South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

December 07, 2019, 13:09:06 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the forum rules before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Humans vs, Robots in space

 (Read 2107 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Tweefo
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1551



WWW
« on: June 15, 2008, 19:40:21 PM »

[edit: split from http://forum.skeptic.za.org/off-topic/the-sky-from-above/ ]

But is this science? Can't the same be achieved with robotic spacecraft at a fraction of the cost?
« Last Edit: June 19, 2008, 12:15:10 PM by bluegray V » Logged
mdg
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +5/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 337



WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 16, 2008, 18:02:10 PM »

Absolutely Breathtaking!!! I love looking at pictures of our precious planet taken from space; it's only when people view it from that aspect that they realise just how fragile it is. Another site to see amazing photos is the NASA Astronomy picture of the day: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

In answer to Tweefo's question, yes it is science. Whether space missions are manned or not, every little bit of data collected, takes us one step closer to learning more about how our planet was formed, how life began on our planet and how the universe began. For just over a year now, I've been taking part in a project called Stardust@Home, where volunteers have been looking through hundreds of thousands of "slides" searching for stardust. You can view more info here about the projects' aims: http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/. Another interesting project is Galaxy Zoo, where volunteers, like me, are sifting through thousands of photographs taken by different telescopes of star and galaxies. The aim is to classify the different types of galaxies, and I have seen some awesome pictures. Grin
I've learned so much about astronomy and about what goes into putting missions like Stardust together; it certainly has been informative and extremely interesting - so much so, that I've stayed up into the wee hours to watch launches of the shuttle and of the mars Phoenix mission, which landed safely on mars 3 weeks ago. It's mission is to search for water and for signs of life, the results of which should be in within the next 2 weeks.
How can we not get excited by that??!! Grin
Logged
Tweefo
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1551



WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 16, 2008, 18:42:14 PM »

OK, it is science to get them up there but I still maintain that more can be done for less with robotic craft. Mdg mention the Phoenix mission to Mars. It is not the first to land on Mars while humans take pretty pictures of earth from 300 km away. We have learned far, far more from these robotic  missions, without human deaths and a lot less expensive. Humans can only stay a while, have to be kept alive and they have to come back whereas robots are left up there when they stop working and they can do things that no human can do. American astronauts are send to space to show how mighty America is and that is not science.
Logged
mdg
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +5/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 337



WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 17, 2008, 07:52:10 AM »

Hi Tweefo,

I disagree that Americans send astronauts to just take pictures and show how powerful the USA is; the International Space Station has been home to international scientists and astronauts since it was built – the ISS is also an international effort, most of the components of the space station has been built in various countries.
Robots are limited in what they can do; it cannot conduct experiments that may require human observation.
As case in point; when the Hubble telescope was first sent up into orbit and scientists discovered that the mirror was distorted, it required astronauts to go up and make repairs to what could have been a very expensive mistake, and something that a robot could not have done.

Phoenix isn’t the first Martian probe, nor will it be the last – all these probes are the pioneers of what will eventually become a human community on Mars. Another observation: not all of the probes have been sent by the USA, - Europe, the USSR and Japan have also sent probes to Mars. The first successful landing of a probe on Mars was made by the USSR in 1971, which sent the first photograph of the Martian surface back to Earth – unfortunately it stopped transmitting shortly after landing.

The newest probe being readied for launch is the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter which will collect data about the moon for the purpose of eventually setting up a lunar base.
Each and every man and woman that trains as an astronaut knows the risks involved, they do it because they know that the exploration will benefit humanity. That’s how we learn – through exploration and the collection of data.

For those of you interested in the transpermia hypothesis, the theory that life arrived on Earth from elsewhere in the universe, you can go to www.planetary.org and read about LIFE; an experiment that will be sending a collection of living organisms on a three-year trip to the Martian moon Phobos and back to Earth.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 17, 2008, 10:00:22 AM »

Hmm, it seems I’ve kicked up a bit of a hornets’ nest with an innocuous remark.  My meaning wasn’t so much that the photos themselves constitute science, although some of them do have the potential to spark new ideas in the fields of climatology and meteorology, possibly in fluid dynamics too.  While the latter is indeed largely a secondary consideration, my primary meaning was to draw attention to the fact that it is in the first place science that has afforded an opportunity to see and marvel at such photos: the space shuttle for accessing a suitable vantage point, the camera for taking the pictures and the Internet for making them easily available.  In other words, science usually opens whole new vistas, sometimes literally as in this case.

'Luthon64
Logged
mdg
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +5/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 337



WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 17, 2008, 17:29:25 PM »

Hi ‘Luthon64,

I guess I did go off on a bit of a tangent, astronomy is one of my passions and I do tend to get carried away sometimes – I’m a geek, what can I say?

 Grin  Grin  Grin

mdg
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 17, 2008, 21:32:16 PM »

Er, I merely meant to clarify my remark.  The last thing on my mind was to rain on anyone’s parade, so I’m sorry if that’s the impression I gave.  In any case, it is good, even wonderful, to be geeky and passionate about some things, especially awe at the universe in its magnificent diversity and resilience, unencumbered by assorted mystical impedimenta.  That way lies true humanness, I think.

'Luthon64
Logged
Tweefo
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1551



WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 18, 2008, 18:52:13 PM »

OK, it is not just the Americans who can go to space and show off. The ISS is an international waste of money. What happened a while ago when the toilet did not work? One word - shit - describe it. The Hubble problem was fixed but only because it was designed to be serviced. Most satellites are not so designed, it will be in most cases be more expensive to fix them, than to replace them. A manned base on the Moon? What for? There is nothing there, although a large telescope on the far side would be handy. As for going to Mars: problems. On Mars you are going to be frayed by solar radiation. No Ozone and no magnetic field to protect you, and you have to stay there at least 3 years. Just one fatal accident brought the the shuttle program to a halt for something like two years. Robots can only do what they are designed to do but they are getting better. Rand for Rand (Dollars) we can learn far more with robots than with humans. And I am also quite passionate about astronomy Cool
Logged
Wandapec
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 431


100% Proud Atheist/Skeptic


« Reply #8 on: June 18, 2008, 21:23:04 PM »

A manned base on the Moon? What for?


Here are some different views of why we should go/are going to the moon -

Why we are going to the moon?
10 reasons to put Humans back on the moon.

Although all those reasons presented are inconsequential because we all know what really happened back in the day! -

http://www.vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1143628

 Wink
Logged
bluegray
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107



saskeptics
WWW
« Reply #9 on: June 19, 2008, 13:17:51 PM »

That last link does not work for me - all I get is a vimeo logo...

Anyway,
I agree with Tweefo. As much as I would love to go to the moon and mars myself, I don't think it is something we should spend resources on (yet). Some of the better reasons to go there have to do with humanity and our place in space and how we see ourselves, which are important. But there are other areas that could use those resources more, and would arguably benefit humanity more that sending humans to mars. The practical reasons could much better be handled by robots.
I mostly agree with the following from Bob Park:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/08/31/fsummit.space.explore/

We need to grow up and be realistic. Ego and 'I was here first' are not good reasons to waste money on. We will no doubt go to the moon and mars or even beyond eventually, but maybe now is not the time.

BTW experiments like the LIFE experiment mdg mentioned is a good example of why we don't really need the ISS. While an interesting project, ISS proved to be not as useful as some people imagined, it is costing a lot of money and not giving much in return. Experiments can be performed for much cheaper.
Logged
Tweefo
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1551



WWW
« Reply #10 on: June 19, 2008, 20:18:31 PM »

Let's liken space flight to the sea voyages. Sputnik, Gagarin, Apollo and all that was like Columbus, Da Gama and so on: Real voyages of discovery. The ISS is like a playboy's yacht. It goes out of the harbour, but not far. It does not do anything there but show off. The shuttle is like a cargo ship, but most of the time it is used to ferry replacement crews and refreshments to the yacht. Name one useful piece of science that came out of the ISS. Do we really have to know how boomerangs behave in micro gravity? Imagine all that energy and money spend on the ISS, spend on a space telescope. Hubble gave us real scientific pictures but on a scale this big we would have learned so much more.
Maybe, one day, humans will go to Mars but that day is far in the future. I think this idea will die a quit death once Bush is out. In the mean time the robots are out there doing real science. I rest my case
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.454 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page February 26, 2019, 12:48:11 PM
Privacy Policy