🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <IXvVuBy00WB_43mYsp@andrew.cmu.edu>, 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