macleod@drivax.DRI (MacLeod) (02/05/89)
In article <1989Feb3.115543.15693@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: :In article <293@corpane.UUCP: sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: : ::Wake up Paul! you aren't going into space, I doubt if I ever will. : :I *know* I'm not going into space -- for god's sake, why should I *want* :to? To spend my children's inheritance on an orbital vacation in my :old age (I'm now 29)? I'm 36, and I'd trade the rest of my life for one LEO, assuming I could take a stack of (old) Yes and Vangelis CDs along. Quality, not quantity, makes a life well-lived. Some individuals experience extreme emotions, bordering on the "religious", when contemplating the entry of man into space. I do believe that it is spiritual, of the *human* spirit, in the most sublime sense: it is something no animal would ever do, nor could it want to. Such sentiments usually remain in the background; when somebody does speak of them, they are typically considered irrelevant or foolishly sentimental. The fundamentally conservative values of those who oppose manned space flight are not to be questioned. Their values lead to all the satisfactions of animal nature - more comfort, more ease, a greater insulation from physical reality, and a homogenization of shared experience. There are those who feel that this is a valid goal for man, and there are others who find it about as nourishing as eating a printed picture of food. I wish the atmosphere were such that these larger issues could be discussed. Why should the human race have any goals at all? Why not use up all the consumables in our environment and die? What does the pursuit of goals imply? What sort of future are we creating? Michael Sloan MacLeod (amdahl!drivax!macleod)
dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) (02/06/89)
In article <4239@drivax.DRI> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes: >:I *know* I'm not going into space -- for god's sake, why should I *want* >:to? To spend my children's inheritance on an orbital vacation in my >:old age (I'm now 29)? > >I'm 36, and I'd trade the rest of my life for one LEO, assuming I could >take a stack of (old) Yes and Vangelis CDs along. Quality, not quantity, >makes a life well-lived. Your current life is so unpleasant that you'd sacrifice your remaining decades for one 90 minute orbit? Why, this is hell, nor are you out of it. And my condolences to your would-be widow and children, if they exist. >Some individuals experience extreme emotions, bordering on the "religious", >when contemplating the entry of man into space. I do believe that it is >spiritual, of the *human* spirit, in the most sublime sense: it is something >no animal would ever do, nor could it want to. Um, let's not commit the common philosophical error of confusing the individual with mankind in general. It is consistent for me to believe that people will eventually live in space and yet still think that it would be pointless for me, personally, to travel there. By the way, how would *your* going into space help achieve any goals, other than purely personal ones? >The fundamentally conservative values of those who oppose manned space flight >are not to be questioned. Once again, it should be noted that opposing manned spaceflight IN THE PRESENT (or, more precisely, opposing the appropriation of public funds to pay for manned spaceflight) does not mean opposing manned spaceflight for all time. Nor is it obviously true that manned spaceflight right now is necessary or even helpful in achieving a longterm goal of moving mankind into space. I hope my values -- whatever you perceive them to be -- are not above question. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu
dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) (02/06/89)
In article <4239@drivax.DRI>, macleod@drivax.DRI (MacLeod) writes: > I'm 36, and I'd trade the rest of my life for one LEO, assuming I could > take a stack of (old) Yes and Vangelis CDs along. Quality, not quantity, > makes a life well-lived. I find this statement to be astounding, if not appalling. Sure, ripping around the planet would be a blast, but dying for it? What could you possibly gain from one LEO that would be worth dying for? What if you cut a deal with our Soviet comrades, and at the end of the ninety minutes you decided the experience didn't match your expectations? I read a hauntingly similar statement in a _Time_ magazine article about legalizing controlled substances. A cocaine addict was commenting on what he would do if cocaine became legalized (and thus cheap): "I'd go out and buy the biggest pile of coke I could afford. Then I'd come home and snort it until I died. Only a true cocaine connoisseur can understand this." > The fundamentally conservative values of those who oppose manned space flight > ... lead to all the satisfactions of > animal nature - more comfort, more ease, a greater insulation from physical > reality, and a homogenization of shared experience. I am having trouble imagining exactly who you might be referring to. Does anyone in fact oppose [all] manned space flight [in principle]? Personally, I am all for permitting private individuals and collective ventures to loft any payloads they can afford to. Private interests should be free to select the most cost-effective and appropriate tools for obtaining a return on their space investments. But when support is coming from the public trough, the public is entitled to ask about the return on their space dollar. At present, manned ventures are (very roughly, I believe) ten times as expensive as unmanned ventures in terms of data and benefits returned. We might even go so far as to say that a certain manned program almost eliminated the US as a spacefaring nation. I don't know about other people who value return on public investment, but personally I don't (and don't want to) lead a life of ease and comfort. And surviving in space requires substantially greater insulation from physical reality than I have ever required. Cheers, Dan Mocsny dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu
rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) (02/07/89)
In Message: <659@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) says: >At present, manned ventures are (very roughly, I believe) ten times as >expensive as unmanned ventures in terms of data and benefits returned. Don't forget that manned flights provide some data NOT available from unmanned flights: How Humans can live/work in Space. This is important, since EVENTUALLY (hopefully before I'm too old...) There will be a need for a good amount of human labour in space (cheap & adaptable, not perfect but it's been pretty economical, and it'de be cheaper to have a person instead of a bunch of specialized gadgets) >We might even go so far as to say that a certain manned program almost >eliminated the US as a spacefaring nation. I wouldn't go that far, especially since even IF the Challenger disaster caused public opinion to go against manned space filght (In actuallity most of the people I talked too felt that NASA was taking too long to restart the shuttle program ) to the degree that the shuttle was discontinued. There would STILL be some sort of space program (I doubt that the Military would ask the soviets to put up U.S. spy satellites :-), not to mention that people like haveing the benifits of satellites (ie Trans-Atlantic Communications. Weather Fortcasting etc. TV, what would the news be like without any satellite photos. (The weather just wouldn't be as real for me ;-)
dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) (02/07/89)
In article <IXvVuBy00WB_43mYsp@andrew.cmu.edu>, rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) writes: > Don't forget that manned flights provide some data NOT available from > unmanned flights: How Humans can live/work in Space. True. However, we pay a considerable premium for this data. What exactly do we need to learn that we don't already know, and how will our current manned space priorities teach us these things? I was under the impression that many of the major unanswered questions about life in zero-g must await fundamental advances in physiology (e.g., understanding and preventing bone decalcification and muscle atrophy). Studying hibernating bears (which actually increase their lean body mass and bone density while hibernating) might be a more productive way to do this. What knowledge do we gain by, say, having a piloted shuttle? > This is > important, since EVENTUALLY (hopefully before I'm too old...) Hopefully you're pretty young now :-) > There > will be a need for a good amount of human labour in space (cheap & > adaptable, not perfect but it's been pretty economical, and it'de be > cheaper to have a person instead of a bunch of specialized gadgets) Humans will not have the slightest chance of surviving and being productive in space without that bunch of specialized gadgets. Human labor in space will not be cheap. Even if launch costs were to drop to zero, you still have to haul around and maintain a completely engineered environment. That cannot be cheap compared to terrestrial existence. Human labor costs in space will be at least ten to one thousand times as high as terrestrial labor costs (the latter figure is probably optimistic for the next several decades). Thus human labor productivity in space must reach levels far beyond any yet seen on earth. Manned space advocates must, paradoxically, engineer away the need for manual labor in space insofar as possible, if they (we) are to have a chance of establish an economically justifiable manned presence in space. Requiring space-suited human crews to assemble huge structures _by hand_ sounds like either astronautical feather-bedding or a prescription for economic collapse. Except on projects with phenomenally high payoffs. (Manual labor might always be a useful emergency resource.) Consider current trends in undersea development. Launch costs are essentially zero (just drop your ballasted submersible off a surface vessel), but the overhead required to maintain an environment for humans is driving a trend toward autonomous and tele-operated craft. Admittedly, teleoperation is simpler because the distances involved are less, but the payoff is higher when you build machines to serve people and not the other way around :-) The robotic and tele-operated technology we _must_ have to establish and maintain a manned presence is not yet mature. By supporting robust funding levels for unmanned missions, manned advocates will further their cause. By choking unmanned missions, they may well be delaying the advent of economically sound human space travel. I detect a parallel with certain threatened smokestack industries. The unions involved are caught in a dilemma. They realize they must allow labor productivity to increase for their industries to survive. In the long run, higher productivity means greater wealth and employment for everyone. In the short run, it means layoffs and dislocations. Space travel is all about taking the long view, so I thought. cheers, Dan Mocsny dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu
dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) (02/07/89)
In article <IXvVuBy00WB_43mYsp@andrew.cmu.edu> rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) writes: >>At present, manned ventures are (very roughly, I believe) ten times as >>expensive as unmanned ventures in terms of data and benefits returned. >Don't forget that manned flights provide some data NOT available from >unmanned flights: How Humans can live/work in Space. This is >important, since EVENTUALLY (hopefully before I'm too old...) There >will be a need for a good amount of human labour in space (cheap & >adaptable, not perfect but it's been pretty economical, and it'de be >cheaper to have a person instead of a bunch of specialized gadgets) Experience gained by having people work in space is only worthwhile if there is some prospect of profitably applying it in the reasonably near future. If we must wait too long to apply it, it isn't worth it, since the effective rate of return on the research investment is too low. Current manned activities in space seem to me to make sense only if we can expect launch costs to come down a LOT in the next decade or so. Sorry, but I don't see that happening, at least not in this country. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu
ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) (02/08/89)
In article <662@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes: [...] >The robotic and tele-operated technology we _must_ have to establish >and maintain a manned presence is not yet mature. [...] Gee, and I thought Mir didn't use robotics and tele-operated technology to maintain a manned presence in space ... are you shure _must_ is the right word? -- E. Michael Smith ems@apple.COM 'If you can dream it, you can do it' Walt Disney This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)
tron@wpi.wpi.edu (Richard G Brewer) (02/08/89)
In article <662@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes: >In article <IXvVuBy00WB_43mYsp@andrew.cmu.edu>, rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) writes: >> Don't forget that manned flights provide some data NOT available from >> unmanned flights: How Humans can live/work in Space. > >True. However, we pay a considerable premium for this data. What >exactly do we need to learn that we don't already know, and how will You both realize that this is, of course, an ancient, dog-eared, argument... -Rick +----------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+ | Richard G. Brewer (TRON) | Power through | rbrewer@wpi.bitnet | | WPI Box 149 | better design | tron@wpi.wpi.edu | | 100 Institute Rd. | and engineering. +--------------------+ | Worcester, Ma 01609-2280 +--------------------+ President: | | (508) 792-3231 | VaNDaL's SaCk | The Apple Guild | +----------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+ | . . . E N D O F L I N E . . . | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+
dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) (02/08/89)
In article <583@internal.Apple.COM>, ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) writes: > In article <662@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes: > >The robotic and tele-operated technology we _must_ have to establish > >and maintain a manned presence is not yet mature. > Gee, and I thought Mir didn't use robotics and tele-operated technology > to maintain a manned presence in space ... are you shure _must_ is > the right word? When I say "manned presence," I refer to something a bit more substantial than demonstration/research projects, and something that might eventually act as something other than an economic sink. Next time I will be more precise. Cheers, Dan Mocsny dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (02/10/89)
In article <665@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes: >> >The robotic and tele-operated technology we _must_ have to establish >> >and maintain a manned presence is not yet mature. >> Gee, and I thought Mir didn't use robotics and tele-operated technology >> to maintain a manned presence in space ... are you shure _must_ is >> the right word? > >When I say "manned presence," I refer to something a bit more substantial >than demonstration/research projects, and something that might eventually >act as something other than an economic sink... Fair enough... but you still haven't explained why robotics and teleoperation are so vital to it. To repeat Mike's question: are you sure "must" is the right word? -- Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology toast to comrade Van Allen!!" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
szabonj@fin (Nick Szabo) (02/10/89)
>In article <665@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes: >The robotic and tele-operated technology we _must_ have to establish >and maintain a manned presence is not yet mature. The "must" is correct. Sustained manned presence requires self-sufficiency. Mir is totally dependent on Earth for all food, water, replacement parts, new modules, etc. The same will be true for Freedom. As parasites of Earth they are bad models for space settlements. To be self sufficient, a settlement must obtain, or be able to obtain in a crunch, its habitat, food, water, machines, factories, etc. from materials in space. This requires: --Mines and mining equipment, to extract the thousands of minerals needed. --Many kinds of diverse and flexible factories, to produce all the parts needed for the construction and maintenence of the settlements, the care and feeding and quality of life of the inhabitants, and of course the construction and maintenence of the mines and factories. --A large network of exploratory vehicles, to optimize the use of solar system resources. --An interplanetary transportation system, to bring the resources together for use. To do these things economically in space will require a large degree of teleoperation and robotics. It will also require the porting of current Earth mining and manufacturing techniques to space environments (eg free fall and vacuum)--not a trivial task. These technologies are being developed slowly today. In NASA, this is done mostly in the unmanned program. The probe-builders at JPL et. al. are developing techniques for operating vehicles with long round-trip light times, in free fall and vacuum, in various radiation environments. These spacecraft have many mechanical parts: scanning platforms, adjustable solar arrays and antennae, fuel and coolant pumps and valves, and (on sample return vehicles) digging and soil processing equipment. In addition, advances in Earth-bound mining and manufacturing (the British Channel Tunnel diggers, stereo lithography, teleoperated ocean vehicles, etc.) are relevent to developing space settlement technology. The sustainable manned presence which would grow from such technology could be developed much faster if we put more of our space budget into basic research and unmanned probes, and more effort in general into scientific research. As for the dream: I share it. Reality does not wreck dreams, it gives us a way of making them come true. Be patient, be honest with yourself, and work hard for it. *Do* let the dream inspire you; *don't* let it get in the way of the careful thinking and effort that can make it reality. Nick Szabo szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu
dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) (02/10/89)
In article <1989Feb9.211549.19516@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article <665@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes: > >> >The robotic and tele-operated technology we _must_ have to establish > >> >and maintain a manned presence is not yet mature. > >When I say "manned presence," I refer to something a bit more substantial > >than demonstration/research projects, and something that might eventually > >act as something other than an economic sink... > > Fair enough... but you still haven't explained why robotics and teleoperation > are so vital to it. To repeat Mike's question: are you sure "must" is > the right word? I've read Nick Szabo's response to this question, and I believe he echoes my views here. I will make explicit the notion implicit in his words, that I also discussed about four articles back in this thread: human labor costs in space are likely to be anywhere from 1-3+ orders of magnitude higher than human labor costs on earth. Lower launch costs will help, but they cannot erase the permanent disadvantage resulting from having to engineer and cart around an artificial environment. High labor costs do not necessarily stop the show. To offset high labor costs, you need either a tremendous payoff on the project (e.g., the Alaska Pipeline), or you need high labor productivity. No doubt some space projects will produce high payoffs, but I don't believe we can safely count on this for largely autonomous space colonies. That leaves us with the option of boosting labor productivity. This approach, BTW, is (as Nick points out) the safest and most viable avenue to developing self-sustaining space colonies. Colonies that rely on high terrestrial returns to overcome their high costs will have a dangerous exposure to changing market forces. They may also, by their very success, depress commodity prices until their survival is endangered. To boost productivity, we must learn to think of humans in space as a precious resource, not as some sort of astronautical coolie labor. We must build a space work environment that maximizes the useful output from each human. We have to minimize (1) necessary hand labor, (2) time wasted in transit to and from worksites, (3) confusion due to lack of standardization, (4) unnecessary EVA's. High human resource utilization implies a high degree of careful planning and coordination to insure that every single effort counts and requires close to the minimum amount of time for the task. This is a difficult environment for terrestrial humans to envision, since our economies have historically been fairly profligate with labor. For example, note the political difficulties with implementing computer standards---in some ways this reflects a low cultural appreciation for labor productivity. Also consider suburban development patterns that increase the time each person must spend on travel. Don't forget the widespread practices of union featherbedding and other Luddite reactions to advancing technology. BTW, the word "Luddite" means "labor-preserving" as much as it implies anti-technological sentiment. Ned Lud did not smash the looms because he hated technology per se--he only wanted to keep his job. I envision the work environment in space consisting of a nucleus of broadly skilled and highly motivated humans surrounded by a fleet of semi-autonomous and tele-operated robots. Depending on the degree of autonomy, each human will monitor between 5 and 100 robots through a high-bandwidth VIVED (Virtual Visual Environment Display) and perhaps datagloves or force-feedback manipulators. The human supervisor will ignore robots that are functioning normally or in transit to and from worksites. When a robot breaks, gets in trouble, or faces a task it is not programmed for, the human will step in and guide its operation more closely, or send other robots to assist. The humans will also be responsible for designing field fixes, reprogramming, and otherwise raising their own productivity. The humans should find their jobs absorbing, rewarding, and just plain fun. After all, we all want to maximize our power and control over things. EVA's will be reserved for emergencies or, possibly, for recreation. Clearly, such an environment requires significant advances in the information and robotics technologies. Compared to these problems, the questions relating to boosters and such are mere details. I submit that the frustrated space fan should pursue a career in, say, the AI, workstation, robotics, or undersea development industries. The technologies vital to eventual space development are emerging in those fields. Moving them into space will be a natural extension. Cheers, Dan Mocsny dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (02/11/89)
In article <119@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@fin.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >>The robotic and tele-operated technology we _must_ have to establish >>and maintain a manned presence is not yet mature. > >The "must" is correct. Sustained manned presence requires self-sufficiency... Why? Name three settlements on *Earth* that are self-sufficient. Modern ones, not 17th-century ones. The ENTIRE UNITED STATES is not self-sufficient, at least not in its "normal operating mode", as witness the concern over strategic materials obtained from unstable areas like Africa. (We won't even mention the Persian Gulf... :-)) The crucial requirement for sustained manned presence is not total self- sufficiency, but enough self-sufficiency to keep necessary trade with Earth down to a manageable level. Clearly a colony needs either good recycling or local supplies for air and water, and local production of basic foods and structural materials is at least highly desirable. There is absolutely no reason why a colony should be considered non-viable if it doesn't make its own semiconductors or machine tools; most countries on Earth don't. (The state Nick Szabo lives in probably doesn't, never mind the city he lives in.) Unless a colony finds something fabulously valuable, it's going to have a serious trade deficit for a long time... but in case you haven't noticed, the United States has one of those too. If we assume that there is a useful amount of ice in lunar polar craters -- not ridiculous but not at all certain either -- it clearly is possible to start a lunar colony with today's technology. Before Challenger, in fact, there was a proposal to do exactly that in 1992, as a commemoration of the 500th anniversary of Columbus. It would have been within reach of (major) private funding, given extensive reliance on donated labor and materials... but the reliance on six donated shuttle flights killed it. The people proposing it were pros and had done their homework; they were not mindless space cadets. It would have involved risks, but could have worked. Teleoperation and robotics would certainly *help*, but they aren't *needed* for space colonies. -- The Earth is our mother; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology our nine months are up. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
szabonj@right (Nick Szabo) (02/12/89)
In article <1989Feb10.203043.14958@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <119@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@fin.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >>>The robotic and tele-operated technology we _must_ have to establish >>>and maintain a manned presence is not yet mature. >> >>The "must" is correct. Sustained manned presence requires self-sufficiency... > >Why? Name three settlements on *Earth* that are self-sufficient. My message, in context, said *potential* self-sufficiency. Any small community that has farmland, woodland, machine shops, and actual or potential access to local wind, solar, hydro, coal or oil, is potentially self-sufficient. There are thousands of such communities on Earth. Space settlements must be *more* self-sufficient, because the transportation system from Earth to space is more complex and fragile. How would dependent space settlements fair if it were discovered that rockets destroy the ozone, or if WWIII broke out (conventional or nuclear), if the powers controlling the system decided there were more urgent priorities than spending billions on distant space habitats, or (fill in your own bad-news scenario). >Clearly a colony needs either good recycling >or local supplies for air and water, and local production of basic foods >and structural materials is at least highly desirable. Agreed. And we do *not* have the technology to do this. We do not know how to conduct mining or manufacturing operations in vacuum or less than 1 gravity. It is still an expensive operation to scoop up a few ounces of soil on Mars. There are thousands of refining and manufacturing operations that go into making structural materials from ore, and we do not know how to do any of them in space. We do not even know where we can find good ore--the most likely source, asteroids, have never been explored due to lack of funding. These are the kinds of new technology and discoveries we need. Spending gigabucks putting a few lucky people in LEO does not teach us these things. Exploring the length and breadth of the solar system, and working on advancing science and technology, is where we need to go. >If we assume that there is a useful amount of ice in lunar polar craters -- >not ridiculous but not at all certain either -- it clearly is possible to >start a lunar colony with today's technology. >there was a proposal to do exactly that in 1992, as a commemoration of the >500th anniversary of Columbus. It would have been within reach of (major) >private funding, given extensive reliance on donated labor and materials... >but the reliance on six donated shuttle flights killed it. This is off by several orders of magnitude. You can't put even one space station module, with supporting solar cells, batteries, and several weeks of food, on the Moon, with six shuttles, even if we had a lunar landing vehicle (a $5+ billion development in and of itself). The estimates from NASA for a *minimal* lunar base: about 10 people huddled in space station modules covered by dirt, with no mining or manufacturing operations--run around $100 billion. There have never been any reasonable estimates made for mining operations on the Moon, whether they be the alleged ice, LOX, or whatever, because we don't know how to build mining eqipment that can operate in vacuum and high temperature and radiation extremes. An ice-mining operation would increase the price-- and the base would still be nowhere near self-sufficiency, because all building materials, machines, parts, most food and chemicals except water would have to come from Earth. Nor would such a base accomplish anything that could not be accomplished by unmanned vehicles for 100 times less expenditure ($20 billion). Nick Szabo szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu
dave@whoops.celerity (Dave Smith) (02/13/89)
There has been a lot of noise lately about how tele-operated and autonomous robots can do the same job as a person on the spot. My question for the group is: Has anyone here ever done any work with teleoperated machinery, and, if so, how easy/difficult is it? David L. Smith FPS Computing, San Diego ucsd!celerity!dave "Repent, Harlequin!," said the TickTock Man
kevin@gtisqr.UUCP (Kevin Bagley) (02/14/89)
In article <1989Feb7.093222.6406@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >In article <IXvVuBy00WB_43mYsp@andrew.cmu.edu> rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) writes: > >>>At present, manned ventures are (very roughly, I believe) ten times as >>>expensive as unmanned ventures in terms of data and benefits returned. > >>Don't forget that manned flights provide some data NOT available from >>unmanned flights: How Humans can live/work in Space. This is >>important > >Experience gained by having people work in space is only worthwhile if >there is some prospect of profitably applying it in the reasonably >near future. [Bit and chunks removed from above, but I hope not out of context.] Paul, With this philosphy, we should abolish all the large aperture telescopes, radio telescopes, particle research, robotic planetary exploration, and a host of other fairly esoteric studies, since profitability is by no means expected in the near future in any of these areas. I hate it when elimination of scientific studies is based on whether or not you will get as many bucks back as you put in. This is not Science, it is capitalism and belongs in the corporate office. No, I'm not against capitalism, but science Must not come and go based on profit, or we will end up with a science that specializes in nothing but coffee makers and microwave ovens. -- _____ Kevin Bagley Global Tech. Int'l Inc., Mukilteo WA 98275 206-742-9111 )___) __ _ _ UUCP:uw-beaver!uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr!kevin _/___) (__(__(_)_/_)_ ARPA:uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr!kevin@beaver.cs.washington.edu _______________/ Disclaimer... "I did not say this. I am not here."
dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) (02/15/89)
In article <638@hindmost.gtisqr.UUCP> kevin@hindmost.UUCP (Kevin Bagley) writes: >>Experience gained by having people work in space is only worthwhile if >>there is some prospect of profitably applying it in the reasonably >>near future. >Paul, >With this philosphy, we should abolish all the large aperture telescopes, >radio telescopes, particle research, robotic planetary exploration, and >a host of other fairly esoteric studies, since profitability is by no >means expected in the near future in any of these areas. I hate it >when elimination of scientific studies is based on whether or not >you will get as many bucks back as you put in. I was not arguing that scientific projects should be judged on direct economic payoffs. First of all, I wasn't criticizing *science*, I was criticizing "experience", that nebulous thing that putting men into space is supposed to give us. This is largely technical knowhow, I think, and technology development is subject to economic criticism. Science should be judged on whether it helps answer questions of central importance, not just on economic grounds. Unmanned exploration of the solar system and the larger cosmos clearly does this, even if it has no obvious direct payoff. The questions answered are so connected to more mundane problems that indirect payoffs are inevitable. For example, it would clearly be helpful to know how the Earth was formed; this would have ramifications throughout geology. To understand this we need to study the rest of the solar system. The science that has been proposed for the space station is not, in my opinion, of the same importance. It seems to me that it has been justified on more utilitarian grounds -- understanding how liquids behave in microgravity may help in future space manfacturing, or biological experiments may help in sending people to Mars. Economic criticism IS justified for these, I think. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu