45 ms·
Missions like Kepler are what finally set me against human space flight. Consider the incredible amount of science coming out of projects like this ($600M), New
by idlewords 11y ago
Missions like Kepler are what finally set me against human space flight. Consider the incredible amount of science coming out of projects like this ($600M), New Horizons (750M) or the Planck telescope ($750M), compared to the cost of the international space station (~$100B).
For less than the cost of a Shuttle launch, you can get scientific breakthrough after breakthrough, as long as you're not trying to keep primates alive on the thing.
- InclinedPlane 11y agoWhoa there. First off, don't use the Shuttle or ISS as the yard stick for "manned spaceflight", they are some of the most expensive programs for the least results in history and are not representative of what can be done with manned spaceflight. Additionally, spaceflight is not just about scientific research. Manned spaceflight is not just about exploration, it's also about colonization. At the end of the day space is just a place, a place where we live, though we have been restricted to a tiny corner of it for most of human history. We can do manned spaceflight cost effectively (orders of magnitude better than the Shuttle, ISS, or Apollo), and as our technology improves our capabilities will only increase while costs fall.
- idlewords 11y agoWhat is the purpose of colonization? Compared to colonizing Antarctica, for example, or the bottom of the sea? If we can do human spaceflight orders of magnitude cheaper than all attempts to date, that's great news. But I'll believe it when I see it.
- InclinedPlane 11y agoAdventure. Challenge. Spreading the light of human consciousness and civilization off of Earth into the Universe.
- elektromekatron 11y agoPeople are probably not going to stop shagging.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago> Compared to colonizing Antarctica, for example, or the bottom of the sea? Why not both? The bottom of the sea is as unexplored as space, creating self-sufficient habitats in both places poses similar technological challenges. I for one would love to see more deep submersion research. As for "what is the purpose", are you asking for "a purpose" or "a commercial purpose"? Because most of the time I see this question the person asking usually means the latter, and that is IMO a very, very limited view of the world. Not everything worthwhile makes commercial sense, and not everything that makes commercial sense is worthwhile.
- rgawdzik 11y ago"It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster on planet earth in the next 100 years, let alone the next 1000 or million. The human race shouldn't have all its eggs in one basket or on one planet. Getting a portion of the human race permanently off the planet is imperative for our future as a species." - Stephen Hawking
- x5n1 11y agoYet we have no idea how to build a self-sustaining colony of human beings anywhere other than planet earth. And even here it does not seem to be the case that we are self-sustaining, hence the need to leave the planet in the first place. A much better statement should be we need to create a self-sustaining civilization here on Earth at any cost. Don't take it easy, it's no longer business as usual.
- rgawdzik 11y agoI don't think Hawking's primary concern was in the self-sustaining sense, rather with the more immediate threats as in the 'asteroid/epidemic/natural disaster' sense. Hawking believes humanity needs to figure out space colonization ASAP.
- x5n1 11y agoWell then what would be the point? Any thing that can cut off the life support mechanism of the Earth to the Astronauts or the colony, would mean their survival was no longer guaranteed.
- rgawdzik 11y agoI assume in his quote when he means "Getting a portion of the human race permanently...", he means resource independence from Earth, which would be the point.
- furyofantares 11y agoI don't think non-human-created disasters are that much of a threat to civilization in the 100/1000 year time scales, so I don't think that's what is meant.
- visakanv 11y agoHuman spaceflight isn't just about scientific breakthrough, or even planetary life insurance. It's also about inspiring people and radically changing people's worldviews. After all, once we're on two planets, it becomes "best in the worlds". The implications this has on people's imaginations is non-trivial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbIZU8cQWXc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbIZU8cQWXc
- macspoofing 11y ago>After all, once we're on two planets We'll never be on two planets in any meaningful way. Antarctica is a paradise compared to everywhere else, and nobody wants to live in Antarctica. There is no other place for us in the Solar System.
- wolf550e 11y agoAntarctica is not colonization. You are not allowed to own land or start a business on Antarctica. For human settlement on Mars to succeed, Mars must not become Antarctica. The first few missions will be government owned and the crew will be as independent as military personnel, but actual settlement will be done by people legally and economically free to colonize.
- pavel_lishin 11y ago> We'll never be on two planets in any meaningful way. If we're not on two planets in any meaningful way, it only takes one big rock to be on zero planets.
- skwosh 11y agoIndeed, Kepler covers only 0.25% of the sky, and is only capable of detecting systems that are edge-on (around 0.47% probability for Earth-like planets)[1]. The mind boggles at what we might discover with a more complete picture... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_%28spacecraft%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_%28spacecraft%29
- vlasev 11y agoWell, it shouldn't boggle the mind too much, because 0.25% of the sky translates to factor of about 400 of what the Kepler mission has achieved. Multiply all the numbers of the mission by about 400.
- skwosh 11y agoI was thinking more along the lines of: instead of daydreaming about planets > 1000 ly away, we might find a system nearby that we can study in detail...
- IndianAstronaut 11y ago$100 billion is still a drop in the bucket when compared to iur own federal budget, let alone the budgets of all the participating countries in the ISS. It is also a showcase as to how we can survive the depths of space if we ever need to migrate off this planet.
- tptacek 11y ago$100bn is not a "drop in the bucket"; it's more than the Department of Education, something like 3x what we spend on housing, and actually a pretty sizeable chunk of the discretionary military budget.
- IndianAstronaut 11y agoThat is all in one year. The ISS has been there for 16 years.