6 ms·

Yes, that’s well understood. That’s why people have repeatedly explained for decades why manned space flight is too costly and extremely slow. It’s probably 10

Yes, that’s well understood. That’s why people have repeatedly explained for decades why manned space flight is too costly and extremely slow. It’s probably 100 times cheaper, and 10x faster, to focus on unmanned space projects: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2004/04/08/the-wrong-stuff/ https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2004/04/08/the-wrong-stuff/ In the year 2100, a lot more humans will have gone to space if we iterate quickly with unmanned projects for a few decades then as our capabilities increase, send humans.

jjk166 4y ago
Except that unmanned missions are not that much cheaper for the same level of capability - robots and probes have limited sensor capabilities, little or no ability to improvise especially not in time critical circumstances, and generally are just physically inferior to humans. For example the opportunity rover averaged 28 feet per day of travel. The lunar rover on Apollo 17 drove further in 5 hours than the curiosity, spirit, perseverance, and sojourner rovers put together. Humans have excellent strength and dexterity, able to easily move or reorient objects weighing many kilograms of arbitrary shape, and overcome arbitrary obstacles. While there are significant costs for this additional capability, the fact is robots simply can't be made to outperform humans at these tasks at the moment. The divide was even worse in the early days of space exploration. Then, the idea that things would be substantially cheaper without man-rating is also based on shaky assumptions. The fact is large space probes are extremely expensive pieces of hardware and launch windows for certain missions are uncommon, so even if humans aren't on board it is still extremely undesirable to lose a probe to an engineering failure. Indeed while putting a price on human life is extremely taboo, the fact is that in situations where such a price must be determined, it usually comes out to the low tens of millions of USD. Compared to the multibillion dollar costs of many space missions, it makes sense to treat them with the same care as human life. Finally, the idea that quickly iterating unmanned projects will make human spaceflight safer doesn't make much sense. If you're not using safety systems regularly, and you're not under pressure to improve them, why would one expect to gain useful experience and develop better improved versions? If anything, in the future we should have more capable probes that swing the pendulum further away from human spaceflight.
- GuB-42 4y ago
  > Indeed while putting a price on human life is extremely taboo, the fact is that in situations where such a price must be determined, it usually comes out to the low tens of millions of USD. I think astronaut lives are much more expensive. I don't know how much the launch abort system costs but I suspect the overall budget more than makes up for the value of the lives of the crew if the crew was made of random people. Astronauts are exceptional people, and their training is awefully expensive. Not only that but they are public figures. If an astronaut dies in a way that could have been prevented, public opinion will not be kind to those who "cheaped out", and since it is a government program and public opinion is everything in politics, the consequences will be huge. Pricing human lives is taboo, an even more so if we consider that some lives are more valuable than others, but it has to be done, we can't make do risk analysis without doing that, and NASA probably did. I wonder what the number is, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was more than a billion.
zizee 4y ago
Yes, human spaceflight is expensive, but SLS takes it to the next level. You have to admit that SLS has been a bit of a boondoggle, and is looking increasingly irrelevant. Given falcon 9 has been launching crew dragon for a numbe of years, and Starship is the selected lander, and falcon heavy exists for heavy lift, why continue with the SLS? I for one will enjoy watching the launch, and am excited by humans travelling to space, but would have like to see NASAs stop shovelling good money after bad.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  >why continue with the SLS? Thinly veiled welfare or a grandfathered in earmarks depending on your perspective.
- billfruit 4y ago
  Is the Delta-Heavy human rated? Can the Orion Capsule fly on it?
- sangnoir 4y ago
  > why continue with the SLS? Because having your human space program depend on a single launch provider is not great? This is not a SpaceX dig: for years, NASA had to rely exclusively on Roscosmos,and that wasn't ideal either. NASA can "waste" money now and ensure there's some level of competition across the board later, or be subject to gauging in each specialist niche in the future
- jacquesm 4y ago
  That particular question was not very well received when posed by NASA administrators.
  - zizee 4y ago
    Yeah, I think almost everyone recognises the decisions were more about politics, than sending people to the moon. It's a real shame, as blatent waste just gives space detractors very valid arguments to reduce NASA's budget.
nordsieck 4y ago
> In the year 2100, a lot more humans will have gone to space if we iterate quickly with unmanned projects for a few decades then as our capabilities increase, send humans. IMO, it's just much more effective to do both with the same system - like Falcon 9 which can fly Crew Dragon, but can also do regular cargo to orbit. It's important to improve systems like life support, etc. Launch is not enough. Architecture becomes toxic when you can only launch with crew ala the Shuttle. SLS is pretty close to that - there is technically a cargo version of the rocket, and there are theoretical plans to launch deep space probes. But with Artemis using 1 (and according to some sources, up to 2) SLSes per year, that doesn't leave many available for cargo missions.
- mr_toad 4y ago
  The system might do both, but the number of robotic craft will probably significantly outnumber the crewed vessels. For example, the SpaceX moon lander is likely to use several tankers. And some of the landers might just ship cargo.
thereddaikon 4y ago
What's the point of exploring space if we can't experience it for ourselves? Probes are important but I feel like people who advocate for probe only exploration are missing the point. Humans are drawn to explore the unknown.
- bell-cot 4y ago
  What's the point of geologists looking deeper into the Earth than humans are likely to travel? Well, if you live in an economy which is dependent (like it or not) on petroleum products... Or you live in an area where earthquakes, volcanic activity, or fallout from those (tsunami, ash cloud, etc.) might seriously affect you. Or...
- melling 4y ago
  Let me restate the point I want you to understand because your question implies that we don’t want the same thing: “In the year 2100, a lot more humans will have gone to space if we iterate quickly with unmanned projects for a few decades then as our capabilities increase, send humans” My way gets more humans into the solar system faster. Sending humans to the moon by 2029 with NASA then a few to Mars 10-15 years later is the slow way.

jjk166 4y ago

Except that unmanned missions are not that much cheaper for the same level of capability - robots and probes have limited sensor capabilities, little or no ability to improvise especially not in time critical circumstances, and generally are just physically inferior to humans. For example the opportunity rover averaged 28 feet per day of travel. The lunar rover on Apollo 17 drove further in 5 hours than the curiosity, spirit, perseverance, and sojourner rovers put together. Humans have excellent strength and dexterity, able to easily move or reorient objects weighing many kilograms of arbitrary shape, and overcome arbitrary obstacles. While there are significant costs for this additional capability, the fact is robots simply can't be made to outperform humans at these tasks at the moment. The divide was even worse in the early days of space exploration. Then, the idea that things would be substantially cheaper without man-rating is also based on shaky assumptions. The fact is large space probes are extremely expensive pieces of hardware and launch windows for certain missions are uncommon, so even if humans aren't on board it is still extremely undesirable to lose a probe to an engineering failure. Indeed while putting a price on human life is extremely taboo, the fact is that in situations where such a price must be determined, it usually comes out to the low tens of millions of USD. Compared to the multibillion dollar costs of many space missions, it makes sense to treat them with the same care as human life. Finally, the idea that quickly iterating unmanned projects will make human spaceflight safer doesn't make much sense. If you're not using safety systems regularly, and you're not under pressure to improve them, why would one expect to gain useful experience and develop better improved versions? If anything, in the future we should have more capable probes that swing the pendulum further away from human spaceflight.

GuB-42 4y ago
> Indeed while putting a price on human life is extremely taboo, the fact is that in situations where such a price must be determined, it usually comes out to the low tens of millions of USD. I think astronaut lives are much more expensive. I don't know how much the launch abort system costs but I suspect the overall budget more than makes up for the value of the lives of the crew if the crew was made of random people. Astronauts are exceptional people, and their training is awefully expensive. Not only that but they are public figures. If an astronaut dies in a way that could have been prevented, public opinion will not be kind to those who "cheaped out", and since it is a government program and public opinion is everything in politics, the consequences will be huge. Pricing human lives is taboo, an even more so if we consider that some lives are more valuable than others, but it has to be done, we can't make do risk analysis without doing that, and NASA probably did. I wonder what the number is, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was more than a billion.

zizee 4y ago

Yes, human spaceflight is expensive, but SLS takes it to the next level. You have to admit that SLS has been a bit of a boondoggle, and is looking increasingly irrelevant. Given falcon 9 has been launching crew dragon for a numbe of years, and Starship is the selected lander, and falcon heavy exists for heavy lift, why continue with the SLS? I for one will enjoy watching the launch, and am excited by humans travelling to space, but would have like to see NASAs stop shovelling good money after bad.

throwaway0a5e 4y ago
>why continue with the SLS? Thinly veiled welfare or a grandfathered in earmarks depending on your perspective.
billfruit 4y ago
Is the Delta-Heavy human rated? Can the Orion Capsule fly on it?
sangnoir 4y ago
> why continue with the SLS? Because having your human space program depend on a single launch provider is not great? This is not a SpaceX dig: for years, NASA had to rely exclusively on Roscosmos,and that wasn't ideal either. NASA can "waste" money now and ensure there's some level of competition across the board later, or be subject to gauging in each specialist niche in the future
jacquesm 4y ago
That particular question was not very well received when posed by NASA administrators.
- zizee 4y ago
  Yeah, I think almost everyone recognises the decisions were more about politics, than sending people to the moon. It's a real shame, as blatent waste just gives space detractors very valid arguments to reduce NASA's budget.

nordsieck 4y ago

> In the year 2100, a lot more humans will have gone to space if we iterate quickly with unmanned projects for a few decades then as our capabilities increase, send humans. IMO, it's just much more effective to do both with the same system - like Falcon 9 which can fly Crew Dragon, but can also do regular cargo to orbit. It's important to improve systems like life support, etc. Launch is not enough. Architecture becomes toxic when you can only launch with crew ala the Shuttle. SLS is pretty close to that - there is technically a cargo version of the rocket, and there are theoretical plans to launch deep space probes. But with Artemis using 1 (and according to some sources, up to 2) SLSes per year, that doesn't leave many available for cargo missions.

mr_toad 4y ago
The system might do both, but the number of robotic craft will probably significantly outnumber the crewed vessels. For example, the SpaceX moon lander is likely to use several tankers. And some of the landers might just ship cargo.

thereddaikon 4y ago

What's the point of exploring space if we can't experience it for ourselves? Probes are important but I feel like people who advocate for probe only exploration are missing the point. Humans are drawn to explore the unknown.

bell-cot 4y ago
What's the point of geologists looking deeper into the Earth than humans are likely to travel? Well, if you live in an economy which is dependent (like it or not) on petroleum products... Or you live in an area where earthquakes, volcanic activity, or fallout from those (tsunami, ash cloud, etc.) might seriously affect you. Or...
melling 4y ago
Let me restate the point I want you to understand because your question implies that we don’t want the same thing: “In the year 2100, a lot more humans will have gone to space if we iterate quickly with unmanned projects for a few decades then as our capabilities increase, send humans” My way gets more humans into the solar system faster. Sending humans to the moon by 2029 with NASA then a few to Mars 10-15 years later is the slow way.