Peer Reviewed Journal on History of Space Exploration

Painting courtesy Robert Murray

Painting courtesy Robert Murray

Despite the tragedy of the Columbia blow in February 2003, and the resulting hiatus in construction of the International Space Station, the prospects for human space exploration are in many means brighter than at whatsoever time since the Apollo programme in the late 1960s. In January 2004 President Bush-league announced a new Vision for Space Exploration, which has refocused NASA'south objectives towards human missions to the Moon and Mars, and the European Space Agency's Aurora plan has established similar objectives for Europe.

At some phase the UK volition take to determine whether, and to what extent, to participate in these exciting endeavours. It is clearly important that the scientific issues are carefully examined, which was the chief motivation for this coming together. In addition, the RAS has decided to establish an independent commission, nether the chairmanship of Prof. Frank Close, to examine the scientific arguments for and against human spaceflight (see "Human being spaceflight review" p1.7). The members of the review commission were present at the coming together, which may therefore exist seen as marking the beginning of the evidence gathering phase of the committee's work.

While the subject of human space exploration is controversial in the Uk, with many scientists assertive that the resource would be ameliorate invested in robotic missions, it tin be argued that human beings are uniquely qualified to undertake key scientific investigations in the space environs. These range from life and physical sciences research in microgravity, to geological and biological fieldwork on planetary surfaces. The meeting covered all these areas, providing a valuable interdisciplinary overview of the scientific example for homo infinite exploration. Many of the talks also addressed some of the wider societal issues that ascend in the context of homo infinite activities.

Space life sciences

The beginning talk was given by Kevin Fong (lecturer in physiology and Director of the Centre for Aviation, Space and Farthermost Environment Medicine, at UCL), who reviewed the Great britain's position on human spaceflight from a life-sciences perspective. He argued that the study of human physiology in the space environs provides unique insights into whole-body physiology, and in such areas as os physiology and neurovestibular and cardiovascular role. These areas are important for agreement various terrestrial disease processes (eastward.g. osteoporosis, muscle atrophy, cardiac impairment, and balance and co-ordination defects). Moreover, research in space physiology provides a stimulus for the development of innovative medical technology, much of which is directly applicable to terrestrial medicine. Unfortunately, nowadays UK government policy with regard to homo spaceflight means that the UK infinite life sciences community is effectively excluded from participating in research in these areas. Dr Fong further argued that human spaceflight is of educational value in inspiring the younger generation to take an interest in scientific discipline and applied science, and pointed out that the independent Microgravity Review Panel, which reported in 2003, had come to the same conclusion. Indeed, the Microgravity Review Panel had recommended that the United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland participate in ESA's Space Station Utilisation Programme (ELIPS), but the government has so far failed to act on this advice.

The second talk was given by Bernhard Hufenbach (ESA Directorate of Human Spaceflight, Microgravity and Exploration) who reviewed the by achievements and hereafter opportunities of homo spaceflight from a European perspective. Europe started to invest in human spaceflight in the early 1970s with the development of Spacelab, a versatile scientific laboratory launched with the US Space Shuttle. Between 1983 and 1998, 23 Spacelab missions were implemented, with European scientists involved in more than half of them. In 1994–95 there were ii European astronaut missions to the Russian Mir Station, lasting 31 and 179 days, respectively. Then in 1998 Europe joined the International Space Station (ISS) Programme and is today a major contributor to the development and user of the ISS infrastructure. While past investments in human spaceflight were largely political driven, clear scientific achievements and benefits can already be identified, particularly in infinite life sciences (including human physiology and medicine), fluid and materials science, and fundamental physics. Today, Europe invests most €700 meg annually in human being spaceflight and related research activities, and is in the procedure of defining its hereafter contribution to international infinite exploration in a manner that combines the skills and capabilities of automated and human missions.

Humans vs robots

After the coffee break, Paul Spudis (Practical Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins Academy, and Presidential Commission on the Implementation of US Space Exploration Policy) outlined the new United states of america vision for the homo exploration of the Moon and Mars. He explained that this differs from before — failed — visions in that it is supported politically at the highest levels of the U.s. administration, and that it will adopt an affordable pace-past-step arroyo that does not assume unsustainable increases in NASA's budget. A central aspect of this strategy will exist to appraise the extent to which extraterrestrial resources, for example lunar polar ice deposits, can be used to support exploration activities, thereby reducing launch costs from Globe. Dr Spudis went on to outline the scientific importance of the Moon as a natural laboratory for planetary science, a site for future astronomical instruments, and as a potential source of energy and raw materials. He argued that human adaptability and versatility, particularly as field scientists and engineers, means that a homo presence will be required to maximize these benefits. Dr Spudis as well argued that learning to live and operate on the Moon volition be the all-time possible proving basis for eventual human and robotic operations further afield.

Dr Spudis was followed by Jim Garvin (NASA Chief Scientist) who argued that human-based exploration of the Moon and Mars will profoundly accelerate the pace of scientific discovery relative to what can be achieved robotically. Humans bring speed, agility, versatility and intelligence to exploration in a style that robots cannot. Although the Mars Exploration Rovers (MER) Spirit and Opportunity are doing a fantastic job on Mars, in that location can be no doubt that humans would have achieved far more, and done so much more quickly. For example, Spirit traversed a full altitude of 3.9 km in its first 330 days on Mars, which may be compared with the full of 36 km traversed by the Apollo 17 astronauts in just 22 hours of EVA activeness on the Moon in 1972. Moreover, many of the scientifically most interesting localities on Mars (such equally scarps at the border of the polar ice deposits, and the floors and walls of outflow channels) are characterized by steep slopes and rugged terrain that robots cannot hands explore. Information technology is at just such locations where the versatility and feel of human explorers will come into their ain. Dr Garvin made the further ascertainment that human exploration may actually exist less expensive than comparable robotic missions. For example, the MER missions cost approximately $one bn, whereas a human mission to Mars might cost $100 bn. Withal, if human exploration can be shown to be more than than a hundred times equally capable and efficient, then its cost "per discovery" volition be less — and some discoveries may exist impossible using robots anyway.

The first talk subsequently lunch was past Charles Cockell (British Antarctic Survey) who discussed the advantages of human over robotic exploration in searching for testify of life on Mars. Dr Cockell began with the ascertainment that the "robots versus humans" debate overlooks the fact that there is a sense in which humans are the most complicated and versatile robots to which we will e'er accept access. Although it is true that humans will face up many dangers and obstacles operating on other planets, mostly due to their physiological limitations when compared to robots, the potential scientific returns (resulting from rapid sample acquisition, the ability to integrate widely disparate data and past feel into a coherent motion-picture show, and the on-the-spot ability to recognize observations to be of importance even if they relate to phenomena not anticipated in accelerate) is more than sufficient to justify employing astronauts as field scientists on other planets. Moreover, as stressed by other speakers, the unique power of homo beings to appoint with other human beings volition profoundly enhance the educational and cultural benefits of planetary exploration.

The side by side talk was past Bernard Foing (Chief Scientist of the ESA Science Programme and Director of the International Lunar Exploration Working Grouping) who presented a rationale and roadmap for Moon-Mars exploration. The key scientific rationales for Moon and Mars exploration include the formation and evolution of rocky planets, accretion and bombardment in the inner solar organisation, comparative planetology and astrobiology. Planetary exploration volition begin with robotic precursors, but atomic number 82 on to human exploration. Dr Foing identified three top-level imperatives that will drive this process forward: the "cultural imperative" to explore our surroundings, the "scientific imperative" to understand what we find, and the "political imperative" to try to unify humanity through global endeavours of mutual accomplishment and challenging enterprise. He stressed that, rather than fixing any particular destination, the nearly important matter is to establish a process of exploration that will "describe us out into the solar system".

The final talk was given past Ian Crawford (UCL and Birkbeck Higher) on an integrated scientific and social case for homo space exploration. He argued that an ambitious human spaceflight programme stands to raise human knowledge across several fields simultaneously. In the example of lunar exploration, he stressed the unique potential of the Moon as an annal of early on solar system history, and the probable requirement for human field-geologists in lodge to admission it. However, other disciplines would as well benefit from a return to the Moon, and simplistic "cost benefit analyses" from the point of view of any single discipline are meaningless in isolation. This is because the same "costs" (say of establishing a lunar base) may confer simultaneous "benefits" in areas as diverse equally lunar geology, observational astronomy, materials science, biological science and human physiology, and medicine. Moreover, science is only one thread in the much larger overall case for human spaceflight. Other threads include the economical (east.g. enhanced employment in key industries, and the resulting positive multiplier result on the wider economy); the industrial (e.g. the development of new skills and technologies likely to have wider applications); the educational (e.g. the inspiration of immature people into scientific discipline and engineering); the political (especially the encouragement of international cooperation); and the cultural (i.e. the general enrichment of our world view from an expansion of human horizons). Any responsibly formulated public infinite policy must accept a holistic view, and weigh all of these factors before deciding whether or not an investment in human space exploration is worthwhile.

Decision

There was unanimity amid the contributors that homo spaceflight has the potential to advance human knowledge on several fronts simultaneously. The space life sciences, and especially human physiology and medicine, require people in space because people form the experimental subjects for this research. At the same fourth dimension, the fields of planetary geology and astrobiology stand up to benefit enormously from the versatility of human beings working as field scientists on the Moon and Mars. Crucially, the latter activities will rely on the former — field geology requires agile, healthy people operating on planetary surfaces, which means that the effects of the infinite environment on human physiology must be fully understood and appropriate countermeasures devised. As Paul Spudis pointed out in his talk, science both enables, and is enabled by, human space exploration.

Further data

It is intended that the proceedings of this meeting will be published in a special issue of the periodical Earth, Moon and Planets. In the concurrently, the abstracts of the talks, poster contributions, and the speakers' presentations (as PDFs of the original PowerPoint slides), are available at: http://www.star.ucl.air-conditioning.uk/~iac/RAS_space_meeting.html.

Author notes

Ian Crawford and Charles Cockell report on a wide-ranging RAS Word Meeting putting the wide scientific example for people in infinite, at the Linnean Society on x December 2004.

hathawayagaingly.blogspot.com

Source: https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/46/1/1.17/253107

Share this post