APOD: Space Shuttle and Space Station... (2011 Jun 08)

[BMAONE23]

I think that every probe, from this point foreward, should consist of 2 parts. The primary being an orbiter/communication transmission relay station with the capability of suface mapping, and a hardy self contained/powered rover for surface science and image production. The first probe to a new planetary body though should be 3 parts with the first part being an orbiter/communication relay for the primary planetary body, and a separate orbiter & Rover for the first moon of exploration.

[kshiarella]

Make no mistake- if I controlled the budgets of the world, I'd include manned space flight along with unmanned. But I don't, and the actual budgets are limited, and right now we simply lack the resources, or the political will to commit the resources, for anything beyond token manned space flight.

Budgets are driven by inspiration. It is easy to lose sight of that great truth in an age where humans are united in purpose by absolutely nothing and where the idea of practicality has merged with personal expediency. If the space program can't make our pills cheaper or gas less expensive then it better well be interesting!

What is ultimately doable is dependent on the level of communal inspiration. Unmanned space exploration is uninspiring to most of the world's population. The results and significance of most of the missions is expressed in an abstract language that they have no hope of understanding. The more detached the science from the general population, the less funding it will receive.

Manned missions are tangible human achievements that can be shared by not only a few of us that can understand the significance but the entire population that is expected to fit the bill. And count me as one tax payer who wishes that the government would spend more of my tax dollars on long term investments. Developing manned deep space missions would be high up there for me.

[kshiarella]

A gift that keeps on giving: http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=23914

There is also considerably less angst when things go wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia

Angst makes great drama. People are engaged by angst. I doubt you will ever see a movie made by Ron Howard about the Mars probe that smashed on the Martian surface because of a conversion error.

[alter-ego]

...
Manned missions are tangible human achievements that can be shared by not only a few of us that can understand the significance but the entire population that is expected to fit the bill. And count me as one tax payer who wishes that the government would spend more of my tax dollars on long term investments. Developing manned deep space missions would be high up there for me.

Rest assured, manned exploration will not end. It just might not happen on a time scale that satisfies you.

[Chris Peterson]

Unmanned space exploration is uninspiring to most of the world's population.

I couldn't disagree more. As someone who has been involved in unmanned missions, and as an educator who spends a lot of time discussing mission results with people of all ages, I find just the opposite. People are inspired and astounded by the data and images coming back from our unmanned probes. If they are bored and uninspired by anything, it is shuttle and ISS missions. And when I talk about going to the Moon or Mars, most people ask "why bother?"

I know [non-scientist] people who were up early to watch probes crash into comets, or to see the rovers land on Mars. Hardly anybody even bothers to watch shuttle launches, and few people have a clue what's going on with ISS missions.

A mission to Mars might be briefly inspiring, but our science missions, which offer so much more bang for the buck, are continually inspiring, year after year after year.

[owlice]

I dunno... I suspect most of the planet who could would watch a person step onto Mars for the first time; I suspect most of the planet is not checking out the latest HiRISE images. The Mercury and Apollo programs were the inspiration for my generation's interest in science; one continuing issue in education today is getting kids in the US interested in STEM technologies. In 30 years, will someone come across stacks of saved newspapers such as the ones I found in my mother's house?

[neufer]

Make no mistake- if I controlled the budgets of the world, I'd include manned space flight along with unmanned. But I don't, and the actual budgets are limited, and right now we simply lack the resources, or the political will to commit the resources, for anything beyond token manned space flight.

Budgets are driven by inspiration.

The Apollo mission was primarily driven by fear (of the U.S.S.R.).

It is easy to lose sight of that great truth in an age where humans are united in purpose by absolutely nothing and where the idea of practicality has merged with personal expediency. If the space program can't make our pills cheaper or gas less expensive then it better well be interesting! What is ultimately doable is dependent on the level of communal inspiration. Unmanned space exploration is uninspiring to most of the world's population. The results and significance of most of the missions is expressed in an abstract language that they have no hope of understanding. The more detached the science from the general population, the less funding it will receive.

Alternatively, one could spend the money on science & math education (and educators) so that there would be more interest in unmanned space exploration as well as a better chance to make our pills cheaper or gas less expensive.

Manned missions are tangible human achievements that can be shared by not only a few of us that can understand the significance but the entire population that is expected to fit the bill. And count me as one tax payer who wishes that the government would spend more of my tax dollars on long term investments. Developing manned deep space missions would be high up there for me.

The Apollo program taught us that even successful manned deep space missions are a short term investment for inspiring a generation of children about exciting future science jobs; unfortunately, those job won't be there after those kids get their degrees because such programs are unsustainable and because our pills & gas are too expensive.

I suspect most of the planet who could would watch a person step onto Mars for the first time;
I suspect most of the planet is not checking out the latest HiRISE images.

That is apples & oranges.

Not many folks bothered to watch a person step onto the Moon for the sixth time either.

[owlice]

I suspect most of the planet who could would watch a person step onto Mars for the first time;
I suspect most of the planet is not checking out the latest HiRISE images.

That is apples & oranges.

Not many folks bothered to watch a person step onto the Moon for the sixth time either.

Speaks directly to the contention that people are inspired by unmanned missions. I love the Cassini mission, and it's pretty clear I'm fond of the results returned by HiRISE, too, but though I work in an environment of highly-educated people, these unmanned missions don't come up in conversation. I'd bet not even 1% of my colleagues even know of these, and I'd bet that a far-too-high %age of K-12 science educators don't know of/don't discuss these missions in their classrooms. Can't be inspired by these missions if you don't know of them.

Mercury and Apollo, on the other hand, were front-page news. People were interested in the missions, housewives saved newspapers on these events, and I'd bet many more than 1% of my colleagues know of the Apollo missions.

I'm not arguing for or against manned missions here. I'm just pointing out that if we are talking about inspiration and being astounded, manned missions have greater play, more of an impact, on the general population.

[rstevenson]

I view our human presence in space as inspiring, yes. But I also see it as pragmatic. Having all your eggs in one basket is not a long term survival strategy. We could spend the next 1000 years putting orbiters around every rock in the solar system and sending robots to climb all over them, but if a large enough asteroid smacks the Earth, we'd be a footnote in galactic history.

But not to worry. It's obvious that near-bankrupt economies can't proceed with a manned space program. But other more powerful economies will do so, as will, to a certain extent, private enterprise. It's the survival of the human race that's important in the long run, not any particular country.

Rob

[Star*Hopper]

[quote="kshiarella"]

Budgets are driven by inspiration. It is easy to lose sight of that great truth in an age where humans are united in purpose by absolutely nothing and where the idea of practicality has merged with personal expediency. If the space program can't make our pills cheaper or gas less expensive then it better well be interesting!

What is ultimately doable is dependent on the level of communal inspiration. Unmanned space exploration is uninspiring to most of the world's population. The results and significance of most of the missions is expressed in an abstract language that they have no hope of understanding. The more detached the science from the general population, the less funding it will receive.

Manned missions are tangible human achievements that can be shared by not only a few of us that can understand the significance but the entire population that is expected to fit the bill. And count me as one tax payer who wishes that the government would spend more of my tax dollars on long term investments. Developing manned deep space missions would be high up there for me.[/quote]

Budgets are driven by inspiration? I agree.


The reality is that reality has caught up with our wallets. Fill blank with the definition of "afford": ________________

Now, when will mankind ever learn the simple lesson we can achieve so much more thru cooperation than by waging war on each other? Learn it, and take it to heart?

We need to find new inspirations.

[neufer]

I'm not arguing for or against manned missions here. I'm just pointing out that if we are talking about inspiration and being astounded, manned missions have greater play, more of an impact, on the general population.

If we are talking about inspiration and being astounded, human missions on earth
have greater play, more of an impact, on the general population.

Let's enable human missions on earth and unmanned missions in space;
that is (probably) affordable and sustainable.

[owlice]

I'm not arguing for or against manned missions here. I'm just pointing out that if we are talking about inspiration and being astounded, manned missions have greater play, more of an impact, on the general population.

If we are talking about inspiration and being astounded, human missions on earth
have greater play, more of an impact, on the general population.

Let's enable human missions on earth and unmanned missions in space;
that is (probably) affordable and sustainable.

Human missions on earth were not part of the original discussion; manned and unmanned missions in space, and which inspire more people (and how), were.

[neufer]

I'm not arguing for or against manned missions here. I'm just pointing out that if we are talking about inspiration and being astounded, manned missions have greater play, more of an impact, on the general population.

If we are talking about inspiration and being astounded, human missions on earth
have greater play, more of an impact, on the general population.

Let's enable human missions on earth and unmanned missions in space;
that is (probably) affordable and sustainable.

Human missions on earth were not part of the original discussion;
manned and unmanned missions in space, and which inspire more people (and how), were.

Which inspires the most people: manned or unmanned missions in space is irrelevant (begs the question?).

If the primary purpose of manned missions in space is to inspire people then the proper thing to compare them against are inspirational human missions on earth and the relative cost effectiveness of each.

If the primary purpose of manned missions in space is to advance knowledge then the proper thing to compare them against are unmanned missions in space (and science projects on earth) and the relative cost effectiveness of each.

[uhl]

I want to thank you for letting the EOS Networks Prototyping lab (ENPL) sponsor mirror sites of the Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD) and Earth Observatory (EO) web pages for World IPv6 Day on June 8, 2011. Going into this we had no idea what would happen. The outcome could have ranged from a mere trickle of interest to normal levels of IPv6 activity to large-scale denial-of-service attacks. Fortunately, we had no network or system failures and we were able to provide service during the entire 24 hour period. Those of us who provided NASA web sites for the event were told to support them in dual-stack mode, that is, to make content available using IPv6 as well as IPv4. We logged every access attempt to the ENPL World IPv6 Day webserver including each user’s IPv4 or IPv6 address. We used Google Analytics to provide additional feedback of usage and the distribution of page visits across the two mirror sites. A quick summary of the results follows:

Total user connections to the ENPL webserver: 59,667
Total IPv6 user connections to the ENPL websever: 34,501
Total IPv4 user connections to the ENPL webserver: 25,166

Total unique IPv6 source addresses: 234
Total unique IPv4 source addresses: 1690

Three IPv6 users accounted for 19.6% of the total IPv6 access attempts.
Two IPv4 users accounted for 18.25% of the total IPv4 access attempts.


The Google Analytics results fall way short of the counts from the ENPL traffic logs. However, this discrepancy can be easily accounted for. Google Analytics requires javascript in order to do accounting. If a browser did not have javascript enabled then the the access would not be counted by Google but even more revealing is that if the user merely ran a script that connected to port 80 successfully, via telent for example, then Google Analytics didn’t count them either. Given the distribution of hits across the total number of user addresses for each protocol, it’s readily apparent that users had set up scripts to hit the World IPv6 web sites. I have an overwhelming hunch that the event sponsor, The Internet Society (http://www.isoc.org), did just that. See http://www.worldipv6day.org/participant ... index.html for more information.

From a network perspective, and World IPv6 Day was very much about globaI IPv6 reachability , it didn’t matter that much if the source of the IPv6 connection attempt was automated or mouse-driven. The internet was able to operate quite easily in dual stack mode with 99% of the World IPv6 Day participants web sites reachable using IPv4, 92% reachable using IPv6, and 94% had resolvable AAAA DNS records (the IPv6 name-to-address mapping record). This is very good news for the internet as the migration to IPv6 continues.

From the perspective of counting mouse-clicking users behind their browsers, the ENPL results aren’t so awe inspiring. Yet there is useful data to be gleaned about IPv6 availability to the end user, if the user is IPv6-enabled, and if the required IPv6 network services are available for the user to make seamless end-to-end IPv6 connections. There remains quite a bit of Google data that needs to be analyzed and it’s more complex than simple counts and percentages so I can only provide a very quick summary of the Google Analytics results (taken with a grain of salt as the Google data is somewhat confusing):

Total Visits
APOD – 1899
EO – 326

Total Protocol Events
APOD – 6434
EO – 84

Without more analysis It’s not clear to me how many visits were from IPv6-only clients, IPv4-only clients, or a dual-stacked clients.

Over 70 countries had at least one successful access attempt. About 53% came from the US, 7% from Canada, Mexico and South America, 30% from Europe, 5% from Asia, and the remaining 5% from Oceana, Africa and places unknown.

We appreciate your interest and support of this global event and we will be publishing a more detailed report of the event in the near future.


Thanks,
George

-------------------------
George Uhl
ESDSIS Network Engineer
Code 423
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, MD 20771
Phone: 301-614-5155
Fax: 301-614-5700
email: george.d.uhl@nasa.gov
-------------------------

[owlice]

Yay, George! Thanks for letting us know!

neufer, I was responding to what others were talking about, not what you thought should be under discussion (not that there's anything wrong with the discussion you want to have; it's just not the one I was engaging in).

[neufer]

neufer, I was responding to what others were talking about, not what you thought should be under discussion (not that there's anything wrong with the discussion you want to have; it's just not the one I was engaging in).

But when are we to get around to discussing the value of women in space

[kshiarella]

Unmanned space exploration is uninspiring to most of the world's population.

I couldn't disagree more. As someone who has been involved in unmanned missions, and as an educator who spends a lot of time discussing mission results with people of all ages, I find just the opposite. People are inspired and astounded by the data and images coming back from our unmanned probes. If they are bored and uninspired by anything, it is shuttle and ISS missions. And when I talk about going to the Moon or Mars, most people ask "why bother?"

May I ask whether your students are truly representative of the population at large?

And the "why bother?" argument doesn't hold water. That is a slippery slope because we can ask "why bother?" for any of this stuff that we love so much! Why bother with Voyager, why bother with Cassini? Why waste money on a back yard telesope or even Hubble? To get some kewl photographs? Why do we need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to understand the atmosphere of Saturn?

The answer to the "why bother?" question is the same for the unmanned missions as it is for the manned ones: because it is in our nature to explore. It is an intrinsic, hard-wired part of what makes us "us."

Cynicism strikes on all levels. People tend to perceive what they love and what they are doing as highly worthwhile while dismissing the passions and endeavors of their neighbors. But the fine point of the matter is that space exploration requires the participation and interest of all of our neighbors, and not just the scientifically oriented and mathematically gifted. The science has to be socially and culturally justified to rally our neighbors around what you do. That is why it is so disappointing to read scientists from the unmanned side dismissing the value of the work from the manned side. That kind of politicized pettiness undermines both sides in the eyes of the public.

[Chris Peterson]

May I ask whether your students are truly representative of the population at large?

Hard to say. I work with kids from elementary through high school, both in schools and at a major museum, and I'd have to say that they are very uninterested in our manned space history. They seem largely uninterested in the Apollo program, and the images and videos produced. They are even less interested in what goes on with the ISS. Many of them, however, get interested in the images returned of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Many are interested in images and information about comets and asteroids. Many think the New Horizons trip to Pluto is pretty cool.

I was very into the early space program as a kid, closely following the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions. But that's what got most of the media attention (it was much harder then to get good information about unmanned missions). And I think a big part of the fascination with the space program back then was connected to cold war psychology, as well- not just some sort of "new frontiers" ideal. Kids these days see things very differently, and get excited over different things. People have even shorter attention spans now than back then- and even then, most people stopped paying attention to the last few Apollo missions. Honestly, these days, I don't think all that many people, of any age, are going to get very fired up over another Moon mission, or even a Mars mission.

And the "why bother?" argument doesn't hold water. That is a slippery slope because we can ask "why bother?" for any of this stuff that we love so much! Why bother with Voyager, why bother with Cassini? Why waste money on a back yard telesope or even Hubble? To get some kewl photographs? Why do we need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to understand the atmosphere of Saturn?

Please note that I did not say why bother. I said that people I talk to have that attitude about Moon or Mars missions. That said, however, it's a valid question. "Why bother?" is just a shorthand way of asking if the benefits of something outweigh the costs. Certainly my own opinion is that we should not be investing in manned missions to the Moon, Mars, or asteroids. I base that on the simple fact that I can see almost no scientific value to such missions, only minimal social value, and a significant loss to unmanned missions competing for the same funds.

The answer to the "why bother?" question is the same for the unmanned missions as it is for the manned ones: because it is in our nature to explore. It is an intrinsic, hard-wired part of what makes us "us."

Our need to explore seems well served by unmanned probes. We will almost certainly never leave the Solar System. With enough time, we may find reasons to send people to other places withing the Solar System... but that time is not now, and I don't see much evidence that people are desperately seeking out new frontiers to physically explore.

The science has to be socially and culturally justified to rally our neighbors around what you do. That is why it is so disappointing to read scientists from the unmanned side dismissing the value of the work from the manned side. That kind of politicized pettiness undermines both sides in the eyes of the public.

There is nothing political about it. The viewpoint stems from the well considered analysis that manned exploration currently has little to offer, and comes at a great cost.

[BMAONE23]

Chris,
I think it is the NOW factor to a great extent. Kids today aren't that interested in the achievements of the past (which were the basis of, and have been built upon for the achievements of today) like Sputnik Project Mercury and TheApollo space programs because these were before their time. I think that we, as people, tend to develop an emotional attachment to the Space Program De-Jour, that which happens during our lifetime because we get to experience it. Those like you and I, who have been around long enough, appreciate the beginnings of the program through today. Kids today though only know the Mars Rovers, Cassini, cometary missions and the end of the Shuttle era.

[owlice]

Kids today though only know the Mars Rovers, Cassini, cometary missions and the end of the Shuttle era.

Only some kids, and I'd bet by percentage, far fewer of them than knew of the Gemini, Mercury, and Apollo missions. If my 17-year-old knows Cassini, I'll be surprised. (I'll ask him this evening whether he does.) I doubt he knows any cometary mission, and he probably doesn't know the last Shuttle will be launching soon. And he spent two years in a science and tech high school program! (Left early to attend college, which is why he was there only two years.) Hmmm... I wonder how many of the teachers in that school know of these missions. That might make a splendid study.

[neufer]

There were probably a lot of Europeans who thought the idea of travel and settlement of the New World was a waste of money and full of foolhearty risk.

There were probably a lot of Europeans who thought the idea of travel to the New World would be a complete waste of money full of foolhardy risk unless they had someone there to plant a national flag in the ground and claim sovereignty before other countries did.

I suspect that a majority of Americans think that travel to Mars would be a complete waste of money full of foolhardy risk unless they had some warm bodies there to plant an American flag in the ground (and claim a sort of sovereignty) before the Russians or Chinese did. Manned missions are as much about romanticizing earlier days of colonization as they are about romanticizing earlier days of exploration.

[EArHog]

I'm ignorant, uninformed, unlearned, and that's probably why I can not see what scientific purpose, benefit, good the ISS provides. All I see when I look at that (admittedly compelling) photo is "boondoggle".

I've heard the 'arguments' that ISS allows scientists to conduct experiments in microgravity. And high school students can send up paper cups with fruit flies bouncing around. To what end? What has come of those microgravity experiments, beyond semi-scientific techno masterbation?

The reason for my pique with our ISS program is the money could be better spent on more scientifically productive robotic/unmanned space missions. I will be very suprised if it can be shown how ISS comes close to matching the accomplishments of just one of the unmanned missions like Cassini, or the Mars rovers, or HST. If a bundle of the more successful unmanned/robotic missions was collected sufficient in number to equal the cost of the ISS program, I believe that the collective benefit of those unmanned missions would far exceed anything ISS can ever hope to offer. Would it be unreasonable to expect that one or two new sophisticated weather satelites would provide more benefit than ISS?

So, is there a list of the scientific accomplishments that ISS claims?

[owlice]

So, is there a list of the scientific accomplishments that ISS claims?

What did you find when you Googled "benefits international space station"?

[neufer]

I've heard the 'arguments' that ISS allows scientists to conduct experiments in microgravity.
And high school students can send up paper cups with fruit flies bouncing around. To what end?

Astronaut Marsha Ivins demonstrates the effect
of weightlessness on long hair during STS-98

<<The most common problem experienced by humans in the initial hours of weightlessness is known as space adaptation syndrome or SAS, commonly referred to as space sickness. Symptoms of SAS include nausea and vomiting, vertigo, headaches, lethargy, and overall malaise. The first case of SAS was reported by cosmonaut Gherman Titov in 1961. Since then, roughly 45% of all people who have flown in space have suffered from this condition. The duration of space sickness varies, but in no case has it lasted for more than 72 hours, after which the body adjusts to the new environment. NASA jokingly measures SAS using the "Garn scale", named for United States Senator Jake Garn, whose SAS during STS-51-D was the worst on record. Accordingly, one "Garn" is equivalent to the most severe possible case of SAS.

The most significant adverse effects of long-term weightlessness are muscle atrophy and deterioration of the skeleton, or spaceflight osteopenia. These effects can be minimized through a regimen of exercise. Astronauts subject to long periods of weightlessness wear pants with elastic bands attached between waistband and cuffs to compress the leg bones and reduce osteopenia. Other significant effects include fluid redistribution (causing the "moon-face" appearance typical of pictures of astronauts in weightlessness), a slowing of the cardiovascular system, decreased production of red blood cells, balance disorders, and a weakening of the immune system. Lesser symptoms include loss of body mass, nasal congestion, sleep disturbance, excess flatulence, and puffiness of the face. These effects begin to reverse quickly upon return to the Earth.

Russian scientists have observed differences between cockroaches conceived in space and their terrestrial counterparts. The space-conceived cockroaches grew more quickly, and also grew up to be faster and tougher.

Fowl eggs which are fertilized in microgravity may not develop properly.>>

[alter-ego]

Oh, but the memories...

Jules Bergman

Bergman-a11.jpg (34.86 KiB) Viewed 1783 times