Manned spacecraft

[Plane]

http://www.spacex.com/


NASA's Manned spacecraft program is dying, nobody really likes this idea , but the administration has pretty much cancelled the shuttles replacement.

Were we really only in space to show up the Soviets?

Well for a decade or two we won't be ahead of the Rusians, we will be paying them for taxi service. Good thing they arn't Soviets any more ? China has a manned space program , by the time we do again the Chineese program might be better than ours, at least the competition might hold down the cost of renting a ride.

Irony is too thick to walk thru.


So,... commercial launchers,... how long SpaceX?

[kimba1]

hey!

the two countries with communist backgrounds beat america  in the space race . must make those anti-nasa folks proud.

[Xavier_Onassis]

We have not abandoned space flight, we have temporarily ceased to send manned missions. That is something different. Robotics has progressed so much that much of what astronauts have done in the past can now be done without endangering human beings.

This results in the same data at a much reduced expense.

[Kramer]

We have not abandoned space flight, we have temporarily ceased to send manned missions. That is something different. Robotics has progressed so much that much of what astronauts have done in the past can now be done without endangering human beings.

This results in the same data at a much reduced expense.

It didn't seem like there was ever a shortage of Astronauts despite the dangers. I wonder what will come of mankind if robots take all the 'risks'...

I guess we could celebrate Hal over Lewis & Clark!

[Xavier_Onassis]

The problem is not a shortage of astronauts, the problem is that it is very expensive to keep them alive. They are large and must be kept in an atmosphere in which they can breathe, they must be fed and kept in the proper temperature. Perhaps you might be okay with a couple of them being blown to bits every mission or so, but most people are not. Robots and specialized machines do not breathe or eat, can exist in great extremes of temperature, and only require electricity to function. If one gets blown up, they build another. They are expendable, and they can do almost anything a human can.

Maybe we could send a group of astronauts to Mars and back, but ti would have cost 100 times what the last expedition cost with robots.

The main reason to put man in space is basically romanticism, not scientific necessity.

[Kramer]

The problem is not a shortage of astronauts, the problem is that it is very expensive to keep them alive. They are large and must be kept in an atmosphere in which they can breathe, they must be fed and kept in the proper temperature. Perhaps you might be okay with a couple of them being blown to bits every mission or so, but most people are not. Robots and specialized machines do not breathe or eat, can exist in great extremes of temperature, and only require electricity to function. If one gets blown up, they build another. They are expendable, and they can do almost anything a human can.

Maybe we could send a group of astronauts to Mars and back, but ti would have cost 100 times what the last expedition cost with robots.

The main reason to put man in space is basically romanticism, not scientific necessity.

so it's romantic to put robots into space.

[Xavier_Onassis]

No, it is romantic to put people in space: Man vs Nature.

Machine vs nature is hard for us to identify with. But the fact is that they can do far better research with the same money using robotics, as robots are expendable: they don't even need to bring them home.

Of course, putting a man on the moon was a massive propaganda triumph,. especially since the Russians never managed to do it. There was nothing wrong at that time doing this.

But there is far less reason to put a man on Mars and bring him back, when better science can be done with robotics. Any expert in the field will tell you the same.

[Plane]

[Plane]

The main reason to put man in space is basically romanticism, not scientific necessity.

That is totally true.

But don't sell short the worth of having a vision!

“We choose to go...not because [it is] easy, but because [it is] hard, because that goal will serve to measure and organize the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.”
--John Fitzgerald Kennedy--

[kimba1]

honestly if the mission to mars was a one way trip. i kinda doubt I would turn that offer down.i know I would have a alot folks who`ll go also.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The point is that putting a man on the Moon was a romantic vision. And we did it.

If the purpose of NASA is scientific discovery, and the purpose of good government is not to waste money unnecessarily, then it makes the best sense to focus on robotic missions.

I am sure they could get volunteers for "suicide missions". But not only would this be the needless sacrifice of human life, it would still be vastly more expensive than a robotic mission and less productive in terms of results.

Obama and Congress made the correct decision to focus on unmanned missions at the present time.

[kimba1]

I can`t disagree in economic terms. still a shame.and I feel this can hurt will hurt us in other fields.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I feel this can hurt will hurt us in other fields.

===========================
What other fields?

Do they need to send more people into space to discover more about how to keep people alive in space?
I imagine that they know a whole lot about that.

I agree that robots do not have the emotional impact that humans do as space explorers.

Perhaps we should get the creators of Hello Kitty and Pokeman to make those robots a lot cuter. Give them big googly eyes and interesting accents, perhaps with a minor speech impediment.

[kimba1]

meaning space flight is a technological goal .to remove it will slow other fields that may benefit from the byproducts of manned space flight. I got no idea what they are . but science does not always advance in a straight line.

ex. MRI is not exactly a product of medical research it`s actually a application of devices from astronomy.

unmanned spaceflight will advance robotics.

[Plane]

Perhaps we should get the creators of Hello Kitty and Pokeman to make those robots a lot cuter. Give them big googly eyes and interesting accents, perhaps with a minor speech impediment.
[/quote

Nasa is working on that.



http://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/features/robonaut.html

NASA to Launch Human-Like Robot to Join Space Station Crew04.15.10
Robonaut2 – or R2 for short – is the next generation dexterous robot, developed through a Space Act
NASA will launch the first human-like robot to space later this year to become a permanent resident of the International Space Station. Robonaut 2, or R2, was developed jointly by NASA and General Motors under a cooperative agreement to develop a robotic assistant that can work alongside humans, whether they are astronauts in space or workers at GM manufacturing plants on Earth.

The 300-pound R2 consists of a head and a torso with two arms and two hands. R2 will launch on space shuttle Discovery as part of the STS-133 mission planned for September. Once aboard the station, engineers will monitor how the robot operates in weightlessness.

R2 will be confined to operations in the station's Destiny laboratory. However, future enhancements and modifications may allow it to move more freely around the station's interior or outside the complex.

"This project exemplifies the promise that a future generation of robots can have both in space and on Earth, not as replacements for humans but as companions that can carry out key supporting roles," said John Olson, director of NASA's Exploration Systems Integration Office at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "The combined potential of humans and robots is a perfect example of the sum equaling more than the parts. It will allow us to go farther and achieve more than we can probably even imagine today."