Skip to main content
gamedev.net
🔒 Locked

Space Exploration!

Started by stlfbr1 May 13, 2009 at 1:30 PM 48 replies 8.2k views
Original Post
stlfbr1
stlfbr1
So with the whole Hubble upgrade mission I've been wondering a little bit about space exploration. For this mission they have prepared a rescue mission in advance (which they always do) but this one is ready to go in only 3 days notice. In fact this mission was cancelled previously because of the Columbia incident. Anyway, my question is why is the loss of life in space exploration considered so damaging to the endeavour than in other areas. For example, 7 people died in that crash and they cancelled a lot of future shuttle missions because of it. Meanwhile we can hand glide, bungee jump, sky dive, etc as well as other activities that are more productive yet just as dangerous (working on an oil rig). Yet if someone dies at these jobs you don't hear about any oil rigs closing up or stop building them. Now the obvious answer is that its not the life that is actually being 'mourned' but rather the actual materials and money that was wasted. And this I am pretty sure is the reason, I just wanted to see what others opinions are on this. (But its odd to risk a whole other ship etc to save them if it is really just about money?) Also a little thing I was wondering. They are holding back Mars missions partly because they don't have secure enough technology to get the human back home. Would any of you be willing to sacrifice your life possibly (there is a chance you could make it back!! but it is about 50%) to go to Mars and perform all the tests they needed? I think I would do it, I mean I might die but I could also make the biggest discovery in human history.
Oberon_Command
Oberon_Command
Quote:
Now the obvious answer is that its not the life that is actually being 'mourned' but rather the actual materials and money that was wasted.


Incorrect. The materials are relatively cheap. If they were not, it would be more expensive at this time (i.e. with current flight-rates and demand) to launch payloads on expendable rockets instead of reusable ones. That is not the case right now, expendable rockets are cheaper than shuttle ($200million vs ~$700million) at current flight rates. Cost is not the issue. Nobody cries bloody murder when a $1.5 billion DoD satellite falls into the Atlantic as a result of a booster failure.

Quote:
Anyway, my question is why is the loss of life in space exploration considered so damaging to the endeavour than in other areas.


1. Astronauts have families
2. Astronauts are considered heroes by the rest of the populace
3. As a result of 1 and 2, astronaut deaths are a PR fiasco - there is a huge outcry every time it happens. This is when the "we should shut down NASA and redirect the money to social programs" people come out. Not good for the agency or space in general
cowsarenotevil
cowsarenotevil
Space exploration is something the United States uses extensively to show off its power to the rest of the world. The other way to do this, obviously, is military strength, but space exploration serves as a good contrast to this, and a perception of safety definitely helps with this image.

Space travel is also extremely dangerous (there have only been 126 shuttle flights in total), so the level of danger coupled with the extreme publicity probably gives a very good incentive indeed not to get more people killed than is absolutely necessary. I'm sure money is a concern, too, but probably not as big of a concern (lots of unmanned things go wrong and cost lots of money, but people don't freak out)
-~-The Cow of Darkness-~-
stlfbr1
stlfbr1
Well the signs are pointing to the fact that it isn't really the money issue. So it is indeed the loss of life as the driving factor. (as per the materials costs, though its tough to call them 'cheap', and the unmanned missions that fail and get no publicity).

And I agree that astros are national heroes, but so are soldiers and they die everyday? And like cows pointed out wars and space are two ways for us to flex some muscle. If you ask me going into space is A LOT safer than going to war!

I guess I just feel that the 'hero' aspect is just a self enforced restriction. With so few astros of course they are considered heroes. But why have their been so few? I mean they have come from ALL sorts of backgrounds and simply received training to go into space. Now perhaps the training is more grueling than the Navy Seals training (bec there are more of them than astros) but I doubt that. And what would it take 5 years? Thats just a college degree away from going into space!

Not to get all conspiracy theory but there seems to be some hidden agenda to keeping the number of people that go into space to a minimum. I understand the danger but I feel the risk/reward is way better than say working on an oil rig, etc.
Anon Mike
Anon Mike
I disagree that it's not a money issue, sort of anyway. It may well be that it's not a money issue in actuality but I think the perceived money issue is a big part of it.

In my experience talking to people, anything that has anything to do with space is perceived as a complete waste of money by a middling huge portion of the population. Couple this with the fact that the mass media is physically incapable of mentioning anything related to space without attaching a price tag to it (it's never just "the whatever", it's the "the $texas whatever"), and the fact that Joe Sixpack really can't conceive that what constitutes "$texas" is completely different when viewed from the budget of the federal government vs his own. Then you immediately start getting the rallying cry of idiots everywhere - "we should fix the problems here on earth before going to space".

Now toss in an accident and you not only has the gub'mint wastin' mah money but omgzers people are like totally dieing also. Don't forget to toss in the odd loony who thinks that the shuttle returning with some space disease that will destroy all life on earth is a probable scenario.
-Mike
visitor
visitor
Quote:
I understand the danger but I feel the risk/reward is way better than say working on an oil rig, etc.


What exactly is the reward from having lots of people go to space? :)
Sirisian
Sirisian
Quote:
Original post by Anon MikeDon't forget to toss in the odd loony who thinks that the shuttle returning with some space disease that will destroy all life on earth is a probable scenario.
c'mon space zombies.

I often wonder why the international space program isn't bigger. I guess one reason might be that we don't have a propulsion system to take us anywhere further than say mars. At this point in time our technology doesn't make space things that important.

I find the budget on the space program is good enough and it's doing well. It's kind of like trying to build an underwater base when you've just figured out how to compress air and you don't have the technology to do much of anything other than look around for a little bit before you have to stop.

Sometimes I think the money might be better spent into a purely research based organization rather than implementation.
Oberon_Command
Oberon_Command
Quote:
Original post by Sirisian
I often wonder why the international space program isn't bigger. I guess one reason might be that we don't have a propulsion system to take us anywhere further than say mars.


The issue is one of mass and thrust, of course. Chemical rockets, on account of their low efficiency (assuming a typical liquid-hydrogen/liquid-oxygen rocket, specific impulse ~450 seconds), lead to massive spacecraft. There are a few non-chemical options. For instance, there's ion propulsion, which has pretty good efficiency (at least 7000 seconds of specific impulse) but really low thrust. The same is true of solar sails, which aren't even a mature technology yet (unlike ion drives).

Then there's nuclear rockets, which get at least double the efficiency of chemical rockets (800s ISP), while having a great deal more thrust than ion rockets. Of course, environmental lobbyists keep this from happening anytime soon - they even protest when the rather safe radioisotope thermal generators go up, and those don't even use nuclear fission proper...
CrimsonSun
CrimsonSun
Quote:
Original post by visitor
Quote:
I understand the danger but I feel the risk/reward is way better than say working on an oil rig, etc.


What exactly is the reward from having lots of people go to space? :)


The space program provides more for us than bragging rights. It spurs high-tech innovation and industry. A significant amount of modern technologies that we enjoy today, such as hand-held cameras and the precursor to the internet, are the result of NASA's involvement and cooperation with private industry.

Unfortunately, a large portion of the American public isn't aware of this kind of benefit that the space program provides. As a result, they see the space program as a giant money sink with little tangible benefit to society. Seeing school teachers and astronauts die in horrible accidents reinforces this notion: people see this wasteful loss of life as evidence that NASA doesn't really know what it's doing.
Trapper Zoid
Trapper Zoid
Humans are expensive to maintain in any long distance space travel. For the cost of sending a single human crew to Mars, we could send hundreds if not thousands of unmanned probes and robots. I'm yet to hear an argument for why sending squishy humans to do a robot's job that doesn't basically boil down to just "because it would be awesome".
DesignerWatts
DesignerWatts
I actually gave this subject some thought a few days ago. More along the lines of “It’s 2009 and why aren’t we on the moon?” Type deal.

This is purely an opinion on the matter and I’m not stating it as truth or fact. But my explanation as to why we have yet to colonize or explore past our earthly boundaries is because it’s not profitable to do so.

The modern age is an age of commerce and economy. Things get more expensive to do everyday. And while the space era of the 60s benefited from less complex times and a post 50s economy, today it’s a huge economical and red tape hurdle to do anything large scale, even on the earth. At least in the western world. Probably why all those pretty/silly buildings are being constructed in Dubai….anyway…

No government or corporation on this planet could afford and expect a profitable return on something as large scale as moon colonization or a trip to mars. The intangible profit of nation morale is also in question as there is no other competitor in the space game anymore. Russia is a contender but they seem content doing what they’re doing. Like sending Richard Garriot into space of all things.

Unless they find a super mineral on the moon/mars that we need to have for some odd reason or we need to start mining planetoids for minerals to support living on earth, then I couldn’t see why anyone would support a large-scale venture into space.
Marmin
Marmin
I think you're searching way more than there is to it. Space travel is way more complex than the oil rig example, so it costs a lot more time to make safety adjustments. If accidents happen at rigs, I'm sure the work is stopped and safety aspect is evaluated before they continue work.
stlfbr1
stlfbr1
CrimsonSun i couldn't agree with you more! That is precisely my argument why we should be doing more of these things. All of the technology that we use today that makes money is the result of the space race push in technology. Sure we won't go to the moon and find a stockpile of 'gold' but if we try and see the obstacles and then invent solutions to those obstacles, who knows what we'd find. I'm particularly interested in its effects on energy as there won't be easily accessible oil in space.

For research to come to any fruition it needs to be implemented, so pure research will NEVER be the answer bec alls we'll have is a bunch of ideas that we have no idea if they work (i.e. the basis of most of 'modern' physics).

and why do we need humans? Well maybe we're not there yet (though i think we're getting close) but there WILL be a time that we got everything we can from robots. What will we do then? just stop?

My point isn't to say we need to go all crazy with this stuff, but I feel we are slowing down in our advancements. We haven't been to the moon in what about 30 years? We have had robots on Mars for over 10 years now and have had an active bot there for 5 years! This is great stuff! But there is no interest there anymore bec we are not making any discoveries. Its basically a downward spiral from here, the less we discover, the less we explore...
Oberon_Command
Oberon_Command
Quote:
Original post by Trapper Zoid
Humans are expensive to maintain in any long distance space travel. For the cost of sending a single human crew to Mars, we could send hundreds if not thousands of unmanned probes and robots.


We've had this discussion before, but please cite your numbers for this. Don't forget to include infrastructure costs, i.e. the mission control teams for each probe, tracking equipment for each probe, etc...

Quote:
I'm yet to hear an argument for why sending squishy humans to do a robot's job that doesn't basically boil down to just "because it would be awesome".


You have heard several the last time we discussed this, but here's an article you might find interesting nevertheless.
Luckless
Luckless
Quote:
Original post by Oberon_Command
Quote:
Original post by Trapper Zoid
Humans are expensive to maintain in any long distance space travel. For the cost of sending a single human crew to Mars, we could send hundreds if not thousands of unmanned probes and robots.


We've had this discussion before, but please cite your numbers for this. Don't forget to include infrastructure costs, i.e. the mission control teams for each probe, tracking equipment for each probe, etc...


Well I don't know if we could send thousands,... but mission control teams for a manned mission are going to be massive compared to a probe, not to mention a far, far, FAR greater build up than an unmanned probe.

The simple truth is, if we want a survey of another planet, humans suck for the job. For the weight of carrying life support and supplies for say, an 8 man mission, we could likely get at least 10 or so impacting survey probes for each person. And with that many probes, we're not going to cry too badly if a handful fail. Maybe even more once you factor in just how heavy life support things like food and extra water would be. And if a probe short outs and dies? Well, opps, a few geeks might start balling, but we're not going to have state funerals and such, we'll just have people lobbying to rebuild and others lobbying to scrap the program completely, and most of us won't give a rat's ass.
Old Username: Talroth
If your signature on a web forum takes up more space than your average post, then you are doing things wrong.
Oberon_Command
Oberon_Command
Quote:
Original post by Talroth
For the weight of carrying life support and supplies for say, an 8 man mission, we could likely get at least 10 or so impacting survey probes for each person.


That sounds a little more reasonable to me. A hundred probes is a LOT of probes to have on the go all at once. [smile]

Quote:
The simple truth is, if we want a survey of another planet, humans suck for the job.


Really? I'd heard the opposite. I'm trying to find a source for this, but I seem to recall reading one scientist saying that one human could accomplish in a few days what a robot could do in a few years...
Luckless
Luckless
Quote:
Original post by Oberon_Command
Quote:
Original post by Talroth
For the weight of carrying life support and supplies for say, an 8 man mission, we could likely get at least 10 or so impacting survey probes for each person.


That sounds a little more reasonable to me. A hundred probes is a LOT of probes to have on the go all at once. [smile]

Quote:
The simple truth is, if we want a survey of another planet, humans suck for the job.


Really? I'd heard the opposite. I'm trying to find a source for this, but I seem to recall reading one scientist saying that one human could accomplish in a few days what a robot could do in a few years...


Depending on the nature of the probe, having a few thousand isn't that unreasonable. A few thousand advanced rover probes wouldn't be likely, but very basic stationary probes? The more the merrier of those. Just think of the useful data you could get in 2 years with 2000 soda can sized sensor probes scattered all around the Red Planet.

As for humans doing in a day what a robot could in a few years? As far as a geological survey goes, that's BS. Sure having a scientist there on hand to look at a sample and then decide if he wants to look somewhere else right close buy is a great thing, and maybe it was true that humans were so much more useful back in the 80s, but with modern robotics? No, they can gather and process, and send back far greater data sets than a human could in a day. This is of course assuming a probe that has been designed to route itself along a survey path, unlike current gen rovers that sit there most of the time waiting for input between Earth and Mars. That 30 minute lag time or whatever it is kills performance on low automation robots.
Old Username: Talroth
If your signature on a web forum takes up more space than your average post, then you are doing things wrong.
Oberon_Command
Oberon_Command
Quote:
Original post by Talroth
Depending on the nature of the probe, having a few thousand isn't that unreasonable. A few thousand advanced rover probes wouldn't be likely, but very basic stationary probes? The more the merrier of those. Just think of the useful data you could get in 2 years with 2000 soda can sized sensor probes scattered all around the Red Planet.


I would say probably not very much, if they're soda can sized. What kind of sensors are you going to put in something the size of a soda can?
Calin
Calin
Quote:
Anyway, my question is why is the loss of life in space exploration considered so damaging to the endeavour than in other areas


Space expl has been the job with the 'highest' death ratio among the jobs.
My project`s facebook page is “DreamLand Page”

Topic Locked

This topic has been locked by a moderator. New replies are not allowed.

Sign in to reply to this topic.