End manned spaceflight now

The cost in lives and fortune that NASA has and continues to spend on manned spaceflight is a scandal.
Billions for training facilities, jets for astronauts to fly around in and administrative overhead are a waste.
If Richard Branson, Burt Rutan and the Russians want to charge people for a trip to space, I'm all for it.
But it serves no purpose as a country to fund it. What is the scientific rationale for this activity? Here's what you will hear from supporters:

1."The public will not support space unless there's people going there." The Hubble Space Telecope and Mars rovers have brought images back, that's as much as astronauts would do for the rest of us.

2. "We have to know what the effects of prolonged wieghtlessness are if we are to leave Earth and head out, as a species into space."
We know. Sticking needles and doing medical experiments in orbit has not produced any significant advance in medicine, in spite of the claims by NASA enthusiasts that a cure for cancer is waiting if we just put the money into labs on the ISS.

3. "We need to have hands-on presence to explore the moon and planets properly"
Surgeons already use teleoperated devices to handle delicate medical procedures on patients halfway around the world. The same can be done in space.

If we stop the stupidity of boosting people into a can that relembles the activitities of a hamster running around a wheel, we might actually be able to fund robotic vehicles that could yield some real explorative results, say, images of planets orbiting nearby stars, the compostion of Oort cloud and asteroid belts, and a better understanding of the universe.

Sorry, but manned spaceflights are the future, especially when we get propulsion that allows us to paddle around the solar system.

It is a sorry future if that's the case.

Try imagining a hundred moon rovers, launched from a current sized non-human rated rocket, that you could pay to drive around the surface.

Manned spaceflight limits participation in exploration to a very few individuals, and has demonstrated no advantage over robotics.

Thanks but no thanks, I'd rather risk it and go in person. Manned Space Exploration is the future. Robotic Exploration can really only engage the imagination so far, then it become ho-hum. Putting a man on Mars however would be a huge boon to the Economy. The last space race put back 7 dollars into the economy for ever dollar spent, it was a worthwhile investment to make even though it wasn't even on the adgenda it happened. Your vision of space exploration is dull and drab.

Manned spaceflight limits participation in exploration to a very few individuals, and has demonstrated no advantage over robotics.

It's called the PR advantage... the point of Space Exploration is about Colonization in the minds of alot of advocates for manned missions. We should do both, remember Humans do things for Frivolous reasons as well as noble ones.

Sorry future? What you afriad of heights or something People like Burt Rutan will take us to near orbit for a palty 250 grand. Whoopie, if they can reduce the price to LEO to within a few million alot of rich people will start to go into orbit and it would also bring the cost down of sending up experiments etc.

If we turned tail and ran like cowards every time we lost a few lives during new discoveries or ventures, wed still be living in the stone age.

Fortune and discovery belong to the bold and the daring. Manned space flight should continue. Its limited to a few people now, but as we build better rockets, get more experience in space, and have brave pioneers to face the dangers to advance knowldge, space flight will someday be a common thing that everyone can enjoy. And the loss of lives is pretty damn low when we consider the totally uncharted territory. More people died when cars were first invented, when the New World was being explored, ect, than we have lost pursuing knowldge and science.

And I am more than happy t see my tax dollars spent on manned space exploration. Id much rather my taxes be used to advance knwoldge and open up space to future generations than I would see it spent helping or supporting lazy, useless people, or wasted on government indoctrination programs and the like.

Manned flight all the way. Space colonization is the hope of the future, and I honor all astronauts and cosmonauts, both living and deceased, who were brave to the core and boldly stepped out into unknown frontiers other people were too chicken too explore.

As I said, more power to private enterprise and the rich who want to be spacesick for kicks.
In terms of science and knowledge, manned spaceflight does not make sense. It isn't about courage, it's about discovery. There is no function a human in space can perform that a machine can't do better.
Fantasy-driven efforts to put people on the moon or mars face some obsticles that enthusiasts are unable to contend with, like:

1. The need for a new heavy lift booster to get the life-support equipment and vehicles astronauts need into space.
2. Radiation shielding for trips beyond the VanAllen Belt.
3. A way to remove dangerous and caustic dust from spacesuited astronauts returning from EVA's like Jim Irwin experienced.

I could keep going. These problems can be solved, but with money that could better be spent with rovers controlled from earth that would actually be spending time exploring rather than being high-tech janitors like the current residents of the ISS.

Its is because of manned space flight that we have discovered many scientific marvels. By studying astronauts health, by developing technology to support and protect humans in space, we advance many technologies on earth. The push to put people in space is driving the devlopment of new energy and fuel sources, which can only benefit an oil dependant world. The technology of CAT scans was devloped because of manned space exploration. The search for improved space travel by humans will lead to newer technologies and further development and evolution of this spiecies.

No one forces the astronauts to go into space, they not only volunteer, but often study and train hard because they want to go. They know the risks, and are more than willing to take them. And more power to them, they are indded brave, they are indeed heros.

And you are incorrect in assuming that robats can replace humans in space. Computers and machines cannot replace the capabilities of the human mind. There are many things machines cannot do, such as distringuish certain observations from others, record impressions, or do all the things a human mind can do. Machines in space have only limited usage, and machines can never substitute for human experience. Machines are tools to be used by the human.

Manned space flight makes much sense. Rovers dont make much sense. The rover on Mars does not operate in the Martian night because its solar powered. A human would not be limited. Rovers can only move a few feet, have limited optical range, a human can walk much further, see and study more, and make first hand observations and descisions.

You can't ask a machine "How did it feel?"
You can't ask a machine "What was it like?"
You can't ask a machine "Where you scared?"
You can't send only machines to the Moon if you intend on building a human colony there.
You can't send only machines to Mars if you intend on building a human colony there.
You can't send machines on repair missions only to have the machine break down.
You can't trust machines.

Astronauts have to sleep, stick a small nuclear power source on a rover and it goes 24/7. Design is the only constraint on rovers, and the technology exists to make them much more sophisticated than Spirit and Opportunity.

Advances in virtuality allow anyone to make observations as if they are there. At a small fraction of the wieght. The human mind on earth can experience space though these vehicles. More importantly, a larger number of people can share the experience.

The "Man in a can" hero-astronaught ideal goes back to nations contesting achievements in exploration from European sailors in the 1500's to Scott vs. Admundson to Gagaren vs. Glenn. Hell, maybe back to Jason and the Argonauts.

Again, I'm not questioning anyone's courage here, but I have not yet seen a solid arguement that space exploration could not be done faster, cheaper and better by remote means.

Faster, and cheaper yes. Most definitely NOT better.

At a small fraction of the wieght.

Too bad you yourself would not be at a small fraction of your weight.

Ever gone on vacation? If you had done it on a VR trip, would you have been as satisfied? Or would you have said to yourself "Well... I just spent a thousand dollars to sit in a isolation chamber and virtually experience a trip to Amsterdam."
Sound like fun to you?

Not to mention what about when we DO NEED to send people up? Say, to fix the broken down machines we had doing our job. Will they freak out because theyve NEVER been in space? Only had virtual experiences and low gravity simulations? No the moment we stop exploring with our own eyes, is when we lose sight of what it means to be human.

Hmmmm.....

I'm still waiting to hear a solid rationale, this isn't it.

It has been proven a number of times that sending people up to fix a satillite is more expensive than sending up an unmanned replacement.

AGAIN, I'm not against an elite group of people going intop space, I am against paying for it or refusing to recognise that the money can't be spent better and achieve greater results in terms of knowledge.

You are right about one thing apc, I need to get on a diet.

Men have lost their lives climbing the highest mountains, but that didn't stop others from climbing the same mountains.

To experience the exhiliration of being their can't be duplicated in images or in words.

The money that's being spent is only a tiny fraction of our national budget and is well worth the effort to figure out the complexities of what is considered the epitome of the human adventure.

Manned flight is here to stay. Just as automobiles kill thousands in accidents, we can't send robots to our jobs and go on vacations for us.

I'd risk my life in a heart-beat if I could at least go up into the heavens and look around with my own eyes. Nothing else could compare.

Originally posted by Realist05
Hmmmm.....

I'm still waiting to hear a solid rationale, this isn't it.

It has been proven a number of times that sending people up to fix a satillite is more expensive than sending up an unmanned replacement.

AGAIN, I'm not against an elite group of people going intop space, I am against paying for it or refusing to recognise that the money can't be spent better and achieve greater results in terms of knowledge.

You are right about one thing apc, I need to get on a diet.

We have given you very good arguements. It is only you who do not see them as such.

You may not want to pay for manned exploration. I dont want to pay for welfare recipients, senators salaries, or farm subsidies. Yet I do.

But you haven't provided a rational explaination for why it should stop. Cost is a very weak arguement. What once costed much money now costs less with better devlopments. And money is a transitory thing, it is not something you hold onto and horde for generations, it is a resource, it is energy to be converted into useful things.

And it is worth every penny to send humans into space. You seem to forget we arent just sending them up in space to look at stars. We are sending them up to learn about human aspects of it, and only by sending humans in space can we develop knowledge and tech to devlop things that will help us leave the planet and colonize others. This is information that a machine cannot provide. Machines are limited, even the best machines available are still sevrely restricted, and no machine no matter how good can replace the priceless human mind. machines cannot make decisions, machines cannot feel, they simply record, process, and display their data for HUMAN use.

Space exploration is a HUMAN experience, a human venture, not one for machines. We already can see in our daily lives relying on machines and robots to take care of things for us. Its foolish to rely on it too much. the machien is useless without the human mind.

And I honestly do not see what astronauts sleeping has to do with anything. of course they sleep. So? people sleep, yet our missions do not end, and 24 hour surveilance is not necessary in most things anyway.

We'd know what Mars is all about. No guessing.

But we don't because they're not. Robots can't even come close to human perception. And they lack (thank deity) the all important ingredient of willpower.

We know what the Moon is now, thanks to manned missions.

We as a species are like ants: lots of ground time, then a few fly or we all die.

[edit on 21-5-2005 by Chakotay]

My argument has been repeated several times now. Allow me to summerize:

1. We discover more with un-manned vehicles like the Voyagers, Cassini, Hubble, rovers and orbiters than with spam-in-a-can vehicles.

2. We can make the experience a more commonly shared one than the memoirs of astronauts by use of teleoperation. Greater involvement and interest is a problem NASA has faced since the end of Apollo.

3. We can do more by allocating funds to similar projects rather than the massive paperwork enterprize that NASA manned space flight has morphed into.

I am not ignoring the responses that advocate continuing sending people out there, but they seem, as Mr. Spock would say, illogical.


I repeat, the argument that spaceflight is exhilerating and can not be duplicated by words or pictures is not in contention here. But you are making a very elitist point. Only a few get to experience the elation.

The scientific advances invloved with space happen here on earth, where the money is spent. CAT scan machines were not developed in orbit. Zero-G experiments on the shuttle could have been performed and observed
on unmanned platforms. Human medical experimentation in space is a closed cycle: we send people into space to see what space does to people.

Cost is very much an issue. Opportunity to do more, discover more, and enthuse a greater number of people about space is possible, unlimited budgets are not.

Originally posted by Realist05
1. We discover more with un-manned vehicles like the Voyagers, Cassini, Hubble, rovers and orbiters than with spam-in-a-can vehicles.

And when future Hubbles break you want to send R2D2's up to fix them? That little droid had enough trouble how many problems do you think we would have with some Honda brand repair bot?

2. We can make the experience a more commonly shared one than the memoirs of astronauts by use of teleoperation. Greater involvement and interest is a problem NASA has faced since the end of Apollo.

So? Until there is a very real reason for everyone to have an eye to the stars there will always be little interest. People have better things to worry about down here.

3. We can do more by allocating funds to similar projects rather than the massive paperwork enterprize that NASA manned space flight has morphed into.

Im sure you are well aware of the various commercial space competitions...

I am not ignoring the responses that advocate continuing sending people out there, but they seem, as Mr. Spock would say, illogical.

Quite the contrary. It is illogical to assume that the best path for educating ourselves is to take a ride in an arcade game rather than actually doing it.

I repeat, the argument that spaceflight is exhilerating and can not be duplicated by words or pictures is not in contention here. But you are making a very elitist point. Only a few get to experience the elation.

Only a few get to experience flying a plane, too. You want all planes to be automated and telepiloted? Yeah... thats a great idea.

The scientific advances invloved with space happen here on earth, where the money is spent. CAT scan machines were not developed in orbit. Zero-G experiments on the shuttle could have been performed and observed
on unmanned platforms.

But we would miss any little quirks that would come up undetectable by a thermistor or photoresistor but clearly visible by a human with eyeballs.

Human medical experimentation in space is a closed cycle: we send people into space to see what space does to people.

Duh.

Cost is very much an issue. Opportunity to do more, discover more, and enthuse a greater number of people about space is possible, unlimited budgets are not.

Which costs more.. sending a bunch of mechanical shell scripts into space, or waiting until until our population implodes because we didnt feel the need to land anymore men on the Moon, Mars, and beyond?

We must go into space because its there

The future of mankind lays in the stars not on this mudball. I would leave tommorow if I KNEW I wouldnt return, just to see it myself

I think manned space-flight is good.
I dont think its a waste of my tax dollars.

[edit on 21-5-2005 by JadeRio]

It is an atrocity to argue against advancing science and technology, as you are doing by saying we should not have manned spaceflight.

Realist isn't arguing that, he thinks people like Rutan should take over the manned aspect, but if we do that we will be stuck at suborbit(for a time) instead of LEO. That would be moving backwards not forwards....

Oops, the computer was signed in as jade's account, not mine, the origonal post was mine, so I'll re-post in in my account.


Well, everyone who is arguing that manned spaceflight is the future, has just about said what I would have said.

It really does'nt matter in the long run on what you think about the issue, we (the pro=manned spaceflight people) outnumber you.

It is an atrocity to argue against advancing science and technology, as you are doing by saying we should not have manned spaceflight.