What We Lose With the End of the Shuttle Program • Hacker News Board

Re: What We Lose With the End of the Shuttle Program

#21

Post by bdunbar » Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 3:23 PM UTC

nate_meurer wrote: post #10

gaius wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going outside was a bad idea and dangerous from the start. Bring on the pizza delivery and cable TV! See, that ain't no way to run a civilization. Without taking (calculated) risks, we're nothing.

Except those risks must be evaluated against the reward. In this present day and age, what exactly do we gain from using humans instead of robots in space that justifies their expense?

It's not an either / or deal.

Automation is good for rote tasks. People are good at improvising.

During the mission to correct Hubble's lens problem, the supplied tools and procedure failed. The mission specialist utilized scissors and a plastic cover from a log book to correct the problem.

Without that improvisation, the mission to fix Hubble's lens would have been a loss.

What we gain from having people in space depends on what you want to _do_ in space.

If it's all just drones mapping planets and space telescopes then investing in automation makes sense.

If it's manufacturing, settlement, getting some of our eggs out of this basket, then we need people out there, learning how to live off-planet.

The expense in either case, might possibly be the same.

Automation isn't cheap, missions that have to be redone because the automation fails are costly.

Re: What We Lose With the End of the Shuttle Program

#22

Post by jamesbritt » Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 3:27 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #7

Yes, when you pour money down the money hole, you do tend to get a few things in return. My real question, which we'll see answered hopefully over the next few years, isn't "Were the capabilities we got with the shuttle cool ?" but "Was the shuttle a cost-effective way to obtain those capabilities?" And it's really hard to look at the Shuttle program and say yes . In general, we really need to get over whining about…

And it's really hard to look at the Shuttle program and say yes.

How effective/efficient would a tax-payer supported version of Xerox PARC or the Golden Age Bell Labs be?

Something more pleasant than DARPA, for example.

Re: What We Lose With the End of the Shuttle Program

#23

Post by icegreentea » Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 3:31 PM UTC

rbanffy wrote: post #19

gvb wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some, with limitations to most of the retained capabilities. The X-37B is substantially smaller and is not manned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37 1. Gentle delivery of large modules for attachment to existing complexes. - Probably lost, the main reason the shuttle is gentle is because it carries fragile humans. 2. Bringing cargo down gently. - Partially lost: the cargo bay is much smaller. 3. Safe "proximit…

How many times did we actually need those capabilities? edit: > 1. Gentle delivery of large modules for attachment to existing complexes. - Probably lost, the main reason the shuttle is gentle is because it carries fragile humans. I cannot imagine we don't have any launcher that can do that. Any launcher, when approaching its payload limit, should be very gentle (as in pull low G's). A Saturn V was much gentler than…

When we did need it, we -needed- it. Hubble for example.

Re: What We Lose With the End of the Shuttle Program

#24

Post by garyrichardson » Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 4:16 PM UTC

ck2 wrote: post #2

I'm more horrified they canceled the James Webb telescope (or are just about to).

Holy shit! This just happened:

http://appropriations.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?Doc...

  $4.5 billion for NASA Science programs, which is $431 million 
  below last year’s level. The bill also terminates funding for 
  the James Webb Space Telescope, which is billions of dollars 
  over budget and plagued by poor management.

Re: What We Lose With the End of the Shuttle Program

#25

Post by michaelchisari » Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 4:24 PM UTC

praxeologist wrote: post #6

sambeau wrote: post #3

Interesting points from Prof. Brian Cox: * NASA costs less than 0.13% of GDP and provides 9x return on investment * The entire Shuttle Program cost approximately the same as the UK bank bailout * The Iraq conflict so far has cost significantly more than a manned mission to Mars Source: https://twitter.com/profbriancox/status/88955884390195202 https://twitter.com/profbriancox/status/88956654539902976 https://twitter.c…

I wonder how he comes to the conclusion of 9x return. I think that we ought to invest in dragons instead and that they would bring returns in orders of magnitude greater than any space program, plus they live longer. Source: http://blog.mises.org/6512/socialist-calculation-versus-magi...

Your link isn't even about NASA, it's just an ideological discussion (and not a particularly coherent one). For reference, here's a list of NASA spin-offs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off

It's not hard to see the multiplier effect of our investment in NASA.

Re: What We Lose With the End of the Shuttle Program

#26

Post by nate_meurer » Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 4:24 PM UTC

bdunbar wrote: post #21

nate_meurer wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except those risks must be evaluated against the reward. In this present day and age, what exactly do we gain from using humans instead of robots in space that justifies their expense?

It's not an either / or deal. Automation is good for rote tasks. People are good at improvising. During the mission to correct Hubble's lens problem, the supplied tools and procedure failed. The mission specialist utilized scissors and a plastic cover from a log book to correct the problem. Without that improvisation, the mission to fix Hubble's lens would have been a loss. What we gain from having people in space de…

It may not be exactly either/or, but budget constraints coupled with the astronomical cost of using humans in space makes it nearly so.

I think the example of Hubble actually works in my favor on this point. Hubble is a relic of an old technological age. Earth-based telescopes surpassed Hubble's capabilities not too long after it was launched, and have now pretty much left it in the dust. At a fraction of the cost.

Hubble's replacement (James Webb) is quite a leap ahead, and as an IR scope it really does need to be in space, unlike Hubble. But you'll note that its location will be off-limits to humans, and it is accordingly designed to be remotely maintained.

In short, the age of low-earth-orbit, high-maintenance space telescopes is, and should be, over. I argue that other space-based platforms that require human intervention should likewise be curtailed for similar reasons.

>"Automation isn't cheap, missions that have to be redone because the automation fails are costly."

It is still orders of magnitude cheaper than sending people, and the cost of a "failed" space endeavour with people on board is infinitely greater. In cases where it's not currently feasible to use robots, it would be worth our while to wait until it is, instead of trying to use humans now.

I feel that Mars is another example in my favor. Cost estimates for sending humans to Mars are so high and so speculative that they're essentially useless outside of the insight that we cannot afford it. Compare that with the cost of robotic exploration, which is both quite affordable and spectacularly successful so far.

Re: What We Lose With the End of the Shuttle Program

#27

Post by nate_meurer » Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 4:42 PM UTC

icegreentea wrote: post #23

rbanffy wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many times did we actually need those capabilities? edit: > 1. Gentle delivery of large modules for attachment to existing complexes. - Probably lost, the main reason the shuttle is gentle is because it carries fragile humans. I cannot imagine we don't have any launcher that can do that. Any launcher, when approaching its payload limit, should be very gentle (as in pull low G's). A Saturn V was much gentler than…

When we did need it, we -needed- it. Hubble for example.

Perhaps, but Hubble's not a good example. As a visible-spectrum scope, there was no reason it really needed to be in orbit. Its resolution advantage was fairly quickly exceeded by earth-base scopes with much lower cost and much better longevity. In other words, keeping visible-spectrum telescopes on earth gives us a better return on our investment.

Re: What We Lose With the End of the Shuttle Program

#28

Post by rbanffy » Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 4:42 PM UTC

icegreentea wrote: post #23

rbanffy wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many times did we actually need those capabilities? edit: > 1. Gentle delivery of large modules for attachment to existing complexes. - Probably lost, the main reason the shuttle is gentle is because it carries fragile humans. I cannot imagine we don't have any launcher that can do that. Any launcher, when approaching its payload limit, should be very gentle (as in pull low G's). A Saturn V was much gentler than…

When we did need it, we -needed- it. Hubble for example.

I'm sorry. I was not aware the Hubble launch and repair missions required a winged vehicle.

Re: What We Lose With the End of the Shuttle Program

#29

Post by rbanffy » Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 4:44 PM UTC

michaelchisari wrote: post #25

praxeologist wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how he comes to the conclusion of 9x return. I think that we ought to invest in dragons instead and that they would bring returns in orders of magnitude greater than any space program, plus they live longer. Source: http://blog.mises.org/6512/socialist-calculation-versus-magi...

Your link isn't even about NASA, it's just an ideological discussion (and not a particularly coherent one). For reference, here's a list of NASA spin-offs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off It's not hard to see the multiplier effect of our investment in NASA.

Like I said in another related post, the Ludwig von Mises Institute is not the place you go for coherent discussions. The sooner we drop it as a source of discussion arguments, the better.

Re: What We Lose With the End of the Shuttle Program

#30

Post by nate_meurer » Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 4:47 PM UTC

garyrichardson wrote: post #24

ck2 wrote: post #2

I'm more horrified they canceled the James Webb telescope (or are just about to).

Holy shit! This just happened: http://appropriations.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?Doc... $4.5 billion for NASA Science programs, which is $431 million below last year’s level. The bill also terminates funding for the James Webb Space Telescope, which is billions of dollars over budget and plagued by poor management.

Yep, especially shitty since the project is so far along.

It needs to be said that JWST isn't primarily over-budget because of technical problems, but because they didn't do realistic cost and time estimates in the first place. Overall, the project has suffered very few technical surprises.