(Re the latter, if I was on the Moon, I’d sure as hell want a team of doctors on Earth looking remotely at my scans produced by an autonomous unit, instead of a friendly “Bones” McCoy poking his finger at me.)

I do hope the readers of this thread will pay some attention to the relationship of science to exploration, since these are code words that are being used to justify at least federal non-military expenditures on space.

But I will address cost/price. (Can’t resist.) Oh yes, I sure do know the difference! In a cost-plus scenario, which is NASA’s contractual norm, it’s the former that makes the difference to the taxpayer. As a taxpayer hearing a line about cheap Soyuz going around the Moon, I do have to snicker. Can I interest you in a cheap Rolex? Price is right!

That isn’t what the dictionary says — however, it seems that you now concede science is not synonymous with exploration.

So, why do you think it is “demeaning” to call a sedentary scientist a “scientist” instead of an “explorer”?

> there is no question in the mind of the administration and Congress that robots (and obviously
> the people that control them) explore.

“The robots and obviously the people who control them”???

Do you think the robots and the people are doing the same thing? The people are not rolling across Mars, picking up rocks, etc. I wish they were, but they aren’t. They’re sitting in armchairs watching television and occassionally pushing a button.

Why is it so awful to have a word to distinguish between people who travel and people who sit and watch?

In the 19th Century, National Geographic had employees who stayed in the home office, received pictures back, and sent messages directing explorers in the field. No one whined that they were being “demeaned” because they didn’t get the title of explorer.

> Please provide a link to credible costing for putting a Soyuz around the Moon, which is what the
> claim originally referred to. I’m talking about mission cost, not vehicle cost.

No, you were talking about price, not cost. Part of your problem seems to be that you do not understand the difference between the two.

> I don’t think these folks want “astronaut wings”. Never said that.

You said, “the OP was demeaning people who sit in Pasadena as not being worthy of the ‘explorer’ badge.”

As I’m sure you know, “astronaut wings” is the name of the badge given to people who explore space.

There’s also an “Explorer badge” given by the Boy Scouts, but I’m pretty sure you didn’t mean that one.

>> The Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines fly hundreds of recon missions every single day — the
>> world’s space agencies don’t launch that many robots in an entire decade.

> You didn’t read what I said.

Yes, I did: “We don’t send recon aircraft anywhere near as frequently as we use robotic spacecraft for recon.” Did you read what you said?

> I believe that if you count the number of hours on-station, you’ll get a higher number
> from the constellation of robotic surveillance satellites than from recon airborne missions.

You’re changing arguments — and your new belief is just as falacious as the last one.

> A manned spacecraft orbiting the Moon will return scientific info by having people operate equipment
> that can almost certainly be otherwise operated remotely. The value in having those people there is perhaps
> to tweak the equipment. Not much else.

Next time you’re sick, I trust you’ll see a robot for a diagnosis. A human doctor might be able to tweak the equipment. Not much else, right?

> Can you suggest a single lunar on-orbit experiment that offers science value and requires
> in-situ personnel? Sorry, I just don’t see it.

Even the Vulcans recognized that there is more to life than science, Doug.

However, if you can’t, I’ll play the game by your rules. How about an experiment to determine whether a human being can conceive in lunar gravity and carry the pregnancy to term?

I await your design for a fully automated robot mission that can carry out that experiment.

Interesting way to parse that sentence. I think what they meant is that exploration that didn’t include science as an integral part of it just isn’t exploration.

If you go back to the rollout of VSE, there is no question in the mind of the administration and Congress that robots (and obviously the people that control them) explore. Goal/Objective #1 … “Implement a sustained and affordable human and robotic program to explore the solar system and beyond.”

>I have very credible information, Doug. It’s $100 million, not $500 million. If you don’t think the Russian Space Agency knows how much they charge for launches, that’s your problem.

Well, I guess it is my problem. So help me out. Please provide a link to credible costing for putting a Soyuz around the Moon, which is what the claim originally referred to. I’m talking about mission cost, not vehicle cost.

>It’s demeaning not to award astronaut wings to someone who never leaves the ground?

I don’t think these folks want “astronaut wings”. Never said that. I said they should be regarded as explorers. We have a disagreement about what that word “explorer” means. Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. But the administration and Congress are on my side. Perhaps American Heritage dictionary is on yours. As I said, stale argument.

>The Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines fly hundreds of recon missions every single day — the world’s space agencies don’t launch that many robots in an entire decade.

You didn’t read what I said. I believe that if you count the number of hours on-station, you’ll get a higher number from the constellation of robotic surveillance satellites than from recon airborne missions. The fact that there are more airplanes than satellites has nothing to do with it.

>Anyway, what does that have to do with your absurd claim that a manned spacecraft cannot learn anything except what the crew can write down with paper and pencil?

A manned spacecraft orbiting the Moon will return scientific info by having people operate equipment that can almost certainly be otherwise operated remotely. The value in having those people there is perhaps to tweak the equipment. Not much else. Can you suggest a single lunar on-orbit experiment that offers science value and requires in-situ personnel? Sorry, I just don’t see it.

Google exploration and you will find plenty of references to Lewis and Clark, Columbus, Byrd, Armstrong, etc.

You will even find a statement by the American Astronomical Society complaining that “exploration without science is tourism.”

That statement wouldn’t make sense if there was no difference between science and exploration.

> Re underserved discoveries, the OP was demeaning people who sit in Pasadena as not being worthy
> of the “explorer” badge. I believe he is wrong.

It’s demeaning not to award astronaut wings to someone who never leaves the ground?

Is it demeaning that astronauts don’t get Nobel Prizes for science? (Turn-around is fair play, right?)

> If I were such a person in Pasadena, I would be insulted by this comment.

Do you think we should give everyone at JPL astronaut wings just to protect their self-esteem? I don’t think planetary scientists are that fragile. Why would they even care, anyway, if there’s no value to human spaceflight?

> Re $500M to put a Soyuz in orbit around the Moon, best to say, prove it. So far, there is absolutely
> no such proof. I have no credible info about Soyuz prices, and neither do you.

I have very credible information, Doug. It’s $100 million, not $500 million. If you don’t think the Russian Space Agency knows how much they charge for launches, that’s your problem.

> Re recon aircraft crews writing down info on pencil and paper, you’re right. They don’t of course. We
> don’t send recon aircraft anywhere near as frequently as we use robotic spacecraft for recon.

Where do you get this stuff from???

The Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines fly hundreds of recon missions every single day — the world’s space agencies don’t launch that many robots in an entire decade.

Anyway, what does that have to do with your absurd claim that a manned spacecraft cannot learn anything except what the crew can write down with paper and pencil?

Re underserved discoveries, the OP was demeaning people who sit in Pasadena as not being worthy of the “explorer” badge. I believe he is wrong. If I were such a person in Pasadena, I would be insulted by this comment.

Re $500M to put a Soyuz in orbit around the Moon, best to say, prove it. So far, there is absolutely no such proof. I have no credible info about Soyuz prices, and neither do you. I have a thick history of lowballing estimates for human space flight costs, though.

Re Soyuz cosmonauts circling the Moon to “tell us what it’s like to be there”, umm, wow. Gee. Well, we never did send anyone who could really express themselves with any articulateness. I guess it’s probably worth doing. Think Lori Anderson could go?

Re recon aircraft crews writing down info on pencil and paper, you’re right. They don’t of course. We don’t send recon aircraft anywhere near as frequently as we use robotic spacecraft for recon. We can count hours, if you like.

This is a stale argument, though the profundity of it is really in the views that are rampant. Threads like these are illuminating in that respect. The value of human space flight at least as human adventure is self evident. Why must one take pot shots at science and scientists for not having used it much?

> Nope. Sorry. You’ve perhaps defined an “adventurer”.

Perhaps you should write your own dictionary, since American Heritage and Doug Lassiter disagree.

> Gee, “for purposes of discovery”, eh? Damn those sedentary discoverers, and a pox on
> what it seems you’re calling their undeserved discoveries.

No one said anything about “undeserved discoveries.”

Well, I guess it’s easier to beat up that strawman than to address the actual argument.

>>The facts show otherwise. NASA is going to spend
>>$500 million to put one satellite into orbit
>>around the Moon. For the same price, you could
>>send a Soyuz crew around the Moon

> No you couldn’t.

Oh??? And what do you base that statement on?

Space Adentures and the Russian Space Agency say they could do it for ~$100 million.

Do you have a better source of information about Soyuz prices?

> And let’s see, what would the Soyuz astronauts be able to tell us about the Moon after they
> did this?

What it’s like for human beings to go there.

> Well, give them the instrumentation that would have gone on the robotic probe,
> some visual readouts, and perhaps a pencil and a pad of paper, and they could probably
> return some real discovery.

We have better ways of recording information these days, Doug. Human spaceflight and modern electronics are not mutually exclusive.

Do you think reconnaissance aircraft crews have to record every bit of data with pencil and paper?

Nope. Sorry. You’ve perhaps defined an “adventurer”.

> Not “someone who stays home and watches television
> for purposes of discovery” — that person would be
> an observer, perhaps a scientist, but not an
> explorer.

Gee, “for purposes of discovery”, eh? Damn those sedentary discoverers, and a pox on what it seems you’re calling their undeserved discoveries.

>The facts show otherwise. NASA is going to spend >$500 million to put one satellite into orbit >around the Moon. For the same price, you could >send a Soyuz crew around the Moon

No you couldn’t. And let’s see, what would the Soyuz astronauts be able to tell us about the Moon after they did this? Well, give them the instrumentation that would have gone on the robotic probe, some visual readouts, and perhaps a pencil and a pad of paper, and they could probably return some real discovery.

I mean, really. At least surface astronauts could turn over a few rocks.

So field geologists can do on the site spectroscopy and electron microscopy better than spectroscopy equipment and microscopes, either on site or back in the lab.

Who knew!

Once again, an explorer is someone who “travels for purposes of discovery.”

Not “someone who stays home and watches television for purposes of discovery” — that person would be an observer, perhaps a scientist, but not an explorer.

If you think human beings should be content to do nothing more than sit in Pasadena and look at pictures of other worlds), okay, make that point. Justify science as science, not as something it’s not. Calling sedentary observers explorers, travellers, astronauts, whatever does not make the name fit.

> They are inexpensive ways of getting real knowledge. Putting boots
> in dirt is not clearly an optimal way of getting that knowledge.

The facts show otherwise. NASA is going to spend $500 million to put one satellite into orbit around the Moon. For the same price, you could send a Soyuz crew around the Moon — five times. As we reduce launch costs, sending humans becomes even more attractive. The entire SpaceShip One program probably cost less than one of Dr. Van Allen’s sounding rocket launches.

> Putting boots in dirt is, however, a valid cultural expression of curiosity,
> courage, and ownership. It’s justifiable. But let’s call a spade a spade. In
> knowledge per dollar, human exploration isn’t necessaily optimal.

You’re reducing “knowledge” to mere data. There are many types of human knowledge besides the 1’s and 0’s machines send back. Almost anyone who’s been in space would tell you he or she obtained insights that cannot be measured by any machine.

If you want to dismiss the value of that sort of human experience, there’s the $64-billion question that “unmanned space” enthusiasts always overlook — if human beings are not going to go to the Moon, Mars, or wherever, in non-trivial numbers, why should we spend any money at all sending umanned probes, much less billions of dollars?

We don’t need to send probes to the Moon or Mars to do science. There are plenty of things for scientists to study right here on Earth, and earth-bound science is much less expensive than launching unmanned space probes. Satellites to study the Sun and Earth can be justified based on their value to our daily life on this planet, but the precise composition of rocks on the Moon or Mars is nothing more than a matter of idle curiousity with no relevance to human beings unless humans (not just robots) are going to be living on the Moon and Mars.