3 ms·

I think it's anything but. If the USA and other superpowers really wanted it they could send people up on short notice. Just look at the space race that started

by simias 7y ago

I think it's anything but. If the USA and other superpowers really wanted it they could send people up on short notice. Just look at the space race that started 50+ years ago. We have vastly better technology now and a lot more experience. It's not an organizational problem, it's a money problem and a lack of goal problem. Sending people up is vastly more expensive than unmanned probes and as technology improves there's not a whole lot a human can do that can't be achieved remotely with those probes. It's a bit sad but at the same time it makes complete scientific sense not to send squishy humans when a robot would be vastly more efficient overall. Our best chance to get humans in space again is another propaganda war starting a new space race. Maybe between USA and China this time around, to find out who gets to Mars first?

Already__Taken 7y ago
> a lack of goal problem. that is an organization problem, but anyway I disagree with; > Sending people up is vastly more expensive than unmanned probes and as technology improves there's not a whole lot a human can do that can't be achieved remotely with those probes. It's not incorrect, but the Apollo astronauts would have covered the entire curiosity rover distance in 7 years in about an hour. The rate at which humans on site would accomplish things is not to be scoffed at. Whether it's worth the other costs getting them there is still up for debate. But robots are not hands down better.
- noodle_face_ 7y ago
  Obviously pros and cons to both approaches. Both should be utilized when and where it makes sense to do so. We should not hold back in getting humans into space, but that doesn't mean we should just forget about bots either.
- simias 7y ago
  >that is an organization problem, but anyway I disagree with How so? I guess I misunderstand what is meant by "organizational problem". For me it's "we want to do X but due to bureaucratic inertia and lack of organization it's impractical to do it". Like "we need to buy a new blackboard but in order to do it we have to go through a 29step process and 5 commissions so nobody bothers". My point is that we're lacking the 'X' to begin with for space exploration. What's the big end goal currently? Putting humans on Mars? Some talk about it but nobody seems to be in a hurry and it seems more about propaganda and boasting rights than hard science. >The rate at which humans on site would accomplish things is not to be scoffed at. Whether it's worth the other costs getting them there is still up for debate. But robots are not hands down better. There's a trade-off of course but I would be very surprised if it wasn't in the robot's favor. For one thing to this day it's still unclear how we could send humans to Mars while maintaining them in good health. What do we do with them after the mission? They settle on an inhospitable planet or we find a way to retrieve them back to Earth? Curiosity weighs 899kg, I doubt that humans + habitat + supplies + power + experiments + all the safety-related overhead of having live humans involved will probably amount to several time that mass (which as we know is a big problem with rockets, since more mass means more fuel which means more mass which means more fuel...). Let's not even talk about the trip back. Sure Curiosity is slow, but once it's landed I suspect that the ongoing operating costs aren't insanely high. That's all back-of-the-enveloppe calculations of course but I would be very surprised if sending humans to do Curiosity's work wasn't at least an order of magnitude more expensive, even if you factor the shorter total mission time.
- rtkwe 7y ago
  > It's not incorrect, but the Apollo astronauts would have covered the entire curiosity rover distance in 7 years in about an hour. Of course they could move faster but Curiosity isn't just travelling it's also taking a lot of measurements and doing experiments while it's moving. Additionally they're very careful with it because one the the main limiting factors for Curiosity is the lifetime of its wheels. It could move faster but there's no need and maintaining resources like wheels is more important than moving quickly.
sailfast 7y ago
Not necessarily on-topic but we could send people up right now on short notice on the Dragon - we just happen to really want astronauts to come back alive and do everything possible to ensure that outcome. If this threshold was lowered as we optimized for other things (not saying it should, but clearly lowering risks costs time and money) then we'd have manned missions flying right now.
trianglem 7y ago
I feel like when a country doesn't do something for a decade or so it tends to lose the people with the expertise to pull it off.
boznz 7y ago
Its a money problem but not for the reasons you give, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk probably have more money than all the space agencies combined but I think the goal is they want to develop space and still have some money left afterwards

by simias 7y ago

Already__Taken 7y ago

> a lack of goal problem. that is an organization problem, but anyway I disagree with; > Sending people up is vastly more expensive than unmanned probes and as technology improves there's not a whole lot a human can do that can't be achieved remotely with those probes. It's not incorrect, but the Apollo astronauts would have covered the entire curiosity rover distance in 7 years in about an hour. The rate at which humans on site would accomplish things is not to be scoffed at. Whether it's worth the other costs getting them there is still up for debate. But robots are not hands down better.

noodle_face_ 7y ago
Obviously pros and cons to both approaches. Both should be utilized when and where it makes sense to do so. We should not hold back in getting humans into space, but that doesn't mean we should just forget about bots either.
simias 7y ago
>that is an organization problem, but anyway I disagree with How so? I guess I misunderstand what is meant by "organizational problem". For me it's "we want to do X but due to bureaucratic inertia and lack of organization it's impractical to do it". Like "we need to buy a new blackboard but in order to do it we have to go through a 29step process and 5 commissions so nobody bothers". My point is that we're lacking the 'X' to begin with for space exploration. What's the big end goal currently? Putting humans on Mars? Some talk about it but nobody seems to be in a hurry and it seems more about propaganda and boasting rights than hard science. >The rate at which humans on site would accomplish things is not to be scoffed at. Whether it's worth the other costs getting them there is still up for debate. But robots are not hands down better. There's a trade-off of course but I would be very surprised if it wasn't in the robot's favor. For one thing to this day it's still unclear how we could send humans to Mars while maintaining them in good health. What do we do with them after the mission? They settle on an inhospitable planet or we find a way to retrieve them back to Earth? Curiosity weighs 899kg, I doubt that humans + habitat + supplies + power + experiments + all the safety-related overhead of having live humans involved will probably amount to several time that mass (which as we know is a big problem with rockets, since more mass means more fuel which means more mass which means more fuel...). Let's not even talk about the trip back. Sure Curiosity is slow, but once it's landed I suspect that the ongoing operating costs aren't insanely high. That's all back-of-the-enveloppe calculations of course but I would be very surprised if sending humans to do Curiosity's work wasn't at least an order of magnitude more expensive, even if you factor the shorter total mission time.
rtkwe 7y ago
> It's not incorrect, but the Apollo astronauts would have covered the entire curiosity rover distance in 7 years in about an hour. Of course they could move faster but Curiosity isn't just travelling it's also taking a lot of measurements and doing experiments while it's moving. Additionally they're very careful with it because one the the main limiting factors for Curiosity is the lifetime of its wheels. It could move faster but there's no need and maintaining resources like wheels is more important than moving quickly.

sailfast 7y ago

Not necessarily on-topic but we could send people up right now on short notice on the Dragon - we just happen to really want astronauts to come back alive and do everything possible to ensure that outcome. If this threshold was lowered as we optimized for other things (not saying it should, but clearly lowering risks costs time and money) then we'd have manned missions flying right now.

trianglem 7y ago

I feel like when a country doesn't do something for a decade or so it tends to lose the people with the expertise to pull it off.

boznz 7y ago

Its a money problem but not for the reasons you give, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk probably have more money than all the space agencies combined but I think the goal is they want to develop space and still have some money left afterwards