier folks), that folks never think of the reverse, but
very much the reverse is true to. For many reasons, w/o Buck Rogers, it's
often hard to get the bucks. (Most of the US Lunar program in the 60s simply
would NOT have occurred if it was not for the Apollo landings).



--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

  #18  
Old May 8th 12, 09:48 AM posted to sci.space.station
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,312
Default Is the ISS a giant waste of money?

Well as I said, I do not agree. The things to be done for planetary missions
with people are great still. How many days has a human survived outside the
Earths protective magnetic bubble? The kind of answers may well come if the
moon was used for space station mark 2, but you will need a big rocket under
the current technology to get it built I fancy.
Maybe if we ever do understand mass and gravity, we can try some other
ways. The issues just now are that energy is the limiting factor when going
places, when you break it all down.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Snidely" wrote in message
news:mn.1ad97dc582b7bb5b.127094@snitoo...
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?




  #19  
Old May 8th 12, 10:44 AM posted to sci.space.station
Alan Erskine[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,026
Default Is the ISS a giant waste of money?

On 8/05/2012 6:48 PM, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well as I said, I do not agree. The things to be done for planetary missions
with people are great still. How many days has a human survived outside the
Earths protective magnetic bubble? The kind of answers may well come if the
moon was used for space station mark 2, but you will need a big rocket under
the current technology to get it built I fancy.
Maybe if we ever do understand mass and gravity, we can try some other
ways. The issues just now are that energy is the limiting factor when going
places, when you break it all down.
Brian


You don't need a big rocket at all. Project Horizon from the
'50's/'60's would have used the Saturn II which had a paylod of up to 32
tonnes. The Falcon Heavy has about half the payload of the Saturn V and
is much less expensive per kg to orbit. You just need a few more
_smaller_ LVs and some brains on how to get things up to the Moon and
also to use what's already there.
  #20  
Old May 8th 12, 03:23 PM posted to sci.space.station
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default Is the ISS a giant waste of money?

In article . com,
says...

On 8/05/2012 6:48 PM, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well as I said, I do not agree. The things to be done for planetary missions
with people are great still. How many days has a human survived outside the
Earths protective magnetic bubble? The kind of answers may well come if the
moon was used for space station mark 2, but you will need a big rocket under
the current technology to get it built I fancy.
Maybe if we ever do understand mass and gravity, we can try some other
ways. The issues just now are that energy is the limiting factor when going
places, when you break it all down.
Brian


You don't need a big rocket at all. Project Horizon from the
'50's/'60's would have used the Saturn II which had a paylod of up to 32
tonnes. The Falcon Heavy has about half the payload of the Saturn V and
is much less expensive per kg to orbit. You just need a few more
_smaller_ LVs and some brains on how to get things up to the Moon and
also to use what's already there.


Ares V was Griffin's answer to the "my rocket is bigger than yours"
problem. Sorry, but it's not the size of the rocket, it's the way you
use it that counts. ;-)

Seriously though, bigger and bigger rockets to support a program that
uses all expendable hardware (I'm including lunar landers and the like
in this) is just a dumb way forward.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 05:53 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.