4 ms·

For starters, I think it's a matter of excitement and interest. People still enjoy unmanned missions to a point, but I think for the less technical crowd actual

For starters, I think it's a matter of excitement and interest. People still enjoy unmanned missions to a point, but I think for the less technical crowd actually seeing people out there in space doing new things is exciting. I think if you told people cutting NASA would mean no more probes sent to Mars they'd shrug. If you told them it was cancelling a manned mission to Mars and showed them the faces of the people training to do it...they'd care a lot more. It adds a human element people can relate to. Plus, adding people into the equation makes it a lot harder. Harder problems mean more creative solutions are required, which means an opportunity to learn.

cosmic_cheese 1y ago
Additionally, as wonderful as NASA’s robotic missions are (we should do way more), they don’t move the needle nearly as much in terms of long-term impact on our species as mastering crewed spaceflight (and eventually, indefinite off-world inhabitation) does. The tree of possibilities in a timeline where humans live on the surfaces of other bodies and in permanently spacebourne crafts in significant numbers is infinitely larger than the timeline in which we do not. It’s an endeavor with an extremely long timeline of course, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing. Arguably, the things most worth doing are those with this level of potential impact, with much of what we obsess over in the short term comparatively being embarrassingly myopic bikeshedding. One must avoid leaning too far into this obviously — there are things that truly must be addressed in the short term and cannot be ignored, but the outcome of staring at your feet is just as likely to be catastrophic as staring only at the horizon is. Both can lead you to walk off the edge of a cliff.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  > but the outcome of staring at your feet is just as likely to be catastrophic as staring only at the horizon is Can you list which risks you believe are mitigated by space travel?
  - cosmic_cheese 1y ago
    The risk is never developing the ability because it never became politically beneficial to do so or never judged to be worth it in the short term and in the worst case scenario losing our chance to do it altogether (there’s nothing guaranteeing that we’ll always have our current ability to escape Earth’s gravity well or even get into orbit). We’ll never get good at things we don’t do and the related technology doesn’t just develop itself. Without intentional efforts to push the space forward, it’ll forever be stuck in limbo.
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      This is only a problem if one already accepts your premise that space travel is important.
      - cosmic_cheese 1y ago
        As noted before, it’s less about the ability itself and more about the things it enables further down the line. The cultural and scientific output by a far-future version of humanity that spans the solar system and beyond will absolutely dwarf that of a future where we’ve allowed ourselves to become root-bound on earth, and accordingly it’s much more likely to unlock the mysteries of the universe and figure out better ways to live. When I think of that, precluding any of it as a possibility feels borderline malicious and negligent. I accept that this is something that depends on an individual’s values, though. Many don’t care about anything that won’t impact them personally while they’re still alive, and in some ways that’s valid, if frustrating.
        sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        But I asked what does it enable. And no, you’ve gotten my value system wrong. I’m all for investing in both the near and far future, but there needs to be a pretty clear and believable hypothesis as to what that investment will yield. Space travel is valuable because it will yield space travel is totally unconvincing!
- WalterBright 1y ago
  > we should do way more Absolutely. NASA's focus on one-off probes is the most ineffective and inefficient way possible. We now have cheap launch capability, and once a probe is designed multiple copies can be made cheaply. Just think if we launched 10 JWST telescopes instead of just 1.

cosmic_cheese 1y ago

Additionally, as wonderful as NASA’s robotic missions are (we should do way more), they don’t move the needle nearly as much in terms of long-term impact on our species as mastering crewed spaceflight (and eventually, indefinite off-world inhabitation) does. The tree of possibilities in a timeline where humans live on the surfaces of other bodies and in permanently spacebourne crafts in significant numbers is infinitely larger than the timeline in which we do not. It’s an endeavor with an extremely long timeline of course, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing. Arguably, the things most worth doing are those with this level of potential impact, with much of what we obsess over in the short term comparatively being embarrassingly myopic bikeshedding. One must avoid leaning too far into this obviously — there are things that truly must be addressed in the short term and cannot be ignored, but the outcome of staring at your feet is just as likely to be catastrophic as staring only at the horizon is. Both can lead you to walk off the edge of a cliff.

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
> but the outcome of staring at your feet is just as likely to be catastrophic as staring only at the horizon is Can you list which risks you believe are mitigated by space travel?
- cosmic_cheese 1y ago
  The risk is never developing the ability because it never became politically beneficial to do so or never judged to be worth it in the short term and in the worst case scenario losing our chance to do it altogether (there’s nothing guaranteeing that we’ll always have our current ability to escape Earth’s gravity well or even get into orbit). We’ll never get good at things we don’t do and the related technology doesn’t just develop itself. Without intentional efforts to push the space forward, it’ll forever be stuck in limbo.
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    This is only a problem if one already accepts your premise that space travel is important.
    - cosmic_cheese 1y ago
      As noted before, it’s less about the ability itself and more about the things it enables further down the line. The cultural and scientific output by a far-future version of humanity that spans the solar system and beyond will absolutely dwarf that of a future where we’ve allowed ourselves to become root-bound on earth, and accordingly it’s much more likely to unlock the mysteries of the universe and figure out better ways to live. When I think of that, precluding any of it as a possibility feels borderline malicious and negligent. I accept that this is something that depends on an individual’s values, though. Many don’t care about anything that won’t impact them personally while they’re still alive, and in some ways that’s valid, if frustrating.
      - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        But I asked what does it enable. And no, you’ve gotten my value system wrong. I’m all for investing in both the near and far future, but there needs to be a pretty clear and believable hypothesis as to what that investment will yield. Space travel is valuable because it will yield space travel is totally unconvincing!
WalterBright 1y ago
> we should do way more Absolutely. NASA's focus on one-off probes is the most ineffective and inefficient way possible. We now have cheap launch capability, and once a probe is designed multiple copies can be made cheaply. Just think if we launched 10 JWST telescopes instead of just 1.