Re: Challenger

On 12/06/2024 06:17, Bill Sloman wrote:

On 12/06/2024 2:11 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:

Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

Rocket launches and landings are intrinsically dangerous. On this I am
inclined to agree with JL - unless and until we find something that our
robotic and AI kit cannot do we shouldn't be sending people into space.
>
It was the *only* way to explore the moon back in 1969 but not any more...

>
Read the book if you have the chance.
>
Space exploration has little value outside its cultural impact.

 And this will continue to be true until we find something interesting. The nature of exploration is that we don't know what we will find until we find it.

OTOH we are much better equipped at remote sensing than they were. Our robotics have now reached the point where they can do almost everything that a man can do and they don't need feeding and air whilst in transit. They also have multispectral imaging beyond what a human eye can see. The vacuum of space is an incredibly hostile environment humans are far too fragile to survive for long without a lot of support.
Sending humans to explore any of the interesting places in our solar system is doomed to failure. At best it will be a "Big Brother" reality TV show with real teeth. John you have been voted out of the spacecraft: the airlock is over there. You are the weakest link - goodbye.
At worst we would contaminate a pristine unique independently evolved biological environment with terrestrial micro organisms that hitch a ride with us. A bit like introducing rats or hedgehogs onto remote islands full of creatures that are unable to deal with such threats.

Residents of Australian find it perfectly sensible that people kept poking around the Pacific until Cooke found Australia and mapped enough of it to suggests that it might be worth establishing a colony there.
 Most the residents of North America with European ancestry would think much the same about Columbus and his daft misconceptions about the size of the earth, if they thought about the matter at all.

There isn't anywhere remotely habitable that we can see within striking distance at the moment. North pole of the moon might be OK for a small lunar research base in the same way as we have in Antarctica and the far side of the moon would be a nice radio quiet spot for radio telescopes to use frequencies that are impossible from the Earth. That is about it.
Going to Mars with current technologies will merely result in the deaths of the astronauts that we send. NASA doesn't deliberately set out to do one way suicide missions (unlike some vocal proponents of manned Mars exploration).
The main purpose of the ISS was to distract redundant Russian rocket scientists away from ICBM design (and I suppose it worked for a while).
Most of the "research" done on that low gravity platform wouldn't pass muster at a high school science fair. It has fostered international co-operation though - especially during the period where the US had to rely on Russian space vehicles for transit to and from the ISS.
--
Martin Brown