h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>

They were more than 30 minutes late, so they were free.

The great part about the ISS is that as soon as it's complete, they're going to crash it back to earth.

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2007&m=January&x=20070126120256lcnirellep6.188601e-02

"At a meeting in Paris January 23, the heads of the space agencies that have partnered for the International Space Station (ISS) -- from Canada, Europe, Japan, Russia and the United States -- noted significant milestones over the last year, including the return to a three-person crew and the resumption of construction of the orbiting laboratory."

A huge milestone - resuming construction!! YAY!!!!

"Two of the most ambitious ISS projects to date—the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer and the Centrifuge Accommodations Module—have both been cancelled due to the prohibitive costs NASA faces in simply completing the ISS."

Oops, there goes the real science! Oh well, not really the point was it?

"You might wonder how Tom DeLay, the ousted majority leader, could warn his colleagues with a straight face that “the advanced state of the Chinese space programme represents a 21st century Sputnik moment.” But his logic becomes much clearer when you realise that NASA is a big employer in his Texas district.

More than money is at stake, however. The idea of a space race with a huge communist country dredges up memories of the 1960s—which is precisely why it appeals to some conservatives in Congress. But even in those difficult times, Jack Kennedy had started to think that co-operation with the Soviet Union in civilian space programmes might be a better idea. China should be encouraged to participate in the International Space Station. If the mission to the moon is supposed to be multinational, then the Chinese should be involved in that, too. When governments compete for glory in space, the winners are the contractors and the losers are the taxpayers."

this and the previous are from Economist articles

OK - IF we want to go to Mars and IF we have to do it within a framework of politics and bureaucracy, waste and media, what would we need to study?

How plants grow in space? Micro gravity fuidics? How to deal with bone density loss? The effects of long-duration space flight on the human body? How to deal with fire and smoke in a micro gravity? Low gravity exercise?

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/science/index.html


Alex Blackwood, founder of the Careers Scotland Space School in Glasgow: "The shuttle is something that is iconic ... the most important aspect is the positive role models that space exploration has produced when we're trying to get people to pick up careers in science."
He added: "To critics who say it's all a waste of money ... well, for thousands of years, people have taken that view about exploration, about science. My view is that man will always explore and if in doing that we can inspire young people, it's money well spent."
Dr Mike Griffin, the head of NASA, said: "If we are to become a spacefaring nation, the next generation is going to have to learn how to survive in other forbidding, faraway places across the vastness of space."

http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=1330222007

What does it say when top scientists (e.g. Bob Park) say the exploration is a waste? Who is more pro-science than scientists? What does it say when *they* are against human space exploration?

This isn't a case of people being against science and/or exploration - it's a case of knowledgeable experts saying "You're going the wrong way!"


You don't need humans to study plant growth in space, that could be done remotely. Micro-gravity fluidics can be studied on the "vomit-comet" (aircraft flying in parabolic arcs) - same with fire, smoke, and low-gravity exercise. Bone density loss and low gravity exercise can be studied with animals.

>>How plants grow in space? Micro gravity fuidics? How to deal with bone density loss? The effects of long-duration space flight on the human body? How to deal with fire and smoke in a micro gravity? Low gravity exercise?<<

Hmm. All worthy aims perhaps, but compare this with the achievements of much-cheaper unmanned spacecraft:

Direct, real-time observation of the earth's weather, climate, oceans, magnetic field etc.
Doing the same with the sun.
Actually landing on other planets and their moons and doing real science.
Finding other planets - pretty much a pre-requisite for manned interplanetary travel.
Looking for NEOs.
Mapping the universe.
Determining its structure on the scale of billions of light years.
Seeing to the very age of space; seeing objects as they were 13 billion years ago.
Not to mention the huge expermimental contributions that space probes have made to physics in general and the search for a theory of everything.

IMO, if its a choice between $10M to understand how physics works or $1000M to grow a zero-gravity cabbage, it's a no-brainer.

Apparently, when NASA disovred that biros wouldn't write in zero garvity, they spent many thousands of $ to develope "The Space Pen", which does write in zero g, (and underwater, and on glass, and upside down)

The Russians used a pencil.

Novo

That isn't true. Pencils leave tiny specks of graphite floating about, which get into all sorts of nooks and crannies, including electrical equipment. Not a good idea.

It's really not true:

'There exists a common rumor claiming that because a standard ballpoint pen would not work in zero gravity, NASA spent millions of dollars developing the zero-g capable Space Pen, with the humorous note that the Russian space agency opted to simply use pencils.[1] In fact, NASA programs have used pencils (for example a 1965 order of mechanical pencils[1]) but because of the danger that a broken-off pencil tip poses in zero gravity and the high flammability of both the graphite and wood present in pencils.[1] a better solution was needed.

On top of all that, it turns out that a standard ballpoint pen will work in space after all.[2]

NASA never approached Paul Fisher to develop a pen, nor did Fisher receive any government funding for the pen's development. Fisher invented it independently, and then asked NASA to try it. After the introduction of the AG7 Space Pen, both the American and Soviet (later Russian) space agencies adopted it. Previously both the Russian and American astronauts used grease pencils and plastic slates.'

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

Naturally NASA should be criticized for it's waste since it's goverment funded and thus needs to be constantly audited. I'm not surprised that apocryphal stories exist about it.

I still think that public curiosity must be piqued to further Mankind's journey off this planet. That usually doesn't included unmanned missions (although they very much have their place as well).

We aren't going to stop *here* :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

PDAs and voice-to-text software sort of knocks the whole pen issue down now though. But "sledgehammers to crack nuts" are going to be a recurring cost issue and bound to make a better case for unmanned projects and any development that doesn't require fleshware. Sure, we should get off the planet and populate the solar system but we're always going to be better off sending 180kg of cutting-edge tech before a drunk guy with a mistress and a Blackberry.

I may have meant 180lb.

"There’s more: Discovery will also carry Luke Skywalker’s lightsaber to the ISS and back, celebrating the 30th anniversary of the film Star Wars. On Tuesday, Chewbacca (so help me!) delivered the lightsaber to the Johnson Space Center."

And it only cost $2 billion!!!

from Bob Park's "What's New"

F2124165?thread=4543028

Assuming (as I hope it's safe to) that NASA won't be sending up a shuttle *only* for the purpose of giving a ride to a 70s movie prop, the actual cost for 1kg of Jedi stick looks to be about $22,000, or ~ £11k. An extravagance obviously, but a tad less than $2 billion.

So, Arnie, some link ping-pong for you:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2445930.ece

In summary, a panel has recommended that Britain begins training astronauts next decade. Britain has limited itself to robotic missions in the past.

A sensible use of resources?

bah, I refuse to respond about how it *is* a waste of resources.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7038686.stm