End manned spaceflight now

I think that scientific exploration should stay in the realm of NASA and the other space agnencies.
Actual explotation and manned craft, should now be passed on to the private sector as the potential monetary gains that are to be gained will provide more than enough incentive for private enterprises to go after.

Robots are just the only way to go. Theres nothing worth travelling to within the life-reach of a human.

That show on the Discovery channel was the shizznit.

I think unmanned missions will become more common as time goes by because there are many things a machine can do, especially in deep space, that men cannot do, but the only reason we are engaging in orbital flight at this time is to ready ourselves for eventual manned exploration. It's in our genes. Ultimately, we have no choice. We are part of the universe's effort to understand itself.

[edit on 05/5/21 by GradyPhilpott]

We are part of the universe's effort to understand itself.

I never thought of it that way, neat! I likey. I gotta use that in a debate sometime with my family sometime.

Actually, we have to be able to leave this rock if we have to, this planet could die anytime, we currently have all our eggs in a planetary basket, we need to spread out and colonize other worlds as soon as we can.

Manned Exploration is CRITICAL for this purpose, and besides, Rovers don't work in REAL TIME, people DO!

I do sympathize that you look out for potentional over sight, but I do have to say to who ever mentioned they didn't want to pay for Wealthfare, why not? if you were poor due to the fact you simply COULD NOT work that you wouldn't get SOME financial umbrella? when will this world be more social? we should all glady give a share of our income to the poor, esspecially the ones that are disabled, Healthcare is a MESS in the US, Medicare and Medicaid will be GONE sometime, and people that CAN'T get an income, will be without MEDICAL CARE, but this is another issue and completely off topic, sorry about that one.

I believe that the decision is made. Arguing against the manned space program at this point is like arguing against the colonization of America in 2005 - it is a done deal.

If the day comes that NASA is facing huge cuts due to the deficit, and/or Bush's Space Vision flames out and collapses in on itself, either or both of which could easily happen -- from the ashes I think it is very likely the only non-military U.S. government funded space program will likely be a wholly robotic one..

In fact Bob Park of the University of Maryland has stated, as recently as last weekend in the Washington Post that Bush’s Vision is an attempt to create a “poison pill“ i.e. to create a space flight agenda that's so expensive that the next administration will kill it and get the blame for it.

"They know that manned space flight is just about at an end," Park said. "There's just about no place else to go. It's too expensive; it's too dangerous."

www.washingtonpost.com/wp...01265.html

I hope Park is wrong and I disagree with Realist05 for many of the reasons already stated. That doesn’t mean however that I completely doubt the foreseeable short range future (circa 10 to 50 years) isn’t going to be closer to their view than to mine.

I have seen some of the best responses I've seen in my entire life on ATS on this thread, thank you all so much. Utterly amazing job, guys.


You mentioned the cost of manned flight. Well, how much does your life cost? How much do you spend in a day? Earn? Don't you think all of that money would be better allocated to helping those around the world? Or do you think there is some advantage to saving a bit for yourself so that you can make more to do more? That's what manned spaceflight is about.

I don't know how else to put it to you, realist. Everyone has already said it so well in so many ways. Take a second read of the first page, there are some truly intelligent words there.

Originally posted by Realist05
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.

..

Fine, stay on Earth.

Also, with private ventures like the X-Prize, man will go out into space, and hopefully with less governement restriction, so that would allow more people in space, rather than the select few that get there now.

[edit on 05/5/22 by WissNX01]

Humans are thousands of times better than rovers or robots or whatever we send into space. Humans can reason, that means if something is malfunctioning we can fix it, done deal. If a robot is malfunctioning then it normally just breaks, unless it can somehow fix itself. Nothing beats a pair of eyes and hands. Robots just aren't reliable enough to take on such a task at this time.

Let me state an analogy:

All the education systems are just based on theory and study. You can easily pass written tests about your knowledge in the area you're studying.

But what use is theory if you don't have any practical first-hand experience?

That's part of being human, the desire to explore the unexplored, and experience the unexperienced. As many people have put it before, I would risk my possessions and my very own life (and many other peoples') to be able to go into space.

I'd rather put my life in the hands of an experienced jungle explorer without any formal training, than put it in the hands of an inexperienced novice without any idea of the real world.

The real world, not a theorised artificial experience from a small room.


P.s. Yes, unmanned space explorations are very useful and effective, but most are used because it's currently unfeasible for a human to do it.

Humans observe, react, and learn far better than a robot does. A human can say "Look, a rock, let me hide behind that." A robot can say "Look, a hard material, let me analyze - OH CRAP STAMPEDE!"

You can't put a price on the human mind and ingenuity.

Thank you all for the thoughtful responses.

I remain unpersuaded.

People can think, feel, and react on Earth as well as in space, robotic feedback in near real time is possible in lunar exploration, and we can cover more ground with remote sensing.

The prospects for humans living beyond this planet are dependant on a level of spending that is beyond the political will of the world's governments; the nationalist prestige that fuels the "exploration" of space by humans has not reached the critical mass of popular support that it needs to succeed, I agree with the post that the CEV spiral will go the way of the X-33.

There is ironicaly a Luddite mentality associated with robotic exploration. Where machines can do a better job, let them do it. People are still in the loop, but thier place in the loop should be where they have the maximum benefit.

Realist
You can have the earth, or what's left of it.

I'll take city-sized spaceships and perpetual space voyage to preserve our species in case of a mass extinction event. I would like at least a dozen vessels, along with several planets...

That would almost assure the survival of our species.

You're so worried about money and nations and this nonsensical illusion, you've forgotten about the main point of our existence - survive and thrive.

We have the technology to get hundreds of thousands of people off this rock, and they are ready to go. We need this now, before armageddon preferably. Make Jesus chase after us into the depths of space, wavin' his fiery sword. Can't catch us all!

Hahahaha!

Originally posted by Realist05
People can think, feel, and react on Earth as well as in space, robotic feedback in near real time is possible in lunar exploration, and we can cover more ground with remote sensing.

Splitting up was what Scooby and the gang tried, but that never worked out for them, now did it?!

At any rate, would we benefit some knowledge if we put a man on Mars right now? I don't mean more or less than a probe, but would we learn something?







If your answer is yes, well, we've got two probes there now and many have gone by and taken pictures of it. We didn't learn all we could from the bots, but we could with a human.
If your answer is no, try again.

The Gerald O'Neil visions of cities in space has a great Sci-fi appeal, but, no, we have not the technology to make it work.

The effects of cosmic and solar radiation on humans for prolonged periods is lethal. Shielding techniques from this radiation beyond the Van Allen belt has been theorized about but never constructed or tested.

In any event, these are long term prospects, and we have much to learn before we could take those steps.

Robots offer a faster method of finding out.

I think it would be very boring if I had to use a machine to "experience" space.

I would rather experience space myself with my own 5 senses.

they keep sending satellites up, but I want them to build a spaceship so I can see space myself.

[edit on 22/5/05 by Stranger Dreamer]

Amorymeltzer
It most certainly did work out for Scooby and the gang. I don't remember the episode where they got eaten!

They ran, and ran, and did some more running, and in the end, they all lived.

We gotta run, man! This planet is fairly stable, but it is absolutely, 100% finite in its lifespan, we know this for a fact. Nothing lasts forever unchanged, not even nothing.

I think we learn from our space voyages, I just think we should be more forward looking in our planning. The amount of money being spent on the simultaneous wars on personal freedom could easily finance manned voyages to the depths of space within a couple of decades.

Hell, we could be doing it now if we had a centralized plan, and cohesive management of resources.

Edit: Realist
The points you make are valid, but I believe you underestimate our engineering skills. Humans are notorious for conquering obstacles, and this one will be no different if we wish it so.

The radiation is part of the reason for the garden ships. The plants are key to soaking the rads. Choose older species, able to withstand tremendous amounts of radiation. They soak the damage and produce breathable oxygen. The plants are nourished by a mixture of recycled human waste and energy cell runoff, sort of a hydroponic poo slurry.

Will you be having the eggplant parmegana or the acorn squash with butter and maple syrup?





[edit on 22-5-2005 by WyrdeOne]

Shielding techniques from this radiation beyond the Van Allen belt has been theorized about but never constructed or tested.

Incorrect, if we abandon Human Spaceflight now then we'll never get to test this Rad Shielding idea out, and it's sounds like it's straight out of Sci-Fi.

www.iop.org...

www.islandone.org...

www.thespacereview.com...

New research has recently begun to examine the use of superconducting magnet technology to protect astronauts from radiation during long-duration spaceflights, such as the interplanetary flights to Mars that are proposed in NASA’s current Vision for Space Exploration.

The concept of magnetic shielding is not new. As Hoffman says, “The Earth has been doing it for billions of years!”

The principal investigator for this concept is former astronaut Dr. Jeffrey Hoffman, now a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Hoffman’s concept is one of 12 proposals that began receiving funding last October from the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC). Each gets $75,000 for six months of research to make initial studies and identify challenges in developing it. Projects that make it through that phase are eligible for as much as $400,000 more over two years.

science.nasa.gov...

We are only a few years from testing this technology, NASA plans on sending up a prototype up to the ISS by 2008 to test the efficacy in space(the efficacy has already been proven in concept on Earth)

Unfortunatly this device will NOT work on mars, as it will short out due to the conductivity of the Marsian Atmosphere. Outer Space and the Moon will do though. Only problem is Power Requirements.

[edit on 22-5-2005 by sardion2000]

Sardian,
Agreed, a cool idea, but not yet tested.

But then there's loss of calcium and bone density in space to contend with during prolonged wieghtlessness as well, so they will have to spin a crew vehicle to create artificial gravity.

Then there's the inevitable breakdown of those unreliable machines that provide life support. What if the current O2 generator problems on the ISS
happen on the way to Mars? (hint: breathe very, very, slowly)

Then there's the inevitable breakdown of those unreliable machines that provide life support. What if the current O2 generator problems on the ISS

Uhh that's my point. We need Humans up there to test all the new technologies and techniques that are literally right around the corner before we even think of going to Mars.

You should read up on Nanotech some time, you'll realize that alot of the obstacles we face today are surpassable in the short term.

But then there's loss of calcium and bone density in space to contend with during prolonged wieghtlessness as well,

Uhh since when was that a fatal problem? It's a problem to be sure but I highly doubt we'd need a rotating spacecraft in order to promote calcium growth. Meds may help with that as well as internal centrifuges.

I guess we should just give up and Let the Chinese, Indians, Brazillians, Isreali and Japanese take over from now on. Let them have the benefits while we play with over-hyped robotic mission, but WAIT those countries I listed want to do BOTH! Remember NASA and the Russians are not the only outfits capable of lofting a man into space.

Also one other point you seemed to have missed(or ignored)

Every dollar we spend on NASA equates to 7 dollars returned to the economy.

Remember the first American Space Station developed smoke detectors which are used in everywhere nowadays. It would be really hard to imagine what life would be like if we just stuck to robotic missions, we wouldn't be as far as we are now.

www.thespaceplace.com...

[edit on 22-5-2005 by sardion2000]