3 ms·

I’m not sure why we wouldn’t focus on technology, which seems to be the only actually useful part of this mission. I know that some people really like sticking

by bnralt 2y ago

I’m not sure why we wouldn’t focus on technology, which seems to be the only actually useful part of this mission. I know that some people really like sticking people on objects in space for fun, but at this point it seems like a strange and expensive hobby. Supposedly it’s supposed to get us closer to living in space. Leaving aside whether or not that’s the appropriate goal for the moment, and not, say, 400 years from now, it’s unclear that any of the missions over the past 60 years have actually brought us closer to that. We’ve seen countries that could send people into space in the 60’s lag behind, while others that couldn’t come anywhere close are jumping forward. All signs point to the manned missions themselves not conferring a lot of lasting value.

avmich 2y ago
I want to remind here that, according to some professional space roboticists, humans in space can run certain missions cheaper than automata. Maybe it's somewhat outdated point of view - it's about 10 years old. But, if you think in general, you might still agree that for complexities above certain point robots could become very, very expensive. Also, we shouldn't forget that human flights became vastly cheaper than they used to be.
- bnralt 2y ago
  The problem is that “certain missions” are often make work, even for robots in space. Hence why there’s a lot of talk about “doing science” and “doing missions”, very little about what the actual goal is. Or you get certain claims like helium-3 mining that sound good if you’re not paying attention, but then make no sense when you look at the details. A lot of the manned space stuff - even a lot of the unmanned space stuff - is someone deciding that we need to use a hammer to make something, and therefore making nails part of every plan they have. Even if the job is inflating a balloon.
  - avmich 2y ago
    I was probably too terse. Those missions are above some level of complexity. Robots - even today's ones - scale rather poorly with the complexity required, while for humans a lot of what's needed comes "for free". So, if you need a large expedition to the Moon, which explores places and various aspects, human crews can possibly return results faster and cheaper than similar results could be returned by space robots. > A lot of the manned space stuff - even a lot of the unmanned space stuff - is someone deciding that we need to use a hammer to make something, and therefore making nails part of every plan they have. Used to be more, now it's less and less, with decisions being less centralized. In USSR space science initially was discussed on the level of national academy, the highest existing. Now a small group of students can invent a mission to study a particular aspect and get to results.

by bnralt 2y ago

avmich 2y ago

I want to remind here that, according to some professional space roboticists, humans in space can run certain missions cheaper than automata. Maybe it's somewhat outdated point of view - it's about 10 years old. But, if you think in general, you might still agree that for complexities above certain point robots could become very, very expensive. Also, we shouldn't forget that human flights became vastly cheaper than they used to be.

bnralt 2y ago
The problem is that “certain missions” are often make work, even for robots in space. Hence why there’s a lot of talk about “doing science” and “doing missions”, very little about what the actual goal is. Or you get certain claims like helium-3 mining that sound good if you’re not paying attention, but then make no sense when you look at the details. A lot of the manned space stuff - even a lot of the unmanned space stuff - is someone deciding that we need to use a hammer to make something, and therefore making nails part of every plan they have. Even if the job is inflating a balloon.
- avmich 2y ago
  I was probably too terse. Those missions are above some level of complexity. Robots - even today's ones - scale rather poorly with the complexity required, while for humans a lot of what's needed comes "for free". So, if you need a large expedition to the Moon, which explores places and various aspects, human crews can possibly return results faster and cheaper than similar results could be returned by space robots. > A lot of the manned space stuff - even a lot of the unmanned space stuff - is someone deciding that we need to use a hammer to make something, and therefore making nails part of every plan they have. Used to be more, now it's less and less, with decisions being less centralized. In USSR space science initially was discussed on the level of national academy, the highest existing. Now a small group of students can invent a mission to study a particular aspect and get to results.