The Urge to Explore

Jeff Findley wrote:
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" wrote:

The fact is that on exploration missions like Apollo, people did far more
exploration and sample return than all of the unmanned missions combined.

Which handwaves away the inconvenient fact that there isn't a real,
organized, focused unmanned program to actually honestly compare
Apollo to. At least on the American side of the house, the unmanned
side existed almost solely as a support function of the manned
program, any science produced was incidental and distinctly secondary.

If unmanned vehicles really are cheaper and more capable, why don't we see
the US Navy building unmanned submarines to replace existing submarines?

An unmanned submarine could solve the "crush depth" problem by using
nitrogen gas to pressurize the vehicle to a pressure equal to the water
outside. I wonder what the endurance would be of an unmanned nuclear
submarine, since you wouldn't have to surface to obtain consumables for the
crew.

I think there's serious talk - prototypes - of robots wandering around
the sea bed and mapping it ad returning iteresting samples, although I
uneasily recollect that that came up in Arthur C. Clarke's _The Ghost
from the Grand Banks_ which I read recently.

In article , Jeff Findley says...

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" wrote:

The fact is that on exploration missions like Apollo, people did far more
exploration and sample return than all of the unmanned missions combined.

Which handwaves away the inconvenient fact that there isn't a real,
organized, focused unmanned program to actually honestly compare
Apollo to. At least on the American side of the house, the unmanned
side existed almost solely as a support function of the manned
program, any science produced was incidental and distinctly secondary.

If unmanned vehicles really are cheaper and more capable, why don't we see
the US Navy building unmanned submarines to replace existing submarines?

Among many other things, radio doesn't work very well under water. Nor
does any other communications system; you can sometimes kludge up a bit
of low-bandwidth connectivity, but nothing you really want to count on.
And nothing that doesn't void the stealthiness that is a naval submarine's
primary virtue.

Unmanned vehicles, even when not literally remotely piloted, really need
to have humans looking over their shoulders whenever they are doing more
than transiting from point A to point B. With lots of bandwidth for
sensor data, and minimum latency.

There are some unmanned submersibles that deal with this by being tethered
to a support vessel, but wholly autonomous operation is right out.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

Jeff Findley wrote:

This is true, but it doesn't negate my point that it's hard to place an
actual value on the more massive and varied sample returns we got from
manned missions compared to the limited returns we got from the Soviet
landers.

Actually, no, it's not that hard to compare the two. You look
at the scientific results, you rank their significance (for example,
by citation strength), and then ask if the results from the manned
missions could have been obtained from the sample returns.

The main geochemical results were oxygen isotopes and the europium
anomaly, and also the lack of volatiles. Any of these could have been
obtained from examination of remarkably small quantities of material.
And remember that regolith is a mixture of fragments from all over
the moon (dominated by local material, sure, but there's stuff mixed
in from great distances). From these data, and the depletion of the
moon in iron, they eventually figured out how the moon must have been
formed.

The result that the moon is evolved, not primitive, didn't even
need sample return -- Surveyor nailed that one with alpha-scattering
measurements (and also enabled Shoemaker to deduce that the highlands
were anorthositic gabbro.)

Paul

Jeff Findley wrote:

"Mark Fergerson" wrote in message
news:ecire.7$yW.5@fed1read02...

Jeff Findley wrote:

If unmanned vehicles really are cheaper and more capable, why don't we
see the US Navy building unmanned submarines to replace existing submarines?

Because of the chain of responsibility involved in handling
nuclear materials like reactors and bombs. That's why military
pilots are always officers.

When we get to the point of building vehicles with big nuclear reactors
and/or nuclear rocket engines to really explore the outer planets, we'll
have the same issue with spacecraft.

No we won't, Greenpeace will see to it that we never launch
another gram or radioactive material. The *******s.

For me, it still comes down to whether the return is worth the cost
and so far it basically isn't.

Mind you in theory I agree that humans are better at handling
unforeseen problems than machines are or ever will be. Forty years
ago I sorta daydreamed that today, I'd be retiring from a mining
career on Mars. Then the US manned space program basically stopped,
and I keep thinking I'm in some sort of awful alternate reality. I
feel vaguely cheated, but I now have a better grasp of harsh
realities than I did forty years ago.

Unfortunately the blank check funding for the US manned space program
stopped a few years before the first moon landing and has never returned.
Unfortunately, NASA has never seemed to realize that they must make due with
less. Griffin seems to be making the same mistake. His vision for the US
space program isn't going to be sustainable without large increases in
funding, which I doubt NASA will ever get.

Concur.

The biggest problem facing NASA today isn't lack of "vision", it's the high
cost of putting a pound of anything into LEO. NASA specific, shuttle
derived, heavy lift launch vehicles aren't going to solve that problem
anymore than the shuttle itself.

At one time, the promise of mineral riches obtainable nowhere
else (Earth sources being located under "unfriendlies") _might_ have
led to the sort of colony I daydreamed, but not now. We have way too
much overhead built into our National budget.

Mark L. Fergerson

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 21:00:33 -0700, in a place far, far away, Mark
Fergerson made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

When we get to the point of building vehicles with big nuclear reactors
and/or nuclear rocket engines to really explore the outer planets, we'll
have the same issue with spacecraft.

No we won't, Greenpeace will see to it that we never launch
another gram or radioactive material. The *******s.

How will they do that? They've never been able to do it before.

Yep - they are a very small, fanatical, and vocal minority, and need to
be ignored.

When they show up at my door asking for money, I'd like to turn the
garden hose on 'em at full volume - seeing as they seem to like so much
to get blasted from firehoses at close range, while they ride in the
wake of whaling and/or oil exploration ships.... idiots.

- Stewart

PS 2: If you really feel this way, quit denouncing people as
mentally ill on Usenet, and go out and find some way to earn
the umpteen trillion dollars it'd take to get to Mars. IE, get
off your lazy butt and explore, instead of whining at people
on Usenet. (Yeah, cost suddenly becomes relevant when
you're thinking of spending your OWN money, doesn't it?)

I agree with dchild. The older I get, the more I feel like: If I can't
go, then I'm certainly not paying for other people to.

I want to know what's out there as much as anyone. Curiosity is my
main personality trait. Problem is, I'm tired of footing the bill for
half-assed space missions that are being run by mindless middle
managers, not the steely-eyed misslemen of yore. You want to kill
astronauts through cost-cutting or sheer stupidity? Fine, go ahead.
But give me the opportunity to opt out when the multi-billion-dollar
bill comes due.

Doug

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 21:00:33 -0700, in a place far, far away, Mark
Fergerson made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

When we get to the point of building vehicles with big nuclear reactors
and/or nuclear rocket engines to really explore the outer planets, we'll
have the same issue with spacecraft.

No we won't, Greenpeace will see to it that we never launch
another gram or radioactive material. The *******s.

How will they do that? They've never been able to do it before.

In article uDsre.218$yW.172@fed1read02, Mark Fergerson says...

Jeff Findley wrote:

"Mark Fergerson" wrote in message
news:ecire.7$yW.5@fed1read02...

Jeff Findley wrote:

If unmanned vehicles really are cheaper and more capable, why don't we
see the US Navy building unmanned submarines to replace existing submarines?

Because of the chain of responsibility involved in handling
nuclear materials like reactors and bombs. That's why military
pilots are always officers.

When we get to the point of building vehicles with big nuclear reactors
and/or nuclear rocket engines to really explore the outer planets, we'll
have the same issue with spacecraft.

No we won't, Greenpeace will see to it that we never launch
another gram or radioactive material. The *******s.


Greenpeace has conspicuously failed to stop the launch of spacecraft
carrying many grams of radioactive material in the past. Greenpeace
has never, to the best of my knowledge, succeeded in stopping the
launch of a spacecraft containing radioactive material. What is the
basis for your belief that Greenpeace will in the future become 100%
effective in this area, where their track record to date is 0% and
the relevant legal precedents are already set?

Greenpeace will see to it that we have to drive around a small band
of whining protesters to get to the site from which we will launch
vehicles with big nuclear reactors and/or nuclear rocket engines.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

John Schilling wrote:

Greenpeace will see to it that we have to drive around a small band
of whining protesters to get to the site from which we will launch
vehicles with big nuclear reactors and/or nuclear rocket engines.

Yes, but in addition, the left-leaning press corps will also help the
Greenpeace fools hype this nonsense.

The big joke is that, as a result of the leftist's overblowing of the
GLOBAL WARNING whistle, the "enviroMENTALISTS" are now having to back
off on protesting each and every plan to build new Nuclear Reactors, or
update/retrofit old inefficient designs.

And, with Yucca Mountain looking more and more like a reality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain

We may soon see a resurgence in new Nuclear Power Plant activities.

- Stewart

In
rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.written,soc.histor y.what-if,sci.space.policy,
On 14 Jun 2005 06:29:42 -0700, "horseshoe7"
wrote:



Rand Simberg wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 21:00:33 -0700, in a place far, far away, Mark
Fergerson made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

When we get to the point of building vehicles with big nuclear reactors
and/or nuclear rocket engines to really explore the outer planets, we'll
have the same issue with spacecraft.

No we won't, Greenpeace will see to it that we never launch
another gram or radioactive material. The *******s.

How will they do that? They've never been able to do it before.

Yep - they are a very small, fanatical, and vocal minority, and need to
be ignored.

I found this interesting - click on the Greenpeace Defector link to
see/hear a video clip:

http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=eh

When they show up at my door asking for money, I'd like to turn the
garden hose on 'em at full volume - seeing as they seem to like so much
to get blasted from firehoses at close range, while they ride in the
wake of whaling and/or oil exploration ships.... idiots.

- Stewart

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley