Mike Thomas has a misguided rant over at the Orlando Sentinel, bashing NASA and its supposed desire to go to Mars (something that is hard for me to discern, based on what it’s actually doing).
There are, broadly, two classes of NASA critics: those who think that it’s doing the wrong thing, and those who think that it’s doing the thing wrong. I fall into the latter camp, but Mr. Thomas is clearly one of the former. But his position seems to be incoherent. He thinks that NASA is supposed to be doing science (as indicated by his final words), and if so, he’s correct that manned spaceflight, as currently performed, contributes very little to it. But he doesn’t seem to think that it should be engaged in space science. He (like too many) thinks that NASA’s job is to heal the planet. My biggest fear of an Obama administration (at least in terms of space policy) is that they will agree, and divert it from its original role as an agency that looks outward, to one that looks instead inward.
Whether one believes that we should be doing more about climate change or not, Mike Griffin is correct that it is not within NASA’s charter to do the heavy (or even any) lifting in that regard. It was a heartburn that I always had with things like the Ride Report, and “Mission To Planet Earth.” If these are important things to do, then set up an agency to do them, but don’t defocus and distract NASA with them. In fact, it is much more a job for NOAA. The problem is that NOAA has no history of developing satellites, and has traditionally relied on NASA to do it for them. Perhaps that ought to change.
If NASA improperly gets assigned the task of healing the planet, it is inevitable that it will make it even harder for it to properly explore and develop space, which is what it was established to do. Now frankly, given how wrongly NASA has been doing the right thing, I’m not sure that it would be all that much of a tragedy if we were to end its manned spaceflight program. But unlike Mr. Thomas, I’d rather see it starting to do it right.
Am I the only person who doesn’t actually believe the planet is sick?
I think it’s just a minor head cold, myself.
A inward looking space program rather plainly has little or no use for humans in space and I believe political realities preclude President Obama from terminating the human spaceflight elements of NASA’s mission, regardless of what he might otherwise desire. Obama’s choices for NASA’s future course are very much constrained by circumstances over which he has little control.
A year ago someone within the Obama campaign posted the usual view from the anti-space elements within the Left that NASA’s money should go to midnight basketball or some other social program. Political reality intervened and Obama himself reversed course on that with Lori Garver being evidence of that course change.
Prior to the Texas primary Bill Clinton himself accused Obama of wanting to terminate American human spaceflight and Bill Nelson of Florida has also weighed in on the topic of Florida jobs. Among others. The money Obama would save by canceling American human spaceflight would be trivial in comparison with the political damage he would self-inflict by taking that step.
So, what now? Lori Garver and others are trying to look under the hood to help answer that question.
Those same “jobs, jobs, jobs” considerations that prevent the outright termination of U.S. federally financed human spaceflight also preclude adopting an all NewSpace approach or an all-EELV approach. More constraints on Obama’s available options.
“Jobs, jobs, jobs” constitute a double edge sword. On one hand this factor impedes the adoption of solutions NewSpacers might deem optimal but on the other hand this, same factor protects NASA’s human spaceflight budget from the “robots only” faction.
Propellant depot advocates should also take note of the extent to which propellant depot have been incorporated into the latest Direct 2.0 architectures. The Jupiter series (which allows for large Orions and large LSAMs) is now intended for trans-LEO missions exclusively once COTS-D or other medium lift launchers can handle LEO taxi service duties such as ISS access and in addition, the current version of Direct 2.0 envisions a dry-launched EDS via Jupiter 232, to be filled with propellant pre-deployed by whoever can get it up there most economically.
Extension of the orbiter’s retirement date is perhaps the worst of the various options available to Obama however after President Bush kicked the can down the road for five years (from January 2004 until January 2009) it seems unlikely Obama can kick that can for another four or eight years.
= = =
But no matter what, I see no downside to a directive to begin work on man-rating the RS-68 with work to begin January 21, 2009.
If Orion is to be carried by Delta IV, the RS-68 needs those upgrades and if Orion is to be carried by Jupiter 120, the RS-68 needs those upgrades. Hence no reason to delay starting those upgrades regardless of which architecture is eventually chosen (other than Ares 1).
Hmmm.
1. Everyone probably knows my position on this. I think putting humans on Mars to do work that could be better done by robots is pointless.
*shrug* but I won’t belabor the point.
2. Doesn’t it strike anybody else as rather curious that while we’re busily building highly capable robots to replace people -here- on Earth there are those that insist that robots cannot replace people -there- on Mars?
I didn’t get the memo about having a robot replace me, but perhaps this is one of those things where they take you behind the building and shoot you first. I just hope that the robot that replaces me takes good care of my family.
On the other hand I’m happy to have robots (well computers really) *help* me, so maybe we can make a deal. Robbie the Robot can earn the living for and I’ll spend it. Hopefully, he will earn enough for my vacation to Mars :-).
Doesn’t it strike anybody else as rather curious that while we’re busily building highly capable robots to replace people -here- on Earth there are those that insist that robots cannot replace people -there- on Mars?
No. Last time I checked most of the US labor force was employed doing jobs that robots can’t do. Robots are helpful manual labor slightly dumber than an ant, and by no means a scientist or engineer.
Get back to us when a Robot can carry your DNA into the next generation.
I believe political realities preclude President Obama from terminating the human spaceflight elements of NASA’s mission,
I’m curious, Bill. Since all of your views, and only your views, constitute “political reality,” why didn’t Obama appoint you to head his transition team?
Just a few weeks ago, you were still boasting that “political realities” would prevent anyone from cancelling your beloved Ares.
I’ve spoken to numerous people on Capitol Hill who expressed grave concerns about Ares, over the past few years. At the same time, you were making ignorant comments about how well the program was going and claiming everyone in Washington agreed with you.
I’ve visited hundreds of offices on Capitol Hill. I suspect that’s hundreds more than you have. It’s insulting for you to sit in your Chicago office and tell those of us who actually talk to lawmakers that we’re ignorant because we don’t agree with your political views on space.
The money Obama would save by canceling American human spaceflight would be trivial in comparison with the political damage he would self-inflict by taking that step.
First of all, Bill, most “American human spaceflight” in the next decade will be undertaken by American humans who don’t work for NASA. Obama couldn’t “cancel” that even if he wanted to.
Second, NASA flew over 50 astronauts per year in the mid-80’s. Today, they fly fewer than half that number. If the government follows your recommendations, that number will be cut in half again — while the cost to the taxpayers goes up.
Since you consider it Politically Correct to slash NASA’s human spaceflight program by more than half, while increasing the cost to the taxpayers at the same time, you’re in a very poor position to tell lawmakers that it’s Politically Incorrect to cut what little will be left when you’re done slashing.
Those same “jobs, jobs, jobs” considerations that prevent the outright termination of U.S. federally financed human spaceflight also preclude adopting an all NewSpace approach or an all-EELV approach.
Sigh. “Jobs, jobs, jobs” may be all you care about, Bill, but most politicians I talk to are not nearly as cynical as you are.
Cheerleaders chanting “jobs, jobs, jobs” didn’t stop Congress from cancelling Apollo, and there were more NASA jobs back then than there are today. Even in Central Florida, NASA only accounts for about 3% of all jobs today. In other parts of the country, it’s no more than 1%. Most politicians don’t care about NASA jobs because they don’t have any in their districts. As the aerospace industry continues to consolidate, the number who do care becomes even smaller. Many of the politicians who protected pork in the past are no longer around. Bud Cramer is gone. Dave Weldon is gone. Senator Hutchison is soon leaving.
You’re whistling past the graveyard.
On the other hand, every politician has constituents who are taxpayers and want to know that their tax money is being well spent.
Many politicians are interested in new jobs that commercial space companies might create in their districts, too. Most people I talk to on the Hill are aware of commercial space and much more open to new ideas than you are, Bill.
Change or die. Evolution in action.
Propellant depot advocates should also take note of the extent to which propellant depot have been incorporated into the latest Direct 2.0 architectures. The Jupiter series (which allows for large Orions and large LSAMs) is now intended for trans-LEO missions exclusively once COTS-D or other medium lift launchers can handle LEO taxi service duties such as ISS access
You mean we should accept your claims on faith and not do the math to verify them?
If NASA spends tens of billions on another high-cost architecture like Direct, it won’t have any money left over to buy propellant or anything else. NASA will also need to deorbit ISS in 2016 to pay for such a scheme, which makes any promises about COTS a fraud.
But no matter what, I see no downside to a directive to begin work on man-rating the RS-68 with work to begin January 21, 2009.
If Orion is to be carried by Delta IV, the RS-68 needs those upgrades and if Orion is to be carried by Jupiter 120, the RS-68 needs those upgrades.
Boeing’s proposals to increase Delta IV performance involve increasing the RS-68’s Isp, not “man-rating” (whatever that means).
Why should we bother launching Orion at all, when the Dragon capsule is much further along and doesn’t require expensive booster upgrades? Please say something less inane than “jobs, jobs, jobs.”
Steve Squyres (who knows something about the matter) is on record as saying that a human geologist on Mars could do in minutes tasks that it takes a rover and its supporting science & operations team days to accomplish.
The contribution of Apollo to lunar geology demonstrated this as well: in terms of science return per buck the Apollo results were a better deal than all the unmanned probes sent to the Moon.
The only reason we’re sending unmanned probes is that the money to send probes is available and the money to send humans isn’t, because human missions cost so much more than unmanned missions.
Better, I think, to work to lower the cost of manned missions to the point where they can compete economically with probes than to work to improve the probes to the point where they can compete scientifically with humans. Both have valuable side-effects, but only one means I can go.
Geez, I dunno. Watch “How It’s Made” sometimes, to get a good squint at the economical and practical relative roles of humans and robots. Generally speaking, robots are only economical and good doing very repetitive, precisely-definable jobs where speed and volume are highly desirable. For anything else, where perception and adjustment to minor variation is key, or where the job is a one-off, not likely to be repeated, or where the exact parameters of the job are hard to predict, humans are so much better a robot is almost never economical.
Personally, I can think of almost nothing in the category of “exploration” that fits into the category where robots are better. They are only cheaper in other space because (1) they can just go dormant and wait for five years of travel time, (2) they don’t need very expensive highly foolproof life support systems, and (3) they don’t need to come back.
But if you had a substantial and reliable space transport system to obviate these objectison, any idiot would rather send a human being than a robot.
Hmmm.
@ Brock
“No. Last time I checked most of the US labor force was employed doing jobs that robots can’t do. Robots are helpful manual labor slightly dumber than an ant, and by no means a scientist or engineer.”
Aaaaannnnndddddd everyone is very busy working on improving robotics in order to -replace people-.
Which is what I wrote. And I’ll point out that the number of scientists and engineers in the workforce is a pretty small percentage with a rather limited set of roles.
Hmmm.
@ Carl Pham
“For anything else, where perception and adjustment to minor variation is key, or where the job is a one-off, not likely to be repeated, or where the exact parameters of the job are hard to predict, humans are so much better a robot is almost never economical.”
DARPA Grand Challenge
DARPA autonomous vehicle challenge
*shrug* for the moment. But I would think even a teleguided robot would be far more cost effective in exploring and exploiting the solar system than manned missions.
Carl,
(4) Robots survive environments that humans cant ( Venera ), and you can send them basically into unknown ( Huygens probe )
There are other points, but the entire humans vs robots argument is pointless. Obviously wrt exploration and development of solar system, they are be complementary. Except that humans havent done any real exploration throughout the last decades, which is a shame.
memomachine, you wrote:
But I would think even a teleguided robot would be far more cost effective in exploring and exploiting the solar system than manned missions.
As we see with the Mars Exploration Rovers and other martian probes, a several minute lag is barely viable. Most other destinations in the Solar System have even worse communications lag.
My take is that tele”guiding” only makes sense if humans are nearby. For example, it might not make sense to land humans directly on Titan or suspend them on a balloon in the atmosphere of Jupiter. But having a teleoperator a few light seconds away means a human decision maker can respond quickly.
memomachine, you wrote:
Everyone probably knows my position on this. I think putting humans on Mars to do work that could be better done by robots is pointless.
I thought about this a bit and it strikes me that none of the robots sent to the surface actually can do any of their jobs better than humans could.
Instead, the problem is simply that there are two well known barriers to human activity on Mars.
First, that we don’t know much about Mars’ environment nor have we developed the technology humans would need. Sending people under such circumstances is likely to have a high death rate.
Second, humans need more support than robots do. Hence, a human mission, though it would be more efficient overall, would require a higher initial investment.
memomachine, I really don’t see the point of your argument. Humans are simply the most sophisticated, dextrous, and brightest machines we have right now. And even with advances in artificial intelligence and robotics, they are likely to remain (with ample modification) the most sophisticated in terms of manipulation and making fast decisions on the spot.
Vince Seifert Says:
“Steve Squyres (who knows something about the matter) is on record as saying that a human geologist on Mars could do in minutes tasks that it takes a rover and its supporting science & operations team days to accomplish.”
I think Steve was making a politically correct comment and not one based on reason and science.
Of course a man can work faster and do more varied tasks than an autonomous robot on a distant planet ONCE HE IS THERE. Getting there and staying there is the real problem. The Mars rovers and orbiters have done much more science than a manned mission could have done because they have operated for years.
Because of the physical limitations of the human body, man can not visit planets like he can visit places on earth. He can not take off his shoes and helmet on Mars and wiggle his toes in the red sand and let the wind blow his hair. A so called manned mission is just taking a terrestrial environment to an off earth venue. Advances in remote sensing through robot devices will allow all humans to “visit” other places in the solar system faster, better and cheaper than any “manned mission” could possibly do.
John, you wrote:
Of course a man can work faster and do more varied tasks than an autonomous robot on a distant planet ONCE HE IS THERE. Getting there and staying there is the real problem. The Mars rovers and orbiters have done much more science than a manned mission could have done because they have operated for years.
The orbiters do work that really can’t be done better by humans. We know that because we use satellites for the same purposes in Earth orbit as well. OTOH, the rovers do not do work “better” than humans. We know that because we don’t depend on rovers to do similar tasks on Earth. We use humans.
Once humans are on Mars, rovers will no longer be the “better” way to do things. I think with a settlement that lasts more than one Martian year, we’ll learn more about Mars than all the preceding robotic missions to the surface with the sole exception of sample return missions.
A person doesn’t need to “wiggle their toes” in the sand or let the wind toss their hair (such an event probably could only happened during a bad Martian sandstorm). Advances in remote sensing still don’t get around the fundamental problem of not being there.
To be blunt, the performance of rovers while a lot better than nothing has been very meager. We’re still trying to figure out the basics of soil chemistry on Mars despite 30 years of effort.
And how long does it take to go from design of a rover to actually collecting data on the surface? 10-20 years. How much science can you really do, if it takes 10 years to attempt to answer a question?
Karl wrote;
“How much science can you really do, if it takes 10 years to attempt to answer a question?”.”
First, it takes much longer than it should because it is being managed by NASA, which has conflicting priorities. Second, it will take much more than 10 years before a manned mission will be able to spend any appreciable time on Mars. No one, especially NASA is going to risk human life until a trial run with an unmanned automated system can go to Nars and return after an extended stay on the surface.
Third, Mars is the end of the road for any possible manned exploration. Io, Europa, Triton, Titan, et cetera are physically and logically out of reach.
Why no concentrate on improving what we have already proven we can do. Remote sensing can be done now and it will allow most people alive today to have an off world experience, instead of a hand full of people on Mars some time in the next 50 years.
Second, it will take much more than 10 years before a manned mission will be able to spend any appreciable time on Mars. No one, especially NASA is going to risk human life until a trial run with an unmanned automated system can go to Nars and return after an extended stay on the surface.
But that won’t take more than 2-3 years, that is, enough time to get there and test the system out. And I said earlier in this thread that unmanned missions would continue to be needed just to understand the Martian environment well enough for a manned mission to survive. That doesn’t justify the claim that unmanned missions (especially the few to date) can do more than a manned mission. Or the claim made earlier by memomachine that robotic missions are “better” than manned missions.
I also point out that certain locations may be too difficult to get a human into. Even in those cases, we can have a human nearby. For example, a robot sent to Europa and controlled from Earth is going to have a round trip communication time of over an hour.
Third, Mars is the end of the road for any possible manned exploration. Io, Europa, Triton, Titan, et cetera are physically and logically out of reach.
“Logically out of reach”? Nonsense. You have to use logic first to prove it is impossible before you can make such a claim. As I see it, it’s merely a matter of getting sufficient amount of mass (perhaps 10 metric tons per person carried) to the desired location. The rest is near future technology development like nuclear electric propulsion, recycling oxygen, water, etc, or artificial gravity. We’ve demonstrated that you can deliver mass to Jupiter and Saturn (even to the surface of Titan for what that’s worth).
So logically the only thing left is some technology development and to deliver more mass, this time with people in it. We’ve demonstrated under similar circumstances that we can do both.
“Physically out of reach”? My roof is physically out of reach. That doesn’t mean I can’t change the situation by getting a ladder and make it physically within reach. We just need the proper tools.
I’m not saying that we will send people to orbit around Jupiter, but I am saying we can do it well within 50 years. There’s a huge difference between “won’t” and “can’t”.
Karl said;
“So logically the only thing left is some technology development and to deliver more mass, this time with people in it.”
We will improve on technology but we can not change basic Newtonian physics. The energy required to get the many tons of material accelerated to the velocities necessary for a reasonable duration manned excursion beyond Mars and the accompanying deceleration energy requirements are orders of magnitude greater than for similar unmanned missions. The communications turn around time is irrelevant since we don’t need to react immediately to every step in the exploration sequence.
It is not a question of what would be nice to have some day, but what is practical in a reasonable time and for a reasonable cost.
I can’t prove it, but I would bet anything that there will not be a successful manned excursion to Mars in the next 30 years, even if it is worlds number one priority, which of course it won’t be.
We will improve on technology but we can not change basic Newtonian physics. The energy required to get the many tons of material accelerated to the velocities necessary for a reasonable duration manned excursion beyond Mars and the accompanying deceleration energy requirements are orders of magnitude greater than for similar unmanned missions. The communications turn around time is irrelevant since we don’t need to react immediately to every step in the exploration sequence.
We have no unmanned missions on the drawing board that would in any way be comparable to a manned mission.
We may need “orders of magnitude” more energy, but energy is incredibly cheap and plentiful. For example, the energy consumed by the US over the past 50 or so years is enough to put the entire human race in orbit along with a large amount of baggage (I think somewhere in the 100-1000 tons per person range). Energy isn’t the barrier. rather it’s that you need a huge amount of reaction mass to get things into orbit.
Finally, labling an hour long lag “irrelevant” doesn’t make it so. Most tasks on Earth couldn’t be done with an hour long lag.
I can’t prove it, but I would bet anything that there will not be a successful manned excursion to Mars in the next 30 years, even if it is worlds number one priority, which of course it won’t be.
If it were the world’s number one priority and competently pursued, it would be done in short order. Nobody is seriously considering a Mars program. So I say you are right even though you overstate the difficulty of such an activity.