Blasphemy

[youngsww]

As a little beginner astronomer who looks out his little scope and enjoys easy, light-polluted sights, I have great trouble with major issues of space. I wish to start a diatribe to help me with the great problems I have with space travel.

We were lucky to, in an ill-conceived egotistical race, land on the dead, dusty moon before the Rooskies. That was a long ago. We learned wonderful things, both about our satellite and our capabilities. Now so many years later, our Leader is talking about letting the Hubble rot away while we put more people on the dead, well researched place we were on decades ago. For what purpose??

The Hubble (unmanned) has given us information about our universe unbelievably unmatched, unbelievably unexpected and artistically unbelievable. The (unmanned) Martian Rovers have not only captured the imagination of the world but given us data of this distant planet and far, far beyond their expected life-expectancy.

So, could someone PLEASE tell me what can we learn about our universe better by sending out warm bodies (which require sophisticated support systems) rather than scientific probes??

Why, in this time of budget crunches, do we need to send people to Mars, when probes are far more efficient? Bragging rights??

I understand that uncomprensiblely large numbers and our universe go hand-in-hand. Could someone PLEASE explain to me the reason why humans need to be in space (as opposed to robots) at such astronomical costs to the taxpayer in order for us to gain a better understanding of out universe?

Someone out there more intelligent than I am has the answer...could you PLEASE share it with me?

John Young

[Jon Hickman]

Someone out there more intelligent than I am has the answer...could you PLEASE share it with me?

John Young

Because.

[youngsww]

Someone out there more intelligent than I am has the answer...could you PLEASE share it with me?

John Young

Because.

Thank you for that well researched, carefully thought out, insightful analysis, Jon.

John Young

[Jon Hickman]

My pleasure, John. I'm glad I could be there for you.

[Mike Fischer]

Floating bananas and nerve-wrecking launches and reentrys attract far more press than actual scientific discovery. Deep Impact got plenty of press when they could talk about stadium sized craters. Has anyone seen any press on actual scientific discovery other than on Universe Today or the like?

Perhaps we can help with writing the drama...

"Standing on the fifth step of the ladder, the astronomer blatantly ignores the warning not to stand on this step. The ladder teeters... Will she fall to crushed vertebraes? Will she fracture her skull? Other than laboratory tests, we are very unsure whether the ladder can withstand the off-centered forces and not toppel over as she leans to peer into the eyepiece. Wow! I think she did it. Stepping down from the ladder victorious in this tremendous mission, we can all breathe a sigh of relief. What a success! She aimed the telescope, risked life and limb to position herself in an observing position, and--oh yeah--confirmed the discovery of a new comet!"

[youngsww]

The same comet she could have found standing on the ground with a different type scope, or with a more sturdy ladder taller than she needed.

I am afraid I am missing your point.

What USABLE, PRACTICAL (not just "interesting and educational") information will we get spending billions to land a warm body on the moon or Mars as opposed to, oh, say, hiring more cops and teachers and paying them better? Or feeding the starving and sheltering the homeless and healing the poor uninsured?

In the business world we expect ROI, return on investment. What is the ROI here? How will the quality of life for ALL of us earthings (not just scientists) be positively affected?

John

[Jon Hickman]

Hey, now, remember we got Tang from the earlier programs!

[Dick Jacobson]

From a hard-headed, practical point of view, I think you're absolutely right, John. I don't know of any scientific task that astronauts do that couldn't be done more cost-effectively by machines. If it were up to me, we'd spend a lot more on robotic missions, have rovers on all the planets (well maybe not Jupiter) and space telescopes far exceeding Hubble.

Having said that, would I shut down the manned space program completely? I don't think so. Maybe Elon Musk put it best when a reporter asked him why he's taking all the money he earned on PayPal and spending it on space exploration. "Because I believe it is man's destiny to live in space." (I don't remember his exact words.) We are still taking the first baby steps into space. Some day, maybe 500 or 1000 years from now, ordinary people will be able to spend the weekend on Mars just for the hell of it. It's exciting to be a small part of an unknown and limitless future.

If we get back to the Moon in 2018, will we be bored with it in 2019? I don't know, but it will be interesting to find out. Many of the people who got bored with Apollo in 1970 are now dead or in nursing homes. I'm not quite there yet. Apollo got boring because it seemed like we were doing the same thing over and over again, sending a couple more astronauts to collect some more rocks. Maybe if we start building a base at the lunar south pole it will give more of a sense of purpose. Also, the fuzzy black-and-white video didn't help. We need HDTV and webcams, maybe that will make it more interesting. Note that it seems natural to use the pronoun "we" even though I will never get there personally. Having humans involved in exploration makes us feel more personally involved.

As for Mars, I think that's a long, long way in the future. You need to be confident that nothing will go seriously wrong on a three-year, complicated voyage. The International Space Station astronauts nearly ran out of food because the previous crew got the munchies, and the oxygen generator keeps breaking down. Simple problems like this would be fatal on a Mars trip. Mars is fine as a long-term goal, but I wouldn't spend a nickel on it today (except for robotic exploration.)

Human spaceflight is a romantic, impractical endeavor today. But if you wait until there isn't one hungry person left in the world before you do something frivolous, you'll never get anywhere.

[youngsww]

Maybe Elon Musk put it best when a reporter asked him why he's taking all the money he earned on PayPal and spending it on space exploration. "Because I believe it is man's destiny to live in space." (I don't remember his exact words.) We are still taking the first baby steps into space. Some day, maybe 500 or 1000 years from now, ordinary people will be able to spend the weekend on Mars just for the hell of it. It's exciting to be a small part of an unknown and limitless future.

Good point, that Elon Musk put up Elon Musk's money, not unwilling taxpayer's. He also may think his eventual destiny is to live on the moon. I doubt you'd get a plurality of taxpayers to agree to that notion. Are we running out of room so fast that we need to send future generations to the moon to live? Do we need to spend so much tax money NOW just so some ordinary Joe (or Jon) in the future can take a weekend jaunt to the moon? Why can't these baby steps (enormously expensive ones) be taken a little later after we've gotten our own screwed up world a little more fixed.

We have learned tremendous things from probes, from earth and space-based telescopes and from robots. I can't think of a good reason to put any human into space, with the exception of a shuttle system to service satellites and telescopes.

[Jon Hickman]

Why can't these baby steps (enormously expensive ones) be taken a little later after we've gotten our own screwed up world a little more fixed.

Not really taking one side or t'other, but taken to its logical extreme this approach would have us still living in Spain, or Portugal, or England, or France, or... Robert Browning said: "Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp" (or something pretty much like that!). The point being that there is a natural desire to explore, to find out "what's out there?"

This drive lead Columbus or Erikson or which ever version of who discovered what you care to put forward to discover this "new land" today called America. (As a person with Native American heritage I pass by the obvious observation that it was already discovered by the people who were already here!) The same drive lets us build a Hubble telescope, which, has now outlived its original intended life. (Not to mention the price to design, build, implament and repair which COULD have been spent to feed the poor....)

A fellow I know pretty well once said: "The poor you shall always have among you." Now, I'm not suggesting that we do nothing to help those less fortunate, but some of todays "miracle cures" come from discoveries made by astronauts, wearing silly suits (drinking Tang) and floating around in space.

[rbubany]

Apollo got boring because it seemed like we were doing the same thing over and over again, sending a couple more astronauts to collect some more rocks. Maybe if we start building a base at the lunar south pole it will give more of a sense of purpose. Also, the fuzzy black-and-white video didn't help. We need HDTV and webcams, maybe that will make it more interesting.

Ah, but this time around we would have CNN reporters covering the story, creating new news, identifying corruption, and entrancing us with their probabilities that someone might die. Better than any soap opera.

If we could put Wolfe B. up there, it might be worth the investment.

[Gomanson]

You're using the example of poverty as a reason not to spend money on human space exploration. Well won't both issues be taken care of as soon as we start sending the poor to work off-world. That is...until the Nexus 6 comes along and cuases problems of a different sort

Seriously though- I've always supported any type of space exploration (robotic or human) the government is willing to fund. As a previous post pointed out, if we waited til all our problems are solved before expanding and exploring, it will never happen. We should be thankful we live under the government we do (I might get it for this) because where our tax money is being spent is **relatively** public and **relatively** not a lot is wasted. (i.e. as compared to many other governments through out history and the globe.) We have far less to worry about as far as allocation of resources as did, say, the ancient Egyptians. Whole years of their GNP went toward the building of the pyramids so a handful of rich guys could have cool tombs. That's a far cry from a small amount of our taxes going to something that brings excitement and awe to the entire world.

[benhuset]

We need to send people for the same reason we have grad students doing earth bound science.

People can FIX things and change the experiment while its running
to get new and unplanned data.

When you can run you earth bound lab without people we can talk about running the space program without people.

Actually this is a total waste of time argument thread.

Uncrewed probes MER, Cassini require ROOMS full of people @ JPL
to make them run and nobody has gone into space without a machine yet. There is NO SUCH THING as uncrewed missions. just remote controlled crewed missions.

--Ben

[youngsww]

Actually this is a total waste of time argument thread.


--Ben

Dick, Ross, Ron, SaVaGe, I am sorry I wasted your time with this thread!

John

[wkocken]

I am sorry I wasted your time with this thread!

John, don't apologize for "wasting time" on this thread. Not everyone thinks that humans in space is a slam dunk choice.
Bill

[rbubany]

I am sorry I wasted your time with this thread!

Nothing was wasted. I enjoyed following along and reflecting on the different points of view!

[mlfj4901]

Greetings,

I think humans in space is a great idea. It's not always the most economically sound choice, and sometimes it doesn't yield signifigantly greater scientific results than unmanned er remotely controlled missions. Yet I still think it's the best choice.

Send the probes and robots first, then send the people. If it's some super long science fiction mission like to a star system, then sending people isn't my first choice. If we're talking about near future (100 years or so) plausible missions say to Jupiter's moons, then send humans.

Why?

Because.

As far as the poverty situation goes. I think there is more than enough money to greatly reduce poverty, not cure it, as there will always be a select few who are self destructive. The problem isn't enough money it's the politics and the system. Most of America's budget problems have to do with the "spend your budget or lose it" philosphy the local, state, and federal governments have. Having been a former welfare recipient I understand the system is designed to keep you on it.

Heck if money is the only problem close some of the corporate tax loopholes and you could fund a manned mission to Pluto.

Seriously though as people such as that Paypal guy help evicerate the bloated evil beauracratic money waster that is our space program, putting humans in space will be less of a curse and more of a blessing.

-matt

[Jon Hickman]

Dick, Ross, Ron, SaVaGe, I am sorry I wasted your time with this thread!

John

hmmm...does that mean you're NOT sorry for wasting MY time, or that you didn't waste my time???

[youngsww]

No, Jo n, it's just that your reponses to this thread never exceeded two short sentances, so I ASSUMED little of your time was wasted!!!!!.

John Young

[Jon Hickman]

Now, here's a thought for you, JoHn. If you intend to waste my time, but I am actually interested in the topic you intend to waste my time with, is my time really wasted, and, more importantly, will it make noise?

Jon