justification for manned space program?

reply to post by samkent

Heck we still can’t get a self sufficient ISS.

Because it was not designed to be, considering the amount of visiting vehicles and proximity to Earth. There are no major technical obstacles, if we ever choose to do so.

The highest priority for the ECLSS is the ISS atmosphere, but the system also collects, processes, and stores waste and water produced and used by the crew—a process that recycles fluid from the sink, shower, toilet, and condensation from the air. The Elektron system aboard Zvezda and a similar system in Destiny generate oxygen aboard the station.

en.wikipedia.org...

I am skeptical when it comes to manufacturing complex things in space. But I dont see why for example, a Lunar base could not manufacture its own propellant, water, oxygen, some food and basic parts, thus cutting the mass to import considerably.

Originally posted by Maslo

I am skeptical when it comes to manufacturing complex things in space. But I dont see why for example, a Lunar base could not manufacture its own propellant, water, oxygen, some food and basic parts, thus cutting the mass to import considerably.

Well you first have to get a lot of equipment which means lots of mass to earth escape velocity and safely land that on the moon with man assembling such. I'm quite sure the moon is void of anything edible. Manufacturing the other stuff from the moon is theoretical at best and nothing suggests there is much of any value there you can just scrape together. Still quite an infrastructure would need to be in place to manufacture anything on/from the moon. Trace parts per billion isn't very much of anything useful.

Originally posted by rcanem
reply to post by Atzil321

 

That is a load of crock, technology in the 60's was sufficient to get us to the moon yet today, 50 + years later we can't so the same thing? Technology today is more than sufficient to sustain us on the moon or mars if properly applied. The only thing keeping it from happening is $$$. Technology is not the issue.

For what purpose? We already went to the moon once and that was enough. Unmanned is the way to go for the next few decades. We can go further with unmanned and explore much more. The collect data, take still images and video and beside the main thing is that humans cannot survive on any planets we can send them to.

reply to post by Malcher


Humans cannot survive on any planets we send them to without technology. That technology cannot be developed without a clear idea of what is needed. And to get that idea of what is needed we will have to be there to evaluate it. Eventually we will have to leave mother Earth and expand into the solar system if we want to evolve as a whole. Face it, exploration is in our blood. It is that same spirit that allowed Columbus to find the "new world", and Lewis and Clark to boldly go into uncharted territory to expand the colonies. I could go on and on but you get the idea.

reply to post by Malcher


Depends on your goal. When your goal is purely space exploration, then probably yes (still, human enabled exploration would be better in the long run, there is only so much you can do with probes). When your goal is space colonisation, then robotics obviously wont cut it.

I think we should focus more on space colonisation. Its been more than 50 years since humans achieved space flight, and we still have only a small station in LEO. What did we have in aviation 50 years after the first flight of Wright brothers?

Not to mention that developments in space flight technology compelled by ressurection of real manned spaceflight would surely immensely benefit even robotic missions. As well as general interest in space and science.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Malcher

 

Depends on your goal. When your goal is purely space exploration, then probably yes (still, human enabled exploration would be better in the long run, there is only so much you can do with probes). When your goal is space colonisation, then robotics obviously wont cut it.

I think we should focus more on space colonisation. Its been more than 50 years since humans achieved space flight, and we still have only a small station in LEO. What did we have in aviation 50 years after the first flight of Wright brothers?

Not to mention that developments in space flight technology compelled by ressurection of real manned spaceflight would surely immensely benefit even robotic missions. As well as general interest in space and science.

edit on 7/12/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

I think a more interesting and attainable goal is to search for life in our solar system. Spending $2 billion per year for 10 years to build that SLS rocket without a worthy destination is silly. Sending astronauts to Mars would require a spaceship more like Battlestar Galactica than Apollo. NASA just needs to do a better job of selling the planetary science so people get excited about it like they should.

reply to post by cloudyday

I think a more interesting and attainable goal is to search for life in our solar system.

I think we should do both.

Spending $2 billion per year for 10 years to build that SLS rocket without a worthy destination is silly.

We are not short on destinations. And I think spending $2 billion per year for 10 years on that SLS rocket is silly no matter the destination we choose. We dont need it, especially not for such price and in such timeframe as proposed.

Sending astronauts to Mars would require a spaceship more like Battlestar Galactica than Apollo.

Depends on what will they do there, but generally it would not be like Battlestar Galactica, multiple launches is a better option. Here is a pretty awesome concept:


Skylon can be substituted with 20 mT EELV, if it proves not feasible.

the obvious would be the creation of various life support systems...habitats in hostile environments
bio-spheres... developing non-nuclear, portable, power producing equipment (as in fuel cells)

then there is developing exoskeletons as the next stage in spacesuits...perhaps to engage in mining the astroid belt instead of strip mining the Earth...or using toxic acids to extract gold from the soil


one can retort that these needs are not solely or directly linked to Manned Space Programs...
as these technological advancements are more associated with the environment or the military or industry


but the touchstone to proceed in these technologies would be our quest to conquer Space
and the Earthly benefits would follow. (just as it has been for the last 50 years.


thanks

reply to post by Maslo


A manned Mars mission would probably be at the expense of 100 unmanned missions. Is that really a good tradeoff? (That's assuming a Mars mission costs at least $200 billion and an unmanned mission costs $2 billion. Maybe somebody has more accurate numbers. If the ISS cost $100 billion then surely a manned Mars mission would be much more expensive.)

Originally posted by cloudyday
reply to post by Maslo

 

A manned Mars mission would probably be at the expense of 100 unmanned missions. Is that really a good tradeoff? (That's assuming a Mars mission costs at least $200 billion and an unmanned mission costs $2 billion. Maybe somebody has more accurate numbers. If the ISS cost $100 billion then surely a manned Mars mission would be much more expensive.)

Yes, I believe it would be worth it, there are not that much places where life in solar system could hide, no need for a hundred probes to find it.

Anyway, I am more of a Moon guy. Theres considerably bigger bang for less buck on the Moon than on Mars, when it comes to colonisation.

Just what would the country get by sending ten's of people per year to the Moon?
There has to be a return to justify that much expense.

Originally posted by samkent
Just what would the country get by sending ten's of people per year to the Moon?
There has to be a return to justify that much expense.

Money from Moon tourism. Cheap fuel for space missions. Eventually permanent offworld presence means not having all eggs in one basket - invaluable insurance for all humanity. And most importantly, prestige.

reply to post by cloudyday


Considering the high failure rate of unmanned probes, the costs of those failures should be included in any cost comparisons.

But the robots people just don't get it, never have.

Robots aren't people, they are designed to do a few very specific things and if anything comes along that wasn't planned for, either the robot is lost or the opportunity is. Humans, on the other hand, are by nature generalists capable of coping with the unforeseen on the spot.

In the end I think a lot of it boils down to jealousy, I know for sure the robot guys were jealous as hell of the manned programs, because those got all the attention and love, while the robots were regarded with "that's really interesting and cool...didja see what the astronauts just did?" Drove the non-astronaut scientists crazy. Their egos couldn't stand it and they screamed bloody murder about how the costs were robbing them of their precious toys and the recognition the felt they deserved.

I think jealousy still factors in with the people who couldn't or wouldn't go to the moon if they had a chance.

I say hang the expense, I'm pretty sure capitalists will find a way to make it pay once we get there, or capitalism is a crock of crap. New frontiers are always expensive.

reply to post by St Udio


They couldn't even make a 'biosphere' work in Arizona, and they didn't have to make hundreds of deep space flights to assemble such.

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by St Udio

 

They couldn't even make a 'biosphere' work in Arizona, and they didn't have to make hundreds of deep space flights to assemble such.

Main problems of biosphere were sequestration of carbon by concrete walls (which was later identified and solved) and psychological issues among the people. Technically, self-sufficient habitats are feasible.

reply to post by Maslo

Money from Moon tourism. Cheap fuel for space missions. Eventually permanent offworld presence means not having all eggs in one basket - invaluable insurance for all humanity. And most importantly, prestige.

The country will not spend hundreds of billions in start up costs just for private tourism. You are dreaming.
Nor will the population allow undue taxation to save the elite while the rest incinerate. Once again you are dreaming.

reply to post by samkent

The country will not spend hundreds of billions in start up costs just for private tourism. You are dreaming.

Considering trillions spent on wars and bailouts, why not?

Nor will the population allow undue taxation to save the elite while the rest incinerate.

What are bailouts then?

And in the event of a global catastrophe, saving at least the elite will be better than all humanity dying.

Having a base of operations with low delta-v such as Moon would be invaluable for our future progress further into the Solar System.

Resources on Earth are limited, and sooner or later we will need to mine asteroids.

Originally posted by Maslo
Having a base of operations with low delta-v such as Moon would be invaluable for our future progress further into the Solar System.

Resources on Earth are limited, and sooner or later we will need to mine asteroids.

That's why we should take the money we would spend on that SLS rocket and use it to promote recycling and conservation. I'm sure if we piled-up all the plastic shopping bags and paper cups in one location we could probably have a mountain reaching into space.

reply to post by Maslo

What did we have in aviation 50 years after the first flight of Wright brothers?

The sound barrier was broken, 1947 to be exact, and that is exactly 50 years after the first powered heavier than air flight. But to put that in perspective that is only a 700 mph difference.

Since Apollo exceeded 25,000 mph (about 40 years later), what would be a comparable advancement curve one should have expected now 40-some years after that?

One needs to understand though Apollo's were developed with no expense spared with no anticipations of any return of investment, unlike today space flight is for profit or national security. One aspect the return of investment has a calculative profit margin even considering failures, defense space operations have an oblivious return of investment, but a return none the less. Going to the moon had near zero return of investment, except for pure scientific data collection that has little to do with whether you can afford to buy a better car next year or not.

I'm not saying the space programs don't contribute to the advancement of technology, an entire spinoff industry found its start from the 60's space programs, I'm just saying without space programs we'd still have the need for developing computers and more efficient internal combustion engines, and better man caves with better beer.