roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) (02/10/89)
>From: cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!jmckerna@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu >The point I've reiterated for three postings now is that manned space R&D is >important, so if the money can be found it must be persued, even though it >is much more expensive than unmanned. Unmanned space R&D is just as important >and so must be persued too, though with less money because a productive >program requires less. >John L. McKernan. Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O. This seems like a reasonable argument, though the precise numbers are open to debate. I would like to see a slightly larger percentage spent on unmanned exploration, but the US is under intense pressure to catch up to the USSR in manned exploration. (Usually not stated is the point that there may be certain situations in which it makes the most economic sense to have few or no launches for an extended period in order to concentrate on the development of better technologies, with time for learning by experience later on. Humans are generally impatient, and want some kind of results NOW, if not sooner.) A problem arises when things are set up so all launches are manned launches, to keep the astronauts occupied and to further justify manned launches. This was largely the case before the Challenger explosion, the result being that exploration, military, and communications payloads were dependent on manned launches. I hope this is less true now. I think it could be argued that manned exploration for the time being should concentrate on adapting humans to space and on things that humans can do more efficiently than remote devices. Manned space travel at present is largely an investment in developing an expanded capability for more extensive missions in the future. A question to those who feel that all current space exploration should be unmanned: The US and the USSR have both sent out a fair number of unmanned scientific probes, but it is my impression that the US is ahead, or at least even, on the development and deployment of advanced scientific probes. On the other hand, the USSR has placed a much greater emphasis on manned missions, and many people claim that the US is "hopelessly behind" in space exploration, citing as their chief argument the higher average human occupation of space by the Soviets. Is the USSR wasting its money? And if manned exploration for its own sake is insignificant, is the US really not all that far behind? A further philosophical question: Postulate some group (the USSR, extrasolar aliens, etc.) which through exploration has acquired all the information on space that US space science would be likely to obtain in the next century or two. Assume this group is willing to sell this information to the US at a rate far lower than the cost for the US to obtain it by actual exploration, so low that it would not place any strain on the US budget. Further assume that the US has agreed to buy this information. Now, what should be the future course of action for the US? Possibilities: 1) Cancel future US exploration to save money. 2) Buy the information, but continue to explore, just to have something to do, or to prove that we can do it. 3) Concentrate on human presence in space and/or exploitation of space resources. This is just a question about what people would prefer if the acquisition of information were no longer an issue. Given these conditions, I think I would vote for (3). John Roberts roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov
szabonj@fin (Nick Szabo) (02/10/89)
In article <8902100153.AA02978@cmr.icst.nbs.gov> roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes: > >>From: cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!jmckerna@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu >>The point I've reiterated for three postings now is that manned space R&D is >>important, so if the money can be found it must be persued, even though it >>is much more expensive than unmanned. Unmanned space R&D is just as important >>and so must be persued too, though with less money because a productive >>program requires less. >>John L. McKernan. Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O. > >This seems like a reasonable argument !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????????????????????????????????? Two posters now have advocated putting money in *unproductive* ventures, for the very reason that they are unproductive, and skimping on productive ventures! This sort of thinking scares the bejeebers out of folks who are considering investing their money in space. Space cannot flourish as a welfare case. Space settlement will not come about through ten-plus-billion-dollar ventures which lack both short-term and long-term rationale. Government-funded, diverse research and exploration, paralleled by private use of its fruits, makes both historical and economic sense, in both the short- and long- terms. Every private industry we have in space--communications, remote sensing, navigation, etc.--is teleoperated, and is the result of unmanned spaceflight research. This will remain largely true until such time as the unmanned program provides the discoveries (of ET resources) and technology (mining, manufacturing, etc.) needed to develop self-sustaining space habitats. >the USSR has placed a much greater emphasis on manned >missions, and many people claim that the US is "hopelessly behind" in >space exploration, citing as their chief argument the higher average human >occupation of space by the Soviets. The USSR does *not* place more emphasis on manned missions; they place more emphasis on space in general. Their proportion of manned spaceflights is lower than that of the US. They send far fewer (percentagewise) missions beyond Earth orbit--perhaps a greater emphasis on military (short-term) at the expense of scientific research (long-term). Also note that Soviet teleoperation is primitive--witness what happened to their Phobos probes. > Is the USSR wasting its money? Maybe, maybe not. They are definitely making advances in nuclear-powered radars to detect our subs. They have ASATs, an ABM ring around Moscow, an aggressive SDI research program, and a heavy-lift booster that can be mass-produced. If the Soviets are going to take control of space, these are the relevant technologies. Mir is dramatic but unimportant. The Soviets are much farther away than the West from widely exploring deep space, or settling space on a self-sustaining basis. Nick Szabo szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu
kpmancus@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Keith P. Mancus) (02/12/89)
> > A question to those who feel that all current space exploration should be > unmanned: The US and the USSR have both sent out a fair number of unmanned > scientific probes, but it is my impression that the US is ahead, or at > least even, on the development and deployment of advanced scientific probes. > On the other hand, the USSR has placed a much greater emphasis on manned > missions, and many people claim that the US is "hopelessly behind" in > space exploration, citing as their chief argument the higher average human > occupation of space by the Soviets. Is the USSR wasting its money? And if > manned exploration for its own sake is insignificant, is the US really > not all that far behind? > roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov Well, I am not one of those who feels that *ALL* current exploration should be unmanned, but I'll answer you question: we are dreadfully far behind in unmanned exploration. Admittedly the Soviets seem to have a much higher probe failure rate than we do, but at least they are moving forward. Where was the U.S. probe of Halley's comet? Why are Galileo and the Space Telescope still on the ground? When is Cassini going up? Some of these were delayed by the idiotic dependence the Shuttle as the launcher; some were cancelled due to lack of funds; some are going to be highly impractical to implement because our lack of big boosters forces tricks like *double* gravity whips via Jupiter and Venus to get to the destination. (This was said by Professor Meese, currently teaching a course in space flight engineering. He formerly worked at JPL.) Also, funding for unmanned exploration is very hard to get. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ -Keith Mancus <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu> <- preferred <kpmancus@pucc.BITNET>