Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Admittedly, I am a former big fan of manned space flight but considering what what we gain from unmanned flights as compared to manned flights, the cost benefit just doesn't tilt in favor of the latter.
The other problem for me is the utter futility of manned space exploration, without the present inconceivability of approaching anything close to the speed of light, man will for the foreseeable future will be be restricted to an infinitesimal fraction of the known universe, i.e., our own solar system.
Over the last 20 years, the overwhelming discoveries about neighboring planets and the universe in general, have been achieved by unmanned vehicles, so for me, I would rather concentrate on unmanned exploration.
Well;considering the untimate aim is to have longer term manned space habitartion it seems obvious that manned flight is necessary unless you just want disocvery with no by product.Man doesn't want to just observe space but to occupy it.
How much more does it cost for a man to ride along?
To have a man ride along to, say, Mars, is not *that* much more expensive than an unmanned probe, the real cost is the guy wants to come home eventually. So you have to pack along an entire Mars-to-Earth space ship, all it's fuel, etc.
Oddly, neither the US nor Russia have made much progress from the V-2 era of rocketry, if you look at Burt Rutan's general idea of using an air-breathing plane to get the rocket up into the stratosphere anyway, and get it going reasonably close to Mach 1, this saves megabucks compared to the vertical lauch that's been used, well, since the V-2.
When you think about it, only the Saturn series and the (unsuccessful) Russian N-1 series have been built as manned space rockets from the get-go, everything else is an ICBM with a capsule replacing the warhead. Sad but true.
The benefits of at least the Apollo program can be compared to a guy pumping iron - the guy standing there pumping a barbell up and down is not accomplishing anything useful in itself, it's what pumping iron does FOR the guy that makes it worthwhile. So putting a man on the moon, in itself, didn't accomplish much, but the process for doing this drove the integrated circuit revolution, the whole computer revolution, etc.
I see real benefit in manned spaceflight in developing new technologies along the way and spinning them off to the private sector. Some real money to be made in license fees, I say.
But I agree that unmanned probes and machines should prep and explore sites before humans arrive for safety reasons and to discover any new and interesting sites.
I also agree that until we can make a plasma drive or antimatter drive, manned interplanetary expeditions will be prohibitively long for humans. Boredom, cabin fever, crew morale, and the knowledge that you cannot really "go back" in an interplanetary expedition due to physics will all deter human spaceflight for the forseeable future.
Oddly, neither the US nor Russia have made much progress from the V-2 era of rocketry, if you look at Burt Rutan's general idea of using an air-breathing plane to get the rocket up into the stratosphere anyway, and get it going reasonably close to Mach 1, this saves megabucks compared to the vertical lauch that's been used, well, since the V-2.
Argh! Rutan's sounding rocket is a slower remake of the X-43 rocket plane for dumb rich tourists who don't realize they could pay less to go higher and faster in a MiG-29 ride.
You don't save money until you actually build a launch vehicle that can put something into orbit. You can (on paper) gain a lot of delta-V by avoiding the high-drag regions of the atmosphere, but Rutan's sounding rocket doesn't go anywhere near orbital velocity. It might as well be a high-altitude balloon.
Quote:
When you think about it, only the Saturn series and the (unsuccessful) Russian N-1 series have been built as manned space rockets from the get-go, everything else is an ICBM with a capsule replacing the warhead. Sad but true.
What about the STS?
I agree with a lot of what you say, but take issue with the idea that Rutan is somehow a spacefaring revolutionary. That pioneering award goes to the folks at SpaceX as far as I'm concerned.
It's funny, because I was there at Mojave for the 2nd flight of Spaceship 1 which secured Rutan the X-prize.
Just curious. If NASA announced that they were going to launch a one-way space program, and asked for volunteers to go out there and not come back, what kinds of people would apply, and how many of them?
There is obviously an advantage to having a human being on the ship who can trouble-shoot, as opposed to anticipating every possible problem and designing a robotic remedy, which itself is very expensive. As in, "tap it with a hammer and see if that works".
Such a one-way manned flight would reduce the cost in two ways. Reduce the need for on-board robots to do what a man can do, and eliminate the return vehicle. Any volunteers?
I'm guess I'm still something of a romantic and an idealist where space flight is concerned. I don't look at it as a "bang for the buck" proposition. This topic takes me back to when John F. Kennedy referred to space as the "new ocean" and that the United States must sail on it. I still feel that way and, to me, sailing on it means man and not just machine.
When I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey in 1968, 2001 as depicted didn't seem drastically far fetched considering how far and fast we had progressed in space during the 60s. But reality sure fell short, didn't it? That has been a big disappointment for me for years.
I realize that financing is a bigger challenge today than probably any other time in the space age, but I'd still like to see man explore as far as he possible can - just because it is there and it beckons us to.
The Shuttle was the ultimate flying machine, why else were there more applicants than slots in the Astronaut Corps. I had ideas of that, too, while in the Navy. After meeting some of the astronauts I realized they were waaaaaay smarter than me.
The next generation of manned spacecraft will be the ultimate flying machine, too. Man has always explored the unknown, from our cavemen ancestors moving 20 miles "over there" until today.
I remember when we were exploring under the seas at the same time we were going to the Moon. What happened?
Just curious. If NASA announced that they were going to launch a one-way space program, and asked for volunteers to go out there and not come back, what kinds of people would apply, and how many of them?
There is obviously an advantage to having a human being on the ship who can trouble-shoot, as opposed to anticipating every possible problem and designing a robotic remedy, which itself is very expensive. As in, "tap it with a hammer and see if that works".
Such a one-way manned flight would reduce the cost in two ways. Reduce the need for on-board robots to do what a man can do, and eliminate the return vehicle. Any volunteers?
The concept is not terribly farfetched. Every day there are people who are informed they only have X months to live. If I was one of them, and such an opportunity arose, I might seriously consider it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
