Good news for space policy

In article ,
Kaido Kert wrote:
http://spacetoday.net/Summary/1806

Depressingly, the answers to this poll suggest that most Americans make
little distinction between manned and unmanned spaceflight. They are
as different as a CD collection is from a rented live band.

Well, it's not all that depressing any more. Unmanned spaceflight
will still be useful, while manned spaceflight is reaching its
logical conclusion, regardless of public opinion.
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

"Greg Kuperberg" wrote:=
In article ,
Kaido Kert wrote:
http://spacetoday.net/Summary/1806

Depressingly, the answers to this poll suggest that most Americans make
little distinction between manned and unmanned spaceflight. They are
as different as a CD collection is from a rented live band.

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.

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.
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:31:26 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Greg Kuperberg) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Manned
spaceflight is much more expensive and unmanned spaceflight is much
more useful.

How useful it is is a totally subjective statement, not an objective
one.

We know that "useful" to you means only providing scientific results.
That's not necessarily the parochial standard that all use, and it's
certainly not the one that I'd use.

And that's what the public doesn't realize. Most people
think that they are about equivalent.

I suspect you have no idea what most people think.

--
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:

In article ,
(Greg Kuperberg) wrote:

No they are completely different, and not only in cost. Manned
spaceflight is much more expensive and unmanned spaceflight is much
more useful.

I can't agree with that second statement. Of course this would be
because we have different definitions of "useful." My definition is:
"helps develop technologies and experience which will enable off-world
colonization." By this definition, space science isn't generally useful
(except for experiments we haven't been doing as we should, such as
variable-G biology), but anything that gets people living and working in
space IS useful.

They could be assembling cars out of Legos for all I car -- as long as
they're doing it in space, there's utility in it. (Of course it would
be a lot MORE useful if these Lego cars were built by tourists or
private assembly-line workers rather than by elite government employees,
but even the latter is better than having nobody in space at all.)

- Joe

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:31:26 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Greg Kuperberg) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Manned
spaceflight is much more expensive and unmanned spaceflight is much
more useful.

How useful it is is a totally subjective statement, not an objective
one.

We know that "useful" to you means only providing scientific results.

That doesn't even have to be true just because it clearly is true now.
One manned mission to Mars would provide more scientific return than a
thousand robotic missions like we've had so far.

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
(Greg Kuperberg) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
Manned spaceflight is much more expensive and unmanned spaceflight is
much more useful.
....
We know that "useful" to you means only providing scientific results.

I don't know who "we" is; I certainly don't know any such thing.
GPS is very useful, and not just or even principally for science.
Communications satellites are useful too, and so are mapping
satellites.

As for manned spaceflight, I was referring to what manned spaceflight
has accomplished so far. Maybe you have in mind space tourism. I will
count that as being as useful as what tourists have paid for it so far.
Which is to say, almost nothing compared to what is spent on unmanned
spaceflight.

Or maybe you have in mind space exploration. Well, astronauts haven't
done any in almost 30 years. They did some lunar exploration in the
1970s, but only within the purview of science, which you at least consider
unimportant.

And that's what the public doesn't realize. Most people
think that they are about equivalent.
I suspect you have no idea what most people think.

On the contrary, this thread started with a public opinion poll,
which I read. The answers to the questions about manned vs. unmanned
spaceflight had comparable numbers. That does indeed suggest that most
Americans think of manned and unmanned spaceflight as roughly equivalent.
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

In article ,
Bill Bonde wrote:
One manned mission to Mars would provide more scientific return than a
thousand robotic missions like we've had so far.

Actually, I've only heard that from space colonization enthusiasts,
and not from scientists. Maybe Carl Sagan thought that people should
go to Mars, but if so I'm not sure that he had science in mind either.
I have heard scientists say that a manned mission to Mars might *ruin* the
scientific return of future missions by contaminating Mars with bacteria.

Anyway, as you say, this refers to future missions, possibly in the
distant future, whereas I was talking about what has been accomplished
so far.
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

In article ,
Greg Kuperberg wrote:
No they are completely different, and not only in cost...
...unmanned spaceflight is much more useful...

Depends on what you want to do. If all you want to do is snap pictures
from afar, that's true. When it comes to interacting with a planetary
surface, Apollo cost roughly 10x what the contemporary unmanned programs
cost, and unquestionably yielded vastly more than 10x the results.

Of course, you can argue at great length about how that isn't really
representative, and anyway technology has changed so much that the lessons
of the past no longer apply (riiiiight...). But that *is* the one case
where we tried both on the same target with similar levels of technology,
and what we found was that manned exploration works lots better, if you
can afford it.

And that's what the public
doesn't realize. Most people think that they are about equivalent.

No, most people are at least vaguely aware that manned can accomplish far
more per dollar, if you want results badly enough to pay for its much
larger minimum mission size. As the Principal Investigator for the MER
rovers put it: "The rovers will be able to do in a day what a skilled
field geologist can do in 30 seconds."
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:25:15 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Greg Kuperberg) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

As for manned spaceflight, I was referring to what manned spaceflight
has accomplished so far. Maybe you have in mind space tourism. I will
count that as being as useful as what tourists have paid for it so far.
Which is to say, almost nothing compared to what is spent on unmanned
spaceflight.

Which is to say on a dollar basis, it's potentially as or more useful.

Or maybe you have in mind space exploration.

No, I've little interest in "space exploration."

--
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: