3 ms·

As cool as manned exploration is, it's hard to see what real benefit it brings besides that a lucky few get to experience space firsthand. Not worth the hundred

As cool as manned exploration is, it's hard to see what real benefit it brings besides that a lucky few get to experience space firsthand. Not worth the hundreds of millions of dollars it costs.

ryanwaggoner 17y ago
Ah, if only it was hundreds of millions :)
derefr 17y ago
I believe there's a direct correlation between the number of new objects NASA has filmed astronauts landing on, and the number of people wishing to go into the astronomical sciences and the aerospace industry.
- rflrob 17y ago
  I think you're on the right track, but replace "astronomical sciences" with "science", and I think it's more accurate. Of every 100 third graders who wanted to become a scientist because of something cool NASA did, I'd guess you get 10 who become scientists, maybe another 15 engineers, but maybe only one of those 25 will have something to do with space. The rest are doing cool things that have nothing to do with space, but they got started on that path because of it.
  - jordanb 17y ago
    I agree that NASA is a huge engine for interest in science, but I don't think that's exclusive to the manned program. Spirit and Opportunity, for instance, are probes to which the public have made an emotional connection. Certainly the manned space program gets people excited, but pictures of Jupiter and Saturn do too, and the manned program could never have given us those. I think that the enthusiasm lost by ending the manned program could be more than compensated for by connecting the public with the exciting things that are discovered by the robotic program.
- po 17y ago
  Despair not… Spirit, Opportunity and Phoenix have inspired countless students as well.
  - azgolfer 17y ago
    Yeah, for a measly hundred billion we can get some more astronomers. Great ! It's the geniuses that do most of the science and I think they tend to gravitate there anyway. I'm reminded of Feynman's comments on the field of gravity, back in the 60's even before grade inflation and a huge increase in the number of Phds ----------------------------------------------------------- I am learning nothing. Because there are no experiments this field is not an active one, so few of the best men are doing work in it. The result is that there are hosts of dopes here (126) and it is not good for my blood pressure: such inane things are said and seriously discussed here that I get into arguments outside the formal sessions (say, at lunch) whenever anyone asks me a question or starts to tell me about his "work". The "work" is always: (1) completely un-understandable, (2) vague and indefinite, (3) something correct that is obvious and self evident, but a worked out by a long and difficult analysis, and presented as an important discovery, or, a (4) claim based on the stupidity of the author that some obvious and correct fact, accepted and checked for years, is, in fact, false (these are the worst: no argument will convince the idiot), (5) an attempt to do something probably impossible, but certainly of no utility, which it is finally revealed at the end, fails (dessert arrives and is eaten), or (6) just plain wrong. There is great deal of "activity in the field" these days, but this "activity" is mainly in showing that the previous "activity" of somebody else resulted in an error or in nothing useful or in nothing promising. It is like a lot of worms trying to get out of a bottle by crawling all over each other. It is not that the subject is hard; it is that the good men are occupied elsewhere. Remind me not to come to any more gravity conferences! ------------------------------------------------------------

As cool as manned exploration is, it's hard to see what real benefit it brings besides that a lucky few get to experience space firsthand. Not worth the hundreds of millions of dollars it costs.

ryanwaggoner 17y ago

Ah, if only it was hundreds of millions :)

derefr 17y ago

I believe there's a direct correlation between the number of new objects NASA has filmed astronauts landing on, and the number of people wishing to go into the astronomical sciences and the aerospace industry.

rflrob 17y ago
I think you're on the right track, but replace "astronomical sciences" with "science", and I think it's more accurate. Of every 100 third graders who wanted to become a scientist because of something cool NASA did, I'd guess you get 10 who become scientists, maybe another 15 engineers, but maybe only one of those 25 will have something to do with space. The rest are doing cool things that have nothing to do with space, but they got started on that path because of it.
- jordanb 17y ago
  I agree that NASA is a huge engine for interest in science, but I don't think that's exclusive to the manned program. Spirit and Opportunity, for instance, are probes to which the public have made an emotional connection. Certainly the manned space program gets people excited, but pictures of Jupiter and Saturn do too, and the manned program could never have given us those. I think that the enthusiasm lost by ending the manned program could be more than compensated for by connecting the public with the exciting things that are discovered by the robotic program.
po 17y ago
Despair not… Spirit, Opportunity and Phoenix have inspired countless students as well.
- azgolfer 17y ago
  Yeah, for a measly hundred billion we can get some more astronomers. Great ! It's the geniuses that do most of the science and I think they tend to gravitate there anyway. I'm reminded of Feynman's comments on the field of gravity, back in the 60's even before grade inflation and a huge increase in the number of Phds ----------------------------------------------------------- I am learning nothing. Because there are no experiments this field is not an active one, so few of the best men are doing work in it. The result is that there are hosts of dopes here (126) and it is not good for my blood pressure: such inane things are said and seriously discussed here that I get into arguments outside the formal sessions (say, at lunch) whenever anyone asks me a question or starts to tell me about his "work". The "work" is always: (1) completely un-understandable, (2) vague and indefinite, (3) something correct that is obvious and self evident, but a worked out by a long and difficult analysis, and presented as an important discovery, or, a (4) claim based on the stupidity of the author that some obvious and correct fact, accepted and checked for years, is, in fact, false (these are the worst: no argument will convince the idiot), (5) an attempt to do something probably impossible, but certainly of no utility, which it is finally revealed at the end, fails (dessert arrives and is eaten), or (6) just plain wrong. There is great deal of "activity in the field" these days, but this "activity" is mainly in showing that the previous "activity" of somebody else resulted in an error or in nothing useful or in nothing promising. It is like a lot of worms trying to get out of a bottle by crawling all over each other. It is not that the subject is hard; it is that the good men are occupied elsewhere. Remind me not to come to any more gravity conferences! ------------------------------------------------------------