The discussion centers on the debate over whether human space missions should be replaced by unmanned missions. Participants argue that current technology cannot fully replace human capabilities in space exploration, particularly for tasks requiring hands-on intervention. Safety concerns and the high costs associated with manned missions are significant factors, with some advocating for a balanced approach that includes both human and robotic missions. The consensus suggests that while unmanned missions are efficient for certain explorations, the unique qualities of humans in space cannot be entirely dismissed.
PREREQUISITESSpace exploration enthusiasts, aerospace engineers, policymakers, and researchers interested in the future of human versus robotic missions in space.
I'd agree to an extent. Low Earth orbit missions often require a hands on approach. However, one could equally turn that around and say, "It is impossible for us to replace all umanned missions with manned missions with current technology." Robotic probes to the planets are still the only way to perform those missions, so I think having any kind of mandate that says all missions will be robotic or all missions will be manned is not even a reasonable question.It is impossible for us to replace all manned missions with unmanned missions with current technology.
The issue isn't however, can we find people that will risk their life, the issue is whether or not the rest of us are willing to risk their lives. Obviously we are not willing to risk other people's lives unnecessarily. Manned missions are rated differently than unmanned ones. The risk factor involved is a calculated one and it has a specific name though I can't remember what it is now. The way it's calculated is that they have a predetermined expected failure rate for each component, and the risk of a catastrophic failure is calculated from those failure rates. There's an article in Sci Am here that touches on calculated failure rates here.I'd love to take a trip to space! I'm sure there are countless people that would put their lives on the line just like current astronauts do to be able to be in space.
I used to think that manned missions were the only way to go. Now I am not so sure. I have to agree that, right now, the orbital missions seem to be very high priced lab sessions. Could you imagine what could be done if NASA took all of the money it spends in developing and maintaining systems for supporting life on the next era of missions and put it into rebuilding it's brain trust and it's knowledge in robotics missions?Integral said:What is the purpose for man in space? What unique function does he provide?
The problem with man is space is not the safety, it is the cost. When men go into space the entire point of the mission is simply to keep the men alive. Science takes a backseat. This is not the best use of our resources at this time. There is so much that can be done without man that economics says that we should stay on the ground and let the robots do the initial explorations. Send men iff they find something that can justify it.
Sell the ISS to Space Hilton Ltd. let them turn it into a low gravity honeymoon suite. That way if you have a hangering to get into space and live in a tube you can do it.
Um... so far every probe we've sent past the moon has been robotic and the points made above (about cost vs value) stand: they work very well even with such time delays. For probes like Cassini currently orbiting Saturn and the Voyagers doing flybys, the path and tasks are pre-programmed months (years?) in advance with little input from ground control. But if the controllers on the ground want more input, the Mars rovers set the standard: actions are planned a day at a time.finchie_88 said:I think its about a 20 min delay for sending radio signals to mars, so yeah, not really ideal for robotics. The time delay does change slightly since the relative distance between the Earth and Mars is not constant.