Human Space Missions Must End...

[5fish]

Why do we need to send humans into space when machines can do most if not all that needs to be done. Why send humans into space? It adds greatly to the cost of our space program money that could be used else where. One man space program could be many more robot program for space... Man is space is just man's vanity on display...

Don't send people to the moon—send robots instead

The 50th Anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing is the perfect time to reflect on just how ridiculous it is that we catapult human beings into space.

qz.com

We want to explore space. Space is unsuitable for humans. Therefore, we should explore space using robots and telepresence.

"Many are unenthusiastic about robotic exploration. We merely send tools when we want to send heroes".

I can imagine future AI having just as vivid or even better awareness of its environment than we could, and, in a sense, being a better explorer. But to many people, this would not be a human exploring space, just another (human-made) species exploring space; it is not us.

 

[5fish]

Space Travel Killing Us...

How the billionaire space race could be one giant leap for pollution

One rocket launch produces up to 300 tons of carbon dioxide into the upper atmosphere where it can remain for years

www.theguardian.com

When rockets launch into space, they require a huge amount of propellants to make it out of the Earth’s atmosphere. For SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket, it is kerosene, and for Nasa it is liquid hydrogen in their new Space Launch System. Those fuels emit a variety of substances into the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, water, chlorine and other chemicals.

“For one long-haul plane flight it’s one to three tons of carbon dioxide [per passenger],” says Marais. For one rocket launch 200-300 tonnes of carbon dioxide are split between 4 or so passengers, according to Marais. “So it doesn’t need to grow that much more to compete with other sources.”

But emissions from rockets are emitted right into the upper atmosphere, which means they stay there for a long time: two to three years. Even water injected into the upper atmosphere – where it can form clouds – can have warming impacts, says Marais. “Even something as seemingly innocuous as water can have an impact.”

 

[jgoodguy]

My opinion is that manned missions with current tech have a limit of Mars and maybe not that. Robots are better.

 

[Tom]

How good are robots at problem solving?...getting out of a fix?

If there is something they can't handle then the whole mission is a bust.

 

[jgoodguy]

How good are robots at problem solving?...getting out of a fix?

If there is something they can't handle then the whole mission is a bust.

Better than sick or dead humans.

 

[5fish]

If there is something they can't handle then the whole mission is a bust.

With or without humans any mission can become a bust... I like to note the human on earth have kept those rovers on mars going for years... Human in space cost to much... Why is the question and the answer is not because its there... You know our space station has done little for science

Was the space station worth it...

Twenty years of the International Space Station – but was it worth it?

Has the ISS benefited society? Scientists are divided: for some, it’s a beacon of unity; for others, just a set for an action film

www.theguardian.com

The final bill for constructing the ISS came to more than $100bn. The station soaks up $4bn a year in maintenance costs and service flights. Most of this has been paid by the US. The question is: was this vast expenditure worth it?

Other scientists take a different stance, however. “There is no way you could justify the vast sums the have been spent on building the ISS,” said the astronomer royal, Sir Martin Rees. “For a start, the scientific returns have been meagre. We have learned a bit about how the body reacts to spending long periods in space, and we have grown a few crystals in zero gravity, but that is in no way commensurate to the tens of billions of dollars that have spent on the ISS. Really, the station only makes news when its toilets get blocked or an astronaut sings while floating about with a guitar.”

Here 20 science break throughs but... how many could have been done by unman missions...

20 Breakthroughs from 20 Years of Science aboard the International Space Station - NASA

For 20 years, the astronauts aboard the International Space Station have conducted science in a way that cannot be done anywhere else. Orbiting about 250

www.nasa.gov

To mark 20 years of science, take a look at 20 scientific and technological breakthroughs we have achieved as a result of space station science.

 

[5fish]

Our Congress chose the Space Station over the Super Collider in Texas... The Collider would have been bigger than CERN ... Think of the science that has been lost...

This Month in Physics History

APS Archives

www.aps.org

The rising price tag in the face of economic recession as President Bill Clinton took office in the early 1990s certainly figured prominently in the collider's falling fortunes. By then the estimated cost had ballooned to more than $10 billion, and the DOE's 1993 Baseline Validation Report called for increased safety and contingency margins, resulting in another 15% increase to the budget, to $11.5 billion. National priorities had shifted, and slashing the federal budget topped the list. The SSC was not the only major science project with a hefty budget; it was competing with the International Space Station, which held greater appeal for the new Congress than the more esoteric objectives of the SSC; nor were Clinton's science advisor, or his Energy Secretary, particularly passionate about the SSC.

 

[5fish]

Why go with humans... Americans do not want humans in space... even in the 1960s...

The Uncomfortable Truths of American Spaceflight

NASA has pushed its next moon landing to 2025. But why is it trying to go at all?

www.theatlantic.com

Ignoring the reality of America’s ambivalence toward space travel is becoming much more difficult. Public-opinion surveys in recent years have shown that Americans want the country to prioritize other kinds of space activities; in a Morning Consult poll published in February, survey participants said the United States should focus more on climate-change research and the study of asteroids that could strike Earth. Only 8 percent said sending astronauts to the moon should be a top priority, and 7 percent said the same for a mission to Mars. Gil Scott-Heron’s words in “Whitey on the Moon,” from 1970, still resonate: “Can’t pay no doctor bill / But Whitey’s on the moon / 10 years from now I’ll be payin’ still / While Whitey’s on the moon.”

For years, NASA has insisted that Americans cared about space exploration anyway, and presented the Apollo effort as a product of national unity. (It wasn’t; polling shows that the moon program was unpopular for most of the 1960s, with the exception of a survey conducted in the immediate aftermath of the Apollo 11 landing.) As one space-policy wonk told me recently: “They’ve been coasting on the fact that a significant amount of people think that space is cool and they don’t have to argue why they do this.”

Here is the follow up... Myths of the space program...

The Myth of America's Love Affair with the Moon

Contrary to the myth of the U.S. space program enjoying popular support during the Apollo moon program, polls show that public support for U.S. spaceflight was anything but overwhelming.

www.space.com

Public opinion in favor of continuing human lunar exploration almost never rose above 50 percent during NASA's Apollo program – but the lone exception was in October 1965. Americans often ranked spaceflight near the top of programs to be cut in the federal budget during the 1960s buildup toward the first moon landing.

 

[5fish]

Here is a "what if" for the Trekkies among us... @rittmeister, @O' Be Joyful: What if we gave NASA our military budget... Think how much closer to being like Star Trek we would be... We might be on Mars. We might be sailing the methane seas of Neptune.

 

[5fish]

Here a short article on the topic... If NASA had our Military budget...

Dit zou NASA kunnen bereiken als ze hetzelfde budget zouden hebben als het Amerikaanse leger

www.businessinsider.com

The US spends more on space exploration than any other country in the world. A big chunk of this investment goes to NASA, the country's leading agency for space exploration.

But that’s still a pittance compared to the overall US Federal budget. Since NASA landed the first man on the Moon in 1969, its budget has plummeted from 4.5% of the Federal budget to less than 0.5%.

Here is another shart article on the topic...

What If NASA Had the U.S. Military's Budget?

INSH | Space exploration has never come cheap, but what if NASA got a multi-billion dollar boost in the form the U.S. military’s budget?

insh.world

We’d move up the launch date on the Europa Clipper – a mission to Jupiter’s smallest moon in search of signs of alien life in the ocean of liquid water beneath its icy shell. Maybe Europa would become our next destination for the crewed missions?

 

[rittmeister]

Here is a "what if" for the Trekkies among us... @rittmeister, @O' Be Joyful: What if we gave NASA our military budget... Think how much closer to being like Star Trek we would be... We might be on Mars. We might be sailing the methane seas of Neptune.

you might ...

star trek comes about after world war three



... btw, that movie is bullshit

 

[5fish]

you might ...

star trek comes about after world war three



... btw, that movie is bullshit

I doubt WW3 is coming more like a bronze age collapse without warfare but with the mass migration of people. Think where we would be in space if NASA had our nation's military budget since say 1980...

 

[5fish]

We must end the colonization of space and end Star Trek colonialist propaganda... @rittmeister , @O' Be Joyful

End ‘colonial’ approach to space exploration, scientists urge

Focus should shift away from seeking to exploit discoveries on other planets, researchers say

www.theguardian.com

Be gentle colonialist?

In the Star Trek series, the Prime Directive, or General Order 1, of Starfleet Command sets out that the Starfleet should not interfere with the social, cultural, or technological development of any other planet. Conrad said that rather than setting out to own or take resources from space, humans should endeavor to be “gentle explorers”.

“If we were willing to seize that as not just a possibility, but an imperative then oddly enough, the Star Trek series and culture becomes a prime directive for how we could explore space: seeking not to interfere.”

 

[5fish]

No we are going to the stars.... Bring back the idea...

Project Orion (nuclear propulsion) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Project Orion was a study conducted in the 1950s and 1960s by the United States Air Force, DARPA,[1] and NASA into the viability of a nuclear pulse spaceship that would be directly propelled by a series of atomic explosions behind the craft.[2][3] Early versions of the vehicle were proposed to take off from the ground; later versions were presented for use only in space. The design effort took place at General Atomics in San Diego,[4] and supporters included Wernher von Braun,[5] who issued a white paper advocating the idea.[2][6] Non-nuclear tests were conducted with models,[7] but the project was eventually abandoned for several reasons, including the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty,[8] which banned nuclear explosions in

 

[5fish]

Here is the original idea... 1947...

Nuclear pulse propulsion - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Nuclear pulse propulsion or external pulsed plasma propulsion is a hypothetical method of spacecraft propulsion that uses nuclear explosions for thrust.[1] It originated as Project Orion with support from DARPA, after a suggestion by Stanislaw Ulam in 1947.[2] Newer designs using inertial confinement fusion have been the baseline for most later designs, including Project Daedalus and Project Longshot

 

[rittmeister]

We must end the colonization of space and end Star Trek colonialist propaganda... @rittmeister , @O' Be Joyful

End ‘colonial’ approach to space exploration, scientists urge

Focus should shift away from seeking to exploit discoveries on other planets, researchers say

www.theguardian.com

Be gentle colonialist?

In the Star Trek series, the Prime Directive, or General Order 1, of Starfleet Command sets out that the Starfleet should not interfere with the social, cultural, or technological development of any other planet. Conrad said that rather than setting out to own or take resources from space, humans should endeavor to be “gentle explorers”.

“If we were willing to seize that as not just a possibility, but an imperative then oddly enough, the Star Trek series and culture becomes a prime directive for how we could explore space: seeking not to interfere.”

nuts

 

[5fish]

nuts

Is there an alternative or is it ethical...

Should Earthlings colonize the final frontier? Ethicists weigh in

CLEMSON, S.C. -- Space might be the final frontier, but as China announces plans to build a moon base, NASA begins working on manned missions to Mars and

news.clemson.edu

 

[rittmeister]

Is there an alternative or is it ethical...

Should Earthlings colonize the final frontier? Ethicists weigh in

CLEMSON, S.C. -- Space might be the final frontier, but as China announces plans to build a moon base, NASA begins working on manned missions to Mars and

news.clemson.edu

what are we going to do if all those nukes don't make it into orbit?

 

[Tom]

Human Space Missions Must End..

Yes, yes...otherwise the Overlords will be angry...

 

[5fish]

Yes, yes...otherwise the Overlords will be angry...

I must know which Overlords... I know there must be a list...