4 ms·

It's certainly an argument for minimising human space flight (e.g. don't use manned flights for routine events / keep a minimal crew by placing the craft under

It's certainly an argument for minimising human space flight (e.g. don't use manned flights for routine events / keep a minimal crew by placing the craft under computer control), but not eliminating it entirely: * Manned space flight, e.g. putting a man on Mars, is going to catch the public's attention more than unmanned flight, and IMO anything which helps popularise the sciences is generally a good thing. * Human space flight is a goal in itself. People have been exploring the Earth for centuries despite the risks, so exploring space (in person) is just an extension of that. There also may come a time where living off-planet may be necessary, or at least desirable, so having the knowledge to do so may be useful.

idlewords 10y ago
To your first point, I think we've seen that robotic probes get people very excited about science, particularly when they can return high-quality photos and video. The best-case scenario for manned space flight in our lifetime is that we go to Mars. Robot probes, on the other hand, can go to some wild places in the solar system, including places that would be lethal to a human crew. And they do so at 1% of the cost of manned missions. I'd wager the excitement per dollar spent is higher for robot probes.
- kodfodrasz 10y ago
  It is higher for you, perhaps, and for techies. The average person does not care at all about autonomous landing on an asteroid, despite the scientific and engineering feat it is. People cheered for the man landing on the moon, all over the world, even in the communist block, despite loosing the space race with that very event. Why? Because it was about people! Because the even the ordinary people could relate to the event.
  - gaius 10y ago
    Exactly. Unless people are actually going into space, there is no point in it at all, well beyond satellites anyway. Think about here on Earth. You can get high definition photo and video from anywhere on the planet. But people still love to travel. Because it's no substitute for the real thing.
    - kodfodrasz 10y ago
      Its funny, because the very same idea popped into my mind a few minutes ago, while I was eating bacon and fresh vegetables. Not eating algae and looking at a photo of bacon ;). Simply that is how people work.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- throwanem 10y ago
  I doubt that most gravely. Even if true, it would be so only because the cost was so absurdly high to send satellite mechanics up to LEO in the world's second-biggest boondoggle of a spacegoing contractor's van that we used. (World's biggest boondoggle being, of course, the subject of this thread.) The reason why the post-Apollo space program has been so uninspiring is that the only part of Dr. von Braun's vision we actually brought to fruition was the least inspiring part that still went outside the atmosphere - and that only because the Air Force signed on, needing spy satellite mechanics and finding it cheaper to chip in on someone else's otherwise doomed program than to fund a novel one of their own. Of course, now they can use a robot in that role, and do. No reason to spend any more money on a boondoggle of a space truck, so now our best hope of resuming manned spaceflight rests with a couple of creepy, etiolated billionaires. For someone raised in the vision of Dr. von Braun, to describe this state of affairs as merely dispiriting is to beggar language. By now we might have been living in orbit and on the moon - we might have been sending men and women to Mars, and preparing to establish our first colonies there. Instead, we fill our sky with robots tending robots and send robots as proxies to mail us their snapshots of the solar system's wonders, while we stay at home - because to do otherwise would cost too much, and besides, someone might get hurt. If you can manage to find that inspiring, you're welcome - and also quite rare.
  - kwhitefoot 10y ago
    Well said!

idlewords 10y ago

To your first point, I think we've seen that robotic probes get people very excited about science, particularly when they can return high-quality photos and video. The best-case scenario for manned space flight in our lifetime is that we go to Mars. Robot probes, on the other hand, can go to some wild places in the solar system, including places that would be lethal to a human crew. And they do so at 1% of the cost of manned missions. I'd wager the excitement per dollar spent is higher for robot probes.

kodfodrasz 10y ago
It is higher for you, perhaps, and for techies. The average person does not care at all about autonomous landing on an asteroid, despite the scientific and engineering feat it is. People cheered for the man landing on the moon, all over the world, even in the communist block, despite loosing the space race with that very event. Why? Because it was about people! Because the even the ordinary people could relate to the event.
- gaius 10y ago
  Exactly. Unless people are actually going into space, there is no point in it at all, well beyond satellites anyway. Think about here on Earth. You can get high definition photo and video from anywhere on the planet. But people still love to travel. Because it's no substitute for the real thing.
  - kodfodrasz 10y ago
    Its funny, because the very same idea popped into my mind a few minutes ago, while I was eating bacon and fresh vegetables. Not eating algae and looking at a photo of bacon ;). Simply that is how people work.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
throwanem 10y ago
I doubt that most gravely. Even if true, it would be so only because the cost was so absurdly high to send satellite mechanics up to LEO in the world's second-biggest boondoggle of a spacegoing contractor's van that we used. (World's biggest boondoggle being, of course, the subject of this thread.) The reason why the post-Apollo space program has been so uninspiring is that the only part of Dr. von Braun's vision we actually brought to fruition was the least inspiring part that still went outside the atmosphere - and that only because the Air Force signed on, needing spy satellite mechanics and finding it cheaper to chip in on someone else's otherwise doomed program than to fund a novel one of their own. Of course, now they can use a robot in that role, and do. No reason to spend any more money on a boondoggle of a space truck, so now our best hope of resuming manned spaceflight rests with a couple of creepy, etiolated billionaires. For someone raised in the vision of Dr. von Braun, to describe this state of affairs as merely dispiriting is to beggar language. By now we might have been living in orbit and on the moon - we might have been sending men and women to Mars, and preparing to establish our first colonies there. Instead, we fill our sky with robots tending robots and send robots as proxies to mail us their snapshots of the solar system's wonders, while we stay at home - because to do otherwise would cost too much, and besides, someone might get hurt. If you can manage to find that inspiring, you're welcome - and also quite rare.
- kwhitefoot 10y ago
  Well said!