6 ms·

Overall, the fact that the US experiencing the longest period without capability of sending humans into space seems to be a serious organizational problem.

by tzfld 7y ago

umvi 7y ago
Is there much value in sending humans into space besides studying how the human body deteriorates in microgravity?
- Yajirobe 7y ago
  flexing
- beerandt 7y ago
  There's certainly a loss of value for our already built and paid for space station, if we're not able to use it.
  - simias 7y ago
    That's a sunk cost fallacy. If they don't have anything important to do on said space station it's better to leave it empty and save the money for other projects. Mind you, I don't know if that's the case but I'm just pointing out that the station being expensive doesn't justify pouring even more money into it if you don't have a clear objective.
    - beerandt 7y ago
      It maybe by sunk cost. But it's still lost value, at least based on design life and planned/committed-to experiments/ missions, which I believe are booked up through 2024. And I'm not sure sunk cost fallacy applies, especially in the context of SpaceX / Dragon. Although it could definitely apply to SLS. If you wanted to argue that extending the life beyond 2024 or whatever it is, then I would agree with you, sunk cost is irrelevant. I tend to only apply the term to something incomplete with run-away costs to finish. Or if something changes (demand-side) that renders said product to become obsolete before completion. I'd argue neither applies to the space station. Political whimsy shouldn't be a factor.
- wingspar 7y ago
  It forces and tests improvements in life-support systems?Generation, recycling, shielding, long term impact of humans on these systems. All things that are needed for future exploration/colonization.
- Jwarder 7y ago
  With the caveat up front that I'm a huge idealist about space: I think humanity would greatly benefit from building large populations in space. Once the systems are in place then any power generation, industry, or agriculture done in space means less pollution here on earth. Solar energy is "free", asteroids are "free". The setup isn't trivial, but in the long run I think it is best for everyone.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    Colonizing space itself is also significantly more useful than colonizing planets, because you don't need a planet. Any star system in the universe is potentially habitable once we can work out a way of getting to them.
    - est31 7y ago
      Yeah, only because we evolved on the surface of a moist rock doesn't have to mean we have to stay on the surface of such rocks for eternity. Planets are still valuable though, but mostly for disassembly. Pressure only a few km into earth's crust gets too high for any serious engineering projects and I doubt this will (fundamentally) change even with future technology. So most of the matter that makes up earth can't be accessed... unless we dismantle it. Asteroids are great but they only contain a subset of the matter of the solar system.
      - bdamm 7y ago
        True, it would be nice to move elsewhere so that we can fulfill our DNA's desire to spread out. However, the Earth is the only rock we've ever found life on at all anywhere, including within our own solar system. Before we blithely plan for Earth's dismantlement, let's acknowledge that the problem of supporting life off-world is still a completely unsolved one. Even living in orbit is unsustainable, with astronauts spending time in the Space Station having cancer-like reactions to their time there. We are still very anchored to our little blue rock.
        7y ago
- plopz 7y ago
  There is a fairly exhaustive article on wikipedia listing all the experiments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_research_on_the_International_Space_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_research_on_the_Int... And NASA has what the team will work on specifically: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/exp-61-summary.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/exp-61-...
- rtkwe 7y ago
  It's much easier to make an experiment for a human to do than to make a robot to do the same experiment. It's also cheaper for the institution doing the experiment to do so so we get more experiments done than we would otherwise and with less material waste.
simias 7y ago
I think it's anything but. If the USA and other superpowers really wanted it they could send people up on short notice. Just look at the space race that started 50+ years ago. We have vastly better technology now and a lot more experience. It's not an organizational problem, it's a money problem and a lack of goal problem. Sending people up is vastly more expensive than unmanned probes and as technology improves there's not a whole lot a human can do that can't be achieved remotely with those probes. It's a bit sad but at the same time it makes complete scientific sense not to send squishy humans when a robot would be vastly more efficient overall. Our best chance to get humans in space again is another propaganda war starting a new space race. Maybe between USA and China this time around, to find out who gets to Mars first?
- Already__Taken 7y ago
  > a lack of goal problem. that is an organization problem, but anyway I disagree with; > Sending people up is vastly more expensive than unmanned probes and as technology improves there's not a whole lot a human can do that can't be achieved remotely with those probes. It's not incorrect, but the Apollo astronauts would have covered the entire curiosity rover distance in 7 years in about an hour. The rate at which humans on site would accomplish things is not to be scoffed at. Whether it's worth the other costs getting them there is still up for debate. But robots are not hands down better.
  - noodle_face_ 7y ago
    Obviously pros and cons to both approaches. Both should be utilized when and where it makes sense to do so. We should not hold back in getting humans into space, but that doesn't mean we should just forget about bots either.
  - simias 7y ago
    >that is an organization problem, but anyway I disagree with How so? I guess I misunderstand what is meant by "organizational problem". For me it's "we want to do X but due to bureaucratic inertia and lack of organization it's impractical to do it". Like "we need to buy a new blackboard but in order to do it we have to go through a 29step process and 5 commissions so nobody bothers". My point is that we're lacking the 'X' to begin with for space exploration. What's the big end goal currently? Putting humans on Mars? Some talk about it but nobody seems to be in a hurry and it seems more about propaganda and boasting rights than hard science. >The rate at which humans on site would accomplish things is not to be scoffed at. Whether it's worth the other costs getting them there is still up for debate. But robots are not hands down better. There's a trade-off of course but I would be very surprised if it wasn't in the robot's favor. For one thing to this day it's still unclear how we could send humans to Mars while maintaining them in good health. What do we do with them after the mission? They settle on an inhospitable planet or we find a way to retrieve them back to Earth? Curiosity weighs 899kg, I doubt that humans + habitat + supplies + power + experiments + all the safety-related overhead of having live humans involved will probably amount to several time that mass (which as we know is a big problem with rockets, since more mass means more fuel which means more mass which means more fuel...). Let's not even talk about the trip back. Sure Curiosity is slow, but once it's landed I suspect that the ongoing operating costs aren't insanely high. That's all back-of-the-enveloppe calculations of course but I would be very surprised if sending humans to do Curiosity's work wasn't at least an order of magnitude more expensive, even if you factor the shorter total mission time.
mavhc 7y ago
Wasn't 1776 to 1961 longer?
- wcarron 7y ago
  Are you really being serious right now? Please, inform all of us how space travel was possible in 1776. At best, one could make the argument that the invention of the V2 rocket was the first time space travel was possible. But, 194X to 1961 is a shorter time frame than 196X -> 2019.
  - mavhc 7y ago
    Not at all. Although 1783 was the first hydrogen balloon. Depends how you define space travel I guess. 1930s people got to 20km high
    - Strom 7y ago
      20km seems awfully low. The Kármán line at 100km [1] is what most would use. Alternatively 80km is also used. -- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n_line

Overall, the fact that the US experiencing the longest period without capability of sending humans into space seems to be a serious organizational problem.

by tzfld 7y ago

Overall, the fact that the US experiencing the longest period without capability of sending humans into space seems to be a serious organizational problem.

umvi 7y ago

Is there much value in sending humans into space besides studying how the human body deteriorates in microgravity?

Yajirobe 7y ago
flexing
beerandt 7y ago
There's certainly a loss of value for our already built and paid for space station, if we're not able to use it.
- simias 7y ago
  That's a sunk cost fallacy. If they don't have anything important to do on said space station it's better to leave it empty and save the money for other projects. Mind you, I don't know if that's the case but I'm just pointing out that the station being expensive doesn't justify pouring even more money into it if you don't have a clear objective.
  - beerandt 7y ago
    It maybe by sunk cost. But it's still lost value, at least based on design life and planned/committed-to experiments/ missions, which I believe are booked up through 2024. And I'm not sure sunk cost fallacy applies, especially in the context of SpaceX / Dragon. Although it could definitely apply to SLS. If you wanted to argue that extending the life beyond 2024 or whatever it is, then I would agree with you, sunk cost is irrelevant. I tend to only apply the term to something incomplete with run-away costs to finish. Or if something changes (demand-side) that renders said product to become obsolete before completion. I'd argue neither applies to the space station. Political whimsy shouldn't be a factor.
wingspar 7y ago
It forces and tests improvements in life-support systems?Generation, recycling, shielding, long term impact of humans on these systems. All things that are needed for future exploration/colonization.
Jwarder 7y ago
With the caveat up front that I'm a huge idealist about space: I think humanity would greatly benefit from building large populations in space. Once the systems are in place then any power generation, industry, or agriculture done in space means less pollution here on earth. Solar energy is "free", asteroids are "free". The setup isn't trivial, but in the long run I think it is best for everyone.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  Colonizing space itself is also significantly more useful than colonizing planets, because you don't need a planet. Any star system in the universe is potentially habitable once we can work out a way of getting to them.
  - est31 7y ago
    Yeah, only because we evolved on the surface of a moist rock doesn't have to mean we have to stay on the surface of such rocks for eternity. Planets are still valuable though, but mostly for disassembly. Pressure only a few km into earth's crust gets too high for any serious engineering projects and I doubt this will (fundamentally) change even with future technology. So most of the matter that makes up earth can't be accessed... unless we dismantle it. Asteroids are great but they only contain a subset of the matter of the solar system.
    - bdamm 7y ago
      True, it would be nice to move elsewhere so that we can fulfill our DNA's desire to spread out. However, the Earth is the only rock we've ever found life on at all anywhere, including within our own solar system. Before we blithely plan for Earth's dismantlement, let's acknowledge that the problem of supporting life off-world is still a completely unsolved one. Even living in orbit is unsustainable, with astronauts spending time in the Space Station having cancer-like reactions to their time there. We are still very anchored to our little blue rock.
      - 7y ago
plopz 7y ago
There is a fairly exhaustive article on wikipedia listing all the experiments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_research_on_the_International_Space_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_research_on_the_Int... And NASA has what the team will work on specifically: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/exp-61-summary.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/exp-61-...
rtkwe 7y ago
It's much easier to make an experiment for a human to do than to make a robot to do the same experiment. It's also cheaper for the institution doing the experiment to do so so we get more experiments done than we would otherwise and with less material waste.

simias 7y ago

I think it's anything but. If the USA and other superpowers really wanted it they could send people up on short notice. Just look at the space race that started 50+ years ago. We have vastly better technology now and a lot more experience. It's not an organizational problem, it's a money problem and a lack of goal problem. Sending people up is vastly more expensive than unmanned probes and as technology improves there's not a whole lot a human can do that can't be achieved remotely with those probes. It's a bit sad but at the same time it makes complete scientific sense not to send squishy humans when a robot would be vastly more efficient overall. Our best chance to get humans in space again is another propaganda war starting a new space race. Maybe between USA and China this time around, to find out who gets to Mars first?

Already__Taken 7y ago
> a lack of goal problem. that is an organization problem, but anyway I disagree with; > Sending people up is vastly more expensive than unmanned probes and as technology improves there's not a whole lot a human can do that can't be achieved remotely with those probes. It's not incorrect, but the Apollo astronauts would have covered the entire curiosity rover distance in 7 years in about an hour. The rate at which humans on site would accomplish things is not to be scoffed at. Whether it's worth the other costs getting them there is still up for debate. But robots are not hands down better.
- noodle_face_ 7y ago
  Obviously pros and cons to both approaches. Both should be utilized when and where it makes sense to do so. We should not hold back in getting humans into space, but that doesn't mean we should just forget about bots either.
- simias 7y ago
  >that is an organization problem, but anyway I disagree with How so? I guess I misunderstand what is meant by "organizational problem". For me it's "we want to do X but due to bureaucratic inertia and lack of organization it's impractical to do it". Like "we need to buy a new blackboard but in order to do it we have to go through a 29step process and 5 commissions so nobody bothers". My point is that we're lacking the 'X' to begin with for space exploration. What's the big end goal currently? Putting humans on Mars? Some talk about it but nobody seems to be in a hurry and it seems more about propaganda and boasting rights than hard science. >The rate at which humans on site would accomplish things is not to be scoffed at. Whether it's worth the other costs getting them there is still up for debate. But robots are not hands down better. There's a trade-off of course but I would be very surprised if it wasn't in the robot's favor. For one thing to this day it's still unclear how we could send humans to Mars while maintaining them in good health. What do we do with them after the mission? They settle on an inhospitable planet or we find a way to retrieve them back to Earth? Curiosity weighs 899kg, I doubt that humans + habitat + supplies + power + experiments + all the safety-related overhead of having live humans involved will probably amount to several time that mass (which as we know is a big problem with rockets, since more mass means more fuel which means more mass which means more fuel...). Let's not even talk about the trip back. Sure Curiosity is slow, but once it's landed I suspect that the ongoing operating costs aren't insanely high. That's all back-of-the-enveloppe calculations of course but I would be very surprised if sending humans to do Curiosity's work wasn't at least an order of magnitude more expensive, even if you factor the shorter total mission time.

mavhc 7y ago

Wasn't 1776 to 1961 longer?

wcarron 7y ago
Are you really being serious right now? Please, inform all of us how space travel was possible in 1776. At best, one could make the argument that the invention of the V2 rocket was the first time space travel was possible. But, 194X to 1961 is a shorter time frame than 196X -> 2019.
- mavhc 7y ago
  Not at all. Although 1783 was the first hydrogen balloon. Depends how you define space travel I guess. 1930s people got to 20km high
  - Strom 7y ago
    20km seems awfully low. The Kármán line at 100km [1] is what most would use. Alternatively 80km is also used. -- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n_line