The Dark (seriously, very dark) future of human space flight

[AngelLestat]

Apollo missions and the ISS are a brilliant example of how costly human flight is.

But what about the profits they generate?

A huge technologic advancement, how many products was possible due technology develope over the apollo program?

How many was encourage to study due those missions? How many scientist choose to live in USA just due that evidence of "the science edge is here".

Also dont forget that inside that huge cost, was tons of new methods that did not exist back then, including the biggest rocket ever build.

Right now to an interplanetary mission we dont need much new technology as back then.

Edited April 28, 2015 by AngelLestat

[WinkAllKerb'']

Dunno about war but since 1922 appear that a few dictionnaries and individuals have trouble in changing there synonym reference ... look like much more than expected are at this point "no matter what" ... I believe this is probably a "busylockedness".

Edited April 28, 2015 by WinkAllKerb''

[tater]

A lot of experiments today can be done only by humans due to their complexity, and only this justify human spaceflight outside of earth.

Name some. Seriously.

Take human medical data that only pertains to living in space off the table, too. The only really cool science ISS has done has been AMS, and the only reason it needs ISS is power requirements, it could certainly be unmanned with enough juice provided (it uses 2000-2500 watts).

Men is space is a cool thing, but it is a stunt. That's why it progressed during the space race. The ARM mission is silly, IMO, it should be unmanned… except they need to justify the billions spent on Orion (a spacecraft no one wants (except those gobbling up the pork).

[ZetaX]

I apologize if I offended you. Far from being what I looked for.

However, a bunch of humans on Mars in a ISS-sized landed laboratory would open experiments possibilities that you would not even dream of ( bio/botanical experiments, life development under Mars gravity, Terraformation experiments, long range explorations, advanced chemical analysis.... ).

A agree that there are many possibilities. But half of them can be studied on earth equally well, and the other half sounds like things we might simply be able to put of for later. I am really not against space exploration in general as long as the results are worth the cost. If the total of the mission you mentioned is ~1 billion dollars then I am all for it. But the current estimates sound so much higher that I would prefer that money to go into other research (including space ones).

I think I'm pretty well informed on what Robots can do and can not. Simply because it's part of my job.

Sorry, I didn't want to offend you, either.

As cool as Robots are and as performant as they tend to be, they are not magic and they are still far from human flexibility. They are good to do simple, repetitive task, in well defined environments, in space like every-where else.

Full agreement there. But we are slowly getting better there, which is especially relevant as manned mars missions would also only start ten or probably more years from now.

Or you should ask yourself, why we have the ISS today and why we do not have replaced everything by Robots on Earth

Sending people to the ISS, feeding them, giving them breathable air, ... are cheap in comparision to the same on mars or on the way there. The ISS is doing a lot of microgravity experiments that obviously are impossible to do on earth; we use humans, not (ro)bots because it is cheaper: we only need to send a few parts up there, the humans will then assemble them and do experiments. This is viable because sending things is relatively easy and the humans are there. If we would try the same with mars, then the traveling distance/time is enormous and the humans would need to be there for at least a decade, maybe more, for this to be viable. Which does not sound like what people are currently planning to do; it would also cost literally trillions (money again spent better otherwise, in my oppinion).

What we name today robots, are not robots, but mainly remote controlled un-brained "bot" trying to do pre-programmed defined job.

This has a lot of limitations. Speed of light being what it is, you will and will always have ultra-high latency in remote space operations which limit a lot what you can do and what you cannot. This is not KSP, in real world latency matter.

A Mars round-trip-time is around 20min, this is awfully long. If Curiosity has between 2012 and 2014 done only 8.4km (which is already amazing), it is mainly due to the complexity to operate with precision any unmanned probe over such high latency. Each little movement need to be verified carefully after a 20 min delay....

Again agreed. Robots still being not the best thing ever was the reason why I mentioned that we could send hundreds of them instead of several humans. They may all be specialized, but 100 specialists can do a lot of research.

Without even mentioning that if space radioactivity impacts living creature already badly, it is even worst with Electronic. Any Electronic designed for space need to be specially designed, tend to be unreliable, and is millions time less powerful than common available Earth-Chinese-electronic nowadays.

Sending humans outside of LEO has similiar problems. They would not only need lots of space, food, water and energy (while bots only need the latter), but a similiar protection from radiation. Or we do "suicide missions" (then probably also skipping the return to earth), which seem off the table for most. But if a sane person agrees to do that, then I am totally fine with it; it at least lowers costs a lot, and as I said cost efficiency of the missions is essentially what I am concerned about.

But what about the profits they generate?

A huge technologic advancement, how many products was possible due technology develope over the apollo program?

Please name some and explain why we would not have been invented otherwise.

How many scientist choose to live in USA just due that evidence of "the science edge is here".

I don't see why this is an advantage. The "science edge" will always be somewhere, people will move there. In practicallity, the location will depend on the subject.

Also dont forget that inside that huge cost, was tons of new methods that did not exist back then, including the biggest rocket ever build.

Right now to an interplanetary mission we dont need much new technology as back then.

Agreed, but the costs are still absurdely high.

[Sigma88]

Name some. Seriously.

Take human medical data that only pertains to living in space off the table, too. The only really cool science ISS has done has been AMS, and the only reason it needs ISS is power requirements, it could certainly be unmanned with enough juice provided (it uses 2000-2500 watts).

Men is space is a cool thing, but it is a stunt. That's why it progressed during the space race. The ARM mission is silly, IMO, it should be unmanned… except they need to justify the billions spent on Orion (a spacecraft no one wants (except those gobbling up the pork).

don't discount importance of zero-g medical data that easily

If you want to understand how the biology of something work you will need to change the variables (removing a gene for example)

studies on muscle atrophy/regeneration, bone decalcification and every other aspect you can think of, including embryogenesis and their alteration in a zero-g environment could led to the discovery of very important biological mechanisms hidden under your nose and have as a result the discovery of new ways to treat diseases that can actually be useful on earth.

also, I do think it's important to learn how to live in space, but that's not even remotely the only reason to go there

[Kerbart]

And that is why private corporations will achieve advanced spaceflight/exploration before governmental organizations. Their budgets are higher, and people shall search for ways to market space...

I doubt the budgets are higher. However, spending will be better controlled, and project changes are there to achieve goals faster or cheaper, not because some congressman or senator wants a part of the budget to go to his state.

Apollo was a great example of what can be achieved if an organization like NASA makes a serious effort towards a clearly defined goal. Space X is showing again what progress can be made if you're dedicated and focused on one goal (or a few goals, aligned with each other). NASA has to deal with the beacons being moved 180° every four years, and budget interventions based on motives completely unrelated to what they are trying to achieve.

The size of the budget is irrelevant. It's everything around it that is.

[YNM]

Yeah, using robots might be better. But do this : look at Hubble (the telescope, mind you) images, and observe the sky by yourself, using your own equipment, time and power (and surely intelligence). While own observations might not as bright as Hubble's, yours are certainly more enjoyable. And, you can always point the telescope quickly at another direction if your main object is heavily obscured by clouds, or even to quickly take it inside room again if it rains. (Guess you don't quite do that on Hubble, although there exist a few standards to deal with them.)

The same applies for unmanned and manned missions. Unmanned missions are mostly doing things that doesn't need to be published / reported fast (rovers need not be maintained all time, you can always get the past orbits by looking at telemetry). All Shuttle launch could have been unmanned if they want, as Buran demonstrated. You can take some plants on an unmanned probe, launch it, open the hatches, close after a few days, then return. But say, you want to land on a planet which surface isn't well-known, there might be boulders, cracks and rifts, how would an unmanned mission, at a fairly distant object from Earth, survives that ? What if Philae were manned instead (or controllable in real-time w/o light delays), could the controller be handling the tumble, maybe turn the gyro on, reorient, then turn the thrusters back on ?

There are plus and minus to both manned and unmanned. Only priorities, budget and luck will be able to justify which one to use.

The same goes for OP's question. And regarding Elon, I still can't tell precisely how much of this is right.

Edited April 28, 2015 by YNM

[PakledHostage]

What if Philae were manned instead (or controllable in real-time w/o light delays), could the controller be handling the tumble, maybe turn the gyro on, reorient, then turn the thrusters back on ?

What if Philae actually had thrusters? Or what if the screws and/or harpoon had actually worked?

In short Philae isn't a good example because it was a very simple lander that was basically tossed at Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko in the hopes that it would stick when it bumped into the surface. The cold gas thrusters didn't work because the tank had leaked enroute, without the thrusters, the screws couldn't work and the backup harpoon didn't work either. A manned mission almost certainly wouldn't have landed the same way, and had a robotic probe had more redundancy or control authority, it would very likely have stuck the landing too.

[Sigma88]

Yeah, using robots might be better. But do this : look at Hubble (the telescope, mind you) images, and observe the sky by yourself, using your own equipment, time and power (and surely intelligence). While own observations might not as bright as Hubble's, yours are certainly more enjoyable. And, you can always point the telescope quickly at another direction if your main object is heavily obscured by clouds, or even to quickly take it inside room again if it rains. (Guess you don't quite do that on Hubble, although there exist a few standards to deal with them.)

The same applies for unmanned and manned missions. Unmanned missions are mostly doing things that doesn't need to be published / reported fast (rovers need not be maintained all time, you can always get the past orbits by looking at telemetry). All Shuttle launch could have been unmanned if they want, as Buran demonstrated. You can take some plants on an unmanned probe, launch it, open the hatches, close after a few days, then return. But say, you want to land on a planet which surface isn't well-known, there might be boulders, cracks and rifts, how would an unmanned mission, at a fairly distant object from Earth, survives that ? What if Philae were manned instead (or controllable in real-time w/o light delays), could the controller be handling the tumble, maybe turn the gyro on, reorient, then turn the thrusters back on ?

There are plus and minus to both manned and unmanned. Only priorities, budget and luck will be able to justify which one to use.

The same goes for OP's question. And regarding Elon, I still can't tell precisely how much of this is right.

Thanks for the link, that was a really nice thing to find out.

I can totally understand how he could think that way since it's exactly what I feel about the topic.

I cannot know if he is being honest about it, or if he just wants pubblicity. But given how strongly I feel about the topic it would not be a surprise to find out others feel the same way

[tater]

don't discount importance of zero-g medical data that easily

If you want to understand how the biology of something work you will need to change the variables (removing a gene for example)

studies on muscle atrophy/regeneration, bone decalcification and every other aspect you can think of, including embryogenesis and their alteration in a zero-g environment could led to the discovery of very important biological mechanisms hidden under your nose and have as a result the discovery of new ways to treat diseases that can actually be useful on earth.

also, I do think it's important to learn how to live in space, but that's not even remotely the only reason to go there

Nothing major has come from ISS at all. I'm not discounting anything, I asked for specific examples of really important science done at ISS (or shuttle), and I'm still waiting. Could result… that's not an achievement, that's a possibility of one someday. Maybe.

Even if something was named, you'd then need to demonstrate that the science in question could not be done unmanned---obviously human physiology might require manned, unless they are looking at cells that can be cultured. In the latter case, there is no reason there cannot be a microscope that sends images back, still unmanned.

[radonek]

Please name some

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Pen

…and explain why we would not have been invented otherwise.

Everything could have been invented "otherwise" (and frequently is). Especially from post-factum perspective.

[ZetaX]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Pen

Everything could have been invented "otherwise" (and frequently is). Especially from post-factum perspective.

When the space pen is all one can offer when talking about the things developed for space travel, then I say you have a pretty bad point. Even I could have come up with better ones than THAT.

And if things are or will be developed otherwise, then the point of justifying space travel with it is pretty moot, isn't it¿

[Mr Shifty]

The budgets of the Space Agencies all over the world dedicated to mantain or expand the human presence on space are lowering slowly.

NASA's budget has been relatively constant in inflation-adjusted dollars since the end of the Apollo era. In fact, it's about double now what it was in the mid 70's. The graphs that show a dire decline in NASA's budget are almost always showing NASA's budget as a share of the U.S.'s total budget, which is irrelevant.

Likewise, the ESA's budget has been about the same in inflation-adjusted dollars since the early 90's, after increasing dramatically during the 80's. (This was the best image I could find, but the ESA's budget for 2015 is about 4.4 billion euros, which is about 3 billion 1990 dollars.)

Roscosmos's budget got a big boost in 2013 and has been steadily increasing for the last five years.

ESA is another history. They haven't a manned program with their own space ship. They pay seats on other ships.

So does the USA. ESA counts Soyuz as one of their own launcher family, and the Soyuz launch pad at Guiana was designed to accommodate human spaceflight.

Unmanned exploration is another story, but it isnt enough. I don't feel comfortable knowing that today, only 6-8 humans are outside Earth's atmosphere.

I'd much rather see a few $billion spent on another flagship robotic mission, say a Europa lander, than $100 billion spent on another moon landing.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Mr Shifty
fixed Roscosmos image

[PakledHostage]

I'd much rather see a few $billion spent on another flagship robotic mission, say a Europa lander, than $100 billion spent on another moon landing.

This is a very good point. There are only so many dollars available to allocate to "Big Science". ITER, the LHC, the Human Genome Project, etc either have or stand to yeild bigger scientific return on investment than any manned space mission (relative to what can be done with robotic probes alone). Robotic missions are an efficient use of government research budgets.

[stellarator]

ISS was the hugest waste of money (yes, waste) oin al space exploration history.The resources of 3 of the largest space agencies of the world are being destinating to mantain a giant orbital godzilla that don't generate many science. They are doing expermients, yes, but they are doing experiments too in tiangong (1 or 2? It doesnt matter) and taingong costs less than a 10%. Yes, we re mantaining a constant human presence outside Earth, but i prefer a trip to Mars. Beacuse, trust me, wiht the money spent on ISS and managing it well, we don't have a mission to Mars, we could have missions to Mars regularly, because, i think that Mars is like a droge, once we started send humans to mars, we can't stop. Public will not let that.

in addition to that, we could have a surface base on mars, permanently habitable. In Mars there's water, from water we can get water and O2, and Hydrogen, ISRU!

And I think that an orbital platform in LEO is important too, but we should have enough arguments to have it. Seriously, a thing more like OPSEK, will be all that we need on LEO. That and a shipyard with refuel capacity.

[AngelLestat]

Please name some and explain why we would not have been invented otherwise.

It does not matter if some technologies would be develope anyway years later.. Because to do that you would need also an investment, but what if that same techonology was develope in other country before?

For example the microchip was develope by and for the apollo program, something that now all world electronics use and contribute to the fast grow of silicon valley.

what´s the cost of being second instead first?

https://spinoff.nasa.gov/apollo.htm (100% products develope under the apollo program)

To that you need to add all those technologies which had a huge improvement under the apollo program as:

astronaut suits

rocket engines (higher isp)

computers, chips, software.

fuel cells

aerodynamics

etc

The economical benefics of the apollo program is estimated from 7$ to 40$ for each 1$ invested.

http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/spaceresvol4/newspace3.html

Plus all the indirect benefics you had inspiring people and show yourself as the innovative world leader, also the different technologies which were partially develope but was not used in the program, as the heliblades with autorotation to remplace parachutes between many others.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/80660main_ApolloFS.pdf

http://freakonomics.com/2008/01/11/is-space-exploration-worth-the-cost-a-freakonomics-quorum/ (Opinions of different important people about the economical benefics of space exploration)

http://onlinelearningtips.com/2014/07/25/the-continued-socioeconomic-impact-of-apollo-11/

I don't see why this is an advantage. The "science edge" will always be somewhere, people will move there. In practicallity, the location will depend on the subject.

Mostly all biggest scientist from my country lives in foreing countries, mostly USA or Europe and they work for them.

What is the point to stay in a country where nothing happens and the chances of get funds to study or develope something is very low.

This was very mentioned by many popular scientists, from what I remember: Michio Kaku and Neil degrasse Tyson.

Agreed, but the costs are still absurdely high.

What is the cost for stop dreaming?

In the ARM vs Moon topic I explain why is so important manned exploration vs robots.

Probes are important for many things.. but manned exploration can not be remplaced, it has a huge social impact, the human purpose depend on that.

[frizzank]

The economic benefits for space exploration come decades after the investment. It's hard to justify spending large sums of cash for a return on your investment years down the road when investing in smaller scale infrastructure gives you an almost immediate, all be it much smaller return.

Its the same reason more people have credit cards instead of savings accounts......

[PakledHostage]

The economical benefics of the apollo program is estimated from 7$ to 40$ for each 1$ invested.

http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/spaceresvol4/newspace3.html

And what was the economic benefit of the Human Genome Project? An entire industry arose out of that effort. We can now (as a result of the technology that was developed for the purpose) sequence an individual's (or their disease's) DNA in a fraction of the time it took the first time it was done. Previously unimaginable opportunities were created in the biotech field that have yet to be fully tapped out.

Apollo yeilded dividends in much the same way, but that doesn't mean it will happen again if we go to Mars, just as biotech won't see another new paradigm by sequencing more genomes.

[AngelLestat]

The economic benefits for space exploration come decades after the investment.

Some benefics come many years later, but if you see the info and analysis of my links shows how the space program bring almost instant benefics to the US economy.

First you are mobilizing/activiting many industry sectors, that implies new job oportunities, people had more salary then invest their own money in different products. Some of these industries can take advantage right away of the new products develope for the apollo program or find them different uses.

And what was the economic benefit of the Human Genome Project? An entire industry arose out of that effort. We can now (as a result of the technology that was developed for the purpose) sequence an individual's (or their disease's) DNA in a fraction of the time it took the first time it was done. Previously unimaginable opportunities were created in the biotech field that have yet to be fully tapped out.

Why you mention the genome project? I never said that goverment investments in other science projects were bad.. I just said that some countries are wasting a lot of money in armament. Then I was answering that manned exploration is not a waste of money.

And I prove that.

Apollo yeilded dividends in much the same way, but that doesn't mean it will happen again if we go to Mars, just as biotech won't see another new paradigm by sequencing more genomes.

And?? Soo???

This mean that we need to stop invest money in development and exploration?

You still have some benefics that are a sure bet.

To solve problems you can invest money directly in those problems.. but those problems will keep emerging all the time.. one way to stop dealing with them is develoment a long time solution. Countries who invest in development are better than those who doesn´t.

But I dont know what else I can add after all already said.

[ZetaX]

Some benefics come many years later, but if you see the info and analysis of my links shows how the space program bring almost instant benefics to the US economy.

First you are mobilizing/activiting many industry sectors, that implies new job oportunities, people had more salary then invest their own money in different products. Some of these industries can take advantage right away of the new products develope for the apollo program or find them different uses.

I think this is a very naive view on economics. If that were correct, then all governments should (and would, assuming they are not completely stupid) start producing lots of [random things]. Obviously, they don't. Why¿ Because that money the government pumps into it does not come from nowehere. It comes either from reserves or from the people (by taxes, cuts or inflation).

The actual argument, if it exists, is much more complicated.

[PakledHostage]

Why you mention the genome project? I never said that goverment investments in other science projects were bad.. I just said that some countries are wasting a lot of money in armament. Then I was answering that manned exploration is not a waste of money.

And I prove that.

You showed that there was an economic benefit to the Apollo program, yes. My point is that you can't extrapolate that out to argue that a manned mission to Mars would pay similar dividends. We've already picked the proverbial "low hanging fruit". There may well be some economic benefit to a Mars program (after all, the money we'd spend on it wouldn't be loaded into a spacecraft and shipped to Mars, we'd spend it here on Earth), it likely won't be as great an economic benefit as the first time we did it.

And please don't put words into my mouth. I did not say that we shouldn't be exploring space. I just fail to see why we should send people to do it. As many here have already argued, we can do very high value science using robotic probes for a fraction of the cost of a manned mission. We could reasonably expect to fund robotic missions to Venus' clouds, a lander to Jupiter's moons, orbiters to Uranus and Neptune, and even another Titan lander for much less than the cost of a manned mission to Mars. We may not learn as much about Mars by doing those things, but we'd learn a lot about those other places. As sad as it is, the funding doesn't exist to do everything. I'd rather that the limited budgets that are available be focused on the greatest scientific ROI.

[LABHOUSE]

What USA budget should be:

10% - NASA

7.5% - military (gets higher in war time if war started by another country, goes to zero if we want to start a war)

35% - education

20% - infastructure

15% - other

everything left over - paying back debt

military overlaps with government

other is research and police/paramedics/firefighters

Welfare should be done privately, The government was made to protect the nation and its inhabitants as a whole.

Edited April 28, 2015 by LABHOUSE

[Kryten]

So no science funding that's not NASA? At all?

[LABHOUSE]

See the "other"? That is everything that is less than 5%

[ZetaX]

See the "other"? That is everything that is less than 5%

So you think space exploration is worth about as much as all other research combined¿...

Like, say, cancer treatment, vaccinations, genome research, material science, ecology, climate, ...