3 ms·

Research equipment is great and all, I'm not one of those "Why are we wasting money on toys" folks, but there is a real difference between sending a fancy RC ca

Research equipment is great and all, I'm not one of those "Why are we wasting money on toys" folks, but there is a real difference between sending a fancy RC car to Mars and enabling us meatbags to get there, with companies like Blue Origin and SpaceX more focused on the latter.

davnicwil 7y ago
Isn't part of the reasoning for doing the former enabling the latter? Isn't it completely essential to do this research before having any chance of sending people to Mars? I don't know the answer by the way, perhaps it was 'pure science' without any pretence of knowledge transferring over, but seems extremely unlikely that's the case - a certain amount of transferable knowledge is guaranteed just in the mechanics of doing it.
alpha_squared 7y ago
Unsure of it's intended or not, but the comment comes off really dismissive of what's been accomplished in the meantime. Studying Mars with "fancy RC car[s]" is vital for both visiting it and long-term study of the planet without unnecessarily risking lives. Our current technology also raises questions about mental health during such long trips. The comment also glosses over the ~70 currently active missions on NASA's plate[0]. NASA also had some major success with good media coverage for other missions to Saturn[1], Jupiter[2][3], and Pluto/Kuiper Belt[4]. Please don't belittle the amazing work that has been accomplished by all the people involved over the decades just because it's not part of pop culture. They've accomplished those things despite having to walk the political tightrope and nearly anemic funding. [0] https://science.nasa.gov/missions-page?field_division_tid=All&field_phase_tid=29 https://science.nasa.gov/missions-page?field_division_tid=Al... [1] https://science.nasa.gov/missions/cassini https://science.nasa.gov/missions/cassini [2] https://science.nasa.gov/missions/galileo https://science.nasa.gov/missions/galileo [3] https://science.nasa.gov/missions/juno https://science.nasa.gov/missions/juno [4] https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/main/index.html https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/main/index.ht...
- pharke 7y ago
  I don't think most people feel negatively about these missions but I do think that a lot of people that are pro space exploration feel that we should be doing these missions as well as human space exploration and that we've really dropped the ball on that second part for the last several decades.
- mieseratte 7y ago
  > Unsure of it's intended or not, but the comment comes off really dismissive of what's been accomplished in the meantime. I'm not trying to dismiss all the effort that goes into it, but from a, I suppose selfish, perspective it's a lot more important to enable humans to be a spacefaring species than it is to send probes themselves. I guess I'm just too enamored with the Apollo missions and such.
SapporoChris 7y ago
Okay, what is the real difference. Why is sending humans important? Are not robotics many times more efficient money wise than sending a human? Robotics don't need near as much support as humans do, and can be sent one way without much moral quandary. Can you imagine the costs and technology required to send humans out on a voyager mission.
- megous 7y ago
  Robots/probes can also be sent to more interesting places, or be equipped with sensors to actually "see" something interesting. We'll not send humans to the ground level on Venus, and humans would not see anything other than atmosphere from the orbit, compared to radar mapping of the Venuses surface, for example. I guess the main benefit of sending humans is that exploration/troubleshooting can be more real-time (for the people in the spacecraft).
megous 7y ago
Actually sending people to space seems like much less interesting endeavor to me. We are intelligent, but very limited in our senses and abilities. Where can we really send humans? Moon, Mars maybe, orbit of Mercury/Venus? We also probably want to get them back, so these missions will be complicated by the fact that we don't like to throw away highly trained specialists. What can people do there that is not possible with robots?

davnicwil 7y ago

Isn't part of the reasoning for doing the former enabling the latter? Isn't it completely essential to do this research before having any chance of sending people to Mars? I don't know the answer by the way, perhaps it was 'pure science' without any pretence of knowledge transferring over, but seems extremely unlikely that's the case - a certain amount of transferable knowledge is guaranteed just in the mechanics of doing it.

alpha_squared 7y ago

Unsure of it's intended or not, but the comment comes off really dismissive of what's been accomplished in the meantime. Studying Mars with "fancy RC car[s]" is vital for both visiting it and long-term study of the planet without unnecessarily risking lives. Our current technology also raises questions about mental health during such long trips. The comment also glosses over the ~70 currently active missions on NASA's plate[0]. NASA also had some major success with good media coverage for other missions to Saturn[1], Jupiter[2][3], and Pluto/Kuiper Belt[4]. Please don't belittle the amazing work that has been accomplished by all the people involved over the decades just because it's not part of pop culture. They've accomplished those things despite having to walk the political tightrope and nearly anemic funding. [0] https://science.nasa.gov/missions-page?field_division_tid=All&field_phase_tid=29 https://science.nasa.gov/missions-page?field_division_tid=Al... [1] https://science.nasa.gov/missions/cassini https://science.nasa.gov/missions/cassini [2] https://science.nasa.gov/missions/galileo https://science.nasa.gov/missions/galileo [3] https://science.nasa.gov/missions/juno https://science.nasa.gov/missions/juno [4] https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/main/index.html https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/main/index.ht...

pharke 7y ago
I don't think most people feel negatively about these missions but I do think that a lot of people that are pro space exploration feel that we should be doing these missions as well as human space exploration and that we've really dropped the ball on that second part for the last several decades.
mieseratte 7y ago
> Unsure of it's intended or not, but the comment comes off really dismissive of what's been accomplished in the meantime. I'm not trying to dismiss all the effort that goes into it, but from a, I suppose selfish, perspective it's a lot more important to enable humans to be a spacefaring species than it is to send probes themselves. I guess I'm just too enamored with the Apollo missions and such.

SapporoChris 7y ago

Okay, what is the real difference. Why is sending humans important? Are not robotics many times more efficient money wise than sending a human? Robotics don't need near as much support as humans do, and can be sent one way without much moral quandary. Can you imagine the costs and technology required to send humans out on a voyager mission.

megous 7y ago
Robots/probes can also be sent to more interesting places, or be equipped with sensors to actually "see" something interesting. We'll not send humans to the ground level on Venus, and humans would not see anything other than atmosphere from the orbit, compared to radar mapping of the Venuses surface, for example. I guess the main benefit of sending humans is that exploration/troubleshooting can be more real-time (for the people in the spacecraft).

megous 7y ago

Actually sending people to space seems like much less interesting endeavor to me. We are intelligent, but very limited in our senses and abilities. Where can we really send humans? Moon, Mars maybe, orbit of Mercury/Venus? We also probably want to get them back, so these missions will be complicated by the fact that we don't like to throw away highly trained specialists. What can people do there that is not possible with robots?