Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!uccba!uceng!dmocsny From: dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Space travel and the spirit of man Summary: Costs, data returned Message-ID: <662@uceng.UC.EDU> Date: 7 Feb 89 05:45:51 GMT References: <3225@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> <258@corpane.UUCP> <4239@drivax.DRI>, Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati, College of Engg. Lines: 69 In article , rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) writes: > Don't forget that manned flights provide some data NOT available from > unmanned flights: How Humans can live/work in Space. True. However, we pay a considerable premium for this data. What exactly do we need to learn that we don't already know, and how will our current manned space priorities teach us these things? I was under the impression that many of the major unanswered questions about life in zero-g must await fundamental advances in physiology (e.g., understanding and preventing bone decalcification and muscle atrophy). Studying hibernating bears (which actually increase their lean body mass and bone density while hibernating) might be a more productive way to do this. What knowledge do we gain by, say, having a piloted shuttle? > This is > important, since EVENTUALLY (hopefully before I'm too old...) Hopefully you're pretty young now :-) > There > will be a need for a good amount of human labour in space (cheap & > adaptable, not perfect but it's been pretty economical, and it'de be > cheaper to have a person instead of a bunch of specialized gadgets) Humans will not have the slightest chance of surviving and being productive in space without that bunch of specialized gadgets. Human labor in space will not be cheap. Even if launch costs were to drop to zero, you still have to haul around and maintain a completely engineered environment. That cannot be cheap compared to terrestrial existence. Human labor costs in space will be at least ten to one thousand times as high as terrestrial labor costs (the latter figure is probably optimistic for the next several decades). Thus human labor productivity in space must reach levels far beyond any yet seen on earth. Manned space advocates must, paradoxically, engineer away the need for manual labor in space insofar as possible, if they (we) are to have a chance of establish an economically justifiable manned presence in space. Requiring space-suited human crews to assemble huge structures _by hand_ sounds like either astronautical feather-bedding or a prescription for economic collapse. Except on projects with phenomenally high payoffs. (Manual labor might always be a useful emergency resource.) Consider current trends in undersea development. Launch costs are essentially zero (just drop your ballasted submersible off a surface vessel), but the overhead required to maintain an environment for humans is driving a trend toward autonomous and tele-operated craft. Admittedly, teleoperation is simpler because the distances involved are less, but the payoff is higher when you build machines to serve people and not the other way around :-) The robotic and tele-operated technology we _must_ have to establish and maintain a manned presence is not yet mature. By supporting robust funding levels for unmanned missions, manned advocates will further their cause. By choking unmanned missions, they may well be delaying the advent of economically sound human space travel. I detect a parallel with certain threatened smokestack industries. The unions involved are caught in a dilemma. They realize they must allow labor productivity to increase for their industries to survive. In the long run, higher productivity means greater wealth and employment for everyone. In the short run, it means layoffs and dislocations. Space travel is all about taking the long view, so I thought. cheers, Dan Mocsny dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu