News WSJ: Europe Ends Independent Pursuit of Manned Space Travel

[Urwumpe]

Except it isn't about technology or democracy. It's about the gain vs. cost of a scientific mission to Mars.

First of all, the engineering knowledge required for the mission is also important. It is not just about solving a non-engineering problem with engineering, but also about getting new engineering solutions for known and unknown problems.

Next, what do you know about the scientific questions linked to life on Mars? This isn't just about Mars, but also about our solar system, Earth and the universe as whole. It is about resources - we know some ways how to locate resources on Earth, but we can sure also learn more there on Mars about ways we didn't even consider yet.

Finally, it is also about pushing the boundary of mankind a bit more, as pathetic as it sounds. We haven't been there yet, and even if you don't like it there, some might want to work there.

 

[N_Molson]

What research is occuring on the ISS right now? Has any of it looked promising to help anyone, in the next 50 years?

Well, there is some research being done there. But the ISS has not the equipement of an Earth scientific lab, and we can't expect it to find a treatement against cancer. But maybe creating molecules in 0g that might help.

Of course, there is the production problem. A gram of matter produced aboard the ISS is insanely expensive, so it's more theoretical research. Industrial facilities would be required for next steps. Especially when it comes to exotic composite materials or crystals.

There is other applications though : by studying how organisms react in 0g, scientists can understand better how they work in 1g conditions.

Well, here is the "official" page about it :

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/index.html

Space Station Research Structure and Goals

NASA's research goals for the space station are driven by the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 and are focused on the following four areas: human health and exploration, technology testing for enabling future exploration, research in basic life and physical sciences, and Earth and space science.

 

[T.Neo]

Yes - I think the RASV experiment into Salmonella vaccines could help an awful lot of people.

And this RASV research needs the microgravity environment of the ISS?

Ok- that's one useful result of station research. Any others?

Are there any other $300 billion vaccines out there? :dry:

First of all, the engineering knowledge required for the mission is also important. It is not just about solving a non-engineering problem with engineering, but also about getting new engineering solutions for known and unknown problems.

A lot of the engineering needed for a Mars spacecraft isn't related to a lot of engineering on Earth, and if it is... I think it is pretty unimaginitive to say that the only way of gaining that practical knowledge in a seperate situation is to fly to Mars.

Next, what do you know about the scientific questions linked to life on Mars? This isn't just about Mars, but also about our solar system, Earth and the universe as whole. It is about resources - we know some ways how to locate resources on Earth, but we can sure also learn more there on Mars about ways we didn't even consider yet.

Yes, that is a nice scientific, even philosophical question... but not one with a 'hard' impact.

Resources on Earth and resources on Mars are two different things. A lot of things on Mars that are valuable resources are quite abundant on Earth.

Finally, it is also about pushing the boundary of mankind a bit more, as pathetic as it sounds. We haven't been there yet, and even if you don't like it there, some might want to work there.

Oh, I'd love to go to Mars. Doesn't mean it isn't an extremely poor environment compared to most of the Earth. And it comes at a huge cost as well.

Why don't we go to Antarctica or the Sahara? They are relatively poor environments, that are far easier to get to, yet we do not see a huge interest in them...

But maybe creating molecules in 0g that might help.

Are they even creating these molecules? What molecules are they creating?

Should we rest assured that they are just creating these special microgravity molecules for research, and we don't need to know about them?

Of course, there is the production problem. A gram of matter produced aboard the ISS is insanely expensive, so it's more theoretical research. Industrial facilities would be required for next steps. Especially when it comes to exotic composite materials or crystals.

Not only industrial facilities... but an industrial infrastructure. An infrastructure that simply doesn't exist (yet). We may have some ideas for it, but these are just ideas... so far.

If the ISS were to return 5 tons of material for 15 years, a gram of that material would cost $4000, assuming the cost of the ISS is $300 billion and neglecting the cost of the other infrastructure needed to transport that substance.

Are there any medicines or other special compounds that cost $4000 a gram?

There is other applications though : by studying how organisms react in 0g, scientists can understand better how they work in 1g conditions.

Wow, that really makes sense. Based on research done in microgravity, I hereby conclude that humans regularly suffer from bouts of muscle and bone atrophy.

:shifty:

:lol:

human health and exploration, technology testing for enabling future exploration, research in basic life and physical sciences, and Earth and space science.

What is this 'exploration'? Also travelling to unlivable hyperdeserts for some geological trivia?

Surely Earth and space science are better done by satellites?

 

[N_Molson]

Wow, that really makes sense. Based on research done in microgravity, I hereby conclude that humans regularly suffer from bouts of muscle and bone atrophy.

:shrug:

You can't just say things like that. I was more thinking about experiments about simple organisms, vegetals. There ARE reports of the research done there, but they are adressed to specialists, on this area, there is a huge lack of communication. But still, reading them before saying "what is done aboard the ISS is useless" would be interesting. I suppose.

What is this 'exploration'? Also travelling to unlivable hyperdeserts for some geological trivia?

The geological trivia is about the creation of Universe. It does interest me.

Surely Earth and space science are better done by satellites?

Concerning Earth & Space science, while there are specialized satellites, it seems a good idea to also have a "general" observatory, always available, with humans able to interpret varied data inside it.

And about orbital industrial facilities, yes, we're not close to it. But when Bell began his first experiments on telecommunications, could anyone have predicted humans would build there lives about the electronic communication networks 150 years later ?

Edit : there are weekly reports about research on NASA website, quite easy to read, but hard to find (NASA site is still a mess...). Here's the latest one :

Weekly Research Highlights

(Highlights: Third Week of August 2011) -- On Aug. 16, Satoshi Furukawa successfully completed three additional Shear History Extensional Rheology Experiment-2 (SHERE-2) runs. On Aug. 20, Michael Fossum completed 10 SHERE-2 runs as voluntary science. All 25 samples are now complete. SHERE-2 studies the effect of rotational stresses on the stretching viscosity of non-Newtonian fluids in microgravity. The fundamental understanding and measurement of the extensional rheology of complex fluids is important for understanding containerless processing, an important operation for fabrication of parts using elastomeric materials on future exploration missions. This knowledge also can be applied to controlling and improving Earth-based manufacturing processes.

On Aug. 22, the soak test was performed successfully on Robonaut-2. Robonaut is a dexterous humanoid robot – i.e., a humanoid robot that has the ability to use its hands to do work -- designed for tasks that require fine motor control and strength endurance. It is slightly larger than a human, and is capable of generating hand and arm forces exceeding human strength. It serves as a springboard to help evolve new robotic capabilities in space. Robonaut demonstrates that a dexterous robot can launch and operate in a space vehicle, manipulate mechanisms in a microgravity environment, operate for an extended duration within the space environment, assist with tasks and eventually interact with the crew members.

On Aug. 15, Ron Garan ran the final session for the Synchronized Position Hold, Engage, Reorient, Experimental Satellites - Zero - Robotics (SPHERES-Zero-Robotics) competition. SPHERES-Zero-Robotics is a robotics programming competition in which middle-school students write programs to control the SPHERES satellites to achieve the game objectives while competing or collaborating with other contestants. These bowling-ball-sized satellites race against each other inside the space station to win the game. The goal is to build critical engineering skills for students, such as problem solving, design thought process, operations training and team work.

The Erasmus Recording Binoculars-2 (ERB-2) was powered on to enable download of the imagery to the European Rack Drawer. ERB-2 is a 3D video camera that is used to take images of the environment aboard the space station to create an accurate map of the station's interior.

On Aug. 17, Satoshi Furukawa performed a checkout of the Onboard Diagnostics Kit. The Onboard Diagnostics Kit was used to support the investigation Biological Rhythms, which examines the effect of long-term microgravity exposure on cardiac autonomic function. The Onboard Diagnostics Kit is a total telemedicine system including a stethoscope and an electroencephalography. It is capable of measuring, storing and analyzing the space stations crew’s medical data.

Vic Cooley, Lead Increment Scientist
Expedition 27/28

Here is the page : http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news.html

And here are the Archives : http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/Weekly_Summaries_archive_1.html

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

And this RASV research needs the microgravity environment of the ISS?

Ok- that's one useful result of station research. Any others?

Are there any other $300 billion vaccines out there? :dry:

Yes, RASV does need the microgravity environment of the ISS - that's the whole point of the experiment.

I agree that one experiment alone isn't enough to warrant the cost of ISS (which is $100 billion - don't know where you got $300 billion from). But when you include all the hundreds of other experiments and technology demonstrations on ISS, which benefit both Earth and future space exploration, the cost, in my opinion, is justified.

 

[T.Neo]

Where are these technology demonstrations? Where is the intrinsic, highly important reason RASV needs the ISS microgravity environment?

Why aren't we hearing about major research going on in the ISS?

Surely it would be advantageous PR to display the fact that the ISS is actually performing a return on the billions spent on it?

Sorry, but a $300 billion project... that is just a huge amount of money. For a vaccine here and a novel new way to grow crystals there, and some time spent in space reinforcing the fact that bones atrophy in microgravity?

Why are we caring about exploration of things far removed from any benefit to anyone? Mars is in the sky, it isn't here on Earth. There is no practical use for Mars.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

Where are these technology demonstrations? Where is the intrinsic, highly important reason RASV needs the ISS microgravity environment?

Why aren't we hearing about major research going on in the ISS?

Surely it would be advantageous PR to display the fact that the ISS is actually performing a return on the billions spent on it?

Sorry, but a $300 billion project... that is just a huge amount of money. For a vaccine here and a novel new way to grow crystals there, and some time spent in space reinforcing the fact that bones atrophy in microgravity?

Why are we caring about exploration of things far removed from any benefit to anyone? Mars is in the sky, it isn't here on Earth. There is no practical use for Mars.

Where are they? They're in space, of course! :lol:

All of these questions can be answered if you do a little research yourself. There are lots of places where you can learn about the research currently being performed on ISS. NASA do promote research on the ISS webpage on www.nasa.gov.

You can read all about RASV - and why it needs the microgravity environment - here:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/RASV.html

(And, as I said, ISS cost $100 billion, not $300 billion.)

 

[T.Neo]

(And, as I said, ISS cost $100 billion, not $300 billion.)

That is one cost estimate. There are other cost estimates that go as low as $30 billion. $100 billion or $300 billion might be total lifetime costs though.

You can read all about RASV - and why it needs the microgravity environment - here:

I actually don't care about the huge RASV article, only why it needs the space environment. That article is so roundabout and... NASA-ish that it is really difficult to discern its key points by glancing through it. No, I don't have time to read through the whole thing, and no, I don't care. I have other (admittedly just as useless) things to do.

All of these questions can be answered if you do a little research yourself. There are lots of places where you can learn about the research currently being performed on ISS. NASA do promote research on the ISS webpage on www.nasa.gov.

"A little research myself"?

I already research this stuff, and it's an absolute pain. If I have to go looking into the bowels of the internet for some smidgen of NASA research, that's their fault, not mine.

Let's see the Shuttle & Station news topics page;

Step in Space Station Commercial Re-Supply Accomplished

Preflight Interview: Anton Shkaplerov

Preflight Interview: Anatoly Ivanishin

Preflight Interview: Dan Burbank

Discovering New Orbits with Kids in Micro-g

So we have some news on commercial resupply, some interviews, and a bit about an outreach program.

Looking through the recent archives, we also have stuff on the SCAs, the piece of Columbia debris found recently, imaging of Shuttle exhaust plumes, an astronaut video blog, something about a plant experiment, a spacewalk, the RASV, something on STS-135, Fly-By-Wire solving a Shuttle oscillation problem, and the recovery of the MISSE.

Let's see... out of all of that, we have a vaccine, something about plants, and a space exposure experiment.

For a $100 billion manned orbital complex? That still does not make sense to me. The LHC costs a fraction of that and is intended to answer some very important scientific questions... and the ISS is supposed to 'do microgravity research'. What research? Where is this research helping us? What is the cost of this research, per discovery?

Ok, so the ISS cost is also largely due to high launch costs on STS maybe, but even without STS it would be pretty costly.

Wasn't there some HIV-based research done around the time Shuttleworth went up? Where are the results of that? Surely far, far more has been accomplished in many fields, in ground based facilities...

 

[Urwumpe]

Worst case life-time costs are actually 150 billion - this includes a lot of bad stuff to happen. Realistic is now 120 billion, before the life-time was extended it was just 100 as most likely scenario.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

That is one cost estimate. There are other cost estimates that go as low as $30 billion. $100 billion or $300 billion might be total lifetime costs though.

True, but $100 billion is the most widely-accepted cost estimate. If ISS is funded at $5 billion a year internationally for the next 10 years, that would still only amount to $150 billion - no-where near $300 billion.

If you aren't interested in reading about ISS research, then that's fine - everybody has their own interests, and you're entitled to yours. But, if you aren't going to read about these things, then you should stop commenting on things which you aren't informed about.

Just an FYI, if you are looking for a full breakdown of all ISS research, you can do so at the link below, which is displayed prominently on the NASA ISS website, under the "Research" tab.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments_category.html

 

[Eagle1Division]

I'm sorry I really don't have the time to really keep up with the discussion here, and reply point-by-point, but I do have something else to add (However off-topic to the research returns from the ISS, which I'll agree with Orbinaut Pete on, well justified), but back to manned spaceflight / space exploration in general...

The first reaction I can expect from certain critics hint hint is rolling eyes when I mention the "New World", in terms of the Moon and Mars. That is painting an analogy in-between the Americas in the 1700's and the Moon and Mars today.

Yes, they're very different. The Americas require a sailing ship loaded with supplies and crew, while the Moon and Mars require large ground infrastructures, and large spaceships with all their complex subsystems. The New World was a lush woodland, while the Moon and Mars are "hyperdeserts" (actually, this term really isn't accurate...).

The challenge is much greater. But so is our technological ability, the world's population, and tied to that, the enormous infrastructure we enjoy today. When you compare the two, they're actually very similar...

The New World was a long journey away on a large ship stocked full of supplies. Today, we can mathematically know in advance if the ship will make it or not. But back then, they had to stock up and hope for the best. A bad, or lack of wind, a storm, or any failure of the ship would kill them all. These ships weren't cheap, either. They had to carry all the equipment and tools to build a colony in the New World, a knowledgable and experienced crew, and a massive hold for supplies. It was a great technological challenge for them at the time, as well.

The New World wasn't exactly hospitable, either. I don't know how much people from other countries are educated in early colonial history - but many of the early colonies failed, more than half the people died, there were "staving times", harsh winters, they had to build their own cabins, and in the meantime survive natives, who on occasion, were trying to kill them, and would raid the colonies and burn what little crops they managed to grow in the alien environment.

In terms of hospitality - we actually have it better off with Mars. It's not a hyperdesert. There's lots of water ice - from which you can extract water to drink, and oxygen to breathe, or to provide oxidizer/propellant for your ERV. Oxygen is also rich in the soil, and so is nitrogen. Nitrogen can be used for breathing air as well, and to act as nutrients for soil - if you choose to make a greenhouse. And not only can we bring our own shelters along - inflatable greenhouses or habitats - but we can land a fully built "cabin" on the surface. As an added bonus, there are no natives trying to kill us there.

As for funding - many of the early explorers worked very hard to secure funding - it was a significant challenge.

Now here's the part I want to highlight...

At the time the early explorers went, the very first, you didn't have entire populations wanting to go. Nobody had even hardly been there, nevermind planting an entire colony. They only managed to get funding by promising riches in the New World - well, it turned out in the end it was a monetary loss (and decades later, a rebellion, even.) They only went because of the promised money involved.

- But looking back at it today, does anyone even care about the money exchange? What do we think of those who refused to fund the early explorers? Was it worth it?
Of course, as someone living on this continent I'd say yes. But this even effected the whole world. How would World War I or II have been different, if the New World had never been colonized? Or more realistically, what if the colonization took place decades or centuries later, and the USA was some small, third-world country, during WWI and WWII? What about the spread of communism during the cold war? The Korean War?
What if the ability and knowledge to colonize hadn't had been there at the time of the Irish potato famine, of the religious persecutions in England?

And arguably (as the case is presented in The 5,000 Year Leap), the colonization and subsequent rebellion of the colonists led to the writing of the Constitution, which arguably started a wave of free thinking and a desire for democracy and an end to monarchy around the western world. Even more arguably, the merits of democracy may have been the seeds for the industrial era, and the modern society of today, where the last 200 years have seen far more advancement than the previous 5,000 years of human history. All brought about because of our ability to colonize the New World - which at the time was less survivable for the early pre-colonial explorers than Mars or Luna would be for our astronauts today.

And when you look at the potential - the significance and value of it all - and look at what it costs! T.Neo, my point in mentioning the two holidays was to highlight just what tiny amount of funding NASA receives - how their budget is literally two days of a year compared to some of the larger federal programs. You wouldn't even have to declare two holidays - you could just add two extra sick days to the benefits of government workers. How can anyone say all of this that I've described - isn't even worth that insignificant amount? You could add a holiday and two sick days to government benefits - just purely for it's own sake.

Now you could say "You're talking about colonies!" Yes, I am. And of course they're a long ways away. But how do we ever expect to reach that point of technological ability if we don't work towards it? Newer, better rocket engines and space-based powerplants don't come from other types of research. This technology isn't going to just fall into your lap. It needs funding, research, and development. Colonies are always going to be a long ways away if we don't take steps towards them. Spaceflight is always going to be too expensive if we don't get better technology for it, and more experience.

And like I said, this technology or experience isn't going to just fall in our lap.



That's only one argument... Nevermind the economic, inspirational to boost economy and technological devlopment, as well as direct scientific and technological benefit arguments I made earlier, and are being made now...

One thing that gets me about critics is this attitude of "prove it to me". Demanding articles, and knowing all of these things - demanding others to work and prove it, otherwise you simply refuse to believe they exist.

For example: On principle and because I've heard it before from a few sources (Yes, pro-space exploration sources, what's wrong with that?), I'm pretty sure it does boost education rates, which in turn boosts the entire economy, infrastructure, and technological development of a society. Yet you won't believe it unless I prove it. Well I'm sorry, but I'm not going to take the time to research it, I've got other things to do.

Orbinaut Pete, M Nolson and perhaps others earlier in this thread are being very patient and kind to spend their time to provide sources to back up their points. But it's somewhat rediculous when one side of an argument most procure all the evidence - and the other doesn't. We've provided plenty of arguments and lots of sources for manned spaceflight, with no real argument against it except money - which it takes a pathetically small amount of, compared to other federal programs. That ~$ 120 billion to the ISS has been over the span of some-odd 20 years from many different countries. Peanuts compared to other small government programs within each individual country. Nevermind the big ones.

 

[T.Neo]

If you aren't interested in reading about ISS research, then that's fine - everybody has their own interests, and you're entitled to yours. But, if you aren't going to read about these things, then you should stop commenting on things which you aren't informed about.

No, I'm not actually interested in RASV. I'm interested in what it could do and why it needs to be placed aboard a $100 billion manned orbital complex.

And of course: how important research can be done without a $100 billion manned orbital complex. Just because things are being done on the ISS does not mean the ISS is being used optimally, or is optimal in any way.

And without that $100 billion facility does not mean research with a stick and a collection of tupperware... maybe it means a $10 billion orbital facility instead.

Just an FYI, if you are looking for a full breakdown of all ISS research, you can do so at the link below, which is displayed prominently on the NASA ISS website, under the "Research" tab.

A lot of it is pure space research, that has most of its importance in study of human and biological reaction to the space environment. Since everyone lives on Earth, this does not really have many real-world applications.

We have some biological experiments that could be recreated on Earth, depending on various conditions (closed ecological systems- I didn't know they were limited to space :dry.

We have a whole section on space and Earth science, that could theoretically be performed by an unmanned complex/spacecraft.

Some technology demonstrators, again useful for spaceflight, potentially testable on the ground in some way (which they probably were before flying on the ISS).

Taste evaluation of Malaysian Food on Earth and in Space - huh? For $100 billion? Should we taste-test South African or Bolivian food for $100 billion as well? :lol:

Radiation measurement, important for better understanding of LEO environment but inadequate for understanding the radiation flux in BEO locations. Because... LEO is not a BEO location...

Robotics- nothing that couldn't potentially be tested on Earth for far lower cost, obviously has to be implemented in space to be implemented in Space... but is Robonaut really that useful, or is it just a PR stunt?

Spacecraft materials- could also be tested on unmanned vehicles, potentially with less disturbance from EVA activities, vented waste materials, or RCS bursts.

Still no groundbreaking or majorly useful research. A lot of it doesn't benefit people on the ground directly because it is related to the space environment intrinsically. And a lot of it does seem like "hey, we have this facility, let's do something with it... I know, let's find out how X performs in microgravity!"

I think the manned space station paradigm is just another holdover from the Von Braun vision, when space was cheap and pretty much everything on a spacecraft had to be operated by a human. At least this station actually creates a novel environment for study... von Braun's station had artificial gravity onboard, which would ruin all usefulness of the ISS. Then again, things like Earth and space sciences aboard von Braun's wheel station were justified, as the sort of automation we see today was not part of that vision.

But: imagine this;

How many Earth-bound research facilities could you build, for $100 billion?

How many things could all those research facilities do, for a fraction of the cost of the ISS?

How many discoveries could they make?

Even our biggest scientific projects on Earth apparently aren't as costly as spaceflight. Yet many of them provide useful research, while the ISS provides... trivia.

---------- Post added at 23:37 ---------- Previous post was at 23:12 ----------

That is painting an analogy in-between the Americas in the 1700's and the Moon and Mars today.

Yes, they're very different. The Americas require a sailing ship loaded with supplies and crew, while the Moon and Mars require large ground infrastructures, and large spaceships with all their complex subsystems. The New World was a lush woodland, while the Moon and Mars are "hyperdeserts" (actually, this term really isn't accurate...).

The challenge is much greater. But so is our technological ability, the world's population, and tied to that, the enormous infrastructure we enjoy today. When you compare the two, they're actually very similar...

The New World was a long journey away on a large ship stocked full of supplies. Today, we can mathematically know in advance if the ship will make it or not. But back then, they had to stock up and hope for the best. A bad, or lack of wind, a storm, or any failure of the ship would kill them all. These ships weren't cheap, either. They had to carry all the equipment and tools to build a colony in the New World, a knowledgable and experienced crew, and a massive hold for supplies. It was a great technological challenge for them at the time, as well.

Also with a far greater reward. The difference is that their new world actually offered a place to live, and a means of profit, for that risk. You can't blame them for not figuring logistics out properly.

Our population, our technology, does not help the fact that our prospective destinations are useless to us. It started out this way in the 1950s and 1960s and our technology has only increased.

It hasn't helped.

The New World wasn't exactly hospitable, either. I don't know how much people from other countries are educated in early colonial history - but many of the early colonies failed, more than half the people died, there were "staving times", harsh winters, they had to build their own cabins, and in the meantime survive natives, who on occasion, were trying to kill them, and would raid the colonies and burn what little crops they managed to grow in the alien environment.

Let's see;

They had free air.

They had (more or less) free water.

They had (more or less) free land to grow crops.

They had (more or less) abundant wildlife which they could use for food if need be.

They had (more or less) abundant fuel.

Hostile, yes. Unlivable? No. Many people did not survive, but it was still possible and advantageous to survive there for those who did.

And let's get to the biggest deciding factor:

The technology they needed to survive was the same or similar to the technology that they would have used back home during their daily lives.

Now, let's go to Mars:

- A habitat will not be provided for you. You will have to create and maintain your own habitat.

- Food will not be provided for you. You will have to create and maintain your own means of gaining food.

- A habitat will not be provided for your food. You will have to create and maintain this habitat.

- Resources, where they can be found, will need to be converted into a useful form before they can be utilised. You will need to create andmaintain the infrastructure to do so.

- Transport outside of your limited habitat will kill you unless you create and maintain the means to do so first.

Sorry, but you can stand in the New World, and the chance of immediately dying (mauled by wild animal, shot by native, eat poisonous frog, etc) is quite low.

Stand on Mars, and without an expensive and complicated and specialised piece of equiment, you will die. Almost immediately.

In terms of hospitality - we actually have it better off with Mars. It's not a hyperdesert.

Oh yes it is, very much so. Worse than pretty much anywhere on Earth. The only places that might be worse, are the deep oceans (because there's a lot of pressure there), or the polar/alpine deserts (only because the air is thicker than that on Mars and might rob your heat more effectively).

Pretty much everywhere on Earth has better resources than on Mars. For starters, Earth has air. You need to keep warm in Antarctica or cool in the Sahara, but you don't have to worry about an air leak.

There's lots of water ice - from which you can extract water to drink, and oxygen to breathe, or to provide oxidizer/propellant for your ERV.

At a cost. You need a good power source and all sorts of equipment to perform meaningful ISRU. If you rely on ISRU and your equipment fails, you die fairly quickly.

Oxygen is also rich in the soil, and so is nitrogen. Nitrogen can be used for breathing air as well

On Earth, we have never had to split apart the chemical content of rocks in order to breathe...

And not only can we bring our own shelters along - inflatable greenhouses or habitats

All have their limitations and their dangers.

but we can land a fully built "cabin" on the surface

Again, limitations and dangers. And cost.

In the New World, you could maybe build your cabin out of wood. Wood is preexisting building material. On Mars, there is no preexisting building material- you will have to make it first. The materials might be there, but you can't just cut them down and stack them into a shelter.

What do we think of those who refused to fund the early explorers? Was it worth it?

If it ended up being such a bad thing for them, no, it wasn't worth it.

Are you proposing wasting money and sending people to their deaths?

That sounds like a very bad idea to me.

Of course, as someone living on this continent I'd say yes. But this even effected the whole world. How would World War I or II have been different, if the New World had never been colonized? Or more realistically, what if the colonization took place decades or centuries later, and the USA was some small, third-world country, during WWI and WWII? What about the spread of communism during the cold war? The Korean War?
What if the ability and knowledge to colonize hadn't had been there at the time of the Irish potato famine, of the religious persecutions in England?

So... you're suggesting we waste money and effectively kill people, to colonise unlivable hyperdeserts, so these colonised hyperdeserts can come back to us in several hundred years and defend us from an entirely hypothetical World Aggressor?

I don't buy it. Sorry. If Venus was a jungle and Mars was a meadow...

All brought about because of our ability to colonize the New World - which at the time was less survivable for the early pre-colonial explorers than Mars or Luna would be for our astronauts today.

Wrong. Please try to understand the technical limits faced by people in a hostile environment, and then try to understand the technical limits faced by people who are situated in a place that doesn't even have an 'environment' of any sort.

Space is far, far more dangerous than the New World was.

And when you look at the potential - the significance and value of it all - and look at what it costs! T.Neo, my point in mentioning the two holidays was to highlight just what tiny amount of funding NASA receives - how their budget is literally two days of a year compared to some of the larger federal programs. You wouldn't even have to declare two holidays - you could just add two extra sick days to the benefits of government workers. How can anyone say all of this that I've described - isn't even worth that insignificant amount? You could add a holiday and two sick days to government benefits - just purely for it's own sake.

Why don't you want to use money here on Earth? To help real people in the real world? Not people in some far-off hypothetical scenario that you came up with?

I'm not against funding the Space Program. I'm against waste of money in the space program. With the space program we need to figure out how to do what we do for far less and increase the advantageousness of the whole operation.

A colonisation effort would be a massive waste of money.

Now you could say "You're talking about colonies!" Yes, I am. And of course they're a long ways away. But how do we ever expect to reach that point of technological ability if we don't work towards it? Newer, better rocket engines and space-based powerplants don't come from other types of research. This technology isn't going to just fall into your lap. It needs funding, research, and development. Colonies are always going to be a long ways away if we don't take steps towards them. Spaceflight is always going to be too expensive if we don't get better technology for it, and more experience.

Just as a comparison between the New World and Space, how much do you think it cost someone to get to the New World?


How much do you think it would cost to send someone to Mars, with realistic technology?

Space powerplants won't help you here... if they are magical, they will help, but they will sadly also be impossible.

That's only one argument... Nevermind the economic, inspirational to boost economy and technological devlopment, as well as direct scientific and technological benefit arguments I made earlier, and are being made now...

Scientific and technological benefits that can be performed for far less money. I personally posit that to say otherwise is to act close-minded in an attempt to defend manned spaceflight.

This colonisation will not benefit anyone, those are extremely poor environments there. Our future here lies in making the best use of the environment(s) we have.

You don't lock away the sky, but you better keep a firm grip on the ground, lest your head float away...

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

A couple of comments I'd like to make:

We have a whole section on space and Earth science, that could theoretically be performed by an unmanned complex/spacecraft.

Yes, they could, but why create an unmanned platform with enough power and data downlink capabilities to support multiple experiments, when the ISS is there and able to do it?

Some technology demonstrators, again useful for spaceflight, potentially testable on the ground in some way (which they probably were before flying on the ISS).

One of the biggest assets that ISS gives us is the ability to test things in space. If you question the need for that, let's take a look at the ISS Environmental Control & Life Support System (ECLSS).

The ISS ECLSS was designed by some of the smartest PhDs on the planet for ten or so years before it flew. It was tested on Earth, and worked brilliantly. Now that's it's in space, the failure rate has (so far) been high. We've had to replace multiple parts via the Shuttle, and recently the crew have started performing "surgery" on it at sub-component level. This is a big step in on-orbit servicing, since it's never been tried before, and it has given NASA a skill that they didn't previously have.

The ISS ELCSS shows that it's essential to test systems - even systems that work perfectly on Earth - in space, before we go to places like Mars. If we tried to go to Mars with our current ECLSS hardware, we wouldn't even reach the red planet before a lot of it failed. So that is one of the big uses that ISS will have over the next 10 years - helping in the design of closed-loop, bio-regenerative ECLSS, which will be essential for future BEO missions.

Robotics- nothing that couldn't potentially be tested on Earth for far lower cost, obviously has to be implemented in space to be implemented in Space... but is Robonaut really that useful, or is it just a PR stunt?

Wrong. That's why the Robotic Refuelling Mission (RRM) was launched on STS-135 - because NASA wanted to test satellite servicing in space. They had already done it on Earth, but they still needed to do it in space. The ISS was a great platform to do this because all the robotics systems needed (Dextre) were already on-board.

Robonaut 2 is far more than just a PR stunt - in the near-term it will free up the ISS crew to concentrate on science by tanking on some of their maintenance duties, and in the long term it will help develop they best ways for humans and robots to work side-by-side - something that will definitely be needed on future BEO missions.

 

[T.Neo]

Yes, they could, but why create an unmanned platform with enough power and data downlink capabilities to support multiple experiments, when the ISS is there and able to do it?

"We have it, let's use it"

Please understand the difference I'm trying to make between whether we should spend/have spent $100 billion on the ISS and what we are spending on the ISS.

We can't help that the ISS exists now, but just because it exists doesn't mean it is the optimal solution.

For example, a small, recoverable, unmanned spacecraft, launched on an expendable booster, would be an interesting platform for some space exposure or microgravity experiments.

One of the biggest assets that ISS gives us is the ability to test things in space. If you question the need for that, let's take a look at the ISS Environmental Control & Life Support System (ECLSS).

The ISS ECLSS was designed by some of the smartest PhDs on the planet for ten or so years before it flew. It was tested on Earth, and worked brilliantly. Now that's it's in space, the failure rate has (so far) been high. We've had to replace multiple parts via the Shuttle, and recently the crew have started performing "surgery" on it at sub-component level. This is a big step in on-orbit servicing, since it's never been tried before, and it has given NASA a skill that they didn't previously have.

The ISS ELCSS shows that it's essential to test systems - even systems that work perfectly on Earth - in space, before we go to places like Mars. If we tried to go to Mars with our current ECLSS hardware, we wouldn't even reach the red planet before a lot of it failed. So that is one of the big uses that ISS will have over the next 10 years - helping in the design of closed-loop, bio-regenerative ECLSS, which will be essential for future BEO missions.

Those notional future BEO missions... how many people, out of the global population, are going to fly on those BEO missions?

Don't you think it would be important to figure out why, you say, the ECLSS has failed in space, and not on Earth? It would sure help if we didn't have to create a $100 billion orbital facility to spot those sorts of problems.

Sub-component repair? Do we really need a $100 billion orbital facility for that? We couldn't have tested that partially on the ground, or partially on a shuttle flight or similar?

Wrong. That's why the Robotic Refuelling Mission (RRM) was launched on STS-135 - because NASA wanted to test satellite servicing in space. They had already done it on Earth, but they still needed to do it in space. The ISS was a great platform to do this because all the robotics systems needed (Dextre) were already on-board.

And Dextre cost how much?

The station cost how much?

The shuttle launch cost how much?

What would the result have been, if the technology existed to test the refuelling testbed without such a monstrosity of a facility? (and again, please don't shout "But that technology doesn't exist" - I'm not arguing against that, I'm arguing that if it's better, it should exist and it should be used in place of stuff like the ISS).

Isn't the intent to use this technology to refuel satellites? What is it doing on the station then? It it is eventually supposed to operate independantly, couldn't it be tested in that sort of independant scenario?

Robonaut 2 is far more than just a PR stunt - in the near-term it will free up the ISS crew to concentrate on science by tanking on some of their maintenance duties,

Really? When? How? Has the first "Robonaut EVA" been planned yet?

and in the long term it will help develop they best ways for humans and robots to work side-by-side - something that will definitely be needed on future BEO missions.

Again... the mythical future BEO missions, costing billions to the Earthly taxpayer.

We can't learn how to work with robots on Earth? Does it really pay out to the person on the ground, if we learn a bit about how to explore an unlivable hyperdesert with a robot, on a $100 billion space station?

 

[N_Molson]

Taste evaluation of Malaysian Food on Earth and in Space - huh? For $100 billion? Should we taste-test South African or Bolivian food for $100 billion as well?

Again, no, that's the kind of shortcut that isn't true. What you will see in the weekly reports may not seem impressive, but there are years of those. When you sum up all that, the famous $100 billions were rather well-spent. And people up there can have the right to have a little fun from time to time, that's scientists jokes...

 

[T.Neo]

Again, no, that's the kind of shortcut that isn't true. What you will see in the weekly reports may not seem impressive, but there are years of those. When you sum up all that, the famous $100 billions were rather well-spent. And people up there can have the right to have a little fun from time to time, that's scientists jokes...

Hey, scientist's jokes in a $1 billion facility are one thing, scientist's jokes in a $100 billion facility are another.

Yes, they add up over the years. But here's the thing: they add up on the ground too. And facilities on the ground cost far less. So which is more advantageous?

Which is churning out the most science?

Which is churning out the most science for its money?

Which is most likely to churn out very useful science (if experimentation is more intense at a facility, then it is potentially more likely to lead to an interesting discovery).

And also: which is churning out the most useful science?

Learning how to live and work in microgravity is thrilling for us and useful for the space program, but utterly pointless for many hundreds of millions of people.

 

[Keatah]

:rofl:

After decades of spaceflight being a total failure compared to the original vision, and many overenthusiastic people coming and going, with their own wildly optimistic ideas, and failing into obscurity... how can someone really think otherwise of space?

That's the first thing mi'lady says whenever we get going on space topics. I've redeemed myself in her eyes by "being more enthusiastic" about unmanned missions than the less-capable manned missions. If we're going to take the time to explore a space environment, then we should use the proper tools. Sending tons of pipes and fluids to support bags of water that can't really do anything is a complete waste of resources.

Not that those resources are "limited" to begin with. Look here.. Humans are the most hypocritical despicable lying ************* ever. "They" say all life is valuable, yet, billions of dollars and man-hours are consumed daily in the pursuit of trying to kill more efficiently - look at the wars.

Screw that!! Manned space exploration isn't going anyplace till far more basic problems are solved here.

Commercialization and apathy and the pursuit of hollow entertainment distractions are consuming the "critical-thinking resources" of the common man far more than anyone realizes. Justin Beiber, I gotta say, is far more popular than the New Horizons spacecraft now blasting its way at full throttle towards the ninth planet, Pluto, and on to the Oort Cloud.

I say Oort cloud because I once said that in a social group and I got looks like I was a retard and wasn't making sense. Oort Cloud. Sounds like some kind of diseased weather phenomenon with satanic overtones. Teach me to keep my mouth shut about space exploration!

 

[T.Neo]

It is not a complete waste of resources. I definitely agree with Urwumpe here, humans are very capable in some environments. The unfortunate problem is that humans are also very expensive to field into some environments.

Also, you display a very poor understanding of warfare, because war is only fought for something worth fighting for. And often that something is indeed a living thing, is indeed people- a certain group of people, threatened people, etc. War is a very bad thing but it is most definitely not as simple as "let's kill people lulz".

War is not a problem, its causes are. And war, nor poverty, nor disease, prevent manned spaceflight. Various things that do, cannot really be removed. Starting with the fact that the destination of manned spaceflight is... space... and a lot of space is pretty worthless to us.

I don't blame people for not being interested in New Horizons right now. It's cruising through space- I don't find that phase of its flight particularly interesting either. But when it finally meets up with Pluto, I think there will be a lot more interest... and probably quite a good deal more than there will be interest in Justin Beiber, who will likely be a has-been by the time NH arrives at Pluto. :lol:

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

For example, a small, recoverable, unmanned spacecraft, launched on an expendable booster, would be an interesting platform for some space exposure or microgravity experiments.

Ever heard of DragonLab?

Don't you think it would be important to figure out why, you say, the ECLSS has failed in space, and not on Earth? It would sure help if we didn't have to create a $100 billion orbital facility to spot those sorts of problems.

Yes - that's one of the things that ISS will help us to figure out (if we'd never sent the ECLSS hardware into space, how would we even know that it would fail)?

Sub-component repair? Do we really need a $100 billion orbital facility for that? We couldn't have tested that partially on the ground, or partially on a shuttle flight or similar?

Again, if it weren't for ISS, we wouldn't know that we'd need to sub-component level repair on ECLSS. Microgravity creates its own problems for repairing things, so it can't be completely demonstrated on Earth.

What would the result have been, if the technology existed to test the refuelling testbed without such a monstrosity of a facility? (and again, please don't shout "But that technology doesn't exist" - I'm not arguing against that, I'm arguing that if it's better, it should exist and it should be used in place of stuff like the ISS).

Maybe it should exist. But, as you say, the fact is, it doesn't.

Isn't the intent to use this technology to refuel satellites? What is it doing on the station then? It it is eventually supposed to operate independantly, couldn't it be tested in that sort of independant scenario?

Yes, you could test it independently, but then you wouldn't be able to use the ISS robotics systems to test it. You'd have to design, manufacture and fly your own robotic test equipment - which would increase the cost of the experiment.

Really? When? How? Has the first "Robonaut EVA" been planned yet?

Legs for Robonaut will be delivered to the ISS in 2013, which is when the first EVA will occur.

We can't learn how to work with robots on Earth?

No, because microgravity changes all the forces that the robot uses, and so everything learned on Earth would have to be re-learned.


I don't deny that ISS probably could've - and definitely should've - been built for less money. But the fact is, we've paid for it now, so let's squeeze every bit of knowledge we can get out of it.

 

[T.Neo]

Ever heard of DragonLab?

That was kinda what I was thinking of, yes.

LDEF is maybe a somewhat similar concept, but it was deployed and retrieved by STS.

And there was also the Man-Tended Free Flyer, which would have flown unmanned for several months between visits by a crew Hermes shuttle.

Yes - that's one of the things that ISS will help us to figure out (if we'd never sent the ECLSS hardware into space, how would we even know that it would fail)?

Yes, but why did the ECLSS fail in space and not on Earth? Don't you think that is a good question to ask? Answering that question would both add a better knowledge of ECLSS systems and at least partially remove the need for expensive in-space testing.

Again, if it weren't for ISS, we wouldn't know that we'd need to sub-component level repair on ECLSS. Microgravity creates its own problems for repairing things, so it can't be completely demonstrated on Earth.

No, but it also doesn't necessarily need to be demonstrated in a $100 billion facility.

Maybe it should exist. But, as you say, the fact is, it doesn't.

Yes, but my point is that if it is the better option, it should exist.

You don't throw your arms up in the air and say "so what, just let it be, let it be, who cares".

Yes, you could test it independently, but then you wouldn't be able to use the ISS robotics systems to test it. You'd have to design, manufacture and fly your own robotic test equipment - which would increase the cost of the experiment.

Don't you need your own robotic test equipment to make it operational anyway? Wouldn't it be advantageous to test it, if you want to end up using it?

And how much did the ISS equipment cost? How many tests like that is it going to do during its lifetime?

Legs for Robonaut will be delivered to the ISS in 2013, which is when the first EVA will occur.

I didn't know you needed legs in microgravity. :dry:

Or is this just some sort of hold-down post to the SSRMS or a grapple point?

No, because microgravity changes all the forces that the robot uses, and so Everything learned on Earth would have to be re-learned.

So microgravity changes the forces a robot sees- but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about robots supposedly magically interacting differently with humans in space, which is the major research point here.

We can't learn how to work with robots on Earth? Haven't we learned how to work with robots on Earth? Or do things really change that much in space, that we need a $100 billion facility to figure this out?

I don't deny that ISS probably could've - and definitely should've - been built for less money. But the fact is, we've paid for it now, so let's squeeze every bit of knowledge we can get out of it.

And deny the fact that it's a suboptimal, gigantic, costly facility that offers very marginal return for the public at large?

There are so many things you could compare the ISS with, that it would probably look pathetic against in terms of cost and research being done. Is there any other $100 billion research facility in the entire world? In the entire history of scientific research facilities?