4 ms·

Manned space flight is a dumb idea and no amount of nerd fantasies will change that. Just send robots instead.

frosted-flakes 7y ago
We did send robots to the moon before we sent people. But no robot could do what those people who landed on the moon did, let alone bring back hundreds of pounds of selected moon rocks. And it wasn't just for the science; putting humans on the moon was a goal in itself, one put in motion by Kennedy in his challenge to the nation to do it "before the decade is out". Should we put humans on the moon (or Mars) today? I don't know, but I don't think it's a dumb idea. Impractical maybe, but still a laudable goal.
- dooglius 7y ago
  >But no robot could do what those people who landed on the moon did, let alone bring back hundreds of pounds of selected moon rocks Can you elaborate? Robots in 1969 perhaps couldn't, but bringing back rocks seems well within the abilities of present robotics.
  - frosted-flakes 7y ago
    People landed on the moon and returned in 1969. No robot could do that—we didn't have the tech. Even now it would be a tall order. The moon walkers didn't just scoop up a random bunch of rocks, they selected specific rocks that were chosen to prove or prove the geologists' hypotheses, drilled 10 foot core tubes, chipped pieces off large boulders, climbed mountains and steep hills, and set up complex, long-running experiments that would continue broadcasting to earth. Heck, they even sent a geologist to the moon, because a trained scientist can recognise what a human with a fixed camera cannot. I would bet that a pair of humans could do in a week what all of the Mars landers put together have done to date (apart from land on opposite sides of the globe). Don't discount human intelligence, ingenuity, and physical ability. Robots are great for assembly line work, but not exploring unknown territory.
anigbrowl 7y ago
Repeating this won't make it true. Robots are very useful, manned space flight is too because robots don't have general intelligence. Figuring out that or telepresence may be more effective than just posting the same opinion over and over.
sq_ 7y ago
I forget where it was, but I once saw a quote that essentially said that "a geologist on Mars with a hammer could learn more in one day than we've learned from every robotic mission we've sent, combined" I think the basic truth in that statement is relatively easy to demonstrate. Each rover we send to Mars moves only a few tens of kilometers over its lifetime, and, though the science each one sends back is amazing, there's a limit to what we can learn without sending up some humans to do things in person. Robotic missions are limited to the exact configurations of their tools and where their propulsion can safely get them; humans are much more mobile and way better at improvising.

We did send robots to the moon before we sent people. But no robot could do what those people who landed on the moon did, let alone bring back hundreds of pounds of selected moon rocks. And it wasn't just for the science; putting humans on the moon was a goal in itself, one put in motion by Kennedy in his challenge to the nation to do it "before the decade is out". Should we put humans on the moon (or Mars) today? I don't know, but I don't think it's a dumb idea. Impractical maybe, but still a laudable goal.

dooglius 7y ago
>But no robot could do what those people who landed on the moon did, let alone bring back hundreds of pounds of selected moon rocks Can you elaborate? Robots in 1969 perhaps couldn't, but bringing back rocks seems well within the abilities of present robotics.
- frosted-flakes 7y ago
  People landed on the moon and returned in 1969. No robot could do that—we didn't have the tech. Even now it would be a tall order. The moon walkers didn't just scoop up a random bunch of rocks, they selected specific rocks that were chosen to prove or prove the geologists' hypotheses, drilled 10 foot core tubes, chipped pieces off large boulders, climbed mountains and steep hills, and set up complex, long-running experiments that would continue broadcasting to earth. Heck, they even sent a geologist to the moon, because a trained scientist can recognise what a human with a fixed camera cannot. I would bet that a pair of humans could do in a week what all of the Mars landers put together have done to date (apart from land on opposite sides of the globe). Don't discount human intelligence, ingenuity, and physical ability. Robots are great for assembly line work, but not exploring unknown territory.

anigbrowl 7y ago

Repeating this won't make it true. Robots are very useful, manned space flight is too because robots don't have general intelligence. Figuring out that or telepresence may be more effective than just posting the same opinion over and over.

sq_ 7y ago

I forget where it was, but I once saw a quote that essentially said that "a geologist on Mars with a hammer could learn more in one day than we've learned from every robotic mission we've sent, combined" I think the basic truth in that statement is relatively easy to demonstrate. Each rover we send to Mars moves only a few tens of kilometers over its lifetime, and, though the science each one sends back is amazing, there's a limit to what we can learn without sending up some humans to do things in person. Robotic missions are limited to the exact configurations of their tools and where their propulsion can safely get them; humans are much more mobile and way better at improvising.