4 ms·
Yes, but is manned missions really going to achieve much. I thought there was much differing opinion about the value/lack of value of manned missions among the
by billfruit 6y ago
Yes, but is manned missions really going to achieve much. I thought there was much differing opinion about the value/lack of value of manned missions among the space community itself.
- nradov 6y agoThe US kind of has to preserve at least a minimal manned spaceflight capability in case we really need it for something in the future. If we completely lose the infrastructure, supply chains, and institutional knowledge it will become impossible to restart from scratch in a reasonable time frame. Think about it like paying for an insurance policy. It's worth doing even if it eats into the budget for unmanned satellites and probes.
- Koshkin 6y agoI don't think the US as a nation (or anyone in particular, for that matter) "has to" do anything. As usual, there are simply various diverse interests - military, commercial, scientific - and it's up to these interested parties to do what and when they think benefits them.
- enchiridion 6y agoYes. GP said "kind of has to" and then went on to explain the incentives.
- kens 6y agoBy the way, NASA style is to avoid using "manned" and use a term like "crewed" or "piloted" instead. The Manned Spaceflight Center is an exception. See https://history.nasa.gov/styleguide.html https://history.nasa.gov/styleguide.html
- gowld 6y agoThose appositive Oxford commas, though: > The exception to the rule is when referring to the Manned Spaceflight Center (also known as the Manned Spacecraft Center), the predecessor of Johnson Space Center in Houston, or to any other historical program name or official title that included “manned”
- GenerocUsername 6y agoSo progressive. Now if they could only man a spacecraft