3 ms·
> There is absolutely nothing a human can do in space that a machine can't do better, except die I would love to hear you explain how to perform, for example,
by objclxt 13y ago
> There is absolutely nothing a human can do in space that a machine can't do better, except die
I would love to hear you explain how to perform, for example, research on the effects of long-term zero-gravity on humans using only machines.
Or to take another example: I suppose it would have been possible to develop robots to repair the Hubble, but the cost of developing said robots to a point at which they can perform without failure is going to be equal - if not greater - than the cost of actually sending someone up to do the repair work in the first place.
- nradov 13y agoIt would have been cheaper to build another Hubble and launch the replacement on a disposable rocket.
- leoc 13y agoWould it really? Hubble ended up costing over $2.5bn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope by launch day while a Shuttle launch cost around $450m https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle . Probably a rebuilt Hubble would have cost less, but how much less?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- tptacek 13y agoThe first observation you made is a little tautological: the reason you'd study the effects of zero gravity on humans is so that you can more safely and effectively send them into space. The second example is an extraordinary claim presented without evidence, since the cost of sending humans to space appears to dominate the costs of the space program.
- Retric 13y agoWe could have literally had 3 new Hubble's in orbit for less than the cost of all those repair missions. Repairing a space station is useful because unlike the Hubble it takes more than one launch to get it into orbit, but repairing a satellite is pointless.