3 ms·
As negative as the article sounds, I agree with the overall premise. With the same amount of money that's currently being sucked into their manned program, infi
by headcanon 13y ago
As negative as the article sounds, I agree with the overall premise. With the same amount of money that's currently being sucked into their manned program, infinitely more and better scientific endeavors can be funded. Imagine not only having a mars rover, but an entire robotic base on mars that could possibly fuel itself and send out dozens of missions with air-and-land-based drones. Or perhaps the same on Venus or Titan, or even better equipment for monitoring Earth. Far-fetched, sure, but with the kind of budget the manned program is pulling in, I believe things like that are possible.
With that said, I'm OK with us still having a space station with people in it, because it keeps the engines of the national space machine greased. It won't be long before the United States is faced with a new contender for Global Superpower, and space will definitely become the place to be. If you want to control the land, you must control the sea, and if you want to control the sea, you must control space. As our military becomes more and more drone-heavy, I wouldn't be surprised if Space Command drastically increases its scope and reach as an organization. Its much faster to control a drone across the world in real time from space than it is from Virginia.
Couple military need with the new blood of private contractors (spaceX and its like), I believe space will be a big deal once again in a few decades.