4 ms·

We raise the question if the space deserves exploration fairly frequently here. For some reason, neither commercial advantages - certain things, like global com

by avmich 6y ago

We raise the question if the space deserves exploration fairly frequently here. For some reason, neither commercial advantages - certain things, like global communications, navigation, imaging can be conveniently done with satellites - not traditional expansion of species habitat reasons - though I'm sure for each Columbus crew there were some loudly wondering why sail at all - serve as a good enough explanation.

lmilcin 6y ago
Of course it is worth to explore space. It does not "deserve" to be explored, it just pays off. There is huge amount of knowledge and resources to be had. Of course robotic missions are better for exploration than manned mission. Manned missions costs so much we could do so many more robotic missions for the same cost. People are absolutely not required in space. We send people into space because we can and we want. Because we keep separate track of record of things achieved by actual human beings. That's why we list who beat 100m or marathon record even though we have machines to move as around much faster. Because standing a human on a mountain, sea bed, or a piece of rock in space is an important step for us to prove we can command nature around us.
- avmich 6y ago
  > Of course robotic missions are better for exploration than manned mission. Manned missions costs so much we could do so many more robotic missions for the same cost. People are absolutely not required in space. Can you imagine being wrong on that? That people can and are cheaper than robots for certain important aspects? That accomplished space robot makers would disagree that robots are at least universally cheaper - or better in other aspects? > We send people into space because we can and we want. Because we keep separate track of record of things achieved by actual human beings. That's why we list who beat 100m or marathon record even though we have machines to move as around much faster. Because standing a human on a mountain, sea bed, or a piece of rock in space is an important step for us to prove we can command nature around us. I suspect you're mixing several significantly different things into one here. Token achievements, like current champion in sport X, are one thing. Genuinely advancing, say, science - like on ISS - is another.
  - lmilcin 6y ago
    People are not cheaper in space, by no means. Robotic things can be easily prepared well in advance, on planet Earth, where sitting a bunch of programmers by the computer is much cheaper than training and sending actual bag of mostly water into space. If you are still not convinced, we have sent a robotic missions to almost every larger body in solar system, yet we are excited today we can send two people to LEO. Just look at costs involved... Humans cannot do anything in space without tools and tools in space is a bunch of electronic signals that are either processed locally or sent to Earth. The things people do in space is either trivia (yeah, have fun with this ball of water in zero-G) or studying behavior of human body and mind in space to be able to send more humans to do the same. We have learned how to do very complicated things without humans involved. Hovering a craft in Mars atmosphere? Orienting craft with extreme precision? Running complicated manouvers at the ends of solar system? Look at missions which are only possible because we can send a craft on decades' long journey. If people were necessary we would not be able to do anything of that. Any human mission is limited to short hops from Earth to Moon, maybe Mars, until we advance our science and technology way, way past current level. Sending people to space isn't really advancing science (except studying how people fare in space). It is another token achievement. There isn't physics we are learning IN ORDER TO or BECAUSE we are sending people to space. Physics is advanced by physicists. There might be some technological advancement necessary to send humans that would not be necessary for robotic missions, that's all, really. Take a close look at what people in space are doing. Find anything that requires humans in space? Don't get me wrong. I am all for human presence in space. Just be realistic about why we are doing it.
    - gowld 6y ago
      Humans can fix a broken spacecraft better than robots. That's one of the main reasons we've sent humans up. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/servicing/index.html https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/servicing/index.ht... Would it be cheaper to build a replacement scope and launch it instead?
      - lmilcin 6y ago
        We can send half a dozen robotic missions for the price of one carrying people. Just send two spacecraft for redundancy. As to Hubble, that is pretty bad example. If people were present with Hubble they would be able to do exactly nothing. Everything was prepared on Earth and only then sent to space. Also, the cost of servicing mission was almost as much as it would cost to make a copy of Hubble. The cost of servicing mission was reported 250M and the cost of sending Hubble was reported 4.7B but from what I remember most of this was R&D, making software, tools, developing plans, etc. A lot of spare parts for Hubble were already available (it is typical to have copy of everything on Earth for debugging and so on). Robotic missions have the option of being scrapped and sent again which is not really an option for human missions.
- Koshkin 6y ago
  > resources to be had We have all the resources we need here on Earth.
  - lmilcin 6y ago
    Apparently not everybody agrees with you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15248413 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15248413

by avmich 6y ago

lmilcin 6y ago

Of course it is worth to explore space. It does not "deserve" to be explored, it just pays off. There is huge amount of knowledge and resources to be had. Of course robotic missions are better for exploration than manned mission. Manned missions costs so much we could do so many more robotic missions for the same cost. People are absolutely not required in space. We send people into space because we can and we want. Because we keep separate track of record of things achieved by actual human beings. That's why we list who beat 100m or marathon record even though we have machines to move as around much faster. Because standing a human on a mountain, sea bed, or a piece of rock in space is an important step for us to prove we can command nature around us.

avmich 6y ago
> Of course robotic missions are better for exploration than manned mission. Manned missions costs so much we could do so many more robotic missions for the same cost. People are absolutely not required in space. Can you imagine being wrong on that? That people can and are cheaper than robots for certain important aspects? That accomplished space robot makers would disagree that robots are at least universally cheaper - or better in other aspects? > We send people into space because we can and we want. Because we keep separate track of record of things achieved by actual human beings. That's why we list who beat 100m or marathon record even though we have machines to move as around much faster. Because standing a human on a mountain, sea bed, or a piece of rock in space is an important step for us to prove we can command nature around us. I suspect you're mixing several significantly different things into one here. Token achievements, like current champion in sport X, are one thing. Genuinely advancing, say, science - like on ISS - is another.
- lmilcin 6y ago
  People are not cheaper in space, by no means. Robotic things can be easily prepared well in advance, on planet Earth, where sitting a bunch of programmers by the computer is much cheaper than training and sending actual bag of mostly water into space. If you are still not convinced, we have sent a robotic missions to almost every larger body in solar system, yet we are excited today we can send two people to LEO. Just look at costs involved... Humans cannot do anything in space without tools and tools in space is a bunch of electronic signals that are either processed locally or sent to Earth. The things people do in space is either trivia (yeah, have fun with this ball of water in zero-G) or studying behavior of human body and mind in space to be able to send more humans to do the same. We have learned how to do very complicated things without humans involved. Hovering a craft in Mars atmosphere? Orienting craft with extreme precision? Running complicated manouvers at the ends of solar system? Look at missions which are only possible because we can send a craft on decades' long journey. If people were necessary we would not be able to do anything of that. Any human mission is limited to short hops from Earth to Moon, maybe Mars, until we advance our science and technology way, way past current level. Sending people to space isn't really advancing science (except studying how people fare in space). It is another token achievement. There isn't physics we are learning IN ORDER TO or BECAUSE we are sending people to space. Physics is advanced by physicists. There might be some technological advancement necessary to send humans that would not be necessary for robotic missions, that's all, really. Take a close look at what people in space are doing. Find anything that requires humans in space? Don't get me wrong. I am all for human presence in space. Just be realistic about why we are doing it.
  - gowld 6y ago
    Humans can fix a broken spacecraft better than robots. That's one of the main reasons we've sent humans up. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/servicing/index.html https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/servicing/index.ht... Would it be cheaper to build a replacement scope and launch it instead?
    - lmilcin 6y ago
      We can send half a dozen robotic missions for the price of one carrying people. Just send two spacecraft for redundancy. As to Hubble, that is pretty bad example. If people were present with Hubble they would be able to do exactly nothing. Everything was prepared on Earth and only then sent to space. Also, the cost of servicing mission was almost as much as it would cost to make a copy of Hubble. The cost of servicing mission was reported 250M and the cost of sending Hubble was reported 4.7B but from what I remember most of this was R&D, making software, tools, developing plans, etc. A lot of spare parts for Hubble were already available (it is typical to have copy of everything on Earth for debugging and so on). Robotic missions have the option of being scrapped and sent again which is not really an option for human missions.
Koshkin 6y ago
> resources to be had We have all the resources we need here on Earth.
- lmilcin 6y ago
  Apparently not everybody agrees with you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15248413 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15248413