7 ms·
> There's basically no real reason not to, despite this cynical laundry list of FUD You seem to be ignoring one of the main points of the article, which is tha
by wilsonnb3 4y ago
> There's basically no real reason not to, despite this cynical laundry list of FUD
You seem to be ignoring one of the main points of the article, which is that sending robots to explore the solar system rather than humans is cheaper, easier, and more effective. That alone is a very good reason to not focus on putting more humans in space.
- idlewords 4y agoThere's also the chance that those robots find something so compelling it reinvigorates human space flight.
- dudeinjapan 4y agoWhy not do both?
- wilsonnb3 4y agoBecause there is no benefit of sending a human rather than a robot. The article disuses this at length. This quote is a reasonable summary, I think. "The crew will not live in a Martian pueblo, but something resembling a level 4 biocontainment facility. And even there, they’ll have to do their lab work remotely, the same way it’s done today, raising the question of what exactly the hundreds of billions of dollars we’re spending to get to Mars are buying us."
- wilg 4y agoThat's not a reason not to. That's a reason to also send out robots.
- cmdli 4y agoBudgets are always going to be finite, and eventually you will have to choose. Until we run out of space to explore with robots, we don't really need to send out humans.
- wilg 4y agoThere is no "need" with exploring. Just do both. We'll learn more about living on other planets if we actually do it.
- wilsonnb3 4y agoI can see how cheaper and easier can be viewed as 'not a reason not to' but the crux of the issue is that robots will do a better job than humans anyways. Why spend more money and effort to do something less effective?
- spiderice 4y agoBecause it is cool and inspiring. This doesn't have to be about min-maxing.
- holler 4y agoMy thought exactly, well said.