Robotic Exploration

Document Sample
Robotic Exploration Powered By Docstoc
					Stephen Hawking: The Future of Space -Manned vs Robotic Missions? (A Weekend Feature)

 "Robotic missions are much cheaper and may provide more scientific information, but they don't catch
the public imagination in the same way, and they don't spread the human race into space, which I'm
arguing should be our long-term strategy. If the human race is to continue for another million years, we
will have to boldly go where no one has gone before."

Stephen Hawking, Cambridge University

Will unmanned robotic missions be able to detect weird microscopic life-forms they are not
programmed to recognize that might be lurking below the surface of Saturn's Titan, or beneath the
murky seas of Jupiter's jumbo moon, Europa?
Ads by Google

What is Quantum Jumping?

Discover Why Thousands of People are "Jumping" to Change Their Life

The answer to this question is at the core of one of the greatest of the ongoing debates in space
exploration: the question of man vs. unmanned robotic missions.

NASA currently operates more than 50 robotic spacecraft that are studying Earth and reaching
throughout the solar system, from Mercury to Pluto and beyond. Another 40 unmanned NASA missions
are in development, and space agencies in Europe, Russia, Japan, India and China are running or building
their own robotic craft.

What is not commonly known however is that many of NASA's leading scientists also champion human
exploration as a worthy goal in its own right and as a critically important part of space science in the
21st century. The Obama administration's new NASA strategy that strongly favors robotic exploration,
has opened the debate anew.

Recently, the President announced that he plans to cancel the Constellation program which was
designed as our next step in the human flight area, focusing on a return to the moon. His goal is to move
NASA away from its current role as a space transportation provider and allow it to again become a
research and development organization. This will leave NASA without the capability to send humans to
"Tomorrow’s NASA space program will be different," says Wallace Fowler of the University of Texas, a
renowned expert in modeling and design of spacecraft, and planetary exploration systems. "Human
space flight beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO), beyond Earth’s natural radiation shields (the Van Allen belts),
is dangerous. Currently, a human being outside the Van Allen belts could receive the NASA defined
“lifetime dose” of galactic cosmic radiation within 200 days. If the Sun spews out a coronal jet of
radiation in a solar storm in the direction of the spacecraft, a lethal dose can be received in a few hours.
Mars does not have the equivalent of the shielding Van Allen belts, so a Mars base would also need
shielding. Until we develop appropriate shielding, probably an intense magnetic field around the
spacecraft, human travel, even to the moon, will likely be limited."

"Robotic missions, in the short term, will be limited to the inner solar system," continues Fowler aruing
the hard realities of manned space travel. "In the inner solar system (within the orbit of Mars), the solar
cells can be used to power spacecraft. Beyond Mars, spacecraft power systems rely on radioactive
means to create electricity, and we do not currently have a supply source for the needed material. There
is a very short supply of Plutonium 238, the radioactive element used to provide electricity for
spacecraft going to Jupiter and beyond. We have exhausted the U.S. supply and have been buying it
from the Russians. Now they are in short supply and other sources are not currently available."

In a past issue of Scientific American Jim Bell, an astronomer and planetary scientist at Cornell
University, and author of “Postcards from Mars,” notes that “…you might think that researchers like me
who are involved in robotic space exploration would dismiss astronaut missions as costly and

But he then he goes on, “Although astronaut missions are much more expensive and risky than robotic
craft, they are absolutely critical to the success of our exploration program."

The heart of the debate is this: robotic machines will only do what they are programmed to do; they are
not programmed to detect weirdness: the unimaginable, the unknown, the strange non-carbon life that
we may have encountered on Mars, for example with the two Viking vehicles, in 1976. Each carried
equipment for sampling the Martian soil and miniature chemistry laboratories to test the samples for
signs of life.The results these automated labs radioed back to Earth were enigmatic: the chemical
reactions from the Martian soil were strange, unlike anything seen on Earth. But they were also unlike
any reactions that living organisms would produce.
Ben Bova, the science-fiction author of Titan and The Aftermath, his most recent novels in is his ongoing
series about the expansion of the human race throughout the Solar System, points out in an interview
that most scientists examining the Viking results, reluctantly concluded that was lifeless: "But the fact is
that the landers were equipped only to detect signs of Earth-type life. The chemical reactions observed
could have been the results of Martian life. They certainly were not ordinary inorganic chemistry."

The debate over the meaning of the Viking results, Bova concludes, is still unsettled, more than 30 years
later. But a human biologist or biochemist could have learned a lot more and settled the matter, one
way or the other, within a few hours.

What are we looking for, exactly, when we search for alien life? That's the cosmic question pondered in
the report from the National Research Council, The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems. For more
than five years, a committee of scientists tried to imagine what life-as-we-don't-know-it might be like.
Their conclusion: Life may exist in non-carbon forms completely unlike anything we see on Earth.

The human vs.machine debate is a false construct: robotic unmanned spacecraft are directed by human
beings on Earth. Unless disabled by fierce sandstorms, our rovers are in constant realtime
communication with their masters at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, as will the New Horizons spacecraft
now heading for Pluto with human monitors watching over it.

Stephen Hawking, world-celebrated expert on the cosmological theories of gravity and black holes who
holds Issac Newton's Lucasian Chair at Cambridge University, has strong views on the future of the
human species and space trael. At last year's 50th anniversary for NASA. Hawking proposed that the
world should devote about 10 times as much as NASA's current budget – or 0.25% of the world's
financial resources – to space exploration. Hawking backed the space agency's goals of returning
astronauts to the Moon by 2020 and sending humans to Mars shortly after that.

The Moon is a good place to start because it is "close by and relatively easy to reach", Hawking said.
"The Moon could be a base for travel to the rest of the solar system," he added. would be "the obvious
next target", with its abundant supplies of frozen water, and the intriguing possibility that life may have
been present there in the past.
"A goal of a base on the Moon by 2020 and of a manned landing on Mars by 2025 would reignite the
space program and give it a sense of purpose in the same way that President Kennedy's Moon target did
in the 1960s," he said.

Hawking said that any long-term site for a human base should have a significant gravity field, because
long missions in microgravity lead to health issues such as bone loss.

Hawking favors human space exploration, rather than just sending robots to explore space, a position
taken by Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, among others.

Eventually, Hawking said, humanity should try to expand to Earth-like planets around other stars. If only
1% of the 1000 or so stars within 30 light years of Earth has an Earth-size planet at the right distance
from its star for liquid water to exist, that would make for 10 such planets in our solar system's
neighbourhood, he said.

"We cannot envision visiting them with current technology, but we should make interstellar travel a
long-term aim," he said. "By long term, I mean over the next 200 to 500 years." Humanity can afford to
battle earthly problems like climate change and still have plenty of resources left over for colonizing
space, he said.

"Even if we were to increase the international [space exploration] budget 20 times to make a serious
effort to go into space, it would only be a small fraction of world GDP," he said. GDP, or Gross Domestic
Product, is a measure of a country's economic activity.

Hawking believes that traveling into space is the only way humans will be able to survive in the long-
term. "Life on Earth," Hawking has said, "is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster
such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers ... I think
the human race has no future if it doesn't go into space."

Another of his famous quotes reiterates his position that we need to get off the planet relatively soon. "I
don't think the human race will survive the next 1,000 years unless we spread into space."
The problems with Hawking’s solution is that while it may save a “seed” of human life- a few lucky
specimens- it won’t save Earth’s inhabitants. The majority of Earthlings would surely be left behind on a
planet increasingly unfit for life.

Hawking argued that the world can afford 0.25% of its collective GDP to devote to space colonization.
"Isn't our future worth a quarter of a percent?" he asked. The physicist also speculated on the reasons
that SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) projects have not yet detected any alien civilizations,
offering three possibilities: that life of any kind is very rare in the universe; that simple life forms are
common, but intelligent life rare; or that intelligent life tends to quickly destroy itself.

"Personally, I favour the second possibility – that primitive life is relatively common, but that intelligent
life is very rare," he said. "Some would say it has yet to occur on Earth."

About our new NASA space strategy, Robert Bishop, a specialist in the area of planetary exploration with
emphasis on spacecraft guidance, navigation and control currently working with NASA Johnson Space
Center and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory on techniques for achieving precision landing on Mars argues

"In most ways, humans are now more sophisticated than those that came before us. Unlike the early
earth-bound explorers, we are capable of leaving the cradle of civilization and living in space. Yet, 50
years after the launch of Sputnik and the start of the Space Age, we seem to be interminably stuck going
in circles around the Earth. Indeed, the second brightest object in our night sky — the International
Space Station — has been traveling in a near-circular orbit for years. Why is America so timid? Where is
our spirit to explore and create new opportunities?"

Posted by Casey Kazan with Rebecca Sato, adapted from NASA materials.


Posted by Casey Kazan.

Related Galaxy Links:

Robot Evolution

Space Colonization -Our Future or Fantasy?

Shared By: