Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I'll go along with the "turkey" comment from the science side of things. What I don't get are his comments about the popularity contest side of things. Do we send people into space purely for ratings?

Posted by Greg at September 20, 2007 01:18 PM

Weinberg opposes sending any human being into space, not just ISS.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at September 20, 2007 01:26 PM

In other words, Mr. Weinberg feels he could have better allocated the funds spent within the "Robots uber alles" crowd.

Posted by Mike Puckett at September 20, 2007 01:55 PM

Weinberg opposes sending any human being into space, not just ISS
Whats the basis for that statement ? I dont think he would care one iota if SpaceShipOne was flying up and down every day with paying customers right now.

Posted by kert at September 20, 2007 02:43 PM

Awaiting for the Lunar Turkey and Martian Turkey then...

Posted by mz at September 20, 2007 03:13 PM

Since he's a particle physicist at the University of Texas at Austin, I wonder if he also might have a case of sour grapes due to the cancellation of the Superconducting Super Collider which was being built in his back yard? There's a blurb on this at Wikipedia.

Posted by Michael Bauer at September 20, 2007 03:53 PM

If the SSC failed the scientific cost/benefit ratio test, then ISS does so by a much larger factor. Hardly sour grapes, I'd say, just sauce for the gander (or, in this case, turkey).

Posted by Paul Dietz at September 20, 2007 04:05 PM

I agree completely Paul. My minor point was just the "you took my cookies" thought!

Posted by Michael Bauer at September 20, 2007 04:44 PM

Mr. Weinberg's error is in his assertion that "And I would go beyond that and say that the whole manned spaceflight program, which is so enormously expensive, has produced nothing of scientific value." Which is of course patently false, but he probably doesn't follow much medical science (you know, the doctor stuff that keeps us healthy) with his focus on particle physics.

When I did my heart-stress test at the hospital before my Zero-G flight, the machine was an almost picture-perfect copy of one I had seen in a Spinoff magazine from about five years earlier. There's also things like the software advances in imagery analysis that have benefitted things like breast-cancer detection. The advances are enterprise wide, from 'both' sides of the equation.

If you want to learn more about what we've learned about human physiology in space, visit:

http://www.nsbri.org/HumanPhysSpace/index.html

I can't help but wonder if Dan Lester and Mr. Weinberg hang out together. He claims also that "Human beings don't serve any useful function in space". Baloney. The human brain is still the best massively parallel processor around, enabling bad situations to be dealt with by the kind of intuitive creativity, discriminator filters and manipulative flexibility that robophiles are still only dreaming of right now.

"I think enormous sums are wasted on manned spaceflight that continually crowd out science missions" he says. Which is largely true, but the reason that it's done is because an awful lot of folks are pretty indifferent to tax dollars funding expensive missions so that academics can sate their curiosity. I wouldn't mind a few million thrown my way to sate my curiosity, but some of us have to work hard to pay the taxes that fund that sort of thing. I honestly would not mind if consortiums of universities stepped up to the plate and covered some if not all of the shortfall. Putting more skin in the game, so to speak. If it really is that important, then it will happen. If not, the market will speak. These guys should hush up and put paypal accounts on their websites. See if the world wants to fund what they're doing.

Posted by Ken Murphy at September 20, 2007 06:48 PM

This is hardly news. When in high school, I was surprised to find out from a physicist friend that physicists in general opposed the Apollo program as a waste of money. This no longer surprises me, as I learned that when you're dependent on the great cash cow for funding, it's natural to be jealous of those in possession of the most tits.

Posted by K at September 20, 2007 11:56 PM

I dont want to spoil your scientist-bashing party, but really, go ahead and ask mr. Weingberg about what he thinks of Brian Binnie's flights or Genesis I and II.

I would guess that it turns out that he is not against manned spaceflight at all.

Posted by kert at September 21, 2007 03:54 AM

Well Kert, I would also like to ask Weinberg if he thinks his scientific projects should only be privately funded, like the Binnie flight and/or the Genesis flights you say he supports. He is a hypocrite if he opposes publicly funded human spaceflight, yet expects public funding for his interests.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 21, 2007 07:10 AM

i wasnt asserting that i know mr. Weinbergs position on private manned spaceflight. I just pointed out that nobody asked him, while everyone somehow jumped to conclusion that he opposes all manned spaceflight.

By the way, simply execting public funding for something that delivers tangible results does not make one a hypocrite.

Posted by kert at September 21, 2007 07:24 AM

kert: "simply execting public funding for something that delivers tangible results does not make one a hypocrite."

It does if one opposes public funding for another activity that also delivers tangible results. And I imagine that a dollar spent on human spacefight generates just as big a return as does a dollar spent in physics research.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 21, 2007 07:54 AM

And I imagine that a dollar spent on human spacefight generates just as big a return as does a dollar spent in physics research.

Emphasis on the word imagine

Posted by kert at September 21, 2007 08:37 AM

Weinberg ignores the fact that ISS is uncompleted and its laboratory life has yet to begin. He neglects the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, an experiment that will explore higher energies than any Earthly accelerator. The AMS is still sitting in a clean room and desperately needs to fly on ISS. Support by another Nobel winner for AMS would be a big help.

"The whole manned spaceflight program...has produced nothing of scientific value" is completely unsupported. Human spaceflight has inspired development of products too numerous to describe. The Earthrise photo from Apollo 8 inspired the modern environmental movement. Discovery of a Lunar Orbit Anomaly by Apollo is more evidence for a changing speed of light. If not for Apollo, scientists would still not have a clue how our Moon formed. The Hubble Space Telescope could not have accomplished its mission without being serviced by humans. A statement like that in front of the Space Telescope Science Institute discredits the speaker.

Posted by Louise at September 21, 2007 09:34 AM

Weinberg said, "Human beings don't serve any useful function in space...They radiate heat, they're very expensive to keep alive and unlike robotic missions, they have a natural desire to come back, so that anything involving human beings is enormously expensive."

I fully agree. In fact, human beings don't serve any useful function on Earth, either. They're very expensive to keep alive, they cause pollution and other environmental havoc, and worst of all, they reproduce, so all those problems only get worse as time goes on. Hardly any humans do scientific research or even care about it. All most of us really do is take up space.

Therefore, I propose we all commit suicide, except for a small cadre of physicists and geologists who will conduct research using robots built by a eunuch slave class of mechanical engineers and administered by a eunuch slave class of NSF program managers. The scientists will live out meaningful lives refereeing each other's journal articles, peer-reviewing each other's grant applications, and attending each other's tenure parties. Specialized robots will also be built to satisfy the, uh, carnal needs of these few remaining humans. I call it, "The Weinberg/Park Utopia"

Posted by Artemus at September 21, 2007 09:48 AM

Therefore, I propose we all commit suicide, except for a small cadre of physicists and geologists...scientists will live out meaningful lives refereeing each other's journal articles, peer-reviewing each other's grant applications, and attending each other's tenure parties. Specialized robots will also be built to satisfy the, uh, carnal needs of these few remaining humans. I call it, "The Weinberg/Park Utopia"

Posted by Artemus at September 21, 2007 09:48 AM

OMG! That is effing hilarious! Especially that part about he robots serving the--ahem--carnal needs of the scientists.

Posted by kayawanee at September 21, 2007 11:12 AM

Excellent snark Artemus!

Posted by Mike Puckett at September 21, 2007 11:13 AM

Hmmm, we'd probably need some robots to build and maintain the scientists' domiciles and other infrastructure not directly relevant to the all important research. Given that we don't want scientists wasting their time building robots nor distract the mechanical engineers from their vital support role, I think these robots should have a self-replicating capacity.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at September 21, 2007 11:36 AM

Kert : "Emphasis on the word imagine"

For evidence refer to Louise post right after your snark.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 21, 2007 11:42 AM

I just asked Prof. Weinberg for an interview at the Space Review. I'll ask him about robots, private human spaceflight and publically supported science and technology research if he agrees.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at September 21, 2007 12:33 PM

Go Sam go. I'd like to read more.

Posted by Greg at September 21, 2007 12:59 PM

Mr. Murphy:

There is of course the point that research on human physiology under space conditions is worthless, unless you are planning to have lots more humans up there for some other purpose. The same would apply to research on human physiology under high-pressure conditions, breathing exotic gases - but the use for this is obvious, as many things can only be done by human deep divers, and so extensive research on that topic has been done.

The real purpose of people in space is that eventually there should be a lot more - something that NASA seems determined to prevent. Maybe because the first person to call space home will be the beginning of the end for the American Imperium. However, perhaps NASA should be reminded - often - that America doesn't have all the world's engineers, and if America doesn't do it then another country will.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at September 22, 2007 06:28 AM

Mr. Christian,

I would have to reassert that research on human physiology under space conditions is -not- worthless. With space research, medicine is better able to determine that I suffer from orthostatic hypotension. Without it I would just be some tall, slender guy who passes out when he stands up quickly.

The tempurpedic mattress that I'm soon going to buy was not designed to comfort the ride of robots into space.

I'm sure that prosthetics users appreciate the availability of polyisocyanurate foam (ET foam) for residual limb fittings.

NASA studies of disruptions to circadian rhythms has ultimately led to consumer products that combat seasonal affective disorder.

ESA research into water recycling and filtration systems for astronauts (not robots) has led to advances in treating water for bottlers, cruise lines, etc.

The list goes on and on. I would recommend doing some homework. Medicine does benefit from both sides of the human/robot equation, such as the image analysis advances resulting from interpreting LandSat and other data that allow for better mammograms, as one example.

Controlling for variables, such as the absence or presence of gravity, is part of the scientific process, whether applied to biological, chemical, physical, materials, combustion, or whatever other science. It does not follow that what holds true for other sciences does not hold true for the medical sciences just because we are human beings, and therefore special.

Even though the ISS lab is not yet finished, the National Institutes of Health is expressing interest in using it (and yet, I can't help but wonder if there's a little bit of behind the scenes arm-twisting going on). My concern is that the ISS will be monopolized by medical research to the detriment of materials and combustion sciences.

Now, if medical science in microgravity were only applicable to life in microgravity, then I would support it much, much less, as most of the folks living out in space are going to be in some kind of partial gravity environment (.16, .38, whatever the orbital habs decide to have), and therefore the medical research would have to be conducted in those environments to understand the biophysical reaction. Which will be done anyway, but my point is that the science is not binary in its applicability. Like so much in life it's some shade of grey.

Posted by Ken Murphy at September 22, 2007 09:23 AM

Sam, great! Ask him about humanity's future in the long time scale, extraterrestrial resource use, interstellar stuff etc...

Posted by mz at September 22, 2007 11:09 AM

Mr. Murphy:

Ah, the old and well-worn spin-off argument. The simple fact is that any and all of the things you mention could have been done anyway, at much smaller expense, if not a single human had ever gone into space. That particular argument just doesn't wash - at all.

Having said that, I support research into human space-conditions physiology; and the reason is that, in my humble opinion, if humanity doesn't have a future in space then it doesn't have a future at all. Which doesn't bother NASA bureaucrats one bit; they will all be safely retired, or in their graves, before it really makes a difference.

What happened to the Dream? CYA did.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at September 22, 2007 07:19 PM

if humanity doesn't have a future in space then it doesn't have a future at all.

Which doesn't justify spending on space right now. The future is an awfully prolonged thing; plenty of time to develop space technology when it becomes more sensible to do so.

Posted by Paul Dietz at September 22, 2007 09:55 PM

Mr. Christian,

"The simple fact is that any and all of the things you mention could have been done anyway, at much smaller expense, if not a single human had ever gone into space." is an extraordinary claim. I have to ask what evidence you offer for this 'fact'. I have great difficulty accepting things on faith.

What I don't need faith in is the voluminous documentation that I've researched to bring me to my position, which is that medical science is a valid science and that the field of medical science has benefitted greatly from advances realized in the crewed spaceflight program.

As noted in the introduction to "Foundations of Space Biology and Medicine, Vol. II, Book 1":

"The extraordinary advances documented here have directly influenced methodology in related scientific fields; advancements in aerospace medicine have been applied to the practice of clinical medicine. Examples include progress in knowledge of pulmonary function [remember the stress test I mentioned?] and respiration tests, biomedical monitoring of the critically ill, materials for artificial heart valves and prosthetic devices, electronic pacemakers, development of fiber optic lighting for endoscopic procedures, use of high-energy particles and heavy nuclei in radiobiology and therapy, and more efficient collection, storage, and retrieval of medical information."

And that was from 1975. Doesn't hold any less true for 2007.

Your evidence for your claim, Mr. Christian?

Posted by Ken Murphy at September 23, 2007 09:39 AM

Mr. Murphy:

Are any of those things directly to do with space at all? Medical science is valid, sure; but the only reason why that research was done was because the space programme wanted it, and if someone - anyone - or several someones had been prepared to stump up the money then it could have been done anyway. Without spending countless billions on a publicity stunt. Apollo was a dead end and everyone knows it - ditto Shuttle. Yes, we should have gone into space - the sensible way that everyone was talking about before Sputnik, setting up infrastructure rather than a mad dash for the Moon.

Mr. Dietz: I beg to differ. There have always been other things to spend money on, and there always will be - ergo, by your standards there will never be a right time for space. But, unfortunately, for many reasons humanity needs real space infrastructure now. Many resources are running out, particularly easily available energy - and there are enough resources in the Solar System to house and feed quadrillions, if we first get out there. One of the reasons for getting out there is to turn off the terrorists' money tap.

With a quarter of the money so far spent on blowing holes in Iraq, America would have been well on the way to a functioning Moonbase by now. There is a long future ahead of Earth, for sure - but it may not necessarily include Homo "sapiens".

Posted by Fletcher Christian at September 23, 2007 04:25 PM

Mr. Christian, you repeat hoary old space fan talking points. They do not stand up to serious examination. SSP is much more expensive than terrestrial alternatives that are essentially unlimited. Space mineral resources are either uncompetitive or unnecessary or both.

As for 'a quarter of the money spent on Iraq', the notion that this would move us appreciably closer to exploiting ET resources is yet more almost insanely optimistic wishful thinking. We've spent a huge amount on NASA in the last several decades and haven't moved appreciably toward that goal. The problem is far harder, and the organizational/political problems far more intractable, than many would like to believe.

Posted by Paul Dietz at September 23, 2007 04:37 PM

"We've spent a huge amount on NASA in the last several decades and haven't moved appreciably toward that goal."

Perhaps we haven't moved appreciably towards that goal BECAUSE the money was spent on NASA?

SSP? Well, perhaps. If you loft everything from ground, that is - but that doesn't have to be the way it's done. And if you build the powersats out of space resources, then you have to have built something far more important - another basket for us to put our eggs in, with the ability to build many more. Not to mention making it less likely that we who are left behind on Earth will be wiped out by a Dinosaur Killer.

By the way, does your estimate of the cost of energy from current sources include an entry for the cost of American armed forces? Because it should. Neither will it include, because it can't, an entry for the resource depletion and environmental degradation associated with current methods.

When the coal and uranium run out, what then? It has been said in many places that a planet-bound technological civilisation has a limited lifespan, and Earth (and perhaps the entire galaxy, and perhaps the Universe) only has one shot at this. After we lose our technology and devolve into nonsapience, there won't be enough time for the resources to renew for our successors to use before Earth becomes unhabitable by multicellular life. Game over.

"Earth is the cradle of mankind - but one cannot stay in the cradle forever."

Posted by Fletcher Christian at September 24, 2007 12:17 AM

Now I can't tell if Mr.Christian is saying that no biomedical research would be/is/was valuable, or if only the stuff that applied to spaceflight could be considered 'real' space-related medicine.

Since I had to pull out my report "International Space Station Research Summary through Expedition 10" (NASA/TP-2006-213146) for an ISU request, I'll just list a few of the medical and biophysical research experiments conducted to date on the as-yet unfinished ISS:

BIOPSY, CBTM-OPG, FOOT, H-REFLEX, HPA, RENAL STONE, SUBREGIONAL BONE, ADUM, EPSTEIN-BARR, MIDODRINE (gee, again with the orthostatic hypotension stuff), MOBILITY, PUFF, XENON-1, INTERACTIONS, JOURNALS, BBND, CHROMOSOME, DOSMAP, EVARM, TORSO, BCAT-3, CSLM-2, EXPPCS, FMVM, FOAM, INSPACE, MFMG, PFMI, SUBSA, ZCG, APCF, CPCG-H, DCPCG, PCG-EGN, PCG-STES, ADF, CBOSS, CGBA, MEPS, STELSYS, YEAST-GAP, ADVASC,BPS, PESTO, PGBA

If possible, I would like to get refutations more solid and meaningful than "Is Not!" and "Nuh-unh". I've still got tons of supporting documentation, but it gets a little boring just reciting it piecemeal.

Gotta go to a Moon class...

Posted by Ken Murphy at September 24, 2007 05:52 PM

No, Ken, apparently I still wasn't clear enough; what I am saying is that the research that was done could have been done anyway, had someone other than NASA been willing to stump up the money - without spending 200 billion dollars on a publicity stunt at the same time. Ditto all the other research on, for example, integrated circuits.

I also think that it is quite likely that the research done on ISS, at astronomical expense (no pun intended) could have been done down here if it wasn't desperately needed by NASA (and ESA, which is an even worse bureaucratic mess than NASA) to justify another overcomplicated, worthless white elephant.

I am also aware that all medical science, like all other science, is inter-related - but, for example, what precise use is there on research into bone mineral loss in microgravity if it's not to help prevent that precise problem in the future - when people are living and working up there for practical reasons? Of course, at the snail's pace that NASA is working at, it's rather unlikely that circumstance will ever happen - which suits NASA and the American government in general just fine.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at September 25, 2007 12:22 AM

Post a comment