4 ms·

I'd like to see NASA focus entirely on unmanned missions. To me, humans in space is mildly interesting, but the data from robotic missions to the outer planets

I'd like to see NASA focus entirely on unmanned missions. To me, humans in space is mildly interesting, but the data from robotic missions to the outer planets and Mars as well as from the various space telescopes is nothing less than fascinating. And when you start comparing the relative costs, it seems like a no brainer. For the budget required to sustain manned spaceflight in its relatively trivial form, you could launch a space telescope, two Mars missions, an outer-planet mission, a comet mission, an asteroid mission, and a Sun mission, all robotic, every year. There'd be a constant stream of new data of interest to scientists and the public. The inevitable failed missions would just be blips on the radar, and technical progress on the exploratory robots would go faster than ever. Over the decades launch and return technology will improve, especially as private industry gets more involved in space travel, and once we have cheaper and more reliable ways to get into space, gradually it may make more and more sense for humans to return and live there (or it won't, which is okay, too).

craigching 13y ago
> I'd like to see NASA focus entirely on unmanned missions. While I agree mostly, I disagree with the "entirely" point. I think at some point with enough advances it becomes feasible and maybe even necessary to start colonies elsewhere (the moon, asteroids, mars, whatever). Robots will only get you so far if there's an existential reason to need to get off earth.
rbanffy 13y ago
> There'd be a constant stream of new data of interest to scientists and the public There would be no stories. No machine can tell you how it feels to be there. If, ultimately, the goal is to send people, then we should send people. Of course, we should send machines until we are sure it's safe to send people, but we can't forget why we are doing it. We (rightfully) complain NASA does too little with the money they have while military spending is orders of magnitude larger. And, as long as that money is used to fund fighters such as the F-35 (good luck for those who'll fly it) and the F-22 (is that O2 problem fixed?), there will be very little benefit from there except fat military contractors. BTW, those are the same companies that feed on NASA.
- greeneggs 13y ago
  Why wouldn't there be stories? Haven't Hubble and the Mars missions gotten a lot of stories? At least in my media bubble, they've gotten much more attention than the order-of-magnitude more expensive ISS. If the unmanned space program got as much funding as the manned space program gets today, I think it would generate far more news and interest. I'm not sure manned versus unmanned is the right distinction to make for media attention, though. More important is whether a mission is TV-ready (like a manned moon landing), or not (like an unmanned Mars landing where after landing we spend six months calibrating each instrument one at a time, before rolling forward six inches). Right now, science is barely on the radar of the manned mission planners. While for unmanned missions, science is the highest priority. If this were only tweaked slightly, and media appeal made another priority for unmanned missions, then I think you could get cost-effective unmanned missions that are both media- and science-friendly.

craigching 13y ago

> I'd like to see NASA focus entirely on unmanned missions. While I agree mostly, I disagree with the "entirely" point. I think at some point with enough advances it becomes feasible and maybe even necessary to start colonies elsewhere (the moon, asteroids, mars, whatever). Robots will only get you so far if there's an existential reason to need to get off earth.

rbanffy 13y ago

> There'd be a constant stream of new data of interest to scientists and the public There would be no stories. No machine can tell you how it feels to be there. If, ultimately, the goal is to send people, then we should send people. Of course, we should send machines until we are sure it's safe to send people, but we can't forget why we are doing it. We (rightfully) complain NASA does too little with the money they have while military spending is orders of magnitude larger. And, as long as that money is used to fund fighters such as the F-35 (good luck for those who'll fly it) and the F-22 (is that O2 problem fixed?), there will be very little benefit from there except fat military contractors. BTW, those are the same companies that feed on NASA.

greeneggs 13y ago
Why wouldn't there be stories? Haven't Hubble and the Mars missions gotten a lot of stories? At least in my media bubble, they've gotten much more attention than the order-of-magnitude more expensive ISS. If the unmanned space program got as much funding as the manned space program gets today, I think it would generate far more news and interest. I'm not sure manned versus unmanned is the right distinction to make for media attention, though. More important is whether a mission is TV-ready (like a manned moon landing), or not (like an unmanned Mars landing where after landing we spend six months calibrating each instrument one at a time, before rolling forward six inches). Right now, science is barely on the radar of the manned mission planners. While for unmanned missions, science is the highest priority. If this were only tweaked slightly, and media appeal made another priority for unmanned missions, then I think you could get cost-effective unmanned missions that are both media- and science-friendly.