missions to die for

Should only high risk (goals) manned missions be undertaken? All other
missions should be done unmanned (robotically)?






-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Lynndel Humphreys wrote:
Should only high risk (goals) manned missions be undertaken? All other
missions should be done unmanned (robotically)?



Good question. What is considered high enough risk to endanger lives?
I've been debating this with coworkers for a while. Does the science
onboard the ISS (assuming there was actual science being performed)
justify the risk? Yes...if it leads to a cure for cancer or some
undiscovered phenomenon. No...if all it leads to is better ball
bearings for the John Deere company.

How about exploration? Yes...if we are actually exploring (viz. the
explorations of the north & south pole...although these were also for
the glory of the explorers country), climbing Mt. Everest or Landing on
the Moon (this had the primary goal of beating the USSR).

How about for the sake of just taking baby steps? We'll need the
experience if we're going to get to MARS. I say yes, it's worth the risk.

But it's not worth the risk and money if all we're doing is treading
space. NASA needs a clear roadmap that justifies the risk.

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 10:13:01 -0400, "Lynndel Humphreys"
wrote:

Should only high risk (goals) manned missions be undertaken? All other
missions should be done unmanned (robotically)?

Who gets to define "high risk", and how do you decide which goals are
worthy of how much risk?

No, that's a slippery slope you definitely don't want to go down.

Brian

"Lynndel Humphreys" wrote in message
...

Should only high risk (goals) manned missions be undertaken? All other
missions should be done unmanned (robotically)?

Humans should fly into space but their odds of survival should be about
999/1,000 in low earth orbit flights of returning home alive.

The original goal for the shuttle was 1/100,000 flights would result in loss
of crew and vehicle and that is how NASA management was able to rationalize
their way out of an escape system and into shirt sleeves. Some here have
suggested the astronauts have less value than the vehicle. If NASA abandons
the Shuttles, then what will that say about the value of the crews' lives?

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

Lynndel Humphreys wrote:
Should only high risk (goals) manned missions be undertaken? All other
missions should be done unmanned (robotically)?






-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

The generally accepted reason for sending people to space today falls
under the category of "improving access to LEO", presumably as a stage
for further as yet undetermined missions.

The problems is that there is no long range goal that is supported by
Congress or even the public.

So, on the most basic level, we can
1) risk lives for some unstated goal, or
2) choose not to risk lives, implicitly stating there is no goal.

As much as I desire to see further exploration of our solar system, I
don't believe I can support the risk of life and the waste of money if
we choose not to have a long-term vision.

Should only high risk (goals) manned missions be undertaken? All other
missions should be done unmanned (robotically)?

I belive the answer is we should fly every mission the crew is willing
to fly. The more often we (humanity) go into space, the more we will
learn. Knowledge is power. Perhaps not today, but maybe for my
children.
--buck