View Full Version : Nasa reaching for reasons to keep manned spaceflight going
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1950258,00.html
so, it looks like they want to "practice" for when the time comes that they are needed to go all Bruce Willis on an asteroid.
I counter that building robots to do this is more cost effective and also more likely to succeed.
OCUDad
11/19/2006, 12:49 AM
You're just ****ed because they wouldn't let you travel business class.
sanantoniosooner
11/19/2006, 12:52 AM
Building anatomically correct female robots would serve humanity better.
heh. no really, I think that for the most part, manned spaceflight should end for a while. It hella expensive, and there aren't very many jobs in space for which the physical presence of a human being is nessecary when robots can do it for a tiny fraction of the cost and nobody really cares if they crash.
Scott D
11/19/2006, 12:56 AM
I'm thinking they would be better served working on terraforming technologies...you know, for when we decide it'd be better to just leave the planet and the crazy jihadists and their post apocalyptic dream world of a nuclear wasteland.
I'm thinking they would be better served working on terraforming technologies...you know, for when we decide it'd be better to just leave the planet and the crazy jihadists and their post apocalyptic dream world of a nuclear wasteland.
just watch out for reavers
Frozen Sooner
11/19/2006, 01:53 AM
Will I have to curse in Chinese? Because I don't know Chinese, and I'd be really annoyed if I couldn't curse.
Scott D
11/19/2006, 02:23 AM
Will I have to curse in Chinese? Because I don't know Chinese, and I'd be really annoyed if I couldn't curse.
why does this always make me think of that series Chung Kuo :D
Vaevictis
11/19/2006, 03:17 AM
I counter that building robots to do this is more cost effective and also more likely to succeed.
I'd suggest that they'd need to put a human or two _near_ the object, although maybe not on it.
Reasons:
1. Robots are stupid.
2. Remote control in space is limited by the speed of light. It takes a few minutes to get a signal from Earth to Mars and back, for example. Remote control with a multi-minute delay would suck.
I'd suggest that they'd need to put a human or two _near_ the object, although maybe not on it.
Reasons:
1. Robots are stupid.
2. Remote control in space is limited by the speed of light. It takes a few minutes to get a signal from Earth to Mars and back, for example. Remote control with a multi-minute delay would suck.
However, landing a robotic vessel on an asteroid *has* already been accomplished. And for the price and risk of sending one or two people, we can send 10 robot vessels, just in case some of them fail. Remote control with a multi-minute delay does suck, but it's not impossible, and we already have some experience with it.
Vaevictis
11/19/2006, 03:36 AM
IIRC, that particular robot only had to crash into the comet, right?
IIRC, that particular robot only had to crash into the comet, right?
I think that may be right. and if you want to deflect a meteor, thats probably good enough as well. Practicing such techniques, IMHO, would be far more productive than sending people.
SicEmBaylor
11/19/2006, 03:40 AM
It sounds like we'd have to spend money on this. I..you know..don't like that and ****.
It sounds like we'd have to spend money on this. I..you know..don't like that and ****.
shut up tightwad. ;)
Vaevictis
11/19/2006, 03:42 AM
If all you wanted to do was a ballistic, yeah. The problem with a ballistic course change is that the energy required to effect the change might be enough to break the object up. That is obviously sub-optimal.
If you look at the article, you'll notice they want to try other things, which would necessarily require action on our agent's part once on the surface. ("mirrors, lights and even paint.")
And yeah, I agree that we have experience with multi-minute delay remote control, but the problem is that it takes absolutely FOREVER to get anything done. And what we've done so far in that field is far less complicated than erecting a bunch of mirrors or lights, or painting a huge *** surface.
Vaevictis
11/19/2006, 03:43 AM
It sounds like we'd have to spend money on this. I..you know..don't like that and ****.
If you don't like the fruits of government spending on science, why don't you boycott them?
I'll give you a hint as to how to accomplish this: Move in with the Amish.
SicEmBaylor
11/19/2006, 03:46 AM
If you don't like the fruits of government spending on science, why don't you boycott them?
I'll give you a hint as to how to accomplish this: Move in with the Amish.
If it's already paid for it'd be a shame to let it all go to waste.
On a side note...
What was the name of that other asteroid movie that came out about the time of Armageddon, but had the rodent guy from LOTR in it who marries this underage chick to save her. Morgan Freeman played POTUS.
Anywhoo, in that movie the government knows about the asteroid years in advance and prepares huge underground caves/bunkers so that a select few could stay alive and carry on civilization.
Well, if I were one of the people who got to choose who'd go into the cave then maybe it wouldn't be so bad afterall.
If all you wanted to do was a ballistic, yeah. The problem with a ballistic course change is that the energy required to effect the change might be enough to break the object up. That is obviously sub-optimal.
If you look at the article, you'll notice they want to try other things, which would necessarily require action on our agent's part once on the surface. ("mirrors, lights and even paint.")
And yeah, I agree that we have experience with multi-minute delay remote control, but the problem is that it takes absolutely FOREVER to get anything done. And what we've done so far in that field is far less complicated than erecting a bunch of mirrors or lights, or painting a huge *** surface.
Oh I agree...but I think in this case they are going about it all bass ackwards. I think first they should explore what they can and can't do with robotics before sending people. people are fragile, and not well suited for space. One mishap on a journey over millions can be catastrophic and re-trying such a mission is just as dangerous and expensive, whereas with robotics, as I said, we can do it cheaper, we don't have to worry about pesky life support systems, and we can launch multiple missions to account for the possibility of failure. My opinion is to not look to sending people at all until and unless it is deemed absolutely nessecary to accomplish what we want to accomplish
Well, if I were one of the people who got to choose who'd go into the cave then maybe it wouldn't be so bad afterall.
God help us if this ever comes to pass.
Vaevictis
11/19/2006, 03:52 AM
If it's already paid for it'd be a shame to let it all go to waste.
No sense at all standing on principle, eh? ;)
What was the name of that other asteroid movie that came out about the time of Armageddon, but had the rodent guy from LOTR in it who marries this underage chick to save her. Morgan Freeman played POTUS.
Deep Impact.
Vaevictis
11/19/2006, 03:58 AM
I think first they should explore what they can and can't do with robotics before sending people. people are fragile, and not well suited for space.
The problem is, as I stated previously: robots are stupid.
Robots are going to continue to be stupid for the forseeable future.
You can program them to act "instinctively" to known problems, but making a robot that actually adapts to unforseen scenarios involves way more than we are capable of now or will be capable of soon.
The problem is, as I stated previously: robots are stupid.
Robots are going to continue to be stupid for the forseeable future.
You can program them to act "instinctively" to known problems, but making a robot that actually adapts to unforseen scenarios involves way more than we are capable of now or will be capable of soon.
yeah, but I think the stupidity of robots is preferable to the frailty of humans in this case. Robots are very good at following instructions. I think we can find a way to give them a good set of instructions.
Scott D
11/19/2006, 04:01 AM
The problem is, as I stated previously: robots are stupid.
Robots are going to continue to be stupid for the forseeable future.
You can program them to act "instinctively" to known problems, but making a robot that actually adapts to unforseen scenarios involves way more than we are capable of now or will be capable of soon.
that's ok...because people are stupid as well. So with all that stupid going around, we might be safe. ;)
Vaevictis
11/19/2006, 04:03 AM
yeah, but I think the stupidity of robots is preferable to the frailty of humans in this case. Robots are very good at following instructions. I think we can find a way to give them a good set of instructions.
IMO, use them both. I'd rather have a few humans nearby in case the robots can't manage, or need remote control (due to less round-trip time on the RC signal).
And in such a scenario, I'm not too worried about the frailty of humans. That scenario is so bad, that being able to do a return trip is a bonus, not a requirement.
IMO, use them both. I'd rather have a few humans nearby in case the robots can't manage, or need remote control (due to less round-trip time on the RC signal).
And in such a scenario, I'm not too worried about the frailty of humans. That scenario is so bad, that being able to do a return trip is a bonus, not a requirement.
Its not the return trip I'm concerned about though.
Vaevictis
11/19/2006, 04:09 AM
Its not the return trip I'm concerned about though.
Well then, what are you concerned about? If you don't care about the return trip, all you need is enough oxygen (and scrubbers), water and food to keep them alive long enough to complete the mission.
Most of the short-term dangers are not hard to deal with -- ie, radiation, just add shielding -- and the long term stuff you don't care about at this point.
Well then, what are you concerned about? If you don't care about the return trip, all you need is enough oxygen (and scrubbers), water and food to keep them alive long enough to complete the mission.
Most of the short-term dangers are not hard to deal with -- ie, radiation, just add shielding -- and the long term stuff you don't care about at this point.
well, ya know, theres that whole blasting off thing to begin with...50% of shuttle disasters have happened that way. Second, regardless of the supplies quantities, life support systems can fail in a number of ways that can impair the crews ability to even make it there alive in the first place. that and space isnt completely empty on the way there. there's stuff out there thats small enough to not be detected that can have disasterous effects if it collides with critical parts of a vessel...and there are more of those on one that has to support life.
Vaevictis
11/19/2006, 04:13 AM
well, ya know, theres that whole blasting off thing to begin with...50% of shuttle disasters have happened that way.
That can happen to robots just as well as humans :)
That can happen to robots just as well as humans :)
true...but then its easy to send a second one after it. not so with people.
Vaevictis
11/19/2006, 04:24 AM
true...but then its easy to send a second one after it. not so with people.
Actually, on a mission like this, not so much. The windows on putting something where you want it in space are very, very small.
More than likely, if something like this blew up on launch, you wouldn't get a second chance.
(The reason being is that in order to do the stuff they're talking about, you'd have to intercept the object somewhere outside of Mars orbit -- which takes some serious doing. For example, as you probably know, we only have a window once every two years with our current tech to shoot something up at Mars. The fuel requirements at other times are waaaay high.)
Okla-homey
11/19/2006, 09:27 AM
In truth, manned space flight has netted us some pretty cool stuff...like "Tang," freeze-dried ice cream, digital technology, micro-processors, Velcro, battery-operated power tools, and Pillsbury "Space Food Sticks".
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/805/22222222222222spacefoodiv1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
I liked these when I was a kid in the 1960's. :D They were designed to fit through a sealable dime-sized eating hole in the Gemini astronauts' helmets.
StoopTroup
11/19/2006, 09:34 AM
Deep Space travel has been studied by many experts. :D
http://www.trevorstjohn.com/images/movie_biodome.jpghttp://outoffocus.typepad.com/outoffocus/images/Biodome-thumb.JPG
proud gonzo
11/19/2006, 12:35 PM
I'd feel a lot better if the held off manned space flight until they were able to do it with equipment that's not 30 years old.
sitzpinkler
11/19/2006, 12:51 PM
IIRC, that particular robot only had to crash into the comet, right?
that's different, we landed a craft on an asteroid as well
MichelleDawn
11/19/2006, 01:31 PM
Men are curious sorts and have been exploring their environment since the dawn of time. And space exploration is significantly safer than sea-going vessels from the 16th and 17th centuries. You cannot run until you learn to walk, imagine the auto industry trying to evolve and develop better cars without actually building any cars.
But on the practical side there are nearly 7 billion people on earth. And with medical science closing in on a cure for cancer, AIDS, and stem cell development, some of us will live a quality life well over 100. I think a day will come when we will terraform and eventually settle a planet for reasons not all that different from Euro-settlers moving to America. ( Business, land, and to escape suppression from a number of sources)
It's all about money and balance but with the private sector, Europe,and China starting to play an active role in space travel, space travel isn't going anywhere.
Actually, the F-14 Tomcat gave us microprocessors 6 years before they were ever used in space exploration (where they were used in un-manned space probes).
just sayin.
In truth, manned space flight has netted us some pretty cool stuff...like "Tang," freeze-dried ice cream, digital technology, micro-processors, Velcro, battery-operated power tools, and Pillsbury "Space Food Sticks".
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/805/22222222222222spacefoodiv1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
I liked these when I was a kid in the 1960's. :D They were designed to fit through a sealable dime-sized eating hole in the Gemini astronauts' helmets.
Men are curious sorts and have been exploring their environment since the dawn of time. And space exploration is significantly safer than sea-going vessels from the 16th and 17th centuries. You cannot run until you learn to walk, imagine the auto industry trying to evolve and develop better cars without actually building any cars.
But on the practical side there are nearly 7 billion people on earth. And with medical science closing in on a cure for cancer, AIDS, and stem cell development, some of us will live a quality life well over 100. I think a day will come when we will terraform and eventually settle a planet for reasons not all that different from Euro-settlers moving to America. ( Business, land, and to escape suppression from a number of sources)
It's all about money and balance but with the private sector, Europe,and China starting to play an active role in space travel, space travel isn't going anywhere.
space travel ain't going anywhere any time soon. there's only one planet and a couple of moons that people would even ever consider inhabiting, and they really aren't all that far away. Theres not much else we can consider sending people to, due to that pesky speed of light barrier.
Okla-homey
11/19/2006, 03:06 PM
Actually, the F-14 Tomcat gave us microprocessors 6 years before they were ever used in space exploration (where they were used in un-manned space probes).
just sayin.
Okay, but we still scored cordless drills and stuff from manned space flight. :D
and velcro. Think about all the little kids who haven't had to learn to tie their shoes as a result...and one armed people too.
proud gonzo
11/19/2006, 03:19 PM
Okay, but we still scored cordless drills and stuff from manned space flight. :D
and velcro. Think about all the little kids who haven't had to learn to tie their shoes as a result...and one armed people too.
velcro causes people to only have one arm??? :eek:
I say we just put a giant frickin laser on the Moon!
We'll call it the "Death Star"!
skycat
11/20/2006, 11:11 AM
I'll just chime in on a couple of things here.
As to how big the window is, and how many missions we might be able to launch in an attempt to divert an object with an intersectin orbit, the fact is we may have lots of chances or we may have one, or none. It is entirely possible that we find a new asteroid and discover that it's orbit will cause it to collide, or to at least come dangerously close to colliding, with Earth many years from now. On the other hand we might not see it until it's too late.
Mapping objects with Earth-crossing orbits is a task that we should devote more resources to.
Ike is correct in that manned spaceflight isn't the most cost effective method of generating new scientific data in most cases. I think there are a handful exceptions however. Frankly, this is a valid one.
And it is true that there is inherent value in having humans in space. That value is difficult to quantify however.
plumbob
11/20/2006, 11:57 AM
They need to get their asses busy shooting the atmosphere full of sulphur particles to save the ice caps.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.