tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (12/14/89)
In article <1989Dec13.044849.12140@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >>>1755 EST, Dec 14, 1972: human >>>exploration of space terminates >> >>After all, why send humans when Soviets will do? > >Send them where? On death-defying missions into the depths of space, >300km up? The human *exploration* of space ended with Apollo 17. Low >Earth orbit was quite well explored rather earlier. Visited != explored. LEO has been a locus of convenience for things staring at the earth (satellites) or contemplating their own navels (Mercury, Gemini) or heading farther out (Apollo) -- only rarely (Skylab, Mir, certain STS missions) has it been explored itself. We are just beginning to learn some very basic things about that environment, as witness the SciAm "glow" article and the LDEF excitement. By the way, 300km up is quite as "death defying" as the lunar surface. Every space fatality has occurred lower than 300km. (All fatalities period, come to think of it!) The notion of "exploration" that says human bootprints are all that count is essentially antique, yet many supposedly forward-looking space enthusiasts embrace it. Bootprints are a prestige frill, good for melodrama and TV specials, but a suited human is a poor data gatherer, and the billion-dollar labyrinth of supporting technology it takes to get him there is an astonishingly inefficient investment for the data returned. In the 80's, American and Soviet manned exploration of space was confined to building infrastructure while deep probes revolutionized our picture of the Solar System. In the 90's with the Great Observatories and the next generation of deep probes, our detailed exploration of the universe will "really" begin. (With any luck, each generation will feel it is "really" beginning this task!) One hopes that before the 90's end we will move to the next phase in human research on orbit and on the Moon. I suspect someone is going to have to kick our aerospace bureaucracy in the pants before America participates meaningfully, however. Everyone seems to want to kick Moondust around, but I notice very few proposals to send human crews on a Solar Polar mission or out to explore the heliopause! Any volunteers for a personal visit to the source of the Cosmic Background radiation?? I mean come on, can't humans do this stuff better than yucky unmanned hardware?? :-) -- "UNIX should be used :: Tom Neff <tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET> or as an adjective." -- AT&T :: ...uunet!bfmny0!tneff (UUCP only)
leech@cezanne.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) (12/14/89)
In article <14994@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: >enthusiasts embrace it. Bootprints are a prestige frill, good for >melodrama and TV specials, but a suited human is a poor data gatherer, >and the billion-dollar labyrinth of supporting technology it takes to >get him there is an astonishingly inefficient investment for the data >returned. Someday I'd like to see some economic analysis backing up this frequently made assertion. It may be true for a subset of interesting missions and means, but I don't think it's valid to generalize as above. Marginal mission cost/#scientific papers from the Apollo and Luna programs would be an interesting number, for example. I suspect Harrison Schmidt was a better data gatherer than Luna 16 by any criteria. And there's clearly some desire to have humans operate their own experiments in LEO, witness Spacelab. >Everyone seems to want to kick Moondust around, but I notice very few >proposals to send human crews on a Solar Polar mission or out to explore >the heliopause! Robots are better suited to remote sensing missions than in situ exploration, so I don't find this especially surprising. But even for these types of missions, there are many times when having humans available would be useful - diagnosing the Voyager scan platform without lightlag delays cutting into the Saturn encounter data, then fixing it; reorienting the Phobos probe after losing Earth lock; quicker response to targets of opportunity all come to mind. Then there are all those remote sensing experiments conducted from Skylab, Shuttle, and Mir. Sending up the oceanographer (oops, forgot his name, Jean something) is one of the better examples. -- Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ ``Those what cannot remedy the past can pretend to repeal it." - Attributed to Santa Ana by Howland Owl
pasek@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Michael A. Pasek) (12/14/89)
In article <11154@thorin.cs.unc.edu> leech@cezanne.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) writes: >In article <14994@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: >> .....Bootprints are a prestige frill.......... >....Robots are better suited to remote sensing missions........ From my perspective (No, I'm not a "scientist" with 20 PhD's ;-) ), the ONLY reason for doing anything in space is to allow us (read "humans") to someday be able to travel and live there. All the preliminaries, such as "data gathering" or "exploration" or "research", are just that: PRELIMINARIES. If you want to get the public behind space exploration, then keep the final goal (human travel/settlement in space) at the highest priority at all times. All the other goals (heliosphere exploration, extra-solar exploration, etc.) will happen -- not as ends in themselves, but as a byproduct of human space travel and settlement. Just my $.02. M. A. Pasek Switching Software Development NCR Comten, Inc. (612) 638-7668 CNG-er-PU4-er-NPM Development 2700 N. Snelling Ave. pasek@c10sd3.StPaul.NCR.COM Roseville, MN 55113 toward the
steve@groucho.ucar.edu (Steve Emmerson) (12/15/89)
leech@cezanne.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) writes: [Talking about the advantages of manned space exploration] >Then >there are all those remote sensing experiments conducted from Skylab, >Shuttle, and Mir. Sending up the oceanographer (oops, forgot his >name, Jean something) is one of the better examples. As a former physical-oceanographer and member of the Satellite Remote-Sensing Group at the University of Miami, I can tell you that he learned nothing we didn't already know -- from remote-sensing. --Steve Emmerson steve@unidata.ucar.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (12/16/89)
In article <14994@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: >The notion of "exploration" that says human bootprints are all that >count is essentially antique... Ah, here we have the heart of the matter. I'm afraid I qualify as an antique, then: I cling to the notion that studying an island from afar, exploring it, and gathering data for a paper on its beetle population are three distinct activities, and the first and third should not be called "exploration". The first is reasonable preparation for exploration; the third is a common activity in areas that have been explored. NASA, in its ceaseless drive to round up public support, has slapped the phrase "space exploration" on almost anything that takes place in space. I prefer a less sloppy definition. >In the 80's, American and Soviet manned exploration of space was >confined to building infrastructure... What do you mean, "American and Soviet"? The Soviets are the only ones who have been building infrastructure. I can't think of a single item of progress on infrastructure by the US in this decade. Unless you're being picky enough to count the shuttle's transition from "almost ready to fly occasionally" to "flying occasionally" quite early in the decade. >Everyone seems to want to kick Moondust around, but I notice very few >proposals to send human crews on a Solar Polar mission or out to explore >the heliopause! Probably because we're still trying to get back to the point where we can kick moondust around... :-( >Any volunteers for a personal visit to the source of >the Cosmic Background radiation?? ... If we're allowed to make a few stops for sightseeing along the way, you betcha! :-) When did you develop your faster-than-light drive? (Being polite, I assume that Tom wouldn't call for volunteers unless he had a way to carry out the trip. ;-)) -- 1755 EST, Dec 14, 1972: human | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology exploration of space terminates| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu