Humans in space

[askold]

Is there really any point to putting humans in space?<br /><br />For example, on a Mars mission, the equipment to just keep the people alive would be huge and complicated.<br /><br />And, for what - once at Mars, the people would operate equipment. Equipment that can be operated robotically.<br /><br />This isn't the golden age of exporation anymore where direct human observation is the point of the mission. Now the point of the mission is to take pictures and operate instruments.<br /><br />Other than a great photo-op, I don't see why we need humans in space.

 

[kdavis007]

Sorry your arguments don't fly.. To me sending people to space is about exploration and colonizing different planets. It is not about science..

 

[arobie]

The entire point of gathering all of the science in the first place is for it to be used by humans when we go out there. <br /><br />If we didn't plan to send humans out there to space, there would be no point in gathering all the knowledge about it in the first place because it would never be used, but we do plan on exploring and settling as humans. We have too, for many reasons. The big one is that someday something will happen to Earth that we would not survive if limited to home, but there are others such as; we will have to expand to support our growing population and we will have to find extraterrestrial resources so that we don't destroy the Earth ourselves harvesting our terrestrial resources.<br /><br />We send humans to space because that is the entire point of gathering the science in the first place. We gather the science so that we humans may use it out there.

 

[phelan]

In all honesty in my opinion there is something more basic that propells humans into space, curiosity? maybe, but that could be full-filled by probes with cameras, but for some reason that drives us to want to go there and see it for ourselves. I think humans have a need for something tangible to feel as if we are making progress, by tangible I mean by humans being there. Deep down I think humans have a drive to pioneer and explore.

 

[arobie]

I agree with you 100% on that.

 

[north_star_rising]

kdavis007, Thanks for the info and sites!<br /><br />Have you ever heard of the International Space Agency?<br /><br />They are not in anyway associated with the United Nations, and have infact suggested that the U.N. Office Of Outer Space Affairs be disbanded, and incorporated into the growing International Space Agency organization. They have also suggested that the International Space Station be turned over to ISA management, oversight, and control as the first true international large scale endeavor, and be a blue print for an International lunar Base and International Manned Mars Missions and Bases. They propose that done in this way and in an Apollo like focus and effort, we could have a human mission on Luna in 5 to 7 years and on Mars with in 10 years. The International Space Agency would be operated more like a Corporation than a Government Agency. I think this effort and group is our only chance to do anything meaningful in Space, and to send Human Missions to Mars.<br /><br />They are working to bring together government, scientific, commercial, and private interests and endeavors for a coordinated international space efforts, and a number of presently growing international civil space programs.<br /><br />Here is their web site.<br />http://www.international-space-agency.org<br /><br />I am a supporter of the isa here at Cornell University.<br />

 

[gofer]

This question often comes up on space related forums. My personal opinion is that there is no need to "think hard" and look for a "fundamental reason". 'We' do it "cause it's cool", you know like why do people ride a rollercoaster? Why did the ancient Egyptians constructed The Great Pyramids? "Cause we want to". There is more to the human nature than consuming and leading a healthy life. It's the exploration gene. That's good enough to me. The possible practical applications like tourism, mining asteroids, telescopes on the moon, etc... are good but secondary. The *drive* to go out there is in the human nature. It's programmed in, so to speak. Life crawls out wherever it can. And so humans try to spread. And now we *know* we *can* live outside our cradle the Earth. (unfortunately, it seems popular culture is pushin in the other myoptic direction: stay at home, enjoy TV, dont bother, etc...) IMHO our current civilization is a bit too pragmatic for my own liking, we should be doing more things 'just 'cause' like the ancients.<br /><br />/edit, man... this is a deep question<br /><br />I actually feel that sending the MERs to Mars is pointless unless it is to scout for the benefit of the future *HUMAN* expeditions (this is probably a blasphemous notion in some scientific circles)

 

[askold]

These posts have suggested a variety of reasons for putting people in space.<br /><br />I don't know if I buy the "colonization" rationale. It's hard for me to imagine a scenario where it would be easier to escape an destroyed Earth rather than not destroy our planet in the first place - pollution, run out or resources, war ,etc.<br /><br />The best idea I've heard is "because it's there". Explore because that's what we do; so there.<br /><br />In that case, we're going to need a different NASA because this NASA is into doing science and doing it as safely as a stroll in the park. Exploration for the sake of exploration requires risk. If NASA were running Columbus' expedition, the Nina, Pinta and the Santa Maria would still be tied to a dock in Spain undergoing safety checks. <br /><br />If you want to be safe - send robots.

 

[gofer]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> The best idea I've heard is "because it's there". Explore because that's what we do; so there. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I'd agree to that: " 'cause I wanna; so there" as the summary of my feelings on this. It's actually a tie that goes back millenia at the DNA level. I also agree that full colonization as in "cities on Mars in my generation" should not be a consideration as it only clouds the realistic perception with dreams. And I agree with your point on current NASA's attitudes. Unfortunately. Human exploration should come *before* science. IMHO.

 

[phelan]

NASA will either produce results or fade from the center spot light as Private Space Companies continue to increase their capabilities.

 

[scottb50]

Robots are great, I don't really foresee humans on Titan or the moons of Jupiter, the environment is just too harsh. The problem becomes sending enough robots to expand the data. There is no way a single robot can find out everything, but if the second expands on the first, and so forth who knows what you will find. And, that is the main goal: Who knows what you will find.<br /><br />People on the moon has been proven, Mars has been proven an environment humans could exist and study. Asteroids present the same basic conditions as the moon, so they are also accessable. It's a start if nothing else! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[arobie]

I quess I should have stayed to Shuttle_Guy's simplicity.<br /><br />We send humans in the long run to survive. For the here and now in the short term, we send humans because they are better explorers and because 'we want to, so there.'<br /><br />I like that..."We want to, so there!"

 

[spacester]

Nice thread, we’ve seen this issue before here at sdc of course, but this thread has covered a lot of ground already. Actually, askold, as much as I am a supporter of manned space flight, I think I understand your point of view. <br /><br />Space flight is about helping the Earth, not about making a choice between Earth and Space. You’re right, it doesn’t ring true if you’re thinking along the lines of trading in Earth for Mars. For many space enthusiasts, it’s a given, but for non-space-geek types, that point may not be clear. Space flight is about easing the burden we place on the planet. (Of course we don’t want to trade in Earth for Mars! Duh!)<br /><br />It’s not so much “colonization” as “expansion”.<br /><br />Why expand the sphere of influence of mankind? Answer: Because it gives us access to additional resources and contributes to the health and survivability of the planet and the species of Earth, in particular, humans.<br /><br />In my personal cosmology, the universe is administering an intelligence test. As it happens on this planet, the power generated by the most efficient chemical propulsion is just barely enough to put things into orbit. How will things turn out? Is this species clever and mature enough to become Space-Faring? Inquiring Universes want to know. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />But I haven’t answered your original question. The long answer is in my Mars Settlement threads. The short answer is that this expansion must be about more than just expansion of scientific knowledge. It must be about expanding our existence. The robots are our agents, they are our trailblazers in this wilderness. But <i>they</i> are not <i>us</i>. When we are there in person, the resulting scientific and practical knowledge gained from the realization of expansion into space will justify the effort. <b>We</b> would exist <b>there,</b> and that means we will continue to exist well on Earth.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[quasar2]

barring heavy G-forces on take-off, OuterSpace offers a comfortable place for disabled people. or the terminally ill. or how bout a natural "freezer" for cryogenics? crystals can be grown more precisely & cheaply. new alloys. telescopes optical & otherwise, can "see" more. new drugs. new sports. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[askold]

spacester: I hear what you're saying, but I don't totally agree.<br /><br />I think that putting humans in space is like climbing Mt. Everest - you do it because it's there. It's a challenge (and humans are motivated by challenge), and there will probably be spin-off products developed in the process (better ropes, etc.).<br /><br />But, when you get to the top of Everest you're not going to set up housekeeping - you're going to plant a flag, take some pictures, make some measurements and go home.<br /><br />Same with space. Space exploration is not like the golden age of exploration here on Earth - when people discovered new lands that were vastly richer than their own: first the Amercias by European explorers, then the West by American explorers, etc. In the case of space exploration we'd be going to places far inferior to our own planet. And, the farther out you go - past Mars, the worse it gets.<br /><br />I think it's humanity's destinity to live out its existence on this blue-green rock. It's not a bad place and could be made better.

 

[shyningnight]

<I think it's humanity's destinity to live out its existence on this blue-green rock.<br /><br />IF that's what you think... then there is pretty much NOTHING we can say to make you understand why humans need to be in space as well as our robotic creations.<br /><br />There's more to it than "because it's there".<br />The environment of space allows us to build things we can't on earth.<br />The resources of other worlds and asteroids humanity will need evenentually. Among them, power and minerals.<br /><br />For the next 20-30 years or more, the best answer for why we should be putting people in space is this;<br />"Practice for more important missions later".<br /><br />Paul F.

 

[grooble]

Like going to earth type worlds that we find. That's the ultimate goal.

 

[arkady]

"<i>The point is not to create another Earth. Not another Alaska or Tibet, not a Vermont nor a Venice, not even Antarctica. The point is to make something new and strange, something</i> Martian.<br /> <i>In a sense intentions don't even matter. Even if we try to make another Sibiria or Sahara, it won't work. Evolution won't allow it, and at it's heart this is an evolutionary process, an endeavor driven at a level below intention, as when life made its first miracle leap out of matter, or when it crawled out of sea onto land.<br /> Again we struggle in the matrix of a new world. Of course all the genetic templates for our new biota are Terran; the minds designing them are Terran; but the terrain is Martian. And terrain is a powerful genetic engineer, determining what flourishes and what doesn't, pushing along progressive differentiation, and thus the evolution of a new species. And as the generations pass, all the members of a biosphere evolve together, adapting to their terrain in a complex communal response, a creative self-designing ability. This process, no matter how much we intervene in it, is essentially out of our control. Genes mutate, creatures evolve: a new biosphere emerges, and with it a new noosphere. And eventually the designers' minds, along with everything else, have been forever changed.<br /> This is the process of areoformation."</i><br /><br />K.S. Robinson - Green Mars <br /><br />Sorry for the rant <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Guess what I'm trying to say is that I think the migration of Man into space is enevitable given a large enough timeframe. The sheer fact that its even a possibility will make it a natural evolutionary step. Mars is an entire world waiting to be settled. <br /><br />My soul weeps that what I'm trying to argue here will most likely not have any relevance before I'm long dead and buried. I suspect the process of an actual colonization is a long process that will require decades or more likely centuries.<br /><b></b> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>

 

[spayss]

Gofer and Askold I agree with your points.<br /><br /> The bottom line, however, is there is no right or correct answer. 6 billion humans are 6 billion individuals and will devote as much energy to space exploration as they each feel appropriate. We (space keeners) can't even agree on an answer.<br /><br /> I personally don't pay a lot of attention to human exploration. Nothing dramatic will happen in my lifetime. I'm much more interested in the space probes, telescopes, etc. I get much more excited over the prospect of what the surface of a Saturn moon looks like than over whether or not a human can survive under 1O feet of regolith on the Moon or in a box on Mars. I'm more interested in the science than in the technology. Others are technology keeners and that's fine. Some see this 'human destiny' need as if pre-ordained by Genesis...I don't.

 

[gofer]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> I suspect the process of an actual colonization is a long process that will require decades or more likely centuries. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I suspect it'll be worse than that. Millennia, perhaps. Unfortunately, all currently available rocks in the solar system other than the Earth are really really really hostile the Homo Sapiens. It is my considered opinion that full colonization in the sense of permanent residence rather than expeditions with eventual return of the crew back to Earth will require not so much 'terraforming' as 'alienforming'. I.e. a creature capable of comfortably living on Mars will no more be Homo Sapiens, but will require Homo Marsis or Homo Venus (or whatever the Latin subjective is) This is clearly a product of evolution. Evolution of species takes a rather long time by design. (or perhaps advanced drastic surgical intervention) <br /><br />A scary prospect, or not, it is open to debate, but I don't see any other way. Just like in the book quote you have at the beginning. "The point is not to create another Earth. ... " <br /><br />The other and more benign line of thought - terraforming - i.e. making it as Earth-like as possible will *also* require millennia as it will demand harnessing enormous energies (to spin planets up/down, change chemical concentrations, creating the planetary wide biospheres, kicking off local life evolutions, etc... ) I can't even fathom the societal and organizational changes that'd require. On the other hand, without doing any of that, living in a 4x4 airtight dome and hauling around life support on yourself etc... everywhere around will limit the pool of the would-be permanent colonists to exactly zero. <br /><br />To prevent misunderstanding I'm adamantly FOR humans in space, I just think until the millennia long evolution takes its toll Homo Sapiens will always attempt to go back to Earth after a number of years (months? days?) After sev

 

[spayss]

Gofer:<br /><br /> Evolution takes more than a long time as you rightly state...it also takes Natural Selection. The offspring of a tenth (or hundreth) generation Matian colonist will be no more suited to living on Mars than any other human UNLESS their surviving offspring have more children and pass on more DNA etc. Does anyone really believe that only the 'fittest' will be allowed to breed and only the 'fittest' of those children allowed to multiply?<br /><br /> Natural selection no longer determines human evolution in a technological society. We don't practice eugenics (thanks heavens) to 'breed' humans.<br /><br /> The reality is that children born on Mars or elsewhere will be much less suited for survival on Mars than an earthborn human. A child born on Mars will be undeveloped or muscularly weak or have radiation sickness...defects, etc. We won't send 'sick' astronauts to the Moon but healthy humans. Less than completely healthy children would not survive on Mars. The parallel is sickly children on Earth. A child born malnourished in Ethiopia who has undeveloped bone density, parasites, malaria etc. is not 'better suited' to live in poverty in Ethiopia than a child raised in good health in New York City. The child raised in New York is much better able to withstand the next round of dysentry, famine, cholera, etc. One doesn't 'get used' to undeveloped bones, radiation illness, etc...one just gets exponentially more sick.

 

[arkady]

You are correct. As of present there is little knowledge on how human reproduction will respond a non-terrestrial environment. Many of the problems you bring up pose probable complications. <br />I wouldn't so easily dismiss the possibility of mitigating these issues as we discover them however. As we say where I live, need teaches the naked to spin.<br /><br />As of now its pretty much a matter of belief I reckon. And ethics. Perhaps martians will grow 8' tall and weigh half of a Terran as a result of living in a .4g environment, what do I know. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>

 

[gofer]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Evolution takes more than a long time as you rightly state...it also takes Natural Selection. The offspring of a tenth (or hundredth) generation Martian colonist will be no more suited to living on Mars than any other human UNLESS their surviving offspring have more children and pass on more DNA etc. Does anyone really believe that only the 'fittest' will be allowed to breed and only the 'fittest' of those children allowed to multiply? <br /><br />Natural selection no longer determines human evolution in a technological society. We don't practice eugenics (thanks heavens) to 'breed' humans. <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <br /><br />Right. I wasn't actually advocating any sort of artificial selection (I personally don't see planetary colonization happening and that is what I was trying to show by considering the complications; also it's hard enough to get people spend a few months on off-shore oil platforms in North Sea, what about Mars) My assumption was that upon colonization WITHOUT TERRAFORIMG* there *won't* be a technological Earth-like society on Mars or elsewhere off earth. They'll have to start almost from scratch, and create their own rules. And some sort of evolution and DNA change will take place (I don't see first sick Mars born children being sent to Earth for 'recovery' (?) en masse). <br /><br />I know it sounds icky, but this is just scratching the surface of the ethical and other problems and the whole effect on humanity is a big unknown.<br /><br />And frankly, who knows what the Earth society itself will be like in a hundred years? Perhaps what is morally off-bounds now will be okay then?<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The reality is that children born on Mars or elsewhere will be much less suited for survival on Mars than an earthborn human. A child born on Mars will be undeveloped or muscularly weak or have radiation sickness...defects, etc. We won't send 'si</p></blockquote>

 

[thalion]

Count me in with one of the rare (on this forum) space cynics, though I think that's too strong a term for my POV.<br /><br />Concerning the original post, my responses are:<br /><br />1.) I see unmanned and manned exploration as complementary rather than opposed. Let's face it--there will always be things robots can do better and more cheaply than humans. For data per unit time (and cost), robots can't be beat, IMO. However, when it comes to covering ground, an eye for detail, resourcefulness, adaptability, and bringing knowledge and experience to bear on actions, humans are unbeatable. <br /><br />For instance, I don't think the question of past or future life on Mars will ever be definitively answered by robots, or even sample-return missions; only an <i>in situ</i> human, trained in field geology and methods, with a standard toolkit and his (or her) own noggin will settle the matter.<br /><br />2.) I disagree with the assertion that all knowledge with relation to space is somehow without value if humans aren't going to use it. Aside from the careers of the scientists involved, no humans are going to see any *tangible* benefits from studying WMAP data, or from knowing the composition of zodiacal dust, or from radio studies of a distant quasar, or even from discovering life on Mars. I believe that some--perhaps even most--knowledge is good for its own sake, and needn't be instrumental with regards to humanity or our future in space. But that's just my two bits on that.<br /><br />With regards to thoughts of humanity's future in space, I must first say that, like some others I do strongly support the concept of manned space exploration. One of my most treasured books is Hartmann, Miller, and Lee's <i>Out of the Cradle</i>, and I was tremedously inspired by Sagan's (who was definitely not anti-colonization, as some people think) <i>Pale Blue Dot</i> as a young man. I'd be lying if I said the prospect of colonizing the Solar System from Venus to Pluto doesn't thrill

 

[gofer]

In other words, with an 'honest to goodness' colonization, not exploraion (which I am all for) or visitaion, you'll have healthy human->...generations later...->healthy 'mars human' Is it right; is it proper? I don't know, but something to consider and something I see no way around. Except full blown planetary Terraforming which is not much better - enourmous resources and technologies that it requires, the assumption that the humanity acts as a single society, a big assumption, and can actually plan and act upon a design spanning generations, and frankly I don't think such an arrangement would be very efficient either. Well, looks like I said everything I have on this now, I guess.