When Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) launched its Dragon cargo capsule and docked with the International Space Station this year, the joint venture between NASA and SpaceX delivered 1,000 pounds (450kg) of supplies. According to Reuters, such launches cost between $83 million and $128 million, which comes to approximately $83,000 to $128,000 per pound to deliver food, water, toilet paper, replacement parts, new equipment, and so on. Though the successful launch and docking of the Dragon capsule captured all the attention, I wondered why we still put people in space and deliver supplies to them, when machines could function equally well without sleep, water, air, and nourishment.
The US and Russia have sent many robotic spacecraft to Mars to take photographs and analyze the atmosphere and surface. Lately, the possibility of manned missions to Mars has captured attention and sparked numerous debates. You can click here to read about the pros and cons of such a mission.
So far, though, the majority of missions to Mars have failed. An online list of past and current missions shows 25 failures out of 45 missions. One mission went awry when teams used different units -- one English and one metric. Some might argue that if we had sent people on a similar mission, they could have corrected for the problem, but that seems unlikely. The scientists and engineers on the ground didn't recognize the problem until the mission failed. When failures occur, it seems better to lose a robot than a manned vehicle, which would cost more in time, money, preparation, training, support, and lost lives.
A variety of unmanned spacecrafts could perform almost every task we would ask humans to do -- even research experiments. Advances in computers, communications, robotics, chemical sensors, vision systems, and guidance equipment make unmanned missions less expensive and easier to design.
By the way, many of the experiments performed on the ISS deal with the effects of the space environment on life -- lack of gravity, growth characteristics, long-term effects on the central nervous system, sleep-wake cycles, and so on. But if we replaced people in space with robotic craft, much of this research would not need to take place. The money that has been spent on this type of life-science work could have already put several robotic space vehicles on paths to planets or asteroids.
I'm not sure knowledge of Mars, for example, has much bearing on life on Earth, but if we have an urge to explore outer space, let's leave people on Earth and conduct experiments and gather data at a distance.
Putting humans in space will only set the space program backwards by decades. Development schedules for manned craft are much longer than for unmanned craft, and what happens when something goes wrong and an astronaut doesn't make it home? Years of inquirys, redesign, congressional hearings, committees etc. When a robot goes pear shaped you just send up another one after tweaking the fuel valve or whatever it is that scrapped the mission.
"Exceptionally dangerous missions"? I'm trunig to think od a space mission which isn't exceptionally dangerous. Basically, every manned mission is a test flight.
I think both manned and unmanned space exploration are important. In practical terms, I think it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for a manned mission to accomplish what Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 have accomplished in terms of adding to our knowledge of the solar system -- at least, not within the limitations of current technology and economics. On the other hand, manned space travel was what excited me as a kid. I'm excited about the Mars Science Laboratory (landing in just 26 days, 1 hour, and 36 minutes!), but as others have already pointed out, it doesn't seem to have captured the public imagination the way that the Space Shuttle, or especially the Apollo program, did. And I would argue that inspiring our imagination (especially the imagination of youth) is at least as important as adding to our scientific knowledge.
I agree - part of the fascination we have with space would be diminished if we ruled out manned exploration. I am in favor of unmanned missions for exceptionally dangerous missions, but the inherent risk in space travel is understood by those who embrace it. The romance we had with the Apollo program ignited the scientific fervor of our nation and propelled us forward. "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" would just not have been the same coming from a pre-recorded audio clip activated by a robot...
No, send people, not machines! Where is the fun in saying, "Oh boy! We just landed a radar platform on the moon!" There isn't any.
Plus, no one is as creative as a human in figuring out problems, analyzing a situation to learn something not expected, and, for heaven's sake, we need more heroes! We really do! I remember the early astronauts. They were exciting men who conquered great obstacles. The current generation is too dependent upon rock stars, actors, politicians, and nobodies for their guides. Give me a man on the moon any day!
I'm on the fence on this one. While Jon makes a good point, I think there is still a fascination with space exploration -- just look at Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo.
Beth, I agree with you. Just knowing about space and other planets is interesting, but ultimately the goal is get humans into space. It all depends on what you want to do. I disagre with Jon about the situation with the Mars mission. If humans had been there with control of the craft, the unit issue might not have been fatal. Remenber that with missions outside of Earth orbit, there is no direct control. You upload a set of instructions, a program, and hope the spacecraft carries them out. You also hope that you have thought of all the issues you might run into. With a human in the loop, there is the chance to correct problems on the scene.
We are all fond of the pilotless drones that are used in the wars we have had lately. In these asymetric conflicts, where the enemy does not have an air force or air defenses, this works well. Against a foe with such assets, the drones are all gone in the first few minutes of the conflict. This is similar to what is happening in the Mars exploration. We have sent many missions over decades to Mars. These are very limited in scope and very expensive. One manned mission would have done a lot more.
As for the cost, the whole space program is probably funded at between $12B - $15B, if I recall correctly. Compare that with Medicare which is approaching $1T per year. This is not a cost driver for the government. In addition, many of the innovations in electronics, materials and other areas have been driven by trying to solve space travel problems. In addition, the Medicare funding is often spent on end of life care that in the end does little or nothing to extend the individual's life and certianly does not help with quality of life. There was an article on that in the Wall Street Journal recently. A small percentage of savings in that area would double NASAs budget.
Well, I think you know where I stand on the issue.
You raise some great points, Jon. The cost issue and possible expense of a human life is a compelling argument to keep the humans at home and send robots into orbit. But I think the very nature of human curiousity would dictate getting a human into space or to Mars or wherever the mission whenever technologically possible. The thrill of living and learning vicariously through metal, however intelligent, is not a fully satisfying substitute for the real thing for most scientists and explorers.
The Machinist Calc Pro computes speeds and feed rates for milling, turning, and drilling: cutting speed, spindle speed, feed rate (inches/minute), cutting feed, etc.
During a recent meeting with engineering-school faculty and alumni, Contributing Technical Editor Jon Titus talked about whether colleges should educate generalists or specialists. What do you think?
From Dell / Intel® New Paradigms in Design Work Scott Hamilton, vertical market strategist for Dell Precision workstations, 5/2/2013 5
Early in my career, I worked as a draftsman and remember the days of drawing on vellum with numbered pencils and Mylar with plastic lead. This was a fun experience in the sense that I ...
I've been using workstations for more than 10 years and love finding ways to get more performance from my system. With demanding professional applications that require more power each ...
A lasting memory from my first job as an engineer in an auto assembly plant is standing on hard concrete at six in the morning, vending-machine coffee clutched in hand, listening to ...
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This radio show will show what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.
To save this item to your list of favorite Design News content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This
2 
