'Lost in Space' missions

judy poom — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 02:27:33 GMT

space is dumb

'Lost in Space' missions

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 02:37:43 GMT

As a true [Carl] Saganite, I obviously agree with the fact that robots are the way to go in almost every instance. Why is this not considered "exploration" (by many) just because people didn't go? All most of us have from Apollo is video, right?

I totally agree with Robert Park about the need for a space interferometer, which can be so strong it might even be able to see the cloud tops and mountain ranges on other earth-sized worlds around other stars!

In the end, we need realistic goals - not wishy washy images of beating China back to the moon or going to mars just because we ant got nothing better to do. The primary goal established by the Planetary Society many years ago is to be able to read the history of the solar system to the same extent that we understand the geologic and organic history of earth. To do that would require 50+ Cassini-sized missions, something we just cannot afford with humans in tow.

Colonization of the moon or an L2 space stations will come when the time is right. Until then, the best role I see for humans is in support of small polar and geostationary orbiting space outposts that combine communications, weather, GPS and WMD/Environmental monitoring into a more robust platform.

'Lost in Space' missions

rick freeman, louisville, ky — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 02:48:54 GMT

Dr. Park is correct. ISS is our first low-earth-orbit white elepant. It does nothing but orbit and suck money out of our wallets. All of the projects mentioned above have critical practical uses. As far as I can tell the ISS's purpose is to keep throwing money at aerospace contractors to keep certain pols in Congress via the jobs provided by the never-ending construction of that tinkertoy called the ISS. It's an awesome demonstration of technical abilities--but would that NASA had chosen better ways to prove its capabilites.
NASA needs to be de-politicized and reoriented to do actually valuable space science projects. I'm on the fence regarding manned vs. unmanned missions. Do you launch multiple unmanned missions to do what one manned mission could accomplish? Are we ever really gonna' know what's happening on Mars without putting humans up there? The current Mars rovers are incredible achievements in design and implementation and I hope everyone associated with the project wins a Nobel; but, a manned mission could've made many more discoveries in a fraction of the time spent by the rovers. It's a tough question--but a question that is NOT tough is how soon to terminate the ISS. NOW!!!

'Lost in Space' missions

Santiago Flores, Mexico City, Mexico — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 03:09:39 GMT

I can only agree with the global-climate satellite having priority over manned space flights. I believe that humans should have continous and ever-increasing presence in space, the science is there for us to eventually go and explore, but I think it's worth it to look up at the stars and know that hopefully from now on, some very lucky people will always be living up there.
I guess it's simply that our need to explore and see how far we can go outweighs finding answers to questions we can always make.

'Lost in Space' missions

Albatross, San Antonio, Texas — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 03:14:20 GMT

I hope we do put humans back into space, or else why bother with robots in the first place? We should be exploring with an end intent of colonizing, whether it be the moon, Mars, or permanent space stations. Robots can help us learn a lot before we take that great step of living in space, but we need to take that step eventually.

'Lost in Space' missions

Mark R. Whittington, Houston, Texas — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 03:56:13 GMT

I'm not sure why, considering the study done by the British Royal Astronomical Society, we are even still having this discussion. While robots have their uses, human explorers are necessary to undertake a thorough examination of celestial bodies. I quote from Dr. Frank Close of the RAS:

“However, while fully recognising the technical challenge and the need for substantial investment, we have, nevertheless, been persuaded by the evidence presented to us that the direct involvement of humans in situ is essential if we are to pursue science of profound interest to humankind that can only be undertaken on the Moon and Mars. Autonomous robots alone will be unable to realise those scientific goals in the foreseeable future.”

I suspect the same might ultimately be said for Europa.

And, of course, there are other reasons to explore space than just doing science. These include realizing the commercial potential of places like the Moon and Mars.

'Lost in Space' missions

Daniel, New Mexico — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 04:21:49 GMT

I can't agree with the above comments. The most basic fact of life in America is that we live in a democracy. As a consequnce, resources are allocated based upon their ability to garner votes. The ISS is a must not because it is good science but because it is good politics. But it is exactly those politics that allow for money to be spent on space at all. As the first poster said, "Space is dumb". There are people who feel that way. Any scientist who thinks that there is something inherently good about space needs to have their head examined. We do not live in a world dictated by science. Accpeting that fact is the basis for living.

'Lost in Space' missions

Bill D. Roseville, Ca. — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 07:19:20 GMT

I agree with Dr. Park somewhat, yet, there seems to be any number of prijects that are more worthy than the ISS. Everyone, including us taxpayers, have forgotten about the dear old Hubble Space Telescope. All it's needs is a little maintenace and it will be good again for 5/6 years. Nasa keeps working on the ISS and what does it give back as scientific data. Not much!!! I vote for including a fix for the Hubble as an important project that NASA should undertake since the taxpayers money was used to build and launch the Hubble.

'Lost in Space' missions

Bruce, Onancock, VA — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:12:21 GMT

In your article, you say "Do you think sending people to the moon, Mars and beyond is more important? (Most of the people who have participated in our unscientific Live Vote say no.)" But that isn't what your poll asks -- it just asks whether we should go to the moon. No, let the Chinese work on the moon if they want -- we've done that. If we get in a race with them we just risk losing face if we lose. Our focus should be on getting people to Mars.

'Lost in Space' missions

Alonzo Fyfe — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:41:58 GMT

I find these "human vs. machine" debates amusing.

Anybody here ever take a vacation? You know, you could have saved yourself a lot of money if you would have just logged onto the computer and looked at pictures over the internet.

Yet, people go on vacation. They go to the expense and, in some cases, the risk of actually "being there."

In fact, we tend to think of the life of the person who is content to merely look at pictures on the internet to be a fairly empty existence. Yet, this is the life that machine-only advocates of space exploration have for us. "Let's just all stay home and look at the pictures -- and use the money we save to buy more pictures."

Some of us want more for the human race than this.

'Lost in Space' missions

J J — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:00:08 GMT

I say just get rid of NASA and start letting privatized companies start conducting experiments. If the government wants to throw a satellite into space then they have to contract someone else to do it. It would save the tax payers billions every year. NASA was a great idea when it first became but now it has gone past that and there are many others with better ideas and motives to continue.
And all those experiments talked about are a great idea. Also get rid of the ISS. Let it burn in just like the last one.

'Lost in Space' missions

EG — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:27:20 GMT

Good luck de-politicizing NASA. The technocrats that populate "white man's welfare" are not about to reconfigure themselves for something as esoteric as pure science. No, they'll simply ask for more money, in hopes of a mindless man-on-Mars mission. They'll justify it as a rebirth, in that NASA lost its prestige after the Apollo flights. Believe me, prestige and tax dollars are what these technocrats crave, and they'll spew more mindless propaganda about commercialization of space (the lies regarding the shuttle now apply to travel, energy, etc.) in order to help convince the public that we need to spend countless trillions.

NASA won't change. Neither will the defense contractors (geographically dispersed to give jobs in every key state) who benefit from constructing single-use hardware that ends up in either a toxic landfill or in a decaying orbit. They'll all spend time and money lobbying, which means your duly elected representative can be counted upon to do the wrong thing...

'Lost in Space' missions

Gary Gregory, Linden, NJ — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:35:13 GMT

I would just like to say that if the peoples of the world would get there priorities straight and stop wasting money on munitions that accomplish nothing, there would be plenty of money to do the things that are necessary to advance mankind. Manned space exploration is a must.

'Lost in Space' missions

Steve M., Rome, NY — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:30:53 GMT

We can accelerate our learning about space and outside world with robots, and at a tremendous saving versus man accompanied travel. Now, at some point where we need human involvement, we plan and execute it - but where robots will do the job - use them. In addition, like the exploration of this planet, the first one that gets "there" intact with the ability to utilize the resources will benefit greatly (e.g. Lewis and Clark).

'Lost in Space' missions

CT Galactic, MA — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:34:01 GMT

We need both done smartly with vision.
Again: the monies are earnings, revenues, jobs, and, ulimately, unlimited future potentials for humanity (space tourism/manufacturing/exploitation/expansion/evolution), technological and engineering advances, etc.
We need to turn the military/industrial complex (worldwide) which spends hundreds of billions per year for death/destruction [compare about 14 billion/yr for NASA to well over 300 billion/yr for the Pentagon (1.5 billion/week for Iraq/Afghanistan)(ok, does generate jobs and revenues, too] to a more promising, peaceful, unifying, and progressive achievement for humanity spreading/evolving throughout our Solar System, perhaps beyond.

'Lost in Space' missions

Monte Davis — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:49:48 GMT

It's instructive to compare this with the situation in deep-sea activity, which also involves a mix of humans in submarines, RPVs (remotely piloted vehicles), and some autonomous equipment. The best mix is a lively topic among oceanographers and those who fund their work. But nobody thinks it involves a profound divide over the value of the questing human spirit, etc... it's a matter of cost.

The tired "manned vs unmanned" wrangle in space is mostly just a restatement of "heavy payloads we can afford rarely vs. light payloads we can afford more often." In other words, the same 50-year-old challenge of getting a pound of *anything* -- astronaut or robot -- into space much more cheaply.

If we don't solve that, we'll be wrangling unproductively forever. If we do, our descendants will wonder what all the fuss was about.

'Lost in Space' missions

Greg, Rockville, MD — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 16:13:02 GMT

Sure there is plenty of science to do without human space travel. But we need to set sail and get off of this rock. And do some science along the way.

'Lost in Space' missions

Lars Jonsson in Sweden — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 17:10:09 GMT

Dear Americans!
Where has your drive and desire for new frontiers gone?
Your ancestors’ brave push for the west & the unknown seem to have all disappeared…

I might be just a lousy alien from the old Europe but since our current planet is known in every nook and cranny I think that humanity needs an unknown to explore.

We need some kind of free enterprise financial incentive, like the gold boom in Alaska or California that attracts the brave and the bold.
Perhaps diamonds on the moon Europe, alá the AC Clarke book 2010 or tritium at the moon or whatever worthwile.

Young people must have something glorious to strive for, “I will go to starfleet” :-) a gold-plated target that is worth the endless hours of study & school.
A career in financial business pales considerably in comparison to that.

The space-race to the moon was maybe in hindsight not the most efficient way of exploring but it caught the minds and enthusiasm of Americans and people all over the word. Not to mention all the extremely professional science that was made along the way.

Did not people in the space-industries put up free hours on weekends to make the Saturn 5 project feasible? That I call an engaged and interested workforce… (Please correct me if I am wrong)

We naturally need probes as well, as precursors or in dangerous environments.

The space station is the proverbial cuckoo (bird), consumes a lot of resources and kicks out other projects and maybe we never achieve anything more than running it in Mir-mode, where the crew was only doing maintenance the whole time.
Perhaps it should be accommodated under the cost-account “learning to do projects with the Russians”. Not an unessential feat as such I imagine…

I love to take a tour with the starship Enterprise!!!

'Lost in Space' missions

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 18:16:46 GMT

I feel people's enthusiasm for manned flight. It's exciting, right? Most people would agree that in the very long term humans need to get off this space rock if for no other reason than to secure all that we've fought so hard to accomplish and learn.

That being said, we need a little honest perspective. The cost of putting people up into orbit or beyond runs in the tens of billions of dollars and – for the most part – doesn’t deliver much more than a “feel-good” “YEAH America” feeling that is shown to last only for the first few flights until the public begins to careless.

Remarkable probes like Cassini provide non-stop learning for 4+ years in one of the most exciting and diverse places in the solar system - Saturn. You can build 20 Cassini missions for what the ISS is proving to cost. You can build another BRAND NEW Hubble telescope for every two shuttle missions you fly. You can put **40** robotic rovers like Spirit and Opportunity on Mars for the cost of sending just **one** crew there for a year. I don’t know about you, but I would rather investigate 40 landing sites instead of just one. Do you see the lopsided tradeoff here? All that being said, we do have to be careful which robotic missions we fund. The Pluto mission was a total waste when considering the more important missions that could have been flown instead.

Sending people would be great when this world finally decides it would rather colonize space for the same cost that the world spends globally on warfare. Colonization should and will cost TRILLIONS of dollars thus, now is not the time to argue that point.

'Lost in Space' missions

Chuck Buford, Deatsville, AL — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:06:12 GMT

These are my thoughts on what NASA needs to do to get to a place where they are more interested in science than politics. They need to bring down the operational costs.

We need three things. A refueling station in space, a large scale living facility in space, and a working space elevator.

The first thing we have to do is get a refueling station working. To do anything in space we need to take all the fuel that we will need into space with us. If we only had to take the fuel we needed to get into orbit, we would have a much easier time of it.

How would this work?

Well that's fairly simple. Water is an excellent fuel in space. The asteroids are fairly rich in water. We send unmanned "ROBOTS" to mine the asteroids for water and to bring it back. The robots only need to have enough fuel to get there and mine the asteroids. A small portion of the water they mined can be used to bring them back into orbit. Store the water in orbit, and you have a refueling station.

The second thing we need is a large scale living facility in space or on the moon. The first question is why. Well to answer that question, if you want to do real research in space, you have to be there. Robots can't do research in space. They can perform experiments in space and pass data back to earth, but real research requires detailed observation and even adaptation (something robots are extremely limited in). I hear you asking, ok we need living quarters, but why large scale living quarters. space Tourism is a thriving business, as we can all tell. It's going to be extremely profitable. NASA would be uniquely poised to take advantage of that fact. Can you imagine what NASA could accomplish if it's budget was entirely within it's own control. The only funding it needed from the federal government was in low tourism periods? It wouldn't last forever, but even for a time, I believe it would do great things for NASA.

The last thing we really need to work on is a concept that has been tossed around for several years. The space elevator. Space elevators are feasible. They are even possible with technology that is being developed now. There is little doubt in my mind that the world will eventually have space elevators. The only question is, who will be first. The first country, or company to have an operational space elevator will for all intents and purposes, own space. It is estimated that a space elevator will take 10 years to complete from scratch, but using an existing space elevator it would take 1 year. After a country or company gets a space elevator up and running, they can have dozens operational before anyone else could get one operational from scratch. They will for all intents and purposes own space. The US cannot afford NOT to be the first country to get this working.

'Lost in Space' missions

Joel Stiffler, Monett MO — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:15:53 GMT

Folks seem to be short on memory here... The plan for long-term space exploration all the way back to Von Braun and Oberth was to have a planned pathway for exploration. The Shuttle was SUPPOSED to be part of an integrated system for this space exploration. The other thirds were a manned space station (Freedom or its post-cold war identity ISS) that was supposed to serve as the 'jumping off point' and testbed for technology, and long-range exploration vehicles. Unfortunately, the Shuttle took so long to develop and our Congress so short-sighted that they failed to fully fund these programs concurrently. Now we see once again, just as Saturn was canibalized and cancelled for Shuttle, we are doing in ISS and Shuttle to get back the long-range exploration component. The delay in the programs have finally allowed the un-manned components, computer and robotics technologies to catch up with what was in the 50s and 60s, impossible.
Finally, to quote the old Sage of the Cape - "No Buck Rogers, No Bucks". Without MANNED space flight, unmanned programs will wither and die. It is not fair, but it is true. Space Exploration, whether it is manned or unmanned is expensive, and the years of development need to be funded prior to launch and then (for outer solar system targets) years of flight time to get those few weeks of photos and science. The public and Congress have not shown much patience for these 'waits' between results. That is why Manned programs will always have the public's eye.

'Lost in Space' missions

AsReserved, Seattle WA — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:37:49 GMT

whoever said space is dumb is obviously not a very smart creature...space is amazing and that's all that needs to be said.

'Lost in Space' missions

Rich Kolker, Ashburn, VA — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:50:03 GMT

Why do we constantly go back to this false choice? It's because we see space as the government has chosen to since 1958, a single lump, and the agency that deals with that lump is NASA (well, except for what DOD does).

We want to do different things in space. Doing science is valuable, but it's not the only thing. Doing the engineering necessary to go to Mars, or go to the Moon and stay is valuable, but it's not the only thing. Opening space to anyone who wants to go, like tourists and private companies and whomever else would like to is valuable, but it is not the only thing to do.

It's past time for the US to get rid of NASA and understand that individual goals can't be met by a do-all space agency. Create an organization for space science and fund it...no competition with crewed program. Create a different organization to do the aerospace engineering R&D necessary for the next generations of aircraft and spacecraft. Let NOAA build (or sponsor) the earth resouces stuff. Have someone (probably the FAA) create the certification and licensing of spacecraft and pilots of commercial use.

It's time to replace the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, which created NASA, with something new, more focused, and more relevent in this 21st Century post-cold war world.

'Lost in Space' missions

Gaetano Marano [ www.ghostNASA.com ] Italy — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:09:26 GMT

.
.

about Robert Park's points:

only the first point may find the funds to be born (in future)/ the other two points costs too much for to-day's space agencies' budgets

the Planet Finder is not in contradiction with moon missions since big and better optical and radio telescopes can be built on the far side of the moon (but in a very long time from now)

about ISS:

its $100B price is very high but that money has already spent, so, the only smart choice is to use it in the better way possible; the NASA cuts for ISS science don't help, but more investments in science can be made in future with ESA, Russia and other ISS partners funds (maybe, also private funds)

about the robotic space/planets' exploration:

due to a lack or technology and funds, in the next 50+ years deep space exploration can't be made with humans, while, Moon and Mars exploration can; however robotic exploration of the Moon can be easy thanks to the one-second only radio delay

the robotic exploration of the Moon can start years before the manned landing, may cost 1/100th the price and give 1000 times more scientific and exploration results [ as I've explained ten months ago in my "alternative" VSE robotic plan article: VME - Vision for Moonrover Exploration]

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/
moonrovers/moonrovers.html

unfortunately, a few days ago, NASA has DELETED a similar plan developed at the Ames Research Center ...

[http://www.nasa.gov/centers/
ames/home/index.html]

... to launch many rovers on the moon in the range of costs of $50M - $100M each (very, very, very cheap compared with NASA standards...)

I've also suggested a "Private Moonrovers Prize Competition"

[ http://www.gaetanomarano.it/
moonprize/moonprize.html ]

... but the only similar NASA project is a SIMULATED moon-buggy race: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/
ames/news/releases/2006/06_62AR.html

due to high radio delay, a true and complete Mars (and beyond) exploration is absolutely impossible without humans (at least until artificial intelligence research will be able to duplicate the human brain)

.
.

'Lost in Space' missions

pat Orlando FL — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:18:51 GMT

I am afraid that all this discussion is marred by the cloud that pervades our society with no end in sight.And that cloud is MONEY. MONEY this MONEY that. A society based on selfishness and greed will eventually merely devour itself

'Lost in Space' missions

Dave C., Orlando, Florida — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:39:54 GMT

It's just down right sad that we should have been there(space) years ago and the politicians keep beating it out of NASA. Mankind needs to be in space right now, we could discover new space construction methods or even mine the asteroid belt of Saturn for precious and non precious metals and other resources. The world as a whole needs to be online with this because the REAL endangered species on this planet is mankind.

'Lost in Space' missions

Dan the Astronaut — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:41:31 GMT

The Age of Spiritual Machines by Raymond Kurzweil says it all. Its the future of man, and its not man at all. Asthetically pleasing experiences are all we have, whether is a physical experience or a virtual experience. Its all we have. Thanks!

'Lost in Space' missions

adam K, Kona Hawaii — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:55:45 GMT

Of course we need to explore space, whether its manned or unmanned. thats not the point. the point is, should our government be blowing all this money on things that never get off the ground or are a complete unproductive waste of time on the ISS? The answer is a resounding no. where are the whistle blowers and watchdogs that allow our leaders to waste funds completely unchecked without any real focus other than making some wrinkled moneybag happy? ... There are some amazing ideas out there, and our slow as that pitch experiment governments are making things that would of been attainable out of reach...While money gets pumped into some giant global advertising scheme that is just a blackhole for taxpayer dollars... Where is the focus?

'Lost in Space' missions

Andrew, Sacramento Ca — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:09:31 GMT

I want to remind people of mankind's inherent desire to "see what's over the next hill". To write off manned spaceflight as "too dangerous" or "not cost effective" is to completely overlook the lessons of history. Back in the 1700's, what is now San Francisco was a lonely, undesireable outpost with no real value to the average spaniard. Yet when gold was discovered, it was a very convenient destination and grew in importance and value (to the US).
People also claim about the Apollo program that the only thing we got were some moonrocks and Tang! They completely miss the fact that everything from the computer they are reading this on to disposable diapers they or their children wore, were a direct result of trying to overcome the obstacles in going to the moon (hint: they didn't have a toilet in the lunar module...). What new technological advances will we, the average Jane and Joe, reap from a more aggressive manned space policy (Moon, Mars, whatever)?? Robotic craft are undeniably the best choice for initial reconnaissance, or for going where humans (currently) cannot (Jovian radiation belts, etc...), but nothing beats "feet on the ground" for those unexpected discoveries. As has been said, for all the great things Spirit and Opportunity are doing on Mars, it takes them a week to do what a human geologist could do in an hour...

'Lost in Space' missions

Larry Hughes Cincinnati, Ohio — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:30:08 GMT

Space exploration by humans is a pretty nice idea but there are massive hurdles to overcome first before sending humans on long trips in outer space. Propulsion payloads to get the space ship off the ground currently are quite expensive. Then you have to consider life support systems for prolonged stays. That adds more expense and weight to the payload. We also have to have some type of protection for the crew on the journeys. There is some pretty nasty stuff in space that will certainly shorten the life span of humans on long journeys. Then you have to consider the emotional effects on the travelers being in a cramped spacecraft for long periods and hygene issues.Genetic re-enginnering of Human genes is a possibility but that concept is a long way off into the future.

Unless we can engineer a better propulsion system (nuclear fusion propulsion comes to mind) that would shorten the time to travel to far off places in space, most of the trips will be suicide one way missions.

I do agree that Robots, Artificial Intellegence, or Singulars is a better way for now relating to space exploration on long journeys to Mars and beyond. Certainly a cheaper alternative in respect to money and lives. There is not enough money in the world that could finance putting humans on other planets and space rocks just to say we were there.

Using the above mentioned suggestions in the last paragraph would be more feasable for the time being and would allow us to pick and choose where the human element may be best served.

At present, NASA does tend to be wasteful in funds and seems to be bogged down in politics and pet projects which serve no useful purpose yet. The International Space Station comes to mind.

Private enterprise may well be the solution for future ventures. First of all they seem to be able to get the job done far cheaper than NASA based on their prior projects. Considering some of the worlds near us do have minerals and gases that would benefit our world due to our depleeting natural resources, I would imagine that private enterprise companies would certainly invest more expenditures in getting to those resources if they could make it profitable. Then the question arises. Are they exploring or are they exploiting our neighboring planets or moons???

'Lost in Space' missions

Chris S, San Diego, CA — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:54:58 GMT

Projects like the ISS and missions back to the moon and even Mars are great for human's desire to explore the final frontier - I am 100% gung-ho for such missions, and hope to see at least a handful of them completed within my lifetime. Realistically, however, with the U.S. budget strained with its war on int'l terror and the (senseless) war in Iraq, such projects are just too costly for the nation for the time being. So sad....

'Lost in Space' missions

Gary B., Salem, Or. — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 23:09:16 GMT

I wish it weren't so, but we all seem to just be straining at the proverbial end of the leash. Asking the politicized version of NASA to do what's best for mankind is the same as asking the politicians controlling it to do what's best for mankind. Neither entity has any inherent nobility or vision anymore. Suggesting that the "private sector" will do what's best for mankind is equally misleading. It will do the same thing as the political sector, cash in and leave us all holding the bag. The political sector and the private sector it contracts with are one and the same. Deviation from that arrangement isn't allowed in our current structure. The only thing truly cooperative about their efforts is that they make sure both entities profit while maintaining two separate pseudo-definitions in the minds of the public. I agree with the choices the author makes and his rationale for them. I am saddened by the fact that greed and corruption have become accurate new titles for our two-party system. Once you look at the real reasons behind the delays and wasted time and money to realize they are the work of thousands of individuals more interested in themselves than anything else, the whole point of this conversation becomes moot. We, as a "civilization" are not worthy of entering the unknown reaches of space. We, as a "civilization" need to stay in our little petrie dish with the lid tightly shut until we either die or grow into a beneficial culture. Spitting garbage out there in the name of profit is all we'd do now, human or robot. Many more empires will rise and fall before we'll ever know if humans as a species should extend themselves beyond whatever remains of this planet. If we end up expanding outward as a means of survival after depleting what we have here, we'll be just like an infection on the loose in the solar system and beyond.
What we do not know, we seek. What we find, we consume and destroy in a selfish free-for-all.

'Lost in Space' missions

cphillips — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 23:12:31 GMT

I'm for human spaceflight. The robots are nothing but scientific toys for what would be otherwise out of work scientists.

'Lost in Space' missions

Jonathan Lee, Dyersburg, TN — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 23:23:00 GMT

Michael Huang, in his excellent article "Scientifically Useless" (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/664/1) has already aptly gutted the arguments that Robert Park uses.

Additionally, until we are able to build nanotech assemblers, humans are the most adaptible machines we have. Sure, we can design machines that will perform experiments in remote locations. However, the premises of those experiments are based our preconceived notions of what we expect to find. When (not if, as the huge number of "surprising" discoveries over the last few years demonstrates) what we find is not what we expected, the machines we sent to perform the experiments are unable to adapt to the necessary changes and we have to send new machines, with new specialties, to test the new discoveries. As long as we limit our space capabilities to machines, the cost of each mission will continue to be astronomical. However, by expanding our ability to support human visitation and occupancy of space, we also lower the cost of sending those machines to do scientific experiments.

I am not saying that we need more NASA boondoggles. I'm saying that we need NASA (and the rest of the government) to get out of the way of commercial enterprises that want to provide those services to both them and the rest of us. The scientific missions NASA supports will find it much easier accomplish their goals if they can simply purchase the services they need instead of having to play politics and disparage all "non-scientific" missions.

'Lost in Space' missions

BJ, Pittsburgh, PA — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 23:51:01 GMT

I look back at history and marvel at what it must have been like to grown up in a period where you had to ride a horse for transportation, ice was used to refrigorate your foods and all the daily chores had to be complete before the sun went down because there was no electricity. Then within that generation man goes from the horse to the car, a plane and then space flight and to the Moon. Amazing! When I was a child I marveled at the possibilities of things to come. But to my disappointment I look back at the last 5 decades and find not much has changed. I was born in a age without vision. Yes we have faster computors, remote controls, automatic garage door openers, microwaves. But nothing I have seen could compete with going from Horses to spacetravel. I have given up hopes of routinely flying to Mars for vacation. I guess I'll leave those dreams to my children.
One can't help but be disappointed in the lack of human spirit that prevades this society.
" No vision or will to explore" just give me a Gameboy and a lounge chair" Everything else cost to much and isn't worth fighting over.

'Lost in Space' missions

Andrew, Little Rock, AR — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:36:22 GMT

Yes, we need to send robots in advance of human explorers.

Robots determine the radiation levels and atmospheric properties. They can give us an idea of the cycle of the planet or moon they are observing. Once we have the information we need, we can plan manned missions for colonization or mining.

'Lost in Space' missions

William DeMuth Brick New Jersey — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:07:31 GMT

Short sightedness will be our collective downfall.

We debate the merits of man versus machine, and overlook the reality of man versus man! Humans must explore and colonize space as soon as possible simply because the opportunity will be squandered if we don't act. We live in a ecosystem of finite resources, and we are rapidly depleting them. We live on a world where the political, religious, and cultural groups that vie for supremacy drag us closer to calamity by the moment If robots can be used to move us toward the ultimate goal of freeing our race from it's shackles, so be it, but if they are merely tools to continue the status quo they need to be recognized as such. We are collectively whistling pass the graveyard, our little basket of DNA swinging precariously in the wind, and if we collectively refuse to acknowledge the dangers, their may be no one left to mourn us in our indecisiveness.

'Lost in Space' missions

Matt Griscom, Seattle WA — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 21:18:36 GMT

Anyone who thinks that the most important thing for humans to do is enable us to drive ever-bigger SUVs, to ever-bigger houses, so we can watch our ever-larger TV screens etc., please look *up*!

Science and technology are both important! (and, if you're not sure your understand the difference, look it up in Wikipedia.) Observing Earth with robots is extremely, pivotally important, but IMO so is ISS, so is Mars, so is human exploration of the Moon and so is the search for other "terrestrial" worlds. This is where a very important part of the human future lies, and anybody who downplays that has no right to wonder why they need to wear a gas mask and personal air-conditioning device just to watch NASCAR races in person, or why their tax dollars are going to build an enormous dike around the state of Florida.

'Lost in Space' missions

Anarchy Ape, Morris County, New Jersey — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 04:48:22 GMT

I find the whole controversy kind of silly. Humanity has always thrived and evolved because of it's unrelenting need to explore and learn(apparently not all of humanity, but enough) about our universe. Why shouldn't this trend continue? Since humans began to walk upright, we pushed against and broke ever boundary that ever held us back. Rivers, deserts, mountains, jungles, frozen tundra and the seas all stopped us at some point, but we managed to overcome them. Travel between towns used to take days, between countries and continents monthes. Now we can drive to other towns in minutes and fly to other nations in hours. Communication traveled as fast as a horse could run or a ship could sail. Now it moves at the speed of light. If humanity hadn't kept exploring, and inventing, and testing, we'd all still be banging rocks together in the sub-Saharan savannah. In 1492, an Italian set sail for a shorter route around the world by going west instead of east. What if he'd just pushed the Nina, Pinta and the Santa Maria off the docks to see if they came back?

While that isn't quite an apt description for what robotic exploration does, videos of a rock hundreds of millions of miles away which took place hours before hand aren't quite the same as a hands-on study by a human. Certainly more expensive then a robot to send, but much more versitile. Humans are infinitly more adaptable then a machine. Robots are capable of only what they're programmed to do. Human's are capable of anything. I think robots can be an aid to exploration of the solar system, but shouldn't be our sole source. If nothing else, I couldn't imagine a robot stating "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."

'Lost in Space' missions

EG — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:32:00 GMT

Much of this discussion borders on silliness, with those advocating manned space travel trying to take some absurd moral high ground.

Face it, using robots instead of humans is more cost effective. It also has a better chance of succeeding in terms of conducting serious research, rather than compromising the mission for the sake of photo ops, glamorization of the astronauts, patriotic speeches, etc.

The bottom line is that the means of manned space travel is in its infancy. It needs a quantum leap (no pun intended) for it to become both cost effective and efficient (efficient being that it won't take 80 years to travel one-way to the closest star). That means we need to explore space with robots until such time that the means of propulsion (the enabler of space travel) matures, or better, takes another direction. And that direction won't be discovered by sending a man to Mars, Titan or wherever destination the popularity polls dictate.

'Lost in Space' missions

Bob Payne - Houston, TX — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:12:45 GMT

I think the priority ought to be to get the most information on our planet and the universe by the fastest and most economic means. It strikes me that manned-space exploration is not the way to do that. As always though, political and social needs are real and must be dealt with. I hope the USA has the courage and wisdom to give us a more balanced approach to space exploration in the future.

'Lost in Space' missions

Larry Hughes — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 02:38:18 GMT

A lot of good points and examples have been posted here for humans exploration of the final frontier ( Space). We use examples of Columbus, Lewis, and Clark as mans quest for the unknown. However, You have to remember that they explored areas on Earth with a un ending supply of atmosphere, food as they traveled, and gravity. Of course these explorers traveled only a few thousand miles. In space, the distances are much more infinite. Certainly a safer (except for unfriendly local native tribes) venture and not the same as space travel with unknown dangers far more severe than we can imagine or understand yet.

The biological make up of humans at the present time is not conducive to long space journeys. We are pushing it now on short stays in space orbiting our own world with bone mass loss and the effects of micro gravity not to mention the dangers of solar flares and radiation in space. Genetic re-engineering will certainly play a pivotal role for future space travelers. An area we haven't trully addressesd yet.

Using the current technology in rocket propulsion, we are looking at decades and centuries to visit other worlds. Example: The rocket that was sent in Jan. 2006 to Pluto to explore that planet while in orbit will not arrive for about 10 years. A manned flight using today's propulsion technology would have meant a 20 year travel time round trip. I doubt seriously if the travelers would have survived past a year or two in space if that.

There is research going on in faster propulsion technology( nuclear propulsion, solar wind, and laser) but it is not on the front burner at present.These technologies could provide the possibility of travel near the speed of light or a fraction of that speed but it is a long way off as far as being workable yet. Plus it opens up more issues. Here is a theory: Travelers traveling at say 1/4th the speed of light may well get to say a planet in another solar system 6 light years away. This trip may well take about 24 years one way for the travelers. The time spent on Earth time duration may well be centuries if not thousands of years. This is only a theory based on my limited knowledge of space/ time continuance. Perhaps others with more education in this matter may shed more light in this issue.

However, with the above mentioned propulsion technologies, a trip to Pluto may well take only days if not weeks if humans can endure the accelleration and decelleration phase of the flight.

I would think it may well take many many decades if not a century or two before we can actually say we are true space travelers to other worlds given todays technology. There fore robotic or artificial intelligence is a more logical alternative in our quest to explore the space frontier for now.

I do not see human travelers getting to Mars and back safely with in the next few decades given today's technology. But eventually we will set foot on Mars safely. I suspect not in our life time but possibly in our grand children's chlidren's life time. Lets hope it will be worth the effort and not a dissapointment.

'Lost in Space' missions

sohbet — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 04:24:40 GMT

thank you webmaster good web site

'Lost in Space' missions

sohbet — Tue, 01 May 2007 03:31:09 GMT

'Lost in Space' missions

Nusha Beeharry, Mare-Tabac, Mauritius — Thu, 31 May 2007 07:41:59 GMT

I believe that man can reap lots of benefits from space exploration and that we should go ahead with it. If we use machines in place of man, then what will happen to our kids learning physics, astrophysics and other science subjects???? Well, Artificial Intelligence and robots, Simulation are a gift to humanity but the greatest of all is the need to quench man's thirst of knowledge and that is why he goes to explore Space.

'Lost in Space' missions

dizi izle film izle — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 14:23:44 GMT