4 ms·
"What's the imperative? What's pushing us to go to Mars?" he said, adding "I don't think the public is that interested". I think it's the opposite -- the gener
by Johnny555 8y ago
"What's the imperative? What's pushing us to go to Mars?" he said, adding "I don't think the public is that interested".
I think it's the opposite -- the general public is much more interested in sending humans to space than yet another unmanned mission.
I agree that robotic missions give the most bang for the buck, and should continue for the foreseeable future, but as far as the general public goes, a manned mission is much more glamorous and more likely to keep Nasa funded.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- greglindahl 8y agoPoll shows more public support for NASA science programs than human exploration (June, 2018) https://spacenews.com/poll-shows-more-public-support-for-nasa-science-programs-than-human-exploration/ https://spacenews.com/poll-shows-more-public-support-for-nas...
- Johnny555 8y agoFrom the article, it sounds like most people support NASA science programs closer to home, climate resource and planetary defense (against asteroids). The article doesn't talk about preference for planetary expiration via robots vs humans. In this article from Pew, people prefer human exploration vs robotic exploration only, 58% to 41%: http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/06/06/majority-of-americans-believe-it-is-essential-that-the-u-s-remain-a-global-leader-in-space/ http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/06/06/majority-of-americans-...