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

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

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

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)?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

In article 22186507.2835.1335995850679.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
forums@vbep19, says...

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

Only if your goal is to *only* send unmanned missions beyond LEO.

In my opinion, ISS is, above all else, an opportunity to learn how to
live and work in space. The experience gained will, hopefully, feed
into the next round of manned exploration missions.

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