4 ms·
Same thing with maned space missions. completely pointless waste of money. if we colonize a planet we will need machines to do it for us. if not completely auto
by skee0083 6y ago
Same thing with maned space missions. completely pointless waste of money. if we colonize a planet we will need machines to do it for us. if not completely automated then remotely controlled. no point in doing it any other way. I'm not even sure what the point of the ISS even is anymore.
- ericd 6y agoThere's a big emotional difference between sending a robot and a human to explore. The latter is clearly much more relatable and inspiring to people. So whether it's a pointless waste of money depends on what you're trying to achieve. But I'd argue that the inspiration and unifying aspects are two of the biggest payoffs of space exploration, and robots don't quite cut it there. Also, humans are much more flexible than the robots we can currently create, which is pretty useful.
- dylan604 6y agoIs it really colonizing if it's not humans?
- skee0083 6y agosure. if we plan to go there someday. but it doesn't need to be humans that does all the manual labor when machines can do it faster and more efficiently.
- ineedasername 6y agoThen you may not be aware of the medical applications of low/zero gravity environments. It's a fascinating topic. It's very early days on this stuff since the costs are so high, but the potential is there: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exomedicine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exomedicine