Keep in mind that I am _not_ arguing against automated spaceflight. I am arguing that it should remain in context with its likely returns compared with human expeditions, that we keep them cheap, and that we do that by focusing on areas that are easy to automate — basic reconnaisance — and leave the science to the scientists.

— Donald

“the ISS exists in order to learn how to build ISS’s. Nice and circular, that argument.” Not quite. The ISS exists _partially_ (but also probably most significantly) to learn how to build other large structures and conduct complex operations in space. Yes, we sent three-day-long expeditions to Earth’s moon without using the Space Station, but we flew a lot of Gemini flights at fairly great cost specifically to learn how to do docking and relatively long-duration flight, things that were needed to get to the moon. We can probably do “Luis and Clark” class missions on Earth’s moon without knowing how to do complex assembly and logistical operations in Earth orbit if we want to develop a sufficiently large launch vehicle (though I have argued before that spending our money on launch vehicles is one of the best way to guaratee we never get there). However, “Luis and Clark” class expeditions to Mars or an Earth-approaching asteroid, let alone the industrial operations that many still want to try in space, are very unlikely without these skills.

The Space Station was probably a decade or two before its time, doing it with the Shuttle proved far too expensive (in retrospect), and we probably should have built something a lot more like Mir, but none of that means that what we did was a useless exercise or that what we’re learning will not prove of value.

“the idea that automated spacecraft could do more than the most superficial studies of Mars or any other planet is absurd.] Why is this idea absurd?” And, “Yes, and how much is it going to cost to send humans to Mars and back?”

I think somewhere between $50 billion and $500 billion (depending on who is doing it, the kind of expedition, and how much safety you’re willing to pay for) are reasonable guesses for the first expedition, and less thereafter. But, in the same way that the Apollo expeiditions easily achieved more than five-hundred times the science that the comparable automated Soviet effort of the same era, I think it very likely that you would get far more science for your dollar. (Or, five thousand times the science for that matter; remember that the only hard dates for the relative cratering records used throughout the Solar System to this date come from Apollo; all those automated missions would be a lot less useful if Apollo, with its vast collection of well-sorted and in-context samples hadn’t happened.) Certainly, it would be better science.

I think it fair to argue that Viking did fail. Viking was designed to ask a specific scientific question, and we do not know the answer to that question to date. Viking is the best example of the kind of science that cannot be automated and that we shouldn’t try. The rovers on the other hand are a harder choice. They are “reconnaissance” plus a little science, and they largely fall under my example of things that can, and to some degree should be, automated.

But, if you are going to send billion dollar missions to go survey ten miles over a multi-year period, you quickly reach the point of diminishing returns. If we are ever going to send people to Mars, yes, I do not believe there is much value in sending a whole lot more rovers. Rather than spend a fifth of the cost of a bare-bones human mission sending ten (or twenty or thirty) more rovers, it makes much more financial sense to prepare for and send the human mission and survey many tens or hundreds or thousands of kilometers. (Remember that Apollo has already demonstrated tens of kilometers in three days, gathering tons of samples in detailed context. We should be able to at least duplicate that, and hopefully do a lot better.)

I grant that you can make a case either way, here, but I do think my case is a valid one and it should be taken more seriously than it is.

— Donald

Do you have any proof for that assertion?

[ To put it another way, if you do not spend lots of time and mony trying to conduct complex operations and build things in space then you will not learn to do these things … ]

I.e., the ISS exists in order to learn how to build ISS’s. Nice and circular, that argument.

[… and you will never be able to send real scientific expeditions to (in the relatively near future) Earth’s moon and Mars. ]

Several human expeditions have made it to the Moon and back with stopping at a space station.

[ Secondly, the idea that automated spacecraft could do more than the most superficial studies of Mars or any other planet is absurd.]

Why is this idea absurd?

[ Even in strictly financial terms, it is absurd. We have just spent something on the order of a billion dollars and several years (including development) discovering that there was standing water on Mars and getting elemental measurements in a few isolated spots, … ]

Yes, and how much is it going to cost to send humans to Mars and back?

[… work that a human expedition could do in an afternoon. ]

One afternoon? Really?

[ Let’s not forget the lesson of Viking where we attempted to automate science and failed to really answer our question.]

Did Vkiking fail because this early unmanned probe failed to answer all questions about Mars? I think not.

[ Rather than attempt to automate the kinds of creative, experimental science that cannot be automated, …]

You do not know what can or canot be automated.

[… we should limit future automated missions to Mars to finding out the specific pieces of information you need to know for human crews to survive there — and save the science for scientists. ]

That statement is wrong, absurdly wrong.

— David Davenport

I think my larger arguments are getting lost in the detail, so let me remind Greg and everyone else what they are.

First, I agree that the Space Station should not have been justified as a scientific facility. By extension, neither should the Space Shuttle. Both are infrastructure. You wouldn’t say that a highway is a scientific instrument and try to justify at such, but that doesn’t mean that ground transportation is not essential to the scientific enterprise. It took many generations and a lot of money to get from horse-drawn carts to today’s superhighways. The Space Station — gold-plated and overly complex as it is — and the wider, global effort to develop human spaceflight — are laying the groundwork for science of the future. To put it another way, if you do not spend lots of time and mony trying to conduct complex operations and build things in space then you will not learn to do these things and you will never be able to send real scientific expeditions to (in the relatively near future) Earth’s moon and Mars. Or as Dfens pointed out, experience counts and experience is what the very limited human spaceflight we do today is giving us.

While the Space Station should not have been marketed as a scientific facility, and certainly not only as one, it is not entirely NASA’s fault that it was. Scientists have been complicit in the development over the last half-century of this national myth that the only way to justify space projects is through science.

Secondly, the idea that automated spacecraft could do more than the most superficial studies of Mars or any other planet is absurd. Even in strictly financial terms, it is absurd. We have just spent something on the order of a billion dollars and several years (including development) discovering that there was standing water on Mars and getting elemental measurements in a few isolated spots, work that a human expedition could do in an afternoon. We are proposing to spend circa five billion dollars (the last estimate I recall, although it is several years out-of-date) to return a handful of soil from Mars — very exciting no doubt but not very effective when measured in cost per likely scientific answer. Just how much meaningful science has been done on the Soviet lunar samples? They are simply too limited in both quantity and context to be useful, and much the same will be true of any automated Mars sample return.

Third, dividing the space budget more-or-less in half to fund current scientific efforts and on the kinds of investments you need to make to be able to do real geology on the other planets in another couple of generations is not an unreasonable division of resources. If you skimp on the latter to spend all your money on the former, you spend lots of billions of dollars getting tiny bits of information, and never get to the point where geologists on site can do real science.

The cold fact that no one wants to admit is that we have gone about as far as makes scientific or financial sense sending automated spacecraft to Mars. Let’s not forget the lesson of Viking where we attempted to automate science and failed to really answer our question. Rather than attempt to automate the kinds of creative, experimental science that cannot be automated, we should limit future automated missions to Mars to finding out the specific pieces of information you need to know for human crews to survive there — and save the science for scientists. We need good orbital resource maps, and probably a bit more detail about the soil chemistry, maybe a little more about atmospheric structure if you’re going to do aerobraking, but I think that’s about it.

These opinions are not widely held. It is certainly possible to reasonably disagree with them. But I believe that they are reasonable positions based on the history of science and of spaceflight. These ideas are certainly as valid as the more widely held view that we should continue to spend trying to automate science and trying to justify multi-billion dollar missions that, at best, will address one or two tighly focused questions with no guarantee of useful answers.

— Donald

The real issue not a financial tug-of-war between space science and human spaceflight. Rather the issue is the effect of human spaceflight on all American science, not just space science. Not just its funding, but, more insidiously, its protections from patronage and its reputation. Because claims that human spaceflight are separate from science are not politically realistic. NASA, Congress, the White House, and the public all conflate human spaceflight with science. They will continue to conflate human spaceflight with science. NASA worked very hard at other excuses for human spaceflight, but even Washington saw through them in the end, so science gets the short straw.

The protests from Donald (and others) that human spaceflight is not about science are like the alcoholic who protests that his liquor is not about nutrition. It may be very bad nutrition, but it still passes for nutrition. Nor can the alcoholic even convince himself of his claim. He may tell his nutritionist a thousand times that his liquor is not nutrition, but, come dinner time, he drinks a lot of vodka and eats less food. So, to extend the analogy, every time the space station runs over budget, guess where the money comes from. To extend the analogy another way, the Mars Society is as adamant as anyone that spaceflight is not just about science. Nonetheless, when they play Mars on Devon Island, they fill time with science field rehearsals.

Finally, as I said before, I am absolutely not saying that science is the only useful purpose of spaceflight. One way to tell that unmanned spaceflight is genuinely practical is that most of it isn’t lumped together with science.

That’s nice, if one has to have the shuttle. But it by itself did not justify building the shuttle, and cannot justify continuing to operate the shuttle.

The idea that eliminating human spaceflight would give astronomers more money is a political absurdity.

But that’s not what I said, or even suggested. I’ve previously said even space science should be competing head-to-head with science down here on Earth; I suspect it would not do terribly well if the competition for funds were on an even playing field.

he failings of the Shuttle program and NASA’s management do not automatically mean that building several 4.5 billion dollar telescopes…

Where did that figure come from? Also realize that much of the cost of building a space telescope is in the engineering; the second, third, etc. units will be considerably cheaper than the first.

The idea that eliminating human spaceflight would give astronomers more money is a political absurdity. Closer to reality is that they are riding the coat-tails of the human space program; eliminate the former and much of their funding would disappear with it. Frankly, I don’t think space scientists have a whole lot to complain about.

Bob, I don’t disagree with you, especially with the current plans for new launch vehicles. I was arguing what could be done, not necessarily what will be. The failings of the Shuttle program and NASA’s management do not automatically mean that building several 4.5 billion dollar telescopes is cheaper than building one repairable telescope combined with a human transportation system a bit more “low-end” than the Shuttle.

What’s wrong with using, say, a Soyuz and the European space tug?

— Donald

Yeah, let’s bring on the hairy statements instead!