The future is not the past..., hopefully... Options

[dvandorn]

I'm not sure how to say this, but it has to do with the past, and it has to do with the future. So it belongs here.

We're all of us contemplating how we're going to react when one and then the other of the MERs die. But y'all are lucky --- as am I -- in this case. Because while the MERs will die, there will be thousands of exciting images coming in the next few years from MRO. And there will be new landings by Phoenix and MSL, which will provide all of us with fine armchair exploration experiences for many years to come.

When I was growing up, I followed Apollo like most of y'all follow the MERs. I vicariously experienced those first explorations of the Moon just as y'all vicariously experience these first robotic explorations of Mars. I looked forward to each new mission, soaking up the geology needed to understand the selenology that was happening. Examining each new landing site with all of the resources available to a teen-ager in the late '60s and early '70s, looking forward to each new landing, each new traverse.

But as of the end of 1972, no matter what might have been promised or speculated, it all went away. No more lunar exploration. No more visits to the magical place I had visited in spirit, if not in body.

We will all be able to follow the coming Mars explorations and can visit Mars again and again, in spirit if not in body. And that's a very good thing.

But just imagine if, once the last MER died, that was it. No more new vistas. No more new hills, rocks and craters. No more new insights.

Just a part of your soul that will always live in the past.

Just imagine that for a few moments, and then -- welcome to what my last three decades have been like...

So -- we're all lucky that these explorations of Mars will continue, with new vistas to see and new secrets to unravel. Let's all be sure we thank our various gods for that luck...

-the other Doug

[MarkL]

Well said Doug. It's important to note that the doldrums we experienced from the 70's to 2000 were likely caused by one terribly detrimental policy, the maintenance of the human space flight component. Billions upon billions were poured into that and although the public had the appetite for it for a while, it totally petered out. Financial crises moved worthwhile programs to the back burner (and turned off the gas in some cases). We were very fortunate to have Pioneer and Voyager programs and the fantastically successful Galileo prior to MER so all was not lost. We have to thank the visionaries who made those missions happen, over vociferous objection, for their pluck.

The budgetary imbalance between robotic and manned missions is enormous - more than that it's unconscionable. Massive amounts of time, effort and money has been wasted on HSF: The shuttle (you can count the truly beneficial shuttle missions on one hand*), space station and the upcoming moon shots. As a result, robotic missions, which provide thousands of times more science are about to be shuffled off like peelings from a cutting board. Out with the trash. This is why I believe there should be a push to stop NASA bending to the will of shortsighted policy makers and going down the same road again to suit political ends. Save $50 Billion by canning the moon program until there is some valid reason for humans to go there. Spend just 1/4 of it on unmanned missions and infrastructure (telescopes and antennas) and the world will be a much better place. The moon as a jump off point to Mars? You've got to be kidding me. Who in their right mind believes that is a useful reason to go to the moon. It's pure hubris that will take the US back to the moon and the politicians (one in particular) just have to come to grips with that as Kennedy did and be honest with the people who'll pay for the boondoggle.

I suppose this is preaching to the choir on this site, however Doug, your eloquently stated thoughts mirrored my own and I see history repeating itself.

I would only add that what Kennedy did for the entire space program was absolutely inspired, but that effect cannot be duplicated in modern times by doing exactly the same thing again, only with shinier rockets.

*My list of truly beneficial shuttle programs: 1. Hubble (& repair missions), 2. Galileo, 3. SRTM, 4. Chandra, 5. Ulysses. The rest is mostly putting big expensive tin cans in space and keeping them there.

[Stephen]

When I was growing up, I followed Apollo like most of y'all follow the MERs. I vicariously experienced those first explorations of the Moon just as y'all vicariously experience these first robotic explorations of Mars. I looked forward to each new mission, soaking up the geology needed to understand the selenology that was happening. Examining each new landing site with all of the resources available to a teen-ager in the late '60s and early '70s, looking forward to each new landing, each new traverse.

You make me rather envious, Doug. I was a teenager too during Apollo's lunar-landing years, but the resources I had access to on matters selenological were entirely confined to newspapers, television, and the occasional book.

We will all be able to follow the coming Mars explorations and can visit Mars again and again, in spirit if not in body. And that's a very good thing.

I was half expecting you to say: "in spirit if not in opportunity".

======
Stephen

[spdf]

Save $50 Billion by canning the moon program until there is some valid reason for humans to go there. Spend just 1/4 of it on unmanned missions and infrastructure (telescopes and antennas) and the world will be a much better place. The moon as a jump off point to Mars? You've got to be kidding me. Who in their right mind believes that is a useful reason to go to the moon. It's pure hubris that will take the US back to the moon and the politicians (one in particular) just have to come to grips with that as Kennedy did and be honest with the people who'll pay for the boondoggle.

How about for testing equipment in space? You don t want to test a manned space ship as far away as Mars. So in the beginning you need a few missions closer to Earth, but beyond LEO.

[djellison]

Mark - SPDF - Im going to stop you all right there. How many times do I have to step in a stop people having the same damn argument again and again and again. Take it somewhere else. This is not the place. Mark - you are THIS close to having that post deleted and I will not hesitate to do so to future posts along a simple course.

Political debate will NOT take place here, and the manned vs unmanned debate will not take place here either - not because I side with one part of the arguemnt - but because it is a never ending, fundamentally pointless argument which neither side of which will ever compromise from.

I suggest you reaquaint yourselves with the rules.
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?act=boardrules

You have been warned.

Doug

(PS - well done to Stephen for directly and gratuitously ignoring my specific request in this post. Your post has been deleted as will future posts that discuss politics and the pointless manned-v-unmanned argument. )

[MarkL]

OK Doug. Sorry to cause offense. Why don't you just delete the thread or the replies you aren't keen on.

[djellison]

The first post in the thread was very interesting. You took that and went in the political direction, and two other people followed. The thread stays - the politics doesn't.

Doug

[angel1801]

What the adminstrator is saying is this: We know the manned space program is chewing up valuable money and resources at the expense of unmanned space exploration but we don't need every second post harping on the issue on these forums. We all know this is a major problem and it is stupid. So keep the politics out and concerntrate on the science both manned and unmanned missions do instead!

I'm glad this forum talks about real science alot and keeps mindless debates on manned vs unmanned to a minimum. And should be too!

[spdf]

Sorry Doug,
my comment wasn t meant to be political or part of the unmanned vs manned debate but only from an engineering point of view.
Since you can simulate space condition on Earth only in a limited way why not use the moon more often as a comparable cheap testing area? (this goes for unmanned missions too.)

[ugordan]

Since you can simulate space condition on Earth only in a limited way why not use the moon more often as a comparable cheap testing area?

If you wanted to simulate microgravity, why would you want to go to the moon? LEO can do the trick just fine. The moon may be a lot of things, but cheap testing area it ain't!

[spdf]

I was thinking, when SMART-1 went to the moon it spend considerable time in the Van Allen belt. If you want a mission into high radiation environment you cannot test it in LEO ? Also if you need a more advanced lander for a much more complex task (in a high radiation environment), it might be a good idea to test it on the moon first. (thinking about a lander for EUROPA) (But not sure if radiation is an issue for Mars ?)

Another point is SMART-1 did cost just 145 Million Dollars. So why not make the Moon a regular target for engineering test missions? That might be a considerable "cheap" way to gain some scientific data as well.

Just an idea ... .

[Mariner9]

Following the original thrust of this thread, I sincerely hope we that the next decade does not mirror the unmanned wilderness of the 1980s. In the 1970s we made our first flights to Mercury and Jupiter, orbited and landed on Mars, and sent Pioneer probes into Venus' atmosphere and into orbit. In 1977 we launched what was destined to become perhaps the single most sucessful mission in history: Voyager.

Yet, starting in 1978 we enterered into a wilderness. Not a single US unmanned mission was launched for over a decade until 1989. That hiatis was generally blammed on the Shuttle budget swallowing funds, although I would argue a few other factors came into play at the same time, in particular a strong push for big missions like Mars Sample Return and Solar-Electric Halley's Comet Rendesvous.

I have hopes we won't see such a wilderness. The crucial difference is what the planetary scientists and NASA science directorate learned: keep your missions in a mix of sizes.

It appears to me that Europa orbiter and any other big ticket mission is politically unlikely to get a new start while the current Administration is in office, and maybe for years after that. But in the meantime, we have the Mars Exploration Program (somewhe scaled back, but still sending missions every two years). We've got Discovery, no selections for 5 years but with the current 2006 AO hopefully back on track with fewer but better funded missions. Finally, we have New Frontiers program ... with New Horizons in flight, JUNO under developement, and (cross your fingers) mission #3 AO coming out within 2 years.

So, in a way history repeats. With the conclusion of Cassini, we're leaving the second golden age of planetary exploration. We can look back at an incredible decade with missions to asteroids, comets, Venus, Mars, and Jupiter. Looking forward, the shifting of funds into the manned space arena looks a bit scary, and has caused the cancellation of at least two planned missions.

But... while the future is slowing down, we still have Messenger, New Horizons and Rosetta in flight. Already funded and indevelopment there are Phoenix, Dawn, JUNO, Phobos Grunt, Aurora, Bepi-Colombo (and more lunar missions than I care to list). And there signs that there will be future Discovery, New Frontiers, and foreign missions yet to be selected for flight.

Let us hope that that indeed, the future is not the past.....

[jrdahlman]

Maybe the solution is a divison of labor among space agencies?

One thing I remember about the late 70's, early 80's MANNED spacecraft drought is while we were waiting and waiting for the fancy shuttle to come, the Soviets just kept sending up the same steady missions on the old, reliable rockets. (In the words of the "Footfall" novel: "No big triumphs, but plenty of solid achievements.") A few years later the comparison between the two system made some wonder, "Now why did we have to build this big fancy thing anyway? Maybe we don't need it."

The point is you don't know which one will work best unless somebody builds BOTH types: the super-fancy and the simple-reliable. NASA's being trying both in the last decade, but now that everyone in the UN is joining the club, why don't we split it up the types of mission?

1. NASA: the Flagships.
NASA builds the big, famous, multi-year, multi-billion-dollar Battlestar Galactica missions. These are the ones that get the money and attention no other agency can give. The multi-armed multi-cameraed multi-probe extra-solar rover landers sample-returners. Launched once every ten years, practically.

2. ESA: the Expresses.
Smaller gadgets launched more often. Moon Express, Mars Express, Venus express, heck even throw in a Jupiter Express once in a while. More of a Discovery Class? (I actually don't know how NASA breaks down their classes.) Maybe a bit of an "also-ran" feeling compared to mighty NASA, but with more of them out there, when NASA makes the inevitable trillion-dollar "Oops Crater" on Europa, ESA's Europa Express can say, "See? Our nice little reliable system is still ticking out here." (The political question of ESA's image releases is a separate issue.)

3. China/Japan/India: the new Pioneers.
Not launched the most, but the simplest, basic Pioneering probes. Somebody's gotta keep these shooting these things out there. You still get basic science return, and it gives the "new guys" valuable experience.

4. The Little Guys, or "That's MY little spaceship out there!"
The students, the cubesats, the rich amateurs. Tiny home-built gadgets that snap a picture in orbit. Multiple lauches a year. (Or let's dream: a month!) Not much science, but cheap as dirt and gives non-scientists a part of the action. And maybe, just maybe, one little cubesat is going to knock our socks off....

(Not sure where modern Russia is in this scheme. Have they been officially absorbed into ESA? I know they want be Level 1 but are they more realistically Level 3?)

This way us space nuts don't have to live or die on NASA alone.

[djellison]

Where would that leave the New Frontiers and Discovery programs at NASA (i.e. Stardust, Genesis, New Horizons, Juno, Deep Imapct, NEAR) and the flagship missions at ESA such as Rosetta / Bepi-Columbo

Each agency is doing what it can - cooperating ( at the level I think it's most appropriate to cooperate - the 'instrument' level ) where it can...I think as things are at the moment it's not too bad.

It seems like you're basically trying to move all these pieces around, when what you're looking for is a bigger budget all around.

Doug

[Stephen]

I suggest you reaquaint yourselves with the rules.
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?act=boardrules

You have been warned.

Doug

(PS - well done to Stephen for directly and gratuitously ignoring my specific request in this post. Your post has been deleted as will future posts that discuss politics and the pointless manned-v-unmanned argument. )

I did not ignore your post, gratuitously or otherwise. Mine took a while to compose and consequently I did not see yours until after I had posted mine.

I notice you have now deleted it. As moderator that is doubtless your prerogative. Whether such debates are pointless, however, is surely more a matter of opinion. You may well be sick of reading them. I'm rather tired of them myself. Nevertheless IMHO they are a legitimate subject of debate, especially on a board whose dominant subject is unmanned spaceflight yet where you as moderator-in-chief have nevertheless allowed a small corner where manned spaceflight issues can be discussed. To say that we can discuss UMSF in this corner and MSF in that corner yet never the twain shall meet (so to speak) is about as logical as saying thou shalt discuss unmanned missions to Europa here and unmanned missions to Titan there but thou shalt not discuss anywhere the virtues and vices of unmanned missions to Europa versus unmanned missions to Titan, (where I do not doubt there are as many passions & rants ready to be let loose as in the UMSF vs MSF debate ).

(Albeit I see from The Rules (1.4) that a (separate?) Manned Spaceflight forum exists. Can't be www.mannedspaceflight.com because that is already owned by a John Duncan and does not appear to be or have a forum anyway.)

UMSF.com happens to be a small civilised corner of the wild west of the Internet where civilised debate can go on amongst civilised people without risk of being flammed. I hope it stays that way and I support your efforts (and, of course, those of the other moderators) to keep it that way, but keeping it that way does not necessarily mean banning debate. Confining it to some appropriate corner is IMHO an equally legitimate management tool, much as you did with the topic of manned spaceflight generally. Without that space to allow steam to be let off in a civilised if sometimes passionate fashion you are confining yourself to the big stick approach: deleting posts and/or banning users. Those surely ought to be the tools of last resort.

It would also be shame to throw such debates out of UMSF.com, if only because that will probably merely pitch it back into the less civilised corners of the Net, where more heat than light can at times be generated and one could sometimes be forgiven for thinking the inmates had taken charge of the asylum.

======
Stephen