4 ms·

Isn't a spaceship landing on the moon and coming back without human help the real achievement of the 21st century? Has it happened before? It should be harder t

Isn't a spaceship landing on the moon and coming back without human help the real achievement of the 21st century? Has it happened before? It should be harder to do it without humans than with humans in theory.

londons_explore 7y ago
We have already sent robotic probes to the moon and brought back bits of soil [1]. We did so in the 20th century. There are certainly challenges to doing it with and without humans, but in my opinion, in today's world requiring much higher safety factors for human flight, a robotic mission is probably substantially easier. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_16 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_16
- xiphias2 7y ago
  Apollo 11 was the previous year, that's why I thought that it's easier if a human can help with controlling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11
  - skykooler 7y ago
    It was easier at that point, because computers were in their infancy so it was helpful to have a human in the loop doing things the computers couldn't. Nowadays (and pretty much since the 80's) computers have been more than powerful enough to handle the task.
boltzmannbrain 7y ago
No. You're missing the added complexities of supporting human life in spaceflight.
AgloeDreams 7y ago
It's much easier to do it without people for a simple reason: Risk. You can do it without concern of getting it back so you can push the limits til you tune it out. If they had to land with people spaceX couldn't have ever figured out self-landing rockets. Imagine writing a program and you couldn't debug it fully because if it crashes someone would die. Autonomous spacecraft always were the 'easy' part, humans are the hard part.
- xiphias2 7y ago
  In the Apollo program lots of people died for the cause, as they felt that it's worth the risk. But it was still probably easier to do it with humans, as they were able to do more compex tasks than computers. In what you write, achieving the high safety of the mission itself seems the achievement to me, and not putting humans on it (just like we have self driving cars already, it was a great achievement, but now it's time to get them working with high safety. After that putting a human in them is a trivial step).
  - lmilcin 7y ago
    Actually, Apollo program was a show of oneupmanship after Russians' successes. Sending actual humans was not necessary for successful mission but it was necessary to show superiority and bind USSR's resources. USSR has already landed a robotic mission (Luna 9) couple of years before and sent pictures from the Moon (https://www.space.com/35116-luna-9.html https://www.space.com/35116-luna-9.html) From purely technical standpoint it would be much easier to develop comparable robotic mission. Most of R&D was to develop stuff that would not be necessary for robotic mission. That of course, is only purely technical standpoint. Sending a bundle of motors, sensors and wires to Moon is nowhere as rewarding and prestigious as sending actual humans.
    - xiphias2 7y ago
      From the link you sent it seems that Luna 9 didn't come back, that's why I wrote going and returning spaceship. From the movie about the Apollo mission it seemed that the humans had to learn a lot of real engineering and physical training as well, and just being able to push a ,,go back'' button wouldn't have been enough for the mission to be successful. Also sending a human without being able to return at least theoretically wouldn't have been ethical.
      - lmilcin 7y ago
        Well, yes, it did not come back. But it also took a tiny fraction of Apollo development costs. I think I read an article that described that humans were given tasks that would normally be given to computers just to keep them occupied. For some task it was just convenient as humans were already on board. Some tasks were given so that astronauts were in control of their lives, otherwise they could just as well be performed from the ground. If you think about it, there is only 2s round trip time for signal from Earth to Moon. If the only thing astronauts do is sit in the cockpit, flip switches, type commands and maybe handle some kind of steering, the same thing could just as well be performed from Earth. There could of course be possibility for communication disruption but at the same time, with no actual people on board, less fallout from possible problems.
yardie 7y ago
We have quite a few autonomous vehicles that have been made into meteorites due to small programming errors. They popup in the news from time to time with nothing more than a shrug and better luck next time. You have one fatal shuttle mission and NASA doesn't launch another one for 3 years. So the risks aren't remotely the same.
WalterBright 7y ago
> the real achievement of the 21st century? Depends on how you look at it. It could be the achievement of powered, controlled flight. The Wright Bros invented the process of a directed research and development program, consisting of a series of prototypes each designed to solve a particular problem, and then combining them all into a successful solution. The Apollo moon shot adhered to exactly this process. It works so well it's part of the common wisdom and people overlook how revolutionary it is. Before the Wrights, people tried to develop the end solution all in one go.
rsynnott 7y ago
In 1970: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_16 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_16

londons_explore 7y ago

We have already sent robotic probes to the moon and brought back bits of soil [1]. We did so in the 20th century. There are certainly challenges to doing it with and without humans, but in my opinion, in today's world requiring much higher safety factors for human flight, a robotic mission is probably substantially easier. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_16 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_16

xiphias2 7y ago
Apollo 11 was the previous year, that's why I thought that it's easier if a human can help with controlling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11
- skykooler 7y ago
  It was easier at that point, because computers were in their infancy so it was helpful to have a human in the loop doing things the computers couldn't. Nowadays (and pretty much since the 80's) computers have been more than powerful enough to handle the task.

boltzmannbrain 7y ago

No. You're missing the added complexities of supporting human life in spaceflight.

AgloeDreams 7y ago

It's much easier to do it without people for a simple reason: Risk. You can do it without concern of getting it back so you can push the limits til you tune it out. If they had to land with people spaceX couldn't have ever figured out self-landing rockets. Imagine writing a program and you couldn't debug it fully because if it crashes someone would die. Autonomous spacecraft always were the 'easy' part, humans are the hard part.

xiphias2 7y ago
In the Apollo program lots of people died for the cause, as they felt that it's worth the risk. But it was still probably easier to do it with humans, as they were able to do more compex tasks than computers. In what you write, achieving the high safety of the mission itself seems the achievement to me, and not putting humans on it (just like we have self driving cars already, it was a great achievement, but now it's time to get them working with high safety. After that putting a human in them is a trivial step).
- lmilcin 7y ago
  Actually, Apollo program was a show of oneupmanship after Russians' successes. Sending actual humans was not necessary for successful mission but it was necessary to show superiority and bind USSR's resources. USSR has already landed a robotic mission (Luna 9) couple of years before and sent pictures from the Moon (https://www.space.com/35116-luna-9.html https://www.space.com/35116-luna-9.html) From purely technical standpoint it would be much easier to develop comparable robotic mission. Most of R&D was to develop stuff that would not be necessary for robotic mission. That of course, is only purely technical standpoint. Sending a bundle of motors, sensors and wires to Moon is nowhere as rewarding and prestigious as sending actual humans.
  - xiphias2 7y ago
    From the link you sent it seems that Luna 9 didn't come back, that's why I wrote going and returning spaceship. From the movie about the Apollo mission it seemed that the humans had to learn a lot of real engineering and physical training as well, and just being able to push a ,,go back'' button wouldn't have been enough for the mission to be successful. Also sending a human without being able to return at least theoretically wouldn't have been ethical.
    - lmilcin 7y ago
      Well, yes, it did not come back. But it also took a tiny fraction of Apollo development costs. I think I read an article that described that humans were given tasks that would normally be given to computers just to keep them occupied. For some task it was just convenient as humans were already on board. Some tasks were given so that astronauts were in control of their lives, otherwise they could just as well be performed from the ground. If you think about it, there is only 2s round trip time for signal from Earth to Moon. If the only thing astronauts do is sit in the cockpit, flip switches, type commands and maybe handle some kind of steering, the same thing could just as well be performed from Earth. There could of course be possibility for communication disruption but at the same time, with no actual people on board, less fallout from possible problems.

yardie 7y ago

We have quite a few autonomous vehicles that have been made into meteorites due to small programming errors. They popup in the news from time to time with nothing more than a shrug and better luck next time. You have one fatal shuttle mission and NASA doesn't launch another one for 3 years. So the risks aren't remotely the same.

WalterBright 7y ago

> the real achievement of the 21st century? Depends on how you look at it. It could be the achievement of powered, controlled flight. The Wright Bros invented the process of a directed research and development program, consisting of a series of prototypes each designed to solve a particular problem, and then combining them all into a successful solution. The Apollo moon shot adhered to exactly this process. It works so well it's part of the common wisdom and people overlook how revolutionary it is. Before the Wrights, people tried to develop the end solution all in one go.

rsynnott 7y ago

In 1970: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_16 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_16