Earth Scientist May Replace Griffin

[Hielor]

...fuss over manned spaceflight at the exclusion of the parts of NASA which are not a total waste of money...

Are you saying that manned spaceflight is a total waste of money?

 

[simonpro]

He wouldn't be far from the truth by saying that. Manned spaceflight has virtually no effect on scientific advancement.

From a scientific point of view it's a waste of money, from a political point of view it's a slightly different story.

 

[Andy44]

Are you saying that manned spaceflight is a total waste of money?

Pretty much. I could elaborate, but that'd get the thread off-topic, and besides, you've heard it all before.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

The real question here is: IS there a need for space flight any more?

My head says no, but my heart says yes.

Why do humans explore space? That is THE fundamental question that must be answered, if NASA are to get anywhere in the next decade.


Here's my thoughts:

Space flight has provided many things in our day-to-day lives that we all take for granted. Modern satellite communications are only possible because of space exploration.
International TV downlink, Satellite mapping, GPS, etc.
These are all things that benefit mankind directly. Space flight that benefits mankind is not hard to sell.

But MANNED space flight is harder to convince people of the need for. The purpose of manned space flight in the early days was political: beating the Russians, and vice versa.

These days however? Well, I see a sort of chain, where unanswered questions are simply passed down.

Q. What is the purpose of the ISS?
A. To research & develop systems needed to live for extended periods on the Moon.

Q. What is the purpose of living on the Moon?
A. To research & develop systems needed to voyage to & live on Mars.

Q. What is the purpose of voyaging to & living on Mars?
A. To research & develop systems needed to explore beyond Mars

Q. What is the purpose of exploring beyond Mars?
A. ???

These ideas are hard to sell as they don't directly benefit mankind. Manned space flight only benefits more manned space flight. There have been few manned missions that directly benefit mankind.

Unmanned, robotic Earth-observation/communication missions benefit us all now. But exploring beyond Earth does not, so why bother to waste money on it?

That is what my head says.


My heart says simply this:

Q. Why do humans explore space?
A. Because it's what we do best. Explore, evolve, advance. Why did Christopher Columbus set sail for America? We didn't need the land. But look at that land today.

And not forgetting, when the sun blows up, if Humans haven't found somewhere else to live, we're all extinct.


Human Beings explore space because somewhere, deep-down in all of us, there is a natural need to explore.

 

[Andy44]

Nevermind. Offtopic.

 

[Zatnikitelman]

Maybe manned spaceflight isn't the biggest part of NASA, but it is the most recognized. Go and ask the average layperson on the street about a manned program like Mercury or especially Apollo versus their response about something like the Explorers, Voyagers, Galileo, Cassini, Phoenix, unmanned spaceflight may be the biggest part of NASA, but it's not the most recognized to those who count: the average person.
Now, do we need someone that is going to pick a manned system that is constantly running into problems that other aerospace people are telling them how to get around and NASA not listening, or do we need someone who will put a good cooperative face on NASA? It's all about appearance. Manned or unmanned, you have to make NASA look good for it to continue to be supported.

 

[Hielor]

He wouldn't be far from the truth by saying that. Manned spaceflight has virtually no effect on scientific advancement.

From a scientific point of view it's a waste of money, from a political point of view it's a slightly different story.

List of experiments that have been performed on the ISS: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/science/experiments/Expedition.html

This doesn't include anything that was done on Shuttle prior to ISS. Most of these (I would wager) require an extended microgravity presence monitored by humans, which isn't exactly doable on Earth.

Saying that manned spaceflight has virtually no effect on scientific advancement is like saying that computers had virtually no effect on scientific advancement back when computers were new and there were only like 3 of them in the world. Perhaps it's true, but it's failing to consider that of course only 3 people aren't going to be able to make a comparable number of scientific advancements as a planet full of scientists.

The future of mankind (in the long term) lies in space, and the sooner we start the better off we'll be.

 

[simonpro]

Maybe manned spaceflight isn't the biggest part of NASA, but it is the most recognized. Go and ask the average layperson on the street about a manned program like Mercury or especially Apollo versus their response about something like the Explorers, Voyagers, Galileo, Cassini, Phoenix, unmanned spaceflight may be the biggest part of NASA, but it's not the most recognized to those who count: the average person.

Why does the average person count? Yes NASA is government funded, but that doesn't mean that the public gets to decide how that agency is run, just like the public has little or no influence over how research money is distributed.
It's important that the public recognises the work that NASA does, but touting the manned space program as an example of how the public supports NASA is rediculous.

Now, do we need someone that is going to pick a manned system that is constantly running into problems that other aerospace people are telling them how to get around and NASA not listening, or do we need someone who will put a good cooperative face on NASA? It's all about appearance. Manned or unmanned, you have to make NASA look good for it to continue to be supported.

Something Griffin has done a terrible job of. The scientist in question here would probably be better than Griffin, but I still don't think he's the ideal candidate.
Unfortunately the ideal candidate is nowhere near the frame, as they're too busy doing actual work to promote him or herself to be a NASA leader.

List of experiments that have been performed on the ISS: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/st...xpedition.html

A list is a list. All it proves is that experiments have been done. It doesn't show the cost effectiveness or usefulness of those experiments.

I clicked on 5 experiments at random and found the following:
1. CEO.
This experiment provides low resolution photographs of the Earth. Very useful for PR (which links in with what Zatnikitelman said) and of very limited use for science.
Cannot be done with an unmanned spacecraft.

2. SEITE
Records EM disturbances due to the OMS. This is of high scientific value, particularly to the military.
Can be done with an unmanned spacecraft.

3. MISSE-3_and_4
Tests materials for durability in space. This is also of high scientific interest.

This can be (and has been) done using an unmanned spacecraft.

4. MAMS
Exploration of vibration aboard the ISS. Of moderate scientific value.

Cannot be done using an unmanned spacecraft.

5. BCAT-3-4-CP

Examination of the separation of materials in microgravity. Of high scientific interest.
Cannot be done on an unmanned spacecraft, but around 90% of the study can be done abaord a flying microgravity laboratory.


Yes that's just five examples, but it shows that most (but by no means all) of the scientific work could be carried out without a manned space presence at all. Albeit with possible higher cost for some experiments.

Saying that manned spaceflight has virtually no effect on scientific advancement is like saying that computers had virtually no effect on scientific advancement back when computers were new and there were only like 3 of them in the world. Perhaps it's true, but it's failing to consider that of course only 3 people aren't going to be able to make a comparable number of scientific advancements as a planet full of scientists.[/quote]

You're completely missing the point. Manned spaceflight will not have as large an effect as spending a comparable amount of funds and time on a similar earthbound project. The vast majority of the research is simply not useful enough, and it's only purpose is aboard future manned spaceflights.

The future of mankind (in the long term) lies in space, and the sooner we start the better off we'll be.

I believe we started off about 5 decades ago.

 

[Coolhand]

Ok, this thread has gone waaaaaay off topic and we're getting complaints about participants conduct. Thread closed, it may be re-opened after staff review & cleanup.


-----Post Added-----


Thread cleaned & re-opened. Please keep it on topic and civilised.

 

[tblaxland]

The latest news just in (only 10 min ago):

Major General Jonathan Scott Gration Emerges as Possible Obama Choice for NASA Administrator:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/01/major_general_j.html

Sources report that The Obama Transition Team has circulated a name for vetting for the job of NASA Administrator: Major General Jonathan Scott Gration. The name may not ring a bell, but Gration was an early Obama supporter and has been advising him on things since the start of Obama's campaign. As you can see from his online resume Gration is no wallflower. Indeed, having been vetted by life, so to speak, the process of vetting him for the NASA Administrator's job - and subsequent confirmation, ought to be a cinch.